6 atonement limited and unlimited atonement

88
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT LECTURE SEVEN: OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ATONEMENT (SPECIAL TOPICS)

Upload: drrevdev

Post on 18-Jul-2015

298 views

Category:

Education


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENTLECTURE SEVEN:

OTHER ASPECTS OF THE ATONEMENT

(SPECIAL TOPICS)

The Scope:

How would you respond if someone asked you this

question: For whom did Jesus die?

- Discuss key texts from Scripture

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

For whom did Jesus die?

- Universal or “General” Atonement: For All.

‣Does not necessarily mean that all will be saved.

- Limited or “Definite” Atonement: For the Elect.

A Part of the Calvinist “TULIP”

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

For whom did Jesus die?

- Limited or “Definite” Atonement: For the Elect.

๏Total Depravity

๏Unconditional Election

๏Limited Atonement

๏Irresistible Grace

๏Perseverance of Saints

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

For whom did Jesus die?

- Universal or “General” Atonement: For All.

‣Does not necessarily mean that all will be saved.

- Limited or “Definite” Atonement: For the Elect.

‣Supralapsarian - Election / Reprobation even

precedes Creation and the Fall.

‣ Infralapsarian - While allowing the Fall, God

decrees to elect/save some.

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Limited Atonement: (?)

- John 10:

‣ “I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd

lays his life down for the sheep” (vs. 11).

‣ “But you do not believe because you are not my

sheep” (vs. 26). believe

Response:

The text affirms that Christ dies for the sheep;

It does not deny that he died for others.

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Limited Atonement: (?)

- John 10:

- Many texts (Jn. 15.13; Acts 20.28, etc.) affirm that

Christ dies for his people / the church — yet this

does not itself disprove Universal Atonement.

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Logic thought to support Limited Atonement:

- The logic of a “ransom”

‣ If the cross was a universal ransom, then it

results in either universalism, or a “double

punishment” for sin—both of which are

problematic.

Response:

Presupposes an overly literal understanding of

“ransom” (lutron) - see earlier lectures.

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Logic thought to support Limited Atonement:

- The logic of “waste” and “efficacy”

‣ If one accepts a strong account of election, it

seems illogical (or even wasteful) to say that

Christ died for all.

‣Others might find “failure” in the fact that Christ

died for all, yet not all are saved.

‣Charles Hodge Quote:

CHARLES HODGE(1797-1878)

PRINCETON

THEOLOGIAN

CONSERVATIVE

CALVINIST

Charles Hodge: (Systematic Theology)

If God from eternity determined to save one portion of

the human race and not another, it seems to be a

contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal

reference to both portions; that the Father sent his Son

to die for those whom he had predetermined not to

save, as truly as, and in the same sense that he gave

him up for those whom he had chosen to make the

heirs of salvation.

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Logic thought to support Limited Atonement:

- The logic of “waste” and “efficacy”

‣ If one accepts a strong account of election, it

seems illogical (or even wasteful) to say that

Christ died for all.

Response:

This may seem logical but we must test it against

Scripture lest we elevate “Reason” over “Revelation”

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:

- 1 Timothy 2.1-7

1 Timothy 2.1-6

1I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers,

intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—

2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live

peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who

wants all people to be saved and to come to a

knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one

mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ

Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Response:

“All without exception” or “All without Distinction”?

1 Timothy 2.1-6

1I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers,

intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—

2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live

peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who

wants all people to be saved and to come to a

knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one

mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ

Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people.

Response:

“All without exception” or “All without Distinction”?

All “types” of people

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:

- 1 Timothy 2.1-7

- 1 Timothy 4.10

1 Timothy 4

9 This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full

acceptance. 10 That is why we labor and strive,

because we have put our hope in the living God, who is

the Savior of all people, and especially of those who

believe.

Thoughts on what this means?

