Hopefully you read our first blog on atonement. We put forth the idea that the Classic view, by the earliest church fathers (who had more direct access to the apostles), was superior than the current “Satisfaction” view, put forth around 1080 by Anselm. Reasons were many, as we stated, and proved by Scripture. We proved, I believe, that the Satisfaction theory has a poor view of God, and an air of cheap grace about it.
Well, after listening and meditating on Dave Bercot’s CD on “Atonement #2,” I have to have a go at another problem, and offer more good reasons for abandoning the Anselm Satisfaction view. The problem is, the twisting of what they did to “imputation.” That’s a big word, but easily defined. As I did in the first blog, this paper is not meant for seminarians, it is understandable by the general reader. And the subject is vitally important.
First, let’s define the word “impute.” Unger’s Expository Dictionary says: “To reckon, to put down to a person’s account.” Basically, “to charge with, or credit with.” The three imputations that the Satisfaction view stands behind are: (1) The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all mankind, making us all guilty; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to Him; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. (Note that the Satisfaction theory has changed the definition of impute to also mean a transfer from one person or party to another person or party).
Let’s look at the imputations one at a time. On the first leg: Does Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children, and grandchildren, etc. all through history? If it is, then it is clearly a case of a cross-generational curse that the Satisfaction theory of atonement is attaching to God. Fortunately, Scripture denies it: Deuteronomy 24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:19, 20 repeats this, here:
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
These verses clearly show that cross-generational curses are not part of God’s plan for eternity. Now you could argue that separate verses show God does cross-generational curses. Look at Exodus 20:5:
…you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me…
This seems to say that God will curse two or three more generations after those who hate Him. But this is the opposite of what we saw in Ezekiel 18 above. Can Scripture contradict itself? No. The best explanation here is that the children hate God too--they learned it from their parents. So they get punished for that on their own. It’s a shame that children born into a family that hates God will have a lesser chance of making heaven than children born into a family that loves God. We can therefore philosophize that life isn’t fair. But we can’t conclude that God is responsible for such effects of sin. We all make choices to either sin or to be righteous and are responsible accordingly.
But the Satisfaction theory of atonement seems to have a gigantic generational curse—the guilt of Adam’s sin being transferred to all humanity?! Doesn’t that ring untrue about God, especially in the light of clear Scripture above? Well, you might ask, what other theory do you have? What did Adam transfer to humanity, if anything? Well, we do have an alternative theory, as we’ve mentioned in our first blog. According to the Classic theory of atonement, not his guilt, but (1) his mortality and (2) his corruption of a fallen nature; his tendency to sin were imputed to later generations. I think #1 (mortality) is because if we live in sin forever, our abilities to corrupt ourselves will have no limit. And sin would become immortal. Bad thought. I think in #2, Adam had a unique position: a perfect soul, a perfect communication with God. We, however, often choose to sin before we learn to walk. We seem born to say “no,” as any mother will tell you. And God is harder to access compared to Adam (but not far, Acts 17:27). Yes, there are differences between us and Adam. But here’s the merciful part of our story: God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our sins. We choose from all that wonderful love and mercy about what to do: Do we, seeing His love, cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel day after day? We have choices to make, and mostly rational minds to make them. What’s important here is that the tendency to sin does not mean we’re beyond getting saved. That’s a far cry from the strange idea that God spread Adam’s guilt to all of us. You mean, we’ve got to pay for Adam’s sin, unless we seek deliverance for the guilt of his sin? Too bizarre.
But there are other favorite verses of the Satisfaction theorists. Such as Romans 5:12.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
This verse seems to say that Adam’s guilt is passed on. But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? Because “all sinned.” We are each responsible; we can’t blame Adam or God. We can only blame Adam for our tendency to sin. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin; the responsibility is ours.
While we’re on Romans 5, I’d like to cite a verse in defense of the Classic theory, Romans 5:13:
For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law
Now here’s my simple question (you debate-and logic-mongers out there should love this): If Adam’s sin was imputed to the whole human race, how is it that “sin is not imputed” in any case?
The Satisfaction theorists surmise that if God promised a penalty of death for Adam’s sin (Genesis 2:17), and if we all die, then it’s “clear,” according to them, that since we’re sharing in this penalty of death, we must be also sharing in his guilt. But let’s use good reasoning, folks. Why do we all die? Simply because we all sin. It has nothing to do with sharing Adam’s guilt. That’s a construct not based on Scripture.
There is an evangelism problem here, too, which makes this issue important. To some unsaved people, the problem that sticks in their craw with the Satisfaction theory from all this is the tendency to conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with guilt for Adam’s sin.” But if you accept the Classic theory of atonement, only the mortality and the tendency to sin are passed on. (And God’s wonderful plan for redemption.) We’re guilty about just our own sin. Not Adam’s. Thus, the easy tendency to blame God is dispelled. The responsibility falls back on our own shoulders, where it belongs. That is, unless we want to blame Him for our bad choices; but that’s our warped thinking—affected by too much sinning in the past.
The other favorite verses for Satisfaction theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
Let’s put on our thinking caps: In the phrase “as in Adam all die,” does it say, well, we all die because we have his guilt on us? No, you might infer that wild charge against God if you’re a Satisfaction theorist. It simply says death, or mortality, is indeed passed on—as the Classic theory says: Remember, we said that we don’t want sin to be immortal.
