TMK
Sep 17, 2014
from the article:
Did Jesus really pay for our sins on the cross, taking our punishment for us? Did He really die as an atoning sacrifice on our behalf?
In recent years, this doctrine, known as penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), has come under increasing attack, with some Christian leaders claiming that for God to punish His Son for our sins would be an example of "cosmic child abuse" (Steve Chalke).
This past Saturday, I was able to debate this important issue with pastor Brian Zahnd, who was eloquent in his arguments against PSA, claiming that it made our Father into a "monster god" and a "pagan deity."
The old argument was between the doctrine of Retributive Justice and Public Justice.
Descending from Calvinistic ideas of predestination, Retributive Justice was the belief that all the sins of God's elect were literally placed on Jesus at the time of His crucifixion, every piercing and blow representing a punishment for the exact number of sins that the Father knew ahead of time would be committed by the elect. It was a one for one deal, and only the sins of the elect were covered.
Public Justice is a completely different explanation of the atonement protocol. Here, Jesus dies a single death, the exact punishment due to any one man for his sin. It does not cover all men, just one- and any man who repents and believes unto salvation is that man.
Thus Jesus atoning death is available to all men, and all who believe and repent will be saved. At the same time, the death of Jesus does not obligate God to save anyone! The provision of God to save men is valid whether all men repented and believed, or none did.
Therefore truly it is incumbent on Christians to reach out to the lost and bring as many as we can to the saving knowledge of Christ Jesus. He can save anyone, but He cannot save those who refuse repentance and faith.
In the end, it is the Holy Spirit who confirms to a believer's heart that the atonement is within. No intellectual argument can do that, it is personal between the Father and His children.
Zahnd posted a blog post of his own in the comments section of Brown's article.
Whether you accept PSA or not, I think an honest reading of Zahnd's blog post response leads one to see that the strength of his argument is mere emotional appeal to modern cultural norms that eschew propitiation in favor of "letting bygones be bygones". He manipulates language by posing questions in such a way that if you assent to them it makes you a "monster". Brown's article puts the lie to Zahnd's method.
Now, I know some here probably reject PSA. Intellectual honesty requires, though, that if the rejection is on the grounds Zahnd asserts then there is no sufficient rebuttal to the witness of Scripture regarding the crucifixion of Jesus. Perhaps more solid argument from Scripture exists, but Zahnd's is simply a hodge podge of Spock era child rearing rhetoric, outright blasphemy (Jesus' death and resurrection simply "recycled our sin into forgiveness"), and New Age spiritualism.
The substantive problem with Zahnd's point is this: God did not need to suffer the death of His Son if He did not Himself ordain it, will it, and make it so in satisfaction of His own nature of righteousness. He could have simply forgiven us. Zahnd says PSA makes God a "cosmic child abuser" who subjected His own Son and His own Self to an abstract notion of justice that would be higher than God Himself. That is manifestly irresponsible and reckless handling of the Word. Yet, Zahnd creates an even worse problem: if Zahnd is right, God is a part time Father who was content to let the world kill His only Son as no big deal, and God, who wasn't looking all the time, just decided to take advantage of the situation to make his caprice seem like love in "letting bygones be bygones". That is very nice for the ones forgiven, but it says about the forgiver that maybe his forgiveness is not worth having. Zahnd makes God worse than the monster he imagines PSA "makes him": God is complicit in the sin of men. If Zahnd is right, then Madalyn Murray O'Hare was right, as was Paul who said we are, then, of all men most miserable.
Salute Michael Brown for his able defense of the gospel.
Regarding the idea that the Father was a monster for murdering His Son- and similar lying distortions from the father of lies, no such thing happened.
It is critical to know two things: that God is responsible for justice in the universe and cannot allow sin to go unpunished. For Him to do that, all the laws of the universe would unravel and explode into chaos.
The other thing is that the choice to die on the cross was entirely in Jesus' hands. He chose it, He did not have to do it since He did not owe anything for sin. The prayer in the garden of Gethsemane holds a key, "Not My will but Thine be done." There were two wills in that monumental discussion, where Jesus inquired whether there was another way to save His disciples and mankind in general.
