Substitutionary Atonement

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

I have to ask CD – you aren’t one of those people who claim that penal substitution is a Protestant invention are you? You do understand that John Calvin is not the originator of this doctrine right?

I believe it is a Protestant invention in so far as the Protestants were the ones who systematized and popularized it. There could have been heretics before them who spoke of it, or a halfthought by an ECF, I don’t know.

Also – remember this. God’s wrath was satisfied by the death of the offender – not by the “good deed” of Phinehas. If Phinehas did any other ‘good deed’ than put that man to death – God’s wrath would not have been turned away. This hurts your position and overturns the objection that Protestants teach that “God must punish” – because clearly – we are correct. No sin goes unpunished . . . ever. God’s wrath is not diverted by foreign and unrelated goodness – it must be satisfied by justice. In the case of Phinehas and in the case of Christ – God’s wrath was satisfied by the death of the offender. .

The death of the offender was the good deed, and that is why Phinehas himself take the credit (Psalm 106:30f). PS fails here because an innocent person didn’t take the offender’s place. No guilt was transferred. And what Phinehas stopped was a plague which was already killing thousands and would have finished them all off had he not stepped in. Bottom line: Atonement was made, and an innocent person didn’t have to have the guilt transfered to them.

Galatians 3:13 is a clear reference to Deuteronomy 21:23.

As a matter of fact – your assertion goes against the common interpretation of the early church fathers – as we read in the writings and controversies of even Augustine. Some men (Faustus) accused Moses of blaspheming Christ for saying that “anyone who is hung on a tree is accursed of God.” It is interesting to note that in defense of Moses, and even Paul for that matter, Augustine never once attempted to disconnect Paul’s application of Deuteronomy 21:23 from its original context. All Augustine established was that Christ bore our punishment because of our sins – not his own, so that Christ became a curse in our place, not in his own place.

I never denied Deut 21 was the reference, what I said and meant was that this curse was about a humiliating way to die, not a literal curse in the spiritual. I doub’t Augustine saw the curse as anything more than a humiliating way to die.

You are looking into a historical account that was written in a biographical fashion. You will not find too much in the synoptics – though you will find clear references to God’s wrath – the “cup” in John, and that “forsaking” of Christ on the cross. Before you attempt to refute these short statements – if you wish, I can provide an exposition of relevant passages in John. Then we can deal with the texts head on. Just let me know which way you want to take this discussion.

A historical/biographical account is just what we need, and it depicts the crucifixion as a total murder. The “cup” was in reference to the fact Jesus knew the persecution that was coming up and the “forsaking” was God leaving Jesus in the hands of persecutors rather than send Divine assistence to rescue Him.

I’d love to see the texts from John and take them on.

They may have been ‘godly’ but they were not ‘sinless.’

That is not relevant in the specific sense of God letting godly men suffer all the time, and it does not demand God was letting them be persecuted for any past sins (be they explicit or implicit). For example, Abel was a godly man and was murdered, but there is no indication God allowed this because Abel was not sinless.

Christ was sinless – and death is the consequences of sins – so how does God allow Christ to die and remain just – and how is it even ontologically possible?

It is ontologically possible because Christ assumed human nature, and by nature man can die. God allows sin only if He can bring out a greater good, so the Passion opened the door for Christ’s immortal and Glorified Body.

It is often objected that if Christ suffered for us and paid for our sins – then we should never suffer. This is a reasonable objection – however – we must understand something about the nature of the suffering of believers.
The nature of the sufferings of believer is not ‘penal’ – for Christ paid that on Calvary. We do not suffer as the penalty of our own sin – Christ paid that already. But rather, the nature of a believer’s suffering is ‘merciful’ – not a condemning fire of wrath, but a refining fire of love. This suffering is actually grace – and is granted by God on the behalf of Christ.

This is ironic because death is a punishment for sin, and if you believe Jesus took that punishment in a penal substitution sense, then you should not have to die. In fact, it would be unjust for God to let you die. Suffering and death are bad in and of themself, they are only ‘merciful’ in a secondary sense.

Humiliation and shame were all a part of the curse – but cannot exhaust the meaning of Christ becoming a curse for us. I will speak more on this later, in reference to some interesting statements made by Early Church Fathers that were so explicit they cannot be explained away. Just let me know when you want to bring them into the picture - I am collecting statements right now that demonstrate that the EFCs held the doctrine of penal substitution.

I’ll take the quotes whenever you are ready. I would be very surprised if an ECF extended “curse” beyond a humiliating death into a spiritual curse. For it to be more than physical shame and humiliating physical death would lead to serious theological problems.

(cont 1 more)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont, last one)

A dual intention is not PS! One intention was exclusively wicked, the other was exclusively good.

This is not what I was talking about, the intention of murder is not the instrument by which justice is served. Further, on the issue of Joseph, God was not punishing Joseph.

Again – you are simply recapitulating my earlier statements.

But we have totally different understandings.

Not necessarily. Christ only took upon himself the sins of his people (Mat. 1:21). His death only paid the penalty of those with whom he is in union. See my other post on the union of Christ and the believer.

I understand that, but my comment applies if you believe any of those involved would eventually convert.

So those who end up repenting, and believing on Christ, and them alone, manifest that they have a union with Christ – and thus it is true that their sins – even their sin of consenting to the death of Christ – was paid for by their Savior. If you really think about it – all our sins killed Jesus – not just the sins of those who were there during the historical event.

We did not engage in the actual murder, so your comment only applies in a secondary sense.

Please understand me CD – I never said that “God was murdering” anyone. God’s killing of the Israelites was a righteous act of judgment as far as he was concerned. God did – however – use an ungodly nation to perform this righteous deed, and they did not perform it intentionally for God’s purposes. They performed this act out of the wickedness of their own hearts. Though God had a just cause to punish Israel, the Assyrians did not have a just cause in and of themselves. By the Assyrians disregarding the righteous purpose of God, and killing the Israelites in an attempt to accomplish their own wicked purpose – they actually became guilty of murder. This is obviously true, because apart from God’s purpose – they had no legitimate grounds to kill anyone. Therefore – for them – it was an unjust act of malicious murder; even though for God, it was a just act of judgment.

