Post by Jesse Morrell on Jan 17, 2010 2:07:00 GMT -5
In order to understand the atonement, we must understand the punishment for our sins, that is, we must understand the penalty of the law. The penalty for our sins is eternal hell fire. The wicked “shall go away into everlasting punishment…” (Matt. 25:46). “Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thes. 1:9). Ray Comfort said, “What then is the punishment for sin? It is everlasting damnation.” (God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists, published by Bridge-Logos, p. 120) The penalty for our sins is eternal death. Some have supposed physical death to be the penalty for our sin. This is a mistake since even infants die before they have a chance to choose sin, and since even Saints physically die though they have been saved from the penalty of their sins. It is not physical death which is the penalty for our sin, it is eternal death! That is why the “wages of sin is death” is contrasted with “eternal life” (Rom. 6:23).
The threatened penalty of the law is meant to be a deterrent to sin, operating as a moral influence upon the minds of all free moral agents, which is why God publicly announces the penalties for violating His law. That is also why the devil brought doubt to the minds of Adam and Eve regarding the penalty when he wanted them to sin (Gen. 3:1, 4). It is important for us to understand why the penalty of the law (eternal death) is executed upon the wicked. God does not execute the penalty of the law for any personal or vindictive reasons (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). God says “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth…” (Eze. 18:32), and “For he doth not afflict willingly…” (Lam. 3:32). God, in His love, is personally reluctant to execute penalties, and He takes no personal pleasure in it. Therefore there must be another reason why He executes them. God in His love not only cares for the transgressor, but also for the community sinned against. Therefore the penalty of the law is executed for governmental reasons (Dan. 6:14-16; Esther 1:15-22; Ecc. 8:11; Rom. 11:20-22; 1 Cor. 10:5-6; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 1:7). “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecc. 8:11). It is the execution of the sentence against evil which discourages men from doing the evil. If the sentence against the evil is not executed, they are encouraged to do it. This shows the governmental reasons for executing penalty – to discourage disobedience. And it shows the governmental problems with forgiveness or remitting the penalty – it would encourage disobedience.
In the story of queen Vasti, she publicly disobeyed a command from the king (Esther 1:12). But her disobedience was not merely against the king, it was against the good of the entire kingdom. There was a governmental concern amongst the Princes. “Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the providences of the king Ahasuerus, for this done of the queen shall come abroad unto all the women, and that they shall despite their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, the King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not” (Esther 1:16-17).
Disobedience is a public example which would encourage others to do likewise. To disobey the law is to endanger the well-being of an entire community. Therefore the public example of punishment is necessary, to counteract the public example of disobedience. Whereas, the public example of disobedience would encourage law-breaking, and thereby endanger the well-being of a community, the public example of punishment would discourage law-breaking, and thereby promote the well-being of the community. Just as the precepts of law are necessary for the well-being of a community, the sanctions of the law are a governmental necessary which are necessary for the well-being of a community, because the sanctions are what support the precepts.
The governmental purpose in executing penalties is clearly seen in the story of Daniel and the lions den. “Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, that no decree nor statue which the king establishes may be changed. Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of the lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee” (Dan. 6:14-16).
Nothing could be any clearer than that king Darius executed the penalty of the law, not because he was personally vindictive or unmerciful, but out of a governmental concern. The strength and stability of his government had always resisted upon the certainty his subjects had of the penalty. If the certainty of the penalty falls into question by his subjects, the strength and stability of the government is endangered. It was not that the king had any personal feelings towards Daniel which he was trying to gratify in his punishment, but rather, we see the opposite. The king was fond of Daniel and was “sore displeased” at the very thought of punishing him. He “set his heart” to deliver Daniel, but found no solution to his governmental problem. It is not that the king’s wrath needed to be satisfied, but that the king’s law needed to be vindicated and upheld. Darius must be viewed, not as an offended individual, but as a king with a law and a government.
God is called the “Lord of hosts”, which means He rules over many moral beings (Amos 4:13). The moral government of God is not limited to mankind. “I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). This means that they too are under the moral government of God. The hosts of heaven cannot even be numbered (Jer. 33:22; Heb. 12:22) which means the moral government of God is massive. We can see why the penalty of the law serves a very important purpose in God’s moral government.
God must publicly declare, display, or manifest His regard for His law in order to maintain its authority and influence throughout His moral government, in order to keep it from falling into contempt amongst all of His countless subjects. The awfulness of crime and the value of the law are shown in the severity of punishment which is executed. Whenever a Ruler executes the penalty of the law upon transgressors, He is showing the rest of His subjects His sacred regard for His law and His care for their well-being. The execution of penalties is meant to be a public example to deter others from doing likewise. “But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as ye also lusted” (1 Cor. 10:5-6). “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Cor. 10:11). “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrown, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly” (2 Pet. 2:6). “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal life” (Jude 1:7).
God’s moral government is full of moral agents whose wills are moved or influenced by truths and motives being presented to their minds. Therefore if God is going to maintain His authority and the authority of His law, in order to promote the well-being of His universe, He must manifest to the minds of His subjects His regard for His law. He does this either through the execution of penalty or through a substituted measure. This is done lest His law falls into contempt and His subjects are encouraged to disobey.
Thomas W. Jenkyn said, “The suffering of a sinner, of one who transgresses the law, are right and good for the ends of the government which we are members. The penalty is inflicted, not for the mere sake of putting the delinquent to pain, nor of gratifying the private revenge of a ruler, but to secure and promote the public ends of good government. These ends are to prevent others from transgressing; by giving, to all the subjects, a decided and clear demonstration of the dignity of the law, and a tangible proof of the evil of crime.” (The Extent of the Atonement, p. 144)
It is very important to understand the motive God has in executing penalties because that is the very same reason that God required the atonement. The atonement is a substitute for our penalty, designed to accomplish its purpose. If God executes penalties to satisfy some unmerciful or vindictive spirit in Himself, then that is why He required the atonement. But that was the idea of sacrifices for the pagan gods, not the God of the Bible. God executes penalties for the governmental purpose of sustaining His law and therefore that is the same reason God required the atonement of Christ as a substitute for the penalty of sinners. It is not that God’s wrath needed to be satisfied, since God is merciful and can turn away from His wrath. It is that God’s law needed to be vindicated and upheld, since the good of His universe depended upon this.
The problem of mere forgiveness (remitting penalty) is that the governmental purpose of penalty would be unfulfilled or unsatisfied. Forgiveness without atonement would encourage rebellion and cause the law to fall into contempt amongst God’s subjects. Forgiving the disobedience of mankind without the atonement would weaken and dishonor the law throughout the moral universe. Therefore God has governmental reasons in requiring atonement, in order to solve His governmental problems of forgiveness. The atonement must substitute the execution of our penalty in order to satisfy the purpose of our penalty. That way our penalty can be remitted without the governmental problems that mere forgiveness would have caused
Gregory of Nazianzus said, “Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the son of God?” (yr 330-390) (The Truth Shall Make You Free by Gordon Olson, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 99)
Charles Finney said, “The atonement is a governmental expedient to sustain law without the execution of its penalty to the sinner.” (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 2)
God must either “shew his wrath” (Rom. 9:22), or through the atonement “declare his righteousness” (Rom. 3:25). To “shew” means to “to show”, “demonstrate”, “prove”, “manifest”, and “display” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). To “declare” means to “demonstrate”, to give “proof”, to give “manifestation”, to give “sign” or “evidence” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). To show implies the observer. To declare implies the hearer. Who is the recipient of these manifestations of God’s character? Who does God show His wrath to, or declare is righteousness to? It is the moral beings of His universe. It is their minds which are impressed with the character of God, either through His wrath being executed upon the wicked, or in lieu of this, the suffering and death of Christ on behalf of our sins. “…Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation…” (Rom. 3:24-25). Christ has been “set forth” means to “manifest”, “display”, “put forth” “point out” “show” “demonstrate”, and “prove” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword), before all the minds of God’s subjects, His righteousness in forgiving us of our sins. John Wesley said, “Whom God hath set forth - Before angels and men” (Commentary on Romans 3:25)
For what purpose are these demonstrations put before moral beings? Why are these manifestations given to their minds? It must be to uphold His law and maintain His government. Inflicting suffering for disobedience naturally discourages others from disobedience, and it naturally encourages others to obedience. The showing forth of His wrath, or the demonstration of His righteousness through the atonement, is absolutely necessary for God’s moral government in the Universe. Albert Barnes said that in Christ, “God had retained the integrity of his character as a moral governor; that he had shown a due regard to his Law”. (Commentary on Romans 3:26)
The idea of the atonement is that it substitutes our penalty of hell, fulfilling the purpose of our penalty, so that our penalty can be remitted (Heb. 9:22). The atonement is “to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins…To declare, I say at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” (Rom. 3:25-26). God must be just to His universe by discouraging rebellion, just to His law by maintaining its authority and influence, and just to Himself by manifesting His true character, if He is going to set aside the penalty of hell that sinners deserve in justifying him. If God pardoned or justified without atonement, it would be unjust to His universe because sin is not discouraged, unjust to His law because it is not being honored or vindicated, and unjust to God because His character would be questioned.
