“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Luke 19:10 (ESV)
“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21 (ESV)
I’ve been thinking about the atonement lately. And as I was pondering the great work of Christ on the cross, I soon found myself amazed as to what Christ actually did. What was he doing on the cross? He was seeking and saving the lost (Luke 19:10).
In regards to what has been labeled “Calvinism,” this is one area that gets a lot of people hung up. Most four-point Calvinists are “four-pointers” since they reject the doctrine of Limited Atonement. It’s just too hard to swallow, they say. What I would like to do today is shed some light upon this precious doctrine, namely, Limited Atonement, and see if I could at least try to make some things a bit clearer.
James White points out in his article Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? that Arminians as well as Calvinists limit the atonement. [1] That is to say, the Calvinist may limit the extent, or scope, of the atonement. But the Arminian limits the atonement’s power or efficacy. It is true that we Calvinists believe that Christ’s death was only efficacious for the elect, but it is also equally true that Christ’s death, for the Arminian, didn’t really save anybody; it only made salvation possible.
White quotes Lorraine Boettner:
“Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons…while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist.” [2]
John Piper and the elders at Bethlehem Baptist Church did a great job in summing up the possible positions one can take in regards to the Atonement. Says Piper,
“Which of these statements is true?
1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.
The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God’s punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.” [3]
The question that needs to be asked is this: Did Christ’s death actually do anything? Did it actually take away sins, or did it merely make salvation possible? If it really did take away sins, then the question we next need to ask is, Whose sins did it take away? If you say, “Everyone’s,” then you must necessarily conclude that everyone will go to heaven. For God could not—indeed, would not—send anyone to hell if their sins were paid for. But we know that some do go to hell. So, then it follows that not everyone’s sins have been paid for.
Of course, we could revert here for a second and say that Christ’s death only made salvation “possible” in that it really did not save anybody. However, to do that would be to severely limit the atonement’s power. That is, we would have to conclude that it just wasn’t quite “good enough to save”—something else was necessary. But that can’t be. Christ said that it was “finished” on the cross, not at the point of our good deeds.
So, is the Atonement “limited”? To be an evangelical, you would have to say, Yes. But the question is not “Is the atonement limited?” No, the question should be, “In what way is the atonement limited?” You either have to say in power or in scope.
Either Christ died for everyone in the same way, or he only died for the elect in a salvific way. If he died for everyone in the same manner, then everyone would go to heaven. I leave you with a word from James White:
“Some object to the doctrine of limited atonement on very pragmatic grounds. “The doctrine destroys evangelism, because you cannot tell people that Christ died for them, because you don’t know!” Yet, we ask, is there an advantage in presenting to men an atonement that is theoretical, a Savior whose work is incomplete, and a gospel that is but a possibility? What kind of proclamation will God honor with His Spirit: one that is tailored to seek “success,” or one that is bound to the truth of the Word of God? When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they did not say, “Christ died for all men everywhere, and it is up to you to make His work effective.” They taught that Christ died for sinners, and that it was the duty of every man to repent and believe. They knew that only God’s grace could bring about repentance and faith in the human heart. And far from that being a *hindrance* to their evangelistic work, it was the power behind it! They proclaimed a *powerful* Savior, whose work is all sufficient, and who saves men totally and completely! They knew that God was about bringing men to Himself, and, since He is the sovereign of the universe, there is no power on earth that will stay His hand! Now there is a solid basis for evangelism! And what could be more of a comfort to the heart that is racked with guilt than to know that Christ has died for sinners, and that His work is not just theoretical, but is real?
The Church needs to challenge the world again with the daring proclamation of a gospel that is offensive—offensive because it speaks of God saving those whom He will, offensive because it proclaims a sovereign Savior who redeems His people.”[4]
In the end, may it always be soli Deo gloria!
Notes
1. White, James. Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/was-anyone-saved-at-the-cross/. Date accessed: 4/16/09 at 11:18 a.m.
2. Ibid.
3. Piper, John. What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1985/1487_What_We_Believe_About_the_Five_Points_of_Calvinism/#Atonement.
Date Accessed: 4/16/09 at 11:27 a.m.
4. White, James. Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? http://reformedbaptistfellowship.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/was-anyone-saved-at-the-cross/. Date accessed: 4/16/09 at 11:42 a.m.
n
8 responses so far ↓
Kevin Jackson // April 16, 2009 at 9:11 pm |
Arminians hold that there is a universal aspect and a particular aspect to the atonement. Universal in that God loves everyone (John 3:16), particular in that one must believe to benefit (John 3:16).
