Atonement

These last few weeks we have considered the various strands running through the biblical doctrine of the Atonement. In the course we have considered in just a wee bit of detail

1.) Reconciliation
2.) Redemption
3.) Ransom
4.) Propitiation
5.) Expiation
6.) Justification
7.) Sacrifice
8.) Blood
9.) Substitution
10.) Satisfaction

So we understand when we speak about the Atonement we are talking about a grand and glorious doctrine that encompasses many mighty themes.

The Ohio, Missouri, and Colorado rivers flow into the Mississippi River. As do the Crow Wing River, Gull Lake River, Rum River, St. Croix River, Blue Earth River, Root River, Minnesota River, Red Cedar River, Chippewa River, Black River, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin River, Turkey River, Upper Iowa River, Maquoketa River, Wapsipinicon River, Cedar River, Iowa River, Skunk River.

And that is only in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa.

The Atonement similarly has all the doctrines that we mentioned emptying into it to make it the mighty doctrinal river that it is.

We have looked at the various tributaries. This morning we spend some time considering the whole glorious river.

Inevitably this means that some of this will sound familiar because when one speaks about the whole having considered the parts there is going to be repetition.

It is interesting that the English word “atonement” does not correspond etymologically with any particular Hebrew or Greek word. Therefore no mere word study can determine the biblical teaching of the atonement. This is just to say that by looking at one word in the Hebrew or Greek is not going to give you the total idea of the Atonement. Even the Greek and the Hebrew words here do not correspond to one another exactly.

As we look at the total testimony of Scripture we can get some beginning definitions

“Atonement means ‘a making at one’ and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged into a unity… its use in theology is to denote the work of Christ in dealing with the problem posed by the sin of man, and in bringing sinners into right relation w/ God.” (Leon Morris)

“Atonement refers to the event of the saving death of Christ in its whole range of results.” (Grounds)

We see the genesis of the doctrine as early as Genesis 3 where God covers the sinful Adam and Eve with coverings made of skin

One aspect of Atonement that we see immediately in Genesis is that of covering.

Gen. 3:21 Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

The Hebrew words Kaphar and Kipper are not used here but the idea of covering which meaning those words give us for atonement are clearly present in the idea of the phrase “clothed them.”

Here we see our first parents must have immediately upon the fall been taught that w/o the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. We see here also the beginning of the idea that God will accept sacrifice wherein one creature stands in for another.

Matthew Henry has to say here;

The beasts, from whose skins they were clothed, it is supposed were slain, not for man’s food, but for sacrifice, to typify Christ, the great Sacrifice. Adam and Eve made for themselves aprons of fig-leaves, a covering too narrow for them to wrap themselves in, Isa 28:20. Such are all the rags of our own righteousness. But God made them coats of skin, large, strong, durable, and fit for them: such is the righteousness of Christ; therefore put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.

This idea of covering found in the Hebrew words Kaphar and Kipper are used to describe the effect of the sacrifices at the consecration of the high priest and the altar and the annual sacrifices especially on the day of Atonement.

What we see in the garden in seed form we later learn in revelation becomes explicit with the sacrificial system.

Exodus 30:10 And Aaron shall make atonement (kipper) upon its horns once a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonement; once a year he shall make atonement upon it throughout your generations. It is most holy to the Lord.”

Lev. 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

Here we find in this sacrificial system more than just a covering but also propitiation (turning away of wrath), reconciliation, to atone for.”

And it was the sacrificial system that reminded the Hebrews that one was coming who could take away the sins that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away. One was coming who would provide a once for all atonement.

As we come to the NT we find this idea of atonement covering the pages. These passages that were read this morning are but two examples.

Romans 3:24 being justified [b]freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a [c]propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Many of your translations offer “sacrifice of atonement” where we find the word “propitiation.”

We see in this passage the heart of the meaning of atonement. There is a restoring of a broken relationship that up until the atonement is characterized by hostility of each party towards the other.

In this Romans passage we see many of the ideas that we have looked in the mighty word “atonement.” We see here propitiation, substitution, penalty, blood, reconciliation, redemption, etc.

Note in the Romans passage that God is both Just and Justifier. God is just because the penalty that sin always required is finally met in Christ. God is justifier because with the penalty being met nothing can bar the way from God visiting the publication of His justification upon the elect. This bespeaks of the necessity of Christ being set forth as an offering for sins.

Sit back now and be washed with just some of the other passages that contain this great theme of atonement. Listen for the themes we have covered these past few weeks and remember that they all are contained in the idea of atonement;

I Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with [g]corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Rev. 1:and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who [b]loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,

As we consider the Atonement we are reminded again that it is God who provided the Atonement. God is the original and efficacious cause of the Atonement.It was God who gave the animal skins as covering to Adam and Eve. It was God who gave the sacrificial system to picture Christ. It was God who provided the animals used on the day of atonement. It was God who sent His only begotten son out of eternal love for His people.

