Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Now this last portion we're going to discuss tonight is specifically on the doctrine of the atonement and Ordinarily, I would have reserved this conversation for soteriology. But in our textbook Dr. Sproul includes this in our conversation about Christology.
So I thought well, it certainly I think fits together with what we've discussed tonight as Christ being the Messiah Christ Being our high priest and our high priest is the one who makes the atonement for us.
So we're going to discuss a little bit for the last 25 minutes or so about the doctrine of the atonement. First of all, let's just define terms. When we define the word atonement the the Hebrew word for atonement is is the same word that is used for covering a covering of something.
In Fact an interesting connection will be made and I'll be making this in a sermon in a couple weeks. When Noah was commanded to build the ark out of gopher wood He was commanded to cover it with pitch which of course was intended to make it watertight.
Well the same word for covering there is the word for atonement which is interesting if we think about what the ark represents and protecting the people from the Judgment of God because of course the ark wasn't was a was a form of protection the the people in the ark Were protected from the wrath of God.
The people outside of the ark Received the wrath of God. And what really was the separation was that pitch? It was that watertight seal that kept them safe and dry inside. So that's just a thought that the word the Hebrew word means covering.
If you think about making when the priest made the atonement, he would cover the mercy seat with the blood. Now in the New Testament the word is Reconciliation reconciliation and This is where the actual English word comes from because the English word Atonement is actually a is a compound of the concept of at one to be at one refers to Reconciling to who are separated.
If I said You know you two men have been at war with one another and I'm going to come in and mediate the situation and try to Bring you back to where you were at one with one another that would be an act of reconciliation.
That would be in that sense an act of atonement bringing to back to one establishing reconciliation. Now what's interesting is the word atonement is all through the Old Testament, but it is not in the New Testament.
The word atonement in your ESV Bible never shows up in the New Testament. You won't find any verse that uses the word atonement in the ESV and the King James Bible it is only used once. Romans chapter 5 verse 11 says this and Not only so but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have received the atonement.
That's what the King James says by whom we have received the atonement. But the ESV says by whom we have received reconciliation so that is the the Way that the ESV chooses to translate that word and and I think appropriately so.
However, even though the word atonement does not show up in the English New Testament said well the King James the one time the Concept of atonement is all throughout the New Testament scriptures and It finds its culmination, of course in the death of Christ because it is in the death of Christ that we have reconciliation between God and Man.
Turn in your Bibles to Galatians chapter 3. In Galatians chapter 3 verse 13 It says Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us because it is written cursed as everyone who hangs on a tree in Order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles.
So that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith so what does that tell us. It says Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law and ultimately he reconciled us to God and again, we see that language in Romans 5 11.
It says that through our Lord Jesus we have received reconciliation now. That's the concept of atonement. We who were at war with God have been made right with God. We who were separated from God have been brought back into relationship with God.
We who were divided have been Reunited so. That's the concept now. When we discuss atonement, there are several false views that need to at least be Recognized even though we don't have time to express them.
There are some views and you if you read your book you would have read some of them the ransom to Satan view. Remember that dr. Sproul talks about that in the book that some people believe that when Christ died a Ransom was paid now the Bible does use the word ransom.
And so some people will say well to whom was the ransom paid. And some people believe that it was paid to Satan. What would that do in the relationship between God and Satan make them equal?
But it would also Give up all of his soul take the ransom if he had all everybody's so true. Why would he want his goal was to keep us going to destroy as much as possible? Why would he want to give him up?
Okay that I mean I have something to think about. No, I'm from a pragmatic perspective. Sure, but I'm the the the word I'm looking specifically for here is debt. Does God owe Satan a debt if the ransom theory is correct?
Then God owes Satan something and If that that's one of the reasons why historically The church has rejected the ransom to Satan theory There are some others there is the theory of of martyr that Christ died as a martyr in a sense to Exemplify God's love in the face of men's sin.
That's a that's an argument that's been made Christ by going to the cross willingly by taking the punishment of the of the cross. Willingly he demonstrated the love of God in the face of men's sin and that's how he overcame the power of death and hell was simply by Demonstrating his willingness to receive all the pain that men could give and still love them.
And that is sometimes called the example theory or the martyr theory and that one sounds nice. That's not gonna be a mean it does it sounds very. It sounds very reasonable. Okay, Christ is an example of love in the face of hate now.
Is that true? Yeah for as far as it goes. Right. He didn't curse to them or anything. He took it and he showed love and what did he even say? He says father forgive them. Right, so there is a expression of love on the cross.
So I think the example martyr theory says some things That are not untrue. But it but but the wholeness of the concept is untrue because the idea that that's what the atonement was about That's how atonement was made I think is where the mistake is not that it's untrue that Christ showed love in the face of hate I think that's true but saying that that's how atonement was made.
