Answering Objections to The Atonement 4

IV. It is further objected that the innocent suffering for the guilty is inconsistent with reason and with the goodness and justice of God. How, so goes the objection, can it be imaginable that an innocent victim should suffer for the guilty?

Problems with this objection:

A. It must simply be admitted by all that, under the moral government of God, sometimes the innocent do suffer for the guilty.

B. This objection weighs against opponents of the doctrine of the atonement. They claim that Christ suffered for the benefit of mankind. They will admit that, at least as far as the alleged grounds of his sufferings, He was innocent. No objector has ever claimed that Christ was anything but perfectly upright and immaculately pure. Well, what is this but the innocent suffering for the guilty? We say He suffered in our stead; they say He suffered for our benefit. But at the end of the day, it is still the innocent suffering for the guilty.

C. The objectors overlook that, although Christ was personally innocent, He was viewed as legally guilty. In Himself, He could boldly defy His accusers: “Which one of you convinceth me of sin?” (John 8:46) But as the Surety and substitute of elect sinners, “the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” “He bore the sins of the many.” (2 Corinthians 5:21; Isaiah 53:6, 12)

D. Christ's sufferings, being of a voluntary nature, deflate this objection. An innocent person being compelled to suffer for the guilty would be the height of injustice. But this is not the case with the atonement. The Father did not put a gun to Christ’s head and force Him, against His will to die for the elect sinners. Christ voluntarily gave up His life for the elect sinners. Regarding His life, He Himself said, “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:18). Romans chapter 5 shoots this objection right between the eyes.

E. This objection appear even more futile when we note that in this arrangement (the innocent suffering for the guilty), the ends served by punishment are more fully attained by the innocent’s suffering than by the suffering of the guilty themselves. At the same time, no injury is done either to the Law or to the sufferer. The Law is neither harmed nor violated, and no ultimate harm comes to the Surety. The integrity of the Law is upheld and the retribution prescribed is meted out. The Surety fulfills the Law perfectly, pays the penalty for its violation, yet because He is God, He is able to bear the infinite wrath of God in the brief span of time He spent on earth. When He cried out, “It is finished;” it truly was finished. Christ no longer suffers for sin.

F. It ought also to be taken into consideration that, in respect of the substitutionary sufferings of the Son of God, the rewards of the Mediator for His suffering far outweigh the suffering itself. In other words, it is of such a compensative arrangement that it prevents all ultimate injury to the party concerned. (cf. Philippians 2:1-10). We rejoice in the cross of Christ as the source of our pardon. Our satisfaction is heightened by beholding it succeeded by the crown. He was for a only little while made lower than the angels for the suffering of death. But now He is crowned with glory and honor and now sits at the right hand of the Father while His enemies are made His footstool. His humiliation was followed by His exaltation.

G. Finally, it must be borne in mind that the substitution of Christ is a case which is absolutely peculiar. The substitutionary atonement of Christ is exactly of the nature required. It is an event that is unique, in the fullest sense of that word. We have no reason to imagine that anything like it ever existed before, or will ever exist again. It is a singular event in the divine administration. Christ has once suffered for sin. Christ was once offered to bear the sins of the many. Once in the end of the world did He appear to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. (Isaiah 53:12; Hebrews 9:28)

Answering Objections to The Atonement 3

III.  It is further objected that the doctrine of the atonement is not compatible with the gracious nature of pardon.

Those who hold this objection assert that forgiveness of sins is always ascribed by the Scriptures to grace. It is an act of free favor, of sovereign goodness. But, they claim that it is no longer grace but an act of justice when it hinges on the supposition that Jesus made satisfaction for sin. Instead of it being merciful of God to pardon sin, it would be unjust of Him to withhold forgiveness. Simply put: grace and justice are so opposed to each other that if something is done in deference to justice, it cannot be of grace.

