Definite Universal Atonement unto Resurrection

I agree with your fork comment, but I disagree with the fork many (including you) have taken. I believe one reason atonement has failed to be fully properly understood in its universal aspect is precisely because a wrong fork is taken in believing spiritual death is the penalty for sin.

I cover this fact fairly extensively in my dissertation, and am currently working on a journal article to argue further that physical death was the penalty. “In the day” they ate, they fell under the obligation of having to face death. This is born out by the fact that every other instance in the Pentateuch the phrasing מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת (“surely die”) refers to a physical death penalty being declared for a particular transgression, not necessarily the immediate fulfillment of that death (see Gen 26:11, Exo 19:12, 21:12, 15-17, 22:19, 31:14-15, 20:2, 20:9-13, 15-16, 27, 24:16-17, 27:29; some repeats of those in Numbers, but additionally Num 15:35-36, 26:65, 35:16-18, 21). It is a statement of law regarding what is obligated to occur, and so “in the day” they would eat, they would fall under an obligation of coming to a physical death. They were, without fail, going to die eventually. The “death” penalty was clearly physical (Genesis chapter 5; Rom 5:12-14).

The concept labeled by many (but not Scripture) as spiritual death is valid, but the label I have come to realize is unfortunate. Relationship was severed and “alienation from each other and God” did occur; but that has been inappropriately labeled as “spiritual death,” and then that concept imported into the meaning of the word “death” (especially imported into the whole OT, where death is almost exclusively a reference to physical death, a few times used figuratively to refer generally to the ceasing of something). Even the “best” passage used for defending the word death as possibly linked more directly to the idea of alienation, Eph 2:1, has to import the idea of “spiritual death” to that passage (it does not explicitly state spiritual death there). I argue in my dissertation that Eph 2:1, however, is still best viewed as a reference to physical death (I give eight evidences, pages 331-347), being a proleptic reference to the death due people for sin because of Adam. But I also note that even if one believes it is referencing a spiritual death concept there, it does not defeat my thesis, because the use of the term death in the NT to possibly refer to the alienation does not mean it should be imported back into the OT and the penalty for sin. Additionally, the Bible does speak explicitly of only two deaths, for there is the second death that is clearly defined (Rev 20:6,14, 21:8), and I would argue the first death is without fail clearly defined both by the plenitude of physical death in Scripture, but also the human experience of it (for believer or unbeliever) due to Adam’s fall.

So I believe a relational rift has occurred, an alienation from God, but that was not the legal penalty for sin, it was the natural consequence of now being “unlike” God. So I believe essentially everything noted about what one might argue are the issues of “spiritual death,” but not that those issues are from a legal penalty being enacted for sin. Rather, they are consequences for being unrighteous, unlike God.

Yet you are right also, there is hope. I believe the truth of Scripture will avail to those willing to step out of what they have learned theologically, when Scripture so clearly indicates there is an error in mislabeling, and realize that what needs reworking (the proper fork to take) is the framework of what is understood as the penalty for sin (physical death) versus the natural consequence for sin (alienation from God). The result, for me, was finally resolving the truths held by universal atonement advocates with the truths held by particular atonement advocates, and finally match Scripture together in a far more coherent whole than I was finding in the arguments from either group.

Thank you for your interaction. While I hope we will not continue to disagree, I also realize that not all will be convinced of my view and the view of others in history that directly tied the atonement to the universal salvific aspect of that atonement, which is the resurrection (as opposed to particular salvific aspects applicable only to believers).

I’ve pulled together some more time to answer Larry’s questions, which were still posted in the original comment thread. I will not quote the entirety here (he gave his questions in context to some of my statements), just his questions

I’m going to answer those questions in reverse order, as I think it will be clearer what I am arguing.

1. “What is the difference between ‘righteous or not’ and ‘violated the law or not’? Isn’t the essence of sin (unrighteousness) the violation of the law of God?”

I noted previously righteousness is far more encompassing than anything law can circumscribe. God could not give enough laws (do’s and do not’s) to encompass the totality of what righteousness is or what is right in every circumstance. Something becomes sin when one has become aware about a particular instance of what is good, but then violates that (Jam 4:17). Whereas someone may be totally ignorant of any law expressing God’s way of goodness and rightness, yet violating that standard is still unrighteous, because it is not God’s way and it is not what mankind was designed to reflect.

