On the atonement, part 1: federal headship and forensic imputation
Posted on Wednesday, December 17, 2008 under papers with the following tags: limited atonement, penal substitution, salvation.In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 1 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with what is revealed in Scripture about federal headship and forensic imputation: two doctrines central to Christ’s penal substitution.
⇐ Continued from ‘On the atonement: introduction’
My first argument is that limited atonement is incongruent with federal headship and forensic imputation. These two doctrines are central to penal substitution, which in turn is at the heart of the atonement: they say firstly that one man can represent another so that even his sin or righteousness can be regarded as the other’s; and secondly that God, in fact, does impute our sin to Christ and his righteousness to us, by which we may be saved apart from any merit of our own—for we have none.
The mechanism of imputation
In considering how imputation works, certain conclusions present themselves to my mind which contradict particular atonement.
Imputation to us
Christ, having fulfilled the whole law, is counted righteous, and this righteousness is imputed to us by God. But what is the form of this righteousness? It doesn’t seem to me that it can be in the form of specific acts, for this would result in obvious absurdities. For example, suppose I ask: did Christ fulfill the whole law in the sense of keeping every single commandment given? Of course he kept every commandment which applied to him—but what if he never encountered his enemy’s donkey going astray, that he might return it (Deuteronomy 23:4)? Does this imply that his adherence to the law was less than perfect? Does it imply that his righteousness, imputed to me, is in any way deficient? Does it imply that, if I were a Jew prior to my conversion and had encountered my enemy’s donkey and returned it, I would have added to his imputed righteousness?
The answer to these questions must plainly be no. God does not view the law in this way; as if, in Christ, I am counted as having done exactly the acts he did, and no others. It is not the acts of Jesus which are imputed to me, but the righteousness grounded in those acts. Since “the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8), and Christ loved perfectly, I am counted as having loved perfectly, and thus as having fulfilled the law. Therefore, I conclude that the righteousness imputed to me is qualitative, rather than quantitative. It is not a series of righteous acts which are imputed—it is righteousness itself: that is, the condition of being righteous, which is grounded in those acts.
Inherited sin, it seems, works in the same way. It is not the action of Adam, the specific sin of eating the fruit, which is imputed to me; it is guilt itself. That is, it’s the condition of being disobedient, which is grounded in the eating of the fruit, which is imputed. Or, put another way, I am a sinner in Adam—not a fruit eater.
Imputation to Christ
Now, it seems very reasonable to me to think that there’s a symmetry between imputation to us, and imputation to Christ. Anyone is welcome to argue otherwise in the comments below—but such an argument must offer good reasons for the disparity. It can’t just be asserted; neither will it do to say that it must be so on the basis of particular atonement, since this would merely beg the question against me. Lacking any evident reason to the contrary, I take it as given that imputation is imputation—if it works a certain way for us, it works the same way for Christ.
Subsequently, although many Reformed Christians seem to assume that it is our specific acts of sin which are imputed to Jesus, it seems to me that this can’t be the case. Rather, what is imputed is our qualitative condition of sinfulness. This is certainly what 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Galatians 3:13 seem to say: that for our sake God made him to be sin (singular), so that he became a curse (singular), so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (singular). And is this not very congruent with John, who says that Jesus takes away the sin of the world—singular? These terms all seem to suggest an overarching, qualitative condition, rather than specific, quantitative acts.
This is because (at the risk of making this seem simple) guilt is guilt, and righteousness is righteousness. You’re either righteous or you’re guilty, “for whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘Do not murder.’ If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law” (James 2:10–11). The law is a single, indivisible specification of obedience. The one principle of obedience is manifested in the various articles of the law, so that to break one of these is to break the whole law—and to break the whole law is to be disobedient and guilty. There may be a quality and a quantity to my guilt in terms of the articles of the law—that is, I break a certain number of laws a certain number of times (quantity); and each on occasion with a certain severity (quality). But in terms of the law, either I am obedient—or I am not.
With this in mind, it seems evident to me that where penal substitution is concerned, it is obedience or disobedience, righteousness or guilt, which is being substituted. It is not individual acts of obedience or disobedience, righteousness or guilt.
