Theology Thursday - Atonement and the Holy Spirit

Image

In this excerpt from his systematic theology text, Lewis Chafer explains that the cross is not the only saving instrument God employs to redeem His people. He argues against limited redemption partially on this basis:1

It is one of the points most depended upon by the limited redemptionists to claim that redemption, if wrought at all, necessitates the salvation of those thus favored. According to this view, if the redemption price is paid by Christ it must be exagoradzo or apolutrosis, rather than agoradzo, in every instance.

It is confidently held by all Calvinists that the elect will, in God’s time and way, every one, be saved, and that the unregenerate believe only as they are enabled by the Spirit of God; but the question here is whether the sacrifice of Christ is the only divine instrumentality whereby God actually saves the elect, or whether that sacrifice is a divine work, finished, indeed, with regard to its scope and purpose, which renders all men savable, but one applied in sovereign grace by the Word of God and the Holy Spirit only when the individual believes.

Certainly Christ’s death of itself forgives no sinner, nor does it render unnecessary the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Any one of the elect whose salvation is predetermined, and for whom Christ died, may live the major portion of his life in open rebellion against God and, during that time, manifest every feature of depravity and spiritual death. This alone should prove that men are not severally saved by the act of Christ in dying, but rather that they are saved by the divine application of that value when they believe. The blood of the passover lamb became efficacious only when applied to the door post.

The fact that an elect person does live some portion of his life in enmity toward God and in a state in which he is as much lost as any unregenerate person, indicates conclusively that Christ must not only die to provide a righteous basis for the salvation of that soul, but that that value must be applied to him at such a time in his life as God has decreed, which time, in the present generation, is almost two thousand years subsequent to the death of Christ. By so much it is proved that the priceless value in Christ’s death does not save the elect, nor hinder them from rejecting the mercies of God in that period of their life which precedes their salvation.

The unlimited redemptionist claims that the value of Christ’s death is extended to all men, but the elect alone come, by divine grace wrought by an effectual call, into its fruition, while the nonelect are not called, but are those passed by. They hold that God indicates who are the elect, not at the cross, but by the effectual call and at the time of regeneration.

It is also believed by the unlimited redemptionists that it pleased God to place the whole world in a position of infinite obligation to Himself through the sacrifice of Christ, and though the mystery of personal condemnation for the sin of unbelief when one has not been moved to faith by the Spirit cannot be solved in this world, the unregenerate, both elect and nonelect, are definitely condemned for their unbelief so long as they abide in that estate (John 3:18).

There is nothing more clarifying in connection with this agelong discussion than the recognition of the fact that while they are in their unregenerate state, no vital distinction between the elect and the nonelect is recognized in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 1:24 and Heb. 1:14 might suggest this distinction along lines comparatively unimportant to this discussion).

Certainly, that form of doctrine which would make redemption equivalent to salvation is not traceable when men are contemplated in their unregenerate state, and that salvation which is delayed for many years in the case of an elect person might be delayed forever in the case of a nonelect person whose heart God never moves.

Was the objective in Christ’s death one of making the salvation of all men possible, or was it the making of the salvation of the elect certain? Some light is gained on this question when it is thus remembered that the consummating divine acts in the salvation of an individual are wrought when he believes on Christ, and not before he believes.

Notes

1 Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: DTS, 1948), 3:193-194.

Discussion

Obviously I must be missing something, because this does not seem to address the issue. Calvinists agree that the justifying benefits of the atonement are applied to the elect when they believe. (Athough some hypers speak of eternal justification.) Sinners are justified by faith. However, Chafer’s explanation avoids dealing directly with the SAVING intent of the atonement. Why is this such a difficult issue? If the Father elected His people in eternity past, and the Holy Spirit applies the benefits of Christ’s atonement to the elect in the present, why would the Son pay for the sins of everyone without exception? Would Christ pay for the sins of those whom the Father did not choose, and the Holy Spirit will not regenerate? What drives this inconsistency? Why are the three persons of the Godhead not unified in the work of redemption?

G. N. Barkman

That is an important consideration. I still remember the first time I read Berkhof make that point very emphatically. But, that just isn’t the angle Chafer is addressing, here.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Interesting. I didn’t remember that Berkhof made that point, but Berkhof was my textbook for Systematic Theology. At the time, I remember disagreeing with much of what he said. However, I believe more was implanted than I realized. It was several years later that I began to appreciate what Berkhof taught.

