Theology Thursday - Atonement and the Holy Spirit

I have reduced my library by a third, and gave away my Chafer’s Systematic and other books by him.

But as I recall, Chafer adds that lost people are condemned not only because of their sin, but because Christ atoned for their sin and yet they rejected Him. The atonement, therefore, adds an additional justification for God’s condemnation of the lost, not that He needed those additional grounds 2 Thessalonians 2:12. In John 3:18, men are condemned not because of their sin in general (as is the case a few verses down in John 3:20-21), but because of their rejection of Jesus.

I think the fact that Christ died for even the non-elect (2 Peter 2:1) adds (an unnecessary — but God goes beyond quite frequently) a layer of justification for God’s condemnation of Christ rejectors.

I think even most five pointers would agree that the death of Christ is sufficient for all to be saved, which may make the point a bit moot. Still, the idea of who God had in mind when Christ died is an attempt to read God’s mind apart from Scripture.

[Paul Henebury] -

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.

Brother Barkman, what I’m trying to communicate is that lost in much of the theological discussions on the extent of the atonement has been the facts that

1. the resurrection of the body is eternally salvific from sin’s penalty of death and is brought about because of Christ’s propitiating, substituting death on the cross
   • limited atonement advocates say that God has done nothing toward the eternal salvation for those who remain in unbelief (the non-elect), because they only view salvation wholistically in its effects (i.e. God only plans to save the elect, God succeeds at what He plans, so only the elect have a part in God’s salvific work), and so they relegate resurrection to something less than salvific in nature (since scripture has clear points that all people will experience resurrection, and since they do not believe God has done anything salvific for the non-elect, they are forced to categorize resurrection as non-salvific [against the evidences from Scripture] ).
   • unlimited advocates say He has done something toward the salvation of those who remain in unbelief, but generally articulate that something as only potential, not something effectual apart from faith; as such, most also ignore the resurrection (which is something effectual, and happens apart from faith), though some do mention it as an effect of the universal atonement they are advocating for (without having worked through the logic that it is something not merely potential).
   • So my view of pananastasism aligns more with unlimited advocates in that something has been done, but it does agree with the limited advocates that what that something is must be an effectual salvific work.
2. the resurrection of the body is a necessary part of the eternal salvation of anyone
   • limited atonement advocates, as I noted above, have ignored or been opposed to the resurrection being an aspect of salvation (which is basically what you have been saying to me in this discussion, that the resurrection is irrelevant to the discussion of eternal salvation)
   • unlimited atonement advocates, as I noted above, have largely been so focused on the potential of the atoning work for the non-elect, that they have ignored the actual of what comes from that (or, as I said, they include the resurrection, but then do not advocate for an effectual part that is accomplished regardless of faith).
   • So my view corrects the error of the limited atonement view (that resurrection is not part of the salvific work) and the error of the unlimited view (that God only did something potential, rather than effectual, toward all people).

So when you say

to say that physical resurrection is half of salvation still doesn’t address the most meaningful half,

you miss half the point! The resurrection is just as meaningful to the salvation of a person as the cleansing, without either one, a person is not saved from the effects of sin. Each saves from different parts of sin’s consequences, but each has an eternal salvific effect related to its part. Then you ask:

What makes the difference between those who spend eternity in Heaven and those who go to Hell?

Faith makes the difference, but from the perspective of the atoning work, both the resurrection makes a difference and the cleansing makes a difference. Without the resurrection, bodies would remain in the grave (hell) under the penalty of death and no one would “live” again (eternally or otherwise), but without the cleansing, spirits would remain tainted by sin and the wrath of God abide on them still. But because of the salvific work of the resurrection, bodies will die no more (death is abolished), which allows the cleansed spirits to live eternally, while the uncleansed spirits spend eternity, not in hell, but in the lake of fire (which I happen to believe is a location whose fire is the manifestation of God’s holy presence for eternity against those who are unprepared to handle it, and so He is their eternal consuming fire that never consumes them because of their immortal, resurrected bodies).

