SALVATION
GOD’S PROVISION, MAN’S NEED
God was in Christ reconciling the
world to himself. Jesus offered once and for all the one perfect
sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. No other satisfaction is
necessary; none other can atone. Salvation is received as a gift on the
condition of genuine faith.
ELEMENTS
OF INITIAL SALVATION
Justification–
To justify in Scripture is an act of
God, by which, according to His grace and for Christ’s sake, He
pardons all of our sins and accepts us as righteous.
The Bible tells us that God accepts the one who confesses himself
to be guilty, and who repents and believes in Jesus Christ.
Mark 1:14, 15; 16:16; Rom. 1:16,17; 4:3-7; 5:1; Gal. 2:16, 17.
This can only be found through the work of Christ, and not the
law. Every attempt in sinners to justify themselves by the law is vain.
Psa. 140:3, 4;
Regeneration–
Is the change of nature that is wrought within
the believer simultaneously with
the work of justification. Matt. 19:28; Tit. 3:5. It is commonly called
the NEW BIRTH, John 3:3-8.
It is the initial stage of sanctification in which the Believers nature is born again and re-united with God. It is passing out of death into life, Eph 2:1, 4, 5; 1 John 3:14; a new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; a new heart and a new spirit, Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26.
Regeneration
is necessary since in man’s fallen state he is unfit to inherit the
Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 5:19-21.
Also God is holy and heaven is a holy place, and sinful man must
be changed in order to fellowship with God and enjoy heaven.
Adoption–
An act of God by which we are accepted into the family of God as
His own children. Rom.
8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5.
Adoption,
Regeneration, and Justification–
All happen simultaneously when a Believer
passes from death into life. Justification is necessary to enable the
reconciliation between God and
Man. When this takes place,
all our former sins are forgiven. But
God has to go further to be able to accept us, He must reform our
corrupt nature, this of course is the function of regeneration.
Adoption, that is, being born into and accepted into God’s
family occurs in the same moment that regeneration and justification
take place.
ATONEMENT
AND THE BIBLE
Atonement– means to make as one, to satisfy, to take away the barrier that separates. Concerning Christ, it stands for the provision that he acquired through His sufferings upon the cross on our behalf. This provision makes possible the uniting of two divided parties, God and man.
Many
use the term REDEMPTION
as a synonym for ATONEMENT. To redeem is to “buy back”, or to pay a
ransom. On this account
Jesus is called the Redeemer. Isa. 59:20; 60:16; Rom. 3:24-26; Gal.
3:13; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.
THE
FACTS
Atonement
is only through the death and resurrection of Christ.
Luke 22:19; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 5:6-11; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:18; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 10:12; 1 Jn. 2:1-2.
We
know the following: 1. Christ died for our sins. 2. It was necessary. 3.
This is based in God’s love. 4. The death of Christ was not an
accident.
The
exact way in which this atonement works
in the mind of God is a partial mystery to us.
THEOLOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS
THE MYSTERY
OF THE ATONEMENT
God has revealed sufficient and accurate facts for our understanding. There is enough information about the atonement in the Bible to know what God deems as essential for our salvation, but we do not have full knowledge. Now this is not to say that we cannot have accurate knowledge. I will hopefully demonstrate the difficulty that we face.
ALL VIEWS
OF THE ATONEMENT ARE ESSENTIALLY THEORIES
There is no Theory in existence that satisfactorily answers every verse about the atonement.
I believe that God has
used several models to explain His saving work to mankind. What is essential
is that we find salvation and reconciliation through the merits of
Christ. It is extremely
important is that we use accurate and Biblical models to shape our
thinking. It is essential that
you understand that your view of
how the atonement works, is the foundation block of everything that
you understand about the Bible!
Our conclusions about the Atonement will give us theological biases that lead us to understand the Scriptures only in a way that our Atonement view will allow. If we are wrong here, we will be wrong in how we understand everything in Scripture!
Three Models Of Understanding
Anthropomorphic–
This is a great model to use to appeal to the heart.
It stresses the personal relationship with God.
