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
For some people, there will be no theory in existence that will satisfactorily answer every verse in Scripture about the the atonement. While all theories will seek to reconcile passages so they are consistent, the result is often clumsy and dubious.
I believe that God can use several
models to explain His saving work to mankind. What is essential in
our understanding is
that we find salvation and reconciliation through the merits of Christ
in atonement. It
is extremely important is that we use accurate and Biblical models to
shape our thinking. While much of
what concerns the atonement is theoretical, it is
essential that
we find a Biblical view of the atonement because it is the foundation block of everything that
we 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 permit. The bias, or foundation that we work from, will dictate how we understand everything else in Scripture. If we are wrong at the basic level of the atonement, we will be wrong in any doctrine that touches that foundation!
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITS OF MODELS
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 strongly uses
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, and
able to pardon us. Terms such as justification and pardon seem to only
fit the judicial model.
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, they 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 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. While the 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. That
the suffering inflicted is deserved is a necessary element in the
conception of punishment.
This is illustrated from 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 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 it is translated 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 Jesus literally became sin, then we must go
against the Scripture and say that bull and goats were effectual
offerings because they transferred sin.
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, 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.)
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 besides the Scriptural condition of faith.
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