The Scope (or extent) of the Atonement

[Enoch111]

"For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God...For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,' confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all [the Jews], and by those like to your, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ.” (Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho)

It should also be obvious that Justin's position is PATENTLY FALSE. There were many errors introduced into biblical Christianity almost since the beginning of the Church. So we cannot rely on so-called "early Christianity". We must go to the Bible itself.

ROMANS 5
1. CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY AND FOR SINNERS
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

CHRIST BORE THE WRATH OF GOD ON THE CROSS
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

CHRIST DIED TO RECONCILE ENEMIES TO GOD
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

CHRIST'S DEATH WAS AN ATONING SACRIFICE
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

ADAM'S DISOBEDIENCE BROUGHT SIN AND DEATH ON HUMANITY
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

THE LAW IMPUTES SINS TO SINNERS
13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

DEATH WAS THE PENALTY FOR SINS SINCE ADAM
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

SALVATION IS THE FREE GIFT OF GOD THROUGH CHRIST
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

SIN BROUGHT DAMNATION BUT GRACE BRINGS JUSTIFICATION
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

GRACE PROVIDES THE GIFT OF IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

THE PENALTY FOR SIN IS DAMNATION
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation* (Gk *katakrima = penalty, damnatory sentence); even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE WAS NECESSARY FOR OUR SALVATION
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

GOD'S GRACE THROUGH CHRIST EXCEEDS THE OFFENCE OF SIN
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[John Caldwell]

It should also be obvious that Justin's position is PATENTLY FALSE. There were many errors introduced into biblical Christianity almost since the beginning of the Church. So we cannot rely on so-called "early Christianity". We must go to the Bible itself.

ROMANS 5
1. CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY AND FOR SINNERS
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

CHRIST BORE THE WRATH OF GOD ON THE CROSS
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

CHRIST DIED TO RECONCILE ENEMIES TO GOD
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

CHRIST'S DEATH WAS AN ATONING SACRIFICE
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

ADAM'S DISOBEDIENCE BROUGHT SIN AND DEATH ON HUMANITY
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

THE LAW IMPUTES SINS TO SINNERS
13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

DEATH WAS THE PENALTY FOR SINS SINCE ADAM
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

SALVATION IS THE FREE GIFT OF GOD THROUGH CHRIST
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

SIN BROUGHT DAMNATION BUT GRACE BRINGS JUSTIFICATION
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

GRACE PROVIDES THE GIFT OF IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

THE PENALTY FOR SIN IS DAMNATION
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation* (Gk *katakrima = penalty, damnatory sentence); even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

CHRIST'S OBEDIENCE WAS NECESSARY FOR OUR SALVATION
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

GOD'S GRACE THROUGH CHRIST EXCEEDS THE OFFENCE OF SIN
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The falseness can be discussed (old does not mean right any more than new means wrong).

My point is what you (and probably most of contemporary evangelical Christianity) sees as obvious was not at all obvious to the Early Church.

We need to look at our own ideologies and ask ourselves why it is obvious to us. Is it hindsight? Progressive knowledge? Special revelation? Or perhaps a differing worldview?

 

[amadeus]

The bible relates Christians as ESPECIALLY saved....not exclusively saved. So there is room for God to declare a man or woman righteous who doesn't know the spiritual walk in Christ.

If the church could just understand the difference between righteousness and holiness....we could take more than one tiny step into kingdom truth and life. The lack of understanding about spiritual things in our day is astounding.

And God also called His Son out of Egypt, meaning the natural children of Israel, but many, or should I say most, of them remained the children of Jacob and never received the Promise. All of the children who came out were 'saved' from the Egyptian bondage and this is certainly, as I see it, an type or shadow of those in Christendom today. The two who made it in are types of those entering in that strait and narrow gate of which Jesus spoke.

You go further with your distinction between righteousness and holiness, and while my understanding probably differs some, I agree that the levels of salvation differ as in the type of the three levels of creatures saved from the flood in the ark built by Noah.

 

[John Caldwell]

In the words of Everlast: “You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start”.


When it comes to doctrine (any doctrine) where you begin determines where you end. If you begin with God’s wrath then you end up with wrath being satisfied. If you begin with death then you end up with death being overcome. If you begin with social injustice you will end with a just reign. If you begin with covenant community you will end with the Kingdom of God. This is the point I’ve been focusing on recently. Where you begin in your doctrine – what you presuppose – determines where you end in your doctrine.

In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis speaks of the theories of Atonement and notes that the theories themselves are not the thing we are asked (by God) to accept. “Many of you no doubt have read Jeans or Eddington. What they do when they want to explain the atom, or something of that sort, is to give you a description out of which you can make a mental picture. But then they warn you that this picture is not what the scientists actually believe. What the scientists believe is a mathematical formula. The pictures are there only to help you to understand the formula.” In this way, theories of Atonement are like a metaphor.