You have made a good point here and I should rethink this part about God ordaining things. It is the complicated issue of Providence. God was out to justly punish the Israelites, He “sent” Assyria to do this, but what the Assyrians did was a sin, yet God cannot be said to have acted unjustly. So this is obviously the same situation with Acts 2:23, God foreordained the Passion, men did the sin of murder, God was wholly innocent. When I said God does not use unjust means for a just cause, that is still true, but you never actually disagreed. The question now is whether the Passion was God legally transferring the guilt and punishments to Christ. That I don’t believe is true. The situation of Joseph God ‘foreordained’ him to be persecuted, but Joseph was not being punished, so from that I conclude God can ‘foreordain’ bad things to happen to good people without it being the intent to punish.

CD – here is where you demonstrate your unwillingness to fairly hear me out.

I have cut out much of this last response because what you say I have thought about it and agree to your main concept that God on the Providential level foreordains everything, including bad things but is not acting unjustly and the one who does the sin is guilty. The Passion was foreordained, but the question was whether God had PS in mind or whether it was a Joseph like situation where God was not punishing Joseph but foreordained bad things to happen.

Your only objection now – is to take this concept – and pretend that it is supposed to establish the doctrine of penal substitution all on it’s own. But that is a mistake that you continue to make. These passages were only referenced to refute your assertion that justice can never be served by unjust means.

You are very correct here, I recognize my error. Its the transcendent issue which requires reconciling Providence and man’s responsibility. God never sins, He never murders, so God does not use unjust means in that sense. But everything is ultimately under His control so a murder is used for His purposes but He is not guilty of sin in any way. So I was correct in what I was saying about God and injustice, but I was unintentionally using it as a false argument against what you were saying.

I am sorry that this discussion has become so drawn out - as I am now posting 8 part responses. This is a little overwhelming - but I guess it is worth it for the sake of the gospel and all who will read. The best part about this discussion - by far - is the manner in which it is being conducted. I thank you for your kindness and patience. I hope that we will continue in a spirit of grace and love!

Whew, that was long! I will gladly continue this discussion at least for another exchange or so. Hopefully it wont be 8 parts long.

 

[brkn1]

Catholics do not dispute that Jesus bore our sins on the cross. That aspect of atonement is not in question. Where we part ways with those who believe in substitutional-punishment atonement, is by seeing Christ’s complete submission to the will of the father as the sacrificual act that atones. Properly framed, it is clearly seen that our Redemption arises from an act of God’s love, not from the infliction of God’s wrath. The distorting of the view by improperly seeing Jesus as suffering the specific punishments due to each of the saved causes this clarity to become opaque.

In noting the Catholic reaction to protestant atonement variations on Atonement doctrine, the writers in the Catholic Encyclopedia noted here:

I think that perhaps you and Frontline are misunderstanding the Catholic theological viewpoints regarding the Atonement. We are not far apart in most respects. But as it pertains to punishment, we do part ways.

Peace,
-Robert

I read your link on the Catholic Encylopedia explanation. There are some good points, but it still fails to convince me on the reason why Jesus “bore our sins upon Himself on the Cross”.

Exactly why would Christ have to take our sins upon Himself, if He was not acting as a willing Substitute to pay the penalty for those sins?

 

[Frontline]

PART ONE

Hey CD –

Thank you for all of your engagement – I really have appreciated the opportunity to discuss this topic. I am happy to know that many will read this conversation – and be able to judge for themselves. I thank you for the gracious way in which we were able to communicate – as I believe that we demonstrated to all – the proper way to have these discussions. I will only give these last few comments – for I do not believe that there is a whole lot more to be said on each side (without repeating ourselves again and again – which runs the chance of engendering a vexation of spirit). Please feel free to hit me up in the future as I did you, and I will be happy to join in on any conversation (on a topic that I am familiar with) and give my perspectives.

Again – thank you, and God bless you!

To drive this into a strictly legal situation demolishes mercy and forgiveness at its core, which were the foundation of the Atonement. The very fact God let Adam live after the sin rather than strike Him dead was the greatest act of sweeping sin under the rug in the history of the universe…according to your logic above.

I disagree for two reasons:

1. Legalities are a part of Redemptive History, and we cannot eradicate them from the cross. By God having to find a way to bestow redemptive mercy and grace upon guilty sinners – in a way that honors His justice – presents no contradiction of character, and does no damage to the nature of the cross. Rather, it demonstrates the highest form of integrity in God. It shows us a God who was determined, in mercy and in grace, to do what it took to save His people. A God who, driven by the great love wherewith He loved us, found a way to satisfy divine justice, so that we might be justly and righteously redeemed, and brought back into fellowship with Him.
2. Adam’s sin was not ‘swept under the rug’ because Christ paid for it. Though God postponed the collection of his payment, He did not do away with it completely. This does no damage to ‘strict justice,’ for the simple fact that the atonement was a guaranteed event – as it’s price and it’s time of payment (the fullness of time) was decreed ‘according to the determinate counsel’ and ‘foreordination of God.’ That is to say that because God’s decrees are immutable – the payment was sure and secure. Not only this – but the spiritual reality is that Christ was ‘the lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Rev. 13:8) – which means that all those who were ‘chosen in him from the foundation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4) – were entitled to the ‘divine credit,’ or rather ‘divine advancement’ of the benefits of his payment. In the mind and purpose of God – our redemption was as good as accomplished, so justice was not violated when Old Testament saints were saved.

If you don’t believe that God could have outright forgiven, then “God is Love” and mercy are totally obliterated.

They are not obliterated – rather they are fully demonstrated. Our sin is the barrier between God and us – and the Law condemns us for it. We are in an impossible situation. But God demonstrated His love in that He purposed to bestow His bountiful mercy upon us. And the way that God had mercy on us was not by doing away with the law – but by fulfilling the law in Jesus Christ. Christ’s satisfaction of divine justice on our behalf was the greatest act of love He could have ever shown, especially because it cost him his own life.

