 Doctrine of the Atonement Part Three John G. Reisinger
In previous articles we noted that there are four words in the New Testament Scriptures that describe the atoning work of Christ. We looked at the first word, redemption, in our last article. We now want to look at the other three words. The second word is substitute, and the Greek is anti (an-tee) and means for, or instead of (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3; Luke 11:11; 1 Pet. 2:22-25). All of these texts show that Christ suffered in our place as a substitute. Something happened to Him so that the same thing would not happen to us. That is the force of the statement "for us." Christ died "instead of" or "in the place of" His people. "Christ died for (instead of) us" (Rom. 5:8). This is what is meant when we speak of Christ's substitutionary death. I remember my daughter coming home from high school all excited. She said, "We won! We won! We suffered a broken leg and got beat up very badly but we won." I looked at her and said, "I do not see a cast on your leg and your skirt is not even wrinkled. What is this we got beat up bit?" When she said, "We won!" she meant the high school football team had won the championship game. One player had indeed broken his leg and most of the players were badly battered. However, my daughter said, "We won" instead of "they won." She meant the football team represented her school and therefore they represented her. When they won she won and when they lost she lost. They did what they did as representatives of the school. That illustrates how Christ represented His people. When He conquered sin and death so did His people since He conquered those things in their place. Just as Adam, acting as our representative, plunged all that he represented, the whole human race, into sin and death, just so the Lord Jesus Christ, acting as the representative of a new race, the chosen of God, raised His people out of death and sin into life and righteousness. If you are a football player sitting on the bench you do not feel the shoving and tackling taking place on the field. When the ball is snapped two large guards from the other team may smash into a tackle on your team, but you feel nothing at all. However, if the coach sends you into the game as a 'substitute' you will feel something the next time the ball is snapped. This illustrates what it means that Christ acted as our substitute. He literally took our place as a substitute in a duel with sin, death, and the law. He endured, on the cross, the wrath of God in our place. When He defeated sin and death, we also defeated sin and death because He was doing that for us as our substitute. When He fulfilled the law and died under its curse, we also met every claim of the law and endured its full wrath. Christ literally died instead of us. He alone did battle with sin, death, the grave, Satan himself, and the holy law of God. He defeated their full power as our substitute. The third word is reconciliation. The Greek is katalosso (Kat-al-las-so) and means to make a difference (Rom. 5:10). The Roman and Greek money was 'profane' and could not be given as an offering in the temple. All secular money had to be 'reconciled,' or exchanged, into an acceptable form. It had to be exchanged into temple money. This is why the moneychangers were in the temple. Jesus was not angry with the moneychangers because they were in the temple but because they were crooks charging unfair rates. The following text is important. It tells us exactly what it is that reconciles sinners to God.
Question: What makes a child of God 'different' (so as to be 'reconciled') in God's sight? Is it free grace and the blood of Christ, or is it the free will of man and the man's faith? What is the one single real difference between Judas and Peter? Were they both equally 'redeemed' by the death of Christ but Judas was not 'reconciled' because he was not willing to claim, by faith, his redemption? Is Peter's faith the essential factor that reconciled him to God? You cannot have it both ways. The answer is either reconciliation by 'free will' or reconciliation by 'free grace.' I keep repeating how the biblical words that speak of the atonement must either be bled of their true meaning or we must accept particular redemption. You cannot have a true redemption and then have a 'hypothetical' reconciliation. Either both redemption and reconciliation are effective for all of those for whom the redemption was made or else both are only hypothetical possibilities totally dependent on man's free will for success. We are indeed 'justified by faith.' We are not suggesting that faith is not absolutely essential in salvation. However, faith as the means by which salvation comes to a sinner and faith as the cause and foundation of salvation are two different things. The Bible never teaches that we are reconciled to God by faith as the ground. Faith cannot the ground of our reconciliation. The atoning death of Christ alone is what "makes the difference." Faith is the means, but even our faith is a gift of God. Faith is not the sinner's contribution, actually the one essential component, by which he is redeemed and