Theology Thursday - Atonement and the Holy Spirit

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?

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?

“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.

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.”)

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.

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.

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.

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, 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?

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.