It is limited in answering the question of “how” the death of
Christ satisfies the account against us. These human images help us to
relate to the fact that Jesus atoned for our sins, but rarely gives us
the details of "how" Jesus atoned for our sins. Because of the
previous reasons, the anthropomorphic image of the atonement should not
be used as our primary base for doctrine, but as an augmentation to
enhance our doctrinally based view of God’s love towards us.
Sacrificial–
This is an excellent model that has the support of
the entire Old Testament. The fact that God has spent so much time
emphasizing this form of atonement renders it to be very appealing. In
the New Testament, the book of Hebrews makes good use of this
perspective. The fact that God will stand as our "Judge" for
those sins that were un-atoned for,
will work with the idea of sacrifice, but its judicial implications seem
to be foreign to the Old Testament. Because the New testament reached
beyond Jews to the Gentiles, it would make sense that an explanation
would be made in terms that would not deny sacrifice, but would fit into
the vocabulary and knowledge of those who did not know the concepts of
Judaism. The Sacrificial theory of the atonement seems to fit better
into the Jewish mind than that of the Greek mind. Because God has
revealed to us the nature of sacrifice throughout the Old
Testament in such precise detail, we can gain an understanding of
how it foreshadows and reveals what Jesus accomplished for us on the
cross. With the entire Old Testament for its support, this could, and
should be one’s primary means of understanding atonement. He is the
Lamb of God, who shed His blood as an atonement for sins.
Judicial–
The Bible uses terminology that implies the
idea of a judicial system. We will stand before the Judgment Seat of
Christ. He is also our Advocate. God’s moral Government is emphasized
by His use of the law. The fact that He is our Judge, and
that our many violations of the law requires our personal day in
court, we can only be found just before God because Jesus is the
Advocate that pleas for us. It is only by the merit of Christ, and not
our self-righteousness, that the Judge is willing, and just, in being
and able to pardon us. Terms such as justification and pardon seem to
fit the judicial model better than any other theory.
Most people use a
judicial theory of the Atonement as their only
base. This causes many Scripture verses to become difficulties or
mysteries. There are two primary
views that fall under the judicial category, which are, the Penal
Substitutionary Atonement view,
and the Governmental Atonement view. Both of these have been
touched upon in the preceding chart.
As we evaluate any
view, we must conclude that for any view to be acceptable, it must first
be Biblical. The following criteria will help and assist you in
evaluating each system.
The
Death of Christ
1. His death was neither the incidental nor the inevitable consequence of His collision with the passions and prejudices of the Jewish people.
2. The laying down His life was a voluntary act.
3. To lay down His life was one of the ends for which He came into the world.
4. His Death is immediately related to the deliverance of condemnation of those who believe in Him.
5. He accepted John the Baptist’s testimony that Jesus was the Lamb of God.
6. He described His death as a death for others.
In any adequate theory
of the purpose of the Death of Christ, these various statements must
find a place and an explanation.
Also,
We are sinful and of
sinful tendency. We can only be saved in a deliverance from sin and a
moral harmonization with God. Without such facts there is no place for
the redemptive work of Christ, and no saving office which he can
fulfill. If this were not
true, then what is the need for the redemptive mediation of Christ? Why
can't man achieve his own deliverance from sin and harmonize himself
with God? Why can't God achieve both without a mediation in Christ?
Every theory of atonement that may be properly called such must answer
these questions.
The Penal Theory
Assumes that the Trinity divided itself and punished Jesus on the Cross. It assumes that the punishment of the innocent is wrong for man, but somehow, would be right for God. It assumes that sin can be transferred from one to another, which is an ethical fiction. Righteousness can no more be imputed to a sinner than bravery to a coward or wisdom to a fool. This theory assumes that Christ paid the sin-debt, but yet for this key issue, they are without any Scriptural evidence. Consistent Calvinists will say this payment is limited to the Elect only, and to their peril, they must rob the Scriptures of all the references to the will of God to save all. Most who hold to this atonement theory are inconsistent in their use of it. When were sins paid? (assuming that they were paid) On the Cross of course! Then in reality, when someone gets “saved” they are actually just waking up to the fact that they had been saved all the time they thought they were lost; they just woke up to the fact that they have always been saved since they were "paid for" 2000 years ago. The inevitable conclusion of payment is, that if Jesus died for all, then all must be acquitted on judgment day.
The
Governmental Theory
The essence of this
theory is that Jesus voluntarily suffered
as a substitute for punishment. To
be able to punish someone they must be guilty. But to torture an
innocent man is to make him suffer.
Suffering inflicted upon a man to make him better in the future is not
punishment, but discipline: to be punishment, it must be inflicted for
evil deeds done in the past. Suffering
endured for the sake of society is not punishment: if accepted
voluntarily, it is the heroism of self-sacrifice; if inflicted by
arbitrary authority, it is injustice on the one side and
martyrdom on the other. We
must know that
the suffering inflicted is deserved, for this is a necessary element in the
conception of punishment.
The Governmental Theory
is illustrated by the form of oriental law that is still practiced in some places in
the Middle East today. For example, in Turkey, a criminal gets a one year
prison sentence. His family cannot provide on their own. So according to
their law, the wife, friend, or child can substitute for the breadwinner
by taking their place in prison, or could even go as far as substituting
in death. In the view of the government, this
would satisfy the interest of justice. Through this approach, the
demands of the government are met and the guilty given grace by the
innocent, but voluntary substitute.
With this system we can
still have the pardon the Bible talks about through the provision made
by our Savior. Nowhere in the Bible is it said that Jesus was punished
on the Cross, but everywhere it is said that He suffered.
Luke 9:22; 17:25; Acts 3:18; 26:23; 2 Tim. 3:12; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2:21;
3:18; 4:1, 13; 5:1.
If Jesus suffered, he
was not punished. If he was not punished, he was not sinful on the
Cross. But what about 2 Cor. 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for
us.”? The Scriptures
commonly use the singular term “sin” in the sense of a sin-offering. In the Old Testament we are told that the animal sacrifice was to
become “sin,” but yet, because of the context, we see it rightfully translated
as "sin-offering." In Heb. 10:4, it is said that “it is not possible that the
blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” If we say that sin was transferred, and Jesus literally became
sin, then we must go against the Scripture and say that the blood of bull and goats
were effectual offerings, that sin could be transferred to them, for
they too were made "sin." Yet we find no
statement in Scripture admits that a transfer of character or sin is
possible, but explicit statements that it cannot.
1 Pet. 2:24, “Who his
own self bare our sins in his own body of the tree.” In what sense did he bare our sins in his own body? It is unfeasible that sins were transferred. He bore the weight
of, or, bore up our sins a
way that the responsibility for our burden was upon him as is the
suffering for them were his own. Note
that throughout the Epistles of Peter he is especially careful in
emphasizing the suffering and not the punishment of Jesus
Christ.
Gal 3:13, “Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:
for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.” Are we
to assume that everyone that was ever crucified was guilty?
History disproves that notion. While
it is true that everyone that has ever been crucified was an object of a
curse or, cursed in the
sense of public disapproval and shame.
1 Cor. 6:20;
7:23, “For ye are bought with a price” and Acts 20:28, “The Holy
Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood.” Notice first
of all that nothing is said in these verses about paying for
sins. Oh yes, it was a high price to pay for the Son of God, but this
way of speaking proves nothing for the Penal Substitutionary
theory. On Veteran’s Day
every year I hear speeches about the “High Price of Freedom,” but
yet, if I look at the high cost of this freedom I must ask, if twenty
fewer Americans died in World War Two, would we still have won?
What if only one American died in defense of their country during
World War two? Could we still talk about the high cost of freedom? We
sure could! It is not that
50,0000 American deaths purchased the victory in the war, but we are all
indebted to those who died in defense of our freedom. In the same manner, one Jesus does not = X
amount of sinners. The
Atonement is not a commercial transaction! Any that come to Jesus are
due to Him. It was His sacrifice, and not their good works that allow
them to come to Him.
This Governmental
theory looks at these judicial statements of Scripture in light of
Oriental Law. God as our moral
Governor, and thus, must maintain His moral government. The justice that
is to be maintained is to keep the believer in this moral realm.
The
Death of Christ was necessary to justly maintain the integrity of His
moral Government. God and His Government are inseparable, so sin is an
offense not only against good law and order, but an offense against God.