reconciled. No, faith is part of the salvation gift purchased by Christ, and given to His elect through the preaching of the gospel and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. We were chosen to be given faith. "… God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:13). See also 1 Peter 1:2. Examine the places where the word reconcile is used and you will find the above fact is an essential aspect of the biblical doctrine of Christ's atonement (Rom. 5:10, 11; 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20-22). The fourth word showing a specific aspect of the atonement is propitiation. This is the single most hated word in the whole Bible. Propitiation describes that priestly work of Christ by which He removed God's just anger and wrath against us by satisfying the holy character of God through the substitutionary sacrifice of Himself to God. Christ's propitiatory work secured, on righteous terms, our acceptance and reconciliation with God by enduring all of God's just wrath. See Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 9:5; 1 John 2:2; 4:10 for all of the places this word is used in the NT Scriptures. The reason men hate this word is because they do not understand either the true nature of the sinner or the true character of God. Liberals do not believe man is totally depraved. They cannot imagine that man is so desperately helpless that he is literally "dead in trespasses and sin" (Eph. 2:1-3). Since liberals believe God is basically love, instead of holy, they ridicule any idea of an offering of blood being necessary to turn away His just wrath. Love does not need to be appeased or placated. The very idea is an insult to God. Of course, they are right, if God is nothing but love. We agree that love does not need to be pacified since it cannot get angry. But God is more than love; He is also holy, just, and righteous. The psalmist says, "God is angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11-13). The same psalmist also tells us why God is angry with the wicked. See Psalm 11:5-7. So far we have seen that the death of Christ is both Voluntary and Vicarious. We now look at the third and final aspect of the atonement and see that it was Victorious. THREE: The death of Christ was Victorious. Every man for whom Christ died will be saved. His death will secure everything that God intended. It is at this point that the real theological difference between the religion of free will and free grace comes to the surface. Notice that there is nothing 'hypothetical' about the following texts. (emphasis mine).
These texts speak of Christ actually accomplishing something in His death. It is impossible to give the four words just covered (ransom, substitute, reconcile, and propitiate) their biblical meaning and still hold to universal atonement without also accepting universal salvation. We are forced to either give these words a hypothetical sense, and thus deny their biblical content, or else we must believe in universal salvation. The universal atonement of free will theology teaches the following:
In all four of the cases, Christ's death is not victorious until the sinner makes his contribution. In each case, the universal atonement view is forced to have two different meanings for the same word. When the four words for atonement are applied to a believer then the words are given their true biblical meaning. However, when the universalist, in his preaching, applies the identical words to the 'world' then the words must be totally emptied of their biblical content. The same words now become only "hypothetical possibilities." The nature of Christ's sufferings provide half of what is necessary to atone for sin and the sinner's faith provides the other half. I am glad that such a system is not my hope of heaven! IV. Some clear implications. See the statements by Noel Smith on page 14. V. Did you ever consider the atonement from Christ's point of view? Isaiah 53 is the clearest and fullest description of the death of Christ in the entire Bible. It is amazing that this vivid portrayal of our Lord's sufferings on the cross is foretold in the OT Scriptures. Try to imagine how Christ felt as He experienced the things mentioned in this great chapter.
If Christ was truly "Stricken, smitten, and afflicted" by God in our place, and if He was literally "wounded, bruised and chastised" because our sins were actually laid on him, then does it not follow that we simply must ultimately "be healed?" Does not justice demand it? Is it possible to have Christ actually experience, as a vicarious substitute, the things in Isaiah 53:4 and then make the things in verse 5 to be a mere possibility? This is exactly what a hypothetical atonement is proclaiming.
Are the two alls in verse 6 inclusive of every man without exception, or does it mean the Father has lain the iniquity of "every sheep that has gone astray" upon the Shepherd? Who is the "we" and the "us" in this verse? If the first "all" includes you then the second "all" also includes you. If you are not a poor lost sinner that has gone astray and needs to be saved then you are not the object of the death designed to save only poor sinners.