Now let’s take a look at the second imputation “leg” of Satisfaction theorists: The sins of His children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:
Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Now I don’t have any argument here, since both theories of atonement have Christ’s substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. Thank You, Lord. But I have one warning about this verse: The phrase “smitten by God” does not mean God punished His Son. (We had more to say on that in our first Atonement blog; Jesus was the ransom paid to Satan for our sin. Satan was the punisher, not God.) But in an abstract sense, it’s true that God allowed Satan temporary control over Our Lord, so in the end, God is “at fault.” But for a greater good. Our salvation. (Blaming God for creating Satan and sin—remember, He created an angel with a choice, not Satan--is ‘way beyond the realm of our little paper.)
On to the third leg of Satisfaction theorists: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them. But that His righteousness is “set to their account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness.” The phrase “set to their account” sounds like it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; it strongly suggests that His righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the necessity of our being personally holy, or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other blogs know where I’m going with this. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this “cheap grace,” and I wholeheartedly agree. Their proof of Christ’s righteousness being transferred to the non-holy? They quote Isaiah 53:4-5, as above. Wait, that’s a bigger stretch of imagination than I’ve seen to date. Where does it say His righteousness is automatically transferred to us in Isaiah 53? Nowhere. As we said, those verses are a detail of His substitutionary death—His paying for our sin. It does NOT “naturally follow” that His righteousness transfers to us as a result.
The Satisfaction theorists then have the audacity to say, in essence, that to have God expect us to behave righteously is expecting too much. The Old Testament, in particular, teaches us, the Encyclopedia says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be found among people.” Is that so? Well, try “googling” the word “righteous” in the Old Testament (biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred references, such as Genesis 7:1:
Then the LORD said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.
Over a hundred. Just like that one. Then, to beat a dead horse, google “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia, defending the Satisfaction argument should not have to include untruths.
To be thorough, we have to explain more of their favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:
But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
This seems to contradict over a hundred Old Testament verses that show God loves the people who seek to be righteous. So let’s analyze further to avoid accusing God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion for Isaiah’s prayer here? It is a prayer of penitence that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites. It follows the typical form that the penitential prayer does: When the repentant Jews petition God for mercy, they invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness in comparison to the greatness of the Lord. Such magnifying distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s return to reality: Does God have to agree with this version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way, why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a hundred times? (And there are more in the New Testament, Luke 1:5-6, etc). Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like this, to construct a theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his theology. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are righteous—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” If it makes you nervous, “have I been obedient enough,” you’re on the right track to a fear of God—and a saving relationship with Him. (See a recent blog). That God could treat us righteous despite His perfection, is His mercy showing forth. I love His self-description in Exodus 34:6:
And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”
Yes, the last 26 words are tough to take, but compare that to the beautiful words about His mercy and patience. There are many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind.
Maybe the best case for this third leg in the Satisfaction theory is in their third set of favorite verses, Romans 4: 2-11:
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[a] 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt .5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,
It hums along through verse 8, saying things like “him who does not work but believes on Him,” which seemingly says works are not a part of salvation. You can see why Martin Luther loved Romans and hated James, who made a case for works. But I have many blogs on this, and they say the same thing: Multitudes of Scripture clearly point out that while initial salvation is mostly faith, it takes confession, obedience to His commands, and abiding with Christ—“works,” if you like to call them—to maintain salvation. Paul echoes this over and over, and is not contradicting James at all.
Then what’s the key to understanding Romans 4? The key is in the “curve ball” Paul delivers in verses 9-11—this is the context for the whole section: Abraham’s faith was “accounted to Abraham” as righteous--while he was uncircumcised. This whole section is an argument against the need to circumsize the believing Gentiles, or make them follow Jewish rules. He is fighting the “Judaizers” here and elsewhere. The “works” indicated refer to Mosaic law: Jewish works like circumcision. Abraham was righteous before he was circumcised, so circumcising had nothing to do with his righteousness—or salvation. It asks: So, he asks, how are you ahead by circumcising the Gentiles? Paul quotes David, who blesses righteous men—who were declared righteous without any mention of Jewish “works.” So if Paul is talking all about being declared righteous without circumcision, what does it have to offer to support the Satisfaction theory of receiving Christ’s righteousness without (what we define as) “works,” or living a godly life? Nothing. Whenever Paul says “works don’t have a part in salvation,” he always means the Mosaic law. But he never says obedience to Christ has no part in salvation—just the opposite. In I Cor. 6:9-11, for example, Corinthian believers used to be unrighteous, having those ungodly traits, but they were washed, they were sanctified—they became righteous. Keep in mind, washing someone—getting the filth off them--is different than simply making a transfer in the books of heaven. They can “call” someone washed when they aren’t holy at all. Isn’t that what the Encyclopedia says about this leg of the Satisfaction theory, as I quoted it above (“His righteousness is set to their account” as soon as they are first saved)? There’s that cheap grace again. A genuine Christian IS holy, he’s not just “counted as” holy. Becoming a Christian transforms our lives, our souls, our very nature, when we’re truly born again. Folks, unlike what’s suggested by “cheap grace” Satisfaction theorists, a godly life is required for heaven.
Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.
No comments:
Post a Comment