biblicalthought.com

1. Stephen Macasil

   Hey Danny,

   First, thanks for another good post.

   Second, do you know how (if) Dr. Ware has responded to John Owen’s “double-jeopardy” argument? Here is is:

   “[If Jesus died for all men]…why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But his unbelief, is it sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be sin, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it; If this is so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins.”

   May 25th, 2009

2. Danny Pelichowski

   Stephen,

   Good question. In class Dr. Ware brought this objection up and confidently said that John Owen has a problem with double payment, but Bruce Ware does not think that the problem exists. His answer is found in his necessity of saving faith argument that I will post in full here that is found in his lecture handout on the topic. I will also include some brief notes I took on the topic in class. I also just finished a paper this past semester for Dr. Ware entitled “Was Christ’s death universal or particular, for sin in general or specific?” where I deal with his necessity of saving faith argument pointing out some major oversight that is not found in Dr. Ware’s discussion on the atonement using Dr. Morey’s book on the atonement along with Robert Letham, John Murray, Paul Helm, and Augustine to answer Dr. Ware’s necessity of saving faith argument. Lord willing I will be posting that paper after I am done posting the current paper. Below is Dr. Ware’s necessity of saving faith argument followed by some in class notes.

   Dr. Ware’s lecture handout:

   d. Necessity of saving faith argument. If, as limited atonement proponents say, Christ died actually and certainly to save people (i.e., the elect) and not merely make their salvation possible, then it follows that nothing else is needed for the elect to be saved. They are saved because of the full, perfect and finished work of Christ which actually and certainly saved the elect. But is it not true that the elect are born into this world under the condemnation of God, dead in their sin, and facing the impending wrath of God (e.g., Eph. 2:1-3)? Is not saving faith required for the elect to be saved? If so, how can it be said of the death of Christ in itself that by his death alone he saved those for whom he died? As long as one believes that all people (including the elect) are born into this world with the sin of Adam so that until anyone savingly believes in Christ he or she remains unsaved and under God’s wrath, then we cannot speak correctly of Christ’s death as actually and certainly saving the elect. No, even here, the payment made by his death on behalf of the elect renders their salvation possible while that salvation becomes actual only upon their exercising saving faith. If Christ’s death, then, is a payment for sin that makes possible the salvation of people, which salvation actually occurs only when they savingly believe, then there is no problem saying Christ’s death paid the penalty of the sin of all the people in the whole world, because until any believes, he or she is not saved.

   Class notes:

   3) “Multiple Intentions” View of the Atonement (Four-Point Calvinist View)

   Affirms the TUIP and not the L. There is tremendous scholarly discussion of whether Calvin held to limited atonement at times and then was strongly holding to the L in other points. It argues that God’s intentions are plural and not singular. The debate “what is the intention of God” is limited and not getting the multifaceted aspect of the atonement. Every passage can be just as it is and does not have to be fit into one area. The intention of God is complex not simple. Dr. Ware says that Christ did die for the elect (all the Calvinist proof texts). The second intention is that Christ paid for the penalty of all people to fulfill the purposes that God had. One of those purposes is that when the offer is given it is a bona fide offer because he really paid for them. Another purpose is that Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father. Col 1:20 “all things.” Every passage on both sides can say what it says rather than having the chore of trying to make all that happened on the cross fit one intention. Biblically this position cites all of the passages that the unlimited atonement position cites as well as the Calvinists.

   Answer to the double payment objection: The limited atonement view has the identically same problem because they say that the Christ died for the elect and propitiated Gods wrath not merely making salvation possible but actually saving them. When Paul is born into the world he is under the wrath of God and deserves to go to hell and God is holding Paul to a second payment legally. Ephesians 2 we like them are all children of wrath even as the rest. The elect Paul who was atoned for was once under wrath. How can God justly hold wrath against Paul when his wrath has been satisfied?

   May 26th, 2009

3. a helmet

   I looks like Ware’s view of the atonement resembles pretty well the traditional universal, unlimited atonement view. Regarding “double jeopardy”, I lately wrote an article on John Owen’s double-jeopardy argument. The trilemma which entails the double-jeopardy argument, is mainly based on two errors:

   1) A wrong concept of the nature of the atonement
   2) A disregard of the necessity of Christ’s resurrection and His action of intercession:

   Here is Owen’s syllogism:

   God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” …If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.

   The reasoning here assumes that there is somehow a definite assignment of particular persons’ particular sins to the punishment undergone by Christ on the cross. In other words, this argument assumes an assignment of a “portion of Christ’s suffering” to particular sins which have been committed by particular persons. The phrases “suffered for”, “undergone punishment” and “pain of hell” all refer to a price paid for something. For what? For such-and-such sin of such-and-such individual. So Owen assumes that the atonement can be thought of in terms of such a definite assignment and reckognizes 3 possible variants thereof:

   1) All sins of all men.
   2) All sins of some men.
   3) Some sins of all men.

   Now, the problem is that Owen misrepresents the nature of the atonement, in other words, disregards what the atonement is about. In OT times, an animal was sacrificed for sins. Which sins and whose sins? That depended. Sometimes an animal was slaughtered for the sins of one individual (Lev. 4:1-3), sometimes for several persons (Lev. 16:11), or even the whole people (Lev. 4:14). A bull could carry all sins of the sons of Israel (Lev. 16:16,34). When the animal was slain it didn’t suffer in correspondence to the severity of sins it was atoning for. When the lamb or the bull was killed it didn’t suffer proportionately to the amount of sins it was sacrificed for. That’s absolutely crucial to grasp. The suffering endured by the animal was not in any way dependent on the sins that had been committed and hence, cannot be said to be assignable to any particular sin. Let me explain this further. Suppose the beneficiary (the sinner, who the sacrifice is made for), had broken the Sabbath. Then the animal was slain for the sin of breaking the Sabbath. Suppose the sinner had bowed to an idol. Then the animal would have been slain for the sin of idolatry. Would the animal have suffered more in the latter case? Would it have sufferd less in the first case? No, the suffering (”undergone punishment”) would have been the same. And if the sinner were a Sabbath breaker and an idolater and a cheater? Then the victim’s suffering would be the same also. So the notion that there is some sort of “proportionality” between the suffering of the victim on the one hand and the severity of the sins atoned for on the other hand, is a misleading notion. A sacrificial animal died for sins. Death was the price for sins demanded by the just God. And it was the victim’s value that counted. The victim’s value is decisive regarding the amount of sins it was able to cover. A high value animal could cover more sins than a low value animal. Thus, there are no varying degrees of suffering in the atonement, such that the remission of severe sins demands a higher degree of suffering of the victim. Rather the sacrifice itself, that is the victim’s own value, is decisive.

   Next, the notion that the suffering of the victim is dependent on the number of beneficiaries is misleading, too. As said already, sometimes an animal was sacrificed for the entire people. We know that Jesus Christ was one offering for the whole world. One sacrifice. Not several sacrifices. For all who believe. Now, are we to think that Christ was suffering proportinately to the number of believing individuals? If only half as many humans were elected, would Christ have suffered half as much? Or, if twice as many humans were chosen, would Christ have needed to suffer twice as much? No, and here another fallacy of Owen’s view of the atonement becomes apparent. For Owen’s fails to see whom Christ died for and hence who the beneficiary of the atonement is. Well, who are the recipients of Christ’s sacrifice? Answer: God’s people. Jesus Christ, through His sacrifice, purchased the people of God. That is, he purchased a corporation. An entire union: The Body of Christ, the Sheep, the Fold, the Church, the Bride, the Elect — note, all these are corporate terms, they refer to a unity, to an entirety. Over and over throughout the bible, we encounter the corporate nature of God’s people. Israel, People, Sheep, Elect. It is noteworthy that these are all singular terms, but they mean a set of individuals. Why is this important to note? Because the people of God was purchased with one fixed price. Christ, by His blood, purchased the church, that is, God’s people as a whole. There’s no respecting of individuals here. The people of God was bought by Christ’s blood and this price is independent on the number of individuals belonging to God’s people. If God’s people consisted only of the OT saints plus the 12 apostles, then Jesus Christ would have redeemed by His blood these persons. If the people comprised also the 120 disciples gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost, then all these would be among those purchased by the blood of the lamb. And if God’s people consists of billions of believers, then all these are purchased by Christ’s blood. The penalty for sin is death. And Christ underwent death for all the members of God’s people. And this price is not dependent on the number of individuals belonging to the church.

   Back to Owen’s view of the atonement. The above shows that there is no “proportionality” between the price paid by Christ’s blood and the number of persons in question. The assignment view portrayed by Owen, where such-and-such amount of “Christ’s death” is applied to such-and-such sin of such-and-such individual grossly fails to reckognize the corporate nature of the redeemed. Again, the purchase price paid on the cross can cover all the sins of anyone.

   But who are the members of God’s people? They are those who believe the gospel. And here the question about the role of faith that is raised in the reasoning, can be cleared up. One becomes a member of God’s people by faith and then the High Priest intercedes for the believer which results in the remission of sins. When Christ died, many believers didn’t yet exist and hence, hadn’t committed any sins. At the end of the age, everyone will either be a christian or not and then the identity of the elect is settled.

   If someone never believes the gospel and finally has to account for his sins alone, does this mean that there is a “double payment” situation or does this mean that somehow “Christ’s blood failed”? No! Again, there is a fixed payment for sin in general. The actual removal of sins happens at intercession and intercession is for believers only. If someone doesn’t believe then he must pay the price for his sins himself. Christ didn’t suffer more or less depending on whether such a person believes or not. Hence, the double payment argument that is sometimes endeavored by Limited Atonement advocates, is a straw man argument.

   So this means that Owen’s portrayal of the death of Christ as a definite assignment of a certain “pain of hell” to a specific person’s specific sin, is really fundamentally flawed. Yet till this day it stays a chief argument for Calvinists to sell their heretical doctrines.

   Besides Owen’s disregarding the nature of the atonement, the reformed view of the nature of the atonement has some bizarre implications. As pointed out above, when Christ died for sinners, many of these sinners didn’t exist yet. How did Christ wash away the sin of a 21th century shoplifter anno 30 AD? How meaningful is it to say that Christ forgave sins, that hadn’t been committed yet?

