Debate: Matt Slick vs Jesse Morrell, The nature and extent of the atonement

Debate Format and Technical Setup

Two minutes and 13 seconds. We're gonna miss it by one whole second of totality. See the cats? I keep them out of the office here because they get behind me. I'll be debating, teaching, they start coming up and they, you know, they're super friendly.

And I'm calling one of the cats Mr. Needy because he always needs to be petted. They're huge too. I could get our big cat and bring him in here. He's like 20, 25 pounds. You can travel down to Cascade.

Okay, cool. No, no, no. The duration, two minutes and 12 seconds is how long the total eclipse will be where we are. Textual plus, what is that? Gotta look that up now. T-O-X-O-P-L-A-S. Hey! There you are.

Hi, thank you.

Okay, yeah, so I think Safari was my problem the whole time. Getting Google Chrome fixed that.

So, actually he told me that at the beginning. That's what I said at the beginning, but oh well.

All right, good. Well, I've never done a Google Hangout before so I guess I'm late to this party.

That's all right. Not a big deal. We're just blabbing and stuff like that so you can hear me. Okay, right?

Yeah. Okay. Where do you see comments and people?

If you wanna see what people are saying, let me give you the link to that. And it'll be in the text here. Oh, it's already right there. I'll redo it. And you can put it in another browser. Yeah. In the right.

Do you see the text on the right? Yeah, there it is. Okay. I need to use the restroom. It's been an hour since we've been. Yeah, go ahead. Be back in a sec. But then we can go over the format really fast.

I'll be right back.

I don't know if you can see the chat, Jesse, but that's basically the outline. I just posted in there for you.

Yeah, this is the chat that's on the YouTube video?

No, the chat on the Google Hangouts. You should have a little chat icon. Okay. There you go. Perfect. Well, at least we're glad you're here anyway. It proves that you're obviously predestined to be here.

Yeah, I guess we were predestined to have problems.

Well, it is granted to you to suffer.

Yeah, well, a little bit of perseverance, free will got me through it.

Yeah, I think we saw where your free will got.

Okay, I've just posted the link on my Facebook. See if some people join. Did you post the?

I posted the YouTube link. Yeah, okay, that's good. We're just gonna keep this between you and Matt so no one interferes.

So it's about 8 .54 here. Okay.

We can get started whenever. So let me go over a couple of things. Sai, you're gonna have admin. So if you go into the chat area of where people watch, let's say someone is becoming insulting for whatever reason, just, you know, they're being a troll.

You can right mouse click on their name and boot them or just put your mouse over to the right. You should be able to just get rid of them. You can click something and hit report, remove, you know, various things.

So that's it. On YouTube? Yeah, you can do it. Yeah, it's, I believe you can since you have the access. We should have gone over this earlier. Not in this room that all three of us are in, but in the live viewing one.

To the right. Okay, so you see the three dots that are next to people's names. You put your mouse over and you'll see that.

It just says go to channel and report. That's all you have? Yeah.

Type something in the room. And let me get your name and see if I can give you admin, whatever. Oh, Charlie's in there. He's got it. Okay, no sweat. Charlie will watch it. Okay. Okay, good. So I think I made you a moderator in there too, but Charlie's fine.

He's good. He'll just watch it. All right, so what we're talking about is a five minute opening. You're supposed to go first, Jesse, and I'm not a legalist. So five minutes, seven minutes, eight minutes, whatever.

And I may go equally or not or whatever. And then we're talking about three questions each. And that's the only thing to really talk about. Say you ask me a question, I can respond for three minutes. Do you want to be able to respond to that for one?

That's a lot of debates are done like that. And then I can't respond to you after that. It's the next question. And then when I ask you a question, you can respond for three minutes and then I can respond for one.

Then we go to the next question. And then that's just one way to do it. And then we can just have an open discussion for say a half hour. We just go back and forth and we're both polite enough to be able to have a discussion and it can be moderated by what's his name there?

Sai, sorry. And then five-ish minutes just close-ish. What do you think? I think that's perfect. Might be fine. Okay. And also because I'm able to do this, mute myself and I have a speech recognition program.

So if you see me talking while you're talking, it is not to distract you. It's because I use a speech program. I've typed so many words over the years that I have carpal tunnel a little bit. So Taking notes, yeah.

That's what I do. So it's not meant to distract you or anything like that. It's just what I do. Okay?

Perfect. Just give me a second here and I think I'll be ready. Okay, no rush.

