In the last two posts, we looked at two aspects of what the doctrine of limited atonement affects as it pertains directly to God.
In the first article, we looked at God's complete freedom (sovereignty) to not only limit the scope of the atonement to only be applied to those whom He chooses... but also the freedom to limit any and all blessings in any fashion He chooses.
We see Him exercise this right as the creator of all things, repeatedly throughout scripture.
The second article looked at God's perfection in light of God's freedom.
The third thing we need to focus on, are the theological implications of what a rejection or acceptance of limited atonement, as Christ describes it, means.
Firstly, there is the obvious impact of God's word failing.
Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV) For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
-
Isaiah 46:8-11 (ESV) Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.
-
Numbers 23:19 (ESV) God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
---
The word of God is so sure, that those who falsify it are to be put to death. How does one know this crime has been committed? When what is said doesn't come to pass.
As scripture tells us...
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (ESV) But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’
And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously.
You need not be afraid of him.
----
The theological issue here is that Christ clearly teaches it's God who chooses.
The implication of God not being the one that limits the atonement, means that Jesus is a false teacher.
This is because He says at one point...
John 6:37-39 (ESV) All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
-
He also says, in another point...
John 10:25-29 (ESV) Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
---
So then, since Christ actually teaches it, we must realise that He stakes His very deity on it.
So, we should find comfort in this doctrine, for one, because it makes God... God.
The fact that the doctrine is taught by Christ Himself, and the word of God never fails, means that this is a prerogative of God.
For it to not be so, God would no longer be God.
---
Another theological implication of this doctrine, which i believe is more common to this discussion, is the issue of God's justice.
This is usually referred to as double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy is a legal term which is defined as the following-
the act of causing a person to be put on trial two times for the same crime (source: Merriam-Webster)
Do we see this happening in any view of limited atonement? No.
So the issue that relates to the justice of God is not one of double jeopardy.
Instead, the legal term would be, a misscarriage of justice. This is defined as-
an error made in a court of law that results in an innocent person being punished or a guilty person being free (source: Merriam-Webster)
Some may see this and think that the work of atonement, as a whole, should be considered a misscarriage of justice.
Many unbelievers actually believe this.
However, that isn't the case.
The issue that needs to be brought to the forefront is the voluntary offering of Christ to pay the debt, and the acceptance of that proposal by the Father.
This is why salvation is achieved by the substitutionary sacrifice provided by Christ.
He voluntarily became the substitute, and received the wrath of God that we would have had to receive.
A miscarriage of justice would occur when the innocent involuntarily pays the price of the guilty.
To right this miscarriage, the innocent would be set free, and the guilty would face what they should've faced.
Bringing this thought into our context of the atonement now... if it is true that the atonement is limited in power, instead of scope, God would knowingly be carrying out a misscarriage of justice.
Why would this be so?
If Christ is dying only for those whom the Father has elected and gave to Him, and all of those people are saved, then no miscarriage takes place.
Why? Because all those whom Christ volunteered to take the punishment for, receive the benefit of His actions, and God's justice is satisfied by Christ's sacrifice.
The other view, however, presents us with the problem of the miscarriage of justice.
If the atonement is limited in power, instead of scope... that is to say, if Christ actually took the punishment for all people in the world, and any one of them doesn't receive the benefit of His actions, then the miscarriage has taken place.
How so?
You have to remember that God is omniscient. He is all knowing.
Scripture tells us the following...
Matthew 25:33-34 (ESV) And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
-
Ephesians 1:3-4 (ESV) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
---
In other words, God knew who were going to be His before they were even born.
Even if one believes that God has to look forward in time to get the information about who would choose Him (which is an unbiblical and heretical position), they must still affirm that God, at that point, knows who will be His when all is said and done before it plays out in time.
Therefore, when Christ received the punishment from the Father on behalf of everybody in the world, the Father knew which people would go to hell anyway.
Meaning, that Christ receiving the punishment on their behalf is a complete waste, as they would never receive the benefit of His actions.
So, at that point, God willingly commits a miscarriage of justice, and will have to rectify this miscarriage by pouring out His wrath on these people at the last day.
So, when scripture states...
Deuteronomy 32:4 (ESV) The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.
---
This becomes false. All of God's ways couldn't be justice. God couldnt be just and upright if in the end He is punishing the Son for no reason, which is exactly what takes place when the atonement is limited in power, rather than scope.
The sacrificial atonement of Christ is an issue of justice in the sight of God.
The soul that sins, must die.
They've incurred an infinite debt by rebelling against the infinite God.
If God is just, He cant just let these things slide. He can't simply sweep them under the carpet.
But, the people are not able to pay for their sins, because they arent able to pay an infinite debt.
So, God becomes a man, and takes upon Himself the punishment that we deserve.
Not only that, He then turns around and gives those people His righteousness.
