A Proper Concept of the Atonement

Hi Eric,
You bring to the table an interesting thought. If God is love, and love saved only those He elected, the damned must indeed been impossible to show love towards. Think about the ramifications. How can God, the Creator of all men, find it impossible to love those He chose not to provide an atonement for? Could He in Love, withhold an opportunity of an atonement, IF in fact He was going to condemn sinful man for being nothing other, yea, was impossible to be any other, than what they are, sentencing them to a literal burning eternal hell, again for the offense of not being greater than God Himself in overcoming necessitated fate, something even God cannot do, and that from eternity? Would not justice DEMAND that an opportunity be provided for these poor objects of necessitated damnation a way of escape?

Scripture represents salvation as grace not justice. Grace is only seen as men have an opportunity to do something other than what they do, but WILLINGLY disobey. Then when God, in justice could have rightfully just sentenced them to an eternal hell, offers these willing rebels salvation in an act of mercy and grace, salvation is seen in the light of the true grace that it is.

I am looking forward to hearing GE’s comments to your post.

 

<FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>HP: Another excellent point. What we are addressing here is a maelstrom of confusion. Here they, of necessity, have to fall into another unscriptural distinction, and that is that that positionally we are made righteous by the

 

Hi Bob,
I see the completed process of the atonement in three parts not just two. It starts at the cross, is made effective individually at salvations initial act when we repent and in faith believe, and consummated at the judgment. It is still Not the ‘literal payment of a debt’ in any of the three points, for again, if it was, Christ would have had to suffer the exact penalty the law demanded. He did not suffer eternally, either by eternal damnation in hell or annihilation for eternity as you would have us believe. When you repeat your points, you pass right over this issue every time as I see it. I ask you again, how could Christ have paid the 'literal payment' of the sin debt, if the sin debt the law demands is nothing other than eternal separation or annihilation for eternity?

 

Hi BD17,
Sorry I missed one of your posts. I will try and address it later. I also must retract one of my comments in regards to a point you made. You said,

I responded, “:

As I ponder my response that I gave you, I feel that my response is in error, and it is ‘I’ that is illogical on that point. If the ‘possibility’ in a 'theoretical sense,' did not exist that no one would respond, it would of necessity necessitate the response that existed, would it not? I do not believe that the mere 'possibility' made it necessarily a ‘high possibility’ as you stated, but none the less I in retrospect feel it must have been a possibility in a 'theoretical sense' anyway. To that I must humbly concur and apologize for my first reaction to your logical point. If the possibility did not exist in any way, that would eliminate man playing any role in his salvation whatsoever, a point I could never concede. I do believe that man plays a role, not by anything meritorious, but rather in the sense of ‘not without which,’ and so in reflection I believe I must admit that your logic was again right and mine in error on this point. When we eliminate ‘possibilities’ we also eliminate freedom, a point, which again, I cannot concede. Please again forgive my hasty response to your point. I still reserve the right to change again if I have new light on the subject.

As far as the atonement being for ‘absolutely nothing,’ I would still disagree there. That argument seems to me to be similar to those that will tell you that if you vote for a candidate that you know is going to lose, you have wasted your vote. I cannot subscribe to those sentiments. A vote is never wasted if cast for the right man and issues, and neither would God’s atonement been a waste if in fact no person would have ever followed His commands to repent, exercise faith, and be obedient to the end. God’s character and mercy would have been eternally established had no one accepted His offer and no one ever obeyed His conditions.

 

Hi BD17,
Yes the Bible does say that this was “The sacrifice,” a once for all atonement, but as I started this thread explaining , the purpose of the atonement was not directly for the immediate forgiveness of individual sin. although it obviously was done with that end in mind. Rather the death of Christ was directed to satisfying the demands of the stated penalty of the law by making a substitutionary atonement, making it possible for God to treat sinful man ‘governmentally’ as ‘if though’ he had not sinned, under certain conditions. The atonement did not, in and of itself, forgive any individual sins, for without repentance and faith on the part of man, no forgiveness will be made effective in any individual’s life.

So no, we do not crucify again Christ every time we sin. That has been done once for all. Just the same, no forgiveness will be made effective in our lives for any sin that is not repented of. “Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Revelations tell us that if we fall into sin that we need to go back and do “our” first works over again. Our ‘first works’ start with repentance. The sacrifice has been made, once for all. The bridge has been built to allow for the forgiveness of sins. All I need to do is to avail myself to that sacrifice by renewed repentance and faith, fulfilling God's conditions, in that atonement if and when I sin.

 

HP: First, forgive me for the length of this post. You are asking a hard question.

Let me start with this explanation. There are many difficult passages in Scripture, some even far beyond our total ability to grasp. We are by finite beings, and God is Infinite. He sees the beginning from the end, all things as they are, and we see but a glimpse of some things, and even then often imperfectly.