A bit of further explanation
So my contention is that imputation is the legal transferral only of a condition or a quality. As regards righteousness, it means I’m regarded as obedient, a law-keeper, and sinless. The ground for being so regarded is the federal representation of Christ, who actually was sinless in his personal life. But it is not his personal life which is accounted to me; rather, it is the obedience of that life. Conversely, as regards sin, imputation means Christ was regarded as disobedient, a law-breaker, a sinner. The grounds for being so regarded is the people whom he federally represents, who actually were and are and will be sinful in their personal lives. But again—it is not their personal lives which are accounted to him, and not their personal sins; rather, it is the disobedience of those lives. Therefore, even if it was only the elect whose sin was the grounds of imputation (a notion I am sympathetic to), it remains that the scope of the atonement is unlimited or universal, since individual sins were not part of the equation. It was the condition of being a sinner which was imputed to him—and so he represented any and all sinners by merit of sharing in their humanity.
This is a view which can be called judicial atonement, which sees the payment of sin as penal, to be paid in our own persons—as death. It is opposed to pecuniary atonement, which views the payment of sin as transactional, like the payment of an amount of money. As Steve Costley puts it, “Christ has not paid a certain amount for so many sins. His blood is not like a quantity of money. His suffering is not a pain-for-pain equivalent for the suffering due to us.”
If this is so, then it’s nonsensical to think that the atonement is particular or limited in its scope. Particularity requires a pecuniary view in which specific sins and no others were imputed to Christ. I think this view is faulty, and that when Scripture likens the atonement to the payment of a ransom, this metaphor should not be taken that literally. It is not the case that certain people were excluded from being federally represented on the cross. Although Christ may have had the elect specifically in view when died, knowing that it was for them alone that his death was intended to be efficacious, it was still be the case in practice that he represented all humankind—because he himself was a human being. Thus his atonement could be made efficacious for even the reprobate, would they only turn and live.
A couple of supporting observations
The facts of Christ’s death
One of the particular aspects of the atonement which I think supports my view is the way in which Christ paid the penalty for sin. His payment was not the same penalty which I myself would pay, were I to die in unbelief. For me, eternal suffering in a physical location known as hell would be the just and necessary consequence of my disobedience to God. Jesus, however, did not suffer in a physical place called hell after he died—not even for even a short time. He went “that day” to his Father’s side (Luke 23:43). In fact, the only obvious similarity between the actions of Christ which atoned for my sin, and the actions which I myself would owe in atonement, is death.
This is entirely congruent with Scripture, for “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). That is, the wages of any and every sin is death. Now, the death of an unregenerate sinner is an imperfect wage—it can neither take away guilt, nor reconcile the sinner to God. Thus, hell. But being perfect God himself, Christ’s death counted as a perfect wage—it was a perfect propitiation for the guilt of transgressing the whole law, and can reconcile anyone to God, because Christ is God. Therefore, whatever sin I have committed, its wages are covered to the uttermost in Christ (Hebrews 7:25) if he is counted as a transgressor in my place.
The actual event of imputation
Now, his atonement must be applied to me in order for me to be counted righteous. That is, at some point in time my sin must be imputed to Christ, otherwise I would not be saved. Under the pecuniary view, Christ paid for my sins at the cross. That being so, for God to ever count me as a sinner seems unjust. If my sins were covered in Christ since before I was born, then there was no time in my life when I ever owed a penalty for them. Since my conception, I would have been in Christ. But I know that if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). And indeed, I know that I am now a new creation—a spiritual person, rather than a natural one (1 Corinthians 2:6ff), and am reconciled to God—because I remember a time before I was such. I remember a time when I was a “child of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), and a point in time when I was reconciled to God through the Spirit, by faith (Romans 5:1).
To be fair, there is a distinction between the imputation of my sin to Christ, and of his righteousness to me. Many Christians would argue that it is only on the event of the latter, when I obtain faith, that I stop being under God’s wrath. However, I find it difficult to see how I could justly be under God’s wrath given the former. If my sin is paid, it is paid, and wrath remains on me no longer. Therefore, I conclude that the application of the atonement—the actual imputation of my sin to Christ—could not have occurred at the cross. Christ’s death really was representative, and is held up as an object of salvation. I am counted as being represented by him on the occasion of my faith in this object. This in turn aligns well with the way in which the bronze serpent of Numbers 21 worked. As a type of Christ’s atonement, it fits perfectly with a judicial view—but it doesn’t seem congruent with a pecuniary one.
These seem to me the major considerations as regards federal headship and imputation. They all appear to point to a judicial atonement, rather than the pecuniary one. It’s hard to see how any of these elements are congruent with a pecuniary atonement—yet they fit hand-in-glove into the judicial view.
You do believe in the Trinity? Right? Just checking…
Hi Nancy, yes of course. I wrote a series defending Trinitarianism not too long ago.