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:

- 1 Timothy 2.1-7

- 1 Timothy 4.10

- Titus 2.11-14

Titus 2

11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers

salvation to all people. 12 It teaches us to say “No” to

ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-

controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age,

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:

- 1 Timothy 2.1-7

- 1 Timothy 4.10

- Titus 2.11

- 2 Peter 2.1

2 Peter 2.1

1But there were also false prophets among the people,

just as there will be false teachers among you. They

will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even

denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—

bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Seems to say that Christ “bought” (presumably with

blood) these “heretics.”

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:

- 1 Timothy 2.1-7

- 1 Timothy 4.10

- Titus 2.11

- 2 Peter 2.1

- 2 Peter 3.9

2 Peter 3.9

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the

Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand

years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping

his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he

is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but

everyone to come to repentance.

The danger for Reformed (Limited Atonement) thinking

here is a kind of “schizophrenic deity”

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:

- 1 Timothy 2.1-7

- 1 Timothy 4.10

- Titus 2.11

- 2 Peter 2.1

- 2 Peter 3.9

- Hebrews 2.9

Hebrews 2

8In putting everything under him, God left nothing that

is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see

everything subject to him. 9 But we do see Jesus, who

was made lower than the angels for a little while, now

crowned with glory and honor because he suffered

death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death

for everyone.

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Texts thought to support Universal Atonement:

- 1 Timothy 2.1-7

- 1 Timothy 4.10

- Titus 2.11

- 2 Peter 2.1

- 2 Peter 3.9

- Hebrews 2.9

Conclusion (in my view):

While “all without distinction”

may make sense of some of

these texts, it does not makes

sense of all.

The Bible simply asserts

repeatedly that Christ died for

all people.

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Does Universal Atonement lead logically to

Universal salvation? (If not, why not?)

- For some it does (e.g. Barth).

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Does Universal Atonement lead logically to

Universal salvation? (If not, why not?)

- Universal Atonement without Universal Salvation:

‣Sublapsarian Calvinism (I think this is illogical)

‣Arminianism: Christ dies for all, yet we can refuse

this gift.

‣Wesley: Christ’s death atones for “inherited guilt”

(Adam), yet we must still be redeemed personally -

None will die for Adam’s sin.

The Scope: (Universal or Limited)

Questions on the Scope of the Atonement?

The Trinity and Atonement:

Specifically, The Cry of Dereliction.

Matthew 27.46 (Also, Mk. 15.34)

46About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a

loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”

(which means “My God, my God, why have you

forsaken me?”) [Ps. 22.1]…

50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice,

he gave up his spirit.

What does this cry tell us about what happened on the cross?

The Cry of Dereliction:

Utterly Forsaken?

- Jurgen Moltmann:

JURGEN MOLTMANN(B. 1926)

Jurgen Moltmann: (The Crucified God)

“What happened on the cross was an event between

God and God. It was a deep division in God himself, in

so far as God abandoned God and contradicted

himself, and at the same time a unity in God, in so far

as God was at one with God and corresponded to

himself”

…There was “enmity to the utmost degree” as Jesus

became sin for us [2 Cor. 5.21].

Jurgen Moltmann: (The Crucified God)

“In the forsakenness of the Son the Father also

forsakes himself…the Father suffers the death of his

Fatherhood in the death of the Son.”

The Cry of Dereliction:

Utterly Forsaken?

- Jurgen Moltmann:

‣The cross “constitutes” the Trinity in that God

experiences separation in unity.

‣Rejects “impassibility” for a God who suffers with

us.

‣This shows “solidarity” with suffering humans,

and reveals God’s eternal nature as self-

sacrificing love.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Utterly Forsaken?

- Jurgen Moltmann

- R.C. Sproul (“Utterly Forsaken”)

‣ “The Father turned his back and said—excuse

my language—‘God damn you [Jesus]’.”

In very different ways, both Sproul and Moltmann agree

that Christ was utterly forsaken on the cross.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Forsaken unto Death (not utterly forsaken)

- The Patristic Tradition:

‣Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzus, etc.

‣Summed up by John of Damascus:

JOHN OF DAMASCUS(676 -749 AD)

John of Damascus

Neither as God nor as man was he ever forsaken by

the Father, nor did he become sin or a curse, nor did

he require to be made subject to the Father. For as

God he is equal to the Father and not opposed to him

or subjected to him.