The Father had no other way to preserve the integrity of the law and pardon the sin, but Jesus had to give Himself. There was no way the Father could slay Jesus, an innocent man, without stepping into sin Himself!
So Jesus "drank the cup" as it were, and gave Himself... for me! And you of course!
So the law is preserved, honor is preserved, love is preserved, and all other virtues are magnified in the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the crown of creation, mankind.
Public Justice is a completely different explanation of the atonement protocol. Here, Jesus dies a single death, the exact punishment due to any one man for his sin. It does not cover all men, just one- and any man who repents and believes unto salvation is that man.
Is it not right to say that Jesus Christ died and took upon Him ALL sins and not the sins of 1 person metaphorically? He died for all. He became SIN (the whole of it). The Father turned His face away from His Son because of this.
Indeed, Jesus died for the whole world and the sins of all. But we know that this does not force all men to be saved. That would be Universalism, and the idea that all men will be saved stems from that first idea that believes all the sins of all men are literally imputed into Jesus' crucifixion.
It would be fair to say from that argument that if all men's sins are covered in the death of Jesus, God has no right to deny anyone entrance into heaven.
The death and atoning power of what Jesus did on the cross enables God to save men, but only one at a time as they repent and believe. Again, Jesus' work is sufficient to save all men, but does not obligate God to save anyone!
PSA would be considered cosmic child abuse except for the fact that Jesus WILLINGLY accepted his death on the cross. He did it because he wanted to please His Father whom he dearly loved and trusted. And He also did it to gain a bride, the Church. God did not force or otherwise foist the cross on Jesus. In the Garden of Gesthemene Jesus struggled in prayer over this decision but in the end he chose it. Jesus himself said that He laid down his life and no one took it from Him. The Bible says he went to the cross "for the joy set before him." This is all plainly stated in the scriptures.
When it comes to the atonement, I lean toward both a limited atonement and general atonement.
By limited atonement I mean that Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of His elect, thus eternally saving them from God's ultimate wrath because Christ took that ultimate wrath on Himself.
By general atonement I mean that Christ also paid partially for the sins of the non-elect and therefore they are able to live temporarily in this life without immediately being thrown into hell when they commit a sin. Because of this general atonement God can bestow temporal blessings on the non-elect here on earth. Without this general atonement there would be no forbearance of God toward the non-elect.
Respectfully, the view of a full atonement for the whole world doesn't make sense to me. If it was true that Christ actually paid fully for the sins of the non-elect, to me it would have to follow that they shouldn't perish in hell because their sins have been paid for.
Let me give a human example. If someone faces criminal charges and someone else pays their fine fully, that criminal is free to go regardless of whether or not he is repentant.
But Oracio, I could bring a lunch in for all of my co-workers, but only those who actually grab a sandwich benefit. And I'm not about to force anyone to eat.
Not sure how to use the quote function .... sorry.
"Let me give a human example. If someone faces criminal charges and someone else pays their fine fully, that criminal is free to go regardless of whether or not he is repentant."
I get that. But, as a lawyer, I can tell you that in such cases the interest of justice is redefined as "revenue". :) I have seen cases where someone else paying was actually forbidden. Now, if Billy Joe loans Sammy the money, and Sammy takes it to the court clerk to pay the fine, Sammy "paid" it. But, it is a limitation of the system that someone else can even pay the fine of the guilty. In the case of us and Jesus, He "became sin". Sin was attributed to Him for our benefit. As "sin" was imputed to Him, it was then just for God to demand satisfaction of His own righteous requirements of the law from the blood of His own Son. Of His own sovereign, eternal will He did this. It is not unjust. If He does it, it is by definition right and just, even if incomprehensible to those, like Brian Zahnd, who have eyes but do not see. I am amazed at the gall of Zahnd's argument, as if God's righteousness must pass our muster. Incredible.
TrueWitness said,
"PSA would be considered cosmic child abuse except for the fact that Jesus WILLINGLY accepted his death on the cross. He did it because he wanted to please His Father whom he dearly loved and trusted. And He also did it to gain a bride, the Church. God did not force or otherwise foist the cross on Jesus. In the Garden of Gesthemene Jesus struggled in prayer over this decision but in the end he chose it. Jesus himself said that He laid down his life and no one took it from Him. The Bible says he went to the cross "for the joy set before him." This is all plainly stated in the scriptures."