Regards,
Bnonn
Would unlimited atonement cover every sin except blaspheme of the Holy Spirit…How do you explain this sin? Isn’t it in itself limited to the unregenerate…I don’t think the elect can commit this sin…I know what I think it is, but…what do you say?
You have put forth some interesting statements, many which I admit I am at a distict disadvantage at understanding, since I have not had the opportunity to read your previous series, so I’m not sure exactly where you stand in regards to the Calvinist world view…I will be reading your other offerings as well…*: )
Hi Nancy. I think your question presupposes the very pecuniary view which I deny in this article. To ask whether the atonement covers every sin except blasphemy against the Spirit implies that Jesus actually paid for specific sins at the cross. This is not my view. I think that he was punished as if he were a person who was guilty of transgression, and that he can therefore be counted in the place of anyone who actually is guilty of transgression—but that only happens on the occasion of having faith. One must take hold of the promise in order for God to count your punishment as having been paid in Jesus.
Hope this helps,
regards,
Bnonn
I agree that is exactly what I believe…however, that still leaves the question of the specific…blaspheme of the Holy Spirit. If I read scripture correctly…this is NOT covered by the atonement…
My opinion is that this sin is the refusal/inability to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit and the Living Word of God when clearly presented…leaving the unregenerate in his sin and not covered by grace.
What’s happening to the comments in the grayed-alternating areas?
I was thinking about the quantative view some more and think that this…except for the one sin I mentioned would be more in line with the denominations that believe, to finally be saved…You must be confessed up at the time of death???? That is just impossible…no matter how many priest are present!
Hi Nancy. I think you are still confusing pecuniary and judicial punishment. Since Christ paid the necessary penalty for any and all disobedience, and blasphemy against the Spirit is one kind of disobedience, the atonement can certainly cover that sin. This is not to say that anyone who commits it will be covered; God may have chosen to ensure that no one who commits that sin will be saved, as per your comment. But, if so, then it is not the atonement which fails to cover the sin. It is that the sinner does not and will not take hold of the atonement so that it would cover him.
Re the alternating grey areas in comments, I’m afraid Internet Explorer for some reason mangles these and won’t display them correctly. If it’s at all possible, I’d really recommend that you install a different browser—none of the others I’ve tested have had any problems. Pretty much any modern browser is fully standards compliant, and I code to the standards; so unfortunately non-standards compliant browsers like IE just won’t render this site correctly.
Regards,
Bnonn
I switched over and tried to use Chrome…on some sites its just doesn’t work so I guess I will just stick to IE. Thanks for the suggestion though.
I know you are going to hate this reasoning…but, you’re saying that God doesn’t limit the atonement of Christ on the cross…but, man does? So, aren’t we just using different words to say the same thing? I realize the quantative example you placed forth wasn’t anywhere close to what I believe…sin by sin atonement is just silly…of course it was our sin nature that was exchanged for His righteous nature. And of course it is not effectual until we aknowledge it…accept it…or make the exchange…
If the whole atonement is like a class action suit which we can opt out of…then the opters out have shall we say limited it…*: )
I think this is the actual difference in thinking…either we have a class action suit that CAN be opted out of…OR we have an exclusive elect that are the only ones that can be a part of the grace offered…
If the option is avialabe to opt out/refuse to be part of the class action, then the class is limited to those who do not opt out…
It just so coincidently happened, that I received such a class action suit letter today…*: )
I wouldn’t use the term “opt out”. I would, if I were to go with that analogy, say “opt in”. A sufficient payment for the debt of sin has been made in Christ. We can either pay our own debt, or opt in to be covered by Christ’s payment.
Yeah, at first I thought opt-in, but Jesus chose us we didn’t choose Him, so we don’t get to opt-in. If we have unlimited/universal atonement…the only way we could be “un-saved” would be to opt-out. And…even simply not responding would not be enough…We would have to actively seek exclusion.
If there is no debt…the collector doesn’t come calling…unless we deny the settlement already paid.
And…If you are part of the class…the elect…you can’t receive benefit without “filing claim”….*; )
Hmmm class action suit…quite an interesting contract…
But you’re assuming the very pecuniary view which I deny. I am not arguing that Jesus pays the Father like a financer stepping in to pay a creditor. I am arguing that Jesus suffers, in his body, the punishment for being a sinner (death), and that the Father will count this punishment toward anyone who takes hold of it by faith; thus counting the sinner’s debt as having already been covered at the cross.
“Father will count this punishment toward anyone who takes hold of it by faith; thus counting the sinner’s debt as having already been covered at the cross.”