In Sum:

Because Jesus is the fully divine Son, the second

Person of the Trinity, it is inconceivable that he could be

divided from or opposed to his Father. (Tom

McCall, Forsaken)

The Cry of Dereliction:

Forsaken unto Death (not utterly forsaken)

- The Patristic Tradition:

‣Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzus, etc.

‣Summed up by John of Damascus:

- The Medieval Tradition: Peter Lombard

PETER LOMBARD(1096-1164)

HIS ‘SENTENCES’ WAS

THE MOST READ BOOK

IN MEDIEVAL

THEOLOGY.

Peter Lombard:

“So let us profess that god abandoned that man to

death in some way…God did not defend him by

displaying his power so that he would not die. The

godhead severed itself because it took away its

protection, but [the union] was not absent inwardly in

regard to the union between the Father, Son and Holy

Spirit.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Forsaken unto Death (not utterly forsaken)

- The Patristic Tradition:

‣Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzus, etc.

‣Summed up by John of Damascus:

- The Medieval Tradition: Peter Lombard

- The Protestant Tradition: John Calvin.

JOHN CALVIN(1509-1564)

John Calvin

We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever

hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be

angry with his beloved Son, with whom his should was

well pleased? Or how could he have appeased his

Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile

to himself?

But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine

anger, that, being smitten and afflicted, he experienced

all the signs of an angry and avenging God. [Christ

felt]…as if he was forsaken by God.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Forsaken unto Death (not utterly forsaken)

- The Patristic Tradition:

‣Athanasius, Ambrose, Nazianzus, etc.

‣Summed up by John of Damascus:

- The Medieval Tradition: Peter Lombard

- The Protestant Tradition: John Calvin.

All deny that Christ was literally forsaken.

The Cry of Dereliction:

An Overview:

- “Utterly Forsaken” (evidence)

‣Jesus says he is forsaken.

‣ If not utterly forsaken, no Trinity, no solidarity with

suffering man (Moltmann)

‣ If not utterly forsaken, no atonement (Sproul)

The Cry of Dereliction:

An Overview:

- “Not Utterly Forsaken” (evidence)

‣Jesus is quoting Scripture.

‣ If utterly forsaken, the Trinity ceases to exist (thus

the very possibility is ruled out).

๏God’s very being is “Communion” (Zizioulas).

How do we settle this debate?

The Cry of Dereliction:

Ways to Answer the Question:

- Look to the text that Christ is Quoting:

‣Psalm 22.

‣Begins with despair, but ends with trust / hope:

๏24 For he has not despised or scorned

the suffering of the afflicted one;

he has not hidden his face from him

but has listened to his cry for help.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Ways to Answer the Question:

- Look to the text that Christ is Quoting:

‣Psalm 22.

‣Begins with despair, but ends with trust / hope:

‣Scholars divided over whether to read the end of

the Psalm into Christ’s words.

‣ Is this a way to avoid what he actually says???

The Cry of Dereliction:

Ways to Answer the Question:

- Look to see what Christ says next.

‣Both Mt. and Mk. mention another loud cry, but

do not tell us the words (if any).

‣Jn. 19.30: “It is finished!”

‣Lk. 23.43: “Today…in Paradise.”

‣Lk. 23.46: “Into your hands…”

None sound utterly

forsaken

or hopeless.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Ways to Answer the Question:

- Look to other texts:

‣John 16.33. “A time is coming…when you will be

scattered…you will leave me all alone. Yet I am

not alone for my Father is with me.”

• Jesus speaks of his passion, yet he denies that

the Father will ever forsake him as the disciples

have.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Ways to Answer the Question:

- Look to other texts:

‣2 Cor. 5.21. God made him who had no sin to be

sin [or, “a sin offering”] for us, so that in him we

might become the righteousness of God.

‣Gal. 3.13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of

the law by becoming a curse for us…

Both seem to speak of a kind of transformation, in which

Christ takes on our sin / curse.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Ways to Answer the Question:

- Look to trinitarian theology:

‣Unless we are polytheists, the Father and the

Son must remain in union, even on the cross.