This takes us to the problem of the Atonement. The “problem” of Atonement is sin. Sin entered the world and through sin death spread to all because all have sinned. We fall short of the glory of God.

But what is sin?

Grudem defines sin as “any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature” (Systematic Theology). While immorality is a sin, Scripture speaks of sin as something larger than a moral issue (Both Jesus and Paul, for example, speaks of sin as a principle and a power). Billy Graham defined sin as any action that falls short of God’s will (Stories). Standish offers the “high view of sin” which suggests that “any weakness, limitation, or inadequacy is sin” which is supported by Romans 3 (Perfection).

Pannenberg describes sin as “the universal failure to achieve our human destiny” (Systematic Theology). Panneberg is closer to a biblical view of sin. It is more than moral transgression of God’s law (although this is part of it). It is more than an action that falls short of God’s glory or principles of social injustice (although, again, this is part of it).

Man was made for a purpose. When God created man He gave Adam the command to care for Creation. He gave man a help mate. Man was made to be in a relationship with mankind and with God. Scot McKnight explores the Atonement wonderfully in A Community Called Atonement (a reference I used in this post). Here he makes the observation that when “sin is defined in such a way that it involves it involves systemic corruption, then atonement is released to become the restoration of the Eikon in all directions, a restoration that includes the undoing of systemic corruption. Atonement, then, becomes the act of God to create a kingdom people.”

 

[Enoch111]

Atonement, then, becomes the act of God to create a kingdom people.”

This does not nullify in any way the satisfaction of justice, or the quenching of God's wrath. And it ignores the fact that only those who obey the Gospel are saved.

 

[John Caldwell]

This does not nullify in any way the satisfaction of justice, or the quenching of God's wrath. And it ignores the fact that only those who obey the Gospel are saved.

I never said that justice was not satisfied. God is just and Christ delivers us from the wrath to come. That said, it does not ignore the fact that only those who obey the gospel are saved. As stated, it is the act of God to create a kingdom people. Not all will enter the kingdom.

It does, however, provide a biblical concept of justice being satisfied (God as just and the Justifier of sinners, i.e., the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law) as opposed to Penal Substitution Theory (which is an idea of divine righteousness manifested through the law).

 

[Enoch111]

t does, however, provide a biblical concept of justice being satisfied (God as just and the Justifier of sinners, i.e., the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law) as opposed to Penal Substitution Theory (which is an idea of divine righteousness manifested through the law).

That is self-contradictory. What you are suggesting is that justice is satisfied but Penal Substitution does not occur. Just as in a court of law justice and the appropriate penalties for crimes are administered, in the Heavenly Court, the Righteous Judge administers justice by apply the penalty for sin -- the wrath of God against sin -- to the one who was made SIN for us. That was the holy Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world.

 

[John Caldwell]

That is self-contradictory. What you are suggesting is that justice is satisfied but Penal Substitution does not occur. Just as in a court of law justice and the appropriate penalties for crimes are administered, in the Heavenly Court, the Righteous Judge administers justice by apply the penalty for sin -- the wrath of God against sin -- to the one who was made SIN for us. That was the holy Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world.

No. It is not a self contradiction.
Yes. I am saying that justice is satisfied without Penal Substitution Theory being anything remotely close to the truth as the Theory stands in stark dichotomy to how justice was satisfied.

There are at least two views here. I know you affirm Penal Substitution Theory but why do you reject the Classic view (what are your objections as both satisfies divine justice)?

 

[marks]

justice is satisfied without Penal Substitution Theory

What exactly is this Justice that needed to be satisfied?

 

[marks]

“sin is defined in such a way that it involves it involves systemic corruption, then atonement is released to become the restoration of the Eikon in all directions, a restoration that includes the undoing of systemic corruption. Atonement, then, becomes the act of God to create a kingdom people.”

Atonement wouldn't be the right word in the strict sense, as it means to make a covering, not the removal of sins.

2 Corinthains 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

If you take this passage at face value, the God was doing something other than creating a Kingdom People. He was wiping out the sin dept of all who lived and would live.

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

What exactly is this Justice that needed to be satisfied?

I do not know that "satisfied" was the best word.

The way I see it Gid is just and the justified of sinners so one of two things needed to be addressed - judgment needed to be rendered or the sinner needed to be changed.

The law seemed to indicate man needed to be justly condemned. But redemption is the righteousness of God apart from the law (God recreated man in Christ).

That is how I view the issue anyway.

 

[John Caldwell]

Atonement wouldn't be the right word in the strict sense, as it means to make a covering, not the removal of sins.

2 Corinthains 5:19 "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

If you take this passage at face value, the God was doing something other than creating a Kingdom People. He was wiping out the sin dept of all who lived and would live.

Much love!

I think it is both (the passage you provide also commits this ministry to us - which I believe points to this kingdom Christ referenced so often).

 

[marks]

I think it is both (the passage you provide also commits this ministry to us - which I believe points to this kingdom Christ referenced so often).

How does Jesus' death remove our debt?

