| << Prevenient Grace | Series Index | Conditional Assurance >> |
Of the major points here (yes, sort of a word play), atonement is probably the least understood-- at least in the dimensions we are going to look at, if not as a whole. There are some so-called 3- or 4-point Calvinists who deny L, though if they understood it, they'd probably realize they believed it all along. Likewise I have observed a bit of a divergence on the "free will" Christian side of the debate. I know a couple of Arminian brethren who hold the same view as myself, and a few who hold to a more "universal" view of atonement. The Arminian Articles themselves are ambiguous on this point (although it seems I diverge from the opinion of the original Remonstrants on this point; but I only skimmed the info on them so I'm not saying for sure).
So in following the style of my last post, what is atonement? According to the ISBE,1 the original Hebrew terms carried a connotation of to cover, offer, appease, "effect reconciliation," etc., depending on context and word used. The Greek words would mean to restore, to render holy, or to set apart for, etc. The idea we see is that to atone for sins, as Christ's sacrifice does for us (cf. 1Jn. 2:1-2), would be to cover over them, to appease the wrath of God, and restore a right standing with Him as well as to render us holy or set apart. Though there are many theories about the nature of this atonement (e.g. how it atones), the basic idea important to this survey is the notion that the Christian's sins are atoned for so that one may be saved as well as live in a Father/child relationship with God (e.g. Rom. 8:16-17).
There are some questions the follow from this definition. For instance, what is the purpose of Christ's sacrifice, exactly? Could the atonement cover all sins, or only some? Does it actually atone for all sin, or just for some people? The Christ's sacrifice actually save, or does it only make salvation possible?
Due to a common misconception, I'll tackle the last question first: the Bible clearly describes the relationship of atonement to salvation: But Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:24-25. Isaiah, in one of the most beautiful descriptions of the coming Messiah, stated, Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:12. You'll notice in each of these passages it is Christ himself who actually saves. Indeed, I believe the definition of atonement itself as applied to Christ's work strongly implies that it is He who reconciles us to God.
To be honest, I have yet to meet a well thought out Arminian who denies this. I only see the notion that the atonement only makes salvation possible for people in two sources: free will theists who aren't very developed in their theologies, and Calvinists who use it as a straw man of General Atonement (the Arminian doctrine of Atonement).
To the contrary, Calvinists tend to misconstrue the above point into support for TULIP. "If we have anything to do in our own salvation," they argue, "then Christ didn't save us: He merely made salvation possible." I'm not so sure, however, that the logic follows. First, I'd respond by noting that the Bible does describe Jesus as saving us and we having to draw near to him (cf. the above, and John 15:4, Matt. 11:28). Thus the Calvinist's argument here must be flawed, somehow. Indeed, the Client-Patron Relationship2 renders the Calvinist's objection false. The patron, interested in starting a relationship with the client, offers some sort of grace to him (e.g. gives him bread to feed his family). Though the client has done nothing to deserve the free gift, nevertheless he may receive it with joy or push back into the patron's face. Now, if the client received the gift, what does that mean? Does that mean the client deserved the bread, and that it was the result of the client's good response that his family is fed? no one in there right mind (definitely today, and I am betting in the ANE as well) would say so! It is because of the patron's generosity that the client got the bread; it is only because of the patron that he even had the choice to make.
For the second question, "Could the atonement cover all sins, or only some?" I don't think there will be much debate. Clearly, anyone who believes that God is sovereign would infer that Jesus could save anyone. (I can't think of any verses that really make this point, though). That leaves us with the purpose and the actual application of atonement.
The application side of this is where I diverge from some fellow Arminians. There is a view that holds that Christ actually atoned and paid in full for all sins. Period. From what I have been able to gather, I think they believe that whether or not you are condemned-- or saved-- is no longer based on whether one is in sin, but whether one believes. (And before someone misunderstands: they hold to a very strong view that a Christian ought to shun one's past life of sin.) Ironically, these Arminians draw from the same passages that I will later to argue their case. Yet, this view seems flawed both Biblically and from the nature of forgiveness/atonement.
From Scripture, Jesus told those who did not believe him: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." John 6:53. The life refered to here is eternal life (John 6:50-51). I believe that here Jesus intends to make a correlation between his blood and flesh and the atoning sacrifice He will later make. Indeed, we have a very strong correlation of this type in the synoptic Gospels: at the "Lord's Supper," Jesus said, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:28. Thus, one necessarily must be "covered" by Jesus' blood to be saved. The picture here doesn't seem to be that of already being covered only to be left to freely believe, but that one is actually atoned for when they believe. Furthermore, Jesus said "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." John 8:24. To die in your sins, in Hebrew thought, meant to die unrepentant and unatoned for, and thus subject to condemnation.3 Thus, unbelievers are clearly not atoned for!