The Cry of Dereliction:

Some conclusions:

‘FORSAKEN’THOMAS MCCALL

The Cry of Dereliction:

A Conclusion:

- Christ was truly abandoned (forsaken) unto death,

but this does not imply a breach within the Trinity.

Richard Bauckham:

“It is essential to recognize both that the forsakenness of

Jesus is concretely real and also that both jesus and Father

remain faithful to each other.”

(Jesus and God of Israel)

The Trinity and Atonement:

The Cry of Dereliction.

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Impassibility of God.

Questions:

What is the doctrine of divine impassibility?

Do you affirm it?

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Impassibility of God.

- While virtually the entire Christian tradition affirmed

divine impassibility, the modern era brought a

challenge to the doctrine.

๏Moltmann:

Jurgen Moltmann:

For Moltmann the doctrine of impassibility is a moral

outrage. Only the “suffering God” can help, and “any

other answer” to the moral horrors of the twentieth-

century “would be blasphemy.” For “there cannot be

any other Christian answer to the question of this

torment. To speak here of an absolute God would

make God a demon.

(McCall, Forsaken, 67. Citing Moltmann, The Crucified God, 274)

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Impassibility of God.

- While virtually the entire Christian tradition affirmed

divine impassibility, the modern era brought a

challenge to the doctrine.

๏Moltmann:

- The tradition always held that Christ suffered in that

he was fully human, yet the divine nature remained

impassible.

๏Do you agree?

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Impassibility of God.

- An Answer: Much hangs on what is meant by

“impassibility”

๏Richard Muller (Reformed Historian/Theologian)

Richard Muller

The exclusion of passions from the divine being never

implied the absence of affections. We are not to

confuse impassibility with the Stoic notion of apatheia.

Impassibility, rather, denies any mutation or distress

within God.

The modern writers who argue against the doctrine of

divine impassibility as if it were little more than the

uncritical importation of a Stoic concept are beating,

not a dead, but a nonexistent horse.

(Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 33)

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Impassibility of God.

- An Answer: Much hangs on what is meant by

“impassibility”

๏Richard Muller (Reformed Historian/Theologian)

- Properly conceived, impassibility refers to the fact

that God’s character is unchanging and his holy

love does not suffer change or fluctuation.

๏The doctrine is often linked to “divine simplicity”

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Simplicity of God.

- Defined: God is not a “composite” being. He has no

“parts” because such parts would (1) be

ontologically prior to his existence, and (2) render

him subject to decay.

- Challenged: Like impassibility, divine simplicity has

been challenged in the modern era.

๏Karl Barth

KARL BARTH(1886-1968)

PERHAPS THE

GREATEST

THEOLOGIAN OF THE

MODERN ERA.

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Simplicity of God.

- Defined: God is not a “composite” being. He has no

“parts” because such parts would (1) be

ontologically prior to his existence, and (2) render

him subject to decay.

- Challenged: Like impassibility, divine simplicity has

been challenged in the modern era.

๏Karl Barth: “An idol…devouring everything

concrete.”

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Simplicity of God.

- Proposed: Yet like impassibility, divine simplicity

may serve a noble purpose if properly defined.

- John Duns Scotus (and his version of simplicity)

JOHN DUNS SCOTUS(1265-1308)

MEDIEVAL

THEOLOGIAN

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Simplicity of God.

- John Duns Scotus (Three types of distinctions)

1.Real - table | cow

2.Rational -morning star | evening star - “venus”

๏These may be helpful, but not genuine

3.Formal -A genuine distinction between entities

that are truly inseparable. (say, the “flatness” and

the “hardness” of a tabletop).

๏These may be helpful, but not genuine

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Simplicity of God.

- John Duns Scotus:

‣Distinctions within God are “formal”—really

distinct and really inseparable

๏e.g. Father, Son, Spirit.

๏e.g. Holy Love (Wrath and Mercy)

‣ In Atonement, this is helpful because it shows

that God’s wrath and love are not separate.