(cont)Whoa there, lets see the very next verse:8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. 9 "O Lord,if I have found favor in your eyes,"he said, “then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.”
There is Jesus in His Advocate Role again. Notice, Moses’ status carries weight in God’s sight, his requests God is pleased to hear. The idea that Ex 34:6-9 is the strict justice you are looking for is simply not there.

Yes – but God did not forgive them on the basis of anything but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ – who bore their sins, and satisfied divine justice on their behalf. An Advocate is not one who can persuade the Judge to do unjustly – but one who is in a position to justly defend those who are being condemned. Christ is a just Advocate – who has power in his advocacy simply because justice is on his side. Our punishment has been dealt – our curse has been endured. Our payment has been made. The wrath of the law’s sentence has been delivered by God the Almighty Law Giver and Executioner, and it was received, suffered, and has been fully satisfied by Jesus Christ – in our place. Therefore all of his requests will be granted.

 

[Frontline]

PART TWO

Your understanding of Rom 4, Gal 3, and 2 Cor 5 is botched, no offense.

Can you explain to me the true meaning of these passages then? What is the true meaning of imputation that we see in Romans 4?

The death of the offender was the good deed, and that is why Phinehas himself take the credit (Psalm 106:30f). PS fails here because an innocent person didn’t take the offender’s place.

Again – you are attempting to disprove the doctrine simply because there is not a one to one correlation between the accounts. Again CD – I was proving a concept that is applicable to penal substitution. That concept is that God must punish sin – and that by punishing sin atonement is made, and not without it. Psalm 106:30 reads, “Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.” Can you not see that in Psalm 106:30 it says that judgment was executed? This concept is powerful, as Numbers 25 teaches that this judgment (killing the offender) was what made atonement. So the deed that Phinehas performed was bringing judgment upon the transgressor, and thereby he made atonement. How then can your atonement model be true, when you remove the concept of divine judgment from the equation? I am arguing for a consistency with what is in the text, and you are making a case based upon what is not in this particular text. Anyone can see that the former is the stronger argument.

It is ontologically possible because Christ assumed human nature, and by nature man can die.

So Adam would have died even if he committed no sin? Or is death a direct consequence of sin? How then could the Lord Jesus die, when he was ‘without sin?’ Obviously, our sin was imputed to him, as he calls them his own in Psalm 69:5.

This is ironic because death is a punishment for sin, and if you believe Jesus took that punishment in a penal substitution sense, then you should not have to die. In fact, it would be unjust for God to let you die.

I answered this one already: the same event (death) can have two natures. Death can be a cutting off of life and an entrance into judgment, or it can be a portal into everlasting bliss. For the believer, death has “lost its sting” and the grave has “lost the victory” and so the nature of death for the believer is non-retributive. Death for the believer is no longer the consequence for sin, but rather the reward of righteousness.

Suffering and death are bad in and of themselves; they are only ‘merciful’ in a secondary sense.

No. The nature of suffering and death resides in the motive and purpose behind it. If the suffering is in fact a judgment on sin, and the death is a punishment for wickedness, then they are ‘bad’ in the sense that they are consequences of evil. But if the suffering is to strengthen, or the suffering is to build character – then it is not ‘bad.’

Just like when Paul was given a ‘thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment him’ (2 Cor 12). Some would consider this as ‘bad’ but the text reveals that it was not of that nature. It was not judgment for sin, but mercy. God was using the ‘thorn’ to humble Paul, not to destroy him. This suffering was good. Paul admits the purpose of this suffering when he says, ‘And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure’ (v. 7).

Although Satan’s intention was obviously not to humble Paul, God’s intention certainly was. Another motive and purpose of God in Paul’s suffering was so that Paul’s character would be developed, and he would learn to completely trust and rely on God. Therefore this was a gracious application of suffering that was given by God. The nature was not the same as if God sent Satan to torment an unbeliever. For an unbeliever it may very well be judgment – but for Paul, it was designed to bring him to a gracious realization that “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness” (v. 9).

CD – I hope that you can understand this concept. Paul certainly did. This is apparent from his own words: ‘Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong’ (vv. 9-10). These sufferings were ‘good’ and so are all the sufferings of believers. Also then, the death of all believers is ‘good’ and in no sense whatsoever is it seen as ‘bad.’ The Bible nowhere teaches that the death of the believer is in any sense ‘bad.’ Paul again gives us insight to this truth when he says, “To live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Php. 1:21).

 

[brownjt]

I read your link on the Catholic Encylopedia explanation. There are some good points, but it still fails to convince me on the reason why Jesus “bore our sins upon Himself on the Cross”.

Exactly why would Christ have to take our sins upon Himself, if He was not acting as a willing Substitute to pay the penalty for those sins?

He was doing His Father’s will. It was predestined and predicted. He was the Lamb of God that took away the sins of the world. He was doing His Father’s will. He bame the “new” Adam and the “new” Moses. Fulfillment of the law was justice served. He asked God to forgive us for we did not know what we do.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

You guys have gone to great lengths to define and defend the definition of words and the meanings of punctuation (all to great and noble ends, I am sure). But I think about 30 posts back somebody asked what the implications of PS were and I would also like to hear what the end results would be. I have a few observations myself. Maybe this will allow for a fresh set of ideas.

If PS is the purpose of the Crucifixion, then wouldn’t it stand that.

1. 
   *]God no longer needs a covenant with us. And could really just ignore us from now on.
   
   The entire purpose of the covenant with Israel was to bring about the salvation of man. Well, that’s all taken care of now. God no longer has the burning desire to dispense out judgment on mankind. The debt has been paid. As an example, let’s say that you are in court and found guilty of speeding. You pay the fine and the relationship between you and the judge is over. He may even tell you not to appear before him again. God the Judge of All has finished his judgment of us and punished Jesus for our transgressions. The trial is over.
   
   *]Jesus looses his divinity.
   
   If we see God as the judge, as described above, and he is perfect justice, thus His unstoppable need to punish us, then how does it make sense that Jesus was God? Would a perfectly just judge, as we know God to be, find a person guilty of murder; condemn him to death for his crimes; then tell the criminal that instead of releasing the punishment on him, he would instead punch Himself in the face until He felt that enough damage has been done to pay for the crime? It doesn’t seem logical. And if its not logical on earth, its certainly not logical in Heaven. So then (God forgive me for even thinking this) Jesus should not be God. He may very well be a great and holy man, but if God could forgive our sins by punishing himself then he could have done it in Heaven without us. The entire Incarnation seems a little over the top and unnecessary in this scenario.
   
   *]We bypass the Judgment Seat upon death and walk right into Heaven.
   
   One last ridiculous example and then you guys can tear me apart . Since the debt has been paid, there seems to be little need for a Judgement at all. There is no way a just judge would indite and convict me of a crime that has already been tried. It would be double jeopardy. So after I die I can simple walk right past the courthouse and wave on my way to Heaven? I don’t remember that being the case, if I remember Jesus’ words correctly.
   
   Thank you for allowing me to bring my elementary ideas into the fray. You all are an inspiration to people like me. I think I should devote much more time to reading scripture and learning Greek

 

[brownjt]

You guys have gone to great lengths to define and defend the definition of words and the meanings of punctuation (all to great and noble ends, I am sure). But I think about 30 posts back somebody asked what the implications of PS were and I would also like to hear what the end results would be. I have a few observations myself. Maybe this will allow for a fresh set of ideas.

If PS is the purpose of the Crucifixion, then wouldn’t it stand that.

1. 
   *]God no longer needs a covenant with us. And could really just ignore us from now on.
   
   The entire purpose of the covenant with Israel was to bring about the salvation of man. Well, that’s all taken care of now. God no longer has the burning desire to dispense out judgment on mankind. The debt has been paid. As an example, let’s say that you are in court and found guilty of speeding. You pay the fine and the relationship between you and the judge is over. He may even tell you not to appear before him again. God the Judge of All has finished his judgment of us and punished Jesus for our transgressions. The trial is over.
   
   *]Jesus looses his divinity.
   
   If we see God as the judge, as described above, and he is perfect justice, thus His unstoppable need to punish us, then how does it make sense that Jesus was God? Would a perfectly just judge, as we know God to be, find a person guilty of murder; condemn him to death for his crimes; then tell the criminal that instead of releasing the punishment on him, he would instead punch Himself in the face until He felt that enough damage has been done to pay for the crime? It doesn’t seem logical. And if its not logical on earth, its certainly not logical in Heaven. So then (God forgive me for even thinking this) Jesus should not be God. He may very well be a great and holy man, but if God could forgive our sins by punishing himself then he could have done it in Heaven without us. The entire Incarnation seems a little over the top and unnecessary in this scenario.
   
   *]We bypass the Judgment Seat upon death and walk right into Heaven.
   
   One last ridiculous example and then you guys can tear me apart . Since the debt has been paid, there seems to be little need for a Judgement at all. There is no way a just judge would indite and convict me of a crime that has already been tried. It would be double jeopardy. So after I die I can simple walk right past the courthouse and wave on my way to Heaven? I don’t remember that being the case, if I remember Jesus’ words correctly.
   
   Thank you for allowing me to bring my elementary ideas into the fray. You all are an inspiration to people like me. I think I should devote much more time to reading scripture and learning Greek

1. 
   Good start to this. I do not know Greek either. Let me thrown this out and you can go to the CCC and the sacred scriptures. I once saw a question on this site that said to the effect, what is the difference between the redemption/atonement of Christ on the cross and salavation. My take on it was that Christ fulfilled the promise of the New Covenant with his blood - this freed mankind for the bonds of sin since Adam - it allowed us - through grace to attain salvation (with our free will) IF we chose. Jesus’s action were the fullfillment of OT prophecy. Christ’s desth and resurrection FREED mankind. His Advocate - the Holy Spirit - came on the Pentecost and allowed us to attain salvation as individuals. We are now accountable for our individual sins NOT the sin of Adam.

 

[Frontline]

If PS is the purpose of the Crucifixion, then wouldn’t it stand that.

*]God no longer needs a covenant with us. And could really just ignore us from now on.

The entire purpose of the covenant with Israel was to bring about the salvation of man. Well, that’s all taken care of now. God no longer has the burning desire to dispense out judgment on mankind. The debt has been paid. As an example, let’s say that you are in court and found guilty of speeding. You pay the fine and the relationship between you and the judge is over. He may even tell you not to appear before him again. GOD THE JUDGE of All has finished his judgment OF US and punished Jesus for OUR transgressions. The trial is over.

I think your mistake is that you are viewing God in a single office – as Judge alone. It is true that for all who Christ died, God is no longer seen as a condemning Judge – but now – because of what Jesus accomplished – He is our legal Father by adoption. “When we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, SO THAT we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:3-6) Clearly – our relationship to God is not over – but the nature of it has radically changed.

Also – God never ceases to be a Judge – for He will still Judge the wicked. But for believers, He is a Judge who shall pronounce us to be righteous, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone. He is no longer a condemning Judge, but a Justifying Judge.

*]Jesus looses his divinity.

If we see God as the judge, as described above, and he is perfect justice, thus His unstoppable need to punish us, then how does it make sense that Jesus was God? Would a perfectly just judge, as we know God to be, find a person guilty of murder; condemn him to death for his crimes; then tell the criminal that instead of releasing the punishment on him, HE WOULD INSTEAD PUNCH HIMSELF IN THE FACE UNTIL HE FELT THAT ENOUGH DAMAGE HAS BEEN DONE to pay for the crime? It doesn’t seem logical. And if its not logical on earth, its certainly not logical in Heaven. So then (God forgive me for even thinking this) Jesus should not be God. He may very well be a great and holy man, but IF GOD COULD FORGIVE OUR SINS BY PUNISHING HIMSELF THEN HE COULD HAVE DONE IT IN HEAVEN WITHOUT US. The entire Incarnation seems a little over the top and unnecessary in this scenario.

First of all – Damage is not the goal of God. Reparation is the goal of God in giving Himself over to the demands of the Law, so that justice would be honored, and we could be justly redeemed.

I think that you have grasped the concept of God being ONE in substance and in essence – but I think that you have failed to take into consideration the distinction of persons within the Godhead. My suggestion to you is to learn the doctrine of the Trinity. Then you will no longer see penal substitution as ‘contrary’ to the nature of God, but rather ‘complimentary’ of the nature of God.

Second – there is no way for God to become man’s Savior without becoming a man. Your logic is carrying you away; please stay grounded within the testimony of Scripture. You objection is not directed exclusively toward penal substitution, but can be aimed at any theory of atonement. You are basically saying that the incarnation was not necessary for salvation. Penal substitution is not the only aspect of the atonement that necessitates the incarnation. Consider Hebrews Chapter 2:14-18 which reads, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, SO THAT through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore HE HAD TO BE made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”

*]We bypass the Judgment Seat upon death and walk right into Heaven.

One last ridiculous example and then you guys can tear me apart . Since the debt has been paid, there seems to be little need for a Judgement at all. There is no way a just judge would indite and convict me of a crime that has already been tried. It would be double jeopardy. So after I die I can simple walk right past the courthouse and wave on my way to Heaven? I don’t remember that being the case, if I remember Jesus’ words correctly.

We bypass a guilty verdict – but not the judgment itself. Rather, at the judgment we will be finally and openly and in the presence of all humanity – be declared ‘not guilty’ and ‘righteous.’ We will be declared righteous though – on account of Christ’s righteousness alone – imputed to us by faith.

Thank you for allowing me to bring my elementary ideas into the fray. You all are an inspiration to people like me. I think I should devote much more time to reading scripture and learning Greek

Certainly you should – as I should too. Thank you for your comments, and please take into consideration all that I gave in response. God bless you!

 

[Frontline]

My take on it was that Christ fulfilled the promise of the New Covenant with his blood - this freed mankind for the bonds of sin since Adam - it allowed us - through grace to attain salvation (with our free will) IF we chose. Jesus’s action were the fullfillment of OT prophecy. Christ’s desth and resurrection FREED mankind. His Advocate - the Holy Spirit - came on the Pentecost and allowed us to attain salvation as individuals. We are now accountable for our individual sins NOT the sin of Adam.

That cannot be proven by Scripture, and is a purely humanistic, works-based salvation that turns grace into an aid for meritorious good works. This is simply not true, as the Bible teaches that grace and works - when viewed meritoriously - are mutually exclusive - (Romans 11:6).

 

[brownjt]

That cannot be proven by Scripture, and is a purely humanistic, works-based salvation that turns grace into an aid for meritorious good works. This is simply not true, as the Bible teaches that grace and works - when viewed meritoriously - are mutually exclusive - (Romans 11:6).

Poor choice of words. Salvation cannot be attained through works alone - should be more careful how i say it! Christs death on the cross allowed us the opportunity to obtain salvation through the grace of God as long as we profess our faith and belief in the Risen Christ. But through this grace and through our belief, etc is can be ATTAINED.

 

[cfrancis]

I think your mistake is that you are viewing God in a single office – as Judge alone. It is true that for all who Christ died, God is no longer seen as a condemning Judge – but now – because of what Jesus accomplished – He is our legal Father by adoption. “When we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, SO THAT we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:3-6) Clearly – our relationship to God is not over – but the nature of it has radically changed.

Also – God never ceases to be a Judge – for He will still Judge the wicked. But for believers, He is a Judge who shall pronounce us to be righteous, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone. He is no longer a condemning Judge, but a Justifying Judge.

We bypass a guilty verdict – but not the judgment itself. Rather, at the judgment we will be finally and openly and in the presence of all humanity – be declared ‘not guilty’ and ‘righteous.’ We will be declared righteous though – on account of Christ’s righteousness alone – imputed to us by faith.

Does Substitutional Atonement support ‘once saved, always saved’?

 

[mabibleteacher]

OK. this is interesting but where does it support the notion that Jesus’s work on the cross was a form of substitutional punishment as opposed to sacrificial offering.

Peace,
-Robert

Definition of sacrifice: the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.

That is what God did for us. He sent His only son, clearly something that was valued, and allowed it to be destroyed out of love for us. That is clearly a sacrifice.

Additionally:
Jesus was God that come to earth as man. As a man, he was given all the qualities and gits given to man including that of free will. Jesus had a choice to be obedient to the Father or not. Yes, he knew what His purpose was and since he was God, He ultimately knew what the outcome would be. However, was willing to give up His life, something I think we can agree would be highly valued, for the love of us. Again, I think that clearly demonstrates an activity of a sacrificial nature.

But I am curious, this is really spliting hairs. What difference does it make what you call it? The end result is the same. Jesus died in our place so we could have a restored relationship with God. What are you looking to find out further?

 

[Grateful4mercy]

I think your mistake is that you are viewing God in a single office – as Judge alone. It is true that for all who Christ died, God is no longer seen as a condemning Judge – but now – because of what Jesus accomplished – He is our legal Father by adoption. “When we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, SO THAT we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Galatians 4:3-6) Clearly – our relationship to God is not over – but the nature of it has radically changed.

Also – God never ceases to be a Judge – for He will still Judge the wicked. But for believers, He is a Judge who shall pronounce us to be righteous, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone. He is no longer a condemning Judge, but a Justifying Judge.

So does that mean that the debt was not paid “once and for ALL”, since some are either NOT “paid for”, or NOT “paid in full”?

And a judge (or father) that continues to dispense punishment after the debt has been paid cannot be considered just. the only answer that fits the riddle is that Jesus wasn’t the penal substitute, at least not as you describe him to be, or else there would be no penalty left to hand out.

First of all – Damage is not the goal of God. Reparation is the goal of God in giving Himself over to the demands of the Law, so that justice would be honored, and we could be justly redeemed.

I think that you have grasped the concept of God being ONE in substance and in essence – but I think that you have failed to take into consideration the distinction of persons within the Godhead. My suggestion to you is to learn the doctrine of the Trinity. Then you will no longer see penal substitution as ‘contrary’ to the nature of God, but rather ‘complimentary’ of the nature of God.

Yes, St Augustin and I will be sitting on the beach emptying it with a seashell and pondering the Trinity

Second – there is no way for God to become man’s Savior without becoming a man. Your logic is carrying you away; please stay grounded within the testimony of Scripture. You objection is not directed exclusively toward penal substitution, but can be aimed at any theory of atonement. You are basically saying that the incarnation was not necessary for salvation. Penal substitution is not the only aspect of the atonement that necessitates the incarnation. Consider Hebrews Chapter 2:14-18 which reads, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, SO THAT through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore HE HAD TO BE made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.”

I believe this 100%. What was not assumed cannot be redeemed. The point I was trying to make was the strange logic that PS causes God to create. It takes away from Jesus’ consent to die on the cross if it seems like it was unavoidable due to God’s wrath. Why then the Agony in the Garden? Why the request for the cup to be passed from him if it was the only reason he came down to begin with?

We bypass a guilty verdict – but not the judgment itself. Rather, at the judgment we will be finally and openly and in the presence of all humanity – be declared ‘not guilty’ and ‘righteous.’ We will be declared righteous though – on account of Christ’s righteousness alone – imputed to us by faith.

Sooooo, we die and go to a crazy judgment where we already know we won’t be found guilty, but we stand trial anyway? Doesn’t sound like it would command much respect or obedience. Unless you are saying that there is a chance that I could be found guilty. That could really stretch the PS logic to its breaking point. Where is this in the Bible anyway? All I read in mine is the part about sheep and goats (and since it is Jesus doing the Judging I’m almost sure he doesn’t believe he was the substitute for anything, but I could be wrong).

Certainly you should – as I should too. Thank you for your comments, and please take into consideration all that I gave in response. God bless you!

I am pleased that you are entertaining my questions. I think I am much better equipped to tackle this from a logical/philosophical perspective than try to tangle with you on scripture. But then, crazy people don’t know that they are crazy either :choocho:

 

[Frontline]

So does that mean that the debt was not paid “once and for ALL”, since some are either NOT “paid for”, or NOT “paid in full”?

You are actually quoting Hebrews 10:10 "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." But you obviously misunderstand it, for it does not mean once for all people, but rather it means, once for all time. The reason that I know this is because in the original greek, the words ‘for all’ are not even in the text. It simply says - “Once.” Not only this - but the context gives it away.

And a judge (or father) that continues to dispense punishment after the debt has been paid cannot be considered just.

That would only be true if Christ paid for everyone’s sins. The Bible teaches no such thing. Christ is a propitiation ‘through faith’ Romans 3:25. This means that Christ paid for all of the sins of those who believe on him. This is called particular redemption. You probably believe in a universal redemption, where Christ’s death only made the salvation of all men ‘possible’ and thus it did not secure the salvation of any man. The Reformed Faith rejects this concept. Here is a sermon on the doctrine of Particular Redemption - the best there is:

spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm

The point I was trying to make was the strange logic that PS causes God to create. **It takes away from Jesus’ consent to die on the cross if it seems like it was unavoidable due to God’s wrath. **

It does not take away the consent of the Son. The Son knew that the only way for men to be redeemed from under the curse of the law - he would have to be made a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). He knew this before he agreed to be our savior. And so obviously, Jesus Christ gave his full consent when he willingly left heaven and took upon flesh to die for our sins. What Jesus expressed in the garden was for our sakes - so that we would know that there is no other way possible. If Christ did not die for us and pay our debt, we could never be saved. Notice all the times Jesus uses the word ‘must’ when referring to the atonement: Matthew 16:21; Mark 8:31; 9:12; Luke 9:22; 17:25; 22:37; 24:7, 44; etc.

Sooooo, we die and go to a crazy judgment where we already know we won’t be found guilty, but we stand trial anyway?

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. . . . And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

(Romans 8:1, 30-39)

I am pleased that you are entertaining my questions.

I am sure that you are, but I have to be up-front - I won’t be able to carry on for much longer - as a matter of fact, this will be my last post of the week. I am going to be so busy this whole weekend and all next week that I will probably not be able to get back on the forum for a while. But thank you for all your efforts, and God bless you

 

[Frontline]

Particular Redemption is a great sermon. I know that not all of you will agree with it, but please read it and understand that this is my position. I will be gone for a few days, but I will be back to the forum before too long! God bless you all!

I begin this morning with the doctrine of Redemption.

“He gave his life a ransom for many.”

The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.
Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption.

For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High.

Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, “What did Christ design to do by His death?” we answer that question by asking him another—“What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?” For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ’s love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving “a multitude which no man can number;” and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father’s throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to save them.

I have thus just stated our theory of redemption, and hinted at the differences which exist between two great parties in the professing church. It shall be now my endeavour to show the greatness of the redemption of Christ Jesus; and by so doing, I hope to be enabled by God’s Spirit, to bring out the whole of the great system of redemption, so that it may be understood by us all, even if all of us cannot receive it. For you must bear this in mind, that some of you, perhaps, may be ready to dispute things which I assert; but you will remember that this is nothing to me; I shall at all times teach those things which I hold to be true, without let or hindrance from any man breathing. You have the like liberty to do the same in your own places, and to preach your own views in your own assemblies, as I claim the right to preach mine, fully, and without hesitation.

Christ Jesus “gave his life a ransom for many;” and by that ransom He wrought out for us a great redemption. I shall endeavour to show the greatness of this redemption, measuring it in five ways. We shall note its greatness, first of all from the heinousness of our own guilt, from which He has delivered us; secondly, we shall measure His redemption by the sternness of divine justice; thirdly, we shall measure it by the price which He paid, the pangs which He endured; then we shall endeavour to magnify it, by noting the deliverance which He actually wrought out; and we shall close by noticing the vast number for whom this redemption is made, who in our text are described as “many.”