Who are "My people" in this verse if the atonement is for everyone without exception? Does the term My people include the Egyptians and Canaanites? This verse demands a particular application of the sufferings of Christ.
This verse contains one of the most amazing statements in all of the Word of God. It "pleased the Lord" to put His only begotten Son to death for sinners. It was the Father who made His Son "an offering for sin." Our Savior was never more pleasing to His Father than He was the very moment that He cried out, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Paul tells us in Philippians 2:5–9 that the height of the obedience of Christ to His Father's will was the moment when He willingly laid down His life in death under the sword of justice. He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Our Lord knew His Father would turn His back the moment "He was made to be sin." God must turn His back on Christ the moment Christ wears the sin and guilt of His people. The Father turned His back on Christ because justice could not look on sin. God turned His back on His Son in order that He might turn His face towards us in righteous and holy love. However, our blessed Substitute also knew that He would be raised from the dead! This was the height of His confidence in His Father's oath (cf. Acts 2:22-36). His obedience and faith were never more pleasing to His Father than at that very moment when He fully trusted His soul into the hands of His Father's eternal purposes. This same verse also contains one of the clearest proofs of particular atonement. At the very moment that Christ was made to be sin and treated as if He were guilty, He was conscious of what was sure to follow as a result of His sufferings. The verse states "when," or at the exact time, His soul was being offered for sin that He would, at that very moment, "see his seed." The Church is His seed. When Christ was on the cross, He saw His sheep individually. He did not see an indefinable blob of humanity and hope that some of them would be "willing to let Him save them." He saw His seed being brought to glory! He saw the "many sons," the "sheep" given to Him by the Father being saved. He saw the elect receiving the benefits of His atoning work. Our Lord knew His work would not be in vain. I believe this is what Hebrews means when it says, "who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame … (Heb. 12:2)". That joy was nothing less than seeing His sheep safe and sound in the fold and forever delivered from sin and guilt. That ought to make us shout with joy! How would you answer if confronted with these questions?:
The following two questions are obvious and must be answered from the words in this verse: (1) Can Christ be 'satisfied' if His travail ends in futility? I have visited hospital rooms where a mother's "travail" had ended in the birth of a dead child. I assure you that there were no expressions of great joy in the room. There was deep sorrow and a great sense of loss. If our Savior looks into hell and sees those there for whom He travailed unto death itself, how can He possibly be "satisfied?" No, no, everyone for whom He travailed will be saved. As the hymn writer put it:
(2) Who are the "many" that are certain of being justified simply because Christ bears their iniquity? It is impossible to separate the certainty of the "many's" justification from the stated reason for that certainty. "The many," all of them and only them, will surely be justified because Christ literally bare their iniquities in His own body. That is particular atonement. It is a real atonement and not merely a 'hypothetical' atonement! It is impossible to make these verses say, "Christ bore the sins of all men but He is only able to justify those who are willing to let Him." Look at the logic of Romans 8:32, 33. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" Not the Father, for "It is God [the Father] that justifies." Not the Son, for He will not condemn those for whom He died, and because He died for them, He also maketh intercession for them (cf. John 17:9). Isn't that clear?
