Governmental Atonement Illustrated: King Zalukas

I read this and thought that it was very good:

[b]WHY DID JESUS HAVE TO DIE?[/b]

Someone asked me, "Couldn't God have simply forgiven our sins?" I explained why God couldn't simply forgive without atonement. Under God's government, as under any government, penalty serves a purpose. The purpose of executing penalties upon law breakers is to discourage crime. The purpose of punishment is not to gratify wrathful feelings or a vindictive spirit. The purpose of punishment is to maintain law in order to promote the well-being of a community. If God simply forgave us, by setting aside our penalty, than He would not be discouraging crime. The problem with mere forgiveness is that it would weaken the law of God and thus endanger all of His subjects. Therefore if God is going to forgive us by setting aside our penalty, He must substitute our penalty with atonement in order to accomplish what our penalty would have accomplished. If God can express His regard for His law through the atonement, as equally as He would have expressed it by executing the penalty of the law upon law breakers, then the problem of forgiven is overcome, crime is discouraged, and therefore mercy or pardon is made possible. I taught that now that atonement has been made, which substitutes our penalty, which satisfied the purpose of our penalty, God can remit our penalty if we repent and believe. I cannot see how a loving and intelligent God could forgive any criminal unless there is atonement made.

[b]THE STORY OF KING ZALUKAS[/b]

In order to illustrate the atonement I told a story about an Italian King named Zalukas. The King saw how adultery had the potential to destroy a society. If there is adultery in a Kingdom, there could be children born out of wed lock. This breaks down the family unit. There could also be jealousy and murder when a husband finds out that another man has been sleeping with his wife. Therefore for the good of His Kingdom, the King outlawed adultery.

But laws are not respected or regarded unless they have consequences. Penalties give the law authority and influence. Therefore the King assigned a very severe penalty for those who violated his law. Those who were found committing adultery would have both of their eyes removed by a hot poker!

A few people were found committing adultery and quickly the penalty was executed. This showed the Kingdom that the King meant business. He surely regarded his law and meant to maintain it. It wasn't long until adultery literally ceased from his Kingdom.

One day a man was brought before the King who had been committing adultery. It was the Kings own son, the prince of the Kingdom. The King was in a dilemma. On the one hand the King wanted to maintain His law. The authority and influence of his law depended upon the execution of the penalty. If He didn't execute the penalty, his Kingdom would question whether or not the King really regarded his law or not. If the King did not execute the penalty, the Kingdom would think that he gave a bad law or that he gave too severe a penalty. But on the other hand, the King cared about his son and was prone to forgive him. The King naturally preferred to show his son mercy. How could he do both? How could the King show mercy to his son but still uphold the authority and influence of his law throughout His Kingdom at the same time?

The solution which the King found to his dilemma was a painful one. The King had one of the eyes of his son removed, and in lieu of the other eye of his son, he sacrificed his own. He substituted one of his own eyes for the eye of his son. In this way the King found a way to show mercy to his Son by not executing the full penalty of the law upon him, while also expressing to his Kingdom his regard for his law and thereby maintain the authority and influence of the precept.

I then explained that God gave his universe a very good law for our own good. The law of God promotes the highest well-being of all. In order to give authority to the precept, God has given a severe penalty. The penalty for violating God's law is to burn in hell for all of eternity. That is eternal death.

At first there were angels who rebelled against God. They were quickly thrust out of Heaven and are now waiting Judgment Day. But then mankind sinned. Mankind was made in the image of God. Men were the crown of God's creation. God was prone to forgive mankind, but He must also maintain His law. On the one hand, the authority and influence of His law throughout His universe or Kingdom depends upon Him making a proper expression of His regard for His law so that crime is discouraged. But on the other hand, God would prefer to forgive mankind by withholding or setting aside our penalty. How could God do both? How could God pardon disobedient men without encouraging the rest of His universe to sin? How could God remit our penalty of eternal hell but still uphold His law and maintain its authority and influence? The answer is the atonement.