 

[Frontline]

I. First, then we shall see that the redemption of Christ was no little thing, if we do but measure it, first by OUR OWN SINS. My brethren, for a moment look at the hole of the pit whence ye were digged, and the quarry whence you were hewn. Ye, who have been washed, and cleansed, and sanctified, pause for a moment, and look back at the former state of your ignorance; the sins in which you indulged, the crimes into which you were hurried, the continual rebellion against God in which it was your habit to live.
One sin can ruin a soul for ever; it is not in the power of the human mind to grasp the infinity of evil that slumbereth in the bowels of one solitary sin. There is a very infinity of guilt couched in one transgression against the majesty of Heaven. If, then, you and I had sinned but once, nothing but an atonement infinite in value could ever have washed away the sin and made satisfaction for it.

But has it been once that you and I have transgressed? Nay, my brethren, our iniquities are more in number than the hairs of our head; they have mightily prevailed against us. We might as well attempt to number the sands upon the sea-shore, or count the drops which in their aggregate do make the ocean, as attempt to count the transgressions which have marked our lives. Let us go back to our childhood. How early we began to sin! How we disobeyed our parents, and even then learned to make our mouth the house of lies! In our childhood, how full of wantonness and waywardness we were! Headstrong and giddy, we preferred our own way, and burst through all restraint which godly parents put upon us. Nor did our youth sober us. Wildly we dashed, many of us, into the very midst of the dance of sin. We became leaders in iniquity; we not only sinned ourselves, but we taught others to sin.

And as for your manhood, ye that have entered upon the prime of life, ye may be more outwardly sober, ye may be somewhat free from the dissipation of your youth; but how little has the man become bettered! Unless the sovereign grace of God hath renewed us, we are now no better than we were when we began; and even if it has operated, we have still sins to repent of, for we all lay our mouths in the dust, and cast ashes on our head, and cry, “Unclean! Unclean!” And oh! ye that lean wearily on your staff, the support of your old age, have ye not sins still clinging to your garments? Are your lives as white as the snowy hairs that crown your head? Do you not still feel that transgression besmears the skirts of your robe, and mars its spotlessness? How often are you now plunged into the ditch, till your own clothes do abhor you! Cast your eyes over the sixty, the seventy, the eighty years, during which God hath spared your lives; and can ye for a moment think it possible, that ye can number up your innumerable transgressions, or compute the weight of the crimes which you have committed? O ye stars of Heaven! the astronomers may measure your distance and tell your height, but O ye sins of mankind! ye surpass all thought. O ye lofty mountains! the home of the tempest, the birthplace of the storm! man may climb your summits and stand wonderingly upon your snows; but ye hills of sin! ye tower higher than our thoughts; ye chasms of transgressions! ye are deeper than our imagination dares to dive.

Do you accuse me of slandering human nature? It is because you know it not. If God had once manifested your heart to yourself, you would bear me witness, that so far from exaggerating, my poor words fail to describe the desperateness of our evil. Oh! if we could each of us look into our hearts today—if our eyes could be turned within, so as to see the iniquity that is graven as with the point of the diamond upon our stony hearts, we should then say to the minister, that however he may depict the desperateness of guilt, yet can he not by any means surpass it.

How great then, beloved, must be the ransom of Christ, when He saved us from all these sins! The men for whom Jesus died, however great their sin, when they believe, are justified from all their transgressions. Though they may have indulged in every vice and every lust which Satan could suggest, and which human nature could perform, yet once believing, all their guilt is washed away. Year after year may have coated them with blackness, till their sin hath become of double dye; but in one moment of faith, one triumphant moment of confidence in Christ, the great redemption takes away the guilt of numerous years. Nay, more, if it were possible for all the sins that men have done, in thought, or word, or deed, since worlds were made, or time began, to meet on one poor head—the great redemption is all-sufficient to take all these sins away, and wash the sinner whiter than the driven snow.
Oh! who shall measure the heights of the Saviour’s all-sufficiency?

First, tell how high is sin, and, then, remember that as Noah’s flood prevailed over the tops of earth’s mountains, so the flood of Christ’s redemption prevails over the tops of the mountains of our sins. In Heaven’s courts there are today men that once were murderers, and thieves, and drunkards, and whoremongers, and blasphemers, and persecutors; but they have been washed—they have been sanctified. Ask them whence the brightness of their robes hath come, and where their purity hath been achieved, and they, with united breath, tell you that they have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. O ye troubled consciences! O ye weary and heavy-laden ones! O ye that are groaning on account of sin! the great redemption now proclaimed to you is all-sufficient for your wants; and though your numerous sins exceed the stars that deck the sky, here is an atonement made for them all—a river which can overflow the whole of them, and carry them away from you for ever.
This, then, is the first measure of the atonement—the greatness of our guilt.

 

[Frontline]

I must just pause here, and utter another sentence. There are times when God the Holy Spirit shows to men the sternness of justice in their own consciences. There is a man here today who has just been cut to the heart with a sense of sin. He was once a free man, a libertine, in bondage to none; but now the arrow of the Lord sticks fast in his heart, and he has come under a bondage worse than that of Egypt.

I see him today, he tells me that his guilt haunts him everywhere. The Negro slave, guided by the pole star, may escape the cruel ties of his master and reach another land where he may be free; but this man feels that if he were to wander the wide world over he could not escape from guilt. He that hath been bound by many irons, can yet find a file that can unbind him and set him at liberty; but this man tells you that he has tried prayers and tears and good works, but cannot escape the gyves from his wrist; he feels as a lost sinner still, and emancipation, do what he may, seems to him impossible. The captive in the dungeon is sometimes free in thought, though not in body; through his dungeon walls his spirit leaps, and flies to the stars, free as the eagle that is no man’s slave. But this man is a slave in his thoughts; he cannot think one bright, one happy thought. His soul is cast down within him; the iron has entered into his spirit, and he is sorely afflicted. The captive sometimes forgets his slavery in sleep, but this man cannot sleep; by night he dreams of hell, by day he seems to feel it; he bears a burning furnace of flame within his heart, and do what he may he cannot quench it. He has been confirmed, he has been baptized, he takes the sacrament, he attends a church or he frequents a chapel, he regards every rubric and obeys every canon, but the fire burns still. He gives his money to the poor, he is ready to give his body to be burned, he feeds the hungry, he visits the sick, he clothes the naked, but the fire burns still, and do what he may he cannot quench it.