Matthew Halsted // April 16, 2009 at 10:26 pm |
Kevin,
Thanks so much for the comment! I still don’t see how that solves any of the problems posed by my post. My question, I guess, is this: Did Christ pay for everyone’s sins on the cross?
a helmet // April 17, 2009 at 10:38 am |
Hello Matthew,
I can answer the question raised in your post.
Did Christ pay for everyone’s sins on the cross?
The reasoning in your post can be summarized as follows:
“Did Christ pay the penalty for anyone’s sins on the cross? If yes, then all these beneficiaries must be forgiven. If no, then he made forgiveness only possible and actually dependent on additional works of the beneficiaries, even if it is just the act of faith.”
This is close to the question:
“For whom did Christ die?”
Now, we see that Boettner, Piper and White by default rule out the option of universalism. They assume as an irrefutable fact, that not everyone will benefit from Christ’s atonement. This is remarkable, because the scriptural basis, that some persons will definitely never be saved is much weaker than the scriptural basis in favor of a limited atonement and the doctrine of limited atonement hinges on the assumption that some will definitely never benefit from the atonement. While this alone already severely weakens the reformed position, I think one should set this option aside here and answer the actual reformed position. This is what I’m doing now.
First, let me address what Piper said.
Either
1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
According to Piper’s reasoning, the dead Christ would have actually erased sins, even if he had not been raised to life. Yet Paul informs us that without Christ’s resurrection there would be no forgiveness of sins at all! (1 Cor. 15:17) This is crucial. Forgiveness of sins is only accomplished by the resurrected, living savior, who intercedes before the Father. A dead savior doesn’t save anyone.
So the actual “washing away” of sins and the application of redemption
couldn’t happen if Christ had not been raised to life. The living Lord erases sins by His intercessory work. Now, whom does Christ intercede for? Answer: For the believers in Him.
Why is this crucial? Because it shows how absurd Piper’s following reasoning is:
Piper:
But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved?
The problem is, that only those persons are forgiven, whom Christ intercedes for. He doesn’t intercede for unbelievers. Hence, unbelievers aren’t forgiven.
Calvinists portray a false dilemma. Either Jesus died for the whole world or for God’s people only. In the first case, the atonement is unlimited and provisional, in the second case it is limited and actual.
This is a false dilemma for the following reasons. Christ died to make a sacrifice for the sins of God’s people. We know who that is. These are the believers in the gospel, Christ’s disciples of all times. So the people of God is a corporation, consisting of all those who believe in Jesus Christ, and is described with terms such as the church, the spotless bride and the body of Christ among others. It is corporate, that is, an entire union that was bought withone purchase price. Jesus Christ, with one offering, purchased the people of God. He paid one price once and this price is not proportionate to the number of the redeemed individuals just like a sacrificed animal did not suffer in proportion to the number of individuals it was offered for. Furthermore, the sacrifice is not dependent on the severity of the sins it covers. Like in old testament times, the lamb which is Jesus Christ, carries all sins of the people. At the beginning the identity of the people of God is open, because the members are all who will believe and nobody existed in the beginning. So every person that believes, becomes a member of God’s people. Since this might theoretically be everyone, the atonement is universal and for the whole world. Everyone is invited to come out of the world and join Christ’s disciples, thereby becoming a part of the body of the Lord. In the end, all christians represent God’s people, all believers constitute the people and then its identity is settled.
The qustion, for whom Christ died must be answered as follows: Christ died to provide a full and complete salvation for all who believe it. The following are FAQ’s concerning the atonement, that I’d answer correspondingly.
Question 1: Did Christ’s death infallibly secure the salvation of God’s people?
Yes, he perfectly saved all the elect, that is, all believers. All the believers’ sins were fully atoned for at the cross of Golgata. It is finished.
Question 2: Is the atonement provisional for everyone and is there a sincere, universal offer of the atonement for everyone in the world?
Yes, the atonement was made without respect of persons and everyone is invited to join Christ’s disciples, becoming a member of His people. Whoseover believes will be saved. Most beneficiaries didn’t exist when the atonement was made. Hence, their sins hadn’t been committed either. The sacrifice is sufficient and intended for all.
Question 3: Imagine God wants to save a specific person, say, Joe the pizza guy. But if unlimited atonement is true and Joe simply refuses to believe, doesn’t this mean that God cannot save whom he wants?