How many of you know who Brian Zahn is? Michael Brown anybody know Michael Brown. Bobby you've heard of Michael Brown. Probably he did a couple debates for James White. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Michael Brown is a man who has A lot of issues III.
Take a lot of issue with some of what he teaches. He's hyper charismatic and he's got a lot of Positions that I would disagree with but he is probably one of the best at describing and defending What we would call penal substitutionary atonement from the Old Testament because he is a converted Jew and he has Great insight into Hebrew and was trained in that and so when he defends the penal substitutionary atonement theory Which is the theory I'm going to espouse he defends it very well.
Even though I would say his Arminianism almost precludes it. Because there's but that's a whole other topic. Here's here's here's the reason why I bring it up if you want to look if you want to hear a great debate.
Look up the debate between Brian Zahn and I think it's Z-A-H-N-D. Brian Zahn and Michael Brown in the title of the debate is the monster God debate that's the title of it the monster God debate and They debated I think for almost two hours Over the subject of the atonement was it a penal substitutionary atonement.
Brian Zahn says no if Penal substitutionary atonement is true. God is a monster. He is a cosmic child abuser. He is an awful God and this is a man who claims to be a Christian preacher. That's American gospel.
That's the second one yes the second one the American gospel Christ crucified it's all about this. So yes, that's I thought on the first one. The second one is all about this and you'll hear a guy who says penal substitutionary atonement is awful.
And I can't accept it that God would punish his son. You know that's that's because that's what penal substitutionary is. Christ takes the punishment of the wrath of God for us go ahead. The monster God debate and I would definitely recommend all of you take the time put it on your Phone or put it on your iPad or whatever and listen to it while you're doing dishes or cleaning your house or whatever.
It's worth the time because you'll hear somebody articulate this martyr theory that Christ died to take the sin of the world and Take and yet still demonstrate love the same thing. But when when Michael Brown starts to question him when they get to the Q &A that's when debates really happen.
Anybody can stand up present something somebody else stand up and present something if there's no cross-examination. There's really no debate. But when Michael Brown cross-examines Brian's on on the subject of penal substitutionary atonement from the Old Testament the wheels fall off the cart and Brian's on literally is just left with his mouth hanging open.
I mean he keeps jabbering on but at certain points. He has no answer. Because Brown nails him to the wall on Atonement so my encouragement to you is to watch that debate. So here are here are. Since we've looked at false views.
We talked about the ransom theory talk about martyr theory or Sometimes known as the example theory. Let's discuss what we would say is the biblical understanding of atonement. And and I I don't I want to say this and without without sounding.
Without sounding like I'm saying something wrong. To say that there's only one way or one. Understanding of the atonement I think is to miss out on the fact that there is a lot happening in the atonement.
Penal substitution is happening and thereby we talk about propitiation. But if you remember in the book it also referred to expiation. Not only is our sin paid for But our sin is removed from us. That's expiation that Remember the Old Testament the promise is that your sins will be taken as far as the East is from the West.
All right, and that's expiation. Christ becomes both of the sacrifices you have the scapegoat and the blood offering the scapegoat the the sins were preyed upon him and he was sent out into the wilderness to carry the sins away to expiate the sin.
And when that happened the sins were carried away. Christ does that he takes away our sin, but then what does he do he? Dies and Suffers the punishment of our sin to satisfy the wrath of God. That's the penal substitutionary Atonement he is suffering a penalty as a substitute to make our atonement so we have Expiation and propitiation.
That's why I said there's it's it's a it's when you look at it in its full orb sense. There's there's much that is happening. In fact, I'll give you six words if you want to write down these six things.
First is substitution. Second Corinthians 521 God made him who knew no sin to become sin for us that in him we can become the righteousness of God. That's substitution. Number two redemption Galatians 313 we read it a minute ago through him.
We have redemption. He's redeemed us. He's purchased us. What's that? Okay. No, that's fine, I know if you add verses that's great. Number three reconciliation Romans 5 10 and 11 through him we have reconciliation.
Propitiation satisfaction of the wrath of God, that's Romans 3 25 and 26. Forgiveness Colossians 2 13 in him we have forgiveness. By the way, what does forgiveness mean. Means you're dead is covered and we're going back to the idea of covering That with Colossians 2 13 and.
Finally of the six and this is not the only thing but of the of these six things justification Romans 4 5 we are justified. Go ahead now say a question propitiation Romans 3 25 26 forgiveness Colossians 2 13 so we have substitution on.
The cross. Christ takes our place. Redemption. Christ makes the payment for the debt our sins have earned. Reconciliation. Christ restores the relationship between us and God. Propitiation. God satisfies or crap.
Excuse me Christ satisfies God's wrath on our behalf against sin. Number five forgiveness. Christ Removes our condemnation and. And I want to come back to forgiveness in a moment. But for now, we just say it's the legal act of removing condemnation and number six justification is the legal declaration of righteousness.