God offered His own Son to make atonement for our sins. The atonement was given in lieu of our eternal punishment. The atonement of Jesus Christ substitutes the eternal punishment of sinners. The problem of mere pardon is that it leaves the purpose of penalty unfulfilled. The purpose of penalty is to prevent crime, to stop the spread of rebellion. The problem of mere forgiveness is that it encourages sin. But when an atonement substitutes our penalty, the problems of forgiveness are overcome. The atonement accomplishes what our penalty would have accomplished and therefore our penalty can be remitted. God expresses His regard for His law through the atonement in an even greater way than He would have through the punishment of sinners. Therefore His law is upheld throughout His universe, maintaining its authority and influence, through the atonement as it would have been through our penalty. God can safely pardon criminals, without endangering the well-being of His universe, because an atonement has been made. God promises that He will remit our penalty if we will simply decide to turn from sin and trust in Christ. God will turn from His wrath, withhold our punishment, or remit our penalty, if we are converted to Christ.

This sort of theology is not correct at all. But the purely opposite and extreme is not true either. It matters how we live. Yet the atonement is our only way to be saved.

it is not an example like jehovah witness, mormons, etc.

The atonement of Christ substitutes the punishment of hell fire for sinners, therefore no sinner has to go to hell, everyone can be saved from hell. All men can now have their sins forgiven. God can withhold the punishment of all.

The atonement is a substitution and it is the only reason we can have mercy and forgiveness. If there was no atonement, God could not remit our penalty. If there was no atonement, God could not pardon anyone. But now that an atonement has been made for everyone, God can pardon everyone, if they repent and believe.

How many sinners were saved at Calvary? Just one. The repentant theif. The rest of us were saved after the atonement. We were saved at conversion, not Calvary. Calvary made salvation available, but salvation did not become actual until conversion.

"Christ’s work on Calvary made atonement for every man, but it did not save any man....Universal atonement makes salvation universally available, but it does not make it universally effective toward the individual." A W Tozer

"with a real atonement for all, some perish... the atonement is only provisory in its character; that it renders men salvable, but does not necessarily save them." John Miley

Jesus died for all but not all are saved from God's wrath. Many of those Jesus died for still went to hell. The atonement made it possible for God to turn from His wrath, but until sinners turn from their sins God does not actually turn from His wrath. Those Jesus died for (all men) are under Gods wrath until they repent and believe.

Just as each household had to apply the blood to there own door post during the Passover

God spoke in times past through the prophets (like Moses) but He speaks now through His Son, and those who are His sheep will hear His voice. They will hear , “repent and believe the Gospel” , and they will obey.

First, I would like to say that I think this thread is a very fruitful one. To me, any discussion that causes me to really dig and consider what I believe is good.

"Christ’s work on Calvary made atonement for every man, but it did not save any man....Universal atonement makes salvation universally available, but it does not make it universally effective toward the individual." A W Tozer

I have the book that this quote is from, Paths to Power, and I have read it many times. I like the book and I used to agree with Dr. Tozer concerning the atonement...

If we look at God's saving hand in the Old Testament; when He saved Israel. What we see is that God ACTUALLY SAVED Israel. When Israel was saved from their enemies, it was not a potential salvation. It was actual; they were not expelled from the land; their inheritance, and God’s salvation in the Old Testament is a type and a shadow of what He did at the Cross.

I mentioned this before, but look at David in his defeat of Goliath. Israel was about to be destroyed and lose their inheritance, but God raised up a man, from obscurity, whom He chose and anointed to save His people. David defeated Goliath. His victory was a vicarious victory for all of God's chosen people, Israel. He actually saved them. It was not a potential salvation. It was real and definite. In fact, if you consider the covenant that Israel had with God, He actually saved them from Himself. They were a disobedient people, and according to the covenant that the nation had with God, He should have let them be defeated and driven out of the land. But, He did not. He gave them a King....and that King saved them....

Look at Acts 13 and you will see that Paul says as much to the people in Pisidian Antioch
.

Atonement + nothing = no salvation: we must repent and believe

Atonement + faith = no salvation: we must also repent.

Atonement + repentance + faith = salvation.

God only has mercy when the conditions of atonement, repentance, and faith are met.

The atonement has been made for all but not all are saved. Nobody is saved from God's wrath until they repent and believe, even though Jesus Christ already died for them.

Jesus died for me before I repented and believed. But I was not saved from God's wrath until I repented and believed.

Moral law is not a "thing" or a "substance" to be created. Moral law is an idea of the mind. God has a conscience. His intelligence tells Him how people should be treated, according to their intrinsic value. He is supremely valuable and therefore should be loved supremely. Our neighbor is equally valuable to ourselves and therefore should be loved equally. The moral law of God originated in the mind of God, not in the arbitrary will of God.