This question is based on a false assumption, namely that we don’t know anything about whom God wants to save. Yet the Lord didn’t leave us uninformed about whom he wants to save, thus the question is based on a hypothesis which isn’t valid. For God’s intention is to save all believers. God loves only Christ and all who are in Christ. Those in Christ partake in the love of God towards Christ. So if Joe the pizza guy doesn’t believe and hence isn’t in Christ, then God has no pleasure in him. Since God’s character doesn’t change and His decree doesn’t change, such hypothetical considerations are nonsensial.
Question 4: If the atonement is unlimited, then doesn’t it follow that Christ accomplished “99%” of the work of salvation and leaves the remaining “1% “up to man’s work even if it is just the act of faith?
No, this question is due to a confusion of the work of salvation and the objects (recipients) of salvation. Let me explain. The gospel can be formulated in short by the following statement:
Jesus Christ provided full and complete salvation for all who believe it.
This statement is either true or false. Assume it is true. Then all who believe it, have been provided 100% of the work of salvation. No-one who believes this statement (the gospel!) can at the same time think they provide any part of the salvific work. Then they wouldn’t believe it.
If someone believes then he has been saved (past). By faith a person becomes the object of salvation, but doesn’t work for his salvation. It was God’s own will for believers to be saved in that way. God could have decreed something different. Yet he decided that believers in the gospel should be the heirs of salvation. Thus, we should accept God’s will.
So this question is based on a false conception of the gospel and of faith.
Question 5: If some persons don’t benefit from Christ’s atonement and must ultimately pay the penalty for their own sins, does that mean that some of Christ’s blood was shed in vain and does this imply “double payment”?
No, Christ paid one price for the entire people, regardless how many persons that involves. The purchase price is independent on the number of person belonging to God’s people. Jesus Christ paid one price for the entire people, regardless whether it consists only of the 120 disciples that were gathered in Jerusalem at Pentecost or whether it consists of billions of believers. Christ bought a corporation, so the objection that universal atonement implies that some of Christ’s blood is “wasted”, is a straw man argument.
Spurgeon wrote:
That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!
This misrepresents the nature of the atonement. In the same way there is no double payment, because Christ paid and intercedes for believers only. Unless a person benefits from Christ’s high priestly intercession before the Father, he must pay the price and endure the penalty himself. Here is the error: Calvinists think the atonement is proportionate to the number of individuals it is made for.
Question 6: If the atonement was unlimited and no-one or only few ones accepted it by faith, wouldn’t that mean that Christ’s love failed?
No. John 3:16 says God loved the world of believers only. God loves the inhabitants of the world only if they are in Christ. So God didn’t intend to save the world in its sinful condition, but only insofar as particular individuals cross over to the community of Christ’s disciples. This is an offer to everyone in the world. So God loved the world on the condition of faith in Jesus Christ. If no-one believed, God would still be contend and in everlasting self-sufficiency and self-sustainance with the son. God can only gain the more disciples are in Christ and the more His grace is glorified and thanksgivings increase. All believers will be saved, therefore God’s love, which is to the believers only, doesn’t fail.
Another important misconception that is nourished by calvinists concerns the relationship between the atonement and the proclamation of the gospel. If the atonement is unlimited then you cannot tell anyone “Christ died for your sins”. Calvinists argue that such a general promise isn’t part and parcel of the gospel message at all, thus the proclamation in the form of an offer is unbiblical.
So we must ask whether the gospel is an invitation or a commandment. Calvinists favor the view that the gospel is actually a commandment, rather than an invitation and in support of the claim that nowhere do we find anyone telling a person Christ died for you, they quote the book of Acts.
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do?’Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:37-38)
Note, the people posed a question towards Peter, they asked “What shall we do?” Peter directly answered by saying they should repent and be baptised. It would be inappropriate for Peter to answer the question What shall we do? with the proclamation of a general fact and with the pronounciation of an invitation like “Christ died for you”. Rather he is very directly answering the question what they shall do. So the absence of an apt proclamation that Christ died for the persons in the setting here, is no wonder no argument against the gospel being a sincere invitation to everyone.
Another example:
He then brought them out and asked, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.’ (Acts 16:30-31)
Again, a person directly asked what he must do to be saved. Instead of saying that Christ died for this man (and perhaps adding: every person in the world as well), they shortly replied “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ”. This is answering the question what he must do to be saved, rather than presenting the gospel as an invitation, or presenting a whole theological treatise or a sermon on the nature of the atonement. This doesn’t prove calvinism’s allegation that the gospel is not a universal invitation and the atonement is limited.
So these texts are very weak arguments against the unlimited scope of the atonement and the universality of the gospel offer. Rather the calvinistic notion that the bible doesn’t present the gospel as an offer, is plainly false.
