Atonement Views

Isaiah 53:10

10 But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Whatever he endured caused him to sweat blood just thinking of it.

3. Christ recieved the punishment of sinners on the cross, but it was not the punishment of all sinners. God would not give double punishment, but God did not die for the whole world, so only those for whom Christ died will escape punishment, but those for whom Christ was not punished, will recieve their own punishment.

But Christ was the "penal" substitute for the sinner, and I think it is safe to say that the atonement is limited. It is limited to those who repent and put faith in Christ. To anyone else the atonement makes no sense whatsoever.
I believe you have left out a big point here and that is that Christ did die for the whole world "He tasted death for every man" but the atonement is only good for those who repent and place faith in Christ. Which would mean having faith in the work of the cross.
We are justified by faith in His blood are we not? Therefore we must understand that Jesus took my place on the cross, He bore my crimes and transgressions. Then we must put believe that the penalty has been paid, and then it makes more sense that if He died as me, then I died, and now He lives(Galatian 2:20)
Maybe it's the same idea just a different name.

This is called the "Moral Government" perspective of the cross. It was actually the perspective of the atonement that Jonathon Edwards, a great man of God, and a very serious Calvinist, held to. And it is also the view that Charles Finney held to, who was Americas greatests Revivalists.

I see that the "Moral Government" perspective of the cross as the only possible alternative. To believe in the punishment perspective you must believe that either 1. God gives double punishment for the same sin. 2. Everyone will make it into Heaven. Or 3. God did not love the whole world.

But Christ was the "penal" substitute for the sinner, and I think it is safe to say that the atonement is limited. It is limited to those who repent and put faith in Christ.

I am with you on your general presentation here but the statement 'atonement is limited' is a technical term for something quite different to what you are saying here. TULIP Calvinisits believe that 'limited atonement' or 'particular redemption' was only ever intended for the 'unconditionally elect'. You, and others, may believe this but you can believe in 'Redemption; Accomplished and Applied' without being a 5 star Calvinist.

Understanding the "punishment" view of the atonement, I see that there are three possible views within this over all view.
1. If Christ received the punishment of the entire world, but some do not make it to Heaven when they die, but will be punished in hell, then God in effect issues double punishment for one sin.
We could call this the double punishment view.
2. If Christ received the punishment of the entire world, but God is too just to give double punishment for one sin, then all sin has been punished, so the world will will make it into Heaven.
We call this Universalism.
3. Christ received the punishment of sinners on the cross, but it was not the punishment of all sinners. God would not give double punishment, but God did not die for the whole world, so only those for whom Christ died will escape punishment, but those for whom Christ was not punished, will receive their own punishment.
This is called Limited Atonement.

For those who do not hold to the 'Moral Government' view of atonement, what are your comments regarding his understanding of the punishment view?

For those who do not hold to the 'Moral Government' view of atonement, what are your comments regarding his understanding of the punishment view?

Why did the Father inflict this upon the Son, (with the Son's permission of course)?

Here is a link to a very good article discussing Finney's view of the atonement in light of the "orthodox" view.

[url=http://www.gospeljohn.com/mgatonement.htm]http://www.gospeljohn.com/mgatonement.htm[/url]

Here is a link to a very good article discussing Finney's view of the atonement in light of the "orthodox" view.

Thank you this is a comprehensive and thoughtful refutation of Finney's ideas on Atonement.

I've been thinking about the thought connection between this and the thread on original sin. Finney, was nothing if not logical, and there is a logical connection between his view of sin and his view of atonement.

If the nature of sin is acquirable by an individual there is a presumption that it is also curable. Consequently Finney's view of Sin doesn't really require Substitutionary Atonement. It just needs a reversal of the action that got me into that fix to begin with. Hence his views of an "Atonement" that shames us into shaping up and putting things right; the Moral Government Atonement theory.

The ongoing issue here is that a thorough-going Finneyist will face the threat of constant oscillation between being 'in Adam' the consequence of his last sin, or being 'in Christ' the consequence of his last exercise of faith. I see no hint of this knife-edge Christian existence in the scripture.

Some early Salvationists held the view that you could be saved and lost dozens of times and ultimate salvation depended on the state of grace in the last seconds of life. This would certainly be compatible with Finney's views and there is at least one forum member on Sermonindex who has experienced the stress caused by this view of things. It is a very short step from this to 'justification by sanctification' which is a deadly virus that sometimes afflicts holiness teaching.

Finney's view is that Christ did not so much 'die instead of us' but 'for us' in the sense of an example of the serious nature of sin. I don't think this squares with Paul's simple testimony...[color=0000ff]“...the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” (Gal 2:20 KJVS)[/color] nor that of Peter [color=0000ff]“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:” (1Pet 3:18 KJVS)[/color]

philologos wrote:

Here is a link to a very good article discussing Finney's view of the atonement in light of the "orthodox" view.