Problems with this objection:

A. This objection supposes justice and grace to be opposed to one another, not only in their nature but also in their exercise, so that both cannot have respect to the same object. We need only recall what we have already said about the perfect harmony of these perfections in the divine nature to dispel this objection. This is a nonsensical objection unless we are willing to argue that God suspends one of His attributes when He acts according to another. In short, this objection cannot be made unless you are willing to posit a God with multiple personalities.

B. This objection overlooks the origin of Christ's satisfaction. Man did not find a Surety for himself. If someone besides God had provided the ground on which pardon rests, there might be room to deny the graciousness of the act. But it is God who provides the Mediator and the work of the Surety. God manifests His grace in determining to pardon man and further demonstrates it by providing a legal ground on which pardon may proceed in a way that is completely consistent with justice.

C. This objection also overlooks an obvious fact: Although the satisfaction of Christ may be regarded as a legal purchase of forgiveness, the bestowing of forgiveness is completely act of grace as the recipient is concerned. It is free pardon to men. They have no claim to it. No satisfaction was made by them. They do nothing to procure forgiveness for themselves. If pardon is an act of justice at all, it is only so to Christ. To the sinner it is pure sovereign goodness.

D. It is also falsely assumed that God could have given a display of His grace by pardoning sin without satisfaction. In layman’s terms: If God wanted to, He could just forgive sins, because He’s a nice guy, and because that’s what nice guys do. There is actually no need to punish His Son so that He could forgive us. Couldn’t He just overlooked or sins and shown how loving He really is? This would be a display of His grace.

It seems to me that the opposite would be much truer. This would display no grace at all. Imagine for a minute that God had pardoned sin without an atonement, and pardoned not only some people, but all the family of man. What inference would intelligent and moral beings have been disposed to draw from this? That God is gracious, and that His grace is without limits? I think not. Wouldn't it be far more reasonable to infer that sin, the violation of His law, was no big deal, at least not as big a deal as had been imagined, considering it could be so easily passed over by a Being of such absolute moral perfection?

Answering Objections to The Atonement 2

II.   It has also been argued that the doctrine of the atonement is inconsistent with divine immutability. The atonement is supposed to effect a change in the mind of God: that He is reconciled, on account of the atonement, to those with whom He was formerly displeased, and compelled to love what He formerly hated.

The problems with this objection are:

A. Much of what we said above regarding the first objection could equally be applied to this one, because at heart it resolves into the same objection. But it should also be noted that whenever orthodox theologians have used language which seems to imply a change in God, this is nothing more than what is done by the inspired authors themselves. Scripture frequently uses that we call anthropopathism.

B. This may seem like we are shifting the difficulty from our shoulders to that of the authors of Scripture. But look at it this way: Are we to suppose, on the authority of Scripture, no less, that the atonement does effect a change on the immutable God? This would be blasphemy. What we affirm is that the texts of Scripture which do use anthropopathism only seem to imply a change in God. We do not say that they really imply such a thing.

Well, what then do they imply? To speak of a change in the nature, or attributes, or will of God is blasphemous and absurd. But it is neither blasphemous nor absurd to speak of a change in the mode of the divine administration. Anger, wrath and displeasure are not the same passions in God that they in man when we use those words. They are terms which denote the binding opposition of God’s rectitude to those who have violated the righteous law of the Lord who loves righteousness. They describe the relation into which iniquity brings transgressors to the Lawgiver and Judge of the universe. It is the language of government not the language of passion. Hence what the atonement effects is, not a change in God the Lawgiver, but a change in the administration of His government: a change in the relation that subsists between His creatures and Him. 

C. This objection is an explicit denial of the doctrine of Election. It works on the supposition that God’s love for His elect is no different than for the non-elect, or that God has the same love for those He has reprobated as He has for the elect. God has set His chesed love upon the elect from before the foundations of the world, and therefore He was not compelled by the atonement to love elect sinners for whom He had previously had no chesed.