There are sciptures that clearly present the gospel as an invitation:
The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let those who hear say, ‘Come!’ Let those who are thirsty come; and let all who wish take the free gift of the water of life. (Rev 22:17)
The gospel is both an invitation and a commandment. However the fact that it is a commandment is an argument against limited atonement. Since the rejection of the gospel is a sin itself, such a rejection then increases guilt. This only makes sense if there is a real corpus delicti , if there is actually something to harm or to damage. If the gospel is rejected, then there must have been something substantial to reject in the first place. That means, the offer of salvation must be sincere which means, the atonement must be universal. Note 2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
The false teachers sow desctruction and therefore reap destruction. Verse 20-22 continue
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.’
This is a direct parallel to Hebrews 6:4-6 & 10:26-31. They came to Christ as sinners, escaped the corruption of the world, were cleansed, then fell away and are finally worse off than at the beginning. Hebrews 10:29 uses the expression insulted the Spirit of Grace to describe the sin in question. What does “spirit of grace” mean? It is the full knowledge of the truth about the grace through the gospel (Heb. 10:26). So either there was grace in store for such a sinner and he had knowledge about this and still rejected it, or there was grace in store for others only, he had knowledge about that and rejected that fact. The first case implies unlimited atonement, the second case a limited one. Which one is it? Now, the text says (v.26) that in such a case there is no sacrifice left for sins. This renders only the first option valid and meaningful. This is an argument against limited atonement — of course there are many more.
Greetings
-a helmet
Matthew Halsted // April 17, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
Greetings! As I was reading through your comment, I could tell that I probably wouldn’t have the time to reply to everyone of your objections, but I will do the best that I can.
To sum up what you said, you state: “The question, for whom Christ died must be answered as follows: Christ died to provide a full and complete salvation for all who believe it.”
If this is what you believe, then I don’t think you would have too many quarrels with too many Calvinists. That is to say, most Calvinists would agree with that statement. In a sense, by saying, “Christ died to provide a full and complete salvation for all who believe it,” is itself limiting the atonement of Christ to only those who believe. So, in essence, what you are saying is that Christ did not die for those who do not believe. He only died for believers.
The question, then, is who will believe? The Calvinist would say, “Only the elect of God will believe.” So, the question really takes a step back in regards to what one believes about the doctrine of Unconditional Election. The question is not about Limited Atonement as much as it is about Unconditional Election. And of course, the answer to THAT question really depends upon what one thinks about the doctrine of Total Depravity.
If man is dead in his or her own sin, and if they cannot come to God on their own (John 6:44, 65), then it follows that God, not man, would have to do the saving.
In your comments, I could not really gain an adequate grasp as to what your answer was to Piper’s trilemma: Either Christ paid and rose from the dead for (1) some of the sins of all men,
(2) for all the sins of some men, or (3) for all the sins of all men.
Nobody, as Piper says, really believes (1). So throw that one out. Arminians would say (3), but if that’s the case, then everyone would go to heaven. Of course, the Arminian would object with, “But they have to believe!” But, as Piper says, isn’t the sin of unbelief covered by the blood of Christ, too?
So, the only viable option for the evangelical is to go with the (2), the Calvinist position.
How do you handle that trilemma?
soli Deo gloria!
a helmet // April 17, 2009 at 5:38 pm |
Hello Matthew,
Piper’s (originally Owen’s) trilemma is based on a wrong conception of the nature of the atonement.
“Which of these statements is true?
1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
The concept of atonement that Piper and Owen have in mind is Christ’s blood and his suffering is somehow directly assigned to particular persons’ particular sins. For instance:
One drop for Joe’s lie. One drop for Jim’s avarice. Ten drops for John’s manslaughter. Fifty drops for Mark’s murder, one drop for Bob’s unbelief, two drops for Bill’s shoplifting, five drops for James’ taking a bribe and so on and so forth.
So in the mindset behind this trilemma there is an assignment of Christ’s atonement to particular sins of particular persons. Only under such an assumption, Piper’s and Owen’s reasoning can be understood.
Yet this is not an accurate concept of atonement at all.
There are some aspects of the true nature of the atonement. Christ, by His blood, purchased a corporation. God’s people is an entire union, a single whole. This people was purchased with one, fixed price. The price being the sinless son of God. So there was one price paid once for all.
In OT times, when a lamb was sacrifice, it didn’t suffer more or less depending on the sins it had to cover. Furthermore, a lamb was sometimes offered for one persons, sometimes for several persons. It didn’t suffer proportionately to the number of beneficiaries, or to the number of sins they had committed.