Totally true…for all sin, past, present and future! For as you stated and I fully agree…It was the sin nature…or the propensity to sin that was destroyed on the cross! The sinful man no longer exists! We are new creatures no longer mere men. The very Spirit that raised Christ from the dead now lives in us! Part three of the Trinity! I don’t think this is the point at which the disagreement arises. The question is again…Is this wonderful grace limited or unlimited?? I don’t see a disagreement in the nature of the atonement. For I am no longer a sinner…I have been saved by grace…Yet I am not perfected yet…I don’t say I have obtained full redemption, for I still reside in sinful flesh…My spirit has been made perfect through the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit dwells within me…I am without a doubt elect…*: )…not of my will…but, of the Father’s. Maybe the point of disagreement is irresistible grace?
If we are all automatically covered or paid for…and grace is irresistible…how can there be unsaved individuals?
But my view is not that we are all automatically covered. My view is that we are conditionally covered—and the condition is faith.
Dominic, I would think before you get to this point, you would have to outlay a convincing argument that forensic imputation ought to be the lens through which we examine the atonement.
John, since I’m writing from a Reformed perspective, I don’t see that as being necessary. The Reformed understanding of the atonement is that it was a penal substitution; and forensic imputation is the mechanism of this substitution.
Regards,
Bnonn
Ok…my misunderstanding…*: )
Now here’s the point where you pull your hair and scream…Go ahead…scream as loud as you like…I won’t be able to hear you in Texas…*: )
“But my view is not that we are all automatically covered. My view is that we are conditionally covered—and the condition is faith.”
We agree then that the atonement in conditionally limited….
After the scream…I hope we are still friends…
Moving on to part 2….*; )
“I am arguing that Jesus suffers, in his body, the punishment for being a sinner (death), and that the Father will count this punishment toward anyone who takes hold of it by faith; thus counting the sinner’s debt as having already been covered at the cross.”
What do you mean by death? If it is the death of the body, then the Father takes double payment, Christ’s death and the sinner’s death, because it is appointed for all men to die, even ones who believe Christ died for them.
If the death refers to eternal separation from God, then Christ did not pay this penalty, because he is now at the right hand of the Father once again.
So death drops out of the equation. The debt we owe the Father is obedience. Adam, as the federal head of humanity, disobeyed God in the beginning and incurred this debt. Christ, as the second Adam, obeyed God in every thing, even to lay down his equality with God and die on a cross. The death of Christ was almost incidental to his payment of the debt of obedience on behalf of humanity. This debt-payment is available to all mankind as a free gift. To be saved, the Christian must respond by faith to participate in the life of God.
Hi Michelle. Your view entails that Christ’s death had no particular purpose; that it, in itself, did not actually service to provide even a grounds for redemption. You’re saying that only Christ’s life provides these grounds. Well, that’s a view clearly at odds with Scripture, which places the atonement and the cross together. I’m not interested in debating your heretical view here, since this is a series directed toward other Calvinists.
Regarding your question, Christ suffered both physical death and separation from God. There is no double payment of the former, since the atonement is not pecuniary. His physical death and resurrection provides the basis for our own physical resurrection; it doesn’t entail that we never die (though, of course, some Christians will never die, so even that objection seems moot). And his separation from God provides the basis for our own separation in hell being overcome. As I said in the article, hell is eternal for man, because man can never repay the debt or make himself less guilty. Christ was not merely a man, though; he did repay the debt, and was never guilty—and furthermore he was God himself. So the separation he suffered was representative of what we would suffer; the fact that it wasn’t eternal isn’t relevant.
Regards,
Bnonn
Good morning sir,
I’m quite impressed by your “sane” discussion on the matter of atonement and your ability to communicate your ideas clearly. I appreciate being able to discuss ideas without throwing mud at each other, for he who throws mud looses ground. .. I heard that somewhere. I haven’t read all of which you have written, but I came across a statement you made and had a question about your understanding of Christ’s righteousness. Under the heading ” imputation to us”, you said concerning Christ’s righteousness…”the condition of being righteous, which is grounded in those acts”. And later you said concerning the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer….”the condition of being righteous, which is grounded in those acts”.
Might you consider that Christ’s righteousness is ground in Himself, not His acts. Are not His acts the fruit of who He is in Himself as God revealed in the flesh?
I am looking forward to understanding your view of atonement for I have been over 35 yrs. with a view similar to Spurgeon’s and am rethinking the atonement issue.
As a side bar, I really like your site as you have it set up. It’s a delight to see a Christian that has put forth quality….it so reflects that quality of Christ.
