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 ?

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

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?

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

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!

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).

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

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.

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

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.