As in Colossian, the handwriting that was against us, our certificate of debt.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I think it is both (the passage you provide also commits this ministry to us - which I believe points to this kingdom Christ referenced so often).

Maybe I understand what you mean by "creating a kingdom people", if you mean, Jesus' death allows the removal of sins, and Jesus' resurrection allows new resurrection life.

Is that it?

 

[John Caldwell]

Maybe I understand what you mean by "creating a kingdom people", if you mean, Jesus' death allows the removal of sins, and Jesus' resurrection allows new resurrection life.

Is that it?

Somewhat.

I believe it is an error to look at the Cross and see primarily the forgiveness of sins. I say this because Scripture does not take that approach (the Cross, for example, in Paul's writing is the death of one type of man in the hope of another type).

So it involves the forgiveness of sins, of course, but it is so much (eternally so) more.

It is, as Jesus puts it, entering the kingdom of God (I think we have to remember the gospel of Christ was the arrival of the kingdom and not merely the forgiveness of sins.

Like my post you referenced states, there are many parts but the sum is greater than those individual parts. We are not forgiven simply for the sake of being forgiven.

 

[marks]

I am saying that justice is satisfied without Penal Substitution Theory being anything remotely close to the truth as the Theory stands in stark dichotomy to how justice was satisfied.

Hi John,

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by this. It seems to me that Penal Substitution is how Justice is Satisfied.

It sounds as if you are saying that if one reforms the offender, then the crimes no longer matter. Is that correct?

So that Jesus did not die to "pay a penalty for my sin", rather, to enable me to escape my sin via a new birth, and therefore, no longer subject to any penalty. Is that right?

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

Hi John,

I'm still trying to understand what you mean by this. It seems to me that Penal Substitution is how Justice is Satisfied.

It sounds as if you are saying that if one reforms the offender, then the crimes no longer matter. Is that correct?

So that Jesus did not die to "pay a penalty for my sin", rather, to enable me to escape my sin via a new birth, and therefore, no longer subject to any penalty. Is that right?

Much love!

Good evening, Marks.

I guess the best start towards an answer would be me making a start towards, and asking you, a question:

It seems like you are suggesting that in order for justice to be satisfied crime must be punished. Under the law I agree that this is this is true. But why in terms of justice? What if there is a righteousness that is apart from the law?

Are you suggesting that in order for divine justice to be satisfied sin has to be punished? If so, why? If not, then what do you believe satisfies divine justice (or does it even need to be satisfied)?

 

[marks]

Good evening, Marks.

I guess the best start towards an answer would be me making a start towards, and asking you, a question:

It seems like you are suggesting that in order for justice to be satisfied crime must be punished. Under the law I agree that this is this is true. But why in terms of justice? What if there is a righteousness that is apart from the law?

Are you suggesting that in order for divine justice to be satisfied sin has to be punished? If so, why? If not, then what do you believe satisfies divine justice (or does it even need to be satisfied)?

I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand what you think. My view is not fully formed.

I'm saying, if you are talking in terms of satisfying justice, what does that mean to you? What is the justice that need to be satisfied? And how is it satisfied, if not by penalty?

I'm not saying that's what happened, though it seems to me there is a lot pointing that direction. When you use the wording "satisfy Justice", it sounds like there is something to be exacted.

If that's not what you mean, well, what do you mean?

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand what you think. My view is not fully formed.

I'm saying, if you are talking in terms of satisfying justice, what does that mean to you? What is the justice that need to be satisfied? And how is it satisfied, if not by penalty?

I'm not saying that's what happened, though it seems to me there is a lot pointing that direction. When you use the wording "satisfy Justice", it sounds like there is something to be exacted.

If that's not what you mean, well, what do you mean?

Much love!

I believe a better idea (or term) as a starting point than "satisfying justice", is "righteous".

What I mean is making a person "right" with God. The law tells that sinners are enemies of God and by nature objects of God's wrath.

The normal solution to make people right with God is that God has to expend the wrath saved up for the sinner (God has to punish sin) so that He can justly forgive. It is nonsense and unbiblical, but some believe thus way.

But what if redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law? What if men could be "recreated" as people who have died to sin? These "new creations" cannot be justly punished as if they were never "recreated".

 

[marks]

I believe a better idea (or term) as a starting point than "satisfying justice", is "righteous".

What I mean is making a person "right" with God. The law tells that sinners are enemies of God and by nature objects of God's wrath.

The normal solution to make people right with God is that God has to expend the wrath saved up for the sinner (God has to punish sin) so that He can justly forgive. It is nonsense and unbiblical, but some believe thus way.

But what if redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law? What if men could be "recreated" as people who have died to sin? These "new creations" cannot be justly punished as if they were never "recreated".

Ok, this is what I was wondering if you meant.

Happy happy!

The end result is that we are people who didn't exist under a covenant of law, and don't live according to any such principles. We are children of our Father, and He deals with us as children.

Much love!