This view of the
atonement rejects any punishment of the Son of God upon the cross. It represents the Holy Trinity as working together to make
provision for man. The Cross is not a scene where the Father is hurling
lightning bolts down upon the head of the Son in wrath, but a scene
where the love of God causes Him to endure the most horrendous pain in
order save as many of mankind as He can.
We might admit to
an element of penal substitution, but the texts that are used to support
this theory neither assert nor require it. To rely upon the Penal
Substitutionary theory of atonement and its conclusions
as our sole source of understanding the work of Christ, will cause us to
use concepts and ideas that are not sanctioned by the Scriptures. We
must be cautioned that this will inevitably lead us to interject our
presuppositions into the meaning of Scriptures that are not really
there.
One last word about
these theories. Some may
differ as to what theory is truth, but that does not mean that someone
cannot be justified unless they accept a particular theory. It is not
intellectual assent to theories that saves, but faith resting upon the
work of Christ itself that is essential to salvation.
Calvary
and the Atonement
God is One. If we were able to alienate the Son from the rest of the Trinity at the cross, we could no longer have God. It is essential to the existence and being of God that He remains immutable. With this thought in mind, how are we to reconcile most peoples view about God's supposed rejection of the Son while He was upon the cross? Did Jesus literally become all of our sin and thereby get ousted from the Trinity? Can we find a way to reconcile the Scriptural account of the atonement without destroying the doctrine of the Trinity, and the essential Oneness of God?
There is a more
Biblical and plausible view here summarized by Dr. Daniel Steele.
The
Governmental Theory of the Atonement
We have insuperable philosophical and ethical difficulties in the way of receiving the statement that the guilt of the race was transferred to Christ. Character is personal, and cannot be transferred. Sin is not an entity, a substance which can be separated from the sinner and be transferred to another and be made an attribute of his character by such a transfer. Sin is the act or state of the thinker. If sin cannot exist in the abstract, it cannot be punished in the abstract. If it cannot be transferred to another, it cannot be punished in another, though a man may voluntarily suffer to save another from punishment.
While it is true
that Jesus is our substitute, He is our substitute truly and strictly
only in suffering, not in
punishment. Sin cannot be punished and pardoned also. (In a
court of law, the judge has only two options if you are guilty, he
either pardons or he punishes, he cannot do both. So if sin was paid for
on the cross, then the sin that He died for was punished and therefore,
there is no need for God to forgive since the cause of justice has
already been satisfied.)
This is illustrated in the transaction of twenty dollars. A lender from a bank loans me $20.00. I become incapable of paying you back. The loaner of the money is faced with forgiving me of the debt, or having me punished for not paying him back. A friend of mine intercedes and pays the $20.00 that I owe, and it is accepted by the loaner. Now, if the payment is accepted, the loaner does not "forgive" me of my debt. There is no grace in the transaction from the loaner. The Penal Substitution Theory makes salvation an issue of merit by payment, not by grace and forgiveness.
The Governmental Theory emphasizes suffering, and not payment. It is where someone voluntarily suffers in place of penalty to satisfy the demands of God's Government. God accepts the substituted suffering since it satisfies the integrity of the Law. Because of this substitute, God is able to pardon and forgive the sinner. Salvation is therefore by grace, not by the works of a payment. The character of God being merciful and gracious is then vindicated, because it is not a payment, but by a provision made as a substitute for penalty.
In his presentation of the Governmental theory, Dr. Steele sees no division in the Trinity on Calvary’s Cross. The atonement is a provision and not a payment. The whole Trinity working together in God’s plan to reconcile man, there was no separation on the cross, for ,"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19.
Further Steele
says:
There is no punishment
of sin except in the person of the sinner who neglects so great a
Savior. Sin was not punished on the Cross. Calvary was the scene of
wondrous mercy and love, not of wrath and penalty.
What is the
inevitable outcome of the doctrine that sin was punished on the cross?
Whose sin? If it be answered, that of the whole human race, then
universalism emerges, for God cannot in justice punish sin twice.
Now there are several
reasons why I have been unable to preach this theory of the atonement
(that Jesus was punished on the cross).