The purpose of executing penalties is not mere retribution. That is why the suffering and death of Christ could be a substitute for our penalty. If the only objective of penalty was retribution, Jesus Christ would not have provided a substitute for our penalty. He was innocent and therefore did not deserve to be treated the way He was. The atonement could not have possibly satisfied retributive justice. The objective of penalties is public justice. God maintains His law by manifesting to all His subjects His sacred regard for His law. Since the atonement is an alternative, replacement, or substitute for our penalty, it must fulfill the purpose of our penalty, otherwise forgiveness or remission would be unsafe. Though the atonement did not and could not have satisfied retributive justice, since Christ was innocent, the atonement did satisfy public justice, since God’s regard for His law is manifested and therefore its authority and influence is maintained.
While the penalty for our sins is eternal death, the suffering and death of Christ on the cross takes the place of our penalty. Jonathon Edwards said, “The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution.” (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 5-6) Albert Barnes said, “His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured.” (Commentary on Galatians 3:13) He also said, “The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose.” (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 244-145.)
The suffering of Christ was a substitute for the punishment of sinners; it was an alternative to the damnation of our race. His voluntary suffering takes the place of the punishment of the guilty. His suffering and death is an adequate substitute for our eternal punishment because it reveals to the universe God’s regard for His law in an even greater way than our penalty would have. Since the purpose of our penalty has now been fulfilled through this substitute or alternative measure, our penalty itself can be remitted by God’s grace and mercy. While the atonement is a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted, in order to actually have your penalty remitted you must repent of your sins (Lk. 24:47). Jesus Christ shed his blood “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28), but after the atonement sinners must still repent of their sins “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Just as it would not be safe to the public for God to pardon without atonement, so also it would not be safe for God to pardon without repentance. Therefore the conditions of God’s forgiveness are not only an atonement but also repentance.
Contrary to Reformed or Calvinistic Theology, the Bible says that the atonement of Christ was made for everyone (Isa. 45:22; 53:6; 55:1; Eze. 18:30-32; Matt. 23:37; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 2:10-11; Jn. 1:29; 3:16; Rom. 2:11; 5:15; Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:11; 4:10; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Jn. 2:2; Rev. 3:20). “But we see Jesus, who was made little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). However, this does not mean that every individual is saved. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2). Yet we know that the whole world is not saved from God’s wrath. The atonement of Christ does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone. That is why after the atonement we have the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18) and why even after the atonement we are to tell men “be ye reconciled unto God” (2 Cor. 5:20). The atonement was one necessary condition in the process of reconciliation, but man’s conversion is also necessary for reconciliation between God and man. To be saved, men need to obey the Gospel (2 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17). The blood of Christ does not cover men if they continue in their sins (Heb. 10:26-31). Only those who are converted, who forsake their sins, have their sins covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. Some are saved by the atonement and some are not saved by the atonement, not because the atonement was limited, but because some men choose repent and believe while others choose not to. Paul said, “God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it” (Heb. 4:2). The atonement does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone.
Those who believe that the atonement automatically and unconditionally saves men, believe that in the atonement Jesus Christ “took our penalty” or “took our punishment”. But the penalty of the law is “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Eze. 18:4, 20). That is retributive justice. The death that occurred in atonement was not of “the soul that sinneth”. Therefore the atonement was not the penalty of the law or retributive justice.
A Calvinist will argue that Jesus Christ suffered our penalty, or took our punishment, because the Bible says “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). But what is the curse of the law? Did the law of God ever demand for sinners to be crucified? No. In the civil government of Israel, the severest punishment of the law was stoning. God never crucified sinners. Under the moral government of God, the severe punishment of the law is eternal hell. That is why the text says that Jesus didn’t suffer “a curse”, not suffered “the curse of the law”. The curse of the law is what we are saved from; a curse is what he endured. The curse of the law was substituted with a curse. Paul did not say that Jesus saved us from “the curse of the law” by suffering “the curse of the law”, but that he saved us from “the curse of the law” by suffering “a curse”. Jesus Christ saved us from the curse of eternal hell, by suffering the curse of hanging on the tree. His curse substitutes our curse, so that our curse can be avoided. By Jesus suffering the curse of crucifixion, of hanging on the tree, we now are saved from the curse of the law, which is eternal damnation.
Since our punishment is eternal hell (Matt. 25:46; 2 Thes. 1:9) it cannot be literally said that Jesus Christ took our punishment. It would be unjust for God to punish the innocent at all (Prov. 17:15). And since it would be unjust to punish the same sins twice, if Jesus was punished for our sins, justice would demand that the whole world be saved! Nobody that Jesus died for could possible go to hell for their sin. This view of the atonement has lead to the errors of universalism, limited atonement, unconditional salvation, and once saved always saved. These conclusions cannot be logically denied if the premise is accepted that Jesus Christ took our punishment or was punished for our sins.
Charles Finney said that “it would not only be unjust, but it is impossible with God to punish an innocent moral agent at all. Punishment implies guilt. An innocent being may suffer, but he cannot be punished. Christ voluntarily suffered ‘the just for the unjust.’ He had a right to exercise this self-denial; and as it was by his own voluntary consent, no injustice was done to any one. (Lectures on Systematic Theology, published by BRCCD, p. 299)
Justice demands that punishment only be inflicted upon the sinful. That is why those who hold to the view that Jesus Christ was punished also hold to the view that Jesus Christ, through imputation, became sinful. Just as they believe that babies are sinful through the imputation of Adam’s sin, so they believe Jesus became sinful through the imputation of our sin. Martin Luther said that “of all sinners” Jesus became “the greatest.” (On the Galatians, Gal. 3:13) R. C. Sproul said, “He became the virtual incarnation of evil” (Tabletalk magazine, “My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” (April 1990), p. 6). Adam Clarke said, “a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own.” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) Albert Barnes said, “Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe. I have heard language used which sent a chill of horror to my heart; and language may be found in the writings of those who hold the doctrine of imputation in the strictest sense, which is only a little short of blasphemy” (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)
To support their notion that Jesus Christ became sinful, they appeal to “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin…” (2 Cor. 5:21). Does this verse actually teach that Jesus became sinful, or that Jesus became a sinner? There is an alternative interpretation or understanding, which is more consistent with the whole of Scripture. Adam Clarke said, “He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us.” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21). This is not uncommon to the Scriptures, as the word “sin” is translated “sin offering” in many places throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Ezekiel. Albert Barnes said, “To be sin - The words ‘to be’ are not in the original. Literally, it is, ‘he has made him sin, or a sin-offering’”. (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) and “If the declaration that he was made “sin”… does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering - an offering or a sacrifice for sin” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) John Wesley said, “He made him a sin offering, who knew no sin” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21)
Those who believe that Jesus Christ became sinful on the cross will also say that, “the father turned his face away” (How Deep The Father’s Love For us, written by Stuart Townend). The problem is that this is a hymn, not a Scripture. The Scriptures no where state that the Father turned His face away from the Son, as if His Son was repulsive to His eyes. R. C. Sproul said, “The load He carried was repugnant to the Father. God is too holy to even look at iniquity. God the Father turned His back upon the Son” Tabletalk magazine, “My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” (April 1990), p. 6. Their support for this view is “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13). This must be poetic and cannot be taken literally, because it would be a denial of the omniscience of God. The Bible says “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Prov. 15:3), and “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13).
Their “ultimate” proof-text for their view of Jesus being so sinful that the Father turned His back on him is when Jesus said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mk. 15:34). The meaning of this verse is shown in the context of the Psalm Jesus was quoting. The rest of the Psalm said “why art thou so far from helping me…” (Ps. 22:1). This clarifies what it means to be “forsaken”. To be forsaken is not to be spiritually or relationally separated, but to be provisionally abandoned. He was forsaken in the sense that the Father gave the Son over into the hands of wicked men to be crucified (Matt. 17:22; 26:35; Mk. 14:41; Lk. 24:7; Acts 2:23), when the Father lifted up the protection He previously had over the Son (Matt. 4:6; Lk. 4:11; Jn. 7:30; 10:31; 10:39). Pilate had no power over Jesus except what the Father gave to Him (Jn. 19:11).
In contradiction to his own doctrine, that the Father turned His back on the Son, R. C. Sproul said that the Father was the one who “did strike Him, smite Him, and afflict Him” (The Truth of the Cross). How the Father could do all this, without even looking upon Christ, or with His back turned on Him, Sproul does not explain. But the Bible says that it was wicked men who actually crucified Jesus (Mk. 12:7; 27:35; Mk. 15:24-25; Lk. 20:14-15; 23:33; 24:20; 24:7; Jn. 19:18, 23; Acts 2:23; 2:36; 4:10; 1 Thes. 2:14-15). The Apostle Creed says that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate”. That is because it was Pilate who “delivered” Jesus to be “crucified” (Matt. 27:26; Mk. 15:15; Lk. 24:7; Jn. 19:16). In this same way the Father can be said to be the one who bruised the Son (Isa. 53:10), or sacrificed the Son (Gen. 22:2) in the sense that the Father gave the Son over as an offering (Jn. 3:16), lifting up the protection that He once had over the Son, delivering His Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. As the hymn says, “God, His Son not sparing, sent Him to die…” (How Great Thou Art by Carl Boberg, written in 1886) God spared not His Son but delivered Him for all mankind (Acts 4:25; Rom. 8:32). The Father bruised the Son only in the sense that He made “His soul an offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10), but not in the sense that the Father directly bruised and crucified Him, or that the Son was under the wrath of the Father. Jesus must have been pleasing to the Father at all times, especially on the cross, because Jesus was perfectly obeying the Father and doing precisely what He wanted Him to do.
Contrary to the doctrine that Jesus Christ became a sinner or sinful, the Bible says that Jesus was offered to God without blemish or spot (Lev. 22:20; Ex. 12:5; 1 Pet. 1:19; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 13:8; Lk. 23:41; 1 Pet. 2:22-23). “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8). Jesus has never been anything other than holy. The only reason that the atonement of Christ is acceptable to God, as a substitute for the punishment of the guilty, is because Jesus Christ was perfect and innocent. Jesus was a sinless sacrifice, not a punished sinner. While punishment signifies the personal sin and guilt of the individual being punished, a sacrifice signifies the personal sin and guilt of another individual. That is why the Bible never says Jesus was “punished” for our sins, but that Jesus Christ was “sacrificed” for our sins, that He “suffered” for our sins. A sacrifice is offered to God as an alternative or replacement to our punishment. His sacrifice is in the place of our punishment, fulfilling its purpose, so that our punishment can be set aside by God’s grace and mercy, or withheld in forgiveness. A sacrifice for sin, or atonement, makes it possible for God to set aside our punishment but it does not obligate Him to do so, so our salvation is a matter of grace not justice. If our sins were punished, justice would demand that God does not punish us. But when a sacrifice is made, which substitutes our punishment, God can exercise grace and mercy in withholding our punishment when we repent, and justice would still allow for God to punish those who do not repent.
It must also be understood that the atonement was not the payment of our debt but was that which was necessary for God to graciously and mercifully pardon our debt (Matt 6:12; 18:27; Lk. 7:42). The debt that we owed was an eternity in the lake of fire. The atonement is a substitute for our penalty, not the penalty itself. If the atonement was just a commercial transaction where our debt was paid, we wouldn’t need to repent and believe to be saved since even if we are impenitent and unbelieving, our debt is still paid. But the Scriptures never represent the impenitent and the unbelieving as being saved, even though Jesus Christ has died for them. If our debt was paid, we wouldn’t have to worry about ever going to hell if we continue in our sins and die in our sins. And there would be no real grace, mercy, or forgiveness in our salvation since grace, mercy, or forgiveness is when our debt is pardoned, when our penalty is remitted. Matt. 18:23-34 contrasts forgiving a debt with the payment of a debt. If Jesus paid our debt, we could never pray as Jesus taught us to, “forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12).
Albert Barnes said, “When a debt is paid, there is no forgiveness; when a penalty is endured, there is no mercy.” (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 231) John Wesley said, “…when the debt is paid, or the purchase made, it is the part of equity to cancel the bond, and consign over the purchased possession.” (Notes on the New Testament) Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “But the fact is, that Christ has not, in the literal and proper sense, paid the debt for us… Payment of debt equally precludes grace, when made by a third person, as when made by the debtor himself…” (Grace Consistent with Atonement, p. 3-4, 6)
Contrary to what some theologians try to say, the atonement did not satisfy the wrath of God. This is obvious since God still has wrath after the atonement (Jn. 3:36; Acts 12:23; Rom. 1:18; 2:5; Col 3:6; Rev. 6:17; 14:10; 16:19). People say that Jesus drank the “cup” of God’s wrath, but this cannot be true, because Jesus told his disciples that they would drink of the same cup that he would drink of (Matt. 20:22), and because the cup of God’s wrath is still full after the atonement (Rev. 14:10; 16:19). “The wrath of God was satisfied” (Keith Getty & Stuart Townend) is a modern hymn, not a Scripture. Jesus died for the whole world but the world is still under God’s wrath. If God’s wrath was satisfied for us, we wouldn’t need to repent and believe in order to be saved from God’s wrath. We would have been saved even while we were impenitent and unbelieving, in fact, everybody would have been born saved! There would be no wrath to flee from (Matt. 3:7; Lk. 3:7). And there would also be no real forgiveness or mercy if God’s wrath was satisfied. That is because forgiveness or mercy is when God turns away from His wrath. “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passes by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy” (Mic. 7:18).
When I preach to sinners in the open air, I tell them that they are under the wrath of God because of their sin, and I also tell them that Jesus Christ has died for their sin. Logically, I could not say that they are still under the wrath of God if the atonement was the satisfaction of God’s wrath. I could not tell them to flee from the wrath that is to come by repenting of their sins and coming to Jesus Christ. The truth is that atonement makes the forgiveness of sins available to everyone, but only those who are converted receive it. Forgiveness is not when God’s wrath is satisfied; forgiveness is when God turns away from His wrath (Ps. 78:38; 85:2-3; Jonah 3:9; Micah 7:18).
The good news is that because of the atonement, God will turn from His wrath if sinners turn from their sins. But those who stay in their sins stay under God’s wrath despite the atonement that was made for them. Those whom Christ died for can still perish (1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1). Forgiveness through the atonement comes to those who repent and believe. The atonement is not at all inconsistent or incompatible with repentance. Forgiveness was made available to all at Calvary but forgiveness only becomes actual at conversion. No man is saved from God’s wrath until they repent and believe. The atonement is a substitute for the penalty of everyone, which makes the penalty of every remissible, but only those who are converted actually have their penalty remitted by God’s grace and mercy. The atonement is by no means contrary to the requirement of repentance but in fact is the only reason God can forgive those who do repent.
Why Isn’t Everybody Saved?
Why are some damned for their sin but some are saved by the atonement? It is not become the atonement was limited or only made for a few. It is because some freely choose to repent and some freely choose not to. Though Christ has died for all, sinners still need to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-20). What remains left to be done in the process of reconciliation, now that the atonement has been made, is man’s repentance and faith. The atonement was one condition in the process of reconciliation. The atonement was one condition of God’s mercy and forgiveness. Man’s choice to repent and believe is also conditions. If reconciliation between God and man does not take place, it is not because God has not done His part, it is because man has not done his.
A. W. Tozer said, “Universal atonement makes salvation universally available, but it does not make it universally effective toward the individual.” (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania) He also said, “If atonement was made for all men, why are not all saved? The answer is that before redemption becomes effective toward the individual man there is an act which that man must do. That act is not one of merit, but of condition.” (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania)
Gordon C. Olson said that “man must repent and stop the flow of sin in order to be brought to the point where he is not under condemnation… If God forgave sin apart from repentance, man would be in the predicament of continuing ‘in sin that grace might increase’ (Rom. 6:1)… The Bible says nothing about the forgiveness of present or future sins, and everywhere implies, what our common sense affirms, that all sin brings condemnation and must be repented of and confessed before forgiveness can take place through faith in the atonement. We must repent, then, to be free from guilt and condemnation” (The Truth Shall Set You Free, published by BRCCD, p. 123-124)
God wants all to repent and be saved (Eze. 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9). But those who refuse to repent must be damned. They are damned not by any fault of God’s but by their own fault. They are damned because they freely chose not to repent. Sinners who refuse to repent and be reconciled to God must be sent to hell. Hell is a real governmental necessity. No community is safe if there is no prison for law breakers. God’s law is for the good of everyone but no law would be maintained if there is no punishment. No punishment would even be punishment unless it is painful. Therefore those who refuse to repent of their sins and be reconciled to God must be sent to hell, the prison of the universe (1 Pet. 3:19), where they will be tormented in eternal pain (Matt. 22:13; Rev. 14:10-11). The good of the universe demands this. God has no other alternative for those who do not choose to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel.
=============
Here is another article explaining the governmental atonement view:
The Tale of Two Kings
While I was preaching at the University if Minnesota in Minneapolis, I illustrated the atonement by telling the students about the ancient King of the Locrians in Italy named Zalukas. King Zalukas saw the problem of infidelity within his kingdom. He saw how the backbone of a strong society is a strong family and how adultery had the potential to destroy a society by destroying the family. When there is adultery, there could be children born out of wed lock. This breaks down the family unit. There could also be jealousy and murder when a husband finds out that another man has been sleeping with his wife. Therefore for the good of His Kingdom, the King outlawed adultery. But laws are not respected or regarded unless they have consequences. Penalties give the law authority and influence. Therefore the King assigned a very severe penalty for those who violated his law. Those who were found committing adultery would have both of their eyes removed by a hot poker!