Hi Mark; thanks for your comments. That’s a good question you pose. I would certainly agree that Christ is intrinsically righteous; and I would agree that this provides the grounds for the righteousness which is imputed to us. However, I’d say that it does so indirectly. Remember, the context here is as regards the law specifically. The righteousness which is imputed to us is not merely a “passive” righteousness (ie, not merely the righteousness of not having broken the law), but an active righteousness—a righteousness of having actually fulfilled the law. This active righteousness is only possible because Christ’s act of having fulfilled the law is imputed to us. Now, naturally that act itself is grounded in his intrinsic (passive) righteousness—were he not intrinsically righteous, he could not have fulfilled the law. But it is the righteousness of fulfilling the law which I have in view here as being directly imputed to us.
Hopefully that clarifies my meaning.
Regards,
Bnonn
Hi Dominic, would you mind discussing where your “judicial view” differs from the governmental view of the atonement? Here’s a reference you can interact with: http://www.theopedia.com/Governmental_theory_of_atonement
I know on superficial levels there are obvious differences but I’m wondering where you would say the two views differ in essence.
Would you say that your judicial view of the atonement is a new view or can you point to somewhere/someone in church history who supported the view?
Hi Leroy. My disagreement with the governmental theory is aptly summed up in the following three statements from the link you provided. To these, I can only say “nuh uh”.
Regards,
Bnonn
Thanks, bnonn.
I understood those differences. I was wondering if you might have a further comment on where the two views differ in essence?
Are you saying that you agree with the other aspects of governmental theory? Is your view a governmental theory where instead Christ does suffer an actual penalty as a generic sinner?
Would you say that your judicial view of the atonement is a new view or can you point to somewhere/someone in church history where this view was purported as the teaching of Scripture?
I’m not trying to lead you on. I will say plainly, that your view appears to have the same dangerous core as the governmental theory.
Borrowing from the portion you quoted, isn’t a major presupposition of your view that a vicarious penal substitution [for specific individuals OR all people individually] is impossible?
If I am not able to respond in a timely manner, I will go ahead and give this encouragement: I would encourage you to become more focused on exegesis before taking any view that denies penal substitionary atonement for individuals. I read about your approach in the introduction. I understand that your preference is not to engage on an exegetical level–but after all, aren’t we asking what the Bible says, and not what some logic or philosophy demands? I believe the Bible is incredibly logical, but the logic begins and comes from the text, or exegesis.
Thanks. In Christ,
I’d be very interested to see your response to Leroy, Dominic. Thanks.
Sorry, I forgot all about this thread. Briefly:
I know very little about the governmental theory, so it’s hard to respond with the precision and assurance I’d like. However, as far as I understand the governmental view, the issue with sin is not that it is something which requires justice in the form of penal retribution, but rather that it’s something which merely undermines God’s authority. He is willing to forgive sin unconditionally, but to do so would subvert his role as governor of creation. Put shortly, the governance view seems to take the position that to not do something about sin would merely make God “look bad”.
This is utterly opposed to my view, in which God is not willing to forgive sin unconditionally, because to do so would be unjust. In the governmental view, the death of Christ was not a penal substitution, but merely some kind of demonstration against sin. And the grounds for justification is not in the atonement, but in something else (faith, works, repentance, perseverance, etc, according to the quote by Robert Reymond cited in the abovelinked article). In my view, the death of Christ was a penal substitution (but not a pecuniary substitution), and the grounds for justification is in the atonement.
Well, I’m not a student of church history or historical theology—but my view seems to comport basically with the Reformed doctrine of the atonement widely held until Owen popularized thinking in pecuniary categories. Calvin and Luther both seem to have held a view similar to (if not the same as) mine, and this view continued down a long line of venerable theologians, including Dabney, Shedd and others. Indeed, it seems to only be a very modern development that this view is vilified as it is.
I appreciate your candor. I will say plainly in return that, as far as I can see, the two views are utterly dissimilar except inasmuch as they both reject pecuniary ways of thinking about the atonement.
On the contrary, as I’ve affirmed in great detail in this series, vicarious penal substitution is both possible and real. What I deny is vicarious pecuniary substitution.
Well, it goes without saying that if there are two competing views which seem equally likely based on the exegesis alone, and which are both equally Calvinistic, and which do not reject penal substitution—but one of the views has insurmountable logical problems…then the other view is the correct one. Since I’ve demonstrated what I believe to be insurmountable logical problems with the strictly particular view of the atonement, and can see no similar problems in my proposed alternative, I think it’s incumbent on an objector to address my arguments rather than try to return us to exegesis.
Regards,
Bnonn