The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part 3)
“Redemption is that priestly work of Christ wherein He delivered us from our bondage to the Law, Sin and Satan through purchase by the ransom of His substitutionary obedience in life and death.”[6] Scripture tells us that that redemption is the reason Christ came to the earth (Matthew 20:28). Jesus gave his life as a ransom to God in order to grant us freedom. Dr. Robert Morey explains that “Christ did not pay a ransom to Satan as some medieval theologians thought. But, rather, Christ’s ransom was paid to God to remove sin for it is by sin that Satan holds us captive. By removing our sins through the death of Christ, God delivered us from the power of darkness.”[7] We are indeed set free from the bondage of sin for we read in Titus 2:14 that Jesus is the one “who gave Himself up for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed.” The work of Christ brought sinful men out of slavery and purchased them freedom by which they can rejoice.
Thus far we have discussed how Christ appeased Gods wrath as well as reconciling us to God. These two aspects of the atonement bring the believer true peace with God. Redemption follows bringing freedom to the elect. The final aspect of the nature of the atonement is expiation or payment that is made for sinners. Payment is discussed last not for any reason of the value or the order of application in the atonement because the whole work of Christ is equally valuable and comprehensive. The first three aspects of the atonement implicate a payment or cleansing however expiation is much more specific in that it implies the substitutionary act of Christ’s removal of our sin and guilt. We are actually viewed as being innocent before the Lord on the basis of Christ work on the cross. It is true that the subjective reality of justification or legal innocence before the Lord doesn’t happen until a profession of faith; however, no one could be justified without the work of Christ. It is also important to understand that even faith is a sovereign gift of God and all necessary applications of salvation was purchased on the cross (Ephesians 2:8). Therefore, I can say that through the atonement Christ made a complete sacrifice for the elect that secures their election, regeneration, faith, repentance, sanctification and glorification (Hebrews 9:12; Ephesians 2:8; Galatians 3:13;). Arthur Pink very graciously points out that the reason we can have remission and confidence that our sin was washed clean is on the basis of the atonement.[8] Our high Priest Jesus Christ has made a perfect and definite atonement for His sheep.
Now that the nature of the atonement has been discussed the extent of the atonement will be the topic for the remainder of the paper. When discussing the topic about those whom Christ died there are many differing views that are held. For the sake of brevity and personal interests I am only going to compare the five point Calvinists view of the extent of the atonement to the modified or four point Calvinist position. Either Christ died for the whole world (unlimited atonement) without exception, or He died for only the elect (limit atonement) who were chosen by the Father. The historic Calvinist position teaches that Christ died a substitutionary death for those who were unconditionally elected by God the Father in order to give them free mercy and grace. The elect are the objects of His mercy; therefore the death of Christ was the sacrifice made for the elect alone. The modified Calvinist position on the extent of the atonement is that Christ died for the whole world yet His death is only applied to the elect on the condition of faith. We now turn to an exegetical and theological discussion about the passages and arguments that each camp uses to defend their position.
6. Morey, Robert. Studies in the Atonement. P. 35
7. Ibid
8. Pink, Arthur, W. The Satisfaction of Christ. P. 105
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Danny,
It’s been great to read through your paper here at Biblical Thought. I’m glad you included that bit about the Ransom to Satan Theory, which is not something that has been relegated to the Patristic or Medieval period. In fact, C. S. Lewis held to a Ransom to Satan theory of the atonement–which can be seen clearly in his book The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Aslan dies to ransom Edmund back from the Witch. Aslan is the Christ figure, Edmund represents sinful humanity, and lastly the Witch represents Satan to which payment was made. This idea is clearly unbiblical, for the ransom was not paid to Satan, but to God the Father. Satan is not God’s equal nor is God obligated to pay him anything but judgment. Satan does not have a legal right over mankind, but only the power to accuse us before the Father and tempt us to disobey God (Satan has other powers with respect to this world, but his every step must be granted). Once Christ dealt with our sin on the cross, Satan’s accusations have no more power over the believer, because we’ve been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, forgiven, and justified. Praise God! God is no longer at enmity with the believer, because we’ve been reconciled by the penal substitutionary atonement. We are no longer children of wrath, but of adoption. That’s good news! Thus victory over Satan, sin, and death has been accomplished by the Penal Substitutionary atonement of Christ.
