Atonement Theory's

I have been studying the atonement and I am planing on making a list of all the theory.

So I was reading around for the evening on this subject and here is a list of what I found. I am wondering besides the Satisfaction Theory or Commercial Theory, the Ransom Theory, the Penal Substitution Theory, and the Governmental Theory or Moral Government Theory (RC, Eastern, and Calvinistic, Arminian) which of the following are popular.

I come from a very strong Calvinistic background and at one time would have embraced the Penal Theory. When I embraced the Free From Sin teaching Calvinism when out the door. The Wesleyan-Arminian system is bacially the Satisfaction theory with some parts from the Ransom, and Penal Substitution theories of the atonement.

That there was an atonement was more important to Wesley that laying out a systematic theory on how it was effected.

Do we have any Wesleyan-Arminians in this forum that know Wesley's system well?

Any way here is what I found.

Theories of the Atonement:

Satisfaction Theory or Commercial Theory -- Anselem, Roman Catholic Church -- The theory is based on the assumption that because God is infinite, even a single, minor human sin is an infinite insult to God. It can only be cancelled by an infinite satisfaction. A type of ransom was paid to God by Jesus.

Ransom Theory -- Origen, Eastern Orthodox Churches -- This view sees the atonement of Christ as a ransom that was paid to Satan to purchase man’s freedom from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that man’s spiritual condition is in bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to secure God’s victory over Satan.

Penal Substitution Theory -- Aulen, Hodge, Calvinistic -- This view sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. In His death Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness and reconciling man to God. Those that hold this view believe that every aspect of man, his mind, will and emotions have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin for those whom God elects to save and that through repentance man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin.

Governmental Theory or Moral Government Theory -- Hugo Grotius, Albert Barnes, Arminian -- This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude towards sin. It is through Christ’s death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death. Those that hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin, it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute.

Example Theory -- Martyr, Liberal Christians & post-Christians -- This view sees the atonement of Christ as simply providing an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to be obedient to God. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually alive and that Christ’s life and atonement were simply an example of true faith and obedience and should serve as inspiration to men to live a similar life of faith and obedience.

Moral Influence Theory -- Origen, Abelard -- This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s love which causes man’s heart to soften and repent. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by seeing God’s love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death was to demonstrate God’s love toward man.

Recapitulation Theory -- This view sees the atonement of Christ as reversing the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. It believes that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam.

Dramatic Theory -- This view sees the atonement of Christ as securing the victory in a divine conflict between good and evil and winning man’s release from bondage to Satan. The meaning of Christ’s death was to ensure God’s victory over Satan and provides a way to redeem the world out of its bondage to evil.

Satisfaction Theory or Commercial Theory -- Anselem, Roman Catholic Church -- The theory is based on the assumption that because God is infinite, even a single, minor human sin is an infinite insult to God. It can only be cancelled by an infinite satisfaction. A type of ransom was paid to God by Jesus.

Accident Theory -- Jesus was a man, subject to death. His methods and principles were opposed by the powerful of his day. They killed Him. It had no further, deeper significance.

Mystical Theory -- Schleiermacher -- Christ, by the Holy Spirit kept His corrupt human nature
from manifesting sin and gradually purified this sinful nature until at death all that was sinful in it was eradicated. We can mystically share in that salvation. Christ's activity is meant to influence and inspire us.

Other than the last two weird ones and the Example Theory, I would say they all share truth. I have also been highly focused upon this doctrine. Not for the sake of fascination or that I might spend idle-time pondering secondary issues but for the critical understanding of how to preach the Gospel to those who are dead in their sins and understanding just how much we all need a Savior to save us from ourselves.

boG:
boG is God backward and it is Gods name in Russian.

I see you are quoting Willian Booth. I think the world of him. He was Wesleyan in doctrine.

Blood and Fire was one of their motto's and another was soap, soup, and salvation.

Brengle wrote some very nice booklets for them.

I come from a very strong Calvinistic background and at one time would have embraced the Penal Theory. When I embraced the Free From Sin teaching Calvinism when out the door. The Wesleyan-Arminian system is bacially the Satisfaction theory with some parts from the Ransom, and Penal Substitution theories of the atonement.

