Category Archives: The Cross

The Atonement was a Substitution

Posted on by
Reply

Dr. Robert L. Reymond in his “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith” wrote:

“If Christ by his death actually propitiated God’s wrath, reconciled God, and paid the penalty for sin (which is what I mean by an atonement of infinite intrinsic value), and if he sacrificially substituted himself for (peri), on behalf of (hyper), for the sake of (dia), and in the stead and place of (anti) sinners, then it follows that for all those for whom he substitutionally did his cross work he did all that was necessary to procure their salvation and thus guarantee that they will be saved. But since neither Scripture, history, nor Christian experience will tolerate the conclusion that all men have become, are becoming, or shall become Christians, we must conclude that Christ did not savingly die for all men but for some men only—even God’s elect. If, on the other hand, Christ did his work for all men without exception, and if he did not intend its benefits for any one man in any sense that he did not intend it for any and every other man distributively, since again neither Scripture, history, nor Christian experience will allow the conclusion that all men are saved, it necessarily follows that Christ actually died neither savingly nor substitutionally for any man since he did not do for those who are saved anything that he did not do for those who are lost, and the one thing that he did not do for the lost was save them. It also follows necessarily, since Christ by his death actually procured nothing that guarantees the salvation of any man, and yet some men are saved, that the most one can claim for his work is that he in some way made all men salvable. But the highest view of the atonement that one can reach by this path is the governmental view. This view holds that Christ by his death actually paid the penalty for no man’s sin. What his death did was to demonstrate what their sin deserves at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men if on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance, their works, and their perseverance, they meet his demands. This means, of course, that the actual salvation of those who are saved is ultimately rooted in and hangs decisively upon something other than the work of him who alone is able to save men, namely, in something that those who are saved do themselves in their own behalf. But this is just to eviscerate the Savior’s cross work of all of its intrinsic saving worth and to replace the Christosoteric vision of Scripture with the autosoteric vision of Pelagianism.”

HT: Patrick Hines

What Really Happened on the Cross?

Posted on by
Reply

Article: What Really Happened on the Cross? Part 1 – Sacrifice and Propitiation by Mike Riccardi (original source here)

The atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross stands at the very epicenter of Christianity. It is no exaggeration to say that the cross-work of Christ is the heart of the gospel. When the apostle Paul summarized the gospel he preached, he encapsulated it by speaking of the atonement: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3). The cross is the content of the gospel itself, for “we preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:23). The gospel message by which we are saved is “the word of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18). The eighteenth-century slave-ship captain turned Puritan preacher, John Newton, captured it well when he said, “I advise you by all means to keep close to the atonement. The doctrine of the cross is the sun in the system of truth.”

One way to “keep close” to the atonement is to ensure we understand precisely what happened on the cross. We’re likely familiar with the events of the crucifixion, but the significance of those events is so boundless that it will be the theme of the saints’ praise for eternity (Rev 4–5). Despite this, there has been, historically, and there is, today, great confusion concerning this central and essential doctrine of the Christian faith. We must therefore ask of the text of Scripture, “What really happened on the cross? What is it that Jesus has accomplished in His work of atonement? What is the biblical significance of what our Savior has done on our behalf?”

The most fundamental description one can give to the atonement is that it is a work of penal substitution. The cross is not a ransom payment to Satan; the chief captive of hell is in no position to demand ransom payments from God. The cross is not an illustration of God’s general moral government of the world. Still less is the cross God’s declaration of the value and worth of humanity, except as it testifies to the depth of our sinfulness. Neither is the cross merely a cosmic victory of good over evil or a good example for Christians to imitate. Most fundamentally, the cross is a work of penal substitution—the Lord Jesus suffering the penalty for the sins of His people as a substitute for them. In His great love, the Father appointed the Son to stand in our place, to bear our sin, to carry our guilt, to receive our punishment, and thereby to satisfy the righteous wrath of God against us.