Now you are correct that we both believe:

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.

But I hope I’ve cleared up why resurrection is half-central to the issue, rather than

Bringing the resurrection of the body into the discussion seems a diversion from the real issue.

Now as to

What is so difficult about definite atonement? Why such elaborate attempts to deny limited atonement, when you actually seem to agree with it?

Because I do not agree with it, in that I do not believe God has done nothing salvific for those who remain in unbelief. He has paid the penalty for their sins. He will resurrect them because He has paid that penalty. He will then judge them on whether they meet His righteous standards as image bearers of His likeness, and He will find them lacking because they are still in their sin, and cast them away from the blessing of an eternal, right relationship with Him.

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?

I think my explanation above shows where I do not “own” limited atonement “with [my] explanations,” though I have owned some of their logical reasons they reject the standard views of unlimited atonement, and applied that reasoning in defense of my revised unlimited atonement view. The reason I am “unwilling” to believe limited atonement is the same as why most unlimited advocates reject it, it does not fit the plain meaning of many Scriptures (you are aware of the standard ones, 1 Jn 2:2, 1 Tim 2:4-6, 4:10, 2 Pet 2:1, et al., but also I use 2 Cor 5:14-15, the passage you noted above, as well in defense of my view [see pages 258-267 of my dissertation] ).

[ScottS]

Brother Barkman, what I’m trying to communicate is that lost in much of the theological discussions on the extent of the atonement has been the facts that

1. the resurrection of the body is eternally salvific from sin’s penalty of death and is brought about because of Christ’s propitiating, substituting death on the cross
   • limited atonement advocates say that God has done nothing toward the eternal salvation for those who remain in unbelief (the non-elect), because they only view salvation wholistically in its effects (i.e. God only plans to save the elect, God succeeds at what He plans, so only the elect have a part in God’s salvific work), and so they relegate resurrection to something less than salvific in nature (since scripture has clear points that all people will experience resurrection, and since they do not believe God has done anything salvific for the non-elect, they are forced to categorize resurrection as non-salvific [against the evidences from Scripture] ).
   • unlimited advocates say He has done something toward the salvation of those who remain in unbelief, but generally articulate that something as only potential, not something effectual apart from faith; as such, most also ignore the resurrection (which is something effectual, and happens apart from faith), though some do mention it as an effect of the universal atonement they are advocating for (without having worked through the logic that it is something not merely potential).
   • So my view of pananastasism aligns more with unlimited advocates in that something has been done, but it does agree with the limited advocates that what that something is must be an effectual salvific work.
2. the resurrection of the body is a necessary part of the eternal salvation of anyone
   • limited atonement advocates, as I noted above, have ignored or been opposed to the resurrection being an aspect of salvation (which is basically what you have been saying to me in this discussion, that the resurrection is irrelevant to the discussion of eternal salvation)
   • unlimited atonement advocates, as I noted above, have largely been so focused on the potential of the atoning work for the non-elect, that they have ignored the actual of what comes from that (or, as I said, they include the resurrection, but then do not advocate for an effectual part that is accomplished regardless of faith).
   • So my view corrects the error of the limited atonement view (that resurrection is not part of the salvific work) and the error of the unlimited view (that God only did something potential, rather than effectual, toward all people).

So when you say

to say that physical resurrection is half of salvation still doesn’t address the most meaningful half,

you miss half the point! The resurrection is just as meaningful to the salvation of a person as the cleansing, without either one, a person is not saved from the effects of sin. Each saves from different parts of sin’s consequences, but each has an eternal salvific effect related to its part. Then you ask:

What makes the difference between those who spend eternity in Heaven and those who go to Hell?