Wesleyan theology was straight down the line Penal Substitution. The one aberration to this group was Finney who embraced the Moral Government theory.

I was never a Calvinist but who don't need to throw everything out of the door just because Calvinists believe them.

I see you are quoting Willian Booth. I think the world of him. He was Wesleyan in doctrine.

Indeed he was. One of his somewhat incendiary comments was "There is One God and John Wesley is his prophet!"

But YOU are not Wesleyan but Finneyist and the two views are chalk and cheese.

It should also be noted regarding Wesley that most churches that trace their roots back to him espouse the penal/substitution theory of atonement. Wesley, while not using that theological vocabulary (to my knowledge), clearly taught such a view. Those who would say otherwise clearly have not read very much Wesley, but have merely cherry-picked various sermons of his.

Wesley's doctrine of justification by faith is clearly at odds with any Finneyism/Moral Government theory. One has to look no further than Wesley's famous "The Almost Christian" sermon to determine that. Indeed, up until a year or so before his conversion, Wesley could have probably been considered as a proponent of moral government. According to his own testimony, he believed in God and did everything in his own strength and power to serve God. He determined to love God and love his neighbor, and always keep the commandments. He determined to be disciplined in prayer, fasting, and giving. He determined to evangelize the heathen (this sounds like some traveling street preachers we know of on SI!), and always speak an edifying word. Indeed, John Wesley, according to his own testimony, was living his life for God most of his life before he ever got saved!!!

Some spiritually dead commentators that wrote on Wesley wondered just how he, according to his own words, was not a genuine Christian prior to his conversion at 34. God knows Finney would have deemed him saved prior to then. But Wesley makes it clear in his sermon, that in spite of all his determination, obedience, and work, that he was but "almost a Christian" up until his actual conversion at Aldersgate, when his heart was "strangely warmed."

I've said it before and will save it again: Justification by faith (apart from the works of the law) is truly a matter of life and death. Until one realizes that all their works are but filthy rags, and realizes that it is "through the obedience of the One," one is trapped in the grave errors of Finney.

And I choose the word "grave" intentionally. Righteousness comes through faith, not obedience to the law. The only righteousness that has ever been through the law is a ceremonial righteousness having to do with external things. If one attempts to live before God with a righteousness based on the law, one will surely be damned (for your good works will never undo your bad works). Only the one who lives before God by faith will be saved. For faith brings an end to man, who has no works to offer God. Instead he says that Christ's work on the cross alone can stand in his place (substitution). And only once man has been brought to his end, and thus dying, can Christ begin to live in him. Moral government attempts to add our works to Christ's work to produce salvation. But so long as he does that, he denies the sufficiency of the cross of Jesus Christ, and effectively says that Christ's work was not good enough. Such a man is on his way to hell.

I come from a very strong Calvinistic background and at one time would have embraced the Penal Theory. When I embraced the Free From Sin teaching Calvinism when out the door. The Wesleyan-Arminian system is bacially the Satisfaction theory with some parts from the Ransom, and Penal Substitution theories of the atonement. That there was an atonement was more important to Wesley that laying out a systematic theory on how it was effected.

Although I have already been accused of many things by this man, one of which that I don't understand Finney; I know for a fact that the revivalist approach to salvation employed by Finney did not allow him to believe in Penal Substitution. The reason is is that Finney used the dreaded measure of challenging a person's salvation for even the most craziest of behaviors. This is how he won the effect. He challenged their assurance and linked their assurance to their behavior making void in the minds of the people the fact that grace through faith is the means by which a person is declared righteous before God.

And this is one of those 'Paul Harvey', "[i]The Rest of the Story[/i]" threads. After a multitude of exchanges on point number n[u]y[/u]ne (a person becoming a child of the devil after a single willful sin) and my perception that Bob's views were essentially Finney's (although he has shown me convincingly that he is more radical than Finney) we see now that he has rejected Penal Substitution. This answers why he said Finney had done more in a day than 'we' had done in a lifetime. I pray to God I never wreak as much havoc on the souls of men as does this notion that man has no security in God except to walk in Christian Perfection.

philologos:
>>>But YOU are not Wesleyan but Finneyist and the two views are chalk and cheese.

