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