The moral law, strictly speaking, only requires the death of the guilty. "The soul that sins, it shall die". That is retributive justice. Retributive justice is treating everyone as they deserve. In the atonement Christ the innocent died. He didn't deserve to die. Therefore his death did not satisfy retributive justice. Through the atonement we live. We are guilty. Therefore the atonement does not satisfy retributive justice.

But the object of penalty is public justice. The purpose of punishment is to discourage crime. The object or purpose of penalty, which is public justice, was definitely satisfied by the atonement. God's regard for the public order of His universe is satisfied through the atonement as it would have been by the penalty executed upon sinners. God is the Lord of hosts. He is the ruler over many moral beings. If he is going to set aside the punishment of mankind, He must substitute our punishment with an atonement in order to maintain His law throughout all of His Kingdom. If He simply forgave by His grace and mercy, without an atonement, the purpose of the penalty of the law would not have been satisfied, crime would be encouraged instead of discouraged.

Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. To repent is to change your mind about breaking God's law. Faith is to put your trust in God and His atonement. When we truly turn to God, we turn to God in repentance and faith. Once that occurs, God remits our penalty of eternal hell.

I think definitions really help:

[b]The penalty of the law[/b]: the eternal hell of the guilty (not physical death or else even Christians aren't saved; and not the death of the innocent) See Eze. 18:20; 2 Thes. 1:9

[b]The object of penalty[/b]: to discourage crime (not to satisfy any vindictiveness in God, since God does not delight in the death of the wicked) See 2 Peter 2:6

[b]Forgiveness or mercy[/b]: the setting aside or remission of penalty (it is not the payment of a debt, the satisfaction of wrath, or the execution of penalty. These are the opposite of forgiveness or mercy)See Ps 78:38, Ps 85:23, Micah 7:18; Matt 6:12; 18:27; Lk. 7:42

[b]Problem of forgiveness[/b]: it encourages crime (it is not that God was unwilling, unforgiving, or unmerciful) See Ecc. 8:11, Eze. 18:32

[b]Atonement[/b]: a substitute for the penalty (not the penalty itself) which makes our penalty remissable. See Matt. 26:28; Heb 9:22

[b]Necessity of atonement[/b]: to fulfill or satisfy the purpose of penalty (public justice), to make it safe for God to pardon criminals without endangering the rest of His subjects by encouraging others to break His law. God must maintain His law throughout His universe by expressing His regard for it, either by punishing the guilty or through the atonement of Christ. (Not that God needed any personal satisfaction, but that God had a governmental problem - the purpose of penalty needed satisfaction). See Romans 3:25-26

I found these quotes on the atonement and really liked them:

“The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose. In other words, there are certain ends proposed by the appointment of the penalty in case of violation of the law; and if these ends are secured, then the punishment may be remitted and the offender may be pardoned. That which will secure these ends is an atonement.” [b]Albert Barnes[/b]

“The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution. By the atonement it appears that God is determined that his law shall be supported; that it shall not be despised or transgressed with impunity; and that it is an evil and a bitter thing to sin against God. The very idea of an atonement or satisfaction for sin, is something which, to the purposes of supporting the authority of the divine law, and the dignity and consistency of the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sinner, according to the literal threatening of the law. That which answers these purposes being done, whatever it be, atonement is made, and the way is prepared for the dispensation of pardon.” [b]Jonathon Edwards Jr.[/b]

"the atonement is the governmental substitution of the sufferings of Christ for the punishment of sinners" [b]Charles Finney[/b]

"The idea that penal justice must, always be done, in the sense that the penalty of the law must always be inflicted, would exclude the possibility of pardon and of atonement." [b]John Morgan[/b]

"Under his violated law a sinning race was justly doomed to perdition. Some expression must needs go forth to sustain the sacredness and majesty of that law, so that pardon could be offered and given with no periol to his moral kingdom." [b]Henry Cowles[/b]

"The death of Christ is not a substituted penalty, but a substitute for a penalty. THe necessity of an atonement is not found in the fact that the justice of God required an invariable execution of the deserved penalty, but in the fact that the honor and glory of God, and the welfare of his creatures, required that his essential and recortial righteousness be adequately declared." [b]Dr. Raymond[/b]

"The sufferings of Christ, as a proper substitute for punishment, must fulfill the office of penalty in the obligatory ends of oral government." [b]John Miley[/b]