While I will have to let you believe what you want, I clearly reject Finney's no original sin, his legalism on coffee and black tea (even though I drink neither), and many other points.

It was Wesley that held the free from sin teaching not Finney. Finney clearly taught you were still a Christian when you sinned.

It wasn't until Oberlin that he even addressed the issue "can a Christian live free from sin". Oberlin Perfectionism even with Asa Mahan's infulence was a far step from Wesley's Christian Perfection teaching.

So clearly philologos you have made a wrong call on this one.

>>>I was never a Calvinist but who [you] don't need to throw everything out of the door just because Calvinists believe them.

I didn't through every out the door that Calvinist teach. They teach Christ is the only way to God. Clearly I didn't throw that out. I did how ever thought the 5 points out lock stock and barrow.

RobertW:
I broke off what I considered a circle conversation with you on one of my threads yesterday Robert and let you know for the second time in that thread that I feel the conversation wasn't going any where and told you I wouldn't be responding to you on the thread any more Lord willing. Since then you have posted 9 more posts to me ignoring my request which of course raised my eyebrows.

I trust you are not going to follow me around and post on my threads or the threads I post on the kind of things you have posted there like...

>>>Although I have already been accused of many things by this man, one of which that I don't understand Finney;

I think as mature adults if some one indicates they feel like the conversation is going no where and they feel like it is in the best interest of the forum and their Christian witness to not continue -- than the other person should respect that.

To then move to another thread and post "I have already been accused of many things by this man" in my mind is getting close to slandering a person.

Also let me correct one of your quotes so that others will not be confuse as the what the 'we' is in your statement.

>>>This answers why he said Finney had done more in a day than 'we' had done in a lifetime.

Here is what I said.

"Finney had many errors but one thing he did have that neither you or I have is results. He likely did more in an average day than you or I will do in a life time."

I can see now that I made the right choice to break off conversation with you on the other thread. I trust I won't need to do the same thing here.

I feel that those that accuse me of being a Finneyite are really mistaken and either have not taken the time to see what teaching I do hold or they don't know the clear differences between Finney and Wesley.

I would consider those that say my doctrinal position is Finneyism being very close to a stawman attack.

While I hold Finney high for the work God did through him in the same way I hold Whitefield high for the work God did though him -- I reject Finney's theology.

So in closing Robert from what I have seen so far I think it would be best for both our Christian witness and the forum for you to keep posts directed toward me to a minimum per my request.

So in closing Robert from what I have seen so far I think it would be best for both our Christian witness and the forum for you to keep posts directed toward me to a minimum per my request.

I will meet you and your error where I find it. What about Peter? Did that raise an eyebrow also?

Atonement is required for the reason of proving the true worth of God and His character. The atonement acknowledges the true value and worth of God [b]by[/b] the One who is sacrificed. God must sacrifice something just as valuable, if not greater in [b]actual worth[/b] as the one who offended Him. The sacrifice must be of equal severity as to the offence of the crime committed. The punishment must fit the crime.

A sin as to the degree of a slap on the face or steeling a shoe lace does not require the death penalty of the one who sinned, that would give the message of the sinner being as worthless as the shoe lace.
The punishment must fit the crime.

However, the theft of a shoe lace is still a breach of the same law which is against such heinous crimes as, rape, murder, or similar in degree which are a total tainting &/or maligning of personal worth and character of the Law Maker.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all (James 2:8).
A slap on the face or steeling a shoe lace is only breaking one aspect of the whole law which includes the greater aspects such as the heinous crimes.

Justice is meant to teach that whoever it serves and protects has personal worth so if one offended by a crime, or commits a crime, he will be judged as someone who is worth equal to but not greater than the criminal, or the victim if being the criminal.
In other words, Justice is to keep the establishment of both, the victim and the criminal as being equal in worth and in value.