------------------------------------------------------------
If Jesus had not willingly submitted to the Father, He would not have been God. In fact, it was impossible for Jesus to not willingly submit to the Father. God cannot lie. God cannot be divided. He cannot contradict Himself. While Jesus certainly was "free" to choose as a human, He could not do other than submit to His Father. The possibility that God Himself could contradict Himself is a non-sequitur. If it were possible, He is not God. Our atonement was vouchsafed in God the Son by the will of the Father and the immutable, undeniable unity of Elohim.
dolfan-
I agree with you that Jesus' obedience to the Father's will was something that was in agreement with his own will. I reject any arguments that insist or imply that Jesus was forced against His will to go to the cross. (I am not suggesting anyone on this forum holds this position, only Brian Zahnd misunderstands this point). He was willing all along. What I am saying is that Jesus WOULDN'T choose his own will against the will of the Father so that the issue of whether he COULDN'T never comes into play. We venture into a semantic minefield when we say Jesus couldn't have chosen otherwise. The fact that He never WOULD makes speculation on whether He COULD or COULD NOT a moot point.
The reason I say that we enter a semantic minefield when we talk about Jesus not being able to go against the Father's will is that such talk implies that He is FORCED AGAINST HIS WILL in His actions. Nothing could be further from the truth. His will was always one with His father's. Love defers to the will of the One loved. He would not means that He would not allow Himself to be at odds with His Father because He loves the Father and is of one mind with Him. The issue of can't never enters the picture.
By general atonement I mean that Christ also paid partially for the sins of the non-elect and therefore they are able to live temporarily in this life without immediately being thrown into hell when they commit a sin. Because of this general atonement God can bestow temporal blessings on the non-elect here on earth. Without this general atonement there would be no forbearance of God toward the non-elect
Where do we see this view in scriptures brother?
True said, "We venture into a semantic minefield when we say Jesus couldn't have chosen otherwise. The fact that He never WOULD makes speculation on whether He COULD or COULD NOT a moot point."
----”””“--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very easy to slip into semantic minefields on that, for sure. I think we are on the same page on it....except I'm not sure what you mean by partially paid for sins of unbelievers and would take exception on that. There is a general grace that is common to humanity wherein life here is a gift of God in the sense that He does not "snuff us out", so to speak. I do not see where the death of Jesus, per se, affords that grace. The will of the Father that sent His Son to Calvary is the same will that none should perish but all should come to repentance. The possibility, from our vantage point, of repentance unto salvation is indeed the only hope of the unbeliever.
Where do we see this view in scriptures brother?
I'd also point out the clear teaching of the scriptures that the soul that sins will die (Ezek.18:4)and that the wages of sin is death(Rom.6:23), meaning not only physical but also spiritual and eternal damnation. Apart from the mercy of God and benefits of the cross of Christ, every person would be thrown into hell immediately when they sinned.
I'll share a piece from John Piper's ministry website(MacArthur also holds this same two-fold view of the atonement btw):
"We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God’s mercy toward unbelievers ”” from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) ”” is made possible because of the cross.
This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God’s righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God’s mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.
Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ’s death so clearly demonstrates God’s just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.
But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially.”
There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God’s people, not for every individual. For example:
John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep.” The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep.” Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son."
Source: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-we-believe-about-the-five-points-of-calvinism#Atonement
Another scripture that came to mind is 2Peter 2:1, "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction."
So that scripture says that there were false teachers whom the Lord "bought". I'd take that to mean a partial, temporal purchase, if those false teachers never repented and trusted in Christ while on earth.
Really, brothers, it sounds like you are playing semantics. Either Christ died to save us from sin or He did not. Either the wrath of God was appeased at the cross or it was not. So which is it?
Dare I may also ask did Christ die only for the sins of the elect or the sins of the world?
Bearmaster.
Bear-
That was just being discussed-- see oracio's first post.
I didn't intend for this to turn into a discussion on letter "L" of TULIP.
I don't want to be accused of starting a riot ;)
TMK you are right bro. We don't need a riot but a revival.:)
This discussion is locked.