O, ye sons of weariness and woe, this that you feel is God’s justice in full pursuit of you, and happy are you that you feel this, for now to you I preach this glorious Gospel of the blessed God. You are the man for whom Jesus Christ has died; for you He has satisfied stern justice; and now all you have to do to obtain peace of conscience, is just to say to your adversary who pursues you, “Look you there! Christ died for me; my good works would not stop you, my tears would not appease you: look you there! There stands the cross; there hangs the bleeding God! Hark to His death-shriek! See Him die! Art thou not satisfied now?”

And when thou hast done that, thou shalt have the peace of God which passeth all understanding, which shall keep thy heart and mind through Jesus Christ thy Lord; and then shalt thou know the greatness of His atonement.

 

[Frontline]

IV. I shall be very brief upon the next head. The fourth way of measuring the Saviour’s agonies is this: we must compute them by THE GLORIOUS DELIVERANCE WHICH HE HAS EFFECTED.
Rise up, believer; stand up in thy place, and this day testify to the greatness of what the Lord hath done for thee! Let me tell it for thee. I will tell thy experience and mine in one breath. Once my soul was laden with sin; I had revolted against God, and grievously transgressed. The terrors of the law gat hold upon me; the pangs of conviction seized me. I saw myself guilty. I looked to Heaven, and I saw an angry God sworn to punish me; I looked beneath me and I saw a yawning Hell ready to devour me. I sought by good works to satisfy my conscience; but all in vain, I endeavoured by attending to the ceremonies of religion to appease the pangs that I felt within; but all without effect. My soul was exceeding sorrowful, almost unto death. I could have said with the ancient mourner, “My soul chooseth strangling and death rather than life.” This was the great question that always perplexed me: “I have sinned; God must punish me; how can He be just if He does not? Then, since He is just, what is to become of me?” At last mine eyes turned to that sweet word which says, “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth from all sin.” I took that text to my chamber; I sat there and meditated. I saw one hanging on a cross. It was my Lord Jesus. There was the thorn-crown, and there the emblems of unequalled and peerless misery. I looked upon Him, and my thoughts recalled that word which says, “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Then said I within myself, “Did this man die for sinners? I am a sinner; then He died for me. Those He died for He will save. He died for sinners; I am a sinner; He died for me; He will save me.” My soul relied upon that truth. I looked to Him, and as I “viewed the flowing of His soul-redeeming blood,” my spirit rejoiced, for I could say,

“Nothing in my hands I bring,
Simply to this cross I cling;
Naked look to Him for dress;
Helpless come to Him for grace!
Black, I to this fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, or I die!”

And now, believer, you shall tell the rest. The moment that you believed, your burden rolled from your shoulder, and you became light as air. Instead of darkness you had light; for the garments of heaviness you had the robes of praise. Who shall tell your joy since then? You have sung on earth hymns of Heaven, and in your peaceful soul you have anticipated the eternal Sabbath of the redeemed. Because you have believed you have entered into rest. Yes, tell it the wide world over; they that believe, by Jesus’ death are justified from all things from which they could not be freed by the works of the law. Tell it in Heaven, that none can lay anything to the charge of Gods’ elect. Tell it upon earth, that God’s redeemed are free from sin in Jehovah’s sight. Tell it even in Hell, that God’s elect can never come there; for Christ hath died for them, and who is he that shall condemn them?

 

[Frontline]

. . . Jesus Christ, we are told in our text, came into the world “to give his life a ransom for many.” The greatness of Christ’s redemption may be measured by the EXTENT OF THE DESIGN OF IT. He gave His life “a ransom for many.”

I must now return to that controverted point again. We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists—and we are not very much ashamed of that; we think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the Gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired), we are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.

Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, “No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if”—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say “No;” you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.”

We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.

Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.

I am told it is my duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scriptural warrant for it—“Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” Now, that looks like a very, very great argument indeed on the other side of the question. For instance, look here. “The whole world is gone after Him.” Did all the world go after Christ? “Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? “Ye are of God, little children,” and “the whole world lieth in the wicked one.” Does “the whole world” there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were “of God?” The words “world” and “all” are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

Leaving controversy, however, I will now answer a question.

Tell me, then, sir, whom did Christ die for? Will you answer me a question or two, and I will tell you whether He died for you. Do you want a Saviour? Do you feel that you need a Saviour? Are you this morning conscious of sin? Has the Holy Spirit taught you that you are lost? Then Christ died for you and you will be saved. Are you this morning conscious that you have no hope in the world but Christ? Do you feel that you of yourself cannot offer an atonement that can satisfy God’s justice? Have you given up all confidence in yourselves? And can you say upon your bended knees, “Lord, save, or I perish”? Christ died for you. If you are saying this morning, “I am as good as I ought to be; I can get to Heaven by my own good works,” then, remember, the Scripture says of Jesus, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” So long as you are in that state I have no atonement to preach to you. But if this morning you feel guilty, wretched, conscious of your guilt, and are ready to take Christ to be your only Saviour, I can not only say to you that you may be saved, but what is better still, that you will be saved. When you are stripped of everything, but hope in Christ, when you are prepared to come empty-handed and take Christ to be your all, and to be yourself nothing at all, then you may look up to Christ, and you may say, “Thou dear, Thou bleeding Lamb of God! thy griefs were endured for me; by thy stripes I am healed, and by thy sufferings I am pardoned.” . . .