The Scripture is not clear at all if any particular laws of God for mankind as a whole existed prior to the Flood, other than the general commands found within Genesis 1:26-29. Yet God judged Cain for his improper spirit (Gen 4:5-6), not doing well (Gen 4:7), and his murder of Abel (Gen 4:10-11). He also judged the pre-Flood population as “wicked” to an extended degree (Gen 6:5). This was all judgment, as far as can be surmised, based on mankind not being and acting like he was supposed to be, as God designed him, to be like God. It is a judgment based not on law, but a higher standard of righteousness. Such is what God judges the Gentile nations by as well, who were not under the OT law.

But Adam did have a specific law, the violation of which brought death (Gen 2:17), which death penalty perpetuated into human nature itself, such that others died (e.g. Gen 5), even though sin was not imputed to them since they were not under law and so not transgressing laws (Rom 5:12-14). Mankind as a whole violated this law through Adam (which I take as both seminal and federal head) and pays the price. This legal penalty (as violation of a law) is what Christ’s universal penal substitutionary atonement resolves, such that all mankind will not face an eternal physical death, but in fact be resurrected from the prison of that death. This death was God’s first judgment upon people, against this corporate sin done in Adam.

But God will still ultimately judge people based upon whether they are, in His sight, righteous as He designed them to be. For those that stand in Christ’s righteousness, having it accounted to them by faith, they pass scrutiny. For those that stand in their own righteousness, they do not, and their works are evidence against them. This is the nature of the second judgment of Rev 20:11-12.

2. “Since we are commanded to be holy, isn’t it a sin to lack the righteous nature God requires? And if this sin has been forgiven, what are they being punished for?”

The command to be holy is actually only given to those groups especially related to God (Israel in covenant originally [Lev 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:7] , and all believers now [1 Pet 1:15-16; cf. 2 Cor 7:1] ). So holiness is not a law for unbelievers, but since God is holy, then it is unrighteous for all people not to reflect that likeness in their lives. So I do believe failing to be holy will be judged in the second judgment.

3. “What is the biblical basis for someone being forgiven but not in Christ?”

The following points from Scripture bear this out:

• Luke 7:40-50 gives Christ’s illustration to Simon. In that illustration, by which he then compares Simon with the woman, he is indicating that forgiveness is granted to both in the illustration (and by extension, to Simon and the woman), but those that do not perceive the importance of the debt owed nor the amount forgiven do not love the forgiver—but those that do understand, and trust that the forgiveness is granted, love abundantly, and it is that trust that saves one within being forgiven.
• Mat 18:21-35 is an illustration that shows this (related to the ideas as well in Mat 6:8-15 and Luke 11:2-4). The master grants forgiveness of the debt (Mat 18:27), but the one already forgiven never sought forgiveness, but rather to pay the debt owed (Mat 18:26), and that is still the mindset of the servant after being forgiven, which forgiveness he shows contempt for in trying to extract money still (Mat 18:28-30), and so at the second judgment, the master revokes the forgiveness that was never received by the servant (Mat 18:31-32), and then he gives the wicked (unrighteous) servant what he desired, the opportunity to pay the debt owed in full (Mat 18:34).
• Christ’s blood was shed, in part, for the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26:28; Heb 9:22; also for establishing the new covenant and for purification, as those two verses also indicate). Christ’s sacrifice for sin was needed to remit (forgive) sins (Heb 10:12, 17-18), but the perfect outcome of all that only comes to those “being sanctified” (Heb 10:14), who through the new covenant relation gain a new heart and mind (Heb 10:16). This remission is permanent for that group, their actions remembered no more (Heb 10:17; cf. Jer 31:34), but as illustrated above in Mat 18, actions will be brought back to remembrance if a person chooses to stand in their own righteousness for judgment (i.e. those not being sanctified).
• Redemption is directly tied to forgiveness of sins (Eph 1:7; there in context of those that are “in Him”); Christ died for the category of people that are ungodly (i.e. all people, Rom 5:6), purchasing even those that are not merely unbelievers, but actively against Him (2 Pet 2:1), even while doing so to specifically gain His Church (Acts 20:28). I will not belabor much here, but my dissertation is an argument that redemption is the freeing from sin’s penalty of death in the resurrection (it is the body that is redeemed, Rom 8:23, via resurrection). What I do not do in the dissertation as much is tie to its relation to forgiveness specifically. So to clarify on that further, this is the forgiveness that God gives to all people of their sins, the initial forgiveness granted to mankind (His creature made so serve Him; cf. the Mat 18 passage above). Those that choose not to receive this forgiveness are treated as they desire, having their own “righteousness” examined instead (the forgiveness revoked) by their works being examined—but they were still redeemed from the first death (shown forgiveness initially), and now will experience the second death.
• Acts 10:43 indicates that the believing ones receive remission of sins (acknowledge and accept what has been granted; the verb there is Aorist Active Infinitive, not directly future); it is that belief that entails their receiving of what God has already said He has done. God forgave through Christ, and this fact becomes part of the gospel message to unbelievers (Acts 12:38) that they ought to believe, because by believing, they will be justified (Acts 12:39). The fact of forgiveness is the basis for why people should repent and identify with the Christ through believer’s baptism (Yes, I’m Baptist; Acts 2:38-39; compare the similar message prior to Christ’s work as well: Mark 1:4; Luke 24:46-48); that is, forgiveness is a basis for the call to the change of heart in which one receives (accepts) that forgiveness. Paul’s ministry was so that Gentiles would accept the forgiveness offered (Acts 26:18). Believers have already received forgiveness, but acknowledging their later (post belief) sin brings us back into fellowship with God, who never stopped forgiving, for He is faithful (1 Jn 1:9), but does allow us to remember that such a sin is forgiven.
• Mt 12:31-37 and Mk 3:28-30 speak of the something that is not forgiven, “blasphemy against the Spirit.” There are obviously differing views on what this means, but I take it to mean rejection of the Spirit’s ministry, and thus equivalent to remaining in unbelief. Notice, however, that in those passages, blasphemies are separated out from sins (i.e. there is no distinct law given that one shall not blaspheme the Spirit; blasphemy of the Spirit is a form of unrighteousness without law defining it). This unrighteousness act will never be forgiven because it is the one act that without fail will ultimately prevent people from coming to faith, and so every sin, and all other types of unrighteous works and words will be forgiven, but not this unrighteous action.
• Jesus prayed at the cross the Father’s forgiveness would come to those who were not “in Him” (Lk 23:34); a prayer that I believe God answers in the forgiveness that is the redemption Christ purchases on the cross that brings the resurrection.

The forgiveness of sin (ἄφεσις) that ultimately brings resurrection is distinct from (greater than) the passing over of sin (πάρεσις) that God had been doing (Rom 3:25) that prevented God from immediately killing people for any sin, for by the forgiveness people will be resurrected.

So I believe God not only has an attitude of forgiveness toward all people, and told people of it, but actually will demonstrate concretely and actually that forgiveness by the resurrection from the dead as the culmination of His initial showing of that forgiveness that He had called people to believe in to begin with. But those that have not accepted the Father’s work for them, to save them from death, having not repented of their unbelief, they have the forgiveness revoked at the second judgment, God giving them what they want and rewarding them with what they deserve as they attempt to stand upon their own works.

You ask:

Do you think it possible for spiritual death in Gen. while subsequent references physical? Again, I want to point out how context (theological context also in what God was trying to tell them)?

First, let me ask you to really consider that statement “while subsequent references physical.” That is really a huge point I make. The “context” of Israel being given the Pentateuch (I hold Mosaic authorship of nearly all, if not all [Joshua perhaps filling in some at the end] ) shows that they would have most certainly understood the statement as physical death, for that was so much a part of their (ending of their) lives, but also of the OT law itself, and chiefly in the obligatory deaths they were to face given violations of certain laws.

Secondly, the context of Adam and Eve and the early history of Genesis makes it evident. Genesis chapter 5 is a graveyard of those people in a better line than any others (with respect to righteousness), but also specifically tied to Adam directly, and hence showing the consequences of his sin. Abel, a chapter earlier, is the first to die because of sin’s effects.

Thirdly, I believe Adam was “preprogrammed” with language, hence why God could communicate at all with him. So “death” had meaning to Adam, even though he had never experienced it before. There is no reason to believe Adam understood that term any differently than we do, or people throughout history, that it was the ceasing of physical life.

