Soteriology, Part 3 - Christ’s Atonement (Key Passages from Romans/Hebrews). 

1. Why do we want to talk about this?

   1. We know that God has chosen to save a multitude of people from “every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7:9). Therefore, the next question is how will He actually save those whom He has elected? They cannot simply be forgiven of their sins, for that would make God unjust. There must be some way to atone for the sins of God’s elect so they may be restored to a right relationship with God. There must be a means by which God saves His elect. 

2. What does it mean to atone for something? Specifically for sins. 

   1. The Hebrew term for “atonement” is kippur. This comes from the same word origin as kopher, meaning “the price of a life or a ransom,” and kaphar, meaning “to cover over, pacify, or make propitiation.” 

   2. The Greek term used to describe the “taking away of sins'' is aphaireó and the term for “to make propitiation for, forgive, or pardon” is hilaskomai, which is very close to hilastérion, meaning “(a) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation, (b) the covering of the ark, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement.”

      1. “To "take away sin," is to make atonement for it, to expiate it before God by a satisfaction given, or price paid, with the procurement of the pardon of it, according to the terms of the new covenant.” - John Owen, Commentary on Hebrews, Part 6. 

3. Using these root words for where we get the terms “atone, atonement, etc.” it can easily be seen that to atone for sins means to make propitiation for them, to cover them, to have them forgiven or pardoned, to have them taken away.

3. How are our sins atoned for? 

   1. Through the blood of Jesus Christ (Romans 3:21-31, Hebrews 9:11-10:18). 

   2. His blood is the substance required to cover our sins. This is because there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood (9:22), and the blood of Christ is the blood of a man (John 1:14) who knew no sin (1 Peter 2:22), the God-man. 

4. However, is it enough for our sins to merely be covered? Or do we need something else to be brought into glorification with Christ? 

   1. Our justification is more than just the forgiveness of our sins. We need a way for our sins to be wiped away and for the righteousness of God to be imputed to us. Simply being innocent is not enough to make it to heaven, we must also be righteous before God. Of course, we can never do this on our own and so God must have provided a means by which we can also be made righteous. Perhaps by killing two birds with one stone?

5. Let’s walk through part of Chapter 5 and look at what these verses tell us about the imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. 

What is the implication of each verse? Verses 15-17. 

6. Can you out-sin God’s grace? Are you too sinful for God to redeem? Verses 18-21. 

   1. Absolutely not. You cannot out-sin God because God is mercy, God is grace. He does not have a limited quantity of either, for He is infinite.

   2. NOBODY IS TOO FAR GONE FOR GOD TO REDEEM! 

7. Even though Scripture is clear on this, have you ever felt this way? Have you ever felt like you have sinned too much for God to save you or care for you?

   1. I know I have. Even after being saved there have been times where I’ve doubted my salvation because of my sin. However, we know that God’s grace abounds all the more. We know He will not leave us nor forsake us. We will delve more into this in Chapter 8 when we touch on the Preservation of the Saints. In short, you can’t sin yourself out of God’s grace because you didn’t work your way into it. 

8. In summary, how is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us?

   1. He bears our sin so that we may bear His righteousness. This is clearly presented in this passage and in 2 Corinthians 5:21. 

   2. “This is a twofold act; God imputes - that is, counts, credits, or reckons - our sin to Christ and punishes Him in our place, and He imputes Christ’s righteousness to believers and grants them eternal life in Him.” - John MacArthur, Biblical Doctrine, Pg. 615. 

3. “I would argue that the New Testament clearly teaches the lifelong passive obedience of Christ (His penalty-bearing work) and the lifelong active obedience of Christ (His will-of-God-obeying work), culminating in the cross. We then receive the benefit of this through the imputation of the obedience of Christ (the reckoning of Christ’s complete work to our account when we trust in Him for salvation and are united to Him).” - Justin Taylor, The Gospel Coalition.

9. Let’s walk through part of Chapter 8 and look at what these verses tell us about the atonement of Christ (it’s intent and extent). Notice how Paul uses rhetorical questions to cause the audience to think through his truth statements. 

What is the implication of each verse? Verses 31-37. 