Hence there is a sense where atonement is limited. But when we consider the nature of forgiveness, this comes out clear. Oops! I'm sorry, I just broke your vase. I can apologize, and you can forgive me, yet you are still left with a broken vase. Surely you want this vase replaced (hopefully it wasn't an heirloom, or I'm in deep trouble!), yet if you forgave me, i am not going to pay to have it replaced. So who has to pay the cost? You do. But if everyone's sins are atoned for, there is no real need to be forgiven-- there is no vase to replace anymore. Hence, one who argues a universal nature of atonement (there is a sense in which it is universal, as i'll show) is going to be inconsistent, unless they concede to universal salvation (universalism).
On the purpose of atonement, I am going to diverge from the Calvinist. Nevertheless, they're not too far from the truth on this point. Perhaps I'm a 2-point Calvinist ........... but then again, probably not.
First, it is clear from scripture that Christ died specifically so that the church (and the people in it, of course) maybe redeemed. For the grace of God has appeared, ... instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, ... looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. Titus 2:11-14. Also, Paul gives us in his instructions to husbands an awesome example to follow: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. Ephesians 5:25-27. Christ purposely gave Himself for us, His people!
Now, we could just leave it at that, and hand this round over to the Calvinist. But, what would be the fun in that!? In addition to this purpose, we see another, more general (even universal) purpose behind Christ's sacrifice. This is the one Calvinists tend to miss, since it pretty much destroys the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement (which states that Christ died for the elect and for them only). I earlier quoted Titus 2:11-14 to support the more specific purpose. Now, let me quote v. 11 again, but with the omitted part: For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men. But if the atonement is limited, how can Christ bring salvation to all men? the Calvinist will indubitably evade by saying that "all men" really means "many from all nations," and if left at this passage, they may have a case. However, we see elsewhere speaking of Christ, He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:2. Here the Calvinist cannot wiggle out, as John includes not only us (Christians), but the whole world (everyone else). (Note, however, John doesn't say that Christ propitiated all sin [active verb], but that he is the propitiation for sin. this subtle distinction is important as we earlier denied that Christ atoned for all sin; instead we see here intention or purpose behind the atonement. Christ is the one everyone must go to in order to be saved.)
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19. Here, we see that Christ's act at the cross resulted in justification for all, though in the next verse Paul is careful not to say all "will be made righteous." Again the Calvinist has no way to squirm out, as they adamantly declare that Adam's fall resulted in condemnation for each and every person. But, condemnation to all men is made parallel here to justification to all men. So what shall we make of this?
Drawing from notions addressed in the discussion on Prevenient Grace, with some additional Scripture, we have a reasonable resolution to what seems to be contention within Scripture. If all (or many) are drawn by grace so that some may be saved, is it not unreasonable that Christ died not only for the elect, but for the sake of all, so that anyone may be saved. In Calvinism, this view is untenable since under no circumstances may the nonelect be saved (hence Limited Atonement is ... umm... truly limited). Under the Arminian view of election, however, anyone may be atoned for since election is dependant on one's response to Christ's sacrifice on their behalf.
Indeed, the Bible is also clear that, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." John 3:14-15. Here we see an indisputable statement about the purpose behind the atonement. The allusion is to where God cursed the Israelites by sending poisonous snakes into the Israelite camp (Num. 21:5-9). The people pleaded for the snakes to be removed from them, but instead God had Moses raise a bronze snake on a pole. If anyone was bitten by a snake, they could look to the bronze snake and be saved from death. Likewise Christ will be lifted up (figuratively pointing to his death, as more clearly shown in John 12:32-34). The point here is that Christ went to the cross so that anyone-- any person whatsoever-- who look to Him for salvation would be saved. If there is no better refutation of Calvinism, this is it!
Thus, we actually find a two pronged reason for the cross, for the death of Jesus Christ, and subsequent Resurrection (Rom. 4:25). Jesus suffered and died on the cross so that (1) out of every person, anyone may look to him and be saved, out of whom (2) God may build a church of disciples, who are sanctified, justified, and saved.
What is particularly helpful about this dual purpose approach is that there is a compelling Calvinist objection: if Christ died for everyone, then has He not failed, since not everyone is saved? But the objection is rendered irrelevant when the second half of this is taken into account. that is, on the foundation of Christ God may build His church of believers, and He surely has not and will not fail.
Published: Array
| << Prevenient Grace | Series Index | Conditional Assurance >> |
Notes and Citations:
1. 1. "Atonement." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1915. Feb. 9, 2004. <http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T942>
2. Holding, J.P. "Just Say No Ain't Allowed." Tekton. Mar. 19, 2004, <http://www.tektonics.org/ip.html>
3. Clinton E. Arnold, ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. vol. 2. p.84. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.
|
|
|
|