So it seems highly improbable that God would take a theological context primarily built loosely from the NT, and expect that to be understood in the theological context of the OT, especially in light of the association of terminology with the Mosaic Law as obligatory penalty. Given that I do not deny the alienation present in Genesis 3 (I just do not theologically label it as spiritual death nor equate it to sin’s legal penalty), there is nothing in the context of Genesis arguing for it being equated with alienation.

That’s my thoughts. “Possible,” yes, if one wants to rely on (loosely associated to the term death) NT revelation for everyone in the OT to understand what God was trying to say. But that makes no sense to me, and so “improbable” and not the “best” answer from the evidence would remain my reply.

I understand your limited time to interact. I need to call a halt to some of my interaction for now as well. I’ve spent a lot of time on my replies here (but not, I trust, wasted time).

[JNoël]

Scott’s approach seems the one with the fewest assumptions; his piece resolves the conflicts that arise from the assumptions made by the two popular opposing theories.

Jason, I’m glad you have gleaned that through my communication of my view. My pursuit of an answer to the extent of the atonement very much tried to stick with what the text of Scripture actually says (not assuming some meaning to the words, but taking them in what would be the most natural reading), and trying to follow where Scripture lead on that.

Regarding Aaron’s Occam Razor comment and that my view

[Aaron Blumer]

Seems overly complex to me but maybe I need more time to understand it.

I can understand one needing to take time to understand my view. All the views, however, have there deep intricacies and complexities, so I’m not sure mine is any more complex than others’ views. But my view can be boiled down to a fairly simple expression. Some other details can be found in this comment of mine, but the most simple form is probably this:

1. Mankind has two primary issues due to sin: a legal penalty for sin against them for disobedience (death) and a relational rift with God for not being like Him, specifically as righteous as He as they were designed to be, resulting in a relational opposition (wrath).
2. Christ’s penal substitutionary death paid for the righteous, universal resurrection of all people from that penalty of death, this is the universal aspect of atonement purely based on Christ doing the work of sacrifice for the corporate body of the humanity he joined.
3. Acceptance of that death of Christ by faith causes the blood application of the atonement to cleanse the sinner of sin and be accounted righteous, alleviating wrath, and its final, full expression in the second death, the lake of fire, and instead giving eternal life.

The payment for the resurrection is God’s good will showing to mankind that He desires to save all people, but He only desires to give them eternal life if they will come to Him on His terms of faith; if they reject what God has already done for them, His wrath righteously still abides on them.

There were two primary issues that occurred in relation to God, the legal violation of His word and the relational violation of refusing to be like Him. But the latter was also an ontological shift, that is sin affected the nature of man. Now I view depravity in a binary fashion. The standard is God (100%) that humanity was designed to be like morally, anything less (99.999%) does not meet standard, and is still unrighteous, unholy, etc., equal to as if it were 0% in God’s sight. So God sees it binary, you are equal to what He intended (1) or you are not (0). You are equal to what He expects or totally depraved as far as such an evaluation goes. Yet God can recognize when depraved people have acted righteously or not, so he would see the 99.999% if someone were really that good (no one is, but for sake of argument), but it is still not good enough, for all have sinned (in Adam, and once they know good from evil [Jam 4:17] , personally).

However, that perspective is not necessarily germane to my view on atonement (beyond that we need to be accounted equal to God’s own righteousness in His sight). So regarding ability/inability of mankind to exercise faith (which I think is your primary question), either concept of that can fit my atonement model, because faith is not tied to the scheme other than as the hinge point between the two roles atonement plays. If man is unable to come to faith, and God grants it, that model fits my atonement view; if man is able to come to faith (by whatever factors one deems needed for that), and so receives God, that model fits my atonement view. What does not fit, however, is the common particularist statement that Christ purchased faith for the elect, which I find no warrant for in Scripture. I can see arguments that He has freely given faith, but not that such faith ever needed a payment to give; if the model of unconditional election is correct, then God’s selection alone (unconditionally) would be all that is needed for Him to grant faith.