The only one able to atone for the damage that is done to His name must be equally great, [b]not in worth only but in all aspects to God[/b] whom we offended (not just deemed as valuable as mankind is); The one who makes atonement can not be a mere mortal, for then he would only be able to atone for just one man, tooth for tooth & eye for eye. Furthermore, he must be eternal so that he may atone for all (Hebrews 9:14).
Therefore, it must be God Himself in the likeness of "sinful flesh" who must make atonement (Roman 8:3 Phil 2:7-8); for Jesus is the only one who has satisfied the Father, even until the cross, therefore, only He can satisfy Him on the cross.

The one being atoned for must change in order for him to be forgiven. He must first meet the set conditions in order for the atonement to be applied for the forgiveness (Matthew 18:23-35). This proves that the one being atoned for understands the true value of the one who is forgiving and that he can not take this whole thing lightly.
If the one refuses to acknowledge the true value and worth of God and refuses to meet the set conditions in order to be forgiven; if he takes lightly all that God has said and done to forgive, he can not be forgiven.

The atonement is an influence on ones heart/soul. A revelation of the suffering of Christ should break and subdue ones heart and bring him to complete surrender to God. The atonement should so affect our hearts that we turn from our disobedience in humble, sincere, and deep repentance. Repenting out of a motive of love, remorse, and sincerity (1 John. 4:19). God is drawing all men to Himself through the atonement (John. 12:32), and it is His loving kindness which draws us (Jer.31:3; Rom. 2:4). The atonement transforms and liberates through reciprocation, when men obey the gospel of Jesus Christ from the heart because God was loving them all along, from the beginning.

However, there is no possible way that anyone may have a substitute for punishment of a crime such as murder in a moral governmental judicial system as we have in society. For example, a father could never take a son's place in his execution for murder. Furthermore, a King could never let a law breaker go free as in the case of Daniel and the lion's den. However, Jesus did take our place in judgment through His sacrifice that He might satisfy the law as our proxy. He could do this because sin is only against God personally and not against a moral governmental judicial system.

All sin is against God personally and not His law. His law is only to show us what and how we accomplished by breaking it.
Whenever anyone disobeys God in any way, they are virtually not trusting God calling Him a liar, stating by their actions that God can not be trusted and that He is no authority to make any boundaries. Proclaiming that God is not good in providing what is needed for staying within His boundaries. In doing this they sin.
Whenever anyone sins, they are transgressing what they know to be true (that there is a law which is being broken) which proclaims that they are autonomous, self governing and in no need of support from anything apart from them selves. They are basically saying, "I am that I am". Doing this they are opposing and exalting themselves above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that they deem themselves as God (2Thessalonians 2:4).

All mankind has brought damaged to Gods character or tainted His holy Name by braking His Law, disobeying His Commandments, rebelling against His Word & authority.
Sin insulted God to a degree that His character was maligned and He was defamed and virtually dethroned by the offender.
We did not sin in away as to owe God a debt as in the form of a sum, but in the way of disbelief and unfaithfulness, which deems God to be a liar on our behalf and in doing so, we destroy His character; this is elevating ourselves over God and putting ourselves in His place. We owe God the repair or renewal of His character which we maligned.

God sent his Son to be the propitiation for us maligning His character. In other words, God sent Jesus to appease or satisfy Himself on account of our sins against Him.

Jesus is the only Man that has performed the law perfectly, which is what satisfies God.
Jesus was required perfect obedience to the law for Himself, and since he perfectly obeyed, he did not need to suffer the penalty of braking the law or sin. He could therefore suffer the penalty of sin in our place as a proxy by laying down His life for His bretheren; no one took His life..
Atonement appeases God by satisfying His demands, which are shown in His law, and fulfilling the judgment that is due to us.
The judgment is spiritual death which is actually a severed relationship from God. all who sin have died spiritually, for that is the wage of death(Romans 6:23)

Therefore, we must spiritualy die to the Law through the body of Christ by faith. We will then also rise from the dead with Him through faith. (Romans 6:3, Ephesians 2:5-6)
This is why Jesus needed to die physically and raise from the dead with His glorified body, so that we might die through Him and be raised with Him by and through faith so that by Him and through Him we might take the penalty for our own sins; all this is through the spirit of the law.(2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Galatians 2:20, Hebrews 2:9,14,17-18)

