----------------------
Mr. Ratliff first came to our attention a couple of years ago for his unwarranted certainty regarding his Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines. It's not that he's particularly arrogant, he's simply persuaded he's absolutely correct and anything else is heresy. That has earned him his own tag in our blog.
Today he discusses his doctrinal view regarding the atonement, once again with the absolute certainty he's correct. But he doesn't really explain anything, Of the 1300 words, 340 are devoted to the actual topic.
In actual fact, Jesus did not atone for our sins, He propitiated them. Mr. Ratliff will focus on Romans 5:11 which does not contain the Greek word commonly translated "atonement." This verse employs the Greek word katallagēn (reconciliation), not hilastērion, relating to appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory...
A verse containing the correct word, hilastērion, is found here:
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood... [KJV]
Jesus' sacrificial death satisfied the Father's wrath. He propitiated for us by means of His blood which washed us clean. This is different than atonement, which is the covering over (Hebrew, kaphar) of sin. This means Jesus' propitiation is superior to atonement.
This propitiation (incorrectly rendered "atonement" in some translations) provides the means for reconciliation. Therefore, Mr. Ratliff not only misunderstands the atonement, he skips a step.
11 And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Romans 5:11 (1599 Geneva Bible)
The very heart of Christianity is the doctrine of the Atonement. Is it no wonder that so many proclaiming a “new type of Christianity” also attempt to do away with this doctrine? Any attempts to redefine Christianity by modifying or eliminating this doctrine are marks of heresy. (Here it is. Unless you share his view of the atonement you are a heretic.)
I have seen professing Christians argue and write off former brothers in the faith over aspects of our faith that are nowhere near as vital to orthodoxy as the doctrine of the Atonement. I have been cursed and called heretical because I have differed from those doing so on things like eschatology or on the Sovereignty of God. (Ah, so he's been on the receiving end. He knows what it's like to experience the dissent of detractors. Yet he seems to be just fine with dispensing the very same to those he targets. Hmm.)
How can we do that to our brothers and sisters in Christ whose sins have been atoned for by Christ just as our’s (sic) have? Emerging Christianity (?? Topic change...)
along with the movement to include Social Justice into the Gospel are nebulously defined paradigms that see doctrine as divisive and, therefore, unimportant. Their advocates want Christianity to be only about social and relational things and not about doctrine at all. (Probably true, but Mr. Ratliff was supposed to be teaching about the atonement.)
To make that paradigm shift though requires a departure from Christian Orthodoxy because that also says that the Atonement of Christ is not something that should be what defines what real Christianity is or is not. Woke “Christians” have even said that without the inclusion of Social Justice we do not even have the real Gospel. (Continuing the tangent...)
Also, to declare doctrine unimportant requires a departure from Sola Scriptura. Why? Sola Scriptura says that God’s Word defines our doctrines as given to the Church by God Himself. Our doctrines are not man-made. (This is outrageously false. Doctrines are most certainly man-made attempts to interpret what the Bible teaches. A doctrine is derived from the Bible and is below it in authority.)
They are Biblical and so are binding on God’s people. (??? Doctrines may or may not be biblical. Mr. Ratliff in this very article is discussing doctrines, some of which he just asserted were false.
Further, doctrines are not binding, the Bible is. Mr. Ratliff seems to be canonizing his preferred doctrines, elevating them to the status of Scripture, thus rendering them impervious to questioning. This is cultic behavior.)
Therefore, we will attempt to define the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ biblically. (Ah, finally he going to address the actual topic.)
3 For first of all, I delivered unto you that which I received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures,4 And that he was buried, and that he arose the third day, according to the Scriptures,5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.6 After that, he was seen of more than five hundred brethren at once: whereof many remain unto this present, and some also are asleep. 1 Corinthians 15:3-6 (1599 Geneva Bible)
The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ includes a sinless and a bodily-resurrected Christ. Notice also the centrality of the biblical fact that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. No matter who attempts to detract from this, the Word of God is clear; the Death of Jesus Christ was sacrificial and necessary for Man’s redemption. (Mr. Ratliff is correct, Jesus' death was indeed sacrificial. We note this because it will change later when he quotes Spurgeon.)
I placed Romans 5:11 at the top of this post. Here it is in Greek:
11 οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ διʼ οὗ νῦν τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν. Romans 5:11 (NA28) (Providing the Greek characters is unenlightening and also is needless intellectual posturing.)
11 And not only this, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we have now received the atonement. Romans 5:11 (translated from the NA28 Greek text to English)
Combine this passage with 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 and it is difficult to see how anyone who claims adherence to Sola Scriptura could possibly deny the veracity of the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ. (We doubt the veracity of Mr. Ratliff's interpretation of the doctrine, not the doctrine itself.)
The NASB and the LSB both render καταλλαγὴν as “reconciliation.” (Mr. Ratliff is referring to the word rendered "atonement" in Romans 5:11 above. As we mentioned, "reconciliation" [καταλλαγὴν, katallagēn] is not atonement.