A few people were found committing adultery and quickly the penalty was executed. This showed the Kingdom that the King meant business. He surely regarded his law and meant to maintain it. It wasn't long until adultery literally ceased from his Kingdom. But one day a man was brought before the King who had been committing adultery. It was the Kings own son, the prince of the Kingdom. The King was in a dilemma. On the one hand the King wanted to maintain His law. The authority and influence of his law depended upon the execution of the penalty. If He didn't execute the penalty, his Kingdom would question whether or not the King really regarded his law or not. If the King did not execute the penalty, the Kingdom would think that he gave a bad law or that he gave too severe a penalty. But on the other hand, the King cared about his son and was prone to forgive him. The King naturally preferred to show his son mercy. How could he do both? How could the King show mercy to his son but still uphold the authority and influence of his law throughout His Kingdom at the same time? The solution which the King found to his dilemma was a painful one. The King had one of the eyes of his son removed out of his love for his kingdom, and in lieu of the other eye of his son, he sacrificed his own out of his love for his son. He substituted one of his own eyes for the eye of his son. In this way the King showed His care and concern for his kingdom by supporting the law and his care and concern for his son by making a personal and painful sacrifice.
Through this sacrifice the King found a way to show mercy to his Son by not executing the full penalty of the law upon him, while also expressing to his Kingdom his regard for his law and thereby maintain the authority and influence of the precept. His sacrifice must have made a profound impression upon the minds of all his subjects and upon the mind of his son. Upon his kingdom, they must have been profoundly impressed with the King’s regard for the law. They would not dare to break the law themselves since they clearly see the king’s determination to uphold and maintain it. They also see how good their King is and how worthy He is to be obeyed. Upon the son, his mind must have been profoundly impressed with the love his father had for him. What remorse he must have had for his crimes! His disobedience cost his father so much! Out of love and gratitude for his father, he would want to live a life pleasing to him. He would forever see the loss of his father’s eye for the rest of his father’s life. How could he ever commit adultery again after seeing what a great price his father paid? Seeing what his law breaking cost his father would make him never want to break the law again.
I then explained that God gave His universe a very good law for our own good. The law of God promotes the highest well-being of all. In order to give authority to the precept, God has given a severe penalty. The penalty for violating God's law is to burn in hell for all of eternity. That is eternal death. At first there were angels who rebelled against God. They were quickly thrust out of Heaven and are now waiting Judgment Day. But then mankind sinned. Mankind was made in the image of God. Men were the crown of God's creation. God was prone to forgive mankind, but He must also maintain His law. On the one hand, the authority and influence of His law throughout His universe or Kingdom depends upon Him making a proper expression of His regard for His law so that crime is discouraged. God must protect and promote the well-being of His Kingdom. But on the other hand, God would prefer to forgive mankind by withholding or setting aside our penalty. How could God do both? How could God pardon disobedient men without encouraging the rest of His universe to sin? How could God remit our penalty of eternal hell but still uphold His law and maintain its authority and influence by manifesting His regard for His law? The answer is the atonement.
When God offered His own Son to make atonement for our sins, He provided a sacrifice which would stand in lieu of our eternal punishment. Catherine Booth said, “The Divine law has been broken; the interests of the universe demanded that its righteousness should be maintained, therefore, its penalty must be endured by the transgressor or, in lieu of this, such compensation must be rendered as would satisfy the claims of justice, and render it expedient for God to pardon the guilty… Christ made such a sacrifice as to render it possible for God to be just, and yet to pardon the sinner.” Catherine Booth (Popular Christianity, Published by Convention Bookstore, p. 30) Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself so that we don’t have to suffer the punishment of eternal hell. His suffering and death is a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted. Through the atonement God manifests to His universe His regard for His law in a way even greater than the penalty of the law upon sinners would have. God showed His love for His universe by protecting their rights and interests by upholding the law while also showing His love for mankind by making such a personal and painful sacrifice on our behalf.
The atonement of Jesus Christ must have a profound impact upon all of the minds of the moral beings within God’s Kingdom. Upon His Kingdom, they must be deeply impressed with God’s regard for His law and for their interest by maintaining the law. This impression through God’s sacrifice upon their minds is even greater than it would have been had the penalty be simply executed upon us. Now the other moral subjects in God’s moral government would not dare break the law themselves since they clearly see God’s determination to uphold and maintain it. And they see how worthy God is to be loved and obeyed. The atonement accomplished the needed affected upon the rest of God’s kingdom in an even greater way than the penalty of the law being executed upon sinners would have. The atonement of Christ maintained, not only the fear of punishment amongst God’s other moral subjects, as the penalty being executed upon us would have, but also it gave them even greater motivation to obey God – because they see how good and worthy He. Though the penalty might have caused his subjects to fear him, the atonement must cause them to love Him. The penalty would have shown them God’s justice, but the atonement shows them God’s justice and His mercy. They behold the goodness and the severity of God. A fuller revelation or manifestation of God’s character is revealed at the cross of Christ than what could have been revealed by the penalty of the law.
The atonement also has a very deep impact and profound impression upon us who are being pardoned. What remorse the atonement creates in us for our sins! Our wickedness cost our loving Father so much! Out of love and gratitude, those who have been truly converted have decided to live the rest of their lives in a way pleasing to Him. Even for all of eternity we will see the wounds in the Lamb that was slain. How difficult it is for us to walk the path of sin again seeing what a great price that was paid. Seeing how much our transgressions of the law cost God, we want to never break the law again. We begin to love the precepts of the moral law and respect the authority of the law because we begin to love the Author of the law! Those who love the Lord will hate evil (Ps. 97:10; Amos 5:15). They can say, “I love thy law!” (Ps. 119:97). We begin to love God and His character and come to abhor everything that is contrary to God and His character. We love Him because He first loved us (1 Jn. 4:19). We love much because we have been forgiven much (Lk. 7:47). And love is the fulfillment of the law.
A revelation of God’s benevolent character and a manifestation of the loving heart of God, which was publicly shown and made known at the cross, is the converting power of the Gospel. It is that precious and powerful truth revealed to the mind that brings the rebellious will of man into complete submission, unconditional surrender, and loving obedience to the good and reasonable moral government of God. James B. Walker said, “The atonement of Christ produces the necessary effect upon the human soul, in restoring it to affectionate obedience, which neither philosophy, law, nor perceptive truth could accomplish.” James B. Walker (The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 160) This understanding gives us insight as to why true faith in Christ will purify our hearts (Acts 15:9), sanctify our lives (Acts 26:18), overcome the world (1 Jn. 5:4), result in good works (James 2:14-16), and works with a motive of love (Gal. 5:6). “And every man that hath his hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:3). Faith in Christ is a life changing thing! Now that we have put our faith in Christ, the rule of our life should be obedience. Hermas said, “That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of sins should not sin anymore, but should live in purity." Hermas (Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II, The Pastor of Hermas, Book Second) Our life should no longer be characterized by sin. We should walk in habitual holiness out of our love for Jesus Christ and a desire to glorify God. We love Him because He first loved us, and we know that love is the fulfillment of the law.
The Atonement as Objective and Subjective
The atonement solves all of God’s problems in forgiving mankind. The atonement makes it possible for God to safely remit the penalty of the law, by substituting our penalty and bringing us to repentance. It brings pardon and purification; forgiveness and freedom. The atonement is both objective and subjective. As a governmental substitution, the atonement is objective. The atonement substitutes our penalty and upholds or maintains the moral law throughout God’s universe just as our penalty would have and the atonement confirms holy beings in their obedience towards God. As a moral influence, the atonement is subjective. Seeing what Jesus Christ has done for us and beholding the great goodness and kindness of God brings us to complete repentance so that we never want to sin again but always want to do that which is pleasing to Him. Knowledge of the atonement draws sinners away from sin and unto God. Jesus said “if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (Jn. 12:32) The Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The truth of the atonement is the greatest moral influence in the entire universe. No other truth could possibly influence our will to repentance and obedience as forcefully or persuasively as the truth of the atonement can. If a man is not brought to repentance by the truth of the atonement, after it has been clearly and powerfully presented to his mind, than his case must be hopeless.
The threatened penalty of the law is meant to be a deterrent to sin, operating as a moral influence upon the minds of all free moral agents, which is why God publicly announces the penalties for violating His law. That is also why the devil brought doubt to the minds of Adam and Eve regarding the penalty when he wanted them to sin (Gen. 3:1, 4). It is important for us to understand why the penalty of the law (eternal death) is executed upon the wicked. God does not execute the penalty of the law for any personal or vindictive reasons (Eze. 18:32; 33:1; Lam. 3:32-33; Heb. 12:10). God says “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth…” (Eze. 18:32), and “For he doth not afflict willingly…” (Lam. 3:32). God, in His love, is personally reluctant to execute penalties, and He takes no personal pleasure in it. Therefore there must be another reason why He executes them. God in His love not only cares for the transgressor, but also for the community sinned against. Therefore the penalty of the law is executed for governmental reasons (Dan. 6:14-16; Esther 1:15-22; Ecc. 8:11; Rom. 11:20-22; 1 Cor. 10:5-6; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 1:7). “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecc. 8:11). It is the execution of the sentence against evil which discourages men from doing the evil. If the sentence against the evil is not executed, they are encouraged to do it. This shows the governmental reasons for executing penalty – to discourage disobedience. And it shows the governmental problems with forgiveness or remitting the penalty – it would encourage disobedience.
In the story of queen Vasti, she publicly disobeyed a command from the king (Esther 1:12). But her disobedience was not merely against the king, it was against the good of the entire kingdom. There was a governmental concern amongst the Princes. “Vashti the queen hath not done wrong to the king only, but also to all the princes, and to all the people that are in all the providences of the king Ahasuerus, for this done of the queen shall come abroad unto all the women, and that they shall despite their husbands in their eyes, when it shall be reported, the King Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not” (Esther 1:16-17).
Disobedience is a public example which would encourage others to do likewise. To disobey the law is to endanger the well-being of an entire community. Therefore the public example of punishment is necessary, to counteract the public example of disobedience. Whereas, the public example of disobedience would encourage law-breaking, and thereby endanger the well-being of a community, the public example of punishment would discourage law-breaking, and thereby promote the well-being of the community. Just as the precepts of law are necessary for the well-being of a community, the sanctions of the law are a governmental necessary which are necessary for the well-being of a community, because the sanctions are what support the precepts.
The governmental purpose in executing penalties is clearly seen in the story of Daniel and the lions den. “Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, that no decree nor statue which the king establishes may be changed. Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of the lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee” (Dan. 6:14-16).
Nothing could be any clearer than that king Darius executed the penalty of the law, not because he was personally vindictive or unmerciful, but out of a governmental concern. The strength and stability of his government had always resisted upon the certainty his subjects had of the penalty. If the certainty of the penalty falls into question by his subjects, the strength and stability of the government is endangered. It was not that the king had any personal feelings towards Daniel which he was trying to gratify in his punishment, but rather, we see the opposite. The king was fond of Daniel and was “sore displeased” at the very thought of punishing him. He “set his heart” to deliver Daniel, but found no solution to his governmental problem. It is not that the king’s wrath needed to be satisfied, but that the king’s law needed to be vindicated and upheld. Darius must be viewed, not as an offended individual, but as a king with a law and a government.
God is called the “Lord of hosts”, which means He rules over many moral beings (Amos 4:13). The moral government of God is not limited to mankind. “I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their hosts have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). This means that they too are under the moral government of God. The hosts of heaven cannot even be numbered (Jer. 33:22; Heb. 12:22) which means the moral government of God is massive. We can see why the penalty of the law serves a very important purpose in God’s moral government.
God must publicly declare, display, or manifest His regard for His law in order to maintain its authority and influence throughout His moral government, in order to keep it from falling into contempt amongst all of His countless subjects. The awfulness of crime and the value of the law are shown in the severity of punishment which is executed. Whenever a Ruler executes the penalty of the law upon transgressors, He is showing the rest of His subjects His sacred regard for His law and His care for their well-being. The execution of penalties is meant to be a public example to deter others from doing likewise. “But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as ye also lusted” (1 Cor. 10:5-6). “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come” (1 Cor. 10:11). “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrown, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly” (2 Pet. 2:6). “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal life” (Jude 1:7).
God’s moral government is full of moral agents whose wills are moved or influenced by truths and motives being presented to their minds. Therefore if God is going to maintain His authority and the authority of His law, in order to promote the well-being of His universe, He must manifest to the minds of His subjects His regard for His law. He does this either through the execution of penalty or through a substituted measure. This is done lest His law falls into contempt and His subjects are encouraged to disobey.
Thomas W. Jenkyn said, “The suffering of a sinner, of one who transgresses the law, are right and good for the ends of the government which we are members. The penalty is inflicted, not for the mere sake of putting the delinquent to pain, nor of gratifying the private revenge of a ruler, but to secure and promote the public ends of good government. These ends are to prevent others from transgressing; by giving, to all the subjects, a decided and clear demonstration of the dignity of the law, and a tangible proof of the evil of crime.” (The Extent of the Atonement, p. 144)
It is very important to understand the motive God has in executing penalties because that is the very same reason that God required the atonement. The atonement is a substitute for our penalty, designed to accomplish its purpose. If God executes penalties to satisfy some unmerciful or vindictive spirit in Himself, then that is why He required the atonement. But that was the idea of sacrifices for the pagan gods, not the God of the Bible. God executes penalties for the governmental purpose of sustaining His law and therefore that is the same reason God required the atonement of Christ as a substitute for the penalty of sinners. It is not that God’s wrath needed to be satisfied, since God is merciful and can turn away from His wrath. It is that God’s law needed to be vindicated and upheld, since the good of His universe depended upon this.
The problem of mere forgiveness (remitting penalty) is that the governmental purpose of penalty would be unfulfilled or unsatisfied. Forgiveness without atonement would encourage rebellion and cause the law to fall into contempt amongst God’s subjects. Forgiving the disobedience of mankind without the atonement would weaken and dishonor the law throughout the moral universe. Therefore God has governmental reasons in requiring atonement, in order to solve His governmental problems of forgiveness. The atonement must substitute the execution of our penalty in order to satisfy the purpose of our penalty. That way our penalty can be remitted without the governmental problems that mere forgiveness would have caused
Gregory of Nazianzus said, “Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the son of God?” (yr 330-390) (The Truth Shall Make You Free by Gordon Olson, Published by Bible Research Corp, p. 99)
Charles Finney said, “The atonement is a governmental expedient to sustain law without the execution of its penalty to the sinner.” (The Oberlin Evangelist; July 30, 1856; On the Atonement, p. 2)
God must either “shew his wrath” (Rom. 9:22), or through the atonement “declare his righteousness” (Rom. 3:25). To “shew” means to “to show”, “demonstrate”, “prove”, “manifest”, and “display” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). To “declare” means to “demonstrate”, to give “proof”, to give “manifestation”, to give “sign” or “evidence” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword). To show implies the observer. To declare implies the hearer. Who is the recipient of these manifestations of God’s character? Who does God show His wrath to, or declare is righteousness to? It is the moral beings of His universe. It is their minds which are impressed with the character of God, either through His wrath being executed upon the wicked, or in lieu of this, the suffering and death of Christ on behalf of our sins. “…Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation…” (Rom. 3:24-25). Christ has been “set forth” means to “manifest”, “display”, “put forth” “point out” “show” “demonstrate”, and “prove” (Thayer’s Definitions, e-sword), before all the minds of God’s subjects, His righteousness in forgiving us of our sins. John Wesley said, “Whom God hath set forth - Before angels and men” (Commentary on Romans 3:25)
For what purpose are these demonstrations put before moral beings? Why are these manifestations given to their minds? It must be to uphold His law and maintain His government. Inflicting suffering for disobedience naturally discourages others from disobedience, and it naturally encourages others to obedience. The showing forth of His wrath, or the demonstration of His righteousness through the atonement, is absolutely necessary for God’s moral government in the Universe. Albert Barnes said that in Christ, “God had retained the integrity of his character as a moral governor; that he had shown a due regard to his Law”. (Commentary on Romans 3:26)
The idea of the atonement is that it substitutes our penalty of hell, fulfilling the purpose of our penalty, so that our penalty can be remitted (Heb. 9:22). The atonement is “to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins…To declare, I say at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” (Rom. 3:25-26). God must be just to His universe by discouraging rebellion, just to His law by maintaining its authority and influence, and just to Himself by manifesting His true character, if He is going to set aside the penalty of hell that sinners deserve in justifying him. If God pardoned or justified without atonement, it would be unjust to His universe because sin is not discouraged, unjust to His law because it is not being honored or vindicated, and unjust to God because His character would be questioned.
The purpose of executing penalties is not mere retribution. That is why the suffering and death of Christ could be a substitute for our penalty. If the only objective of penalty was retribution, Jesus Christ would not have provided a substitute for our penalty. He was innocent and therefore did not deserve to be treated the way He was. The atonement could not have possibly satisfied retributive justice. The objective of penalties is public justice. God maintains His law by manifesting to all His subjects His sacred regard for His law. Since the atonement is an alternative, replacement, or substitute for our penalty, it must fulfill the purpose of our penalty, otherwise forgiveness or remission would be unsafe. Though the atonement did not and could not have satisfied retributive justice, since Christ was innocent, the atonement did satisfy public justice, since God’s regard for His law is manifested and therefore its authority and influence is maintained.
While the penalty for our sins is eternal death, the suffering and death of Christ on the cross takes the place of our penalty. Jonathon Edwards said, “The atonement is the substitute for the punishment threatened in the law; and was designed to answer the same ends of supporting the authority of the law, the dignity of the divine moral government, and the consistency of the divine conduct in legislation and execution.” (The Necessity of the Atonement, p. 5-6) Albert Barnes said, “His sufferings were in the place of the penalty, not the penalty itself. They were a substitution for the penalty, and were, therefore, strictly and properly vicarious, and were not the identical sufferings which the sinner would himself have endured.” (Commentary on Galatians 3:13) He also said, “The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself would. It is instead of punishment. It is something which will make it proper for the lawgiver to suspend or remit the literal execution of the penalty of the law, because the object or end of that penalty has been secured, or because something has been substituted for that which will answer the same purpose.” (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 244-145.)
The suffering of Christ was a substitute for the punishment of sinners; it was an alternative to the damnation of our race. His voluntary suffering takes the place of the punishment of the guilty. His suffering and death is an adequate substitute for our eternal punishment because it reveals to the universe God’s regard for His law in an even greater way than our penalty would have. Since the purpose of our penalty has now been fulfilled through this substitute or alternative measure, our penalty itself can be remitted by God’s grace and mercy. While the atonement is a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted, in order to actually have your penalty remitted you must repent of your sins (Lk. 24:47). Jesus Christ shed his blood “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28), but after the atonement sinners must still repent of their sins “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Just as it would not be safe to the public for God to pardon without atonement, so also it would not be safe for God to pardon without repentance. Therefore the conditions of God’s forgiveness are not only an atonement but also repentance.
Contrary to Reformed or Calvinistic Theology, the Bible says that the atonement of Christ was made for everyone (Isa. 45:22; 53:6; 55:1; Eze. 18:30-32; Matt. 23:37; Mk. 16:15-16; Lk. 2:10-11; Jn. 1:29; 3:16; Rom. 2:11; 5:15; Heb. 2:9; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:11; 4:10; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; 2 Pet. 2:1; 1 Jn. 2:2; Rev. 3:20). “But we see Jesus, who was made little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). However, this does not mean that every individual is saved. “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:2). Yet we know that the whole world is not saved from God’s wrath. The atonement of Christ does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone. That is why after the atonement we have the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18) and why even after the atonement we are to tell men “be ye reconciled unto God” (2 Cor. 5:20). The atonement was one necessary condition in the process of reconciliation, but man’s conversion is also necessary for reconciliation between God and man. To be saved, men need to obey the Gospel (2 Thes. 1:8; 1 Pet. 4:17). The blood of Christ does not cover men if they continue in their sins (Heb. 10:26-31). Only those who are converted, who forsake their sins, have their sins covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. Some are saved by the atonement and some are not saved by the atonement, not because the atonement was limited, but because some men choose repent and believe while others choose not to. Paul said, “God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it” (Heb. 4:2). The atonement does not automatically or unconditionally save anyone.
Those who believe that the atonement automatically and unconditionally saves men, believe that in the atonement Jesus Christ “took our penalty” or “took our punishment”. But the penalty of the law is “the soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Eze. 18:4, 20). That is retributive justice. The death that occurred in atonement was not of “the soul that sinneth”. Therefore the atonement was not the penalty of the law or retributive justice.
A Calvinist will argue that Jesus Christ suffered our penalty, or took our punishment, because the Bible says “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). But what is the curse of the law? Did the law of God ever demand for sinners to be crucified? No. In the civil government of Israel, the severest punishment of the law was stoning. God never crucified sinners. Under the moral government of God, the severe punishment of the law is eternal hell. That is why the text says that Jesus didn’t suffer “a curse”, not suffered “the curse of the law”. The curse of the law is what we are saved from; a curse is what he endured. The curse of the law was substituted with a curse. Paul did not say that Jesus saved us from “the curse of the law” by suffering “the curse of the law”, but that he saved us from “the curse of the law” by suffering “a curse”. Jesus Christ saved us from the curse of eternal hell, by suffering the curse of hanging on the tree. His curse substitutes our curse, so that our curse can be avoided. By Jesus suffering the curse of crucifixion, of hanging on the tree, we now are saved from the curse of the law, which is eternal damnation.
Since our punishment is eternal hell (Matt. 25:46; 2 Thes. 1:9) it cannot be literally said that Jesus Christ took our punishment. It would be unjust for God to punish the innocent at all (Prov. 17:15). And since it would be unjust to punish the same sins twice, if Jesus was punished for our sins, justice would demand that the whole world be saved! Nobody that Jesus died for could possible go to hell for their sin. This view of the atonement has lead to the errors of universalism, limited atonement, unconditional salvation, and once saved always saved. These conclusions cannot be logically denied if the premise is accepted that Jesus Christ took our punishment or was punished for our sins.
Charles Finney said that “it would not only be unjust, but it is impossible with God to punish an innocent moral agent at all. Punishment implies guilt. An innocent being may suffer, but he cannot be punished. Christ voluntarily suffered ‘the just for the unjust.’ He had a right to exercise this self-denial; and as it was by his own voluntary consent, no injustice was done to any one. (Lectures on Systematic Theology, published by BRCCD, p. 299)
Justice demands that punishment only be inflicted upon the sinful. That is why those who hold to the view that Jesus Christ was punished also hold to the view that Jesus Christ, through imputation, became sinful. Just as they believe that babies are sinful through the imputation of Adam’s sin, so they believe Jesus became sinful through the imputation of our sin. Martin Luther said that “of all sinners” Jesus became “the greatest.” (On the Galatians, Gal. 3:13) R. C. Sproul said, “He became the virtual incarnation of evil” (Tabletalk magazine, “My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” (April 1990), p. 6). Adam Clarke said, “a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own.” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) Albert Barnes said, “Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe. I have heard language used which sent a chill of horror to my heart; and language may be found in the writings of those who hold the doctrine of imputation in the strictest sense, which is only a little short of blasphemy” (Commentary on Galatians 3:13)
To support their notion that Jesus Christ became sinful, they appeal to “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin…” (2 Cor. 5:21). Does this verse actually teach that Jesus became sinful, or that Jesus became a sinner? There is an alternative interpretation or understanding, which is more consistent with the whole of Scripture. Adam Clarke said, “He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us.” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21). This is not uncommon to the Scriptures, as the word “sin” is translated “sin offering” in many places throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Ezekiel. Albert Barnes said, “To be sin - The words ‘to be’ are not in the original. Literally, it is, ‘he has made him sin, or a sin-offering’”. (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) and “If the declaration that he was made “sin”… does not mean that he was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty, then it must mean that he was a sin-offering - an offering or a sacrifice for sin” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21) John Wesley said, “He made him a sin offering, who knew no sin” (Commentary on 2 Cor. 5:21)
Those who believe that Jesus Christ became sinful on the cross will also say that, “the father turned his face away” (How Deep The Father’s Love For us, written by Stuart Townend). The problem is that this is a hymn, not a Scripture. The Scriptures no where state that the Father turned His face away from the Son, as if His Son was repulsive to His eyes. R. C. Sproul said, “The load He carried was repugnant to the Father. God is too holy to even look at iniquity. God the Father turned His back upon the Son” Tabletalk magazine, “My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?” (April 1990), p. 6. Their support for this view is “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13). This must be poetic and cannot be taken literally, because it would be a denial of the omniscience of God. The Bible says “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Prov. 15:3), and “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13).
Their “ultimate” proof-text for their view of Jesus being so sinful that the Father turned His back on him is when Jesus said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mk. 15:34). The meaning of this verse is shown in the context of the Psalm Jesus was quoting. The rest of the Psalm said “why art thou so far from helping me…” (Ps. 22:1). This clarifies what it means to be “forsaken”. To be forsaken is not to be spiritually or relationally separated, but to be provisionally abandoned. He was forsaken in the sense that the Father gave the Son over into the hands of wicked men to be crucified (Matt. 17:22; 26:35; Mk. 14:41; Lk. 24:7; Acts 2:23), when the Father lifted up the protection He previously had over the Son (Matt. 4:6; Lk. 4:11; Jn. 7:30; 10:31; 10:39). Pilate had no power over Jesus except what the Father gave to Him (Jn. 19:11).