And what I'll do is, if you don't mind, I'd like to open up in prayer or have Sai open up in prayer, if that's okay. Yeah, that'd be good. You wanna do that, Sai? Yep, sure. Okay, when he's ready and we'll just jump in.

As long as you don't mind, I'll be saying it in English. That's good, the King's English? That's right. Okay. So, Lord, we just thank you for this, Lord. And we thank you for the perseverance and Steven getting Jesse through the technical difficulties, Lord, that we can come together, discuss your word.

Lord, we just ask that you open our minds, let our hearts be soft enough to be penetrated by the word of God. And let's put aside our attitudes, our personalities, Lord, and let's just bless this conversation, Lord, so that we can just be all blessed by it in your name, Jesus.

Amen.

All right, and so the topic is, of course, the nature and the extent of the atonement.

Are you wanting me to interject when your time's up?

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement

Yeah, if you wanna just say five minutes and we're still going, don't worry about it. We'll just kind of close. Maybe you can just type in there how many minutes or just say at a breath, just say at six minutes, and we'll just kind of wrap it up, all right?

I'm pretty casual about stuff, it doesn't matter to me.

Yeah, yep, all right, so get started. Okay. All right, well, let me start by explaining my history with the atonement and my understanding of the nature and extent. When I first got saved and started to read the Bible, I would read passages about Jesus tasting death for every man and Christ dying for all.

He's the savior of all men, especially them that believe. But I also understood, according to the Bible, that people went to hell. And so I understood that the atonement was unlimited for every man, but it was not unconditionally saving.

However, I picked up different cliches, mainly from the influence of Ray Comfort and other people, like you broke the law and Jesus paid your fine, or Jesus satisfied the wrath of God, Jesus paid your debt, and those sort of things.

And I would go out onto the streets and I would witness to people, and I would tell them, you broke the law, and I would take them through the law and they would get concerned. And I'd say, but here's the good news, Jesus paid your fine.

And then the guy would say, this was a guy in New Haven, he said, well, if Jesus paid my fine, then I'm good. I said, no, you have to believe and you have to repent in order to be saved. He said, well, why do I have to do that?

If Jesus paid my fine, then it's already done, I'm good. I said, yeah, well, Jesus did pay your fine, but if you don't believe that he paid your fine, then you're gonna have to pay your own fine. And he said, well, that doesn't make any sense.

And I knew in my heart, no, it didn't make any sense. And so I was challenged, but that was the best I had at the time. So I was challenged to reconsider my atonement view. How could it be that this guy out on the street needs to repent and believe the gospel if the nature of the atonement is what I presented as Jesus paying his fine?

Because his fine would be paid whether he believes it or not, whether he repents or not, it's already, like he said, a done deal. So I started to really examine what the Bible has to say about the atonement.

So when it comes to the nature and the extent of the atonement, you also have to deal with the necessity for the atonement. Why did Jesus have to die? In the penal view, all you're told is, well, God is holy and he must punish sin.

And therefore someone has to be punished. And if you're not gonna be punished, then Jesus needs to be punished. And it's just what I think a very shallow perspective of God's government and the punishment of sin.

And so my understanding of the atonement starts with an understanding of the moral government of God, that the Bible says that God has a moral government, that Jesus is the head of, it says the government shall be upon his shoulder, and that Jesus is a governor.

And governor, he gave laws, the 10 commandments that we are obligated to obey. And with law, there must be penalty. God executes the penalty of the law for the purpose of deterring other people from transgressing it.

The Bible says in Ecclesiastes, that if punishment is not swiftly executed, then the hearts of men are fully set within them to do evil. And the Bible says that God punishes people like Sodom and Gomorrah to be an example onto others.

So penalty is necessary to express the character of God to deter other people from following in the bad example. The problem is that forgiveness in its very nature is the non-punishment of sin. In other words, when the Bible talks about the forgiveness of sin, it means that sin is not being punished.

The problem with that is that the purpose of penalty is then being unfulfilled, that if penalty discourages crime, then the non-execution of penalty would encourage crime. And that's a governmental problem.

And you see that with Darius and Daniel. Why did Darius put Daniel in the lion's den? Not for any personal reasons, but for governmental reasons. The same thing with Queen Vashti and the King of Persia.

He had to put away his wife, not for personal reasons, but for governmental reasons. So there's a governmental problem in the forgiveness of sins. Now, on a biblical understanding, God does not punish sin for personal pleasure.

The Bible says God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they would turn and live. But God is under an obligation to uphold his law by justice. So the atonement is necessary to make a way for God to be just without punishing our sin.

Because when he forgives us, he's setting aside our punishment. Now, in the penal view, which I used to believe, people say, well, Jesus took our punishment. Well, I never understood that because the punishment we deserve is eternal hell.

The Bible says they shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. And when people would look at the cross and say, oh, that should have been me on the cross, or he took my place on the cross.

I never understood that because God never threatened us with crucifixion. God threatened us with eternal hell. Is that five minutes? All right, let me wrap this up. So with this understanding that Jesus took our place on the cross, he took our cross, I was always confused.

Well, the way I understand the atonement now is that the atonement substitutes our penalty. It's not a substitution in penalty, otherwise Christ would have to go to hell forever, but it was a substitute for penalty.

In other words, God accepts the suffering of Christ instead of our damnation, that he died for our sin. He died as our substitute, but it's a deeper substitution than just a substitute in penalty. It's a substitution for penalty altogether.

And when penalty is substituted by an atonement, then penalty itself can be remitted. And so there's a real forgiveness of sin that the penalty our sins deserve is actually being remitted by the mercy of God.

So the Bible says Jesus paid our ransom. It doesn't say he paid our debt. It says he paid our ransom. And now our debt itself can be pardoned. Our debt can be forgiven. Our penalty can be remitted. Our debt can be canceled.

So to sum it up in one sentence, an atonement is a governmental substitution for the penalty of the law that renders the penalty of the law remissible so that God can be just, even though he allows our sins to go unpunished in the forgiveness of sins.

That five minutes went by fast. Matt? I was gonna say, if you wanna go longer, I mean, if you need longer. Seriously, don't bother me. No, I mean, I don't wanna take too long. I can talk for hours on the atonement, but.

Well, can I ask you a clarifying question then? I mean, I know it's only to accurately represent what you said. Yes. That's all. Atonement is governmental substitution for the law that renders the law.

For penalty. It's a governmental substitution for penalty, the penalty of the law. Oh man, I wanted to get that right because I wanted to represent you properly when I commented on it.

This is what I have. I put that in a text. I know this is not part of our debate. I'm only trying to represent you. If you wanna correct that, that's fine. If not, I'll just go on without it because that's not, I mean, if you wanna ask me clarifying questions later too, that's fine.

Just to understand, because you said, well, anyway, let me go on. Let me just start. Okay, here we go. Sorry. My bad. I agree with you that God does not punish a person for his personal pleasure. I also agree that God is under obligation to uphold his law.

He must uphold his law. There is no law that is not a law without a punishment. All laws have punishments. If God does not execute the punished, I mean, the person who breaks the law, then God himself is not holy.

God himself is not right. God himself is not just. So he must execute his judgment upon the law breaker. Sin is not the thing punished because sin is an abstraction. It's just something we do in our heart.

And he doesn't punish that abstraction. He punishes the person who commits that sin. And if I were to lie, then I've incurred a punishment. But the thing is, Jesus himself equated sin with legal debt.

And he did this, our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. In Matthew 6, 12, he said, forgive us our debts. In Luke 11, 4, the parallel, he said, forgive us our sins.

Jesus equated sin with legal debt. And why did he do that? He did that because sin is breaking the law of God. First John 3, 4. Sin is the transgression of the law. If we break the law, there's a penalty upon us.

It's a necessary penalty upon us if we break the law. If God does not punish the law breaker, then God is unrighteous. So we have a problem. We have a debt. That's why the Bible says, Jesus says he equates sin with debt.

Now we know that he canceled the debt because it says in Colossians 2, 14, that he canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, which was hostile to us. He took it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The word there in Greek, certificate of debt, is a single Greek word, kerographon, and it only occurs right there. And what that word means is, is a legal handwritten IOU of indebtedness. It's a document that when you write it, when you are there with it, and you sign your name on it, so to speak, you are now legally indebted.

And that's the word that is used. And it's, Paul used it and said, Jesus canceled out this written, this handwritten legal document of indebtedness. That's what he said. He used that word. So it says, Jesus, in verse 13 of Colossians 2, canceled, or he forgave us all of our sins.

In Colossians 2, 14, having canceled out the certificate of debt. Jesus equates sin with debt. And Paul says, Jesus, excuse me, canceled the certificate of debt. He removed it. He got rid of it. Now, a lot of people don't know this, but in John 19, 30, Jesus said on the cross, it is finished.

That word, in three words, it is finished is a single Greek word, tetelestai. That word has been found in the bottom of ancient tax receipts, signifying a legal debt that has been paid in full. Why is this important?