Faith makes the difference, but from the perspective of the atoning work, both the resurrection makes a difference and the cleansing makes a difference. Without the resurrection, bodies would remain in the grave (hell) under the penalty of death and no one would “live” again (eternally or otherwise), but without the cleansing, spirits would remain tainted by sin and the wrath of God abide on them still. But because of the salvific work of the resurrection, bodies will die no more (death is abolished), which allows the cleansed spirits to live eternally, while the uncleansed spirits spend eternity, not in hell, but in the lake of fire (which I happen to believe is a location whose fire is the manifestation of God’s holy presence for eternity against those who are unprepared to handle it, and so He is their eternal consuming fire that never consumes them because of their immortal, resurrected bodies).

Now you are correct that we both believe:

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.

But I hope I’ve cleared up why resurrection is half-central to the issue, rather than

Bringing the resurrection of the body into the discussion seems a diversion from the real issue.

Now as to

What is so difficult about definite atonement? Why such elaborate attempts to deny limited atonement, when you actually seem to agree with it?

Because I do not agree with it, in that I do not believe God has done nothing salvific for those who remain in unbelief. He has paid the penalty for their sins. He will resurrect them because He has paid that penalty. He will then judge them on whether they meet His righteous standards as image bearers of His likeness, and He will find them lacking because they are still in their sin, and cast them away from the blessing of an eternal, right relationship with Him.

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?

I think my explanation above shows where I do not “own” limited atonement “with [my] explanations,” though I have owned some of their logical reasons they reject the standard views of unlimited atonement, and applied that reasoning in defense of my revised unlimited atonement view. The reason I am “unwilling” to believe limited atonement is the same as why most unlimited advocates reject it, it does not fit the plain meaning of many Scriptures (you are aware of the standard ones, 1 Jn 2:2, 1 Tim 2:4-6, 4:10, 2 Pet 2:1, et al., but also I use 2 Cor 5:14-15, the passage you noted above, as well in defense of my view [see pages 258-267 of my dissertation] ).

if you read most 5 pointers on the subject they are adamant that the elect were actually atoned for at the Cross. Also, they hold that the elect are regenerated in order to believe. Logically, this means that the elect must be considered as having received the benefits of the Cross already. E.g., Greg Forster asserts several times in his The Joy of Calvinism that the elect were all “saved at the Cross and the empty Tomb.”

This has to be the case, says Forster, because Jesus died for “you” (individual elect sinners), “and when he did, he actually saved you.” (59 my emphasis).

[Paul Henebury]

if you read most 5 pointers on the subject they are adamant that the elect were actually atoned for at the Cross. Also, they hold that the elect are regenerated in order to believe. Logically, this means that the elect must be considered as having received the benefits of the Cross already. E.g., Greg Forster asserts several times in his The Joy of Calvinism that the elect were all “saved at the Cross and the empty Tomb.”

This has to be the case, says Forster, because Jesus died for “you” (individual elect sinners), “and when he did, he actually saved you.” (59 my emphasis).

Andrew,

[Andrew K]

Jumping in here for a moment: I believe sin’s penalty involves two deaths, no? I’m personally a bit hesitant to call “salvific” something that only deals with the first, which ultimately came on us by virtue of our sins in Adam, rather than our own specific sins.

My articulation of it is that sin’s effects involve two deaths, but physical death is the legal penalty (it is the penalty God laid down to Adam if he transgressed the command), but the relational rift (or as many like to call it, spiritual death, but I prefer to avoid that term as then people eisegete that death into the Genesis 2 statement of legal penalty) is the natural consequence of a person failing to be what God made them to be, like Him, and this naturally breaks the relationship with God, incurring His wrath. But both are in need of being saved from: penalty and wrath (but they are distinct).