   And how would Christ purchase men, if these didn’t exist? Rather, Christ did make a sacrifice for sins in history, yet this sacrifice is applied to specific sins, in due time. For instance, if the 21th century thief turns to Christ, then Christ’s blood that was shed 30 AD is applied to this thief’s specific sins. If Christ had already respected this particular sin of a person living 2000 years later, then this person would necessarily have to commit this sin, because Christ atoned for it already! Future sins would be necessitated. That’s absurd. And if a sinner turns to Christ in faith, then he is actually purchased by Christ’s blood and becomes His. Christ applies His blood, redeems and purchases those who approach him by faith. Yet we all weren’t born yet when Christ shed his blood. And we weren’t purchased, because we are all born in sin, as children of the world rather than God’s property.
   Furthermore, if Christ actually erased all your sins at Calvary, then you’d have to have been born sinless. Yet everybody is a child of wrath until he in converted. No christian is born as a saint because Christ already took care of his sins on the cross. So the error is the ignorance that Christ’s bearing of sin wasn’t specific to particular sins of a particular individual. Rather it was provisional and universal to be applied in due time to those who believe.

   And if Christ actually removed all the elect’s sins at Calvary, why is it necessary that he lives forever to intercede for them (Hebrews 7:25)? Why intercession if it’s all been done? And why does John say in his first epistle that when we sin we have and advocate, so that Christ’s blood cleanses us from sin (1 John 2:1)? If sins have long before been done away with, what is there left to cleanse? Futhermore, Paul and the Letter to the Hebrews point out the necessity of intercession as the act where sins are actually erased. Without intercession, there’d be no forgiveness. Since intercession is the work of the living Savior, the High Priest, forgiveness is by Christ’s life, not by his death. This is absolutely crucial!
   So what did Christ’s death do? It is comparable to the slaughter of a lamb. In order for this to become a sacrifice to God however, a lamb must be offered on the altar. This is what is meant with intercession. And without intercession, no remission of sins. So Christ’s death alone (without the resurrection) is only like the mere killing of an animal in old times. Animals weren’t only killed for sacrificial purposes, but for consumption also. So there mere killing of an animal doesn’t make a sacrifice. It is the act of offering which makes it a sacrifice. Likewise, Christ’s life allows him to apply his blood for the remission of sins. So without Christ’s life there’d be no remission of sins. Thus, the reformed view of the atonement, doesn’t dignify Christ’s resurrection and intercessory role enough. Following the reformed logic, there’d be complete forgiveness of sins even if Christ hadn’t resurrected at all, simply because “the price was fully paid on the cross”. And this error is also the basis for Owen’s syllogism. Christ the High Priest cleanses those who come to him. Since he is divine and therefore his sacrifice of infinite value, it can cover any sin! So did the sins disappear at the cross? No, Christ made a provision for the forgiveness, and the actual removal of sins is by the application of His sacrifice. That makes perfect sense and I don’t see how this text can be understood without adopting a potential and provisional atonement view.

   Summing up, John Owen grossly misrepresents the essence of the atonement and introduces a false trilemma. The reformed concept of propitiation neglects the important action of intercession performed by the living (not dead!) savior, Jesus Christ. All these errors lead to some really bizarre ramifications. The provisional atonement view, embraced by most christians, makes much more sense.

   Ware seems to be significantly deviating from the calvinistic view of the atonement as well. Good.

   -a helmet

   May 28th, 2009

4. Danny Pelichowski

   A Helmet,

   Thanks for joining this discussion, your objections to limited atonement are clear and precisely expressed. However, I will state upfront that I strongly disagree with the way you have articulated the nature of the atonement. The paper I mentioned above that I recently wrote entitled “Was Christ’s Death Universal or Particular, for Sin in General or Specific?” argues that the atonement was made for specific sinners and specific sins and that the work of Christ was effectual to save only the elect whom it was made for. I truly see your polar opposite view of the atonement as a providential example vindicating the work I have been doing on this topic and it motivates me to study harder and continue to solidify my understanding of the atonement from Scripture. For that I thank you for joining! On the other side of things, I’m sure you will be as pleased as I am to find someone who articulates a view of the atonement that is the polar opposite of your own and even specifically believes in the propositions that you were so zealous to refute in your post as well as in your paper on your blog. These ingredients I’m sure will make for a perfect and vibrant debate/discussion. And considering the clear and expansive way that you have taken pen to write about such a topic as the atonement I foresee this discussion as being extremely beneficial.

   You wrote: “The suffering endured by the animal was not in any way dependent on the sins that had been committed and hence, cannot be said to be assignable to any particular sin.”

   Correct, however the animal was slaughtered in place of those the sacrifice was made for (Which was limited to Israel) and it was sacrificed because of the specific sins that Israel had committed. Not only did your entire discussion on this topic fail to address the above proposition, you also committed an obvious categorical fallacy. Though the sacrificial system found in Leviticus was a picture and example for what Christ would do as the sacrificial lamb the example is not a one to one reality. The bulls, goats, lambs did not accomplish what Christ accomplished. They were not crucified, died, buried, resurrected, and raised to be at the right hand of the Father interceding for the elect. And even more clearly the nature and worth of the animal sacrifices were completely different than Christ’s definite atonement. I will conclude this discussion with a refutation of your argument found in Hebrews 10:1-4 “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifice that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

   You wrote: “So the notion that there is some sort of “proportionality” between the suffering of the victim on the one hand and the severity of the sins atoned for on the other hand, is a misleading notion.”

   You also wrote: “The penalty for sin is death. And Christ underwent death for all the members of God’s people.”

   I agree that the wages of sin is death as a consequence but the penalty is not limited to death but includes eternal conscious punishment for eternity in hell. Unbelievers are being punished not for sin in general but for their specific sins committed, and the degree of sinfulness of the individual will play a role in the degree of suffering in hell. For example Hitler will bear the wages of the weight of his sin in hell justly and his punishment will be more severe than the “sweet” (sinful/guilty) grandmother who never had faith in Christ. A pertinent Biblical example of this is found in Matthew 11:24 “but I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.” John Dagg in his manuel of theology states that “The justice of God has a heavier penalty for Chorazin and Bethsaida, than for Sodom and Gomorah. Everything of which we have knowledge in the divine administration, instead of exploding the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, tends rather to establish it.” In the same way those of us who believe, who were elected by the Father, purchased by the Son, and sealed by the Spirit surely deserved to bear the wrath of God in hell for the specific sins that were and are currently being committed by us. BUT, in order for God to be just and the justifier of those whom he had chosen for salvation the penal, substitutionary, particular, definite, specific, effectual atonement was made for the elect. Praise God for this truth because we should have and would have died and bore the wages of our sins if God the Son had not bore the wrath of God the Father in place of wicked, deserving, sinners that we call the elect. The implications of this view of the atonement are unpacked partially in the paper I will be Lord willing posting in the future entitled “Was Christ’s Death Universal or Particular, for Sin in General or Specific?”

   You wrote: “When Christ died for sinners, many of these sinners didn’t exist yet. How did Christ wash away the sin of a 21th century shoplifter anno 30 AD? How meaningful is it to say that Christ forgave sins, that hadn’t been committed yet?”

   These are pivotal questions that everyone must answer. I would suggest that your view of the atonement is devastating, faith shattering, and unbiblical because it teaches that Christ did not die for our future sins, and further, that he didn’t even die for anyone’s sins (of people living today) past, present, or future, because His death happened 2000 years ago. What a pathetic objection for a professing Christian and what a pathetic view of God you are presupposing in your discussion of this topic! If Christ died for sin in general the way you have proposed and then applies it later to those who believe who is to say that anyone would believe considering the lost sinful human condition that we find all of mankind in? If we adopt your synergistic view of salvation I would submit that realistically no one would be saved from their sins. Human depravity or inability makes impossible any form of synergism in God’s plan of salvation. That is why the atonement that was made was not dependant on people in the future or in the past believing on their own accord in a general, universal payment that was made for all people. Rather, the atonement was for specific sins of particular people and ALL of their sins were paid for past, present, and future! If this is not the Gospel truth then no one would be saved. I am sorry that you have not come to this conclusion because your view of the atonement must cause you much uneasiness and fear.

   May 29th, 2009

5. Patrick Taylor

   Hey All Danny especially,

   I Think this is an important subject and I have read Dr. Wares thoughts as well as others though I believe the late Dr. Francis Pieper had a profound thought as to the unbiblical problem with limited atonement. First it can only stand on philisophical premises or axioms that in what ever God purposes always happens without frustration and thus if Christ died for the world or all mankind then all would be saved and thus because all are not it must be a particular atonement. thsi of course is contrary to what Scripture states regarding the universal grace of God in the Atoning sacrifice of Christ. “God’s grace gracious disposition in Christ is not limited to a part of mankind, but extends over all men without exception. saving grace is universal grace. Scripture rejects particularism when it expressly delcares, first that the object of God’s grace (love, mercy, etc.) in Christ are all men (Titus 2:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2; 2 Pet. 3:9; Ezek. 33:11; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Cor. 5:19), (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics Vol 2, p.21). The problems in denying universal grace is that when God call all mankind to repent and believe He is not speaking plainly or honestly which is obsurd. Thus, my premise that Particularism is not founded on Scripture bu on philosophical speculations as Pieper states (p. 26). The problem that I brought up earlier is that the purposes of God can never be thwarted which is not expressed in the Bible (Matt. 23:37; Luke 7:30; Acts 7:51; 13:46). It is concluded than by Pieper quite correctly that when God the opperations of God through means can be resisited but when means are absent it can not (Rom. 11:9; John 12:40; Matt. 11:25-26, 13:14-15, 23:38).
   I will have more but for now chew on this and God bless great discussion.
   Pastor Pat your loyal Cal-Luthre-Minian

   May 29th, 2009

6. a helmet

   Hello Danny Pelichowsky,

   Thanks for your reply!