Well, this is why. The sufficiency of Christ's blood and the extent of the legal activist sacrifice are not the same thing. Christ's blood is sufficient to cover all people. That's not a problem. But the sufficiency relates to the ability and the value, which is different than the legal debt.

Sin is a legal debt. I've already gone over that in Matthew 6, 12 and Luke 11, 4. Since it's breaking the law of God, 1 John 3, 4. Legal debts can be transferred. That's the action. That's the thing we need to understand.

A legal debt can be transferred. That's why it says he bore our sins in his body on the cross, 1 Peter 2, 24. The only way that's possible is if the legal debt was transferred to him. He bore our sin in his body on the cross.

That's not possible unless sin is a legal problem, not only a legal problem. If it's a legal problem and a legal debt, as Jesus equates sin with debt, Paul equates him canceling the certificate of debt, and sin is a legal debt that's transferred.

It's transferred to Jesus on the cross, 1 Peter 2, 24. Since he bore, since I'm a Calvinist, I only believe he bore the sin of the elect, which answers the objection that your friend witnessing to had, and there's ways to answer him.

But nevertheless, it says legal debts can be transferred, and people's sins were transferred to Jesus. He bore our sin in his body on the cross. Their sin debt was canceled at the cross, not when we believe.

That's critical, Colossians 2, 14. He canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees, which was hostile to us. He took it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. What's going on there is that Paul the Apostle says, Jesus canceled the sin debt at the cross.

It's canceled. If it's canceled, it can't exist anymore. If it's canceled, if it's blotted out, if it's removed, there is no way anybody could be held responsible for sin debt that doesn't exist. This is why it necessitates limited atonement, because we're talking about the nature and the extent of the atonement.

And it necessitates this because of Matthew 25, 46, and Mark 3, 29, people go to hell. We know that. You can't go to hell if your sin debt is canceled. You can't go to hell if your sin debt doesn't exist.

Remember, Jesus equated sin with debt in our father prayer, Matthew 6, 12, Luke 11, 4. Paul says our legal debt was canceled at the cross. It's not canceled when you believe, it's canceled at the cross.

I'll tell you what happens when we believe. So our justification is different than Christ's atonement, because the atonement occurred at the cross. The debt is canceled at the cross, but we're justified when we believe.

Justification is the legal standing with God according to the law. Justification means that we have been declared righteous. Now, here's the key. In Philippians 3, 9, it says this, that we have a righteousness that's not our own.

In moral government theology, the righteousness that you have, and as you've said, and I got a lot of quotes from you in your book, you actually maintain your salvation through your efforts, through what you do.

Your sincerity, your ability, you keep your salvation by what you do. That means it has to be kept according to the law. Now, Paul says in Romans 3, 28, we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Romans 4, 5, for the one who does not work but believes, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. We receive the righteousness of God by faith. Romans 3, 28, Romans 5, 1, but Philippians 3, 9 says, we have a righteousness that's not our own.

How is it that we have a righteousness that's not our own? It has to be someone else's. It's the righteousness of God. It's the righteousness of Christ. He kept the law perfectly. He never sinned, 1 Peter 2, 22.

Then he bore our sin. This is what happens. Jesus on the cross, we're here. When we believe, well, when we believe what happened, so to speak, not the best analogy, his righteousness becomes ours. Our sin is already his, but that's when we recognize its removal.

So Christ canceled the sin debt at the cross before we were alive. He took our place as Isaiah 53, 4 -6 says. He bore our stripes. He bore our penalty. That's what it says in Isaiah 53. This is substitutionary.

What else I've been telling you is penal. The law, it's legal. The nature of sin is breaking the law. Our sin debt is transferred to Christ. He bore our sin, et cetera. This is all legal. Hence the penal, legal, that's penal, the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ.

This is the scriptural view. So logically, Christ only legally bore our sins, the sins of the elect, even though his, excuse me, his blood's sufficient for everybody. Otherwise we would have universalism, which can't be true.

Time.

Okay. Perfect. I'll quit at five. I'm just thinking in the name of fairness, let's keep to the same time for both of you guys. Good, got it.

Let's see. Can you hear me? Yes. I mean, unless you have like a few more important things you need to clarify or anything. No, it's no biggie. Okay.

Okay, so now, You wanna ask me three questions or you wanna do one each?

Whatever you want. Well, I'll ask you three questions one at a time.