So one illustration I use is that if a person is going to live in a right relationship with another, that person needs to (1) be free to do so and (2) be willing to do so. So if a person is in prison because of legal penalty (or the grave, because of sin), they must be freed to have a real relationship with another (with God); so if that other (God) frees the imprisoned person from the legal penalty (the grave), then there is still an issue of whether the one who was imprisoned is willing to be in a right relation with the one who freed them; if that one imprisoned spits in the face of the one who freed them, there is a cause for a righteous anger in the one spit upon, but facing the anger is different from facing the penalty. Where this illustration breaks down is that in our case, God owns all people, including unbelievers, as they are all His creation, and He has expectations that those creatures were to be perfectly representative of Him as He designed them to be, so failing to do so even more righteously evokes His wrath. But in the illustration (and reality), there is something all those imprisoned are freed from, so they are saved from prison (the grave), even if they still face a different consequence that they may or may not be prepared to deal with. Saving from prison (the grave) is as much a need as saving from eternal wrath (second death).

But my question is why do you consider (or are at least are hesitant in) handling one of the effects of sin being taken care of as not being salvific?

[ScottS]

Andrew,

Andrew K wrote:

Jumping in here for a moment: I believe sin’s penalty involves two deaths, no? I’m personally a bit hesitant to call “salvific” something that only deals with the first, which ultimately came on us by virtue of our sins in Adam, rather than our own specific sins.

My articulation of it is that sin’s effects involve two deaths, but physical death is the legal penalty (it is the penalty God laid down to Adam if he transgressed the command), but the relational rift (or as many like to call it, spiritual death, but I prefer to avoid that term as then people eisegete that death into the Genesis 2 statement of legal penalty) is the natural consequence of a person failing to be what God made them to be, like Him, and this naturally breaks the relationship with God, incurring His wrath. But both are in need of being saved from: penalty and wrath (but they are distinct).

So one illustration I use is that if a person is going to live in a right relationship with another, that person needs to (1) be free to do so and (2) be willing to do so. So if a person is in prison because of legal penalty (or the grave, because of sin), they must be freed to have a real relationship with another (with God); so if that other (God) frees the imprisoned person from the legal penalty (the grave), then there is still an issue of whether the one who was imprisoned is willing to be in a right relation with the one who freed them; if that one imprisoned spits in the face of the one who freed them, there is a cause for a righteous anger in the one spit upon, but facing the anger is different from facing the penalty. Where this illustration breaks down is that in our case, God owns all people, including unbelievers, as they are all His creation, and He has expectations that those creatures were to be perfectly representative of Him as He designed them to be, so failing to do so even more righteously evokes His wrath. But in the illustration (and reality), there is something all those imprisoned are freed from, so they are saved from prison (the grave), even if they still face a different consequence that they may or may not be prepared to deal with. Saving from prison (the grave) is as much a need as saving from eternal wrath (second death).

But my question is why do you consider (or are at least are hesitant in) handling one of the effects of sin being taken care of as not being salvific?

Andrew, if you actually search an electronic Bible for the “term” penalty, I think you will find very few uses of that term period, and even less (if any, depending on the translation) in a soteriological context. Punishment is far more common, but there are differing types of punishment: penal (which by definition is a punishment for a legal infraction, hence why I use the term penalty for the first part), correctional (i.e., to correct the error of one’s ways: this could or could not overlap with penal), and retribution (i.e. vengeance for a perceived wrong).

So I would argue (and did, in part, in my dissertation) that Scripture clearly discusses and distinguishes both the penal (physical death) and retributive (wrath; second death) as punishments for sin, with both types in need of being saved from the effects. And of course, in the OT, oftentimes both types occurred together (God killed people in his wrath for breaking His commands).

Andrew, with respect, you didn’t read the quote from Forster carefully. He does say that the elect were redeemed at the cross. The logic of this is that if one separates the accomplishment of the cross from the application then there is no reason to delimit the atonement only to the elect. Thus, what Forster says is,

T1 = “when Christ died” (the accomplishment)

T2 = “He actually saved you” (application)

Hence T1 and T2 are coterminous.

You appear to be saying,

T1 = the atonement made for sin at the cross

T2 = the application of the merits of the atonement to the elect upon belief

Hence, there is a separation between T1 and T2.