To understand how the sacrifice of Jesus (The Atonement) satisfies the law which gives glory to God, we must know what God says concerning the Atonement.
Since we already know that all sin is against God personally and not against any moral government judicial system, God will only forgive on the bases of the sinner being changed by repentance and a new life all together.
Just so God dose not have people whom He forgives to take it lightly and stay just as wicked as before being forgiven as we read in Matthew 18:28-30, God uses His law of death on the account of sin to implement the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
God says, in [b]Romans 6:23[/b] [color=990000]for the wages of sin is[/color] [spiritual] [color=990000]death, but the gift of God is eternal[/color] (spiritual) [color=990000]life in Christ Jesus our Lord.[/color]
and, [b]Deut.21:23[/b] [color=990000]His body shall not remain overnight on the tree[/color] (cross)[color=990000], but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who hangs on a tree is accursed of God.[/color]
Jesus was taken off the cross that same day He died so the curse of sin would stay on Him.
[b]Lev 17:11[/b] [color=990000]For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.[/color] [b]Heb 9:22[/b] [color=990000]for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin[/color]
When Jesus finished all that needed to done:
[b](1)[/b] Curse of the law to be taken away (2Corinth 5:21, Gal 3:13).
[b](a)[/b] For the setting free of the captive slave of the law(Luke 4:18, Galatians 5:1).
[b](2)[/b] Blood to be shed for the cleansing/purging from the guilt and the clearing of the conscience of the guilt of sin (Ephesians 1:7 & Colossians 1:14)
[b](a)[/b] purchasing/redeeming from the judgment of sin which is our forgiveness(Ephesians 1:7 & 1 Corinthians 6:20 & 7:23).

God accepted His sacrifice. In verification of God's acceptance, He raised Jesus from the dead. The resurrection is the basis of our Faith (1 Corinthians 15:14).
This selfless, loving sacrifice on our account is to break the heart of the sinner and cause him to acknowledge his sin and the judgment of his sin.

When we acknowledge our place in His death we may also acknowledge our place in resurrection(Rom 6:3-6), only then can we be redeemed & cleansed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot(1Peter 1:19, Titus 2:14) and freed from being under the law(Romans 6:14 & 7:4) as being under grace instead(Romans 6:14): acknowledging that He is representing us on that cross and we die through Christ and rise in newness of life(Romans 6:4 &11).

We acknowledge this by [color=990000]baptism, which symbolizes our death and resurrection in Christ, not by the removing of outward filth of the flesh but by providing us with a good and clear conscience[/color] (inward cleanness and peace) [color=990000]before God through the[/color] [death and] [color=990000]resurrection of Jesus Christ.[/color] [b]1Peter 3:21[/b].

[b]Supplemental:[/b]
An account of satisfying the law:
[b]Heb. 9:22[/b] [color=990000]for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin[/color]
Or, without the clearing of the character of God, there is no giving up the punishment of the crime.
It is the sentencing of God Himself on another's behalf by [b]deeming[/b] the offenders in Him being sentenced, by grace in the spirit of the law. Therefore, it is by grace through faith in the spirit of the Law.

KingJimmy:
>>>It should also be noted regarding Wesley that most churches that trace their roots back to him espouse the penal/substitution theory of atonement. Wesley, while not using that theological vocabulary (to my knowledge), clearly taught such a view.

What do you think of this article then.
John Wesley's Doctrine of Justification.

In this article the author claims the following.

"What we discern in Wesley's atonement theology is a distinction between objective and subjective aspects of the atonement. To describe the former he employed the traditional concepts of satisfaction, ransom sacrifice, and substitution. Among these the most important was satisfaction. The Wesleyan theology of atonement is essentially Anselmian, with other themes playing secondary, albeit significant, roles in his thinking. He believed that God was morally offended by human sin. The divine wrath meant an angry God. Sin was an affront to God and a failure of man to fulfill his role in the scheme of creation. The justice of God required that the affront be propitiated. The morality of God required that the failure be corrected. Man, however, had no way to correct this situation for which he alone was responsible. He could neither allay nor flee the wrath of God."

