|
Theophile2 -> RE: Why must forgiveness be so costly for the Forgiver? (9/8/2008 10:45:30 PM)
|
Vicarious, Substitutionary Atonement
A reformed position on the atonement can be generally deduced from studying the person and work of Jesus in relation to the types found in the tabernacle system of sacrifices and ceremonies/festivals. Simply put, the sins of the world were placed on the Second Person of the Trinity manifest as Jesus the Christ, who voluntarily suffered punishment and death in place of the human race, rose from death three days later, and was exalted to sit on the mercy seat at the right hand of God, that the elect might be looked upon by God through the payment Christ effected through His death and resurrection, resulting in application of Christ’s righteousness to those who believe in Him by a faith generated by the Holy Spirit as a gift from God.
Three main subjects are in the words “vicarious,” “substitutionary,” and “elect.” I will not derive a history of atonement theory in Reformed theology as it can be reviewed sufficiently in other resources. For this thread I will focus on the orthodoxy of the words themselves, attempting to focus on the scriptures from which the doctrines are derived, vice the men who proposed them.
The easiest word to contend with is “substitutionary.” This is a well-known concept wherein one thing stands in the place of another. Many modern families understand this when they go to a restaurant and their children substitute french-fries for a baked potato. It is also seen in the practice of schools providing for a substitute teacher in absence of the home-room teacher. In sports we see this when one team member is sent out to the field to play for another team member who is given a chance to rest. Unfortunately, none of these examples do justice to the idea as it relates to Christ. In the examples, the substitution can be temporary, and it is usually of equal value. Christ’s substitutionary work is permanent, and of an infinite value compared to that which was exchanged – His finite creation.
The Old and New Testaments are rife with examples of substitution. Examples range from the scene of Abraham given a ram as a sacrifice in exchange for his son, to the initiation of the Passover sacrifice in the Exodus, the sacrificial ceremonies in the wilderness tabernacle, and the pinnacle anti-type in the sacrifice of Christ as the Lamb of God.
Webster’s second definition of vicarious is, “performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another or to the benefit or advantage of another.” Thus the word vicarious carries with it the connotation of substitution, but with the additional characteristic that it is done on behalf of or to the advantage of the one substituted. When a first-string football player is substituted in place of a second-string teammate, and the first-string substitute makes a touchdown, it is the substitute who gets the glory, not the second-string player on the bench. However, when Christ was made our substitute it was for our benefit. This also is seen in the tabernacle sacrifices, wherein a blood sacrifice is required for the atonement of the soul, yet an animal is provided in place of executing judgment on the person who sinned. The animal’s suffering and death was a vicarious benefit to the one who sinned, and the sinner is now justified in the eyes of God (until the next sin under OT law). Christ once and for all suffered punishment and death in place of creation, such that we might receive the benefit of imputed righteousness, justification, forgiveness, atonement, and sanctification. Instead of a temporary measure like the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament, Christ’s death and resurrection secured a permanent work of propitiation in the eyes of God for those whom He elected from the foundation of the world.
So now we come to that word regarding the cost of Christ's work on the cross over which men have debated for centuries: election. This word carries with it three basic concepts:
1) There are those of God’s creation who were chosen to be His children before the foundation of the earth (Mt 25:34, cf. Eph 1:4 and 1 Pe 1:20-21), and those who are not (Rev 13:8; cf. Rev 17:8). As such there are some (the elect) who will be glorified in heaven with God, and some who will be forever separated from God in hell for eternity (Mat 25:31-46, cf. 1Cor 6:9 and Ga 5:21);
2) Therefore the work of Christ on the cross as a satisfactory propitiation in the eyes of God was an effort that redeemed only the elect (Rev 17:14; cf. Mt 24:31; Lk 18:7; Ro 11:5, 7, 28; Co 3:12; 1 Th 1:4; 2 Ti 2:10 and 2 Pe 1:10), and did not make atonement for those who will find themselves paying for their sins for all eternity in hell. Their sins were not paid for by Christ, and as such, they must pay for their sins themselves (Ro 9:18; cf. Ex 4:21; Pr 16:4; Is. 43:7 and 2Pe 2:9)
3) There has been a long documented history of theologians recognizing the difference between the value of Christ’s blood, and the application of that value only to the elect of God. It began in earnest with Augustine but was expressed more poignantly by John Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza, in 1586 and the debate has continued ever since.