THOMASMCCALLWESLEYAN

THEOLOGIAN

Thomas McCall Forsaken, 84

If we accept some doctrine of divine simplicity, it is

unthinkable that, say, God’s righteous justice demands

one thing while his love and mercy demand the

opposite. Nor is it possible that some divine attributes

(or divine persons) work for some results while others

work for other results.

…Divine wrath is not the opposite of divine love. It is

not even in tension with his love. Quite the contrary is

true—the righteous wrath of God is the (contingent)

expression of the holy love that is the essence of God.

The Trinity and Atonement:

Atonement and the Simplicity of God.

- John Duns Scotus:

‣Distinctions within God are “formal”—really

distinct and really inseparable

๏e.g. Father, Son, Spirit.

๏e.g. Holy Love (Wrath and Mercy)

‣ In Atonement, this is helpful because it shows

that God’s wrath and love are not separate.

Questions?

The Spirit and Atonement:

The Father and Son receive a lot of attention in

the discussion of Atonement, but what about the

Spirit’s Role???

- What Part Does the Spirit Play in Atonement?

- Opera trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa

The Spirit and Atonement:

The means by which Christ is conceived.

The means by which Christ lives a holy life.

- We must not merely appeal to a “divine nature” at

this point (Christ is guided by the Spirit).

The means by which Christ is raised.

The means by which anyone believes in Christ

- 1 Cor. 12.3: No one can say, “Jesus is Lord,”

except by the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit and Atonement:

The means by which Christ is conceived.

The means by which Christ lives a holy life.

- We must not merely appeal to a “divine nature” at

this point (Christ is guided by the Spirit).

The means by which Christ is raised.

The means by which anyone believes in Christ

The means by which we are “made one” with

Christ.

Resurrection & Atonement:

How does the Resurrection relate to our

justification?

- Key Text: Romans 4.25: “He was delivered over to

death for our sins and was raised to life for our

justification.”

- What does this mean???

- If Christ took all our sin on the cross, why would we

not be justified apart from his resurrection?

- Paul rejects this altogether (1 Cor. 15)

- 0

1 Corinthians 15.17

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you

are still in your sins.

Resurrection & Atonement:

Possible links between Resurrection and

justification: (modified from A. Warnock, Raised with Christ)

1.Raised to bring about our future resurrection.

- Our future resurrection is linked to justification.

- While true, this doesn’t seem to be Paul’s point.

2.Raised to prompt faith in us.

- The resurrection inspires faith, by which we are

justified.

Resurrection & Atonement:

Possible links between Resurrection and

justification: (Modified from A. Warnock, Raised with Christ)

3.Raised for his own justification, by which we are

also justified.

- The resurrection is proof that Christ is “in the

right,”despite the verdict handed down by men.

4.Raised, so that we can be united with him by faith.

- For Paul, imputation flows from participation.

Resurrection & Atonement:

Conclusion:

- Paul, in Romans 4.25 and 1 Cor. 15.17, shows that

without Resurrection, there is no Atonement.

- This should caution against purely forensic or penal

substitutionary accounts of Atonement.

- It is only by our union with the risen Christ that we

may be justified - this comes by the Spirit, through

faith, and it REQUIRES a Resurrection.

- T.F. Torrance

THOMAS F. TORRANCE(1913-2007)

SCOTTISH

THEOLOGIAN ::

STUDIED UNDER

BARTH

T. F. Torrance

When the Protestant doctrine of justification is

formulated only in terms of forensic “imputation” of

righteousness or the non-imputation of sin..the

resurrection is bypassed. If we think of justification

only in the light of the crucifixion… then we have

mutilated it severely.

We require an active relation to Christ…an actual

sharing in his righteousness. This is possible only

through the resurrection

(Atonement, 224).

Resurrection & Atonement:

Conclusion:

- Paul, in Romans 4.25 and 1 Cor. 15.17, shows that

without Resurrection, there is no Atonement.

- This should caution against purely forensic or penal

substitutionary accounts of Atonement.

- It is only by our union with the risen Christ that we

may be justified - this comes by the Spirit, through

faith, and it REQUIRES a Resurrection.

- T.F. Torrance