The Eternally Perpetual Sin of Unbelief Cannot be Atoned for.

This is an interesting concept I have heard recently which attempts to answer the attacks on the penal substitutionary atonement by those who hold to moral government theology. They claim that JESUS didn't bear the wrath of GOD for our sins on the cross because if HE did, HE would have had to bear actual eternities in hell since that is the punishment the unregenerate will face. Instead they claim that JESUS' sacrifice was merely a "token" sacrifice which GOD, in HIS sovereignty and lack of "need" for satisfaction, chose to accept as a "token" (not exact) substitute to open the door for people to exercise their power of contrary choice to stop sinning and acquire salvation.

The thing is JESUS couldn't have taken the exact punishment of unbelievers because the sin of unbelief is perpetual for eternity. The door of hell is locked from the inside and people do not become sanctified there. They continue in their unbelief for ever much like those in Revelation 16:10-11 cursed GOD and refused to repent even though GOD was pouring HIS wrath out upon them. Their sin doesn't end with physical death as it does for Christians. The reason people go to hell is the sin of unbelief.

The sin of unbelief in which we as Christians once lived, it had an end. The unbelief of every person who will ever be saved is unbelief that will at some point end, therefore it could be atoned for at the cross. A sin that NEVER ends CANNOT be atoned for "once for all" since it has no ending point. How could CHRIST make final payment for a sin that doesn't finally end?

This fact, that CHRIST could not possibly have atoned for the perpetual sin of unbelief in which people will live for eternity in hell, nullifies the claim that CHRIST could not take exact punishment on the cross for those whom HE died, namely, the elect. Their unbelif ends so HE was able to to atone for it. People go to hell for PERPETUAL UNBELIEF which HE didn't bear the penalty for and therefor did not have to suffer countless eternities in hell for to be an exact punishment for those who would believe. CHRIST accomplished on the cross exactly what HE intended to accomplish. That is why HE could say, "It is finished!"

What do you think about this answer? If it doesn't work, then is it true that CHRIST didn't bear our exact punishment but rather, the cross was just a "token" gesture like substituting poker chips for actual money? I am trying to figure this thing out.

What is the difference between PERPETUAL UNBELIEF and unbelief?

Do I believe that Christ bore God's Wrath for all my sins? Yes. Does me not being able to prove it or defened it nullify it's fact?

Does me not being able to prove it or defened it nullify it's fact?

Of course it doesn't. I guess the difference between perpetual unbelief and unbelief is it is possible for unbelief to end when the person at some pont does believe while perpetual unbelief goes on for eternity because the person does not believe before they die.

The sin of unbelief in which we as Christians once lived, it had an end. The unbelief of every person who will ever be saved is unbelief that will at some point end, therefore it could be atoned for at the cross. A sin that NEVER ends CANNOT be atoned for "once for all" since it has no ending point. How could CHRIST make final payment for a sin that doesn't finally end?

This fact, that CHRIST could not possibly have atoned for the perpetual sin of unbelief in which people will live for eternity in hell, nullifies the claim that CHRIST could not take exact punishment on the cross for those whom HE died, namely, the elect. Their unbelif ends so HE was able to to atone for it. People go to hell for PERPETUAL UNBELIEF which HE didn't bear the penalty for and therefor did not have to suffer countless eternities in hell for to be an exact punishment for those who would believe. CHRIST accomplished on the cross exactly what HE intended to accomplish. That is why HE could say, "It is finished!"

So, Jesus was able to pay the price for my sin (unbelief) because I didn't remain in that state?

What do you think about this answer? If it doesn't work, then is it true that CHRIST didn't bear our exact punishment but rather, the cross was just a "token" gesture like substituting poker chips for actual money? I am trying to figure this thing out.

The problem here is a misconception of the doctrine of hell and the holiness of God.

Well I know this is not a topic of this particular thread-but it came up to me while reading this thread: What about Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost-which Christ himself says of the person who commits such a horrible sin "....hath never forgiveness, neither in this world, nor the one to come"-did Christ death atone for those who commit Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost-God knowing the end from the beginning who would commit such an act?

int3grity wrote:
This is an interesting concept I have heard recently which attempts to answer the attacks on the penal substitutionary atonement by those who hold to moral government theology. They claim that JESUS didn't bear the wrath of GOD for our sins on the cross because if HE did, HE would have had to bear actual eternities in hell since that is the punishment the unregenerate will face. Instead they claim that JESUS' sacrifice was merely a "token" sacrifice which GOD, in HIS sovereignty and lack of "need" for satisfaction, chose to accept as a "token" (not exact) substitute to open the door for people to exercise their power of contrary choice to stop sinning and acquire salvation.

Also I think the reason why Christ could not, and did not have to spend eternities in hell, because as the Book of Acts says, that a dear brother of mine once pointed me to pertaining to this topic:

Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: [b]because it was not possible that he should be holden of it[/b].

It was not possible for Christ to holden of death for "eternities"-because for eternities afore, Christ had eternities of total, perfect, unbroken righteousness with the Holy Father-"the lamb slain before the foundation of the world"-is also the "lamb risen before the foundation of the world" and also " the lamb ascended at the right hand of the Father" before the foundation of the world.

Jesus is the only to ever have perfect righteousness with the Father, then to become sin, and be forsaken of the Father-Christ himself was a JUST man, in HIM was "NO SIN" (which is why God could righteously raise him up again) and in his righteousness he took upon himself the sins of the elect of all the world of his Church.

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

In the end, Christ will have atoned for perpetual unbelief....in all the elect/Bride-when death and hell are cast into the Lake of Fire.

BlazedbyGod you make an interesting point. this is a bit of a confusing issue and I am trying to work through it. It is an attept to answer the charge that penal substitution isn't true because Jesus couldn't have paid the exact penalty for sin without going to hell for etrrnity.

The reason Moral Government advocates say that is because if JESUS actually paid the fine for mankind's sin, that would mean GOD is requiring people to pay for sin in hell that JESUS already paid for on the cross. If they can make it a mere "token" gesture instead of an actual penal substutution, they can avoid that problem.