>>>Wesley's doctrine of justification by faith is clearly at odds with any Finneyism/Moral Government theory.

When you say "Finneyism/Moral Government theory" are you referring to Grotius' atonement theory?

And is it correct that this is the theory that Arminius taught?

>>>And I choose the word "grave" intentionally. Righteousness comes through faith, not obedience to the law.

I completely agree!

I just re-read both Salvation by Faith and The Almost Christian today. Both beautiful sermons.

I have enjoyed Wesley's sermons so much that I had them all put in booklet form in PDF's on my site where they can be accesses and printed into booklet form.
John Wesley's Sermons

I am currently getting a picture put on the front cover of all of them and then Lord willing the plan is to put them in book stores in revolving book ranks.

>>>Moral government attempts to add our works to Christ's work to produce salvation. But so long as he does that, he denies the sufficiency of the cross of Jesus Christ, and effectively says that Christ's work was not good enough. Such a man is on his way to hell.

As you say that Finney held the Moral Government theory of the atonement would you hold that he was not converted or that those that were said to have been converted under his preaching to not be converted?

Also would you feel like the following is a fair description of the Moral Government view of the atonement?

Governmental Theory or Moral Government Theory -- Hugo Grotius, Albert Barnes, Arminian -- This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God's high regard for His law and His attitude towards sin. It is through Christ's death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ's substitutionary death. Those that hold this view believe that man's spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ's death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin, it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute.

Thanks for you response!

It was Wesley that held the free from sin teaching not Finney. Finney clearly taught you were still a Christian when you sinned.

philologos:
>>>This is absolute nonsense.

Which did you feel like is nonsense. That Wesley held to the free from sin teaching or that Finney taught you were still a Christian when you sinned?

Which did you feel like is nonsense. That Wesley held to the free from sin teaching or that Finney taught you were still a Christian when you sinned?

Finney: The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true. Until he repents, he cannot be forgiven. In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.

1) The Christian is justified no longer than he obeys.
2) He must be condemned when he disobeys.
3) Until he repents he cannot be forgiven.
4) The sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are on [u]precisely[/u] the same ground.

What more evidence is necessary to prove the point?

philologos:
>>>I was referring to the fact that Finney regarded a single sin as canceling out previous faith and left the one who had sinned without hope of salvation. See Robert W's mails.

I have seen Robert's posts and I have clearly shown that Finney doesn't hold to this and I have posted the same on the thread where Robert and I had that conversation.

Let me post it for you.

"2. In two important respects the sinning Christian differs widely from the unconverted sinner:

(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God. A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An unconverted sinner is a child of the devil. A Christian sustains a covenant relation to God; such a covenant relation as to secure to him that discipline which tends to reclaim and bring him back, if he wanders away from God. 'If his children forsake My law, and walk not in My judgments; if they break My statutes and keep not My commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips' (Psalms 89:30-34)."
Lecture 9 Unity of Moral action

As I have noted before Finney is closer to the P in TULIP than to the Christian Perfection taught by Wesley. Any one that has read much of Finney should known this.

Finney didn't even address the concept that one could live free from sin until later in Oberlin. I don't have the quote for that one but I will try to find it.

Wesley is well known to have taught the "free from sin" message. This is the central plank of his theology.

The other issue of course is that Finney often would say one things at one time and then another thing at another place, or even in the same place, and the two didn't match.

Wesley held and taught the position that sin was "an actual, voluntary transgression of the law; of the revealed, written law of God" (The Great Privilege of Those That Are Born of God section II.2) and that "even babes in Christ are so far perfect as not to commit sin" (Plain Account of Christian Perfection section 12.2).

Logic:
Very interesting post. I read it through twice and looked up all the scriptures. Thanks!

>>>The atonement should so affect our hearts that we turn from our disobedience in humble, sincere, and deep repentance. Repenting out of a motive of love, remorse, and sincerity (1 John. 4:19). God is drawing all men to Himself through the atonement (John. 12:32), and it is His loving kindness which draws us (Jer.31:3; Rom. 2:4). The atonement transforms and liberates through reciprocation, when men obey the gospel of Jesus Christ from the heart because God was loving them all along, from the beginning.