Now my personal view on election, which again, is not the only view that would fit my atonement theory, is that a person is made able to come to saving faith through the hearing of God’s word (not through atonement, but rather through revealing of truth, illumination, God’s drawing, which overcome the mind’s darkness of understanding and desires), and God has elected Christ and those in Him, which are believers (the group). So I hold more of a corporate view of election, where the election is of believers, but this group (as all are) is made up of individuals, and those are all known by God.

Aaron, regarding:

[Aaron Blumer]

I have to “admit” to a strong bias against theological novelty. I just don’t see the need to reinvent the wheel on these questions. I would vote in favor of one of the more historic views. So far, the Reformed views of original sin, depravity and atonement don’t seem to me to need fixing, apart from various ways to understand “limited” as having to do with intention or ultimate result or both.

That is fair enough, in that many choose between the common historic views. For me, as I’ve noted elsewhere, those common historic views each had faults that failed to make sense either exegetically or logically (or both). So I could not “fit” myself into one, yet could not (until now) articulate what I felt Scripture was saying about atonement to resolve all the issues of the other views.

However, my view actually has “historic” support, just not as common. I cover that in my dissertation also (pp. 351-400). It was important for me, before pressing forward with my research/argument, to find out if any other theologians had directly tied the resurrection of all people to the penal substitutionary atonement, even if not articulating how that “works” as I have attempted to do (even the other more common views on atonement have developed over time, becoming more articulated during history, so theological development is not itself a bad thing). Not only did I find a few (I survey eight that are reasonably clear to meeting my parameters I set up), some were quite notable (Athanasius of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, John Wesley), and the connection has persisted over time (assuming one does not count the Bible itself, which I would, but just looking at theological works related to that then the idea persists from 3rd c. A.D. to present). My work I consider a more logical and scriptural development of the connection that these men often simply “make” without much elaboration (or their elaboration has some logical flaws that needed worked out in my opinion).

I personally believe what has held up discussion of this aspect has been one or more of the following things: (1) as I also noted elsewhere, the improper focus on final intent/result, rather than the process to get to that intended result, (2) the tendency for people to simply “rehash” the same arguments for their view, and same critiques against the other views, without really giving good “answers” to some of the critiques and without stepping back and reexamining if something is being missed from Scripture in the whole discussion (which is what I did), (3) the inability to step out of their greater “theological system” in which they then come with some preconceived ideas of what atonement “has to be” to fit that, and/or (4) many who could not find a “fit” moved away from trying to make atonement be penal substitutionary in nature (and so in a sense, sidestepped out of the conversation from that perspective).

I appreciate whatever consideration, questions, and feedback you do give to my view, but also understand if you feel it is not worth your time to consider.

[Aaron Blumer]

Is the dissertation published? There’s probably a link to it around, that I’ve overlooked (I’m popping in and out of way too many threads right now, which gets confusing!), but if it’s out in PDF or something a link would be welcome. It may be a case of “I’d feel more open to it if I read some old timers putting it into traditional and familiar language.” Then again, if you go back far enough, there isn’t so much traditional language because the tradition doesn’t exist yet.

Yes, the dissertation is freely available and I’ve linked to it regularly in the threads here on SI where I mention it. But I don’t mind posting another link, and I’ll give the full title this time: Pananastasism—A Penal Substitutionary Model of a Definite Universal Atonement: God’s Gracious Substitution to Pay the Penalty Due Every Individual in order to Righteously Resurrect All Mankind and Save a Particular People for Himself.

But regarding “traditional and familiar language” with “old timers,” I think you are right on the observation that the “tradition” doesn’t exist yet (Augustine, Calvin, etc., do not speak in terms that we have generated post-Calvin in relation to the atonement, so familiar language may be not so forthcoming). I do, generally, try to stick to scriptural language, however, in my view. So you cannot get much more traditional than that :-).

I’m still researching and developing the theory based on Scripture, refining some points. Indeed, discussion on SI help me to see areas that need more clarification or more research to answer. And since the dissertation primarily focused on the universal aspect of my theory (the penal substitutionary death to resurrection), there is more to be said about the particular aspect that is only just touch on in the dissertation (the blood cleansing and covenant joining aspect to bring right relationship for believers). I’m planning at some point to publish a more layperson friendly work covering the whole scheme, but even in that, I want to provide scholars with some of the needed information should one perfer that depth.