   Before I pick up your objections, let me repeat something you haven’t responded to here, but which was one of the most important points I made in my writing above:

   Namely the importance and meaning of intercession and the necessity of Christ’s resurrection unto eternal life (not just his death) when it comes to understanding the nature of the atonement and the answer to the question “What did Christ’s death accomplish?”.
   Paul says: “If Christ has not risen then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15,17). Now, the crucial question is why would there be no forgiveness of sins without the resurrection of Christ? According to the penal substitution view endorsed by John Owen and you, there would logically have to be forgiveness of sins even if Christ had not resurrected, simply because the substitutionary punishment had happened and the price fully been paid. Did Paul simply mean that without Christ’s resurrection, there’d be no accreditation of God, so that Jesus would have to be considerred a liar? That’s of course one important aspect. Yet there is another reason why the resurrection was absolutely vital in order for sins to be forgiven:

   Limited Atonement advocates miss the important role of the act of intercession, which is the work of the risen, living Christ! This is absolutely crucial and I’m reapeating it because you were silent on it in your response. But the fact that the actual remission of sins happens at intercession (not on the cross) and that intercession is the work of the High Priest (post-resurrection work), completely rules out the notion of an actual remission of sins at the cross in the penal substituion view advocated by Owen and others and hence, rules out the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

   In the article “Was Anyone Saved at the Cross?” by James White (A & O Ministries) the author says concerning intercession:

   “Is His work of intercession another work alongside His sacrificial death? Is His death ineffective without this “other” work? Christ’s intercession is not a second work outside of His death. Rather, Christ is presenting before the Father His perfect and complete sacrifice. He is our High Priest, and the sacrifice He offers in our place is the sacrifice of Himself.”

   What a gross mistake! Of course intercession is a work “outside of His death”, it is the work possible because of the resurrection. Is the author advocating Christianity without the resurrection?! (Scan the “Statement of Faith” at A & O Ministries — the word “resurrection” or a synonym doesn’t even appear in the text!).

   Furthermore, is intercession nothing else than the presentation of Christ’s perfect work before the Father as White suggests? Is that all? No! It is the very act were sins are erased. And again, this is the work of the living Savior, not the dead Savior.

   So the real error of Limited Atonement is, that sinners would be saved if Christ had not been raised from the dead. That’s heretical.

   —-

   But now I’ll turn to your objections.
   the animal was slaughtered in place of those the sacrifice was made for [Israel] and it was sacrificed because of the specific sins that Israel had committed. Not only did your entire discussion on this topic fail to address the above proposition,

   I clearly pointed out the corporate nature of the beneficiary (Israel, God’s people). You are saying now “Israel had committed”. Right, but now as we consider Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, we are talking about sins not yet committed when the sacrifice was made. We are talking about a sacrifice that covers future sins, not only that which have been committed already. I’m respecting this aspect in my writing when I point out that Jesus died for the sin (indefinite singular) of the world. Since there simply were no specific 21century sins when Jesus died (as they were far future), the general offering for sin includes these future sins, without having to respect them specifically. God didn’t have to look into the future to see that someone would commit such-and-such sins in the 21 century and then impose a corresponding amount of punishment on Jesus.

   The bulls, goats, lambs did not accomplish what Christ accomplished. They were not crucified, died, buried, resurrected, and raised to be at the right hand of the Father interceding for the elect.

   Right. Ironically, the problem with a Limited Atonement advocate making this objection is, that in the actual atonement view there is no meaningful room for intercession, as elaborated above. After all, if the punishment for some sins had been borne and the suffering due to the sins been fully endured, then there’d be no necessity for resurrection and intercession at all in order for sinners to be released from their guilt. Of course, I see and esteem the necessity of Christ’s intercession at the right hand of the father for the elect. Yet this is just pointing to the truth of a provisional nature of the atonement, not an actual one!

   We agree that the blood of bulls and goats couldn’t take away sins. So we observe that the OT atonement doesn’t serve as a 1:1 image of the atonement of Christ. That is, Christ’s atonement is not exaclty comparable to the OT atonements. There are differences, namely that Christ is infinitely valuable as opposed to animals and that Christ was raised from the dead and is both the victim AND high priest in personal union. So when we establish that the OT atonement is not strictly comparable to Jesus atonement, then just what is the decisive similarity that both the NT authors and also Limited Atonement advocates draw on? Put differently, the writer to the Hebrews draws a comparison between the OT sacrifice and Christ’s sacrifice. So do Limited Atonement advocates in their writings when they explain the nature of the atonement. One thing is for sure: There is a certain resemblance between Christ’s death and the OT sacrifices, right? So we must find out, what this criterion is, that causes the NT writers make a cross reference to the OT sacrifices.

   The point is, that the atonement serves as a ransom that is, a certain price that is paid in order to satisfy the wrath of the offended one, God. In OT sacrifices the prices were animals. In the NT soteriology, it is the life of the spotless lamb Jesus Christ which is the price paid. So it is not foremost the penal substitution aspect but the ransom aspect that is vital. In other word, the victim’s own value is the focal point.

   I agree that the wages of sin is death as a consequence but the penalty is not limited to death but includes eternal conscious punishment for eternity in hell.

   No, the penalty for sin is suffering which ultimately culminates in eternal death. The suffering is finite (Revelation 15,1) and leads to destruction. The terms used to describe this fate all carry the meaning of extermination: “destruction”, “perish”, “destroyed”, “burnt” . Crucifixion is the image thereof. It is a rather long agony which culminates in death. Thus it is a model of the suffering of human life as a wage of sin which terminates in death. So Christ by His agony represented the suffering of the world due to God’s wrath and by His death represented the death of man according to God’s announcement at Genesis 2,17.

   What does this tell us about “penal substitution”? Adam’s single transgression is the representative sin of the entirety of the sin of the world. Yet Adam didn’t respect any sin that would be committed in the world, much less did he himself commit every sin! Similarly, Jesus is punished for “Adam’s transgression” that is, carried a fixed, representative punishment once for all. As Adam committed one single sin once for all which resulted in many particular sins, so Jesus paid one single price once for all which resulted in the payment for many particular sins. Jesus didn’t suffer more or less depending on how many elect there would be. Just as Adam didn’t respect every sin which he would be the legal representative for.

   There’s no question that God is pouring out his wrath on the sinful world. But note also, the wrath always results in absolute, eternal destruction (Romans 6,21; Revelation 18,21). The idea you are advocating, namely that death is followed by suffering is the truth in reverse.

   Everything of which we have knowledge in the divine administration, instead of exploding the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, tends rather to establish it.

   But the highest punishment is the death penalty. And every sinner deserves the death penalty (Genesis 2,17). Did God say something else? When it comes to the question of the nature of the atonement, we are dealing with the divine consequence of sin and this is a journey through suffering and death. That’s why penal subsitution makes sense if the penalty for sin is eternal death. What kind of punishment did Jesus suffer? Death, exactly like the two crminials next to him. Are we to think that Jesus somehow “died differently” whatever that would mean, than the men right and left to him? The contention that Jesus suffered more intensely than other victims of crucifixion is bizarre and biblically absolutely unsupportable.

   How meaningful is it to say that Christ forgave sins, that hadn’t been committed yet?”These are pivotal questions that everyone must answer. I would suggest that your view of the atonement is devastating, faith shattering, and unbiblical because it teaches that Christ did not die for our future sins,

   No. I didn’t say Christ didn’t die for future sins, but that He didn’t forgive future sins when he was dying on the cross! See the difference? Of course Christ died also for the sin of a 21th century thief, but he didn’t erase that sin long before it was committed! Here we see again how unreasonable the actual atonement view is, because it ignores that Christ’s death for future sins, that hadn’t even been committed, is provisional and not actual. In other words, the sins aren’t actually done away with before they are even done. Yet according to Owen’s pain-to-sin assignment view, this would be the absurd implication. That’s why the question, “was anyone saved at the cross?” must be answered with a resounding NO, because the actual remission of sins takes place…..at intercession! Thus, Christ did die for the 21th century shoplifter, but he didn’t forgive that sin in anno 30 AD. Rather the sin is erased (actually forgiven) when the 21th century shoplifter turns to Christ in faith and the resurrected, living Christ intercedes for him. Note, intercession = forgiveness. So we see again, there is a gross neglect of the meaning and purpose of intercession in your view of the atonement. And this is, as elaborated above, the chief reason for the Limited Atonement fallacy.

   and further, that he didn’t even die for anyone’s sins (of people living today) past, present, or future, because His death happened 2000 years ago.

   The same error here. The blood shed for sin (indefinite singular term) covers also future sins. But it is much greater: It doesn’t need to respect the particular sin. In other words, God didn’t have to look into the future in order to see that in the 21th century Bill would steal a horse and then impose the pain of hell for Bill’s sin on Jesus Christ in anno 30. No, Christ provided an atonement for future sins regardless what these sins would be.

   It becomes apparent here that much confusion is due to the disregard that the ultimate penalty for sin is death (not some “pains of hell” whatsoever), so that penal substitution simply means that Jesus suffered the pain that culminates in death, for the elect. Since there are no degrees of death the “proportionality” view underlying in Owen’s trilemma shows the invalidity of this syllogism. There is no comparison: “dead”, “more dead”, “most dead”. Seeing that, and accepting that the penalty for sin is death, the penal subsitution view makes sense and doesn’t lead to the doctrine of Limited, actual atonement.

   If Christ died for sin in general the way you have proposed and then applies it later to those who believe who is to say that anyone would believe considering the lost sinful human condition that we find all of mankind in?

   This is actually deviating from the topic, because it assumes another problem which hasn’t really to do with the nature of the atonement in the first place. I am aware that the doctrine of Limited Atonement can ultimately only be upheld by assuming the other doctrines of grace as well, like Total Depravity. However, I have reasonable suspicion that the doctrines of grace all buttress each other in a way that they must mutually defend each other, establishing a “Domino Theology”. But since Calvinists base their belief in Limited Atonement on these other doctrines, I must deal with the preceding doctrine of Total Depravity as well, so I do it.

   If we adopt your synergistic view of salvation I would submit that realistically no one would be saved from their sins. Human depravity or inability makes impossible any form of synergism in God’s plan of salvation.

   I respectfully, though wholeheartedly disagree with you here. I recently wrote an article on the reformed usage of Romans 3 and the dogma, that natural, sinful man cannot believe the gospel anymore than he can keep the ten commandments. I also posted an article there in refutation of the reformed usage of John 6,44 in support of that dogma. Both can be found on my blog on the Doctrines of Grace. I hold that the notion that sinful man is unable to believe the gospel (Total Depravity) is biblically untenable. Now, it would go far beyond the scope of one comment to provide a rebuttal of the contention that natural man is unable to believe here. So for now, I leave it at that.