We must think critically about the intent and extent of the atonement, who is the “us” in all of these truth claims? God’s elect. It is not the whole world. God is not for the persecutors, those inflicting the tribulation, nor those who are putting the sword to believers. God is against them, He is angry with the wicked every day. If Christ died for everyone, no one would go to hell. This is foolishness. If Christ died for all sins except the sin of unbelief, we’d all be in hell (Mark 9:24).

10. Therefore, is the atonement governmental, substitutionary, or something else?

    1. Use this article from Got Questions to briefly explain what the different theories on the atonement are: What are the various theories on the atonement?. 

    2. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is clearly the most logical and biblical theory on the atonement. As Sinclair Ferguson put it, Jesus is our representative before the Father, but He is not merely our representative, He is our substitute. He is unlike that of a representative in Congress who is supposed to represent his group of people. Jesus does not merely represent us, He took our place. 

       1. Use the story of John Harper and the Titanic. To give one’s life for another is far more than just representation. Christ took our place. 

       2. “There is no truth plainer than this in the whole of the Old Testament! And it must have within it a very weighty lesson to our souls. There are some who cannot endure the doctrine of a substitutionary atonement. Let them beware lest they be casting away the very soul and essence of the gospel! It is evident that the sacrifice of Christ was intended to give ease to the conscience, for we read that the blood of bulls and of goats could not do that. I fail to see how any doctrine of atonement except the doctrine of the vicarious sacrifice of Christ can give ease to the guilty conscience. Christ in my stead suffering the penalty of my sin pacifies my conscience, but nothing else does: "Without shedding of blood is no remission." (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. 41, sermon 2427).

11. What was the intent of the atonement of Christ? Was it to save every human to ever live, to make salvation possible for every human to ever live, to definitely save an elect group of people as decided by God, or something else?

    1. As seen by our research into the doctrine of God’s election, the Lord has elected to save some and pass over others. Furthermore, Scripture is clear that Christ died for His people, also referred to as His sheep, and not every single human to ever exist (Isaiah 52:13-53:12, John 10:7-30). 

    2. However, when discussing the scope of the atonement and whether it was intended to save all, make salvation possible, or save only a particular group, we must recognize that the main intent of the atonement of Christ is to redeem the universe to what it was before the fall of man. 

       1. “Christ’s death on the cross in the place of sinners is substitutionary (1 Cor. 5:7, Eph. 5:2, Col. 1:20, Rom. 5:8-9). He, the innocent, righteous One drank the cup of God’s wrath in order that guilty sinners might not have to (Mk. 10:45). But in addition to this, Jesus died to “reconcile the world” to God (2 Cor. 5:19) and to defeat the powers of sin and death (1 Cor. 15:25-26) that hold the creation in bondage and decay (Rom. 8). Ultimately, the main point of Christ’s death and resurrection is not simply the salvation of individual human beings, but the restoration of the universe to its original shalom, which has as its ultimate end the glorification of God, that He may be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).” - Trevin Wax, TGC. 

12. Therefore, is the atonement of Christ limited, unlimited, or universal? 

    1. The Doctrine of Limited Atonement states that Christ died to effectively save those whom the Father has given Him, His flock. Though the gospel is preached to all, not all will repent and believe. Limited atonement explains this by stating that those whom Christ died for will at the time God has appointed repent and believe unto Christ, but those whom God has justly passed over will not. 

       1. Therefore, the atonement is limited by God’s will. 

    2. The Doctrine of Unlimited Atonement states that Christ died to make salvation possible for every man to ever live, though it does not effectively save any. It states that though the atonement is technically limited, it is only limited by who decides in their free-will to accept or reject the free gift of salvation. 

       1. Therefore, the atonement is said to be limited by man’s will. 

    3. The Doctrine of Universal Atonement states that Christ literally died for every human to ever live, meaning that nobody will ever go to hell. This is heretical. Followers of this doctrine are commonly also Unitarians, another heresy. 

       1. Therefore, the atonement is truly not limited at all. 

    4. Ultimately, we all know the atonement is limited in one sense or another. Therefore the question becomes: Is the atonement limited by God or by man?