Answering Objections to The Atonement 1

The term atonement is thrown around in Christian circles from time to time. We often hear about various theories and objections. In this series, we will define Atonement in the biblical sense and then handle the five most common objections to the doctrine.

I have had great difficulty in assigning a name to this definition because, although it is certainly fits the bill of Reformed, calling it “Reformed” would be selling it short because it is a definition that is represented in the writings of the Church Fathers and the best of the Church’s theologians prior to the Reformation. It might be best to call it a catholic definition of the Atonement, to signify its veracity universally and historically.

The Atonement means: That perfect satisfaction given to the Law and justice of God, by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, on behalf of elect sinners of mankind, on account of which they are delivered from condemnation.

I.     Objection is made to the doctrine of the atonement that it represents God in a less than favorable light. Emphasizing as it does, the fact that God demands satisfaction for sin, as a just Judge, is said to destroy the attribute of mercy and resolve God’s whole character into strict, inexorable justice.

The Atonement is presented as if the death of Christ procures the mercy or love of God for sinners; as if Christ’s death is that which makes God willing to forgive the sins of his creatures – as if without it, He would not be willing. The atonement is thus portrayed as a motivator, or some kind of inducement which effects a change in God’s mind from wrath to compassion.

Problems with this objection:

A. The objection has a mistaken view of what the atonement is understood to produce. Let’s clear the decks: No one who understands this subject ever imagines that the work of Christ is, in any sense the cause of God’s love, mercy or grace; but the medium through which these perfections of God find expression to guilty creatures. The atonement is never regarded as necessary to produce love in God toward men, rather as necessary for His love to be manifested. Christ’s satisfaction for sin does not make God love the elect; it demonstrates the love He bore toward them in His heart from eternity past.

B. The objection proceeds on the mistaken assumption that God is ready to pardon sin without satisfaction, and, that retributive justice is not part of God's character. Our objectors therefore, falsely view forgiveness as the result of a purely arbitrary resolve of God’s will, which has nothing to do with law and government.

We must remind our objector that God is just as well as merciful. Rectitude is as essential a feature of the divine Being as is love. If the Scriptures represent God as a loving Father 'in whom compassions flow,' (Psalm 86:13) they no less conspicuously reveal Him as a Lawgiver 'who will by no means clear the guilty' (Exodus 34:7). These two things must never be set in opposition to each other. Rather they must be considered as equally essential, coexistent, cooperative, and congruent. It is a huge mistake to think of God as acting sometimes from the one attribute and at other times acting from the other. In other words, we must not imagine God at one time acting according to mercy, and at another according to justice. He acts in harmony with both at all times. Exercising the one never entails suspending the other. When God punishes the guilty, it is not at the expense of mercy. When God forgives the sinner, it is not at the expense of justice. Mercy operates on a principle that agrees with justice. So while mercy inclines God to forgive, justice must receive satisfaction in order for forgiveness to be given. Deny this, and you place in clashing opposition two essential attributes of God’s nature. But admit this, and the objection we are considering falls dead to the ground. The satisfaction which the doctrine of atonement supposes to be made by Christ is necessary, not to awaken the feeling of mercy in God’s heart, but to reconcile the merciful forgiveness of sin with the impartial demands of justice.

The Certainty of Heaven For The Elect

Heaven is the great hope of Christians. However, hope with no certainty is no hope at all. No matter how excellent heaven may be, if there is no certainty of getting there, belief in it is of but little comfort.  This is a look again at the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. Those who are elect and have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, will undoubtedly be preserved by God and will certainly enter that blessed place. In the words of George Swinnock, “Know, to the joy of thine heart, that as heaven is a place of unspeakable excellency, so thy enjoyment of it, new-born creature, is of unquestionable certainty.”  (Works, Volume 3)

Rather than fight against such a truth, we should rather show our gratitude to God for condescending to our frail capacities and affirming this certainty to us again and again. In His compassion, God confirms to us the certainty of our entrance into heaven when we die.