The Lord Jesus is the Suffering Servant who “has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” (Isa 53:4), who “bore the sin of many” (Isa 53:12). On the cross, “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6), and so “he shall bear their iniquities” (Isa 53:11). He is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) by taking that sin upon Himself. The Father “made [Jesus] to be sin on our behalf” (2 Cor 5:21); our guilt was counted to be His. “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Gal 3:13), in our place. “He himself bore our sins in His body on the cross . . . for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Pet 2:24). Simply put, “He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace” (Isa 53:5; cf. also, e.g., Mark 10:45; 2 Cor 8:9; 1 Pet 3:18; Gal 2:20). Penal substitutionary atonement is woven into the very fabric of God’s revelation from beginning to end, because it is the very heart of the gospel message.

But we ought to press further and ask, “What precisely is the character of this substitutionary atonement? What exactly did Christ accomplish on the cross?” Scripture answers with at least five themes, or motifs, of the atonement: (1) it is a work of substitutionary sacrifice, in which the Savior bore the penalty of sin in the place of sinners (1 Pet 2:24); (2) it is a work of propitiation, in which God’s wrath against sinners is fully satisfied and exhausted in the person of their substitute (Rom 3:25); (3) it is a work of reconciliation, in which sinful man’s alienation from God is overcome and peace is made through the blood of the cross (Col 1:20); (4) it is a work of redemption, in which those enslaved to sin are ransomed by the precious blood of the Lamb’s (1 Pet 1:18–19); and (5) it is a work of conquest, in which sin, death, and Satan are defeated by the power of a victorious Savior (Heb 2:14–15). Each of those five motifs is worthy of our reflection and consideration.

1. Sacrifice

First, Scripture characterizes the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ as a sacrifice (e.g., Eph 5:2; Heb 9:26). This imagery draws from the Old Testament’s prescriptions for Israel’s sacrificial worship to God under the Mosaic Covenant (cf. Heb. 9:23), outlined most thoroughly in the Book of Leviticus. As Leviticus begins, the tabernacle has been completed, and the glory of God has come and filled the tabernacle, signifying that the spiritual presence of Yahweh is now dwelling in the midst of His people (cite Lev?Exod 40:34–38). The presence of God, then, becomes a key theme in Leviticus, as the phrase “before the Lord” or “in the presence of the Lord” appears fifty-nine times. Further, Leviticus teaches that this God who is present is also holy; the terms holy and holiness appear 150 times, more frequently than any other book. Thus, Leviticus answers the question: “How can the holy presence of God dwell in the midst of a sinful people?” The answer God gives is that sinners are to make sacrifices to the Lord that will atone for their sin and render them acceptable in his presence. The worshiper “shall offer [his sacrifice] at the doorway of the tent of meeting, that he may be accepted before the LORD. He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, that it may be accepted for him to make atonement on his behalf” (Lev. 1:3–4). Immediately we are confronted with penal substitutionary atonement by sacrifice. Continue reading →

Do We Need The Cross For Salvation?

Posted on by
Reply

A Debate with Adnan Rashid & Dr. James White.

“On Wednesday, January 17, 2018, Sovereign Nations held a Christian and Islamic debate on the thesis “Do We Need the Cross for Salvation?” The debate was purposed by Sovereign Nations in the interests of promoting polemic, scholastic and respectful dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

Upholding the affirmative Christian position was scholar and apologist Dr. James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries while the Muslim position was presented by scholar Ustadh Adnan Rashid. The debate was moderated by Sovereign Nations’ Founder, Michael O’Fallon.

There are major theological divides that separate Christianity and Islam. One of the most difficult to unwind is the denial of the crucifixion of Jesus in Muslim tradition.

The penal substitution of Jesus Christ on the cross at Calvary for the sins of his elect, His resurrection and assumption are the foundational to the doctrine of justification in Christianity. Christians believe that on the cross, Jesus voluntarily bore our sins. Jesus allowed people to lie about him and kill him. He used the evil done to him to bring good to others. He sacrificed himself and demonstrated the greatest love of all. On the cross is where we are redeemed, and it is where a Christian’s sin debt to God is canceled.

There are major theological divides that separate Christianity and Islam. One of the most difficult to unwind is the denial of the crucifixion of Jesus in Muslim tradition.

Though the assertion that Jesus did not die on the cross appears in only part of one difficult verse in the Qur’an, scholars agree that the majority view within Islam is that the Qur’an affirms categorically that Christ did not die on the cross and that God raised him to Godself.”