Take the atonement for instance. God speaks of the Lamb and the atonement in the following passage. “Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
Are we to assume that the atonement had already taken place before the crucifixion on the mount of Golgotha? I think not, just the same, the plan had been in effect within the mind of God though out eternity. Christ was not in reality slain before the world, but God had clearly formed the intention to do so, making it in a sense “a certain event’. As a result of this absolute knowledge of future events yet to take place, He could, as He obviously did, speak of it as if though it had already happened.

In common parlance we might speak of a future event as a ‘done deal’ that in reality is yet to happen. A man convicted of murder on death row might be spoken of a a dead man. Is he dead yet? No, but due to the imminent and sure fate he will suffer, he can be spoken of as being dead already. Such I find to be a reasonable meaning to attatch to the words of God in Revelations. Not that Christ had already been slain from the foundations of the world in actuality, but rather in light of the intentions of God and the full knowledge that those intentions would be carried to fruition in reality in a time frame subsequent to laying the foundations of the world in the future, it could be spoken of in a sense as it already had happened as ‘from the foundations of the world.’

The import of this issue is tied directly to the atonement issue we are currently discussing. The question has been asked by BD17 “If the death of Christ did not actually secure salvation for anyone because of the possibility of none choosing Him then what purpose did it serve?”

First, as I mentioned earlier, I only admit to the ‘possibility’ in theoretical terms. We know that by the actual time that the atonement was actually accomplished, repentance and faith had been seen by many in the OT. God is also omniscient and has known those from the foundation of the world that would accept His offer of salvation by the fulfilling of the conditions He set forth. You cannot accept that He is omniscient without holding to both truths. Just the same, omniscience does not necessarily necessitate an event. God’s foreknowledge is not in like kind to ours. We are limited to foreknowledge of only things that must of necessity come to pass, and God can foreknow matters of perfect choice. Salvation of men involves the free choices of men. As such it was foreknown by God as to its outcome, i.e., those that would be saved, but that foreknowledge did not necessitate those being saved. Man is no robot determined by the foreknowledge of God. Man was created by God as a ‘first cause’ of his intents and subsequent actions. We are the creators of those intents and as such are responsible to God for them. Apart from this freedom of of forming intents, apart from the coercion that some would like to assume as a result of Divine foreknowledge, all retribution or rewards would be as absurd as they would be unjust. Only as man is able, under the very same set of circumstances, to do something other than what he does, can man be praised or blamed for any moral intents whatsoever.

Forgive me. I know I am way off of the topic at hand. These other issues will need to be taken up in other threads as we progress in our discussions.

The point I am driving at is that God knew full well of the choices men had made and would make prior to and subsequent to the atonement. I would say it was ‘in a sense’ ‘impossible’ for God not to see the results of the choices of men prior to the atonement, again in light of our understanding that such foreknowledge did not necessitate their choices. In light of God’s foreknowledge it was ‘impossible’ that God did not know the outcome of His intentions, and that they would not be executed without merit. Just the same, in a THEORETICAL sense, and from a logical and moral perspective, and in light of the necessitated logical ends of understanding moral agency and subsequent responsibility, the possibility had to exist that a ‘theoretical possibility’ existed that no man ‘of necessity’ would have to follow a foreknown conclusion of God’s foreknowledge.

I am trying to approach this from two realities, as far removed from each other as they might appear to us at times from our finite perspective. There is the reality of God’s omniscience, and there is the reality of moral agency and responsibility. Both perspectives demand logical ends that must in some way be harmonized. I choose to harmonize them in such a way as to not limit God in His foreknowledge, yet allow for freedom of choice by man as God created him to be able to perform, without which all notions such as love, hate, righteousness, sin, morality, freedom, blameworthy, praiseworthy, etc, loose all their meanings and purposes.

So yes, it is impossible for God to not have known the outcome of His intentions, yet it is also must of necessity be ‘theoretically possible‘ that no man might have followed God’s foreknown plan, thus allowing for the ‘theoretical possibility’ that no one would partake of His offer of atonement and forgiveness. His foreknowledge does not necessitate the outcome.

 

HP: Christ satisfied the demands of the laws penalty on the cross by way of a subsitutionary sacrifice. It did not ‘literally’ pay the penalty demanded by the law, for that penalty was eternal in nature. What Christ did do, was to suffer sufficiently, i.e., enough where by God saw it as sufficient to set aside the penalty demanded by the law on behalf of sinners and governmentally treat them as though they did not sin, under certain conditions IF and when they would comply with the conditions He set down for them to comply with. In the atonement He made a ‘satisfaction’ to the penalty of the law, thereby upholding the integrity of the law and its penalty as well as being able to show forth mercy and grace in a wise governmental fashion.