13. Which view of the atonement glorifies Christ the most? 

    1. The Doctrine of Atonement which glorifies Christ the most is that of Penal Substitution and therefore Limited Atonement. Other names for limited atonement include definite atonement and particular redemption. 

       1. This is because it solidifies that the Lord did exactly what He planned to do, save His people, His flock. By saying God merely made salvation a possibility makes God weak and unable to save on His own. By saying God saved every human to ever live makes you a heretic. 

14. What happens to those whose sins Christ has atoned for? 

    1. The Lord Jesus Christ is now interceding and advocating for us at the right hand of the Father (Romans 8:33-34, Hebrews 7:25, 1 John 2:1). 

       1. To intercede for us (Gk. entugchanó) is to “(a) I meet, encounter, hence: (b) I call (upon), make a petition, make suit, supplication.” 

       2. An advocate (Gk. paraklétos) is “(a) an advocate, intercessor, (b) a consoler, comforter, helper, (c) Paraclete.”

          1. It is incredibly interesting to note that paraklétos is the same term used to describe the Holy Spirit as “Helper” in John 15:26. 

    2. “In Christ we have our advocate, for when Satan the accuser brings forth charges of our sin to God, Christ averts the Father’s gaze unto Himself so that the Father sees the righteousness of our Lord and Savior and no longer our dreadful sin.”

       1. Luke Marriner. I could not find the quote I based this one off of, so I rewrote it in my own words. I thought it was Calvin but am not sure. 

15. What are some challenging texts or interpretations to look at or hear when supporting the doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement?

    1. Text: Romans 8.

    2. Interpretation: This passage isn’t referencing a “golden chain of salvation” at all, instead it is simply speaking in the past tense to show Paul is speaking of how God treated the OT saints. In other words, He foreknew them (knew them before the time of Paul writing Romans), He predestined them (before the foundation of the world, to be conformed to the image of His Son), He called them, He justified them (through Christ), and He glorified them. ~ Ryan Rufus. 

    3. Response: Nobody has been glorified yet except for Christ, therefore this interpretation falls through the water. We cannot simply say, “because it is in the past tense, Paul must be talking about people who have already gone through this process.” Also, this interpretation describes these verses as a process; we would call this the “golden chain of salvation.” Overall, this interpretation is clearly flawed and not well thought out. 

4. Text: Romans 9. 

5. Interpretation: This passage is in reference to the blessings of salvation that God has placed on the Jews and not the Arabs or any other ethnicities. Therefore, Paul is talking about entire nations being chosen, not individuals.  

6. Response: “That didn’t persuade me for five minutes, because even if he were talking about nations, he illustrates it by the individuals who are at the head of that nation, so no matter how your slice it you’re still back down here wrestling with one person receiving a blessing from God and the other person not, and it’s based ultimately on the good pleasure of God Himself.” - R.C. Sproul. 

7. Text: John 3:16. 

8. Interpretation: John uses the term “whosoever” to show that the atonement is available to anyone who repents and believes in Christ, not just some. 

9. Response: The original manuscripts don’t use “whosoever,” they more accurately read “all who believe” or “everyone who believes.” This comes from the Greek term πᾶς, meaning “all” or “every”). No matter which phrase is used in the English, it is still true that anyone who believes in Christ will be saved. People from any soteriological background (that believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ) would agree with this statement, therefore this argument changes nothing about how the verse must be interpreted. 

10. Texts: John 1:29, Romans 11:32, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:5-6. 

11. Interpretation: God has mercy on all and Christ’s death dealt with (atoned for) the sin of the entire world (meaning every individual human to ever exist). 

12. Response: God does have mercy on all in that He allows them to remain alive despite their rebellion against Him. Furthermore, we know not all humans ever will be saved, so to say that Christ’s death covered every human to ever exist is illogical and destructive to His work on the cross. Logically, it claims that Christ’s work on the cross wasn’t enough to truly save those who He bore the wrath of God for. It also claims that most whom Christ died for will have to bear the wrath of God for their sins in hell for eternity, this means that those sins are being punished twice and therefore God is unjust (this is blasphemy). The best way to understand these passages is that they are speaking of people from all over the world, not just the Israelites. This interpretation respects God’s election of individuals from “every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Revelation 7:9) and stays faithful to the mercy of God. 