Okay. And then I'll ask you three questions one at a time. And which means you ask me a question, I get three minutes to respond. You get one minute to respond to that. Then we just go to the next question, then we reverse it.

Penal Substitution, Debt, and Forgiveness

Okay. Do we deserve the punishment of eternal hell for our sins?

Yes, we deserve the punishment of eternal hell for our sins.

Okay. Well, how can it be said Jesus took our punishment if our punishment is eternal hell?

It didn't say our punishment is, you said, do we deserve it? And there's a difference between deserving it and what it is. But nevertheless, since Jesus has two natures, both divine and human, he's God in flesh.

Therefore, the sacrifice that he offered is of infinite value. And since he's of infinite value, therefore, when he died on the cross, that he paid the infinite debt, which is equivalent, so to speak,.

To our infinite time in hell. But so you would say it's equivalent, not identical.

Well, yeah, because how do we have equivalence and identicalness? Because we can get into the idea of X as Y. And if all the attributes of X are equal to all the attributes of Y, then X is the same as Y.

It's equal to Y. They're the same thing. But what we have here is Jesus being divine. He offered us a divine sacrifice. God, by definition, is of infinite value. Our sin is against the infinitely holy God.

Therefore, it incurs an infinite penalty. This is why when Jesus bore the sins for the elect and our sin would transfer to him legally on the cross, he paid the penalty. Bam, we're done. No problem. But the rest of mankind who doesn't have that covering, they go to hell forever.

That's what's necessary. I have, I mean, I can't, I'm just asking you questions, right? I'm not supposed to It's already three, but technically,.

But go ahead and ask more questions. It's all right. Well, that last one. It's all right, no big deal. For clarification. That's fine. So you would say that the elect are born with their debt already paid?

Yes. But not saved yet? Correct. Okay, and it would be, if it's unjust for God to damn those that Jesus died for, are they not saved then by justice instead of by grace?

I apologize. I'm having trouble understanding your question. No, I'm not kidding. I'm having trouble understanding your question. Can you say it again? I'm gonna repeat it to my speech program so I can read it.

Okay?

If unjust It's unjust. For God to punish those that Jesus died for. Jesus died for. Are they then not saved by justice instead of freely by his grace?

Saved by justice, not freely by his grace. It would be unjust to punish them. You're saying it's unjust for God to punish those that Jesus died for.

Yeah, because that would be a double jeopardy, right? Of course.

I agree with you. It would be unjust if he died for and bore the sin of everybody who ever lived. Then it would be unjust.

Right, so those who are saved after the atonement are saved by justice. The ones who are saved,.

The ones who are saved, oh, no, no, no. I don't think you understand the difference between justice, mercy, and grace. Justice is getting what we deserve. Mercy is not getting what we deserve. And grace is getting what we don't deserve in a good way.

So what happens is God imputed to Jesus at 2 ,000 years ago, the sin of the elect, the ones given to him by the father, John 6, 38 through 40. Their sin debt was canceled at the cross, which is what Colossians 2, 14 tells us.

Then when we are later on, when we're born, my sin debt was already canceled, but I'm not justified until I believe. So we're born elect. Jesus paid for our sin debt back then. And then when we believe, that's when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.

Okay, it's only for the elect. Right. That's my position.

I'm not gonna, I have tons of questions, but I know we're supposed to ask three, so you can ask me some.

Okay, and then we'll probably just go back and forth, do the same thing again here a little bit. That's okay. All right, so Colossians 2, 14. If you want me to paste it in, I can, or I can quote it to you again.

Probably if I paste it in, it might be better. Because the question I'm gonna ask you is this. What exactly did Jesus cancel on the cross according to Colossians 2, 14? And there it is in the text chat on the right.

Whatever version you wanna use, but there it is. What's the exactly, excuse me. What exactly did Jesus cancel on the cross according to Colossians 2, 14? Look it up here. That's okay, no rush.

Yeah, well, the King James says, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. I've always read that verse in understanding that it's talking about the old covenant, the Old Testament that was full of handwriting ordinances that now under the new covenant we're not under an obligation to.

I don't understand that as saying that our debt was forgiven when Christ died at Calvary, especially since we're supposed to pray after the cross. Jesus taught us to pray, father, forgive us our debt.

Well, you can't pray forgive us our debt if that debt's already been paid. So I've always taken Colossians 2, 14 to be in reference to the ordinances of the old covenant that we are no longer under an obligation to, that are no longer part of the covenant that has been done away with or fulfilled through Christ.

But when I, my belief is that your debt is not forgiven. Faith, that justification by faith means you're not forgiven, your debt is not pardoned until you have faith. Your debt was made forgivable through the cross that God can forgive your debt and be true to the obligations he has to justice because of Calvary.

But the actual pardon of that debt is not extended until you are converted. That's justification by faith.

Well, let me respond to that. If you wanna say that the certificate of debt or blatant handwriting of ordinances refers to the law, then you have a problem. Because if the law is canceled, there can be no sin because the Bible clearly tells us in Romans 3, 4, and 5, where there is no law, there is no sin, where there is no law, there is no imputation.

So

I'm not talking about the moral law, I'm talking about like the dietary laws, that these different ordinances, I'm not talking about the commandments,.

I'm talking about ordinances. Well, hold on, it's my minute. And so if you're gonna be saying that, you got a problem, because then it would mean, and you can't distinguish because if you're gonna distinguish like that and say it means only certain parts but not the whole part, that's not what's going on.

The ordinances says, the handwriting of ordinances consisting of laws and decrees, and the word in Greek is dogma, which has to do with all doctrines and official legal documents. This has to do with the issue of the law and forgiveness of sins in Colossians 2, 13, which is the issue there.

So he's talking about blotting out the transgressions, blotting out the sins, and did that at the cross. If you wanna say it's the law that is blotted out, then how can the law be blotted out? Because the law is blotted out and canceled, nobody can go to hell because without the law, there is no sin.

Either way, you got a problem. Yeah, I didn't realize we could respond after each question was answered. I didn't respond to any of your answers. I wanted to, but I held back.

Well, we're gonna have a discussion. It was supposed to be, yeah, well, that's just oversight. Okay, I said it, but I think you just forgot. No big deal, it happens in debates, all right, that you have the minute response.

So, and I forgot to tell you that too, even though I did say it earlier, I forgot to remind you.

But Yeah, I didn't get to follow up on that, so.

And moderators could do that. That's a moderator's job, Cy.

Well, I've only got half the information, Matt. That's all right, okay.

All right, well, you know, Jesse, even though we disagree, I know you're a nice enough guy to know that we're just working through it, all right? Well, how about this? I'll put the question right in the text.

If sin is not a legal debt, then why did Jesus equate them together? You know, our Father, who art in heaven. In Matthew 6, 12, forgive us our debts. Matthew 11, 4, forgive us our sins. Again, if sin is not a legal debt, then why did Jesus equate them together?

Sin, Debt, and Colossians 2:14

Yeah, sin is a legal debt. When you owe obligation to God, and then when we're obligated to obey him, to love him, when we disobey, we're incurring a debt because we're not fulfilling our obligations.

And then there's also, we not only incur a debt because we disobeyed, we've also incurred the penalty of the law. My view is that the Bible says that our debt is forgiven, or like you say, canceled. And that, you know, contradicts the idea that our debt was quote-unquote paid.

Because if a debt is paid, then it's not being forgiven. If you have a mortgage on your house, and you can't pay your mortgage, it's more than you can pay, so your friend Jesus goes to the bank and pays off your mortgage for you, then the banker can't call you up and say, hey, you know, your friend paid your mortgage for you, so now we're gonna forgive you your debt.

Well, if he paid it all, there's nothing left over to be forgiven. Forgiveness implies that the debt is still there. If the debt's been paid, then there's nothing left over to be forgiven. And that's why there's Calvinists, like, you know, Jonathan Edwards Jr., who rejected the Jesus paid your debt analogy, because debt in the scriptures is never used to illustrate the nature of the atonement.

It's only used to illustrate the nature of forgiveness. The Bible says, Father, forgive us our debt, or it says, he frankly forgave them their debt, or the man in Matthew 18, the unforgiving man had his debt forgiven.

And so the debt analogy sends scriptures to illustrate the nature of forgiveness. So I don't deny that there's a correlation between sin and debt. I simply believe that the atonement, as a substitute for penalty, makes it possible for God to forgive our unpaid debt.

This is how Jonathan Edwards Jr. said it. He said, if a third person pay a debt, there would be no grace exercised by the creditor in the discharging of the debtor. Yet when a third person atones for a crime by suffering in the stead of a criminal, then there's entire grace in the discharge of the criminal.

And retributive justice still allows him to be punished. He said, if our forgiveness be purchased and the price of it be already paid, it seems to be a matter of debt and then not of grace. And so my position is simple.

Jesus paid our ransom and he forgave our debt. Ransom and debt are not the same thing. The payment of the ransom made possible the pardon of the debt.