------------------
When we found this quiz we thought it would be worthwhile to take it and see what are the author's views. We were surprised to learn that there are some what we would consider to be false understandings contained within it.
We answered according to our understanding and got a 69%. Here are the ones we got wrong with an analysis of each. The slides do not appear in the order presented by the quiz.
------------------
The statement reads, "The word 'atonement' means to make amends by blotting out an offense." we answered false, but the author considers this a true statement. The author then quotes a theologian, not the Bible.
The word "atonement" in the Hebrew means to "cover over." There is no indication that atonement means to blot out, but rather, atonement essentially hides the transgression from God.
In the Greek the meaning is a little more nuanced. The KJV translates λαστήριον as "propitiation," whereas the NIV uses the word "atonement." We believe that rendering the word "atonement" is not accurate, since in the NT a new concept is being taught. The atonement in the OT covered over sin, but the blood of Jesus completely forgives sin and washes us clean.
So λαστήριον suggests bringing the recipient into line with God's character by way of His transformative power, a quite different idea.
The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the OT sacrifices did not blot out sin. He. 10:4: because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. We conclude, therefore, that the concept of atonement is an OT concept, whereas Christ's death on the cross exceeds that.
This makes the answer to the quiz "false." The author is wrong.
***
The next question reads, God counted people's sins to Christ, so when he dies, he was enduring the retributive justice of God due to them for their sins. We answered this as false, but the author calls it true.
This is curiously obfuscating language. Retributive justice is not a biblical phrase. It is a legal concept based on the idea that the punishment is proportional to the crime.
But Jesus wasn't punished for our sins. Rather, as the perfect lamb, Jesus shed His blood as the one final sacrifice and washed us clean. He. 9:22:
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.Forgiveness, then, is not a covering act, it is a purifying act, washing us. Tit. 3:5:
...he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit...The sacrificial animals in the OT weren't being punished. Jesus wasn't punished. There is no verse in the NT that describes Jesus as being punished.
The author commits an error by citing Isaiah 53:5. The passage reads:
Is. 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.We need to be more careful when we read Scripture. First, notice that Isaiah corrects the reader. We considered him stricken by God, that was the perception. Then Isaiah says "but." We thought God struck him, "but."
Here's Isaiah's correction: He was pierced, crushed, and punished. Isaiah does not say God did this! The events of the crucifixion are being detailed for us, hundreds of years before the actual event. The reader will recall that it was the Roman soldiers who did this.
Also notice that this punishment... was upon him. The word upon is עַל (al), which means upon, above, over. We see this over and over, don't we? The punishment was upon, above, over Jesus. He carried our sin, He wasn't punished!
So we thought He was stricken by God, "but" He was pierced for us, not punished by God.
Phil. 2:7-8 tells us:
...but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!The author's second cited verse also does not speak of punishment. Col. 2:14:
having cancelled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.Nor does the third cited verse, 2Co. 5:19:
That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.We conclude that the concept of retributive justice is not a biblical one, and Jesus wasn't punished for our sins.
***
The question reads, it was necessary for Christ to be human in order to substitute himself for human sinners and endure the wrath of God on their behalf. We called this statement false. The author thinks it's true.
The first cited verse is He. 2:17:
For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.There's that same word we saw above, λαστήριον, improperly translated "atonement." But as we have discussed, the saving work of Jesus Christ did not atone (cover over) our sins, our sins were washed away and we now stand righteous before God. Also, we find nothing here about enduring the wrath of God.
Now the author cites Ro. 5:12-21:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned — 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.Nothing here about enduring the wrath of God. There is no verse in the NT that says Jesus endured the wrath of God.
***
This statement reads, Christ's death atoned for the sin of everyone who has ever lived and who will ever live. We answered true. The author thinks it is false. He offers only one verse, Ro. 2:5:
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.The atonement isn't even mentioned in the cited verse.
The first question we need to ask is, what is the context of this verse? Especially, who is the "your" being referred to? We are just coming out of chapter 1, which introduced us to Paul's line of thought. Ro. 1:18:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...God's wrath is directed "godless and wickedness," especially those who have rejected God's testimony to them as expressed in creation (vs. 1:20). They engaged in unholy acts, and they exchanged the truth of God for a lie... Ro. 1:25.
The chapter concludes with Ro. 1:32:
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.So Paul has set up the idea of whom God has directed his wrath towards. They are people who had revelation of of God, yet rejected righteousness and placed their seal of approval on those who joined with them in unrighteous acts.
They approved of believing a lie. They made a judgment that the unrighteous acts that arise therefrom were perfectly fine.
Now we arrive at chapter 2, where Paul turns the tables and points to the reader. Ro. 2:1:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.So the subject is now "you" (the Greek is plural, as in "you all.") who participate in and agree with those who join in with unholy acts. Those people make the judgment that such things are perfectly ok. And that's what earns God's wrath.
So now we know that the atonement is nowhere in this equation.
***
The question reads, The purpose of Christ's death was to atone for everyone's sin, but those who refuse to believe and be saved frustrate God's purpose for Christ's work. We answered true, but the author thinks it is false. The reason? Calvin's TULIP, the "L" standing for Limited Atonement. According to Calvinists, the atonement was not for all, but only for those predestined for salvation.
The first passage cited, Ep. 1:3-14:
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love Ep. 1:5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment — to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession — to the praise of his glory.This is a richly dense passage, which to the casual eye suggests that we were chosen for salvation before we were even born. That is, everyone who will be saved is already identified and selected by God.
Now, We're going to point out something, that although present in the text, should not be construed as a definitive case. Paul begins by saying, For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. Paul states, "He chose us." It is "us" who we were predestined and chosen.
Paul refers to "we" and "us" frequently in these verses, 3-12.
But in verse 13 he turns his attention to "you," the reader. He writes, "And you also." Paul was previously referring to those he was with, likely the other apostles, as "us" and "we." But now he is talking about "you."
Verse 13 says "You" were "also included." When did this happen? When you "heard the word of truth!" Paul is telling his audience that they also were included in the promise, just like those in his company, but for them it happened when they believed! It was that that time "you" were given the seal of the Holy Spirit, after "you" believed!
This suggests at least the possibility that not everyone is predestined, that perhaps it was the apostles were predestined. Thus it seems the people to whom Paul was writing were included in the Promise at the moment they believed.
It is also worth mentioning as an aside that the existence of predestination does not exclude human free will, as Calvinists like to think. God is not binary, and there is no reason to insist on an "either/or" simply because of our western cultural thought processes.
The second proof passage, Ep. 5:25:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...Here Paul focuses on a principle, that is, Christ's actions for the sake of His bride ought to be emulated by husbands regarding their wives. This is not a salvation or atonement statement. The magnitude or limitation of the atonement is not being discussed.
Next, he offers Ro. 8:31:
What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all — how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? 33 Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died — more than that, who was raised to life — is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.When Paul personalizes the Gospel and how it comes to bear on us, he is not attempting to define some sort of limited application of it. Paul is focusing on his audience and applying his point for their understanding. He is not making a universal statement.
The statement reads, During the time of the Old Testament, the sins of the people of Israel were actually atoned for my the animal sacrifices God instituted for them. We answered true, and Mr. Challies believes this is false.
His first cited verse is He. 10:11-14:
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy.Previously we noted that the OT atonement was the "covering over" of sin. Therefore, we rightly conclude that the sacrifices of animals did indeed atone, cover over, for the sins of Israel. interestingly, the author appeals to a verse that actually contradicts his thesis. The verse says, "can never take away sins." This is what Jesus did, and it is not the OT atonement.
This means the author is wrong.
Second cited verse, Ro. 3:25:
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished —As we noted above, the word "atonement" is the loose NIV translation. We previously made the case that using the word "atonement" is improper, because sin is no longer covered over, it is wiped clean and forgiven by the sufficient sacrifice of Christ.
Indeed, Paul writes here that God had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. This is clearly a manifestation of the "covering over" atonement. The sins still existed, but were not punished. Now, Christ has changed the transaction and the atonement is no longer relevant.
It seems clear to us that the author has a flawed understanding of the atonement.
No comments:
Post a Comment