Thank you this is a comprehensive and thoughtful refutation of Finney's ideas on Atonement.

I've been thinking about the thought connection between this and the thread on original sin. Finney, was nothing if not logical, and there is a logical connection between his view of sin and his view of atonement.

If you enjoyed the article on Atonement and see a connection between them all, you may also like these articles by the same author.

[url=http://gospeljohn.com/mgsinful.htm]The Sinful Nature - Fallacies of Moral Government Theology (Modern Day Finneyism)[/url]

[url=http://gospeljohn.com/mgjustification.htm]Justification By Faith - Fallacies of Moral Government Theology (Modern Day Finneyism)[/url]

EDIT: The atonement article was actually the third in the series.

It also plays a part on what it is to have "a change of nature."

Here are a few posts I put on another message board on this subject that show what I mean.

I guess what seems hard for me to grasp is that if they are merely trained to sin, why can they not be trained not to sin? How would that action turn into a "nature." I haven't listened to that Pratney teaching in about a year or so, but I think he explained the two views of what "nature means.

Nature can mean something that a person is naturally inclined to do or it is instinctive (inbred) in them to do. Nature can also mean something someone habitually does. Ex. "I know John lies a lot. That is just his nature." When someone makes that statement he is not saying John was born to lie, but rather that is "just the way he is." So, if nature is not what a person is inbred to do, then it is their habitual action.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't see it possible to not believe you are born with a "sinful nature" and believe that Christian still has an "old sinful nature." Because it's not a Christian's "nature" to sin. Are you following me?

In my mind, the two are connected. If you believe in a Christian having a "sinful nature" then you have to believe that nature means that is what they are inbred to do. If you believe that nature is something that is habitually done, then you can't believe Christians have a "sinful nature." Because we all agree Christians don't habitually sin.

This is surely why Jesse rejects the view of a Christian having a dual nature since he doesn't believe in "original sin." At least as far as any version resembling the reformed tradition. By the way, not everyone who believes in inbred sin believes that Christians still have sinful natures. Those that hold that view believe that the old nature is killed and we now are partakers of the divine nature.

and

I've been thinking some about this topic and wondering what is does to being born again, regeneration, conversion, ect. If nature merely means a habitual action, then there is no need for a change of heart. All that is needed is a change of will. I think Finney believed that the heart was the same as the will. That is the only way you could really put it to make it consistant if there is no corrupted nature- and you interpret nature to NOT be what is naturally inclined, but only your habitual action.

Below is what John Wesley said about this topic. My thoughts arn't nearly as strong as his, but it does share some of the same concerns I have (mainly what is in bold.)

Also, could anyone ever call sin a disease and Jesus the cure? How can something be a disease if it is always a mere action? How could being born again be anything other than a 'decision?' What does it mean to "have a change of nature?" Is it mere self-reformation to the "moral law" of God?

2. Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, “We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation.” But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? or, to come back to the text, is “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?” Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still.

3. We may learn from hence, in the Third place, what is the proper nature of religion, of the religion of Jesus Christ. It is therapeia psyches, God’s method of healing a soul which is thus diseased. Hereby the great Physician of souls applies medicines to heal this sickness; to restore human nature, totally corrupted in all its faculties. God heals all our Atheism by the knowledge of Himself, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent; by giving us faith, a divine evidence and conviction of God, and of the things of God, — in particular, of this important truth, “Christ loved me” — and gave himself for me.” By repentance and lowliness of heart, the deadly disease of pride is healed; that of self-will by resignation, a meek and thankful submission to the will of God; and for the love of the world in all its branches, the love of God is the sovereign remedy. Now, this is properly religion, “faith” thus “working by love;” working the genuine meek humility, entire deadness to the world, with a loving, thankful acquiescence in, and conformity to, the whole will and word of God.

4. Indeed, if man were not thus fallen, there would be no need of all this. There would be no occasion for this work in the heart, this renewal in the spirit of our mind. The superfluity of godliness would then be a more proper expression than the “superfluity of naughtiness.” For an outside religion, without any godliness at all, would suffice to all rational intents and purposes. It does, accordingly, suffice, in the judgment of those who deny this corruption of our nature. They make very little more of religion than the famous Mr. Hobbes did of reason. According to him, reason is only “a well-ordered train of words:” According to them, religion is only a well-ordered train of words and actions. And they speak consistently with themselves; for if the inside be not full of wickedness, if this be clean already, what remains, but to “cleanse the outside of the cup?” Outward reformation, if their supposition be just, is indeed the one thing needful.

