What did Christ *actually* accomplish on the cross?
I’ve been ignoring most of the anti-Calvinist posts on Facebook for the past number of weeks. My friend, Billy Birch – the Arminian, however, posted an article today, and I think that the article is instructive in a few ways. So, please go read his article (it is pretty concise) and then come back here and get down with this massively witty and devastating response. I’ll try, like Billy, to streamline this post to aid cerebral mastication and digestion.
The fundamental basis on which Billy builds his argument against the Calvinist doctrine of Particular Redemption is strange confusion of things that are really quite different. But before we look at that very important difference, let’s take stock of what we have in common. Both Billy and I (and, I dare say, Arminians and Calvinists, generally) believe that Christ accomplished something on the cross (call it atonement) and that Christ’s atonement needs to be applied to sinners before it is subjectively effective for them. We both agree that it is through faith that sinners are united to Christ and to his atonement. Thus, we both agree there is a time in history when atonement has been made, but has not yet been applied to the sinner through faith and union with Christ. We clear on that? Alright. So, the difference, here, is in the nature of the atonement. More specifically, in what sense is that atonement, to use Billy’s terminology “provisionary”?
Warm-hearted, tender-loving Calvinists (like myself) never tire of pointing out that if Christ *actually* paid for the sins of a particular person, that his sins are (in the final analysis) paid for. What this means is NOT that as Jesus expired on the cross, **BAM** suddenly God was pleased with everyone from whom Christ died. As I mentioned above, Christ’s finished atonement must be applied. That’s why John Murray called his book Redemption Accomplish AND Applied- caps mine. In other words, Arminians are simply misrepresenting the Calvinist position when, in response to the warm-hearted, tender-loving point above, they say things like, “If Calvinists were correct at this point then we would have to admit that every ‘unconditionally elect’ person was actually saved at the moment Christ died for their sins nearly two thousand years ago, quite prior to their birth.” We would not have to admit any such thing, for we are not working in Billy’s caricature of our position. Our point (warm-hearted, et al) is, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, that is, in the final judgment, if Christ actually paid for someone’s sin, that his sin is paid for. God does not double dip in his justice.
This paperboy looks honest enough....
He won’t condemn Christ for the sins of this man, then turn around and condemn that man for the same sins. We’re not maintaining that there is no distinction between the accomplishment and application of Christ’s atonement. We’re asserting that God’s justice is such that, at the end of the day, he won’t, like a dishonest paperboy, collect twice on a single debt.
Billy thinks he’s shown a great inconsistency in the Calvinist’s theological system, but all he’s really done is put his finger on two very different conceptions of what Christ *actually* accomplished on the cross: two different theories of atonement. I say that Christ’s atonement was completely accomplished and ready to be applied head for head (with no remainder) to those for whom it was made. Rock solid, baby. On the other hand, Billy, following Dr. Forlines, says that Christ accomplished a “provisional” atonement. By this (and he’ll certainly correct me if I misrepresent him) he means that Christ died for a person, provided he believes in Christ to receive that atonement. This, as anyone can see, conflates the accomplishment of the atonement with the application of it. It makes the atonement a “potential” atonement. Thus, it raises the question: what did Christ *actually* accomplish on the cross for the fellow in hell? Did Christ actually DO something there for him or not? If so, what exactly? If not, then why all the hubbub? Calvinists have the distinct advantage of being manifestly consistent at this point.
Okay, to wrap this us – Billy thinks he’s worked his way out the “double payment” problem by pointing out that Calvinists also hold to a distinction between the accomplishment and the application of the atonement of Christ. As the reader can plainly see, he’s done no such thing. He’s simply changed the subject and misrepresented his opponent’s position. Thus, he has not answered the charge (warm-hearted, as you recall) of double dipping. Let him answer the charge directly. I’ll ask it again: What exactly, in the final analysis, did Christ actually do on the cross for one who never believes and ends up in hell? Billy cannot retreat into words like “provisional” or “potential” unless he both 1) define EXACTLY what’s meant by such language, and 2) show that such a concept is expressly set down in Scripture or can be deduced by good and necessary consequence. Sorry… I got all Presbyterian there for a second. No, I shan’t repent.
What Christ accomplished on the cross was this… He died for payment of our sins.
Our sins are paid for and our debt is paid… each and every person who lived and is living and is still to live. Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all.
Jesus died so we don’t have to… not so we won’t. The key term is that we don’t have to die… not that we won’t die.
A gift has to be accepted to be effective… to be used.
Your idea that if Jesus died for specific people is correct. He died for me, you… and He died for my brother… a non-believer. He paid the world’s debt in sin and we as individuals have to accept this gift or turn it down in our pride… in my limited opinion.
Mark, the “potential” salvation is unsatisfactory, as it cannot be said to mean anything relative to this or that person (until they believe). The “propitiation” Christ offered on the cross is relegated to some nondescript “potential” status, which is only made concrete as a person believes. This is quite different from an actual atonement which is accomplished at the cross and applied to faith. Christ is not the “potential” Savior of the world. He IS the Savior of it – the *actual* Savior.
What do you think the “double payment” argument is, Mark? Where is it wrong?
[...] The debate between determinism (Calvinism) and free will (Arminianism) rages on. Did Jesus die and atone for a select few, the elect, with the requirement that the application of our faith is the condition that must be met for eternal life? Or did Jesus die for the world, with the requirement that the application of our faith is the condition that must be met for eternal life? There are two really good blogs to read on each side of the fence… the Arminian here and the Calvinist here. [...]
Mark, the debate has nothing to do with “determinism” and “free will”. Nice dodge. No Calvinist denies that human beings act freely in accordance to the desires of their hearts. We deny that a sinner can act against the desires of his heart, and especially that he cannot forsake the love of his life (sin) and embrace that which he despises (Christ).
But that’s not even the debate. The questions is did Christ actually die for the SINS of actual SINNERS?
If so, WHICH ONES?
IF Christ died for particular sins, then those sins are atoned for, and cannot be brought against the account of ANYONE, whether they believe/accept it or not. The problem is not merely of being declared not guilty, but also of the necessity of being declared righteous — this is where the application of it is especially important. The sin is paid for. Paid for. Paid for. And there is no further demand against it.
The Biblical view is that Christ died for ACTUAL SINS committed by ACTUAL SINNERS. And that all that the Father has given the Son (and them alone) shall indeed hear his voice, learn of the Father, come to Christ, and He will raise them up on the Last Day.
[...] “warm-hearted, tender-loving” Calvinist friend Tim Prussic is a bit “fuzzy” these days over Arminian theology regarding the atonement. He wants to [...]
[...] Comments « Fuzzy Thinking from The Arminian [...]
Potential salvation does not mean anything? By whose standards? Does the Bible suggest such a thing?
Salvation is offered to all. Is that not what Scripture teaches? Does it mean anything? Is it a genuine offer? Is God toying with the people of the world? Does your Lord offer salvation genuinely, and to the world? Does that mean anything?
I love the Calvinist’s *actual* gospel, the one they keep hidden when they preach: “Good news everyone: the Lord has unconditionally selected to save some of you!”
To the rest: “Sorry ’bout that. I know the Bible says God loves you, but, oh well. You weren’t selected.”
Billy, it’s “potential” atonement that doesn’t make sense. It’s reading the reception of the gospel back into the atonement itself that doesn’t make sense. You’re conflating the gospel ministry with the actual work of Christ on the cross. The free offer of the gospel is either accepted or rejected, but that is the EFFECT of the offer of the gospel, not the procuring of it on the cross. Atonement is actual. The gospel ministry is the proclamation of the good news that Christ died for sinners. Some believe (“those who were ordained to eternal life” – Acts 13:48) and the atonement is applied to them. Some don’t and there IS NO atonement for their sins. They will pay for their own sins, including the sin of rejecting the gospel.
Potential atonement does not make sense. The “potential” of someone believing our report (the gospel) makes sense, but atonement is either made or not made. It cannot, in itself, be potential.
[...] post. 25 Wednesday 2011 6:25PM] My “warm-hearted, tender-loving” Calvinist friend Tim Prussic is a bit “fuzzy” these days over Arminian theology regarding the atonement. He wants to [...]
A very politely written article. While I thinkyou’re missing a few things I like your manner of presenting your argument.
“Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
Sin is singular. World is collective.
The atonement was sufficient to pay for the sins of all mankind. It is not applied to all, only those who believe.
Could it be that this “double dipping” problem is actually what the Bible teaches?
After all, Israel was punished doubly for the sin of idolatry (Isaiah 40:1-2 and context).
So, where does Scripture say that there’s no “double payment” where the atonement is sufficient but not applied to an unrepentant sinner? I’m not asking for a theological answer – show me Scripture.
As there are many Calvinists who reject Limit Atonement, suffice it to say there are other texts which could be cited indicating that Christ died for all mankind.
Tim,
I sympathize with you. When I’ve quoted Paul’s words that God reconciled his enemies to himself WHILE they were enemies, meaning against their volition, I usually get a negative response. But what am I to say. Paul does say that while we were enemies we were reconciled to him by the death of Christ.
I realize you and I disagree on the scope of that reconcilation but I believe we agree with the fact that this reconciliation achieved by Christ should not be ignored nor minimilized in order to protect a paradigm or how things work.
I believe God’s holiness shines in such ways, that is he loves his enemies, he reconciles his enemies and will even save them from themselves. I thank God for his mercy and kindness to teach me his inhuman love and his inability to show favoritism.
Hey, Stan,
Thanks for stopping by and (even more) for commenting. Please hang around and continue to interact with us. (We don’t ONLY talk about issues of Calvinism!)
As to your desire to have me “show you Scripture” for the double payment thing, I’d like you to recognize that you’re imposing upon me a yoke that you don’t put upon yourself. Do you believe, for example, in the doctrines of the Trinity and they hypostatic union? If so, produce for me a biblical text, for example, that says Jesus has two distinct natures in one person forever. You cannot. You will (just like all Christians have) bring together the various text that have to do with the topic and reason from them.
Thus, I would reason from words like “propitiation” in Rom. 3:25 and from texts like Is 53 that Christ actually accomplished an atonement in his death and resurrection. I would also argue from case laws of restitution (and others) that it is fundamentally unjust to require double payment. Once restitution has been made, it’s been made. If you’re going to a great deal of damage to the biblical concept of justice if you put your stamp of approval upon penal double dipping.
Finally, with regard to general texts (e.g., Chirst taking away the sin of the world), my hermeneutical argument has yet to be grappled with. I’m quite happy with general language about the atonement, so long as it’s taken generally. I’m quite unhappy when general language is taken as specific (and when more limited language is explained away as being subsumed in the general). This is manifestly bad hermeneutics. My argument (at this point) is based upon common-sense and is quite powerful.
Stan,
When people paid more over what their crime was for financially speaking, wasn’t it because the crime was not truly met. In other words, if I took and killed a cow of yours and I had to pay back 2 cows was that not for other damages? If the other damages are not met, then the 1 cow does not fully satisfy the crime.
Likewise, if Christ paid the FULL price of the sin, then what debt is left to be paid? Now if Christ did not pay the FULL debt, then I suppose you would be right and people may have to go to hell even though Christ paid for MOST of their sins.
I’m sort of rambling these off the top of my head.
Gene
Tim,
You wrote, “I would also argue from case laws of restitution (and others) that it is fundamentally unjust to require double payment. Once restitution has been made, it’s been made. If you’re going to a great deal of damage to the biblical concept of justice if you put your stamp of approval upon penal double dipping.”
Scripture says, “Comfort, O comfort My people,” says your God. “Speak kindly to Jerusalem; And call out to her, that her warfare has ended, That her iniquity has been removed, That she has received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” Isaiah 40:1-2
Comparing this Isaiah text with your statement, can one rightly conclude that you think God was fundamentally unjust in punishing Israel doubly for her sins?
Stan, thanks for the clarification… it helps! I think the Isaiah text is not to be understood literally and forensically. Israel paying doubly for her sins is to be understood as saying that God is done punishing/disciplining her.
If you disagree with my interpretation, are you prepared to defend that God’s earthly chastisement upon Israel made *actual* double restitution for all Israel’s sins? Do you think that earthly sufferings can pay for sins against an infinite God?
Tim,
It is amazing how much of Scripture doesn’t mean what it says when you look at it from a Calvinist perspective.
I can only state what this text states. You cannot accept that because it disagrees with your theology. This text clearly states that God paid Israel doubly for her sin and because of that her iniquity was removed.
Stan, you think that some sort of earthly chastisement is the same as eternal justice? I tried to zero in on that with the questions that you ignored. Here they are again:
It’s one thing to say Israel paid doubly as an earthly image or a figure of speech. It’s quite another thing to contort that into God’s perfect and eternal justice.
One more thing, please leave the useless digs against Calvinists. You commented above that my article was “very politely written”; I’d appreciate it if you responded to me in kind.
It wasn’t a dig against Calvinism. The fundamental difference between your approach and mine is simple. I am using Scripture to test whether a theological position accurately represents God. You are using a theological position to test whether Scripture accurately represents God. I apologize if saying that offends. But, I do hope you consider those words, not as a dig, but a serious reflection on the place of Scripture in the formation of theology.
“Do you think that earthly sufferings can pay for sins against an infinite God?”
Scripture says, “Comfort, O comfort My people,” says your God. “Speak kindly to Jerusalem; And call out to her, that her warfare has ended, That her iniquity has been removed, That she has received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.” Isaiah 40:1-2
To what extent can you make this figurative without rendering it meaningless?
If the prophet meant only that they received 100% of what they deserved, why couch it in the language of double punishment? Maybe it wasn’t exactly 200%, but if it was only 100% why couch it in language to express that they received more punishment than necessary?
If Israel’s iniquity was not removed, why did the prophet say that it was? In what sense was the iniquity removed? And, upon what grounds was it removed?
So, if the payment wasn’t more than 100% payment and the punishment was not the grounds for the removal of the iniquity of Israel, what do you think this text actually means?
This text, taken within its context, clearly states that God punished Israel more severely for the sin of idolatry and that His wrath was poured out to the point that it was satisfied – to the point that their iniquity was removed.
So, one may argue that God punishes idolatry more severely than other sins – to the point of double payment. One may argue that this refers to corporate sin rather than personal sin so that no individual was saved due to this iniquity being removed.
However, simply dismissing it as figurative and not considering the implications of that upon the Doctrine of Scripture is not wise. As well, dismissing it as figurative without then considering how that effects the overall message of the context is not wise.
Again, please forgive my offense in the previous post.
Stan, forgiveness extended, to be sure.
You’re not the only guy in this discussion committed to the Bible. Your system of thought informs your exegesis as much as mine does (even if you say it ain’t so). We just need to make sure that our exegesis comes around to make necessary changes on our thinking. It’s usually a conversation ender to say: “Hey, I believe the Bible and you just use it as a book of prooftexts for your system.” It’s that mentality that I was mocking in my post on Calvinism and Mad Magazine: http://wp.me/pVf8p-m2 – My position might be wrong, but I’m just as interested in being biblical as you are. You oughtn’t think otherwise.
You ask: “So, if the payment wasn’t more than 100% payment and the punishment was not the grounds for the removal of the iniquity of Israel, what do you think this text actually means?”
I’ve already let on what I think is meant here, Stan. Relative to the “double” comment, God’s comforting his people that their (still prospective!) earthly chastisement is over. He’s saying that he’s not angry with them anymore, and that they should be glad because those days are through. He’s saying that their sins are *completely* covered.
He’s NOT saying that a literal double payment for their sins has been exacted. This I draw from the nature of the text, from the use oft-figurative use of “double,” and from some broader theological issues (which are prophetically at play, even in Isaiah 40).
The nature of the text of this chapter is verse – we should expect some figurative language and (at very least) not be shocked when we find language that’s not intended to be interpreted literally (or, even more, mathematically).
The use of “double” in a figurative (or at least a non-literal, non-mathematical) way is fairly common both in the Bible and in everyday speech. Elisha got a “double” portion of the Spirit. The recipients of the blessings of God will get a “double” portion of the land (Is 61:7). The prophet prays for the destruction, indeed, the “double” destruction of his persecutors (Jer 17:18). A quantitative “double” in these contexts is not intended, but rather a certain hyperbole. This is usually intuitively understood by most people.
Finally, Stan, in the final analysis, sins simply CANNOT be taken away or paid for by mere earthly chastisement upon humans. That’s the whole point of the Bible! If God was to forgive sin (not just pronounce forgiveness or pass over it – both of which he did in view of his Son), he had to send his own Son. The sending of his Son is indirectly in view in this very chapter with the prophecy of John the Baptist (vv 3-5). Thus, it is impossible Israel *actually* paid for her sin (much less “doubly” – after some literal / mathematical notion) simply through being sent into exile in Babylon (a judgment that hadn’t yet happened in Isaiah’s day). This earthly chastisement is, at most, a typological judgment of that which was to come upon the True Israel of God, the one through which sins are *actually* forgiven.
So, for you to assert that God’s justice can, in the final analysis, require double payment (once in the person of Christ and again in the person of the sinner) find no support in Isaiah 40:1-2 (or anywhere else, so far as I can tell).
Tim,
Thank you for the forgiveness of my previous offense.
I’ll disagree with you on the reduction of “double” to nothing more than single.
I’ll agree with you that no one had their sins forgiven and eternal salvation secured through the earthly chastisement in view. I already noted that I hold to a sense of corporate sin in this case.
Other points could be made in many directions and even regarding the double payment issue. However, rather than belabor the point I will agree to disagree with you where we disagree.
Blessings – Stan
[...] The debate between determinism (Calvinism) and free will (Arminianism) rages on. Did Jesus die and atone for a select few, the elect, with the requirement that the application of our faith is the condition that must be met for eternal life? Or did Jesus die for the world, with the requirement that the application of our faith is the condition that must be met for eternal life? There are two really good blogs to read on each side of the fence… the Arminian here and the Calvinist here. [...]