1. It is not exact justice to punish the innocent.
2. Guilt is personal and can not be transferred.
3. It leaves no room for a literal and true pardon from sin,….. Pardon, being a gracious remission of deserved penalty, cannot be required after the penalty has been fully endured by the Substitute. In essence he is saying, if it’s paid, there is nothing left to forgive.
4. The punishment of the innocent….would be wrong for man and right for God?
5. For if the sins of
all men were
punished in Jesus Christ, no man can be justly punished, either in this
world or in the world to come, for sins already expiated by suffering
their penalty. I lay no foundations for the delusive doctrine of the
final salvation of all men.
In the Governmental
Theory the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ are an atonement for
sin as a conditional substitute for punishment,
fulfilling, on the obligation of sin, the obligation
of justice in moral government.
The advantages of this theory are:
1. It can be preached without mental reservations.
2. It avoids the irrational idea that Christ was literally made sin and a curse.
3. It makes no dualism or collision between the divine Persons, the Father punishing the Son.
4. It
satisfies the Protector of the divine law.
Personifying the law and saying it was satisfied is
5. This theory (the Governmental theory) is Biblical.
The
Sacrificial Theory
The
Sacrificial Theory is in agreement with the Governmental Theory over the
errors of the Penal Substitionary Theory. Where it differs from the
Governmental Theory is in its explanation of the “why” and “how”
of the atonement. For an example, the Penal Theory has the payment of
sins as the “how” of the atonement. God is required to punish sin,
and sin is either punished in the sinner, or the substitute. The
Governmental Theory has its “why” in explaining that God must uphold
the integrity of His government. Sin is punishable, but a substitute can
voluntarily “suffer” in place of the guilty. The demands of
governmental justice are satisfied, and the ability for the Governor to
pardon sin exists. The reason why most people prefer a model of
atonement other than the Sacrificial Theory is because these other
theories seek to explain the “how” and the “why” of atonement,
and the Sacrificial Theory does not. We are not told why God
requires sacrifice, or how it affects Him as a requirement for
forgiveness. The reason resides in the mind of God. It really does not
matter "why" or "how" this works, but the fact that God
commands it.
Some
complain that since one cannot know the the "how" and "why"
in the Sacrificial Theory, it makes the theory too hard to explain and understand. Some have argued that
the Gospel must be simple to explain, and therefore reject this
theory. Simplicity however, is
never stated in Scripture as the gauge of truth. Simple explanations do
not prove truth, only simplicity.
What
matters in the atonement is that we understand that our salvation is
based solely upon the result of the work of Jesus Christ. In this, all
true theories of the atonement may lead us there. But one must consider
the impact that a theory has on the rest of what we believe. How we view
the atonement, which is the basic doctrine in which we interpret
almost all other doctrines, affects nearly every Scripture we read. This can result in
minor deviations in nonessential beliefs; but it does have the potential
to lead to fatal doctrinal errors. Because of this, I feel compelled to
affirm that the Scriptures assert only one view of atonement,
which is through sacrifice. The Bible states no other theory.
While some passages on atonement must be artificially pressed into
alignment for other theories, all statements of atonement can be easily
aligned with sacrifice.
While I
have presented several options for your consideration, I would be remiss
in my Christian duty if I did not press you towards the atonement of the
Bible, which is Sacrifice. A Sacrifice is not a payment, and therefore
cannot be limited. It is like the Governmental Theory in that it gives
us a provision for sin. Forgiveness would be based upon our appeal to
the Sacrifice of Christ for our sins. How this makes things right with
God, I do not know. I only trust in faith that it works, because God
commanded it, and required it for atonement.
One
question I will leave you with is:
does God only work within the realm of just one theory? Does God reveal
atonement to the Jews by the means of Sacrifice, the Romans and the
Greeks by way of legal models like the Governmental Theory, and perhaps,
the anthropomorphic model for the unsophisticated and unrefined?
See The Importance of Theology
THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY GLOSSARY OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS
Rev. Daniel Steele, D.D.
Steele’s Answers
The Gospel of the Comforter
Half Hours with St. John
Edgar P. Ellyson
William Newton Clarke, D.D.
An Outline of Christian Theology
Vincent Taylor
R.W. Dale
John Miley
S.J Gamertsfelder
D.D. Whedon