But back to the thread, I wasn’t saying that Chafer was dealing with the Trinitarian argument. I was trying to say that denying definite atonement, as Chafer does, flies in the face of this argument. I see no reason to argue against it. Why defend what is clearly an inconsistency? Beyond that, it seems to me that Chafer is trying to deny limited atonement by shifting the focus away from the salvific intent. So what if there are other factors involved in salvation beyond the atonement? Of course there are! Do you know anyone who says otherwise? But that’s not the issue. Throwing a red herring at the question does not successfully avoid the central issue, which is, what was God’s intention in the atonement? To save everyone? To make salvation possible for all, but certain for none? Or to purchase salvation for the elect?

G. N. Barkman

There is no inconsistency if … you take a multi-intentioned view of the atonement (cue sinister laugh). But, on a serious note, I don’t recall how Chafer addressed this. This evening, I’ll take a look at it and let you know. In the meantime, if anyone here has Chafer, you can look somewhere around 3:190f and let us know!

Erickson was the systematic I used in Seminary, and I still think it’s the best. I love Erickson, even when I disagree with him.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Here is the quote that I remember from Berkhof:

The question with which we are concerned at this point is not (a) whether the satisfaction rendered by Christ was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men, since this is admitted by all; (b) whether the saving benefits are actually applied to every man, for the great majority of those who teach a universal atonement do not believe that all are actually saved; (c) whether the bona fide offer of salvation is made to all that hear the gospel, on the condition of repentance and faith, since the Reformed Churches do not call this in question; nor (d) whether any of the fruits of the death of Christ accrue to the benefit of the non-elect in virtue of their close association with the people of God, since this is explicitly taught by many Reformed scholars.

On the other hand, the question does relate to the design of the atonement. Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question.

This is, indeed, the question. The way Berkhof framed this issue hit me like a thunderbolt a long time ago. I remember reading this, putting the book down, and thinking, “Well, I guess I believe in limited atonement!”

Yet, I also believe Christ’s death is legitimately condemnatory for those who refuse to repent and believe. This means that, in some way, it could have been efficacious for them, too.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

“Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question.” - Berkhof

Well, does the Bible address THAT question? If it doesn’t then it cannot be THE question. If someone thinks it is when it isn’t then fallible deductive logic will be relied upon no matter what.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

The Trinitarian purpose and effects of the atonement function salvifically at two levels, in perfect harmony between the Persons of the Trinity:

Universally (“God … is Savior of all men …” 1 Tim 4:10)

  • God the Father intended the atonement to be a penal substitution for sin’s legal penalty of death for all men, the propitiation for sin, so that He could righteously* resurrect them from that penalty He had declared, saving all people from that physical death (and thus saving along with all people, the particular group He cares most about: see “particularly” below). *NOTE: “Righteously” here meaning so that God could counter His own declared penalty of death for sin and yet remain true and right to Himself by making sure the penalty was paid in full, not simply “dismissed”; death should have been irrevocable (eternal) for sinners, but if that eternal punishment is paid by another, then it allows freedom from it to be given.
  • God the Son worked the Father’s will in the atonement to bring about the Father’s intention, functioning as High Priest and Second/Last Adam (and thus the Lamb sacrifice) for humanity, being sacrificer and sacrifice, offering and paying the penalty for all through death, so that all could be righteously saved from physical death by the resurrection.
  • God the Spirit will work the Father’s will, in the Father’s time, through resurrecting all people out from that penalty of death, saving them for an eternal, bodily existence to come**—whether in a condemned or a justified state for eternity. **NOTE: God designed mankind to have a body, so the salvation of the body from death is half of what is necessary for saving any person from sin’s effects.