Carefully follow the logic and truth of this text and it is literally impossible to get universal atonement into either this verse or any other verse in the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Christ receives a specific reward for His work, and that reward does not depend on the fickle capricious will of sinful man. Our Lord was identified with specific people in His death (they are "many"). He makes intercession for all those given to Him by the Father (cf. John 17:9). It is for these that He "poured out His soul unto death." All for whom He prays will be saved, and all for whom He prays and are saved are those for whom he died. I know that people keep complaining that "election and particular atonement" is narrow and unfair. We would ask, "Unfair to whom?" To whom does God owe anything other than condemnation? How can He possibly be unfair to sinners who deserve nothing but wrath? Granted, He gives grace to some who do not deserve it, but the Holy Spirit has already stopped the mouth of all who would say that was unfair. See Matthew 20:10-16 and Romans 9:13-21. My question to the objectors of sovereign grace and particular atonement is this: "Is God just and fair toward His only begotten Son? Will the Father fulfill every word and expectation of Isaiah 53 to the One who bore those pangs of death, or are those things promised to Christ only hypothetical possibilities dependent upon the fickle free will of sinners? Will God condemn the sinner after having punished Christ in the sinner's place? How would you feel if you were the Savior on the cross and you knew that you were being punished (1) for many sinners who were already in hell at that very moment, and (2) for many more who were certain to go there? Is God only "just and fair" to sinners and not to His Son? Some may object that these verses are in the Old Testament and ask where the New Testament teaches that Christ died specifically for some men thus making certain their salvation? We need only look at John 10:11, Ephesians 5:25, and Hebrews 9:28. The article on Romans 5:12–19 on page 11 covers this objection. If you do not have Haldane's commentary on Romans, buy it at once. His unfolding of these verses is worth ten times the price of the book. Basically Romans 5:12–19 shows that all men represented by Adam must have imputed to them the consequence of Adam's disobedience, and likewise all the men represented by Christ must have imputed to them the consequence of His obedience. As 'all' represented by Adam are made sinners, so 'all' represented by Christ are made righteous. VI. Problems to overcome. The main objection to the clear scriptural teaching of Particular Redemption from those who put "logic" in the place of the Scriptures. They reason like this:
Both premises A and B, by themselves, are true, but the conclusion is false because (1) it contradicts the clear teaching of other Scripture, and (2) the premises, although true in themselves, are not true in the context as set forth above. Luke 19:10, "for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" contradicts this conclusion. Spurgeon has a great sermon on this text. He shows that Christ must save all, without exception, that He seeks. Christ does not effectually seek all and only manage to save some. No, no, He saves all that He seeks. Matt 9:10-13 shows that (1) Christ did not come to save all men; (2) He does not call all men; and (3) all men are not acknowledged 'sinners' but some are (in their own minds) 'righteous' and therefore need no sacrifice. Look at what the text says: And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. John 17:9 certainly contradicts the logic that attempts to establish universal atonement.
Why would Jesus die for men and then not pray for them? His work of intercession must be co-extensive with His atoning work on the cross. When Aaron went into the Holy place on the Day of Atonement He carried the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his breastplate. The Philistines, Caananites, and Jebusites were not included among those for whom the blood was shed or among those for whom Aaron interceded in the Most Holy Place. He, like our Lord (John 17:9) prayed only for those for whom he offered the sacrifice. VII. Some problems for universal redemption to solve. Here are some clear texts of Scripture that can only be understood in 'particular' terms. I have yet to see an Arminian universalist even try to explain these texts.
A second problem for the universalists is the successful travail of Christ. It "pleased the Lord to bruise him"—"he [the Father] put him to grief" (Isa. 53:10). Is God just as "loving, kind, and just" to His only begotten Son as He is to sinners? Is God honest and fair with sinners, but not with His Son? Will the Father give His Son all that He earned by His death? A third problem is that Christ's office of Shepherd becomes a failure. Free will Arminianism would have us believe that some of those for whom Christ suffered and died will nonetheless still perish. If He 'loses' some of the sheep for whom He was made responsible then He fails in His job as the Shepherd. The following verses, as they respect Christ's work as the Shepherd of the sheep, would have to be rewritten if universal atonement were true.