The ongoing issue here is that a thorough-going Finneyist will face the threat of constant oscillation between being 'in Adam' the consequence of his last sin, or being 'in Christ' the consequence of his last exercise of faith. I see no hint of this knife-edge Christian existence in the scripture.

I was raised to believe that if your last act in this life was a sin, no matter how large or small, you are going to hell. In reaction to this theology some have turned to the opposite view of unconditional eternal security.

The more I read Finney's theological works the more I realize that he did not understand biblical salvation and would have done well not to write on many aspects of the subject at all. Preaching repentance and holding revivals and many things he has written on the subject is good, I think. However, his motive is to eliminate the security of a believer all together and keep them guessing with no real assurance at all of their final salvation. Simply put, no perfection = no assurance. Calling folk to examine themselves is one thing- but to put them in examination mode 24/7/365 the rest of their lives is something quite different.

At the end of the day it results in a do-it-yourself spirituality. This was a reaction to his times in which folk (as he put it) were just sitting around waiting on God to do something. But I think his was an overreaction. This is typical of folk correcting doctrinal errors.

In the streets we have to preach the Gospel. The Born Again experience is not the same as mere repentance and a change of mind. It is not a compulsion to live righteously brought on by God's demonstration of public justice in the crucifixion of Christ; it is a NEW CREATURE. This is a creative miracle in which God as surely changes a person as if He had healed them of palsy, deafness, blindness, or any other thing. This is not a self-help reformation- this is genuine regeneration. This is a new creation.

Any other Gospel offers a person no real chance to be changed long term- but a life of fear and dread wondering if they measure up or not. Those would follow out to the end Finney's theology offer no real freedom from the inward ongoing struggle, but a renewed reason to fight harder as they see Christ's death on the cross and the flames of hell in their eye. This is little or nothing more than what the Jews had in Judaism.

We need to preach the WHOLE Gospel. We need to quit trying to be God and allow the Gospel to be the Gospel. We need to quit eliminating certain truths from scripture thinking we can manipulate people into living righteous lives through fear and no assurance. Examine yourselves? Yes, but whether ye be in the faith. No whether ye measure up to some man made code of ethic. God knows how to deal with His kids. We don't have to threaten them with orphanage to keep them acting right in the house. We just need to take hold of the full counsel of God and stop extrapolating parts of the whole for our own purposes. We have to do this God's way or it will not work right.

Sermonindex posted on another thread:

If this does not humble you

(Thomas Brooks, "The Unsearchable Riches of Christ")

Dwell much upon the greatness of God's mercy and
goodness to you. Nothing humbles and breaks the
heart, like God's mercy and love. In Luke 7, the Lord
Jesus shows mercy to that notorious sinner, and then
she falls down at His feet, and loves much and weeps
much, etc.

Oh, if ever you would have your souls kept humble,
dwell upon the free grace and love of God to you in
Christ! Dwell upon . . .
the firstness of His love,
the freeness of His love,
the greatness of His love,
the fullness of His love,
the unchangeableness of His love,
the everlastingness of His love, and
the ardency of His love.
If this does not humble you, there is nothing
on earth which will do it. Dwell upon what God has
undertaken for you. Dwell upon the choice and
worthy gifts which He has bestowed on you. Dwell
upon that eternal glory and happiness which He has
prepared for you--and then be proud if you can.

This is a wonderful piece of writing. In keeping with this thread I wish to bring out another aspect of the government of God weakness as I have personally experienced them. Not that I was raised in Oberlin Theology, but a 'version' of the whole "little or no assurance" soteriology.

I read this and would like to enjoy the fulness of what the writer is saying. But under the theology I was raised the work of Christ is continually on 'loan' pending my behavior. The gift CAN be taken back and you may not even own it now (depending on how you are measuring up). This has a serious effect on how a person appreciates something they may not really be getting. It comes off almost like a bad sales pitch or something in which the person don't really know what exactly they are getting. Not that I should plan to do wrong by any means, but the 'salvation' I am referring to is so utterly conditional that one cannot rest in God's love. The whole relationship is uptight and tense. No time to reflect on God's love because one is never sure God really loves them as they may have sinned and are now 'hated' by God. Just being real here. This theology can be brutal and counterproductive. If it was intended to scare folk into righteous living then it may actually be scaring them off from God all together in some cases.

Since our punishment is eternal hell, and eternal hell is the punishment of each individual sinner, then there would need to be a single Christ, for each single sinner, who is eternally burning in hell. But we know that Christ is not burning in hell, which very simply concludes Christ did not recieve our punishment.

Isn't our "punishment" death (eternal)? Christ died physically to pay for our deaths.

There is no need for more "Christs" Jesus was God in the flesh and was able to bear the sins of the world and take the wrath of God on the cross.