The point I’m trying to make is that just because God knows what everyone is going to think or do doesn’t make Him liable for it; a ridiculous assumption of course!
1 Like
Amen! Just because He knows does not make Him the contributing factor.
Be blessed, be a blessing.
Peter
2 Likes
Im curious what you think of this idea of mine, which is as much of a mere viewpoint, as a theological opinion.
Very simply stated; I’ve come to think that Christ’s sacrifice was merely transactional as to The Father, not to His " children ". And by His children, I mean ALL of us.
Hi OB, always appreciate your comment! Not sure what you mean by "Christ’s sacrifice was merely transactional as to The Father, not to His “children.”
I’m assuming that by “all of us” you mean all who believe in the Lord Jesus.
I think I now know what you mean. True, the Christian Covenant is between only the Father and the Son; Christians are the recipients of the Covenant of Redemption. There’s no language anywhere in the NT that relates this Covenant to man–but for man. When the Lord Jesus said “This cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which is shed for you,” it was solely between Him and the Father (Luk 22:20; 1Co 11:25).
1 Like
Thanks for your input. As I continue to minimize the transactional nature of Christ’s sacrifice, His gift, His grace is amplified.
I’m tempted to dive into trinitarian weeds, but I’m sure there are those here whose theological competence far exceeds mine.
But the thought of a transaction between “Person’s” of the Trinity, makes me scratch my head.
There was a first “Transaction” between the Trinity-- Gen 1:26!
Im referring specially to transaction, or payment, or ransom ( pick your favorite ), as opposed to the theology of The Trinity, evidence for which, you provided.
As a Christian, it’s my view that the aforementioned words ( payment, ransom etc ) are no longer relevant to my sanctification.
It’s the realization that they are no longer relevant, which is evidence of my salvation.
It remains wether there was, or is, a transaction within The Trinity, that I find difficult to articulate.
Then God does not predestine sin. The Fall was not predestined. The Fall wasn’t God’s will and plan for creation; but a violation of God’s will.
1 Like
So you are arguing that while the Cross settled a “legal account” with God, it established a universal, unconditional status of grace and family for all human beings, rather than offering a transactional deal to individuals?
How I read what you said is this. You see this as transactional toward God the Father: You view the legal, contractual, or payment aspect of Christ’s death as directed strictly toward God. In formal theology, this relates to concepts like satisfaction or penal substitution—where a debt, law, or penalty required by divine justice is paid or settled directly with the Father.
And non-transactional toward humanity: Suggesting that Christ’s death is not a transaction between God and human beings. Instead of a commercial trade or a conditional contract (“you do/believe X, and in exchange I give you Y”), God’s relation to humanity through the Cross is purely relational or familial, encompassing everyone (“ALL of us”) unconditionally as His children.
Just a little clarification-seeking. Are you in the camp of Universalism?
Be blessed,
Peter
God does not predestine sin, but knows who is going to choose sin, even before bringing him into this life. When God is bringing in one to this life He knows if they are going to choose sin, thus “fits” (creates) him “for destruction” (Rom 9:22); in order to “shew His wrath” (vs 22).
True or false, God earnestly desires the salvation of all.
As much as I would hope universalism to be true, I’m unable to accept it. And I’m not positive if it’s my lack of critical biblical wisdom, or my insistence upon righteous judgement. Good arguments can be made for both.
Perhaps I’m a closet universalist.
As to “transaction” , I can’t help to wonder how much we are still influenced by the Old Law.
The sacrificial covenantal framework we inherited, whereby “sin” requires blood, and that blood satisfies the wrath of God in order to restore understanding, and that God worked within that same framework.
The Cross exposes the inadequacy of that framework.
It sometimes seems that Christians make sense out of divine mercy and forgiveness in the only terms available to them ie: Payment, debt, sacrifice.
It’s in this viewpoint, that I challenge the term “transaction”
True, but God knows all who do not love Him!
True–but the tragic reality of the Fall is that not a single person loves God. Man, in his sin, is incapable of loving God. That is why St. Paul quotes the Scripture that there is no one righteous, no one who loves God, etc.
That is why the Apostle writes that it was while we were at enmity against God that God saved us. That God demonstrates His love in that while we were yet still sinners, Christ died for us. Christ died for the ungodly.
So when you say that God knows all who do not love Him–well that’s you, me, and all sinners.
Without the intervention of God’s grace, working faith into my heart, renewing me from within; the Holy Spirit working in me and God creating a new person–I am very much God’s enemy. Not that God is at enmity against me, but I am at enmity against God. For the soulish man hates God and the things of God.
That is why the Gospel is so powerful and potent: God’s love for the unlovely. God saving the ungodly, the wretched, the wicked, the sinner–you and me.
So Christ died for the wretched, for those who hate God. Christ died for those who nailed Him to the cross and who spit on Him.
That’s the love of God in Christ for the world.
2 Likes
Thank you for responding. Your stance is very similar to what theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar called “Hopeful Universalism.” The position is that Christians are allowed (or even encouraged) to hope for the salvation of all, even if they cannot dogmatically declare it as guaranteed, scripture-wise, due to passages on judgment and human free will.
Scripture itself says God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). Wanting everyone to be reconciled to God reflects God’s heart, which makes Oakback’s desire understandable. While God offers salvation universally, Scripture consistently shows that human choice matters and that eternal separation from God is a real possibility (John 3:16–18, Matthew 25:46, 2 Thessalonians 1:8–9). Salvation requires a response of faith; forcing reconciliation on those who reject God would override human moral freedom.
Now, the Old Testament sacrificial system was not a primitive human invention that Jesus “exposed as inadequate.” It was instituted by God Himself as a shadow pointing to the reality of Christ (Hebrews 8:5, Hebrews 9:22–28). The Cross doesn’t reject concepts like substitution or covenant; it fulfills them perfectly (Matthew 5:17, Romans 3:25–26). God’s justice and God’s love meet at the Cross. He is both “just and the justifier.”
Be blessed, be a blessing.
Peter
Perhaps you share my concern about what appears to be increased division, dissension, and emnity within Christendom.
Most of which seems focused on particular differences in dogma and doctrine. It seems primarily against various religions. Not against Christ.
I don’t mean to suggest im in anyway rejecting the old covenant, and I continue to feed from that as well.
We all take what written word we have at our disposal, and articulate it’s lessons in a myriad of languages and interpretations.
Im merely exploring the various ways we can articulate Christ’s sacrifice.
Transactional terminology is what scripture used in the Old covenant. Not so much in the New. Or at least the meaning sure evolved.
I pray that it continues to evolve. And I for one participate in that.
It’s my overwhelming shock what our Creator is willing to do for me, a reprobate sinner, that surprises me with the joy of knowing His grace and mercy. For which I paid NOTHING.
Nevertheless, the terminology seems to cloud the intent of the text for many, in my view. Suffering and sacrifice of His flesh, and by extension our flesh, is our “price” for rebellion I suppose.
But the terms “price, ransom, debt” etc, presupposes something required of us, to deserve the grace.
A " cost " many seem to place on their " neighbors "
I would agree that the text you referenced is probably the best defense for the doctrine. One could add Romans 3:23, Galatians 3:13, Corinthians 5:21, or 1 Peter 2:24.
But Im not here to rehash the centuries old debates.
Correct, this thread is about Knowing God’s Holiness.
J.