Category Archives: Salvation

The Double Fisted Hand of God

Posted by Dan C. on

”Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” – John 10:25 – 30 (ESV)

There are two major themes in the above short passage; sheep and eternal life. We are told that the sheep know the shepherd’s voice and instinctively follow him. We are also told that the Good Shepherd (Jesus) gives his sheep eternal life and that they shall never perish. Major discussions have taken place over both themes, some of which have resulted in questionable behavior (for believers that is) on both sides of centuries old debates. We could frame the two major debates with a few questions.

1. Who are the ‘sheep’?

2. What is meant by ‘eternal life’ and ‘never perish’?

3. When does ‘eternal life’ begin?

Here is where I wax hypothetically and use a lot of “IFs”. That’s so actual opinions of real people are extracted from the dialogue and objective discussion based on ‘words on a page’ might be possible. Note that I said ‘possible’

As to the first question “Who are the sheep?”, we can know  a few things based on the text. The sheep belong to the shepherd, know his voice and when they hear it, they instinctively follow him. So the sheep are Christ followers. If we say that the sheep represent believers (and we do), we can say that they belong to Jesus, know his voice and instinctively follow him. We also know from the text that Jesus gives his sheep (believers) eternal life and that they will never perish, bringing us to the second question.

What did Jesus mean when he said “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish”? Assume for a minute that ‘eternal life’ means ‘eternal life’ and ‘never perish” means ‘never perish’ (read wake up in Hell). IF the words mean what they say, once a person has eternal life, there is not a chance in the universe of ever NOT having eternal life. Once you have eternal life you have it forever. That leaves us with one more question.

When does ‘eternal life’ begin? That is not answered specifically in the text, but Jesus does provide us an answer, in the same book, just several chapters earlier during his encounter with Nicodemus. It’s the same encounter where the most loved and most often quoted verse in scripture was spoken, and by Jesus (John 3:16…”For God so loved the world……”). Just two verses later we find this passage: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18 (Emphasis mine). If those words mean what they say, if ‘not condemned’ means ‘never perish’, eternal life begins at the moment of belief in the Son.

To reinforce his point about eternal life and never perishing, Jesus then tells us that no one can snatch us out of his hand, nor can we be snatched out of the Father’s hand. Imagine being first enclosed in the had of Christ which is enclosed in the Hand of the Father. That’s where the double fisted hand of God comes in. Just as the Father is never separated from the Son, we will never be separated from Christ.

Yes, there was a time when I thought that although no one else could snatch me from the double fisted hand of God, I could somehow ‘jump out’ of those strong hands myself. But then I bump heads with the simple phrase “I give them eternal life and they shall never perish.” If those words mean exactly what they say, there ain’t gonna be no snatchin’ and there ain’t gonna be no jumpin’ out of the double fisted hand of God!

There’s a lot more that can be said about this, Everyone in this room has probably had numerous discussions/debates about eternal security and whether or not salvation once attained could ever be lost. I’ve had a few myself and trotted out a lot of scripture to make the case for what I believe. I don’t debate it much anymore because it’s too painful in more ways than one. Most times the discussion does get to the whole ‘snatch’ v. ‘jump’ thing, but I just merely repeat Jesus’ words:

“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish”

Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Man of Sorrows! what a name
For the Son of God, who came,
Ruined sinners to reclaim.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Bearing shame and scoffing rude,
In my place condemned He stood;
Sealed my pardon with His blood.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Guilty, vile, and helpless we;
Spotless Lamb of God was He;
“Full atonement!” can it be?
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Lifted up was He to die;
“It is finished!” was His cry;
Now in Heav’n exalted high.
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

When He comes, our glorious King,
All His ransomed home to bring,
Then anew His song we’ll sing:
Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Words & Music: Phil­ip P. Bliss, 1875

The Gospel Mandate

Posted by Dan C. on

“Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”” – Mark 1:14-15 (Emphasis mine)

According to any good dictionary the word ‘mandate’ is defined as an official order or commission to do something. We are told in the Gospel of Mark that after Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, and after John was arrested, Jesus entered Galilee proclaiming the gospel of God. We are even given the words of Jesus’ initial proclamation:

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Here we have Jesus saying at the beginning of his earthly ministry “repent and believe in the gospel”. Since Jesus said it, let’s agree that it’s ‘official’. Since Jesus is telling listeners to ‘do’ something, let’s agree that what we have is an ‘order.  Therefore, the gospel mandate is simply to repent and believe it. That’s it.