Perhaps a more appropriate title would be The Liar, the Lamb, and the Cross.
The theories of PSA, substitutionary atonement or any explanation of Jesus’ crucifixion that has the base assumptive “in place of” are errors. These type theories conclude that a direct benefit of esacping the penalty of law(s) and God’s wrath is obtainable by a human male’s death caused by bloodshed. D. Pelichowski’s above expressed thought also shows an expeted corporate benefit from Jesus’ crucifixion by assuming that the pronouns, we ,us, ours, ect. in the NT text are unilateral. This conjecture is also an error. One other obvious error in Pelichowski’s thought is assuming a unilateral “innocent before the Lord”.
To the contrary of Pelichowski’s position(s) are four counters of direct quotes made by God.
1. God clearly states in Gen 9:5 NIV that there cannot be any direct benefit for an individual or corporate group by sacrificing any male human in your place provided that male human’s life is lost by bloodshed.
2. Jn.16:8 quotes God stating that the factor AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion is unilateral guilt relative to sin rather than unilateral innocence.
3. The parable of the Tenants quotes that the mind set of God is intent on killing all participants relative to his son’s life having been taken by bloodshed.
4. God has prepared a table before Jesus in the presence of his enemies.
Comment?
Theodore A. Jones,
Hello, and welcome to this discussion.
I have a couple remarks and a few questions.
You said: “The theories of PSA, substitutionary atonement or any explanation of Jesus’ crucifixion that has the base assumptive “in place of” are errors.”
I’m not sure if you are committed to the principle of sola scriptura, but since the Greek text explicitly states the terms in “in place of” language, then on the basis of Scripture the only errors would be those positions that deny it. How do you reach the conclusion that “the base assumptive ‘in place of’ is an error? Which position do you offer as the correct one? Please write out the argument clearly.
You also said: “D. Pelichowski’s above expressed thought also shows an expeted [I presume this is a typo] corporate benefit from Jesus’ crucifixion by assuming that the pronouns, we ,us, ours, ect. in the NT text are unilateral. This conjecture is also an error.”
Is then the only other option multilateral? Please provide an exegesis of a couple of these texts so I can examine your conclusion.
This may be a good opportunity for you to learn. Based on the hermeneutical principles you must have employed in order to interpret the verses in #’s 1-4, it is clear that you could benefit tremendously from learning how to interpret Scripture correctly.
Please answer my questions and provide the work I’ve requested of you and we will take this discussion to the next level!
At this point I will not assume you to be a Christian unless you state otherwise.
Thanks for the compliment that I do not know how to interpret the scriptures but I rather believe, since it is the measure you have used for judgment of me, things are the other way and the call is of yourself.
That “in place of” is an error to explain the reason for Jesus’ crucifixion, having been stated once, and supportive documentation given, down the path of redundancy we travel. Those gifted with sight can see what is in plain sight. However those blinded by hermeneutical principles cause the factual result of “only a FEW find it.” So congratulations. And I stipulate that it is an opportunity to learn, but from me.
All scripture is constructed as a reproof. For a few it corrects them and they learn from it what is the right Way.
1. Gen. 9:5 a, b, c NIV overrules the conjecture of “in place of.” Any human male’s life lost by bloodshed has the residual fact of accountability directly to God. There are no exceptions and this rule is law and constant. But c clarifies God’s sole purpose for EACH man and this purpose is a requirement of EACH.
For according to the set purpose of God for EACH man to meet the requirement of God, to give account, the crucifixion of Jesus is the sin of murder caused by bloodshed. And upon this base fact a change was made to the law of God AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion. An addition of one word has been added. Therefore the rule of law Repent, the Lord’s command given through the apostles at Pentecost, can only be obeyed by one Way of faith. This command can only be obeyed by confessing directly to God that you are sorry Jesus was crucified and be baptized in water for the forgiveness of all sins. Since this is the law a willful disobedience occurs upon hearing, or reading in this case, which is unforgivable. This is the only perfected small narrow gate/door into the kingdom of God and there is no other provision for a man to escape from the wrath of God. Few find it.
As to the complaint regarding NT pronouns. The NT texts are a group of letters from an individual(s) to a group or individual who have been united by the above system of faith. The plural pronouns in the NT are confined to those personages. They are not unilaterally inclusive to any other group or personage.
Regarding your closing assumptive isn’t it also a judgment of yourself? Look foward to round two.
(expected is the corrected typo)
Theodore A. Jones,
You said: “Thanks for the compliment that I do not know how to interpret the scriptures but I rather believe, since it is the measure you have used for judgment of me, things are the other way and the call is of yourself.”
Well it is now becoming clearer that a) you do not know how to interpret the Scriptures correctly, and b) that your logic is severely flawed to the point of irrationality (perhaps emotionally biased). For example, if a father sets out to teach his 5-year old daughter how to ride a bicycle, according to your logic the father does not know how to ride a bicycle (since he judged that she did not know how to ride and that he could teach her). Now, it may in fact be the case that he does not know how ride a bicycle, but your logic eliminates any other conclusion (e.g. that he desired to teach her out of love, that he was an expert cyclist, etc.). I have noted that you do not know how to interpret the Scriptures correctly. You have taken my judgment, and rather than considering it as true or false, you have deduced that it necessarily follows that my judgment of your inability is actually my judgment of my own! This illogical “thought” process should first be cured prior to any further discussion of the text of Scripture, but I will proceed in order to demonstrate how it affects your interpretation and to give you an opportunity to exonerate yourself from this charge.
Here is some proof that you do not know how to interpret the Scriptures correctly and that your logic is poor:
1. Gen. 9:5 a, b, c NIV overrules the conjecture of “in place of.”
The Atonement is not the subject discussed in Gen. 9 and therefore to use it as a controlling text for atonement-theology is a hermeneutical fallacy. The many primary didactic passages that explicitly mention the death of Jesus should be given priority over any other passages. You have failed to do so.
And thus your strange soteriology that is foreign (strange) to the text as well as history.
You are arguing for the following:
a. That God, according to Gen. 9:5 requires each man (murderer) to pay the penalty for his murder.
b. That PSA argues that Christ died as a substitute “in place of” particular sinners.
c. That since PSA argues (b), and since (a), that PSA is false.
Perhaps you are new to all this, I don’t know. But regardless, your soteriological assertions are straight-up strange. I am willing to discuss this with you in hope of a resolution, so may you please offer your argument that proposes that salvation is based upon man feeling sorry that Christ was crucified and that water baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins? I will examine your exegesis of the original languages and attempt to give a helpful critique on your logic (reasoning). Please provide your best argument for critique of a., b., & c above, as well as 1., 2., 3., & 4 below.
1. The Lord commands repentance;
2. Repentance is confession to God that you are sorry Jesus was crucified;
3. This confession coupled with water baptism earns the forgiveness of sins.
4. This is the only provision for a man to escape the wrath of God.
Regarding your explanation of the NT pronouns, on the one hand you state that they are not unilateral but on the other you define them as unilateral. What is going on here? It’s my fault for assuming that we both meant the term “unilateral” in the same sense. Please define unilateral (because in a sense I agree with your explanation).
Regarding my “closing assumptive,” which I “assume” is “At this point I will not assume you to be a Christian unless you state otherwise,” since you have not stated otherwise I still hold it.
Thank you for correcting the typo. It is the same word I supplied when reading it.
Isn’t it stated that the correct explanation for the reason Jesus has been crucified is foolishness for the majority? I did not expect you would or could have another response than to find it strange. I fully doubt that there is any possibility for a resolution of any sort. One move on your part toward agreement with what I’ve said and you are done. Your whole house of cards tumbles.
It seems to me that it skipped your notice that no spiritual gift can be obtained by purchase. Ten to one, didn’t you pay for your learned state and have the degrees to prove it? Maybe it also skipped your notice that Paul said your way of going about things is a pile of crap since he had tried the same thing. Regard that there are two trees. One cannot produce any bad fruit and the other can only produce bad fruit. Since only a few find it, the small narrow gate, the majority religious wise is produced by the bad tree. Being that you are so astutely logical run it out.
Dear Theodore,
My comment was that your interpretation was “strange” as in “foreign to the text.” I didn’t say that the true gospel was foolish. The reference to Paul would only apply if the gospel was declared accurately to a reprobate and deemed foolish according to the natural philosophy of man based on human autonomy. But you have failed to declare it accurately and thus it is “strange.” (i.e. foreign – incorrect)
It is obvious that you find my homework assignment to you challenging, which I expected. But given your initial bold presentation of such a strange soteriology I estimated you as one competent to meet that challenge. Since Christians are commanded to give a defense for their belief, and since I have not assumed you thus far to be a Christian, I therefore do not expect for you to willingly provide any sort of defense for your belief. But I will stand in opposition of your false message and refute it with biblical truth in order that I may faithfully contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3)!
It is too bad that your intellectual cowardliness has prevented this discussion from moving to the next level. It seems that the boldness in which you began has evaporated after only a few minor warning-swipes of God’s sword of truth. And as usual, you retract cowardly in disgrace tossing stinging insults from far enough away as you recede back into hiding.
I strive to build strong soldiers for truth in God’s Army that when fully dressed in the whole armor take captive every thought to obey Christ. Part of that training includes the initial putting off of the old, weak self.
If you decide to answer any of my minor challenges to you, feel free to post them here (I get email notifications). Otherwise you can contact me privately using the contact form above (top right).
As I said to you it is your system of interpretation that renders you unable to correctly interpret the scripture. The case your are making is a defense of that system.
Your analysis of Gen. 9:5 by your system is not correct.
The issue is accountability regarding the life of one man taken by bloodshed. True this statement by God does not support you system of salvation but there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood is there? It is not a question of being a murderer for if it were only those present at Jesus’ crucifixion would be accountable. You need to pay close attention to Jesus’ statement in Jn. 16:8.
The word world is an inclusive noun and the issue is unilateral guilt relative to sin AFTER Jesus’ crucifixion. What is your high horse resolution for this?
Get off your high horse. The super apostle is not an unknown quantity. Besides I am busy with a law case but I’ll get back to you.
Dear Theodore A. Jones,
From the perspective of snails, most everything appears to be on a high horse. Your insults only validate the proximity of the ground and say very little to nothing about anything else. But I give you the following exhortation:
Stand up like a man, gird up the loins of your mind, and make some sense!
Discontinue the blind assertions and playground insults and at least try to make a rational argument. It does no good to reply with vacuous language. When you mention “my system of interpretation” and how it renders me incapable of interpreting correctly, you should describe or summarize what you know about my system, what it is, etc., and offer an argument as to why it renders me incapable. Do something!
And in addition to your already past-due homework assignment, please explain to me why John 16:8 was brought up. You seem to be inferring that the passage in some way supports your thesis.
This is John 16:8 – “And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:”
1. It is not even a complete statement, 2. it is contextually dependent, and 3. it refers to the work of the third person of the Trinity and not the second. So you are not even categorically correct. So you must either explain why your interpretative method is correct and why mine is incorrect, or admit that you have erred, concede the point, and move on to the next item of discussion.
I will wait for you to get back to me. Since your “law case” may occupy your time and prevent you from engaging in a rational manner, I will understand if a lengthy delay ensues.
Theodore A. Jones said: “As to the complaint regarding NT pronouns. The NT texts are a group of letters from an individual(s) to a group or individual who have been united by the above system of faith. The plural pronouns in the NT are confined to those personages. They are not unilaterally inclusive to any other group or personage.”
Mr. Jones,
Do you apply your above “strange” interpretive method to all of Scripture? If so, wouldn’t your method rule out all of your biblical arguments for your view of the doctrine of the atonement? Not only are you stuck with a bogus (false, unbiblical, heretical) view of the atonement, your view limits your version of the atonement to those whom it was addressed in Scripture and has no meaning and significance for any of us. So your going to have to convince us on what positive basis you can use Scripture at all in setting up your view of the atonement in place of penal substitutionary atonement.