VIII. Why Does It Matter?
Today is my last installment of the series of the "L" in the TULIP of Calvinism. Many of you probably don't know what TULIP stands for and that's ok. In these posts I have tried to be clear, concise, and gracious to those who will forever disagree with me. I hope it has been beneficial.First let me say very clearly that smart Christians who love Jesus and read their Bibles disagree on this subject. I'm ok with that. But I don't think it's ok to deny the importance of the nature or subjects of the atonement. The Bible is about God's work in redeeming man for His glory and the atonement is the very centerpiece of that work. So here are a few observations of why I think the doctrine of Limited (or Definite) Atonement is important.
This doctrine is consistent with the clear biblical teaching of penal substitutionary atonement. If Christ died in the place of those who would be saved it doesn’t make sense for him to die as a substitute for people who would end up paying their own penalty.
This doctrine is consistent with the rest of God's dealings in salvation. If the Father only elects those who will believe, and the Spirit only renews the hearts of those who believe, isn't it inconsistent to say that the Son's atoning death was for everyone?
This doctrine gives God the glory rather than man. It is important to see the glorious reality of verses like Revelation 5:9. If you believe in a universal atonement you must admit that Jesus is getting credit as a life raft but it is us who get the credit for jumping on the life raft. That doesn’t line up with the constant cry of the Bible that there will be no man who can boast of anything except in God. And if Christ's death didn't actually save people but merely potentially saved everyone why does he get so much credit in texts like this?
Is it heretical to believe in the Arminian view of the atonement? I don’t think so. But we need to check views like this against Scripture or else we are on real dangerous ground. Arminianism, though not heretical in and of itself, is a slippery slope that leads to many heresies. In the case of the atonement it can lead to universalism.
Grace and Peace,
Stephen
9 comments:
I totally agree, Penal Substitution and Limited Atonement go hand in hand. It's simply poor theology for anyone who doesn't realize that.
But, if you're like me and believe Psub is unBiblical, then the LA versus Universalism issue simply doesn't exist.
Sticking to the Scriptures, we see it uses terms like "propitiation," which actually mean "turn away" wrath rather than re-directing wrath onto a substitute. Give this, Psub is impossible by definition, because wrath was not poured out on Christ, instead He propitiated (appeased) it.
Nick,
Thanks for commenting. If you have time I would love for you to present a positive view of some sort on the atonement if you do not believe in penal-substitution.
As for propitiation, I cannot find any lexical support for your definition. It looks like you favor the view that "expiation" is a more accurate translation than "propitiation" am I on track?
Frankly, I think you're wrong in your understanding of propitiation but if you would like to expound that would be great. I am fine with debate here as long as we remain civil and gracious.
Certainly the meaning of the word "propitiation" has huge implications for the nature of Christ's atonement. If it means that Christ bore the wrath of God on our behalf (which I believe it does) penal-substitution is the clear biblical view. However, if it merely means to "turn away" wrath things are quite different. I don't think merely "turning away" fits the context of Romans 3:25 because God is showing Himself as the just justifier in pouring out His wrath on Christ rather than merely overlooking sin. Here are a few passages that don't use the word propitiation but are useful in seeing penal-substitution:
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21
"...we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace...the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:4-6).
Also see Galatians 3:13 and Hebrews 10:14.
Grace and Peace,
Stephen
Stephen:Thanks for commenting. If you have time I would love for you to present a positive view of some sort on the atonement if you do not believe in penal-substitution.
Nick: Sure. The two most powerful examples (and foreshadowings of Christ) in this regard are Phinehas in Numbers 25:1-13 (Ps 106:30f) and Moses in Deut 9:16-20 (Ps 106:19-23; Ex 32:30). Both accounts explicitly talk of atonement and turning away God's wrath. What is critical is that the hero in each story made atonement without having to become the object of that wrath. There are other accounts where the term atonement is used and doesn't require Penal Substitution at all. So what is proven is that atonement doesn't require Psub at all.
In fact, there is no foreshadowing of Psub in the OT, especially in the OT sacrifices. For example:
(1) The Passover Lamb was never an object of God's wrath, nor was God's wrath on the Israelites for the Passover (Ex 11:4-7)
(2) If someone was too poor to afford a lamb for their sin offering, they could use a sack of flour instead (Lev 5:7,11). That would be totally illogical if P-Sub was the system in place.
(3) The Scapegoat was never actually killed, which is the last thing one would expect if P-Sub was the system.