Interestingly, and perhaps sadly, most of today’s evangelism no longer follows Jesus’ simple mandate, but we have substituted all sorts of other ‘methods’. We have hand raisings (with all eyes closed of course) an altar calls. Have you ever wondered why everyone is asked to close their eyes but everyone is watching and applauding folks heading toward the altar?

To spark their interest in Jesus we tell people that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for them. Cool! Well, I love me to and have a wonderful plan too! God and I are on the same page!

Since God has such wonderful plans for folks, we ask them if they wouldn’t like to ‘ask Jesus into their heart’ or we ask them to just ‘give their heart to Jesus’. Those two seem to get great results at any Christian kids’ camp or VBS.  For older types who might be more thoughtful about the whole thing, we tell them that Jesus is ‘knocking at the door of their heart”, pleading to get in and the only doorknob is on their side, Never mind that the passage in question has Jesus knocking on the door of the church.

We might even pull out our little cards or Bibles and walk them through the Romans Road, ask for a simple ‘decision’ (and perhaps a signature in the little Bible), and pronounce them ‘saved’ when a decision is made and a dated signature properly inserted.

No matter what method we use, and we use them all, we hardly ever use the simple ‘mandate’ that Jesus used. We never begin where Jesus began. Why do you think that is? Is it because the word ‘repent’ is outdated and politically incorrect? After all, it might make someone feel bad. Are we hesitant about telling people to ‘believe the gospel’ because we are uncomfortable explaining it, or because we ourselves don’t know or aren’t sure what it is?  ,

Whatever the reason(s), we needn’t be afraid of just proclaiming what Jesus proclaimed. After all aren’t we fond of the expression “What would Jesus do?” Although I can think of occasions when WWJD becomes rather cliché, this isn’t one of them. At the same time, we need only remember that God saves his sheep and we can’t/don’t ‘help’ God save anyone. Remember Jonah and what he proclaimed after having been tossed into the sea, after being swallowed by a great fish and being barfed onto the beach?

“…with the voice of thanksgiving will sacrifice to you; what I have vowed I will pay. Salvation belongs to the LORD!”  – Jonah 2:9 (Emphasis mine)

Our mission isn’t to obtain ‘decisions for Jesus’, it’s to be faithful in prayerfully presenting the gospel. Our prayer is that God will open hearts to hear and the gospel is that Christ died for our sins. There is great encouragement in knowing that all I have to do is be able to discuss what it means to repent and believe. And if I have faced my own sin head on and believed in the One who took my place on Calvary, it’s not a hard thing to do.

A wise man once said:

“Long ago I ceased to count heads. Truth is usually in the minority in this evil world. I have faith in the Lord Jesus for myself, a faith burned into me as a hot iron. I thank God, what I believe I shall believe, even if I believe it alone.” C.H Spurgeon, October 16th, 1887

Some interesting commentary about “A.D”".”

Posted by Dan C. on

I went looking for what folks are saying about Episode 1 of A.D. Here are a few comments I found interesting:

      Comment:

I Watched the last night movie Killing Jesus, I was very disappointed in the story line, It was not what I expected, The actors were OK, It was the self serving Jesus in this movie, that falls flat ! I fell asleep during the last half hour , Jesus was & is not a coward, Reply:

Reply:

Um, if you read the above article, you’d notice that Roma Downy and Mark Burnett’s production is NOT “Killing Jesus” but “A.D.: The Bible Continues.”

Different story–as this film does not come from Bill O’Reilly’s book, but from the Bible, and screen writers the producers hired–and different producers, director, actors, etcetra.

And, I watched it Sunday night. It was great! I did not bother watching “Killing Jesus” because I knew–from reading a review from Faith Driven Consumer–that it was a “humanistic, and historically & Biblically inaccurate, portrayal of Christ’s death.”

Reply to the Reply:

What was it that you thought was great?