We must keep before us that atonement finds its ultimate explanation in an unfathomable urge in God towards elect sinners wandering out in the far country. God, in the atonement, was eternally pleased for reasons known only to Himself, to set His love upon those who had heretofore had only violated His great love.

Because God is gracious he provides atonement and because God is just He requires atonement.

In the atonement we see the truth that God’s love and justice kiss. Out of Love for Himself and for His people God provides Christ so that His eternal justice can have its due. No love, no justice. No justice, no love.

Away then with your sloppy luv gods who have no justice. Away with your statements that “my loving god wouldn’t do that.” Away with your refusal of hell and damnation because God is a God of luv. You refusal of the reality of Hell is a refusal of the atonement. It is a statement that God didn’t really need to demonstrate His love in the cross work of Jesus Christ because your lousy god wouldn’t do that. The love of that god is the love of a harlot.

Give me the God of the Bible. Give me the God who provides an atonement wherein both His love and His Justice are put on grand display in the pivotal point of all human history. Give me the God of the Bible who quenches His own justice in his own love and who does not compromise His own justice by surrendering His deity to squishy and ugly notions of love.

Not only did God provide the Atonement but we also note of the atonement that it is objective

We have noted this through this series but since we live in a church age that is awash in the subjective we note it again. The atonement makes its primary impression on the person to whom it is made. It is made to the Father… the atonement serves to propitiate and reconcile the Father.

Romans 3 teaches that also. Note in that passage that it is God who displayed Jesus publicly as a propitiation in His blood. In that we see a definite god-ward reference in the atonement.

This objective character of the Atonement distinguishes the biblical concept of the Atonement from all other theories. We have not gone into competing theories of the Atonement that have walked in the Church over the centuries but if we were to do that we would see that all other theories explain an atonement that is primarily subjective … that is primarly manward in its effect. To own such an atonement moves us in the direction of humanism, where man is the center of our theology. God’s problem is not an angry man. Man’s problem is an angry God. Only an Atonement that is primarily objective can deal with that problem.

This is one reason why the Reformed Church needs to continue to exist. We are one of the very few who have a doctrine where the atonement is objective and if you do not have an objective atonement you are without God and without hope. Unless atonement is God-ward in its primary effect you remain lost in your sins. Historically, the Reformed Church has been perhaps not the only but certainly one of the few places where you can find that. The world thus needs the Reformed church because it needs the biblical doctrine of the atonement.

Yet, as we have said once we talk about that God the effect of the atonement is that God is propitiated and reconciled to the sinner we can then gladly speak of the sinner being reconciled to God.

“For if while we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God, through the death of His Son.” (Romans 5:10)

II Cor. 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not [a]imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.

So we see that there is both an objective and subjective movement of the Atonement.

Well, there is more to be said here but we will end with a quote from one of the greatest minds ever produced by America

This issue is cardinal. As the Churches of all ages has understood the Scriptures, the whole plan of gospel redemption rests upon this substitution of Christ as its corner-stone. He who overthrows the corner-stone overthrows the building. The system which he rears without this foundation may be named Christianity by him, but it will be another building, his own handiwork, not that of God — another gospel.”

R. L. Dabney

Creedal Baptism & Social Contract Theory

“The central assumption of social contract theory is that ever individual human being is sovereign and independent of both God and the reality that God has created…. Consequently, for the likes of Rosseau, there exists no natural authority in society. Everyone is equal. Parents have no authority over their children. God has no authority over humanity either. Because there is no created structure to society, human society is brought about by this implicit agreement between sovereign individuals rather than by the will of God. Every man, woman, and child are their own God.”

Dr. Jan Addrian Schlebusch 
Assailing the Gates of Hell; Christianity at War with the West — p. 14-15

If a child before being born does not choose his own mother, nor the family he is born into, nor the name he will be assigned, nor the nation he will be born into then why do Baptists insist that the child gets a choice as to whether or not he will be in the family of God and named by God in Baptism?

Isn’t the Baptist denial of infant Baptism just another expression of Locke’s social contract theory where each individual is sovereign unto themselves and as sovereign must create reality by their fiat word? Reality, being created by each individual, and not a givenness authored by God the Baptist insists that since a baby cannot yet choose the reality they are going to inhabit therefore they are not to be “forced” into any given reality as coming from the hand of God. Given realities like being born into a Christian family, a Christian church, and at least once upon a time, a Christian nation are to wait upon the decision of the sovereign individual. Therefore Baptism for the Baptist cannot be applied to a child since the child has not yet spoken that reality into existence for themselves by their decision. It is all very much social contract theory Christianity.

The Baptist religion is the religion of the Enlightenment.

The Hate State

“Working hours had been drastically increased in anticipation of Hate Week. It was more than a month distant, but the enormous, complex preparations that it entailed were throwing extra work on to everybody.”

George Orwell
1984

In Orwell’s 1984 the idea of Hate Week first shows up on page 3 and becomes a mini-theme throughout the book. For Orwell, Hate Week is an operation put on Oceania’s government in order to increase the hatred the population feels. The hatred is directed at the two opposing superstates, Eurasia and Eastasia, as well as at Emmanuel Goldstein, the leader of the mythical “Brotherhood.”

Hate Week was for Oceania what Christmas and Easter is for Christians today. It was a high and holy day anticipated by everybody and celebrated by all. It came each year with a new “Hate song.” Orwell describes the preparations for Hate Week;

Processions, meetings, military parades, lectures, waxworks, displays, film shows, telescreen programmes all had to be organized; stands had to be erected, effigies built, slogans coined, songs written, rumours circulated, photographs faked.

I note all this to say that art has become life. While we do not yet have official Hate Weeks or the other Orwellian fixture of official daily “two minute hates” we have in our culture embraced the substance of this Orwellian reality.

Today I read in the Washington Post that a substitute teacher was fired somewhere because the sub dared to try and provide background for why Vladimir Putin is doing what he is doing in Ukraine. However, while this firing dynamic may be unique in relation to the whole Russia and Ukraine affair it is not at all a new dynamic in terms of the hate that is required by the FEDS for certain unsanctioned and so unacceptable behavior.

Hate required of the populace by the FEDS? How about the hate that is required for the amorphous and impossible to define thing called “racism?” How about hate required of the populace by the FEDS for those who say “Vaccines can go bugger themselves?,” or, “You can take your mask and shove it up your southern most aperture where it might actually do some good?” How about all the Hate pushed by the FEDS that results in what we now airily refer to as “Cancel Culture.”

Hate Week? Hells bells that would be a vast improvement of epic proportions. We are currently living under a Federal regime that demands Hate Year, year by year. The FEDS push us to hate those who love the historic definition of family, who love the idea that marriage is reserved only for one man and one woman, who love the idea of loving their nation,  etc. etc. etc. The FEDS are even assiduously working on, via Critical Race Theory taught in Government Hate schools, getting the population to hate all white people

Are people so stupid that they can’t learn the lesson that Orwell was teaching in 1984? The State is not our god people and if anything should be hated right now it is the Hate State who is conniving to constantly keep us in a lather.

Now, I know a thing or two about hate, constantly being accused myself of being a “hater.” Why just a couple days ago someone reminded me again of how hateful I am;

“I will pray for the congregation as they are being misled by these posts, your words, your hate.”

And because I am an expert on being a hater I resent the Hate State encroaching upon my bailiwick and so insist that the Hate State quit with their organizing of hate and leave the hatred to us professionals.

Series on Justification from Eternity — Part III

    3.) Faith adds nothing to the “esse” only to the “bene esse” of justification; it is no part of, nor any ingredient in it; it is a complete act in the eternal mind of God, without the being or consideration of faith, or any foresight of it; a man is as much justified before as after it, in the account of God; and after he does believe, his justification does not depend on his acts of faith; for though “we believe not, yet he abides faithful”; that is, God is faithful to his covenant engagements with his Son, as their Surety, by whose suretyship-righteousness they are justified; but by faith men have a comfortable sense, perception and apprehension of their justification, and enjoy that peace of soul which results from it; it is by that only, under the testimony of the divine Spirit, that they know their interest in it, and can claim it, and so have the comfort of it. 

    John Gill 
    Baptist Theologian

    Faith does not add to the essence (esse) of Justification but only the sense of wellness (bene esse) that arises from being justified. This is what I was reaching for yesterday when I wrote of faith being the instrumental passive cause of subjective justification but not of objective justification.  Objective justification cannot be brought into being by faith since objective justification exists as an eternal and immanent act of God.

    Faith is no part of Justification except for the part it plays in the realization that one is Justified apart from works. With this understanding faith cannot become a work which so commonly happens apart from embracing eternal justification.

    Now as to Gill’s claim that a man is as justified before it is published to his consciousness as he is after the publication of it to his consciousness, this is just a matter of recognizing a reality. All the elect before they know their justification are pre-self aware justified ones. God does not know them as reprobate but as those who while currently in rebellion against God are those who being justified will soon enough become self-aware of their justification. Nothing will stop them from the appointed time when the Holy Spirit will publish it to their consciousness whereupon they will own it by responding upon regeneration in faith and so be subjectively justified. This is what Gill is getting at when he writes above,

    by faith men have a comfortable sense, perception and apprehension of their justification, and enjoy that peace of soul which results from it; it is by that only, under the testimony of the divine Spirit, that they know their interest in it, and can claim it, and so have the comfort of it. 

