Friday, December 11, 2009

Atonement at the Cross

Before covering to whom the efficacy of Christ’s atoning death applies, it will be beneficial to broadly define what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Orthodox Christian understanding of the atonement can be summarized in the term penal substitutionary atonement. Atonement describes the reconciliatory nature of Christ’s death that provides a right standing with God (1 Pet 3:18). Penal indicates Jesus’ death was necessary in order to pay the penalty for sins. God’s just character cannot allow sin to go unpunished for there can be no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb 9:22).

Jesus Christ died a substitutionary death for us – he died in our place. He lived the perfect, sinless life that we could not. At the cross, the Son became sin on our behalf (2 Cor 5:21). He endured the punishment for our sins – the very wrath of God. Our righteousness is very literally found in Christ, not just because of Christ! Romans 3:23-26 addresses penal substitution as follows, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Describing what the atonement entails, however, does not settle whom it benefits. Historically, the libertarian free will side has termed their understanding as unlimited atonement, and the sovereign grace side as limited atonement. There is a comparatively small group of Christians who contend for unlimited, limited atonement. Despite the intriguing oxymoronic term, we won’t venture into their neck of the woods in this brief synopsis. Linguistically speaking, the “unlimited” and “limited” descriptors can blur the unavoidable fact that both viewpoints limit the atonement. Unlimited atonement limits the depth; limited atonement limits the breadth. This brings us back to the question of whether or not Christ died for the sin of unbelief.

Unlimited atonement contends that Christ’s death atoned for all of humanity in the same way for each person. The basis for this view comes from verses describing God’s provision of Christ for the world (such as Jn 3:16, Rom 8:32) and more specifically point to 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." According to their understanding of God’s justice nature, He must provide every person with the same unbiased opportunity to exercise their choice to accept or reject Christ. Therefore, the atonement provides a broad opportunity for everyone to receive it. Salvation is ultimately dependent upon man exercising libertarian free will to repent and respond in faith, not solely by God’s gracious provisions. Unbelief can’t be part of unlimited atonement; otherwise, according to this view the atonement would be universal, saving all people.

Limited atonement holds that Christ’s death atoned specifically for the elect, including the sin of unbelief. Accordingly, 1 John 2:2 (listed in the above paragraph) is properly understood only in concert with verses such as John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad", and also Revelation 5:9, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Both the context of 1 John 2:2 and clarifications provided by John 11:52-51 and Revelation 5:9 reveal that John has in mind the provision of Christ’s atonement to all peoples of the world, not just the Jews.

Additionally, verses such as Mark 10:45 (also Matt 26:28, Jn 10:15, Heb 9:28, Eph 5:25-27, Tit 2:14) indicate a restrictive nature as to the atonement, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” From John chapter 17 Jesus describes his ministry being especially for those whom God gave him out of the world. He says in verse 9, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours,” and in verse 19, “And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.”

Contrary to ill-informed critics, limited atonement (properly understood) does not limit the universal call for all men to believe in the gospel. Many biblical passages clearly teach this unrestricted call to repentance and faith. Rather, it’s proper understanding reveals both a universal call and a specific call (Rom 8:30) from God. Affirming God’s sovereign grace in salvation, including the nature of the atonement, should be viewed as a peek behind the curtain through scriptural lens as to why some believe and some don’t. But scripture provides no insight into who will believe! No mere man knows the will of God concerning the elect. The Good News must be urgently preached to all people, everywhere! The elect will respond in saving faith.

2 comments:

  1. My main objection with your post is the conflating notion of atonement with Penal Substitution - they are not the same. There are other 'models' of atonement that don't require Penal Substitution.

    The model of atonement which the Bible teaches is not that of Penal Substitution. Psub is not seen in the OT sacrifices or in the NT. Romans 3:21-26 is also very helpful in this regard, for it uses key terms such as "redemption" and "propitiation" (two terms incompatible with PSub). To propitiate means to turn away wrath, it does not mean to re-direct it; and to redeem means to put up a 'buy back' price. Neither of which make sense in Penal Substitution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nick,

    I appreciate your response and thoughts, although I have to respectfully disagree with them. I recommend an excellent book titled "The Cross of Christ" by John Stott. This will be from a Protestant viewpoint (I noticed on your post ID that you're Catholic), but I trust it will be very helpful for obtaining an alternative perspective the totality of the atonement, especially the term propitiation (hilaskomai in Greek). A couple quick counter-thoughts: 1) Are the terms redemption, propitiation, justification and reconciliation ordained to collectively explain different aspects of the atonement, or be simplified to explain only one aspect (ex. - you pointed to redemption)? 2) Consider that the NT and OT both affirm that there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood(Heb 9:22), pointing to re-direction of wrath from the guilty to the substitutionary sacrifice, as well as turning wrath away (albeit not completely until Christ). I don't see these as necessarily exclusive, but rather, part and parcel. In the OT, God provided animal sacrifices that served as a temporary, foreshadowing sacrifice until the Messiah came. Especially noteworthy is The Day of Atonement for Israel (Yom Kippur) with both the sacrificial goat and scapegoat. Does not Yom Kippur point to it's fulfillment as described in Rom 3:21-26, with God no longer overlooking sin as he formerly had done? I contend this precisely points to, not away from, penal substitution.

    God Bless,

    Mason

    ReplyDelete