Notice that actual redemption of a person under this view means that no one is “actually saved” at the cross (contra Forster). They are potentially saved. Hence there is no reason to limit the accomplishment to the elect, since the elect are not actually atoned for at the cross but later when they believe. But it is the potentiality of salvation that the limited redemptionist wants to argue against. It is a particular redemption, not a potential or hypothetical one. So,

“Christ’s atonement did not make men merely hypothetically savable, but actually accomplished the salvation of all those who the Father gave him.” - O. Palmer Robertson, “Definite Atonement”, in After Darkness, Light, ed. by R.C. Sproul Jr., 99-100

But the only way to stop speaking of the potentially redeemed is to have the elect actually atoned for at Calvary. If we say that Christ died for all mankind but only the elect will believe and have the merits of the cross applied to them then one is espousing the basic position of universal redemptionists like Chafer. I would say that this is the teaching of Scripture. If we say that Christ died only for the elect at the cross but the elect are not saved until they each believe, the first part of that sentence will have to be asserted via deduction not texts. This is especially true since most Reformed soteriology states that faith is not a condition for God to be satisfied.

[Paul Henebury]

Andrew, with respect, you didn’t read the quote from Forster carefully. He does say that the elect were redeemed at the cross. The logic of this is that if one separates the accomplishment of the cross from the application then there is no reason to delimit the atonement only to the elect. Thus, what Forster says is,

T1 = “when Christ died” (the accomplishment)

T2 = “He actually saved you” (application)

Hence T1 and T2 are coterminous.

You appear to be saying,

T1 = the atonement made for sin at the cross

T2 = the application of the merits of the atonement to the elect upon belief

Hence, there is a separation between T1 and T2.

Notice that actual redemption of a person under this view means that no one is “actually saved” at the cross (contra Forster). They are potentially saved. Hence there is no reason to limit the accomplishment to the elect, since the elect are not actually atoned for at the cross but later when they believe. But it is the potentiality of salvation that the limited redemptionist wants to argue against. It is a particular redemption, not a potential or hypothetical one. So,

“Christ’s atonement did not make men merely hypothetically savable, but actually accomplished the salvation of all those who the Father gave him.” - O. Palmer Robertson, “Definite Atonement”, in After Darkness, Light, ed. by R.C. Sproul Jr., 99-100

But the only way to stop speaking of the potentially redeemed is to have the elect actually atoned for at Calvary. If we say that Christ died for all mankind but only the elect will believe and have the merits of the cross applied to them then one is espousing the basic position of universal redemptionists like Chafer. I would say that this is the teaching of Scripture. If we say that Christ died only for the elect at the cross but the elect are not saved until they each believe, the first part of that sentence will have to be asserted via deduction not texts. This is especially true since most Reformed soteriology states that faith is not a condition for God to be satisfied.

Anyone who has not read John Murray’s classic, “Redemption Accomplished and Applied,” should put it on your short term “to do” list. Those who read it thoughtfully will have an accurate understanding of Calvinist soteriology.

Michael Gaydosh at Solid Ground Books has published a chapter of Murray’s classic under the title For Whom Did Christ Die?

It is a good introduction to the full work.

CVBBS has the full book for $10.99

I don’t have access to Murray right now (hopefully Monday), but Packer should do. Please read this short exposition of LA carefully. He makes it clear that the application happened at the cross. That is also where the gifts of regeneration and faith were purchased. - http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Packer,%20J.I.%20-%20Definite%20Redemption.pdf

He states: “that the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God’s elect”. It didn’t happen AFTER the death of Christ.

Again, if the application does not occur until individual faith is exercised then the cross was not actually a substitution. The actual substitution would happen upon belief. This is what Andrew K said:

“he separates achievement and application chronologically, with the application coming after belief of an individual?”

What is applied after the cross is the gift of faith, sanctification etc, not the atonement.