It is this third statement that also has interest to the cost of Christ's work on the cross: to whom is Christ’s work effective? Regardless of the value of Christ’s blood being limitless, to whom Christ’s propitiation is effective is definite. In other words, as has been previously inferred, only an infinite God can pay for the infinite debt owed by a finite creation. As the Second Person of the Trinity, Christ’s divine value is infinite. Yet as applied to redemption, that value is effective only for His elect. His grace and mercy are more than enough to secure redemption and provide blessings for those whom He has elected to be His Children before the foundation of the world.
An error founded by Armenius is that salvation is open to the entire world, and it is those who find it in themselves to come to faith in Christ and accept His offer are the ones who then become the elect. This makes Christ’s sacrifice insufficient, the work of the Holy Spirit in quickening faith unnecessary, the decision of God from before the foundation of the world to choose a people unto Himself a myth, and requires that a work of man complete the divine transaction of redemption. It makes God’s free and undeserved gift into a work of man. “For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph 2:8-9, emphasis added; cf. Eph 2:5; Jn 1:13, 6:44, 65; Ac 6:14 and Ja 1:18.). Conversely, “Therefore He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will, He hardens” (Rom 9:18 emphasis added; cf. Jn 12:40; 2Th 2:11).
Dr. Mal O. Couch, in his article Calvinism: Five or Four Points? also argues for an unlimited value, with limited application. However, he seems to espouse a type of Amyraldian error in vacillating between ascribing the limits of application to whether man accepts God’s call, and whether God graces His elect with faith through the Holy Spirit.
To be sure, the doctrine of election stuns the senses of a finite creation who’s wicked heart ever tends toward the injustice of universalism or necessitating the works of man. That is, the desire that all should be saved regardless of their behavior and attitudes toward Christ, or else requiring man to perform an act toward God (such as “choosing” to follow Christ). But the notions of universalism and works unto salvation betray God’s justice, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Is 55:9). There are only two options, either the one who committed the sin must atone for the offense, or the morally bankrupt is pardoned through a satisfactory substitution – and the offer of satisfaction is only for the elect.
Since there is no doubt that there will be souls found in hell for all eternity (Rev 19:20-21, 20:15, 21:8), it is obvious their debts were not paid for. Since Christ is the only One who could pay their debts, it follows that Christ therefore did not pay the debts of those finding themselves in hell. Ergo, regardless of the value of Christ’s blood, the application of His atoning sacrifice is specific to “…those who have been called to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev 19:9), and thus the reason He prays “…not for the world but for those whom, Thou hast given me …” in John 17:9.
Election opens up the inevitability of other avenues for discourse, to include individual responsibility, predestination, and the bondage of the will, which can be dealt with in other threads in this forum. While cogent replies have been made to these topics, one must also understand that ultimately there are mysteries in the logic of God that we still cannot fathom, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Is 55:9; cf. Romans ch 9).
W. Robert Godfrey, “Reformed Thought On The Extent Of The Atonement To 1618,” Westminster Theological Journal 37 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Winter 1975; 2002): 133-171
Stephen Strehle, “The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Spring 1989; 2002): 1-23, Stephen Strehle, “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Fall 1989; 2002): 345-368
Roger Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement,” Westminster Theological Journal 47 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Fall 1985; 2002): 197-227.
Webster, Collegiate Dictionary, “vicarious.”
Godfrey, “Extent of the Atonement,” 133-171.
Mal O. Couch, “Calvinism: Five or Four Points?” Conservative Theological Journal 4 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (August 2000; 2003): 189-213.
See especially principle #5 in Couch, “Four or Five Points?” 193-94
Couch’s inference about the lost in the seventh principle on pg 193 by quoting Matt 22:2-5, and in the fifth bullet on pg 194, “they will say, ‘He died for me, but I refused to accept His sacrifice for my sins!’ ” See also principle 6 on pg 193 and principle 2 on page 194.
Lewis Grant Randal, “Boettner’s Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: An Examination,” Bibliotheca Sacra 92 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (April 1935; 2002): 233-256.
On the universal grace of Amyraldianism, see: Strehle, “Amyraldianism,” 345-368.
Roger Nicole, “The Case For Definite Atonement,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 10 [CD-ROM] available from Logos (Fall 1967; 2002): 204-206
Nicole, “Extent of the Atonement,” 197-227.
Nicole shows from the immediate context of given verses, that many verses used to advance universalism (specifically concerning Is 53:6, Ro 8:32, 2Cor 5:14, Titus 2:11 and He 2:9) are actually in reference to God’s elect:
Chafer, “Soteriology,” 393; cf. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Paker and O. R. Johnston, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Fleming H. Revell, 1957, 1993), 273-318.
[sm=icon_smile_fish.gif]
|
|
|
|