Forgiveness is taking the debt away. He covers the debt he takes it away but justification is Declaration of righteousness. You see if all Christ did was take away your sin. You still wouldn't be fit for heaven.
Because you still wouldn't be righteous if you had no sin you would be neutral. Not righteous you need righteousness and Christ provides it. You see your sin is taken away and you are given Righteousness and this is what we call double imputation.
Our sin is imputed to Christ. His righteousness is imputed to us. In fact, we could even go further we could say there's a triple imputation. Because Adams sin is imputed to us we are. We are declared guilty.
We are we we are suffering because of Adam sin. He was our representative and He acted on our behalf. Right. We talked about that last week federal headship. He acted on our behalf. His sin is imputed to us.
We suffer Based upon his sin Christ's Death our sin is imputed to him. His righteousness is imputed to us. So in that sense, there's three acts of imputation. All right, so and the on the subject of Atonement Christ died to take the penalty for believers acting as their substitute and Receiving God's wrath and thereby made an atonement Between them and God.
Therefore we call our version or excuse me, not our version the biblical version or the biblical understanding of atonement is penal substitutionary atonement. PSA for short. Like a public service announcement.
I. But when people say what is your view of the atonement very few people come to church and ask that question. That really should be a question you ask though, you know, some churches don't believe in that.
Some churches deny penal substitutionary atonement, there's a song That has the words for on that cross when Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied. In Christ alone is the name of the song, right? That hymn was written.
With those words for on the cross where Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied when I Think it was the Methodist, but I could be wrong. I. Well what they know they didn't they tried to. They sought permission to change the lyric when they were adding it into there when they added it into their Hymnal, they wanted to change it from on that cross when Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied.
They wanted it to say on that cross when Jesus died the love of God was magnified. So so go back to what I said earlier about the example theory the martyr theory. It's not that he's dying to take the wrath of God.
He's dying to show the love of God again while that may be true. That's not the fullness of the truth and therefore Half a truth is a whole error something that's half true is all wrong and. So the people who wrote I think it was the Gettys, but I could be wrong.
Whoever the author was would not allow Them to do it. So they ended up not including it. All right final discussion since we have three minutes and that's all we need to discuss this topic. Let's talk about limited atonement.
Well on your notes just write extent of the atonement the extent of the atonement. Because when we talk about the atonement we're talking about the work of God. Or excuse me the work of Christ whereby he made reconciliation on behalf of Someone.
And the question of limited atonement versus universal atonement is for whom did Christ make the atonement or for whom did he Perform the act of reconciliation. Well before we get to whosoever some people would say Christ made atonement for the whole world.
There's an immediate problem with that if Christ has made an atonement for the whole world Then that would mean that hell is empty. Because if Christ has paid the penalty for all people's sins then all people would go to heaven and Because no one worth his salt believes that everybody goes to heaven who reads the Bible.
Then no one can hold to a true version of universal atonement without giving up something and What generally is said by those who hold to universal atonement is that Christ's death was made for everyone but it only gets actuated when a person believes.
So the payment has been made. But it's not Activated or actuated until the person believes and that's when it becomes real. That's when the payment is actually made. My issue with that is Multifold but my biggest issue is this if you were at a dinner Let's say it out back and you went to dinner and you were sitting there eating and The check came and you paid the debt of the check and The waitress took your check and took your payment and then she came back to the table and someone else at the table said I will also pay the check and She took his money as well.
Then she has taken a double payment on a single debt and that would be unjust. Therefore if Christ has paid the penalty in actuality for the sins of the world and Christ sends them to hell. Then he is unjust.
Because he has exacted a double payment. Therefore the atonement was made only for those who believe. Now we'll identify those later as the elect but for tonight. It's enough to say that the atonement is limited to believers those who are outside of Christ do not receive the Substitutionary benefit of his atonement and those who argue that he does Can take it up with John Owen.
Well, I would just say they're wrong. But I would say take it up with John Owen in the book the death of death and the death of Christ. Again it but but There's so much in this argument that people would say well He died for everybody but they only get the benefits of it when he When they believe and I would say if he died for everybody they would it would by nature receive the benefit.
Yeah, Bobby. That's right, and that's why I don't like I don't. I'm a you know, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist. I don't mind saying I believe in the five points of Calvinism to you L IP the limited atonement is the part that most people have an issue with when it really shouldn't be but that's the part most People have issue with but I tell you I said if it makes you feel better.
Don't call it limited. Call it Actual like what you just said it's not a limited atonement. It's an actual atonement. It's it's. Some of the old Calvinists called it particular redemption. It's either a universal redemption or a particular redemption.
All right, let's pray. Father I thank you for your word. I thank you for this truth. I pray that this has been useful and that we will from it grow in our understanding of our Lord Jesus Christ. What a life what a study what a Savior.
Father thank you so much for this time in Christ's name. Amen.