Anybody who doesnt put their faith in Christ, will bear their own punishment on judgement day... but God knows who these people would be from day one.
It's all well and good to say that God is giving them a chance, and pleading with them, but the problem is that not only does God already know what the answer is, but Christ was punished for no reason, when it comes to those people whom God already knows will face the second death.
When all is said and done, in relation to those people whom the Father already knew will face His wrath, punishing the innocent Christ is all in vain.
Just as it is written...
1 Corinthians 15:14 (ESV) And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
-
And again where scripture says...
1 Corinthians 15:10 (ESV) But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.
---
If indeed Christ has been punished for the sins of these people, and based on that, God grants them grace to believe, yet He leaves it up to them...
... the very fact that God already knows before hand who will and who will not believe, means that Christ suffered punishment in vain and that grace is also in vain.
The innocent ends up being punished for no reason, and the miscarriage of justice, having to be rectified in the end.
This, actually makes God a sinner.
How? God's law says that there should be no injustice in court.
Leviticus 19:15a (ESV) You shall do no injustice in court.
---
Remember, the sacrificial atonement of Christ is an issue of satisfying the justice of God.
God becomes guilty, a breaker of His own law.
Exodus 23:7 (ESV) Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.
---
The Father becomes guilty of charging Christ falsely and killing the innocent and righteous.
Why? Remember, God already knows before hand that these people will be in hell. God already knows that these people will have to answer for their sins when the last day comes.
Since that is the case, the Father is not punishing Christ for their sins because He already knows that they will receive the punishment themselves.
If the cup of wrath that these people filled up, was actually poured out on Christ, then there is no wrath to pour out on them at judgement day.
There would be no sins for the Father to actually judge.
But we know that these people will have to answer to God for their sins. So their sins haven't been taken care of by Christ on the cross.
So, if it is true that the Father punishes Christ on behalf of these people, who He knows will have to answer for their sins anyway, then Christ is being punished unjustly - it is a miscarriage of justice.
Let's see if i can explain it a different way.
Let's say there were 10 people who owed large debts to the government.
The debts are so large that they are unable to pay it.
They have a window of time that they must pay the debt, else they will be put in prison. Once they are in prison, no further payments can be paid towards the debt.
A rich man hears about the plight of these 10 people, decides to pay their debt, and starts to make preparations to that end.
The rich man starts to make the payments, but the time has come to an end for 3 of the people before he was able to make payment. So they are now in prison.
The rich man is aware that they are in prison and no payment made will affect their debt.
The state, however, knows that the rich man intended to pay the debts for these 3 people as well, and requests the payments to still be made.
The state, the rich man, and the debtors, know that any payment made now will not matter as it will not go towards the debt.
The rich man is made to make the 3 payments anyway.
Is this not a miscarriage of justice?
The state has taken money from the rich man, knowing fully well that the money will never be paid to what the rich man wanted to pay.
The rich man is now out that money, suffering an unintended loss - as his purpose was to help the 3 debtors, but they will not receive the help even after the payment has been made.
The only one who benefits, is the state, and that is illegal.
It is known as misappropriation of funds.
Although this scenario isnt exactly what is taking place in the atonement, im hoping that the similarities will stick out to enable us to see the issue at hand.
If indeed the atonement is limited by power, rather than scope, then the Father becomes complicit in an injustice towards His own Son.
---
The third theological implication in regards to this issue, is the omniscience of God.
There are many who are able to identify the problem with limiting the power of the atonement while at the same time maintaining the biblical truth that God is all-knowing.
Instead of limiting the scope, they decide to remove God's omniscience.
By doing this, they attempt to reconcile their theology with the premise that Christ did pay for everyone's sins and no miscarriage of justice took place.
If God is not all knowing, then this would supposedly mean that God is not complicit in an injustice.
This, of course, doesn't follow.
Even if the Father didn't know of the implications of His actions towards the Son on behalf of everyone in the world, the result is still the same.
Something wrong has still occurred, regardless of whether it was known beforehand or not.
However, by this point, we've already ceased discussing the God of the scriptures.
The God described in the bible is all-knowing.
As a matter of fact, God takes this challenge to His knowledge quite personal.
As scripture tells us here...
Isaiah 41:21-23 (ESV) Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob.
Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come.
Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified.
-
Isaiah 44:6-8 (ESV) Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.
Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
---
The scripture shows that as far as God is concerned, if you can't declare the future, you can't be God.
It's a characteristic of His deity.
So, it's not possible to remove God's knowledge and yet still claim we are talking about the God of the scriptures.
This is why many say that to be a consistent arminian, meaning that they limit the atonement by power, one is forced to be an open theist (one who denies that God is all-knowing.
Meditate on these things and join us next time as wrap up our brief look at the doctrine of limited atonement.