(4) In places like Lev 3 it talks about sacrifices NOT dealing with sin but instead peace/fellowship sacrifices. However, the animal is still killed in a manner very similar to the sin offering. This is likewise illogical if P-Sub was in place, because all we would expect for a sin offering occurs yet the offering is not on account of sins.
(i'll break my response into two posts for easier reading)
Stephen: As for propitiation, I cannot find any lexical support for your definition. It looks like you favor the view that "expiation" is a more accurate translation than "propitiation" am I on track?
Nick: I don't see a huge enough significance between propitiation and expiation to warrant making a distinction. The Protestant dictionaries I consult define the term as "appease" which fits with the "turn away wrath" rather than exhaust it on a substitute. But even then, it's still good to see how it's used in the Bible. (see next)
Stephen:Certainly the meaning of the word "propitiation" has huge implications for the nature of Christ's atonement.
Nick: I totally agree. If this term means to exhaust wrath on a substitute, then Psub is the only option. If it means turn away, then Psub cannot be true. From what I can see, the "hilas" Greek root pertains to this term:
1) hilaskomai - Lk 18:13; Heb 2:17
2) hilasmos - 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10
3) hilasterion - Rom 3:25; Heb 9:5
Starting with hilasmos, there isn't much that would immediately decide the meaning. It would take more of an examination of John's work as a whole to make a case (which I think points away from Psub, eg 1 Jn 3:16).
The term hilaskomai used in Lk 18:13 is about the tax collector saying:
"God, be merciful to me a sinner!"
The term is translated as "mercy" and the 'appease' theme indicated by the term indicates a turning away of wrath to favor. This points decisively away from bearing wrath on himself or a substitute. Hebrews 2:17 it says Jesus was the High Priest:
"to make propitiation for the sins of the people."
Certainly the high priest was not an object of wrath, and the context points away from this as well.
The term "hilasterion" is used in Heb 9:5 in reference to the "mercy seat" of the ark. This seat was sprinkled with blood during the day of atonement, but the concept wouldn't suggest pouring out of wrath. It was a ceremony to enact reconciliation. Checking the term "mercy seat" in the OT, the term is "kapporeth" which is derived from the term "kaphar" which is the popular term for "atonement." There is strong evidence of the Hebrew term of "atonement" disallowing Psub and clearly supporting "turn away wrath". I don't know how much you want to go into this, but here are some passages which use the Hebrew word for atonement: Gen 32:20 (appease with a gift); 2 Chron 30:18 (Hezekia prayed for pardon); Prov 16:14 (wise man pacifies angry king); etc.
The great majority of the times it's used is in reference to the sacrifices of Leviticus, but there is no evidence the animals were objects of wrath, in fact the opposite (which I can go further into if you want).
So that leaves Rom 3:25, and given the Biblical evidence laid out surrounding the term, I honestly see no room for a definition which entails re-directing wrath rather than appeasing it by turning it away. Further, Rom 3:24 uses the term "ransom," which is likewise a non Psub term because the purpose of ransom is to "buy back" and not transfer punishment.
I've honestly studied the Bible in this regard, I have not simply taken people's word for this or that. I see a solid case pointing away from Psub.
Stephen: Here are a few passages that don't use the word propitiation but are useful in seeing penal-substitution:
"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21
Nick: I believe too much is read into 2 Cor 5:21, nothing on the face of it suggests God poured out His wrath on Christ. The term "made sin" has Psub read into it, but I don't think that gives the passage an honest look. The options I give is that "made sin" means "sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin" (Rom 8:3), which doesn't necessitate Psub. Also, in the OT the terms "sin" and "sin offering" were literally the same Hebrew word, even in the same contexts, so "made sin" could easily mean "sin offering". (The "sin offering" didn't operate on an Psub model, see Lev 5:11 where no animal is used)
Also 2 Cor 8:9 is a clear parallel which says "though Christ was rich for our sakes became poor so that through his poverty you might become rich." This points away from a Psub rendering.
Stephen: "...we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace...the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isa 53:4-6).
Nick: Is 53:4 is actually directly quoted in Matthew 8:16-17 and is not interpreted as Psub at all. The phrase "WE esteemed him stricken" indicates people saw Jesus suffering and thought God must be mad at Him, but that is a common error. Job was in the same situation where Job was smitten, stricken and afflicted but God was not mad at him, yet Job's friends kept claiming God was! Is 53:5 uses a very interesting term, "chastise," which is very different from punishment. Chastisement is what Christians undergo and is defined as fatherly correction in the hope of changing the child's ways, it contradicts Psub. Psub is based upon a judical transfer of punishment, chastisement has no place there. The 'laying up the iniquity" of Is 53:6 and elsewhere simply means he took the burden of atoning on Himself, not that God was pouring out His wrath. This is seen most clear in 1 Pt 2:18-25, which alludes to most of Is 53 (more than any NT place) and does not interpret this as Psub but rather suffering for doing right is what is pleasing to God.