Particularly (“[God is]… especially [Savior] of those who believe” 1 Tim 4:10)

  • God the Father intended the atonement to cleanse sin for all those who identify with it by faith, saving believers from their sinfulness (the sinful nature), and He intended that faith as a vehicle to righteously declare believers as righteous now, on the grounds that God will make the believer righteous when the body of sinful flesh is replaced by the resurrected (spiritual) body to come (when both the human spirit and the resurrected, spiritual body will be without sin forever), saving believers from having their worthiness (as humans who were designed to be image bearers of God, and so expected to be as righteous as He) from being judged based upon their own works, for they are justified based on Christ’s work and through their faith instead, and so they are saved from the condemnation of the second death, to be in a special, right and restored, relationship as God’s people through eternity.
  • God the Son worked the Father’s will to supply the Son’s own blood on behalf of those who believe to cleanse them of sin, saving them from the nature of sin by its application for them (at level deeper than the temporary washing of animal sacrifices), and having paid their penalty of sin (see “universally” above), the Son provides the universally salvific basis of the good news (the gospel) to be preached to all people (a Lamb has been provided, their penalty has been paid, whaa hooo!—now identify with that sacrifice) so that faith may come to some, whose faith is grounded on the truth of the resurrection to come by that purchase, and through faith, righteousness comes to save them from their sinful works and save them from the second death, to eternal life with Him and the Father (and the Spirit).
  • God the Spirit works the Father’s will to apply the blood cleansing to believers’ spirits at the time they come to faith and renewing the believers’ spirits, saving them from their spiritual sinfulness at that time (awaiting the removal of the sinful flesh at the resurrection for the saving of them from sinfulness in total), which cleansing and renewing comes through the faith that the Spirit elicits in a person by the gospel of what God has done (and will do if they believe) through the Spirit’s calling and illumination, saving them from their spiritual blindness so that they are saved from standing in their own works by standing in Christ’s work, and so saved from condemnation, to a justified eternal relation with God.

For brevity’s sake, I’ve omitted numerous verse references that I could pair with the statements above; I’ve also probably missed some other parallels and points to make (but I believe I’ve hit on most of the main ones).

But I believe I’ve established clearly how the various saving aspects of the atonement (and some other,non-atonement factors, which I think is part of Chafer’s point in his passage) are in harmony in the Trinity to do what they are intended, having effects part on a universal level, and part on a particular level.

This understanding of atonement I’ve labeled as pananastasism, though the label only classifies a view of atonement that has been expressed by others in history (for more on the historical aspect than what I covered in my dissertation, see my article “A Defense of the Early Theological Recognition of a Universal, Effectual, Salvific Aspect to the Nature and Extent of Christ’s Atonement.”)

Scott Smith, Ph.D.

The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16

Paul wrote:

Well, does the Bible address THAT question? If it doesn’t then it cannot be THE question. If someone thinks it is when it isn’t then fallible deductive logic will be relied upon no matter what.

This is one reason why I’m sometimes wary of trying to over-systematize things. Sometimes the Scriptural evidence cannot be neatly tied up with a bow. Sometimes ambiguity remains. Sometimes you’ll still have evidence that doesn’t fit into the neat systematic box.

But, I suppose we can ask - does Scripture ever address whether Christ died to specifically redeem all or some? Forget the potential extent of the atonement for the moment; does Scripture address the salvific intent of Christ’s work? When you frame it the way Berkhof did, it really becomes a question about individual, single election - not atonement. These issues are inter-connected.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

I think I understand what you are trying to communicate, but if cleansing the soul from sin is the focus of the question, “For whom did Christ die,” the answer remains, “For the elect.” I recognize that this is actually what you said. I consider your statement a novel, but acceptable description of limited atonement. I don’t know anyone who denies the atonement accomplished more than the salvation of the elect, but when the issue is the eternal salvation of souls, (not bodily resurrection, etc.) the design was intended for the elect only. Although your emphasis upon bodily resurrection is a new angle, at least to me, when all is said and done, your statement lands on the right answer, unless I am misunderstanding you. When the question is narrowed to the eternal salvation of souls, the answer is that Christ’s atonement was intended to save the elect, and it accomplished exactly that for which it was intended.

G. N. Barkman

Yes. A careful exegesis of II Corinthians 5:14,15, allows for no other possibility. The “all” for whom Christ died all died in Christ. (vs. 14) Furthermore, the “all” for whom Christ died now live, and because they live, they should henceforth live, not for self, but Christ who died for them. (verse 15)

The death of verse 14 cannot be physical death, for physical death did not come about because of Christ’s death, but because of Adam’s sin. But “if One died for all, then all died” means that everyone for whom Christ died on the cross, died with Him and in Him. To put it the other way around, no one for whom Christ died fails to die with Him and in Him. Conclusion? Christ died for the elect, and every elect person for whom Christ died will be saved because every one of them were in Christ when He died. To put it another way, every one who was in Christ when He died lives. No one who does not live eternally was in Christ when He died.