Very very nice. This paragraph made me weep and praise God.

I am really enjoying my study on the atonement.

>>>A revelation of the suffering of Christ should break and subdue ones heart and bring him to complete surrender to God.

Yes I love looking at my book The Passion on the film (I have never seen the film) and it touches my heart some and I have had wonderful time before the Lord weeping with thankfulness and praise. Thank you Jesus!

>>>All sin is against God personally and not His law. His law is only to show us what and how we accomplished by breaking it.
Whenever anyone disobeys God in any way, they are virtually not trusting God calling Him a liar, stating by their actions that God can not be trusted and that He is no authority to make any boundaries. Proclaiming that God is not good in providing what is needed for staying within His boundaries. In doing this they sin.

In view of this how to you deal with those that say that God has programmed them to sin via the inherited Adamic nature. That people have not asked to be born into this world programmed to sin.

>>>all who sin have died spiritually,

What do you mean by this. Do you hold htat spiritual death is spiritual separation from God as in a relationship or do you hold that some thing has happened to the spirit of a man?

And if you don't mind what are the different views on what spiritual death is?

>>>Therefore, we must spiritualy die to the Law through the body of Christ by faith.

What do you mean by spiritually dying to the Law?

>>>so that we might die through Him and be raised with Him by and through faith so that by Him and through Him we might take the penalty for our own sins; all this is through the spirit of the law.

What do you mean by "this is through the spirit of the law"?

>>>God uses His law of death on the account of sin to implement the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

What do you mean by law of death? What do you mean by God "uses His law of death" to "implement the sacrifice of Jesus"?

>>>Jesus was taken off the cross that same day He died so the curse of sin would stay on Him.

I have never heard that before. Where did you get that?

>>>(a) For the setting free of the captive slave of the law(Luke 4:18, Galatians 5:1).

Ok when you say the law you are referring to the law of Moses? Now do you feel like the Christian is lawless or without law or do you feel like we are under the perfect law of liberty which some hold is the new covenant scriptures?

>>>When Jesus finished all that needed to done:

What about delivering the Christian from the power of sin whereby we may take the way of escape in every temptation (1Cor 10:13, 2The 3:3, 2Pet 1:10, Jud 1:24)? And also what about deliverance from the pollution of sin (Mat 5:8, Act 15:9, 1Tim 1:5, 2Tim 2:22, 1Pet 1:22)?

Thanks again for this good point!

ccrider:
>>>My heart desires to be like Christ but, like Paul, some things that I don't want to do, I do....and those things I should do, I do not do. Although these things happen, I should not fall into condemnation, but press forward in my faith of the promise of Christ, always striving to do the will of the Father in Christ. I'm not talking about things like rampant adultery or a murder spree but those things that can cause us to stumble from time to time while keeping a heart that is void of rejecting Christ and the Father altogether. In fact it is in my stumbling that I cry out in my need for The Lord. Does this mean I do not believe I need the Lord unless I stumble? No. I fully admit that I always need Him, especially for strength against stumbling to begin with, but a heart that loves Him will recognize the brief shame and sting of sin yet continue to have a willingness and a desire to do better and move forward in faith.

I would hold that there is something better than the Romans 7 "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do... But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. " (Rom 7:19, 23) experience.

I would hold that Romans 7 is the experience under the law. Romans 8:2 tells us "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

God promises are ye and amen.
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful, who shall establish you, and keep you from evil.
2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

God has something better for us that sinning and repenting and sinning and repenting.

>>>I'm not talking about things like rampant adultery or a murder spree but those things that can cause us to stumble from time to time while keeping a heart that is void of rejecting Christ and the Father altogether.

I would hold that the Bible teaches that the Almighty God has can save us from "big" sin can save us from "small" sins to. Save and keep by the power of God thought faith. Against not works but keep by the power of God thought faith.

2Co 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

>>>In doing so, can now passionately pursue His Will for me out of my love for Him without having to worry about being perfect in the process. This is freedom!!!

When you say with out being perfect do you mean with out having to worry about being obedience?