Another problem is that Christ's priestly work is a contradiction. He refuses to pray for the very people for whom He supposedly died. "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine (John 17:9)". "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5)". Notice that this last text says "men" (specific men) and not "man" (mankind indiscriminately). The world has no mediator but the sheep have One whose mediatorial work never fails. Would Christ die for men and then not intercede for them? The argument that convinced me that Christ could not have died for all men was Spurgeon's argument that there were already sinners in hell when Christ died. Can anyone honestly believe that the Father would punish Christ on the cross for men who were at that moment lost in hell? Who can believe that at the very moment Christ was suffering on the cross He could look into hell and see men there for whom he was being punished? Did the Father punish Christ for Ahab when Ahab was already in hell? The very foundation of God's righteousness is destroyed by the doctrine of universal atonement. The ground of a believer's assurance is that God will not, yea, He cannot, punish sin twice. Yet free will universalism must hold that God punishes sin in Christ and then punishes the sinner in hell. The false idea that all sin is paid for except the sin of unbelief has been more than adequately answered by A.W. Pink and J.I. Packer (See Vol. 4, No. 8 and Vol. 4, No. 9 of Sound of Grace). It does not seem to occur to the proponents of a universal atonement that the whole biblical plan of salvation is distorted by their system. In the Scriptures the Trinity works in total unison in the purposes of salvation. The Son redeems all of those chosen by the Father, and the Holy Spirit regenerates all of the chosen and redeemed ones. In universal atonement the Persons of the trinity work in different directions with varying degrees of success. At every turn the Holy Spirit cannot effect the gracious desires of the Father and the Son until the mighty free will of the sinner is willing to "give God a chance." And finally, the foundation of assurance of salvation must either collapse or else be placed squarely on man's faith alone. If God did the same thing for Judas, and every other Christ-rejecter, that He did for Peter and the rest of the elect, how can we be sure that we will not eventually perish as Judas did? The religion of free will answers: "Because I am willing. I have faith! I used my free-will to accept God's offer of grace." Surely you can see that such a system makes faith, not Christ's death, to actually be the foundation of assurance and the only real difference between a lost man and a saved man. This is teaching that all men are truly "redeemed" by Christ's blood but it is the sinner's faith that makes the sole difference between him and those who perish. What happens when we doubt? Are we lost? CONCLUSION: Read Exodus 28:6–12; 21–29. Consider the Old Testament Day of Atonement. Aaron wore only the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his shoulders and breast as he stood before God. The blood shed on the altar and then sprinkled on the mercy seat was not for the heathen nations but only for the nation of Israel. Just as the High Priest carried the names of the tribes on his shoulder and heart as he stood before God on the Day of Atonement, so our High Priest had our names on his shoulders and heart as He endured God's wrath, went into the tomb, and when He ascended into heaven. He breathes our individual names to the Father and pleads His merits on our behalf. He does this for every sinner that comes to Him! He turns no one away that comes! If I am such a sinner, in need of such a Redeemer, I dare believe He died for even me!
Supplement The Theology of Death A Proof of Imputation and Limited Atonement from Romans 5:12-19.
Chart # 1 - Sin and Death
Chart # 2 - Biblical Background
Chart # 3 - Death Reigned
Chart # 4 - A Problem
Chart # 5 - The First Sin
Chart # 6 - Only the Truly Guilty Die
Chart # 7 - The Doctrine of Imputation
Chart # 8 - The Heart of the Argument
What happens to the representative must, of absolute necessity, also happen to all he represents. Adam's disobedience guaranteed the condemnation of all he represented and Christ's obedience guarantees the justification of all He represented.
Chart # 9 - The Argument Explained Verses 15 and 19 are the facts and verses 16-18 are the explanation of the facts.
Chart # 10 - Christ and Adam Compared
Chart # 11 - The Argument in Detail
Chart #12 - Comparing the "many" and the "all"
Chart # 13 - The Truth of Representation What happens to the representative must, in every case, also happen to all ("the many") whom he represents. All of "the many" (the whole human race) represented by Adam must be declared guilty and punished by virtue of their union with Adam as their representative. v. 19 All of "the many" (the new race of the redeemed elect) represented by Christ must be declared righteous and blessed accordingly by virtue of their union with Christ as their representative. v. 19
Chart # 14 - The Doctrine of Imputation Applied
Chart # 15 - The Conclusion of the Matter Union with Adam = death and condemnation for all he represents Union with Christ = life and justification for all He represents
|