Stephen: Also see Galatians 3:13 and Hebrews 10:14.
Nick: Gal 3:13 is quoting from Deut 21, which is a curse of a most humiliating death. It is not a spiritual curse which the damned carry. Joshua 8:28f and 10:26f both show this, and clearly foreshadowed Christ's humiliating death. The "hanging on a tree" is repeatedly mentioned in Acts as a murder by the Jews, not God pouring out His wrath. Phil 2:5-8 shows that the value was Christ's "obedience unto death - even death on a cross."
Hebrews 10:14 doesn't suggest Psub, it simply mentions offering. However, if you keep reading, Heb 10:26-29 is probably the most anti-Psub passage in Scripture.
Nick,
Thanks again. I see that you have debated T-fan on this issue. He is a lot more knowledgable than I am on this (or any) subject so I don't feel burdoned to answer everything you have said. I do, however, want to address a couple of things.
First, the difference between expiation and propitiation is quite big. Expiation refers to removing sin and propitiation refers to appeasing wrath.
Second, foreshadows are called foreshadows for a reason. The reason that we see foreshadows that do not propitiate God's wrath is because His wrath is only propitiated in the death of Christ (Romans 3:25).
God's holiness demands that there be a payment for sin. How can we expect any judge to be truly just if the Judge of the universe is corrupt?
Luke 22:42 seems to indicate that Christ was prepared to take the cup of God's wrath.
Though I am sure that you are well read on this subject I am willing to send you some resources if you would like. "Peirced for our Transgressions" is a great new book on the subject. Also John Stott's "The Cross of Christ" deals with propitiation in detail.
Grace and Peace,
Stephen
It's nice to see a blog where two brothers disagree yet keep it civil. This is all very helpful. Thanks guys.
Grace upon grace,
JRL
Reading and appreciating the conversation... I agree with JRL. Thanks for keeping the dialogue going in a civil way. I trust it's beneficial for all parties.
Blessings,
m
Stephen,
LOL, yes I have debated TF on this so you can obviously see my zeal for this subject.
I was unaware that expiation and propitiation were largely different, the Catholic notion of Satifcation seems to overlap on both.
As for foreshadows, I agree that Christ's merits are infinitely more than any OT saint, and thus the OT type doesn't fully compare. However, I don't believe you can say the OT situations didn't appease God's wrath when the OT texts (eg Num 25:11-13) plainly say they did. Of course these in no way interfere with Christ's merits and grace, which made Phinehas' work possible in the first place.
You said: "God's holiness demands that there be a payment for sin. How can we expect any judge to be truly just if the Judge of the universe is corrupt?"
Nick: I believe God's justice was satisfied through the Satisfaction of Christ. Think of it kind of as reparations.
I don't see how any system can be said to be demonstrating its holiness and justice by legally charging an innocent man with another's guilt. Further, this cannot be confined to a legal realm, for there would be no hope of forgiveness, mercy, forbearance, etc in the first place.
As for Jesus drinking the cup of God's wrath, I believe Scripture rules out this interpretation. For example, Mat 20:22f has Jesus inviting the apostles to drink of that cup, and Jesus says they will. This is impossible if this was Jesus taking the wrath they deserved.
I'm not sure what you mean by your offer of those books. I have not read them, and I have wanted to read them, but I wouldn't want you spending money on me like that. I do plan on buying them in the future.
Nick,
Let me clear one thing up that I didn't state correctly earlier regarding propitiation and expiation. Expiation is part of propitiation. This statement may not be the best but it should do for a quick illustration: God removed our sin (expiation) and placing the guilt of it on Christ and poured out His wrath on Christ to propitiate His wrath. I hope that helps illustrate the relationship between the two.
I understand you not wanting me to spend money on you, however, let me offer you a copy of "Pierced for Our Transgressions" because I received two free copies of it last year and only have use for one. Just shoot me an e-mail at stephen_bean87@hotmail.com and I'll send it to you. It's really no trouble at all, I think you would enjoy it and find it very useful even if you still disagree in the end.
Grace and Peace,
Stephen
Post a Comment