13. Text: Hebrews 2:9. 

14. Interpretation: Christ tasted death for “everyone” and not just some. 

15. Response: We must continue reading in Hebrews to see that the author is implying Christ died for everyone who is in the Church (God’s chosen people). John Gill writes, “for everyone of the sons God brings to glory, (10) for everyone of the "brethren", whom Christ sanctifies, and he is not ashamed to own, and to whom he declares the name of God, (11-12) for everyone of the members of the "church", in the midst of which he sung praise, (12) for every one of the "children" God has given him, and for whose sake he took part of flesh and blood, (13-14) and for everyone of the "seed" of Abraham, in a spiritual sense, whose nature he assumed, (16).” Furthermore, to say Christ (who is the Great High Priest) is interceding for everyone goes against the picture of Christ interceding specifically for His people as shown in Chapters 9 and 10.”

16. Text: 2 Peter 2:1. 

17. Interpretation: Christ died even for false teachers whom God has called, so clearly Christ died for every human being to ever exist. Not only those who never repent and believe, but even those who attempt to destroy the Church. 

18. Response: As Matt Perman writes, “First, it is unclear exactly what Peter means when he says the false teachers were "bought." It is true that 1 Corinthians 6:20 and other verses use "bought" as a reference to what Christ did at His death. But that does not mean that the word is used in this way everywhere it appears in Scripture…Second, it is also ambiguous whether Peter is referring to God the Father or Christ as the Lord who bought them when he says that they will "even deny the sovereign Lord who bought them." In fact, it is likely that the "sovereign Lord" who Peter says had bought these false teachers is a reference to God the Father, not Christ…Third, it is ambiguous whether Peter is speaking of the reality of a purchase, or according to the appearance of a purchase--that is, their outward appearance and profession. In other words, the verse may mean, "denying the Master who [they say] bought them [but really didn't]," or it may be intended to confirm that these false teachers would come from within the visible church. To speak of them as "bought," then, wouldn't mean that Christ had died to save them, but that they occupied a position that is supposed to be occupied only by those who have been bought.”

16. Though these texts (and some others) pose a challenge to the doctrines of unconditional election and limited atonement and should challenge us to be “examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” just as the Bereans did in Acts 17:10-15. 

    1. It is crucial to remember that one cannot disprove the doctrine of unconditional election through the use of Scripture. Secondly, we must realize that those whom Christ died for (bore their sins and the wrath of God thereof) will not taste the eternal wrath of God (hell). Therefore, not a single human that Christ died for will go to hell. Since Scripture is clear that many people will go down the path of destruction to hell, it is clear that Christ did not die for all. Therefore, the atonement must be limited. We know that God’s will is sovereign over man’s will, and unconditional election being biblical leads to the atonement being limited by the will of God, not the will of man (which we’ve looked at in Scripture). I believe it is clear that the atonement is limited to those whom God has chosen. 

17. Resources: 

    1. Limited atonement-is it biblical? Got Questions. 

    2. TULIP and Reformed Theology: Limited Atonement Ligonier, RC Sproul. 

    3. Arminian Principles for Interpreting Romans 9. Kevin Jackson. 

    4. What are the main arguments against limited atonement? Got Questions. 

    5. Hebrews 2:9 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse BibleStudyTools. 

    6. Hebrews 2:9, 'Taste Death For Everyone' - The Staunch Calvinist 

    7. Does 2 Peter 2:1 Deny Effectual Atonement? desiringGod, Matt Perman.

    8. How Does Penal Substitution Relate to Other Atonement Theories? 9marks, Steven J. Wellum.

18. Sermons: 

    1. Limited Atonement: What is Reformed Theology? with R.C. Sproul

    2. These Verses Are NOT About ELECTION and PREDESTINATION! | ROMANS 8:29-30 Ryan Rufus, a dangerous Word of Faith and New Apostolic Reformation teacher. 

    3. Sinclair Ferguson: The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

    4. The Paraclete: Foundations - An Overview of Systematic Theology with R.C. Sproul