The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Atonement insufficient?

William,

He did answer that question here: Previous reply and said,

Sin not imputed to Christ. Romans 4:24.

Our Lutheran friend consistently fails to distinguish between what Christ accomplished in the "Covenant of Redemption" and the merits of that atonement which are applied. (speratus: see the book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray). As I have laboured to explain and show previously, the atonement is first an act which was performed to satisfy the justice of God, removing all aspects of the wrath and condemnation which rested upon man. Here, ALL was fulfilled and thus God no longer was at enmity with those for whom Christ died. Secondly, it is true, that Christ's sacrificial substitutionary death cannot save in and of itself; i.e., the benefits of that death must be applied individually to sinners in order that they may be saved. To accomplish that end, the means by which depraved sinners are joined to Christ, thus partaking of those benefits is the bestowal of a new nature from which faith flows which results in justification, sanctification, preservation/perseverance and ultimately, glorification.

The issue here, as most of us realize, is if the Son has fulfilled all the demands of the law, then God cannot prosecute those for whom that sacrifice was made. And so, if Christ atoned for ALL the sins of ALL men, then God is under obligation to save ALL men. There simply is no way around it. Either God must accept the Son's sacrifice and all that it accomplished or He must ignore it and be guilty of requiring satisfaction a second time, of which no man can provide, from sinners themselves.

An analogy might be seen where every individual is found to owe an infinite debt which no one could conceivably pay. But someone comes along and pays that debt in full for each and every one of those individuals, thus the one to whom the debt was owed can no longer hold anyone accountable to pay for the debt, since it has been paid. But according to speratus' view, the one who holds the bond not only accepts the payment of debt, he continues to hold many of the debtors accountable for payment. And they, unable to pay the debt are hauled into court and found delinquent in their failure to pay and are consequently thrown into prison. Thus the owner of the debt is therefore guilty of breach of contract. He received that was owed, but continues to demand payment of those whose debt has already been paid.

Adding the element of "faith" to the mix doesn't negate the "breach of contract" on God's part for not releasing ALL from their responsibility to pay the debt, since the contract was already fulfilled by another. The Scripture's teaching is that not only did Christ pay the debt, He also secured the infallible means by which the ones for whom the debt was paid will receive their release of obligation.

In His Grace,