1.    By explicit promise:

“Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” Luke 12:32;

For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. 2 Corinthians 1:20;

“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed.” Joshua 23:14;

In hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began... Titus 1:2;

We should also note the passages which also imply the certainty of the elect's obtaining heaven. This would include passages such as 1 Peter 1:3-5, which reads: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” What is the sense of God keeping our inheritance in heaven for us if there is no guarantee that we will get there to obtain it? That is why the passage also informs us that not only is our inheritance  kept safe for us in heaven, but we also are guarded by God's power.

2.    By a Divine oath:

As if it were not enough for God to simply promise something, He has also bound Himself to the fulfillment of this promise by making an oath to boot

For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable nature of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us.  Hebrews 6:16-18

The two unchangeable things are God's promise and God's oath. By confirming His promise with an oath, God demonstrated that the promise was indeed His eternal purpose. It is the Father's  good pleasure to give us the kingdom. Not only has Christ explicitly promised us this, but God further confirmed it with an oath, as if there were any reason to doubt God's promise in the first place!

3.    By His seals:

The Old Testament form of the New Testament sacrament of baptism was circumcision. On this point all Reformed have always been agreed. Colossians 2:11-12 confirms this. What are sacraments, but signs and seals of God's covenant promises. So in reference to the sacrament of circumcision, Paul writes: “He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Romans 4:11

Without going into a long exegesis of this passage, helpful as that may be, it is enough to note that righteousness was imputed to Abraham and that God swore to bear the punishment of being “cut off” (which circumcision signified), if the covenant were violated. Christ was, of course, “cut off” for sin, in fulfillment of this promise, when He was crucified. But circumcision was more than simply a sign. It also served as a seal of God's promise to Abraham. And this is the significance for us of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Table. They not only signify to us the promise of God's forgiveness of our sins and His promise to forever be our God, they also seal these promises to us. The sacraments are God's promise to us, not our promise to God. To make the sacraments signify our promise to God is like saying that the rainbow is our promise to God not to drown.

Ephesians 4:30 informs us that the Holy Spirit seals us to the day of redemption. So we are assured that if the hand and seal of God does it, heaven is guaranteed to all that are sanctified. Moreover, all who God regenerates, He unquestionably intends to sanctify and ultimately glorify (Romans 8:30).

4.    By an earnest:

Not only has God sealed His promise to us in the sacraments, He has given us the Holy Spirit as an earnest, that is, a down payment, as a further guarantee of His promise to us of eternal life. When you make a down payment on a car or house, that is your promise and guarantee that you will not default on the transaction, but will faithfully and honestly pay it off completely. An earnest makes the transaction certain. Hence Scripture says: “And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee” (2 Corinthians 1:22). The King James renders this last word “earnest” The Greek word means “deposit” or “down payment.” It serves as a guarantee that the whole payment will be made.

5.    By the first-fruits

In Romans 8:23, Paul call the gift of the Spirit to us a “first-fruits.” This is an allusion to the Old Testament feast of First-fruits. At the commencement of the harvest, the very first samples of the crops, ergo the cream of the crop, were given to God. This was done in gratitude to God and demonstrated as thankful certainty of the harvest. In similar fashion, the Spirit is given to us, switching the metaphor, as a first-fruit guaranteeing the promise harvest of eternal life in heaven.

6.    By the death of Christ:

Heaven is given to the elect by virtue of a testament, or will. So Christ prays in John 17:24: “Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me before the foundation of the world.” Here we find Christ, upon completing His part of the Covenant of Redemption, claiming His right to the promised reward (Isaiah 53:10 – “He shall see His offspring”). No doubt there is a tip of the hat here as well to Psalm 2:8.

Further, we find Scripture telling us: “For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will take effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive” (Hebrews 9:16-17). Here we see that Christ's death not only atoned for our sins, but it also established the “will,” so to speak. Because Christ, who made the will, died, the inheritance is guaranteed.