So I see your question as not totally in line with the way things are. It is like me asking you if you have stopped beating your wife yet? If by ‘justice’ you mean, ‘the penalty of the law that we rightfully would have endured apart from His forgiveness,’ I would say yes, Christ endured that by a satisfaction being made that God accepted as sufficient. We do not satisfy the demands of the law in the least, nor could we. A sinner, outside of the atonement and mercy of God, has no way to atone for any sin. We cannot satisfy the justice of God period without suffering first an eternity in hell. God does not demand us to do the impossible. What God does demand of us is to fulfill the conditions of repentance and faith in order to receive His pardon from sin. These conditions evolved as established conditions which gained their impetus from the mercy and grace that God proffered, not from His justice.

Christ’s death on the cross in no way, in and of itself, clears any man in particular. The cross is the means by which God’s penalty of His law can be set aside. It is the bridge that was built to make possible the forgiveness of sins, but sins are not forgiven until we meet His conditions of repentance and faith. The atonement is the voltage that remains ready to be utilized as we complete the circuit of atonement in obedience via repentance and faith. Have you heard that song, ‘Keep the Switch of Faith Turned On?’ Whoever wrote that must have been electrically inclined.

You are absolutely right by saying, “We do not appease God's wrath by believing.”

HP: I cannot comprehend completely how God’s foreknowledge operates, for it is infinite and far beyond our own. I can say this. NOTHING necessitates the free will choice of God to bestow mercy. Mercy and grace, as seen in salvation, are not demanded or necessitated by anything. If they were, they would be denoted as synonymous with justice, which they are not. Justice is demanded. Mercy and grace are, and due to their very nature must be understood as being, freely proffered.

 

Hi Bob Ryan,

In all fairness and after discussing many things with you, I see our positions on the atonement primarily separated by semantic differences, not substantive differences. You seem unwilling to shake the word ‘literal’ in relationship to the payment of the penalty, and I refuse to use that word to depict it for obvious reasons I have set forth. The word ‘literal’ carries with it well understood implications that I see as totally and completely at antipodes with the facts related to the atonement.

You see the atonement as encompassing the act of atonement on the cross and the application of it by the High Priest of our profession. I commend you for this inclusion of both ideas as being necessary to complete ones initial salvation experience. I believe in reality you as well more than likely believe that if we are to be found in Him in the last day that continued obedience is required as well, from everything I have read by you.

Of course we differ on the penalty of sin, and word things differently on many fronts. Where you utilize the idea of having a gift retracted that was granted, I see the gift in the atonement not as granted to us at the moment Christ offered His life on the cross, but rather as only preparing and establishing it, making the way possible and building the bridge to span the gap between the justice of God law and its rightfully incurred penalty, and His mercy to be proffered to us on a personal level upon the fulfilling of the conditions of repentance and faith He has ordained.

I feel we have much in common although there are still obvious hurdles to cross. May God continue to enlighten our hearts, and may we place His truth above all presuppositional beliefs. The cry of my heart is that we might above all else be found walking consistently in the light of the truth God reveals to our hearts.

 

HP: I see the atonement as being universal in the following manner and sense. The atonement built a bridge or made a way by which every last sin of every man can be forgiven, except of course the sin for which no atonement can suffice, i.e. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The atonement in NO way assures the universal salvation of all men. Christ died for all. He is the ‘propitiation, not for just our sins, but for the sins of the entire world’ according to Scripture. Again, the atonement, in and of itself, satisfied the demands of the penalty of the law for all men, but as Bob Ryan has correctly pointed out, that work is only made effective in our lives as the High Priest of our confession applies that blood to our individual lives. That, according to Scripture as I see it, only happens as we fulfill the conditions of repentance and faith in that atonement and His proffered forgiveness.

I see our relationship to God and our standing before Him in this world, best illustrated by the term ‘having received a pardon for sins that are past.’ I believe that as long as we are in this world, we remain in a state of probation, and must continue in obedience until the end. Mt 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Joh 8:31 ¶ Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

 

HP. The atonement assures that God has accepted and applied the sufferings of Christ for the satisfaction of the laws demanded penalty for all sin.

In the following sense He has died for all. He has provided the means, by satisfying the laws demanded penalty in view of all sin, that make forgiveness a possibility under certain conditions. The conditions that God has mandated for us to comply with, in order for that forgiveness to be imparted to us by the application of the blood that Christ shed to our specific transgressions, are repentance for all sins that are past and faith in His atoning work.

 

HP: It does not assure that ‘no one is saved.’ “Personal” salvation is a byproduct of the work of atonement, not the ‘direct’ object of it.

HP: I have never said that, nor does Scripture equate the penalty of the law as ‘God’s anger,” nor does it represent the atonement as an appeasement to God’s anger, at least to my knowledge. Sure it accomplishes something for us!! It creates the possibility that we can know the true and the Living God in a restored relationship for eternity! What a marvelous opportunity to be granted this second chance of fellowship and eternal bliss that we as willing rebels in no way deserved! How could you even suggest such a thing is beyond me.