In contradiction to his own doctrine, that the Father turned His back on the Son, R. C. Sproul said that the Father was the one who “did strike Him, smite Him, and afflict Him” (The Truth of the Cross). How the Father could do all this, without even looking upon Christ, or with His back turned on Him, Sproul does not explain. But the Bible says that it was wicked men who actually crucified Jesus (Mk. 12:7; 27:35; Mk. 15:24-25; Lk. 20:14-15; 23:33; 24:20; 24:7; Jn. 19:18, 23; Acts 2:23; 2:36; 4:10; 1 Thes. 2:14-15). The Apostle Creed says that Jesus “suffered under Pontius Pilate”. That is because it was Pilate who “delivered” Jesus to be “crucified” (Matt. 27:26; Mk. 15:15; Lk. 24:7; Jn. 19:16). In this same way the Father can be said to be the one who bruised the Son (Isa. 53:10), or sacrificed the Son (Gen. 22:2) in the sense that the Father gave the Son over as an offering (Jn. 3:16), lifting up the protection that He once had over the Son, delivering His Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. As the hymn says, “God, His Son not sparing, sent Him to die…” (How Great Thou Art by Carl Boberg, written in 1886) God spared not His Son but delivered Him for all mankind (Acts 4:25; Rom. 8:32). The Father bruised the Son only in the sense that He made “His soul an offering for sin” (Isa. 53:10), but not in the sense that the Father directly bruised and crucified Him, or that the Son was under the wrath of the Father. Jesus must have been pleasing to the Father at all times, especially on the cross, because Jesus was perfectly obeying the Father and doing precisely what He wanted Him to do.
Contrary to the doctrine that Jesus Christ became a sinner or sinful, the Bible says that Jesus was offered to God without blemish or spot (Lev. 22:20; Ex. 12:5; 1 Pet. 1:19; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; Heb. 13:8; Lk. 23:41; 1 Pet. 2:22-23). “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8). Jesus has never been anything other than holy. The only reason that the atonement of Christ is acceptable to God, as a substitute for the punishment of the guilty, is because Jesus Christ was perfect and innocent. Jesus was a sinless sacrifice, not a punished sinner. While punishment signifies the personal sin and guilt of the individual being punished, a sacrifice signifies the personal sin and guilt of another individual. That is why the Bible never says Jesus was “punished” for our sins, but that Jesus Christ was “sacrificed” for our sins, that He “suffered” for our sins. A sacrifice is offered to God as an alternative or replacement to our punishment. His sacrifice is in the place of our punishment, fulfilling its purpose, so that our punishment can be set aside by God’s grace and mercy, or withheld in forgiveness. A sacrifice for sin, or atonement, makes it possible for God to set aside our punishment but it does not obligate Him to do so, so our salvation is a matter of grace not justice. If our sins were punished, justice would demand that God does not punish us. But when a sacrifice is made, which substitutes our punishment, God can exercise grace and mercy in withholding our punishment when we repent, and justice would still allow for God to punish those who do not repent.
It must also be understood that the atonement was not the payment of our debt but was that which was necessary for God to graciously and mercifully pardon our debt (Matt 6:12; 18:27; Lk. 7:42). The debt that we owed was an eternity in the lake of fire. The atonement is a substitute for our penalty, not the penalty itself. If the atonement was just a commercial transaction where our debt was paid, we wouldn’t need to repent and believe to be saved since even if we are impenitent and unbelieving, our debt is still paid. But the Scriptures never represent the impenitent and the unbelieving as being saved, even though Jesus Christ has died for them. If our debt was paid, we wouldn’t have to worry about ever going to hell if we continue in our sins and die in our sins. And there would be no real grace, mercy, or forgiveness in our salvation since grace, mercy, or forgiveness is when our debt is pardoned, when our penalty is remitted. Matt. 18:23-34 contrasts forgiving a debt with the payment of a debt. If Jesus paid our debt, we could never pray as Jesus taught us to, “forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12).
Albert Barnes said, “When a debt is paid, there is no forgiveness; when a penalty is endured, there is no mercy.” (The Atonement, Published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 231) John Wesley said, “…when the debt is paid, or the purchase made, it is the part of equity to cancel the bond, and consign over the purchased possession.” (Notes on the New Testament) Jonathon Edwards Jr. said, “But the fact is, that Christ has not, in the literal and proper sense, paid the debt for us… Payment of debt equally precludes grace, when made by a third person, as when made by the debtor himself…” (Grace Consistent with Atonement, p. 3-4, 6)
Contrary to what some theologians try to say, the atonement did not satisfy the wrath of God. This is obvious since God still has wrath after the atonement (Jn. 3:36; Acts 12:23; Rom. 1:18; 2:5; Col 3:6; Rev. 6:17; 14:10; 16:19). People say that Jesus drank the “cup” of God’s wrath, but this cannot be true, because Jesus told his disciples that they would drink of the same cup that he would drink of (Matt. 20:22), and because the cup of God’s wrath is still full after the atonement (Rev. 14:10; 16:19). “The wrath of God was satisfied” (Keith Getty & Stuart Townend) is a modern hymn, not a Scripture. Jesus died for the whole world but the world is still under God’s wrath. If God’s wrath was satisfied for us, we wouldn’t need to repent and believe in order to be saved from God’s wrath. We would have been saved even while we were impenitent and unbelieving, in fact, everybody would have been born saved! There would be no wrath to flee from (Matt. 3:7; Lk. 3:7). And there would also be no real forgiveness or mercy if God’s wrath was satisfied. That is because forgiveness or mercy is when God turns away from His wrath. “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passes by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy” (Mic. 7:18).
When I preach to sinners in the open air, I tell them that they are under the wrath of God because of their sin, and I also tell them that Jesus Christ has died for their sin. Logically, I could not say that they are still under the wrath of God if the atonement was the satisfaction of God’s wrath. I could not tell them to flee from the wrath that is to come by repenting of their sins and coming to Jesus Christ. The truth is that atonement makes the forgiveness of sins available to everyone, but only those who are converted receive it. Forgiveness is not when God’s wrath is satisfied; forgiveness is when God turns away from His wrath (Ps. 78:38; 85:2-3; Jonah 3:9; Micah 7:18).
The good news is that because of the atonement, God will turn from His wrath if sinners turn from their sins. But those who stay in their sins stay under God’s wrath despite the atonement that was made for them. Those whom Christ died for can still perish (1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Pet. 2:1). Forgiveness through the atonement comes to those who repent and believe. The atonement is not at all inconsistent or incompatible with repentance. Forgiveness was made available to all at Calvary but forgiveness only becomes actual at conversion. No man is saved from God’s wrath until they repent and believe. The atonement is a substitute for the penalty of everyone, which makes the penalty of every remissible, but only those who are converted actually have their penalty remitted by God’s grace and mercy. The atonement is by no means contrary to the requirement of repentance but in fact is the only reason God can forgive those who do repent.
Why Isn’t Everybody Saved?
Why are some damned for their sin but some are saved by the atonement? It is not become the atonement was limited or only made for a few. It is because some freely choose to repent and some freely choose not to. Though Christ has died for all, sinners still need to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18-20). What remains left to be done in the process of reconciliation, now that the atonement has been made, is man’s repentance and faith. The atonement was one condition in the process of reconciliation. The atonement was one condition of God’s mercy and forgiveness. Man’s choice to repent and believe is also conditions. If reconciliation between God and man does not take place, it is not because God has not done His part, it is because man has not done his.
A. W. Tozer said, “Universal atonement makes salvation universally available, but it does not make it universally effective toward the individual.” (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania) He also said, “If atonement was made for all men, why are not all saved? The answer is that before redemption becomes effective toward the individual man there is an act which that man must do. That act is not one of merit, but of condition.” (Paths To Power, Christian Publications, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania)
Gordon C. Olson said that “man must repent and stop the flow of sin in order to be brought to the point where he is not under condemnation… If God forgave sin apart from repentance, man would be in the predicament of continuing ‘in sin that grace might increase’ (Rom. 6:1)… The Bible says nothing about the forgiveness of present or future sins, and everywhere implies, what our common sense affirms, that all sin brings condemnation and must be repented of and confessed before forgiveness can take place through faith in the atonement. We must repent, then, to be free from guilt and condemnation” (The Truth Shall Set You Free, published by BRCCD, p. 123-124)
God wants all to repent and be saved (Eze. 33:11; 2 Pet. 3:9). But those who refuse to repent must be damned. They are damned not by any fault of God’s but by their own fault. They are damned because they freely chose not to repent. Sinners who refuse to repent and be reconciled to God must be sent to hell. Hell is a real governmental necessity. No community is safe if there is no prison for law breakers. God’s law is for the good of everyone but no law would be maintained if there is no punishment. No punishment would even be punishment unless it is painful. Therefore those who refuse to repent of their sins and be reconciled to God must be sent to hell, the prison of the universe (1 Pet. 3:19), where they will be tormented in eternal pain (Matt. 22:13; Rev. 14:10-11). The good of the universe demands this. God has no other alternative for those who do not choose to repent of their sins and believe the Gospel.