Similarly, imagine God’s people was twice (or half) as big. Would Christ have had to suffer twice (or half) as much? Surely not. And if God’s people sinned twice (or half) as much, would Christ have had to suffer twice (or half) as much? No. — The purchase price is not “proportionate” to the number of sins or the number of the redeemed individuals. Christ’s purchase price is sufficient to cover the sins of everyone. It is a fixed price that was paid for sins. That is crucial. One fixed price, regardless what/whose sins it would cover. When Christ died for sins, we didn’t exist yet. So he didn’t respect actual, particular sins, but paid one price for one corporation.
This is why the idea of a direct assignment of Christ’s death to specific sins is erroneous and misleading.
Now, the real issue is this: Actual remission of sins happens at intercession, which is the work of the risen Lord (not the dead Jesus). The risen Christ has the power to apply his blood to whomever he wills. And he applies it to all who approach him through faith. Christ doesn’t intercede for those who don’t believe. Thus, unbelievers aren’t members of God’s people and aren’t forgiven.
Piper says:
But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved?
Well, here is again the misconception that views the atonement as a direct assignment to such and such sin of such and such person. Yet forgiveness of sins is accomplished by intercession , not by death! Intercession, the work of the living savior is made for those who believe only! Those who approach him by faith have all their sins erased, by means of Christ’s blood. Those who don’t approach him by faith aren’t forgiven any sins at all. There was no particular amount of blood shed for, say, “Kevin’s unbelief” or so, such that the penalty for Kevin’s unbelief has been effectively paid for. Rather, there was one price paid, which is able to cover all sins whatsoever. But it actually covers the sins of those who believe. So if “Kevin” stays in unbelief then one cannot argue that somehow Christ failed or that his blood was somehow shed in vain.
This is why the entire reasoning in this trilemma is so fallacious. It completely ignores the nature of the atonement and misses the necessity of Christ’s resurrection, for remission of sins to be possible.
Here is a question for those who endorse the validity of the Owen-Piper-trilemma:
Imagine Jesus had died on the cross, as the bible says, then been buried and decomposed without ever rising from the dead. Would anyone’s sins be forgiven then? If the answer is YES, then we are in direct opposition to the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15,17) and also disregard the whole derivation of the high priest teaching in Hebrews, which would be lapse. If we say NO, then Jesus had undergone the wrath of God, enduring the penalty of sins, suffering instead of someone else and everybody would nevertheless stay in their sins without forgiveness. Everyone would still have to pay the price for their sins alone — double payment!
This, of course, is odd. However, this is what follows from this false trilemma.
-a helmet
Matthew Halsted // April 22, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
Sorry for the delayed response. I guess I am a little confused by our dialogue. Basically–and tell me if I am misrepresenting your viewpoint–but you think that the death of Christ did not forgive sins, right? If that is correct, then I guess I would have to ask the following question: What did the death of Christ do? What was the purpose of the death of Christ if it wasn’t for the washing away of sins? And how would you exegete the following verse: “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!” (Hebrews 9:14, NIV). And, “…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22, NIV). This last passage, it seems, implies that with the shedding of blood, namely, Christ’s blood, there is forgiveness. How would you respond to that?
Additionally, I would like to point out, from Scripture, that the atonement did actually do something–that is, it purchased men. See, for example, Revelation 5:9: “…and with your blood you purchased men for God…”
So, it seems that your ideas may be wrong (I say this in the utmost respect), namely, that Christ’s death did not secure forgiveness.
How would you respond, in detail, to each particular charge that I bring up?
a helmet // April 22, 2009 at 7:55 pm |
Hello,
The reformed view of the nature of the atonement has some bizarre implications. 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 were’n 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 such-and-such sins of such-and-such 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? 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? 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 Piper’s (Owen’s) syllogism.
This is how I (and I guess most believers of all times) interpret the Hebrews text, you’re quoting:
“How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!”
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.
“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”.
Sure. Nobody will argue against that. Forgiveness is only possible because Christ was killed.
Summing up, the reformed concept of atonement really has some bizarre ramifications. The provisional atonement view makes much more sense.
-a helmet
Rich Schmidt // April 23, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
Helmet, I have to say that I appreciate your patience and your clarity. While I’m not sure I agree with every aspect of your argument (specifically the parts about God loving only believers), I agree with the vast majority, the main thrust of it. Thank you!
But of course, I’m predisposed to agree with you, as I’m a Wesleyan/Nazarene.