Atonement is a related concept to reconciliation but not synonymous. Reconciliation requires an antecedent, atonement.)
Καταλλαγην defines a change of condition in which relationship and/or standing is restored from one of separation to one of unity. (Reconciliation.)
Who has been reconciled to whom and how was it accomplished? (Mr. Ratliff tacitly admits that reconciliation is preceded by something.)
These are important considerations. Paul states in Romans 5:11 that ἐλάβομεν (lambanó, actively lay hold of to take or receive.)
this καταλλαγην. Ελάβομεν refers the action of receiving something presented, but the one doing the action is not necessarily the one “receiving” what is given. Ελάβομεν in this passage is aorist tense, indicative mood, and active voice. The means of believers “receiving” the καταλλαγην (Reconciliation.)
is given to us through the Lord Jesus. It is a gift. (Yes, but again there is the antecedent. The reconciliation we receive arises out of something.)
We see the means of its reality in 1 Corinthians 15:3,4 and Ephesians 2:8,9).
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 (LSB)
The καταλλαγην (Reconciliation.)
was appropriated by God through Christ dying for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. This καταλλαγην, this atonement, (Reconciliation.)
is the means of making amends. All people are born in sin. All people are dead in their trespasses and sins. Those who are declared righteous by God are those on whose behalf the καταλλαγην (Reconciliation.)
was made. Never forget my brethren, God’s wrath burns against all sin. John 3:36 tells us that the wrath of God abides on the sinner, however, our Lord Jesus has made the atoning sacrifice acceptable to the Father for the sins of His people. (Mr. Ratliff slips in a little bit of his Calvinism. "His people" is a reference to Limited atonement, the Calvinistic idea that Jesus did not die for the world, but rather, only the ones predestined to be saved.)
Also, this atoning sacrifice is complete and eternal. (Mr. Ratliff is now done explaining the atonement.)
The merits of our great Redeemer are as sweet savour to the Most High. Whether we speak of the active or passive righteousness of Christ, (??? What are these?)there is an equal fragrance. There was a sweet savour in His active life (??? What's this?)by which He honoured the law of God, and made every precept to glitter like a precious jewel in the pure setting of His own person. (Flowery nonsense.)Such, too, was His passive obedience, (??? What's this?)when He endured with unmurmuring submission, hunger and thirst, cold and nakedness, and at length sweat great drops of blood in Gethsemane, gave His back to the smiters, and His cheeks to them that plucked out the hair, and was fastened to the cruel wood, that He might suffer the wrath of God in our behalf. (Spurgeon is incorrect. Jesus absolutely did not suffer the wrath of God on our behalf. See our discussion here.)These two things are sweet before the Most High; and for the sake of His doing and His dying, His substitutionary sufferings and His vicarious obedience, (??? What's this?)the Lord our God accepts us. What a preciousness must there be in Him to overcome our want of preciousness! What a sweet savour to put away our ill savour! What a cleansing power in His blood to take away sin such as ours! (Indeed. Flowery rhetoric aside, Spurgeon just told us that Jesus suffered the wrath of God. However, if the blood cleansed us the Father accepted Jesus' sacrifice. Why would the Father accept the blood but then go on to punish Jesus in addition? Wasn't the blood enough?)and what glory in His righteousness to make such unacceptable creatures to be accepted in the Beloved! Mark, believer, how sure and unchanging must be our acceptance, since it is in Him! Take care that you never doubt your acceptance in Jesus. (Does Spurgeon expect that Christians must never doubt? That seems unreasonable.)You cannot be accepted without Christ; but, when you have received His merit, you cannot be unaccepted. (Another subtle nod to Calvinism, Perseverance of the Saints. This is the Calvinistic idea that because the saved are predestined they cannot lose their salvation.)Notwithstanding all your doubts, and fears, and sins, Jehovah’s gracious eye never looks upon you in anger; though He sees sin in you, in yourself, yet when He looks at you through Christ, (Spurgeon is referring to something called "imputed righteousness," the idea that we are still are nasty little sinners and that Jesus is shielding us from the Father with His righteousness. This is false. We discuss this here.)He sees no sin. You are always accepted in Christ, are always blessed and dear to the Father’s heart.
Therefore lift up a song, and as you see the smoking incense of the merit of the Saviour coming up, this evening, before the sapphire throne, let the incense of your praise go up also. – C.H. Spurgeon from Spurgeon’s Evening by Evening for March 28.
This short study does not do justice to such an important subject as the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ. (It would help if Mr. Ratliff didn't waste words on needless tangents.)
We have barely scratched the surface. However, let us not forget that it is through the Atonement of Christ we are reconciled to God, not the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ. (??? We thought his doctrines were binding?)
It is vital that we adhere to God’s Truth not that of men. Truth is truth regardless of whether it is popular or believed. This is why true Christianity is made up of what must be believed by faith not sight. When man insists on his own way of Christianity it will be of the works of the flesh and devil and will not be focused on God’s Truth because those who do such a thing do not possess saving faith.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment