Multiple Intentions View of the Atonement

So which atonement do you perscribe to?

Laine,

Good question, thanks for calling me out. :)

One of the most important in my mind. In fact, the theology of atonement, weaves the beauty of the wisdom of God in a fantastic way. In fact, it connects Old and New Testaments showing his intentionality.

For me defining the terms is very important to even begin to answer. Many times people confuse "died for" with "atoned for" - for my response I will use "atonement" to mean that the person's sins are in fact, actually atoned for...ie, that they are actually forgiven, justified, the sacrifice applied to the person. I guess I disagree with Dr. Ware in that I think efficacy IS the issue with the atonement.

In the Old Testament, atonement was demonstrated in two ways, with two separate animals (All of this is in Leviticus 16 and then reflected in Hebrews 9 and 10). One was a perfect lamb without blemish, which was sacrificed, its blood shed, for the sins of people. This was a substitute. Blood always represents life and the message was clear. The guilty would be atoned for by the sacrifice of another. The other was called the scape goat (and yes, this is where the term originated in our venacular). The scape goat would be treated this way:

“And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. 21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.

These two goats have a fascinating purpose in foreshadowing the work of Christ. The first was a penal substitute - punished and slain for sin. This matches Jesus propitiating work on the cross. His death took the wrath we deserved for our rebellion and sin. The second goat, the scapegoat, quite literally "takes our sins away" from us. This foreshadows Jesus' expiating work on the cross - to take away our sins.

So when I use the word atonement, and I think the Bible uses it this way - it means efficatious. In that sense I think the only people who are atoned for are those who place trust/faith in Jesus as their sacrifice and scapegoat. Therefore I do not believe those who remain under God's just wrath and who never turn to him, receive forgiveness, et al. are not atoned for...so I do not believe in Universal "atonement" - now, I do believe that in a sense Jesus "died for" all. In other words, his death is sufficient for any that will come to him, yet it is only effective for those who repent and believe.

I would probably be in the multiple intentions camp, but would use the strong term "atonement" for those who believe the gospel and place faith in Jesus. How this happens is a long discussion, but I do believe God is the first actor in our salvation.

Dr. Ware's view puts the many purposes of the cross firmly in view - including atonement for the elect. I also think his outline is pretty helpful in laying out the important Scriptural passages.

So let me boil it down:

1. I believe Jesus died to certainly save and purchase people for God from every nation tribe and tongue.


2. Those that repent and put faith in Jesus are atoned for by his death on the Cross - both its sacrificial and expiatory functions.


3. The gospel is offered to all, even though only some receive it.

Not every person from some peoples, this would be ethnocentricism and a erroneous tribal view of God...Nor every person from every peoples; this is the error of universalism which Jesus clearly did not teach.

One final note...many find John Owen's little syllogism very persuasive, I'll copy it in here as it is historically important:

---------------------------------------------------------------
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

Thanks!

I think R L Dabney did an excellent job on the extent & intent of the atonement. At
http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20
Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter35.htm

And here's my little poem, to help me remember how to put it together...

O Glorious Atonement!
Unlimited in extent,
But limited by intent,
sufficient for all,
efficient to the called.
Christ publicly portrayed
as propitiation for the world:
Come one! Come all!
The mystery is deep,
the inivitation sincere:
the fountain is for you,
So wash and do not fear.