   -a helmet

   May 31st, 2009

7. Danny Pelichowski

   A Helmet,

   A few clarifications need to first be addressed. Since you are an annihilationist and believe that some people (non-Christians) do not have an eternal soul and will one day be snuffed out and cease to exist we are going to be talking past one another. You have made it quite clear that you are outside of orthodox Christianity in a number of your comments including this one. I will assume that the readers of this blog believe in hell and that you have heard the orthodox doctrine of hell and will mark this one up as an area of your theology that I understand but wholeheartedly disagree with. I recommend Dr. Morey’s book Death and the Afterlife as an exceptional refutation of annihilationism. Your minor objections are dealt with in the book as well as a host of others. Even if you don’t read this book I hope other readers of this blog will buy a copy and consider his arguments because they are very Biblical.

   Second, your mind cannot fathom God paying for future specific sins that had not been committed yet because you do not think that God has that kind of knowledge of the future. This is another area where you part from orthodoxy. To limit God’s knowledge of the future because it is unthinkable to you shows how low a view of God that you have and how much stock you place in your own reasoning over what the Bible teaches. Whether you are an open theist, process theologian, or some other variant I think it would be helpful if you would clearly communicate briefly your doctrine of God specifically about his knowledge so I can see where you are coming from.

   Moving on, I have no problem with James White’s quote and for you to say that it is a gross mistake and write it off with little concrete evidence of his error is no more than a baseless ad hominem. James was not saying that intercession was not happening but that intercession was not part of the atoning sacrifice that pays for the sins of the elect. He was saying that intercession was happening for the elect whom Christ died for to make full payment on the cross in the atonement. The question I have for you is: would the intercessory work of Christ be of any use without the atonement? On what basis or grounds would Christ intercede on the elects behalf had he not first atoned for their sins? In my understanding the foundation and basis for the forgiveness of sins is the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross and not the resurrection, nor the intercession. To be clear, Christ was resurrected and if he was not he would be a liar because he foretold his resurrection. Also if he had not risen then he would be a dead false prophet and we would be insane to believe in him. Another reason he might not have been resurrected hypothetically is because his sacrifice was not acceptable to the Father because he had sinned himself in his life which would invalidate his sacrifice on the cross. You see, the hypothetical questioning about Christ’s atonement apart from his resurrection is unhelpful because he did raise and he is interceding for the elect whom he died for. His resurrection and intercession are not his sacrifice and payment for sins. We need to clearly differentiate these works and define them correctly and not blend them together as you have. They are all a reality, yet they are not all the atonement. Christ was resurrected and this shows us that his penal substitionary sacrifice for the elect was pleasing and acceptable to the Father for his wrath was poured out on Christ and the payment was successful and Christ was raised from the dead as He had predicted. His intercession is limited (John 17) to the elect and not the world! He intercedes for the one’s he died in the place of and no one else. In conclusion, the substitutionary atonement, the vindication of his completed work in the resurrection, and the specific and particular intercession proves a limited, wrath bearing, and specific sin suffering sacrifice as opposed to the general, non-specific, impersonal atonement you are proposing.

   Jun 8th, 2009

8. a helmet

   Hello Danny Pelichowsky,

   Thanks for your reply.

   your mind cannot fathom God paying for future specific sins that had not been committed yet because you do not think that God has that kind of knowledge of the future.

   I don’t deny God’s omniscience to the least degree. That’s absolutely not the point. I’m not saying that God doesn’t foreknow things. What I deny is that Jesus actually deleted sins that hadn’t been committed. If all the sins of the elect had actually been forgiven, then they would all have to be born sinless. They would have to be saints by birth. Furthermore, John’s words that we are forgiven by intercession in the presence would be meaningless:

   “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.”

   and

   “But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”

   Do you see that the question of God’s foreknowledge isn’t touched by this at all? It is not a matter of God’s knowledge of the future, but rather of causality. The point is that an actual remission of sins at the cross would have some bizarre ramifications. You’d be sinful for sins that have been done away with — John says the blood of Jesus purifies us if we walk in the light. Note, these problems that arise from limited atonement are completely independent on the issue of God’s foreknowledge.

   This is another area where you part from orthodoxy. To limit God’s knowledge of the future because it is unthinkable to you shows how low a view of God that you have and how much stock you place in your own reasoning over what the Bible teaches. Whether you are an open theist, process theologian, or some other variant I think it would be helpful if you would clearly communicate briefly your doctrine of God specifically about his knowledge so I can see where you are coming from.

   I hold to God’s omniscience, omnipotence and holiness in the highest terms. But the subject of limited atonement, the nature of the atonement and Owen’s syllogism don’t follow from these attributes of God. The clue is causality, the order of sins and their forgiveness. The question of God’s knowledge isn’t touched thereby.

   —–

   Regarding punishment and the soul etc. I acknowledge that it is legitimate to take other views. Of course I’m aware that the notion of an immortal soul is part of historic christian beliefs. No question. There have been varying opinions regarding the exact nature of the soul during church history. For instance, in jewish thought there is no such body-soul distinction. In hellenistic thought there is. There’s no exact treatment of that subject in the bible which would settle the issue without ambiguity. Some hold that the body and soul are a unity that vanishes in Sheol, the grave. Others hold that the human nature is tri-fold, consisting of body, soul and spirit. Then there is debate over the difference between spirit and soul. Be that as it may, I concede that one can take your view, and concerning the topic of the atonement and Owen’s syllogism, the question isn’t as relevant as it may seem.

   Why?

   The question doesn’t really matter with regard to the penal substitution, because if we hold to the concept of an eternal punishment, then the exact payment view, which is the basis for the doctrine of LA and Owen’s trilemma, cannot be reasonably embraced. Jesus’ pain on the cross took about 6 hours and if we consider the foregoing torture it was some more. But it wasn’t ununsual for crucifixion victims to suffer even several days. Normally crucifixion victims would hang on the wood until they rot and eventually drop off the wood or be eaten away by vultures or jackals. The supply of drinking water would prolong the victim’s life and the procedure. Now, there were two fellow sufferers dying left and right to Jesus. How were they suffering? Jesus’ suffering was finite and cannot be thought of as an exact substitutional payment in the sense you are suggesting. We know that he was dead after a finite agony. And the only way one can conceive of Jesus’ taking the whole, eternal punishment (whatever that is), is to understand it in a representative mode. In other words, Jesus’ suffering over several hours was a representative or symbolic and not a literal undergoing of the punishment that Calvinists consider due to the elect’s sins. And I would absolutely agree here, because this is just the corporate, representative substitution I was talking about. Here we see, the words that the “wages of sin is death” and that Jesus “tasted death for everyone” make perfect sense regardless of whether you hold to the idea of an ever ongoing punishment or not. Because Jesus didn’t literally undergo such a punishment anyway. We are healed by his wounds of crucifixion (Isaiah 53,5). This is why the issue of annihilation/immortal soul is irrelevant with respect to the nature and extent of the atonement.

   James was not saying that intercession was not happening but that intercession was not part of the atoning sacrifice that pays for the sins of the elect.

   Here is the problem. The mere killing of an animal doesn’t make it a sacrifice. People kill animals for their own consumption, all people do so including the heathen. So killing an animal is in itself not a sacrificial work at all. What then makes it a sacrifice? The priest does. If we think of “atonement” as something that erases sins, then this doesn’t work without a priest. And the priest is the living Jesus Christ, so without the resurrection, there’d be no atonement at all. And this is White’s fallacy when he says intercession isn’t outside of Christ’s death.

   The reason why intercession is the act where sins are actually forgiven (and not the cross) might further be proven like this:

   When White speaks of Christ’s death he speaks much of his “work”. Christ’s death is “his work” (as in the question: “whom did Christ die for?”), Jesus’ dying on the cross is understood to be Christ’s work for the elect. Okay, but whose work was Jesus’ crucifixion really? It was the work of sinful man, both Jews and Gentiles involved. It was the work of the world. Christ’s execution was the work of the wicked world. The following relation is absolutely vital: Sinful men were playing the active role here and Jesus Christ as the victim, was playing the passive role. Now, do sinful men accomplish forgiveness of sins? Surely not.
   Now consider Christ’s post-resurretion high priestly ministry. Here Christ plays the active role, he intercedes for sinful man. Sinful man have now the passive part. See, after the resurrection the roles are switched. And now, by the work of the living Christ are sins forgiven!

   Of course Jesus said “I lay down my life for the sheep”. But he didn’t commit suicide! He was killed. That’s crucial. So Christ’s death was the work of the world, not the work of God! Forgiveness of sins however, can only be the work of God. The father’s work was the resurrection of Jesus. Christ’s work is intercession. Note, the crucifixion is man’s part.

   He was saying that intercession was happening for the elect whom Christ died for to make full payment on the cross in the atonement.

   On the cross? Intercession is not on the cross by Christ’s death but by His everlasting life. This is why Christ’s life is so important. And once more this points to the provisional nature of the atonement. The actual atonement view is absolutely untenable.

   The question I have for you is: would the intercessory work of Christ be of any use without the atonement?

   No.

   On what basis or grounds would Christ intercede on the elects behalf had he not first atoned for their sins?

   On the basis of his sacrifice for the “sin of the world” which is able to cover any sin ever to be committed, regardless by whom. When someone approaches the high priest by faith then this sacrifice is applied to this individual’s sins.

   In my understanding the foundation and basis for the forgiveness of sins is the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross and not the resurrection, nor the intercession.

   Sinful men (Pilate, Caiaphas, Hannas, roman soldiers), are the ones who did the work of Christ’s death. These men were the subjects, the doers and Jesus was the object, the one acted upon. Sinful men aren’t able to accomplish the forgiveness of the sins of the world. Only after Jesus was resurrected he was able to turn the crucifixion into a glorious atonement. The roles are now switched. Sinful men are the objects, the recipients of forgiveness, the resurrected Christ is the subject , the doer, the one who does the glorious work of forgiveness of sins. And this work of the living Christ is called intercession.

   Thus, the resurrection is much more than just a proof that Jesus wasn’t lying. It is most fundamental, and it also rules out Owen’s view of the atonement that only considers Christ’s death. There is no such assignment of a “pain of hell” to somebody’s specific sins in the way it is presented there. That’s why Owen’s syllogism is objectionable.

   -a helmet

   Jun 10th, 2009

9. Peter Phillips

   A Helmet,
   As Danny has already stated, I likewise appreciate the time and clarity you put into your responses to the Reformed position on the atonement. For that you are to be commended. And, of course, our differences still remain just as clear and distinct.

   First, I would like to address the claim that the reformed view of the atonement does not adequately deal with the life, intercession, and resurrection of Christ.

   You said, “Limited Atonement advocates miss the important role of the act of intercession, which is the work of the risen, living Christ…Namely the importance and meaning of intercession and the necessity of Christ’s resurrection unto eternal life (not just his death) when it comes to understanding the nature of the atonement and the answer to the question “What did Christ’s death accomplish?”

   Now please don’t consider me disrespectful when I say that you really, really don’t understand reformed theology on this issue. It seems as if there may be a big gap in your historical theology at this point. Let’s do a quick overview on what seems lacking in your exposition.

   1. Parts of the satisfaction of Christ: Active and Passive obedience
   Simply put, Christ’s active obedience is his sinless and holy life of perfect obedience to the Father, which includes his total obedience to the Law. Christ’s passive obedience, on the other hand, involves his passion and death on the cross, which includes all that he suffered on behalf of his elect, sheep, Church or people. Both of these aspects of Christ’s obedience are vitally important to the reformed understanding of the atonement.

   The Reformed view has always seen a connection between Christ’s obedience, death, resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins (Institutes, Book II, xvi). Basically, I would suggest you look at any reformed treatment of the doctrine of the resurrection and Christ’s active obedience for a greater understanding of it place in their theology, because you have grossly depreciated their views on that issue. With that being said, it appears to me that your exposition of the atonement seems to muddle distinction between the atonement and the resurrection. Clearly they are not the same thing, although I will say they are interrelated, but so is the incarnation and atonement. Without the incarnation there would be no atonement, and without the atonement there would be no resurrection, and without the resurrection there would be no heavenly session, but this does not mean they are not distinct doctrines. Christ role as our intercessor involves his death just as much as any other aspect of his heavenly session. He continually intercedes for the elect, but also was our mediator in the atonement (the High Priest provides the sacrifice and prayers unto God the Father on behalf of the elect).

   2. The Mode of satisfaction: Vicarious Endurance or Penal Substitution
   At this point, I won’t reiterate what Danny has said, but add to it a nice quote that sums this doctrine up. Penal substitution states, “The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserve was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested.”

   3. The Qualifications of the Mediator: He must be fully God and fully man
   Christ’s divinity lends worth to the sacrifice, and his humanity makes possible his death and suffering on our behalf. Much more could be said, but you get the point.

   4. The Extent of the Atonement: What is the intent of God in providing atonement? Does he intend to make atonement for the sins of the elect?
   As Danny has explained, satisfaction is made for the elect alone; God does not intend to make it for the non-elect (See below for the reasons)
   a. Logic of limited atonement in Reformed system
   i. Limited Atonement relates to Unconditional Election as a means to an end; Christ’s atonement is the means God uses to save His people.
   ii. Particular Atonement is logically subordinate to the decree of election
   iii. Decree for the Mediator comes after the decree for election
   b. Reformed Arguments for Particular Atonement
   i. The Scriptures state he died for his church, his sheep, his body, etc.
   ii. Objects of intercession and satisfaction are the same; one and the same individuals (collectively speaking: the elect, Church, His sheep, etc.)
   iii. His death in vain for those not saved by it
   iv. Universal satisfaction makes him a partial & imperfect savior; “obtained for all, but applied to some”

   Lastly, your view lacks continuity of application between the atonement and intercession of Christ; for if the objects of the atonement (all men) and the objects of Christ’s intersession (the elect) are not the same, then you have a huge discrepancy in Christ’s saving work. Either Christ did not accomplish what he set out to do or he is schizophrenic in his role as mediator, but you clearly have a problem. In the end, the Arminian position makes man the decisive reason why he is saved, not Christ work on his behalf. Christ merely provides the possibility for depraved men to choose to actualize that possibility. While the reformed view stresses the reality that the Father’s decree, Christ’s death, and the Spirit’s application of this are all working in perfect harmony to accomplish the saving purposes of the Godhead—the redemption of God’s people to his Glory. One view is anthropocentric and the other is theocentric.

   Next, let us look at your treatment of the resurrection and the atonement.
   You Said, “Paul says: “If Christ has not risen then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15,17). Now, the crucial question is why would there be no forgiveness of sins without the resurrection of Christ?”

   As your comments on this question reflect, you seem to think that the reformed understanding of the atonement is lacking in an answer to such question, since you maintain—and wrongly so—that the doctrine implies that the elect are already forgiven at the cross. This is not what the reformers thought. They maintained the necessity of saving faith for forgiveness, and that faith was based on the atoning work of Christ. Christ provides a perfect sacrifice, and He supplies the gifts of faith and repentance for the elect (Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 1:29). The objects of his intercession—his sacrifice and high priestly prayers are one and the same.

   As far as the resurrection goes, Paul clearly realized that if Christ is not raised, then we are still in our sins. The reason being…if Christ had not been raised, then it would call into question the Father’s acceptance of his sacrifice, which would mean that his death was in vain. It would also show that Christ is not a living high priest, as you note. He died to conquer sin and death. He rose for our justification. The resurrection is not an afterthought in reformed theology, but is God’s demonstration of our victory in Christ—who died for specific sinners, was raised for specific sinners, and still intercedes for specific sinners. His saving purpose is unified rather than conflicting. The Triune God expressed in soteriology—the Father elects his people, the Son dies for His people, and the Spirit regenerates His people resulting in the gifts of faith and repentance.

   That’s enough for now, but I will mention that there is much more to be said. I would suggest you read Hodge or Shedd or Murray or Calvin or Turretin or some other solid reformed work on these subjects, because there is some serious straw men being knocked down at this point.

   Jun 13th, 2009

10. Peter Phillips

    A Helmut,

    You said, “Sinful men (Pilate, Caiaphas, Hannas, roman soldiers), are the ones who did the work of Christ’s death. These men were the subjects, the doers and Jesus was the object, the one acted upon. Sinful men aren’t able to accomplish the forgiveness of the sins of the world.”

    Are you saying that the crucifixion was not Christ’s work according to the Father’s plan? Please see Acts 2 and 4.

    In order to hold to your statement consistently you would have to deny the testimony of Luke’s account of God’s determined purpose in the crucifixion (Peter actually preached the sermon that contains this):
    “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it (Acts 2:22-24).

    Please note that Jesus was delivered up to be crucified, according to the “definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” But, this was not the end of the story; God raised Him from the dead, showing that he accepted Jesus sacrifice on behalf of sinners. The penal substitutionary atonement is a part of the willful plan of God to save sinners—that’s love. However, just in case we think that is a slip of the pen, we have many other texts that say the same kind of things.

    When Peter and John were thrown into prison for preaching the gospel, they did not cease to trust in God’s plan. Notice how they pray upon their release. How do they view the events leading to the cross, and, of course, the crucifixion itself?

    Acts 4:23-28 “When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,
    “‘Why did the Gentiles rage,?and the peoples plot in vain??26 The kings of the earth set themselves,?and the rulers were gathered together,?against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”

    It may come as a shock, but the ones who betrayed, handed over, and crucified Jesus, did “whatever God’s hand and plan had predestined to take place.”

    Perhaps you might object that this is not fair to Jesus, but this objection would certainly ignore that He willfully went to the Cross in obedience to His Father’s desires (John 10:17-18). Jesus actually rebukes Peter for trying to correct him when he said he must suffer and die on the cross:

    Mark 8:31-33 “And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And he said this plainly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

    In fact, according to the doctrine of penal substitution, Jesus died in this fashion to bring glory to himself (John 17:1; Phil. 2:8-9; Heb. 2:9) and to save his people (Rom. 5:8, 1 Pet. 3:18), as well as to glorify His Father.

    In conclusion, God can use and predestine the evil works of men to accomplish his purposes. THe same action can have to intentions, which one may be evil on man’s part, but the other good on God’s part. This is the reformed doctrine of providence, and more specifically Divine concurrence.

    Jun 14th, 2009

11. Peter Phillips

    A Helmut,

    You said, “Sinful men (Pilate, Caiaphas, Hannas, roman soldiers), are the ones who did the work of Christ’s death. These men were the subjects, the doers and Jesus was the object, the one acted upon. Sinful men aren’t able to accomplish the forgiveness of the sins of the world.”

    Another aspect that this statement seems to contradict is the fact that Jesus says that his life is ultimately in his hands.

    Note Jesus own words on this issue (John 10:15-18):
    “and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

    Here are a couple of observations:
    1. Jesus death was entirely in his authority, hence, he laid down his own life.
    2. He laid down his life for the sheep (not the goats)
    3. No one has the power to take his life
    4. The Father charged Jesus to lay down his life for his sheep

    Jun 14th, 2009

12. Peter Phillips

    A helmut,

    You said, “So this means that Owen’s portrayal of the death of Christ as a definite assignment of a certain “pain of hell” to a specific person’s specific sin, is really fundamentally flawed. Yet till this day it stays a chief argument for Calvinists to sell their heretical doctrines.”

    Wow! I’m surprised that you would go this far in your argumentation. Calvinism has hardly been considered heretical throughout Church history, but, on the contrary, it has been considered a theological tradition that has towed-the-line for many centuries. In fact, Calvinism could hardly be assigned the label heretical, especially since it has been the wellspring of Protestantism ever since the 16th century reformation (aside from Lutheranism). Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia are hardly the hallmarks of heresy. I would strongly suggest you study the true nature of heresy and orthodoxy a bit more, because your comment demonstrates some serious ignorance on that front.

    Jun 14th, 2009

13. a helmet

    Hello Peter Phillips,

    Thanks for your response.
    After reading your through your comments, I came to realize that there is still a vast underestimate of the necessity of Christ’s resurrection and intercessory role in salvation in your view. Let’s see whether this can be demonstrated further, because it this absolutely decisive regarding the the doctrine debated, Limited Atonement.

    You are quoting from Acts and point out that Jesus execution and the role of the world involved therein, was predestined by God. There’s no doubt about that, but it has nothing to do with the issue of the nature and extent of the atonement, which is the topic of the post after all. However in relation to this, you addressed the issue of Jesus’ voluntariness regarding his death and perhaps this sheds light on the issue of the atonement and the truth about penal substitution. Thus, I’ll pick this up now.

    Note, in the previous comment I said:
    Of course Jesus said “I lay down my life for the sheep”. But he didn’t commit suicide! He was killed. That’s crucial.

    Jesus’s crucifixion was a sinful work of the world but we also read that Jesus laid down his life voluntarily. Obviously the question at hand is this: Did Jesus die voluntarily or not?

    The bible suggests both:

    Affirmative: (John 10,17-18)

    Negative: (Mt 26,39; Luke 22,42)

    Lets reconcile this and examine in what way this sheds light on the issue of the meaning and extent of the atonement. As said in a previous comment, a sacrifice requires a victim and a priest. The mere killing of an animal is not a sacrifice. Jesus Christ was both the victim and the high priest in personal union. He was the lamb that was slaughtered and the one who offered the sacrifice on the alter, figuratively speaking. Note, that a sacrificial animal was killed (passive tense), it never died voluntarily. In other words, a priest didn’t lookup some already dead animal, pick it up and offer this corpse at the altar. Rather a living victim had to be killed. The one who slaughters and the object being slain are two. Now, Jesus’ unwillingness to get killed according to the passages statet above, mirrors his role as the lamb that “was led like a sheep to the slaughter” (Acts 8,32).

    On the other hand, Jesus’ free choice to lay down his life points to the predestined plan behind what is going to happen. Note, in John 10 he already includes his resurrection in the mission he is appointed by the father to fulfil.

    What does this have to do with the question “What did Christ’s death accomplish” and the nature/extent of the atonement? Consider the two steps here.

    1) crucifixion = work of man = slaughter a lamb

    2) intercession = work of Christ = offering the blood from (1) before the Father.

    A high priest had to be sinless. Sinful men wouldn’t be able to intercede at the altar. Thus, in step 1 no sins could be forgiven and no payment made. Step 1 is nothing else than killing a lamb. No sacrifice yet at all.

    According to Calvinism’s interpretation of the meaning and purpose of the resurrection, God would –after step 1– have given his approval and the proof that these sinful men had just accomplished a valid sacrifice that atoned for sins! According to your view of the meaning of the resurrection, the sinful men’s killing a lamb would have been accredited by God to be a successful sin offering. Yet this is absurd. Neither can sinful men enter the holiest were the sacrifice is made (only the sinless high priest can enter!), nor did they even intend to make a sacrifice at all.
    Putting this differently, the calvinistic notion that the resurrection was only God’s confirmation that Jesus accomplished a complete salvation on the cross would in fact be a confirmation that the men who nailed him to the cross accomplished that! They would have saved themselves by killing the sinless Jesus! They would have received the confirmation from God that they had just saved themselves by a horrible sin! This is what your understanding of 1 Cor. 15, 17 implies.

    With regard to the importance of Christ’s resurrection and its relation to the atonement (1 Cor 15,17), you said:

    It would also show that Christ is not a living high priest.

    It wouldn’t only show that, but Christ would NOT BE a living high priest to begin with and hence, NOT BE able to intercede for those who approach him by faith (Hebr. 7,25) and hence DON’T accomplish any remission of sins at all! This is the clue. If Christ had not been raised to life, then he would not live to do any high priestly work.

    He died to conquer sin and death. He rose for our justification. The resurrection is not an afterthought in reformed theology, but is God’s demonstration of our victory in Christ

    Demonstration? Well, also. But the resurrection is not just a demonstration, but a foundation for forgiveness to be even possible to begin with. In your view, there’d be forgiveness even without the resurrection. God could have sent an angel or a prophet confirming that Jesus was teaching the truth and that by his death He accomplished complete forgiveness of sins! Following reformed logic, this would just as well be possible. There’d be no real need for Jesus Christ’s resurrection with respect to the atonement. That’s scripturally untenable.

    These considerations unveil the real absurdity behind the doctrine of LA and show once again the terrible underestimate of the glorious resurrection and the work of intercession for remission of sins to be even possible in the first place. Thus, Jesus crucifixion is only step 1, the slaughter of the lamb which in itself doesn’t make a sacrifice. Rather Jesus crucifixion is just as much a human work as the crucifixion of the two fellows next to him. Crucifixion is a work of man, men are active here, the victim is passive. And crucifixion is not a miracle however, resurrection unto eternal life is a miracle which brings us to step 2.

    At step 2 (intercession), Jesus is in the role of the sinless living high priest who offers the victim before God and since he is sinless he can enter the holiest to begin with, something which Judas, Pilate, the Pharisees and the roman soldiers wouldn’t have been able to. Wicked men cannot accomplish forgiveness of sins. Even if they have killed a victim of infinite value. They don’t qualify as high priests. Thus, forgiveness happens only when there is a high priest, and the high priest is Jesus AFTER his resurrection unto everlasting life. (A dead high priest cannot work). Hence, forgiveness happens only because Jesus, as the living son of God turns the death of the son of man –afterwards– into an atonement. He is now the active one who intercedes for sinful men, who are the recipients of forgiveness, the passive ones.

    Why is this distinction so important? Because there was no definite payment for sins at the cross any more than the two fellows next to Jesus paid a definite payment for sins! Men can kill a victim of a high value, but this doesn’t accomplish any atonement at all, because the offerers are themselves unworthy and unable to accomplish the sacrifice.

    Now the next interesting question is about “penal substitution” — Did Jesus suffer in a different way than the fellows next to him? Did he somehow “undergo the pains of hell” for such-and-such persons?

    No! — 4 reasons:

    1) Jesus died as a “son of man” who had a 100% human nature, there is no mysticism about his way of dying. He died like a son of man who is crucified, in other words, like the thousands of other victims of crucifixion.

    2) Men cannot impose any “divine, supernatural punishment”.

    3) It is not the intensity of Jesus’ suffering, but the value of himself which has a high purchase power to serve as a ransom for all.

    4) The penal substitution is a collective punishment akin to the collective fall of Adam. What does this mean? — All humanity (currently ca. 6.5 billions individuals) are guilty by nature of one, single action, namle Adam’s transgression. That sin consisted mereley of the taking, biting into, chewing and swallowing an apple. That was it. But the guilt thereof is increased by every human being that is born on earth. The action of Adam’s sin doesn’t need to be repeated in order for guilt to increase. In other words, this one and only deed by Adam brought sin and guilt on many.
    In the same way, these many sins are punished by a single act, the crucifixion of Jesus. Just like one sin resulted in the sinfulness of many, so these many sinfulnesses are punished by one penalty.

    So Jesus suffering and agony on the cross was a conclusive punishment for many indivduals’ many sins. It was collective, like original sin is collective. It was representative like Adam’s transgression was representative. If Adam’s ONE transgression could cause infinite guilt, so can Jesus’ ONE suffering cover infinite guilt.

    Lets consider John Owen’s atonement syllogism again. The 1:1 sin-to-pain assignment view that underlies his reasoning is a gross misrepresentation of the nature of the atonement. (I’m aware thay you provided a citation concerning penal substitution in your comment, but this is really just a statement which is actually under attack here and would have to be supported by the bible. Since I’m opposed to reformed doctrine, why a quotation from a reformed confession of faith, or whatever the citation is from?).

    So there was no punishment on the cross that respected particular sins such that it would be pre-determined “whom Christ died for”. Jesus suffering didn’t respect any particular sins just like Adam’s eating the forbidden fruit didn’t respect anyone’s particular sinfulness throughout the history of mankind.

    So the question then is, whose sins are forgiven? The high priest can decide whom he applies his sacrifice for, whom the ransom is applied to. Everything lies in the power of the living high priest. If someone approaches him by faith then he can apply his blood for that individual.

    To conclude, the reformed soteriology grossly neglects the necessity of Jesus resurrection and everlasting life for remission of sins to be possible to begin with. This disregard of the divine miracle entails some bizarre ramifications. The one-to-one execution swap version of penal substitution according to John Owen, is scripturally untenable and bizarre. This is NOT a right picture of the nature of the atonement. Now, Limited Atonement hinges on penal substitution view à la Owen. Hence, Limited Atonement is untenable.

    Greetings
    Kehrhelm “a helmet” Kröger

    Jun 19th, 2009

14. Peter Phillips

    A Helmet,
    Good to hear from you. Perhaps I was not as clear as I’d hoped to be in my response to you, but it seems that you may have misread me a bit. First, I think, once again, you are under-appreciating the reformed view on the resurrection. Jesus resurrection is not simply a demonstration of victory or the vindication of Biblical prophecy, but it is a multi-faceted treasure that has significant impact on several other doctrines. Let me list what I said, which is not exhaustive, but a sample of the many facets (which is why I referred you to some reformed texts):

    1. I granted and affirmed the connection between the resurrection and the forgiveness of sins (1 Cor 15), which you constantly fail to credit reformed theology with. Nobody has argued that you can be forgiven without the resurrection or that it is not necessary. That’s why I stated that he was raised for our justification as well (Rom. 4:25).

    2. He was raised for our justification and to demonstrate the Father acceptance of his perfect sacrifice (Rom. 4:23-25). Paul says, “But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.”
    Thus, neither the Reformers nor I believe that we can be forgiven apart from trusting in Christ or believing the gospel, yet the foundation of this gospel is the atonement and resurrection.

    3. Christ’s resurrection displayed his victory over sin and death (1 Cor. 15).

    4. Christ resurrection affirms the vitality of a living high priest, which we are in agreement on, at least at an affirmation level, but perhaps not on an application level. That’s part of the disagreement. I believe Christ has a unified purpose in the atonement and its application, which is part of the biblical reason why I see the atonement and intercession as part of our High Priest’s mediatory work (1 Tim 2:5). This Work is unified not divided, which is what both Danny and I argue. The Father elects specific men, which the Son dies for (which is part of his intercession), and the living High Priest intercedes for those same people (Do the math!) Isaiah 53 Says, “12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death?and was numbered with the transgressors;?yet he bore the sin of many,?and makes intercession for the transgressors.” Once again, Christ’s death is part of his intercessory work, and note that we have no mention of resurrection here (however, we agree on its importance).

    5. He rose to fulfill prophecy and vindicate God’s fidelity to his promise (1 Cor. 15).

    6. The resurrection is connected to the power of our new life in Christ (Rom. 6:4). This is something I forgot to mention in my previous respones.

    Next, you seemed to wonder why I speak of the Father’s predestined purpose in the crucifixion, which foreordains that these wicked men would do what they did; yet you miss the whole point of why I stated it in the first place (which may be my fault).

    You said, “A high priest had to be sinless. Sinful men wouldn’t be able to intercede at the altar. Thus, in step 1 no sins could be forgiven and no payment made. Step 1 is nothing else than killing a lamb. No sacrifice yet at all.
    According to Calvinism’s interpretation of the meaning and purpose of the resurrection, God would –after step 1– have given his approval and the proof that these sinful men had just accomplished a valid sacrifice that atoned for sins! According to your view of the meaning of the resurrection, the sinful men’s killing a lamb would have been accredited by God to be a successful sin offering. Yet this is absurd. Neither can sinful men enter the holiest were the sacrifice is made (only the sinless high priest can enter!), nor did they even intend to make a sacrifice at all.”

    You comments demonstrate your failure to apprehend the true nature of the work of the cross, which is part and parcel where the atonement occurs. Calvinism does not state that sinful men made a valid atonement, but rather Christ did according to the Father’s foreordained plan (Acts 2 and 4). Christ’s crucifixion at the hands of evil men is simultaneously a work done by evil men for evil intentions, and a work done by the Father through the Son for our redmption. As the Prophet Isaiah declares, “Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him (53:10)”. The same actions have two intentions, God’s are redemptive and men’s are wicked. Thus, the atonement, and specifically the cross was accomplished by God at the hands of sinful men, which is a pretty profound theodicy.

    As far as penal substitution goes, you seem to affirm it and Danny already defended it, so I did not supply any Scripture on that point. See our blog for that info if you like. I also defended that issue here on an earlier post Danny made (Part iv).

    Jun 19th, 2009

15. Peter Phillips

    A Helmut,
    I almost forgot to point out an obvious logical flaw in you rebuttal, which seems to stem from bad exegesis.

    You said, “Jesus’s crucifixion was a sinful work of the world but we also read that Jesus laid down his life voluntarily. Obviously the question at hand is this: Did Jesus die voluntarily or not?

    The bible suggests both:

    Affirmative: (John 10,17-18)

    Negative: (Mt 26,39; Luke 22,42)”

    This statement seems to affirm that you believe the Bible asserts a contradiction: A = -A. The good news, however, is that the Bible never asserts that Jesus went to the cross by coercion or anything of the sort. Sure, in his humanity, he lamented the cross and wished there was another way, but he then gladly submitted to the Father’s will. He did so in total obedience, yet the author of Hebrews says, “looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God (12:2).” Christ did it for “the joy that was set before him”; in other words, for the joy of glorifying the Father and redeeming his people.

    Darn that law of non-contradiction!

    Jun 19th, 2009

16. a helmet

    Hello Peter Phillips,

    Thanks for your response.
    It seems the doctrine of Limited Atonement (LA) hinges on one’s exact notion of penal substitution. And obviously, this has much to do with God’s justice. Thus, we must ask: Is it JUST for God to impose Adam’s sin on every human being, resulting in an ever increasing sum of guilt by every human born (original sin)? Is it JUST for God to impose the wrath for one, single deed on everyone, making everyone deserving the punishment due to this one sin? Let’s say yes. God seems to be just in doing this.

    Then we must ask: Is it JUST for God to impose Christ’s good work of suffering on the sinfulness of every human being, resulting in the payment for an infinite sum of guilt ? If mankind could cause infinite sin by ONE act, cannot almighty God cause infinite satisfaction by ONE act? Most surely, yes.

    That means, the unique suffering of the sinless man Jesus was just as perfectly satisfying the wrath toward an infinite amount of sin as was Adam’s unique work perfectly condemning all mankind. This is in accordance with divine justice and hence, penal substitution.

    Now, LA stands or falls with one very special notion of penal substituion, namely the one advocated by John Owen, as I stated in my first comment here. Owen suggests a kind of proportionality between Jesus’ endured suffering and the amount of sin covered thereby and also a direct assignement of this suffering (punishment) to specific sins. This is the entire logical framework behind Owen’s rationale (as shown in the first comment above). Of course Calvinists don’t think of the atonement in such blatant ways very often but it is just the idea of penal substitution, which is the only foundation of LA. It is just the mindset behind Owen’s syllogism.

    However, it is highly reasonable to assume that Jesus’ one and unique suffering and death is collective and able to cover all sins. Why should we deny that Jesus’ unique suffering was fully satisfying God’s justice regarding particular human’s particular sins?

    On the other hand, how should Jesus’ suffering on the cross be “proportionate” to the sins it covers? — How does everyone born into this world deserve the same divine wrath if Adam’s transgression in the Garden Eden doesn’t change by the number of his descendants? And Owen’s penal substitution view isn’t supported by the scriptures anyway!

    The scriptures relevant to penal substitution are:
    -Isaiah 53
    -Romans 3:25
    -2 Corinthians 5:21
    -Galationas 3:13
    -Hebrews 10:1-4

    None of these entail or suggest Owen’s view. This should give us to think.

    Eventually the truth of LA boils down to the truth of the validity of a 1:1 sin-to-suffering assignment view of penal substitution. And that’s hardly the case.

    —————-

    I’ll respond to your statements now.

    I don’t believe the Bible asserts a contradiction. I was pointing out the important fact that Jesus did not commit suicide even though he said he would lay down his life on his own initiative. But the fact that he did NOT kill himself but rather WAS killed by others, is very important in trying to understand the nature of the atonement and resurrection, their relation, the remission of sins and thus, finally the question about the extent of the atonement (limited/unlimited). So I don’t say there is any contradiction in the bible, but the issue is just a little more complicated. Why would the betrayal of the son of man be such a horrible crime if Jesus was going to kill himself anyway? The truth is, he wasn’t going to kill himself. This would be someone ELSE’s work, and not the work of God the Father or God the son and this observation is vitally important. It is very important that Jesus death was not akin to, say, the suicide by sword that roman guards would sometimes commit when facing death penalty. This would be a bloody self-sacrifce as well. But Jesus death is absolutely not akin to such a self-murder at all. Jesus’ murder was the work of man, not in any way the work of God. According to the reformed salvation theory, Jesus could as well have killed himself by the sword and everything would basically stay the same. The father could have raised him, and he could pronounce to have atoned for sins by his suicide. Yet this would in fact not work at all. Thus, the observation that the bible suggests both Jesus’ voluntariness in his death and his unvoluntariness are meaningful given a right background of the nature of the atonement.

    I granted and affirmed the connection between the resurrection and the forgiveness of sins (1 Cor 15), which you constantly fail to credit reformed theology with. Nobody has argued that you can be forgiven without the resurrection or that it is not necessary

    I reckognize that Calvinists affirm the necessity of the resurrection for forgiveness simply because passages like 1 Cor 15 require it. Yet here is the inconsistency with Limited Atonement and the reformed view of penal substitution. Because it would be logically necessary that the elect are forgiven even without the resurrection. You rightly say Jesus was “raised for our justification”. Scripture says so. And I agree. But the problem is, this does severe damage to the reformed concept of penal substitution, because the very actions of “intercession” and “justification” become empty terms. What exactly is Christ doing, when he intercedes before the Father? Does the Father know that he imposed his own wrath on Christ? If so, what is there left to be done? Is Christ simply presenting his sacrifice before the father, showing him what he has perfectly fulfilled, as James White suggests (”Was anyone saved at the cross?”). Is that all?

    So in other words, you might admit that the resurrection was necessary for justification, but it doesn’t fit with the doctrine of LA. There is logically no reason why Jesus would have to be raised in order for sins to be forgiven. It would work without it just as well. Thus, the very logic of reformed penal substitution requires forgiveness even without the resurrection. Think this through. Don’t you think there is some deeper importance of the resurrection and some deeper content behind the action of intercession? Most surely there is!

    And there’s more: In the LA view there is no reason for the necessity of faith! Why is faith necessary anyway? Note, following the logic of reformed penal substitutionary limited atonement doctrine, everything would work just as well without the elect’s faith. Faith becomes utterly dispensable. Don’t you think there is some deeper importance of faith? Why the necessity of faith? There’s no real need for it.

    He was raised for our justification and to demonstrate the Father acceptance of his perfect sacrifice (Rom. 4:23-25).

    Well, the idea of demonstration isn’t found in that passage. Is justification nothing else than demonstrating that the punishment was endured and the price paid? He was “raised for our justification”, because without the resurrection, there’d be no justification possible. However, this is contrary to the reformed penal substitution logic. Following reformed logic, there’d be justification even without Christ’s resurrection. Can you see this problem? The only reason you assent to the necessity of the resurrection is because scripture is so plainly affirming it, but it doesn’t logically line up with LA! Therefore, LA is the real problem.

    Christ’s resurrection displayed his victory over sin and death (1 Cor. 15).

    That’s very true especially because it is the fact of the RESURRECTION which is victory over sin and death. Crucifixion alone wouldn’t be that. According to LA, God wouldn’t have needed to raise Jesus from the dead but could as well have sent and angel from heaven or a prophet confirming that Jesus’ teachings had been true and that he had accomplished full and complete atonement on the cross! That would equally work, according to reformed logic.

    In other words, the resurrection is not necessary for the salvation from sin. Reformed soteriology must admit that there is no apparent reason, why the forgiveness of sins demands the resurrection of Christ.

    Regarding Christ’s high priest role you said:
    …This Work is unified not divided, which is what both Danny and I argue. The Father elects specific men, which the Son dies for (which is part of his intercession), and the living High Priest intercedes for those same people

    Notice, at this point you are introducing concepts that are actually rather doubtful. Obviously the “specific men” concept is taken from somewhere else, not from considerations on the atonement. In fact this shows how LA is derived as a logical follow-up from other doctrines already made up and accepted. Yet these presupposed doctrines are themselves equally doubtful. You agree with Danny, but the question is whether this agrees with scripture.

    Isaiah 53 Says, “12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death?and was numbered with the transgressors;?yet he bore the sin of many,?and makes intercession for the transgressors.” Once again, Christ’s death is part of his intercessory work, and note that we have no mention of resurrection here (however, we agree on its importance).

    First, Christ bore the sins of many, but we aren’t told whether these are specific men or a collective whole (Israel, church, sheep, fold, people of God). Owen’s idea of an assignment of Jesus’ sufferings to specific men’s specific sins isn’t derivable from this text. Second, the mention that he makes intercession doesn’t in any way suggest that this is a work in his death. There’s nothing which suggests that we have a dead high priest (who was nevertheless raised to life in order to give us testimony). Rather we have two aspects here:

    1) He bore the sins of many, meaning he underwent the punishment of crucifixion for many.
    and
    2) intercedes as a living high priest.

    Nothing here suggests that intercession is “not another work outside of his death” as J. White says (”Was anyone saved at the cross?”) Rather Christ’s death is part of his intercessory work inasmuch as intercession wouldn’t be possible without his prior death. Note the radical difference.

    (Points 5 and 6 aren’t specially relevant to the topic)

    Regarding God’s foreordination of the crucifixion. This has nothing to do with the fact that the crucifixion was done by 1) wicked motives, 2) wicked men and 3) having Jesus as the victim. It is crucial that God foreordained for the WORLD to kill Jesus as opposed to Jesus killing himself.

    You comments demonstrate your failure to apprehend the true nature of the work of the cross, which is part and parcel where the atonement occurs.

    Well, here’s again the phrase “work of the cross”. Whose work is that? You regard it as Christ’s work and in one sense this is of course right. But in another sense it is the work of man and a wicked, illegitimate sin. That’s why I laid emphasis on pointing out the fact that Jesus did NOT kill himself, but WAS killed. In other words, the “work of the cross” was the work of man, not of God. This disctinction is important in order to grasp the very nature of the atonement. Because the killing of Jesus by sinful men was not accomplishing any good, but was akin to the mere killing of an animal. That’s not a sacrifice at all. Jesus post-resurrection enabled him to turn the cross into a glorious atonement — afterwards.

    And why was Jesus betrayed instead of exposing himself to his enemies? According to reformed logic and the sole emphasis on Jesus voluntariness (according to John 10), he might just as well have exposed himself. There is not really any plausible reason in the calvinistic framework why Jesus was actually delivered by his enemies and killed by the world and NOT by himself. Now the reference to God’s foreordination of course doesn’t answer this question. Because it leaves the question open why Jesus had to be a victim in the beginning. Yet these considerations are crucial in determining the nature (and hence also the extent) of the atonement.

    Only God’s work accomplishes something good, man’s workd does not.

    Greetings
    Kehrhelm “a helmet” Kröger

    Jun 21st, 2009

17. DW

    Quoting a helmet:
    On the other hand, how should Jesus’ suffering on the cross be “proportionate” to the sins it covers? — How does everyone born into this world deserve the same divine wrath if Adam’s transgression in the Garden Eden doesn’t change by the number of his descendants? And Owen’s penal substitution view isn’t supported by the scriptures anyway!

    It would seem to me that you are making a connection between Adam and Christ that is not there, all the while missing Paul’s point in Romans 5:15-16, which is that there is a very profound difference between the two acts.

    Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
    Rom 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

    Christ didn’t merely pay for the one tresspass of Adam, reversing the curse as it were, He paid for ALL the tresspasses of those He came to save. Thus “the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin.”

    Quoting a helmet:
    There is logically no reason why Jesus would have to be raised in order for sins to be forgiven. It would work without it just as well. Thus, the very logic of reformed penal substitution requires forgiveness even without the resurrection.

    You speak as a fool about things much too high for you. But I’ll be a fool with you to a small degree. You have not established any real basis for why a belief in penal substitution “requires forgiveness even without the resurrection”, and stating it over and over again does not prove it to be true. You are beating a straw man, and when he doesn’t hit you back, you just keep on hitting him. No one here is denying the necessity of the resurrection, but you seem to think that they have to in order to hold to the reformed doctrine of limited atonement. Don’t you think it would be more productive to argue about what these men are actually saying, instead of what you think they ought to be saying?

    You mentioned that in the Old Testament sacrifices the sin being atoned for was not specific, nor was the guilty party. How can you defend that in light of verses such as this:

    Lev 4:3 if it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the LORD for a sin offering.
    Lev 4:4 He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the tent of meeting before the LORD and lay his hand on the head of the bull and kill the bull before the LORD.

    Here the sinner is specific, and the sin is specific. Furthermore, what is being represented by the laying of his hand on the head of the bull, if not penal substitution?

    Jul 28th, 2009

18. a helmet

    Hello DW,

    Thanks for your reply.

    Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

    Paul is saying that the free gift of grace is the positive reverse of the one man’s trespass. It has the opposite effect! That’s the difference Paul is pointing out. In other wors, ONE sin brought condemnation of many. But now ONE free gift brings justification of many. The same pattern, but backwards! Christ undoes what Adam did.

    I have been saying here that the price Jesus paid was a fixed, definite price irrespective of the sins it was for. Note, Romans 5,15-16 says nothing regarding a proportionality between sins and the price Christ paid but rather Christ’s death is antipodal to Adam’s transgression in that ONE act (of suffering and dying) results in the justification of many just like ONE act of sin resulted in the condemnation of many. Literally nothing suggests a “unit of pain” and “unit of sin” economy here. This economy however, is the basis of Owen’s atonement view. It has exactly zero support from the scriptures.

    Christ didn’t merely pay for the one tresspass of Adam, reversing the curse as it were, He paid for ALL the tresspasses of those He came to save. Thus “the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin.”

    He paid ONE price: a finite endurance of suffering resulting in the death of one person, the son of man, Jesus. One, fixed price. Now do you think there are “units” of suffering in the atonement? That the severity of Christ’s suffering directly corresponded to the severity/amount of sins it was for? Note, John Owen’s suffering-to-sin-assignment view is a concept of penal substitution based on such “units” of undergone punishment that correspond to the various specific sins it is made for. (I’m of course not saying that Owen states it in these very words. But I’m saying that Owen’s atonement view cannot be understood otherwise. So that’s why I’m using the blantant word “unit” here.) Owen fails to see that the price of the cross is able to pay for infinite sins, because the victim’s own value is infinite because of the divinity of the son of God. This infinitely valuable victim dies once, providing one, fixed payment. But instead John Owen thinks the redeeming purchase power must be mustered from the degree of agony and embraces some weird econonomic of sin-to-pain business model of Christ’s atoning work. That’s nonsensial.

    Question: Do you think it is just for God to charge one, finite act of death of an infinitely valuable sacrifice as a payment for infinitely many sins? If yes, Owen’s view is false.

    Do you believe that Christ’s finite suffering could cover an infinite amount of sin? Most surely it does, but Owen’s atonement view doesn’t allow for this. According to Owen, Christ’s suffering must have been infinite. That’s absurd and not supported any further.

    Now, imagine Christ saved twice (half) as many individuals. Would he have to have suffered twice (half) as much? According to Owen and LA advocates he must. That’s nonsensial. Rather Christ’s finite, definite suffering resulting in his death could cover ALL sins whatsoever.

    You have not established any real basis for why a belief in penal substitution “requires forgiveness even without the resurrection”, and stating it over and over again does not prove it to be true.

    Note, if Christ underwent the punishments “of hell” for an individual on the cross, fully paying the price for that individual’s sins, then that individual would necessarily go to heaven. Because God himself would have outpoured his wrath on Jesus for that person and there cannot be any further punishment. That is the basis for why a belief in penal substition à la Owen requires forgiveness even without the resurrection.

    I acknowledge, that Calvinists affirm the necessity of the resurrection for the forgiveness of sins to be possible. But here is their inconsistency. If another prophet had come and proclaimed that Jesus death was for the sins of his disciples, it would work just as well according to the reformed salvation economy. So there is no meaningful ground for the necessity of the resurrection with respect to forgiveness in Calvinism, though they affirm it.

    You are beating a straw man, and when he doesn’t hit you back, you just keep on hitting him.

    Okay, then I ask you, DW. Why is Paul saying: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15,17)?

    Note, Paul says there’d be no forgiveness without the resurrection. Now recall what I said above, about Christ’s having actually endured the punishment of sin on the cross. If he had rotten in the grave there’d be no forgiveness Paul says! That’s incompatible with John Owen’s notion that Christ underwent the “pains of hell” for such and such person on the cross.

    DW, I’m not misrepresenting anyone or the teaching of Limited Atonement here! Honestly, this is a problem for LA. So can you answer the above, why there’d be no forgiveness without the resurrection?

    No one here is denying the necessity of the resurrection, but you seem to think that they have to in order to hold to the reformed doctrine of limited atonement.

    Yes, in order to be consistent Calvinists would have to deny the necessity of the resurrection with respect to forgiveness of sins.

    Don’t you think it would be more productive to argue about what these men are actually saying, instead of what you think they ought to be saying?

    DW, I know the doctrines of grace very, very well. And also their derivations from the bible. Yet I argue that many of the reformers have crossed the line and made hasty conclusions that now prove fallacious.

    You mentioned that in the Old Testament sacrifices the sin being atoned for was not specific, nor was the guilty party. How can you defend that in light of verses such as this:Lev 4:3-4

    DW, is the bull suffering in proportion to the sin committed? No. Further note the requirement: “without blemish”. Now the fact that Jesus was a man without blemish is what made him so valuable that he could pay for ALL sins. The value of the victim counts, not the severity of punishment.

    Furthermore, what is being represented by the laying of his hand on the head of the bull, if not penal substitution?

    Surely that is penal substituion. I don’t deny penal substitution, but the “units of suffering and units of sin” economy view of penal substitution. Christ’s suffering and death WAS the punishment in substitution. This ONE suffering was the punishment for INFINITE sins.

    -a helmet

    Aug 1st, 2009

19. a helmet

    By the way, the question I posed above is still open and I think it is pivotal:

    Is it JUST for God to impose Christ’s good work of FINITE suffering on the sinfulness of every human being, resulting in the payment for an INFINITE sum of guilt ?

    Aug 9th, 2009

Reply to “For Whom Did Christ Die? (part VI)”