That’s the Biblical explanation of limited atonement. It is also the text that forced S. Lewis Johnson to resign from the DTS faculty, for he could no longer subscribe to the required doctrinal statement embracing universal atonement.

G. N. Barkman

Brother Barkman said, “When the question is narrowed to the eternal salvation of souls, the answer is that Christ’s atonement was intended to save the elect, and it accomplished exactly that for which it was intended.”

But does the Bible address the issue in this way or does this question pave the way for an answer not provided by the Bible itself, taking us off course from what it actually does address? I am open to being corrected, but I believe the question, and therefore the answer, is non-sequitur.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

You do misunderstand me some.

[G. N. Barkman]

I think I understand what you are trying to communicate, but if cleansing the soul from sin is the focus of the question, “For whom did Christ die,” the answer remains, “For the elect.” I recognize that this is actually what you said. I consider your statement a novel, but acceptable description of limited atonement. I don’t know anyone who denies the atonement accomplished more than the salvation of the elect, but when the issue is the eternal salvation of souls, (not bodily resurrection, etc.) the design was intended for the elect only. Although your emphasis upon bodily resurrection is a new angle, at least to me, when all is said and done, your statement lands on the right answer, unless I am misunderstanding you. When the question is narrowed to the eternal salvation of souls, the answer is that Christ’s atonement was intended to save the elect, and it accomplished exactly that for which it was intended.

My intent is to show that the atonement is not wholly limited to the elect, but has an unlimited aspect as well that is more than merely potential (it is actual) in its saving efficacy. “For whom did Christ die” is for all to save them from the physical penalty of death (which is a necessary part of saving anyone from the effects of sin), and then for the believers to cleanse the soul from sin. The issue of “the eternal salvation of souls” includes the necessity for the salvation of the body via the resurrection. This aspect of salvation is universal (and intended to be so), and it saves even the unbelievers from being able to physically die again (which is why they end up eternally experiencing the wrath of God in the lake of fire for their unrighteousness, because He paid for them to be freed from that physical death). But it saves the elect relationally (no wrath) because they are cleansed and made right spiritually.

Scott Smith, Ph.D.

The goal now, the destiny to come, holiness like God—
Gen 1:27, Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:15-16

What struck me so forcefully about Chafer’s argument is that he’s saying, “Yes, the atonement is important. But, the point of discrimination between elect and non-elect has nothing to do with atonement - it has to do with the sovereign application by the Spirit.” To paraphrase John Frame, the Father plans, the Son executes, the Spirit applies.

Chafer makes a good point. Should we be talking about the extent of the atonement, when the application on the basis of election comes by the Spirit anyway? And, as Paul asks, does Scripture ever frame the matter like Berkhof did? Are we doing what Cinderella’s stepsisters tried to do with the glass slipper; to “make it fit” into a mold it wasn’t designed for?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Scott, because it seems to me that you have said again exactly what you said before, and that leads me to believe that your position is a rather novel version of limited atonement. To say the atonement is universal because it secures the resurrection of the bodies of the unjust does not address the question of the eternal salvation of men. To say that physical resurrection is half of salvation still doesn’t address the most meaningful half. What makes the difference between those who spend eternity in Heaven and those who go to Hell? It is cleansing from sin. What was the intended purpose of the atonement in regard to cleansing from sin? It was intended to cleanse the sins of the elect alone. That is what you state, and that is what I believe. Bringing the resurrection of the body into the discussion seems a diversion from the real issue. Chafer, Tyler, and you all seem unwilling to embrace the obvious. What is so difficult about definite atonement? Why such elaborate attempts to deny limited atonement, when you actually seem to agree with it? It seems to me that you own it with your explanations, but are unwilling to say that you believe it. Why? Is there an emotional barrier to identifying yourself with limited atonement?

G. N. Barkman

Tyler: “I suppose we can ask - does Scripture ever address whether Christ died to specifically redeem all or some?”

My response is that it depends on what is meant by “specifically”. If by it is meant “actually redeem” this means that the accomplishment of redemption and the application of it are coterminous. Scripture does address the question of those for whom Christ died. Another question would be, who receives the application of the atonement?

N.B. I note in his first comment that Bro. Barkman separates the achievement of the atonement from its application. This is unusual for those who hold to limited atonement.

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.