"But should this penalty be set aside, and no substitute, as it respects the divine governments be itnrudced, the authority of law is prostrated at once." [b]Nathan Beman[/b]

"To say then that Christ made an expiatory offering for us, according to my apprehension of the meaning of scriptural language, implies that his sufferings and death were, by divine appointment, accepted instead of the punishment due to us as sinners, and that God, in consequence of the offering made by Christ, pardons our offences and restores us to his favour." [b]Moses Stuart[/b]

“It [the atonement] provides a substitute for the penalty of the law”. [b]Winkie Pratney[/b]

“The Divine law has been broken; the interests of the universe demanded that its righteousness should be maintained, therefore, its penalty must be endured by the transgressor, or, in lieu of this, such compensation must be rendered as would satisfy the claims of justice, and render it expedient for God to pardon the guilty… Christ made such a sacrifice as to render it possible for God to be just, and yet to pardon the sinner.” [b]Catherine Booth [/b]

"But if God pardoned sinners without an atonement, he could neither have supported his law, discounteanced wickedness, nor manifested his abhorrence of sin, and love of holiness. Hence if sinners were pardoned, an atonement was indispensably necessary." [b]Caleb Burge[/b]

If the atonement was the payment of our debt, or a satisfaction of God's wrath:

1. Those Jesus died for would be born saved

2. You'd have to believe in limited atonement or universalism

3. You do not need to repent or believe to be saved

4. Your debt is paid and God has no wrath for you, even if you don't know it

5. There is no forgiveness or mercy in salvation

These are some serious problems!

God still has wrath after the atonement (Acts 12:23; Rom. 1:18; Rom. 2:5; Rom. 2:8-9; Col. 3:6; Rev. 6:17; Rev. 14:10, Rev. 14:19, Rev. 15:7; Rev. 16:1) and therefore the atonement did not satisfy God’s wrath.

Nobody is saved from God’s wrath until they forsake their sins (Isaiah 55:7; Jer. 26:13; Prov. 28:13; Acts 3:19; Acts 8:22).

The atonement is a substitute for our penalty (Heb. 9:22), so that God could remit our penalty (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25) without dishonoring or weakening His law.

Forgiveness is the remission of penalty (Matt. 26:28; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:22). Forgiveness is when God turns away from His wrath (Ps. 85:2-3; Micah 7:18). But if Jesus took our penalty and satisfied God’s wrath, there could be no real forgiveness. The atonement makes it possible for our penalty to be remitted, it makes it possible for God to turn away from His wrath when sinners repent.

Now that an atonement has been made, God can remit our penalty, withhold our punishment, and turn from His wrath. Jesus has delivered us from the wrath that is to come (1 Thes. 1:10). The wrath is still there. The wrath is still coming. But we are delivered from it. Because of the passover lamb, God's wrath can pass over us instead of being poured out upon us (1 Cor. 5:7).

What is the forgiveness of sins and why does it require an atonement?

There are only three atonement views:

Ransom Theory
Governmental Theory
Penal Theory

The ransom theory can tell you what forgiveness is, but it cannot tell you why atonement is necessary for forgiveness. A ransom was paid to the devil, but it is God who forgives us. So the ransom was not necessary for God's forgiveness, but was necessary for being released from the captivity of the devil.

The penal theory never defines forgiveness and it's view of the atonement excludes any real forgiveness. Sins are never actually forgiven, they are always punished. So the atonement was not necessary for forgiveness, but the atonement made forgiveness impossible. All sins are punished, no sins are forgiven. All debts are paid, no debts are pardoned. All penalty is executed, no penalty is remitted. The atonement is the opposite of forgiveness.

The governmental theory defines it very simply. Forgiveness of sins is when God remits the penalty of our sins. Forgiveness is the remission of penalty. Atonement is necessary for forgiveness in order to satisfy the purpose of penalty, in order to overcome the problems of forgiveness, so that the penalty of the law can be wisely and safely remitted. An atonement is necessary to substitute our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted. The atonement of Christ must accomplish what the penalty of the law being executed upon sinners would have accomplished, otherwise the penalty of the law has to be executed upon sinners. But if the atonement of Christ does what the penalty of the law upon the guilty would have done, then the penalty can be remitted (forgiveness).

Again let me ask what is the forgiveness of sins? And why is an atonement necessary for God to forgive our sins?