    Even’s God’s revelation of His anger toward the rebellious but justified one is a sign that the rebellious one is justified from eternity since God’s grace in making known his anger against sin only dawns on those who are justified from eternity. Nobody except those who are justified from eternity receive God’s grace to know God’s wrath upon them.

    Gill introduces here the idea of Christ as the justified ones Surety. This is an older theological concept that is seldom talked about in the contemporary church. A person who provides suretyship is a person who undertakes a specific responsibility on behalf of another who remains primarily liable. A surety is one who makes himself liable for the default or miscarriage of another, or for the performance of some act on his part (e.g. payment of a debt, appearance in court for trial, etc.). Christ did not become our surety upon an act of faith on our part that made His suretyship our suretyship. Christ was our surety on the Cross and on the Cross the instantiation of our eternal Justification was accomplished.

    “Faith is the evidence and manifestation of justification, and therefore justification must be before it; “Faith is the evidence of things not seen”, #Heb. 11:1 but it is not the evidence of that which as yet is not; what it is an evidence of, must be, and it must exist before it. The “righteousness of God”, of the God-man and mediator Jesus Christ, “is revealed from faith to faith”, in the everlasting gospel, #Ro 1:17 and therefore must be before it is revealed, and before faith, to which it is revealed: faith is that grace whereby a soul, having seen its guilt, and its want of righteousness, beholds, in the light of the divine Spirit, a complete righteousness in Christ, renounces its own, lays hold off that, puts it on as a garment, rejoices in it, and glories of it; the Spirit of God witnessing to his spirit, that he is a justified person; and so he is evidently and declaratively “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God”, #1Co 6:11.”
     
     
     
    John Gill
    Baptist Theologian
     
     
     
     
    There is such clarity here I am slow to even comment. As such I will seek to be brief here.
     
     
     
    A.) Justification precedes faith and is the cause of faith.
     
     
     
    B.) Faith cannot grasp what does not yet already exist. Our Justification precedes our faith.
     
     
     
    C.) Faith clings to Christ and His work; the instantiation of God’s decree to Justify many
     
     
    D.) Faith having seen Christ’s righteousness wrought for the justified one renounces all attempts at self-justification and owns the gift of having been justified from all eternity.

    Henry M. Morris … A Flip-Flopper

    “The race question is certainly one of the most important and explosive issues of our time, and the same is true for the issue of nationalism vs. internationalism. The existence of distinctive races and nations and languages is obviously a fact of modern life, in spite of the efforts of many modern sociologists and politicians to remove the racial and national barriers. The problems created by these issues seem almost insurmountable. The true origin of the world’s various races and nations and the events associated therewith must be clearly understood and placed in right perspective before there is any possibility that the problems arising out of them can be comprehended and solved.

    In the world today there seem to be several major races (three to six depending upon the classification) perhaps 100 or more nations of significance and over 3000 tribal languages and dialects…. The origin of races is still a mystery to most scientists, determined as they are to explain man and his culture in terms of an evolutionary framework. There are numerous contradictory theories on these matters among anthropologists and ethnologists, but the only fully reliable record of the origin of races, nations, and languages is found here in Genesis 9-11.”

    Henry M. Morris
    The Beginning of the World — p. 124

    I guarantee you when Henry M. Morris wrote these words in 1977 Doug Wilson would have never said the jejune statement… “There is no such thing as race.” David Van Drunen would have never said “race is a social construct.” )(Wilson and Van Drunen are examples of where Federal Vision and R2K can find common ground.)

    The reason I’m so ticked with these mugs is that they are licking their finger and sticking it in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing and then altering their convictions.

    Unfortunately, Henry M. Morris did the finger licking wind-measuring thing also as in 1993 he changed his tune writing after getting his mind right per the even then percolating WOKE world;

    “But what about the origin of races? One searches the Bible in vain for this information, for neither the word nor the concept of “race” appears in the Bible at all! There is no such thing as a race—except the human race! Skin color and other supposed racial characteristics are mere re-combinations of innate genetic factors, originally created in Adam and Eve to permit development of different family characteristics as the human race was commanded to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28; 9:1).

    “Race” is strictly an evolutionary concept, used by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and the other 19th-century evolutionists to rationalize their white racism. But from the beginning, it was not so! “God that made the world and all things therein; . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:24,26). “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother?” (Malachi 3:10).