=============
Here is another article explaining the governmental atonement view:
The Tale of Two Kings
While I was preaching at the University if Minnesota in Minneapolis, I illustrated the atonement by telling the students about the ancient King of the Locrians in Italy named Zalukas. King Zalukas saw the problem of infidelity within his kingdom. He saw how the backbone of a strong society is a strong family and how adultery had the potential to destroy a society by destroying the family. When there is adultery, there could be children born out of wed lock. This breaks down the family unit. There could also be jealousy and murder when a husband finds out that another man has been sleeping with his wife. Therefore for the good of His Kingdom, the King outlawed adultery. But laws are not respected or regarded unless they have consequences. Penalties give the law authority and influence. Therefore the King assigned a very severe penalty for those who violated his law. Those who were found committing adultery would have both of their eyes removed by a hot poker!
A few people were found committing adultery and quickly the penalty was executed. This showed the Kingdom that the King meant business. He surely regarded his law and meant to maintain it. It wasn't long until adultery literally ceased from his Kingdom. But one day a man was brought before the King who had been committing adultery. It was the Kings own son, the prince of the Kingdom. The King was in a dilemma. On the one hand the King wanted to maintain His law. The authority and influence of his law depended upon the execution of the penalty. If He didn't execute the penalty, his Kingdom would question whether or not the King really regarded his law or not. If the King did not execute the penalty, the Kingdom would think that he gave a bad law or that he gave too severe a penalty. But on the other hand, the King cared about his son and was prone to forgive him. The King naturally preferred to show his son mercy. How could he do both? How could the King show mercy to his son but still uphold the authority and influence of his law throughout His Kingdom at the same time? The solution which the King found to his dilemma was a painful one. The King had one of the eyes of his son removed out of his love for his kingdom, and in lieu of the other eye of his son, he sacrificed his own out of his love for his son. He substituted one of his own eyes for the eye of his son. In this way the King showed His care and concern for his kingdom by supporting the law and his care and concern for his son by making a personal and painful sacrifice.
Through this sacrifice the King found a way to show mercy to his Son by not executing the full penalty of the law upon him, while also expressing to his Kingdom his regard for his law and thereby maintain the authority and influence of the precept. His sacrifice must have made a profound impression upon the minds of all his subjects and upon the mind of his son. Upon his kingdom, they must have been profoundly impressed with the King’s regard for the law. They would not dare to break the law themselves since they clearly see the king’s determination to uphold and maintain it. They also see how good their King is and how worthy He is to be obeyed. Upon the son, his mind must have been profoundly impressed with the love his father had for him. What remorse he must have had for his crimes! His disobedience cost his father so much! Out of love and gratitude for his father, he would want to live a life pleasing to him. He would forever see the loss of his father’s eye for the rest of his father’s life. How could he ever commit adultery again after seeing what a great price his father paid? Seeing what his law breaking cost his father would make him never want to break the law again.
I then explained that God gave His universe a very good law for our own good. The law of God promotes the highest well-being of all. In order to give authority to the precept, God has given a severe penalty. The penalty for violating God's law is to burn in hell for all of eternity. That is eternal death. At first there were angels who rebelled against God. They were quickly thrust out of Heaven and are now waiting Judgment Day. But then mankind sinned. Mankind was made in the image of God. Men were the crown of God's creation. God was prone to forgive mankind, but He must also maintain His law. On the one hand, the authority and influence of His law throughout His universe or Kingdom depends upon Him making a proper expression of His regard for His law so that crime is discouraged. God must protect and promote the well-being of His Kingdom. But on the other hand, God would prefer to forgive mankind by withholding or setting aside our penalty. How could God do both? How could God pardon disobedient men without encouraging the rest of His universe to sin? How could God remit our penalty of eternal hell but still uphold His law and maintain its authority and influence by manifesting His regard for His law? The answer is the atonement.
When God offered His own Son to make atonement for our sins, He provided a sacrifice which would stand in lieu of our eternal punishment. Catherine Booth said, “The Divine law has been broken; the interests of the universe demanded that its righteousness should be maintained, therefore, its penalty must be endured by the transgressor or, in lieu of this, such compensation must be rendered as would satisfy the claims of justice, and render it expedient for God to pardon the guilty… Christ made such a sacrifice as to render it possible for God to be just, and yet to pardon the sinner.” Catherine Booth (Popular Christianity, Published by Convention Bookstore, p. 30) Jesus Christ sacrificed Himself so that we don’t have to suffer the punishment of eternal hell. His suffering and death is a substitute for our penalty so that our penalty can be remitted. Through the atonement God manifests to His universe His regard for His law in a way even greater than the penalty of the law upon sinners would have. God showed His love for His universe by protecting their rights and interests by upholding the law while also showing His love for mankind by making such a personal and painful sacrifice on our behalf.
The atonement of Jesus Christ must have a profound impact upon all of the minds of the moral beings within God’s Kingdom. Upon His Kingdom, they must be deeply impressed with God’s regard for His law and for their interest by maintaining the law. This impression through God’s sacrifice upon their minds is even greater than it would have been had the penalty be simply executed upon us. Now the other moral subjects in God’s moral government would not dare break the law themselves since they clearly see God’s determination to uphold and maintain it. And they see how worthy God is to be loved and obeyed. The atonement accomplished the needed affected upon the rest of God’s kingdom in an even greater way than the penalty of the law being executed upon sinners would have. The atonement of Christ maintained, not only the fear of punishment amongst God’s other moral subjects, as the penalty being executed upon us would have, but also it gave them even greater motivation to obey God – because they see how good and worthy He. Though the penalty might have caused his subjects to fear him, the atonement must cause them to love Him. The penalty would have shown them God’s justice, but the atonement shows them God’s justice and His mercy. They behold the goodness and the severity of God. A fuller revelation or manifestation of God’s character is revealed at the cross of Christ than what could have been revealed by the penalty of the law.
The atonement also has a very deep impact and profound impression upon us who are being pardoned. What remorse the atonement creates in us for our sins! Our wickedness cost our loving Father so much! Out of love and gratitude, those who have been truly converted have decided to live the rest of their lives in a way pleasing to Him. Even for all of eternity we will see the wounds in the Lamb that was slain. How difficult it is for us to walk the path of sin again seeing what a great price that was paid. Seeing how much our transgressions of the law cost God, we want to never break the law again. We begin to love the precepts of the moral law and respect the authority of the law because we begin to love the Author of the law! Those who love the Lord will hate evil (Ps. 97:10; Amos 5:15). They can say, “I love thy law!” (Ps. 119:97). We begin to love God and His character and come to abhor everything that is contrary to God and His character. We love Him because He first loved us (1 Jn. 4:19). We love much because we have been forgiven much (Lk. 7:47). And love is the fulfillment of the law.
A revelation of God’s benevolent character and a manifestation of the loving heart of God, which was publicly shown and made known at the cross, is the converting power of the Gospel. It is that precious and powerful truth revealed to the mind that brings the rebellious will of man into complete submission, unconditional surrender, and loving obedience to the good and reasonable moral government of God. James B. Walker said, “The atonement of Christ produces the necessary effect upon the human soul, in restoring it to affectionate obedience, which neither philosophy, law, nor perceptive truth could accomplish.” James B. Walker (The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation, published by Bethany Fellowship, p. 160) This understanding gives us insight as to why true faith in Christ will purify our hearts (Acts 15:9), sanctify our lives (Acts 26:18), overcome the world (1 Jn. 5:4), result in good works (James 2:14-16), and works with a motive of love (Gal. 5:6). “And every man that hath his hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:3). Faith in Christ is a life changing thing! Now that we have put our faith in Christ, the rule of our life should be obedience. Hermas said, “That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of sins should not sin anymore, but should live in purity." Hermas (Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II, The Pastor of Hermas, Book Second) Our life should no longer be characterized by sin. We should walk in habitual holiness out of our love for Jesus Christ and a desire to glorify God. We love Him because He first loved us, and we know that love is the fulfillment of the law.
The Atonement as Objective and Subjective
The atonement solves all of God’s problems in forgiving mankind. The atonement makes it possible for God to safely remit the penalty of the law, by substituting our penalty and bringing us to repentance. It brings pardon and purification; forgiveness and freedom. The atonement is both objective and subjective. As a governmental substitution, the atonement is objective. The atonement substitutes our penalty and upholds or maintains the moral law throughout God’s universe just as our penalty would have and the atonement confirms holy beings in their obedience towards God. As a moral influence, the atonement is subjective. Seeing what Jesus Christ has done for us and beholding the great goodness and kindness of God brings us to complete repentance so that we never want to sin again but always want to do that which is pleasing to Him. Knowledge of the atonement draws sinners away from sin and unto God. Jesus said “if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (Jn. 12:32) The Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16). The truth of the atonement is the greatest moral influence in the entire universe. No other truth could possibly influence our will to repentance and obedience as forcefully or persuasively as the truth of the atonement can. If a man is not brought to repentance by the truth of the atonement, after it has been clearly and powerfully presented to his mind, than his case must be hopeless.