Was it the 45 minutes of historical fiction? Mary & Mary M unbiblically having reminded the disciples of prophecy of Jesus resurrection? Was it Caiphas telling Pilate that Jesus preached insurrection against all authority? Also unbiblical. Was it the dialogue between the zealots and the disciples? Was it Joseph of Arimathea offering his tomb to Mary? Was it all the action that went on between the crucifixion and the resurrection? Was it the shining angel rolling the stone away? All the dialogue Caiphas’ wife brought to the political table? I’ll stop
there.

All of the above is pure fiction/conjecture, but that you thought it was great doesn’t really bother me.

What I do know is in the end the Romans didn’t kill Jesus, nor did the Jewish religious leaders. It was my SIN (mine, yours, & ours – the sin of all who would believe in His Name) that nailed the Son of God to
the cross. Christ was slain at the hands of sinful men according to God’s predetermination and foreknowledge. And it pleased God to send Him to bruise Him. Acts 2 ;23 & Isaiah 53:10.

Therefore, to relegate the most important event in the entire human drama to political historical is like jamming the crown of thorns deeper into His brow. IMHO

Having said all that, episode one did provide me with 2 questions to ask during discussions about the program.

1.  What did Jesus mean when he pleaded with His Father…”My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

2.  And what did Jesus mean when he said “It is finished.”

They both could blow the door wide open to share the true gospel message.

___________________________

Food for thought? Comments?

What comes first, faith or regeneration?

Posted by Dan C. on

The ‘natural’ man, who is without the Spirit does not accept things of the Spirit, thinking that they are foolish(1 Cor 2:14). The ‘natural’ mind is completely carnal and hostile to God (Rom 8:7). The natural man can do nothing to please God (also Rom 8:7). Repenting of sin believing the Gospel (Christ’s command), pleases God. Doesn’t that mean that ‘supernatural’ regeneration must, by necessity, precede faith?

A. W. Pink on the Atonement of Christ

Posted by Dan C. on

"Few seem to realize the fearful implications which necessarily follow the principles they hold and advocate. To predicate an atonement which fails to atone, a redemption which does not redeem, a sacrifice which secures not the actual remission of sins is a horrible reflection upon all the attributes of God. To make the efficacy or success of the greatest of all God’s works dependent upon the choice of fallen and depraved creatures is to magnify man at the cost of dethroning his Maker."

~Arthur Pink, "The Satisfaction of Christ-Studies in the Atonement"

Confessing and Believing

Posted by Dan C. on

Romans 10:9-10 & 13 are three of the most often used passages to encourage nonbelievers to confess Christ as Savior and Lord that we evangelicals use in our witnessing.

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” – Rom 10:9-10, 13

These passages are found at the end of a witnessing method known as the Roman Road, offering the ultimate relief from the problem of our sin, that the preceding stops along the Road made abundantly clear (Rom 3:23, Rom 6:23, Rom 5:8).

Some of us might even ponder the order of ‘believing and confessing’, in a ‘chicken and egg’ manner. That might be because verse 9 speaks of ‘confessing then believing’, but verse 10 speaks of ’believing then confessing’.

I think the answer to that is found in verse 10, which begins with the preposition ‘for’ indicating that what follows further explains the preceding phrase. Therefore I suggest to you that ‘believing in one’s heart’ ought to precede ‘confessing with one’s mouth’. Also, note that when one someone believes, he/she is also justified. If being ‘justified’ equates to being saved, the confessing is a result of having believed. On a more down to earth note, don’t we tend to see it to believe it and believe it before broadcasting it on social media? Just a thought.

Having said all that, perhaps want is most important here is the ‘character’ of the ‘believing’ – ‘heart’ belief. It’s one thing to assent to something mentally, but something quite different to believe in your heart that something is true. In the case of salvation, it is one thing to merely assent to a historical fact about Jesus – that he was crucified on a Roman cross and that perhaps the reason was because of human sin. It is another thing to realize at the depths of my being that I should have been the one hanging on a tree that day because of MY sin – that Jesus died in MY place. And by MY sin, I don’t just mean the sinful things that do, but the condition I was in at birth – dead in trespasses and sin and by nature an object of God’s wrath (Eph 2).

The Apostle Paul gives us an example of what God does in the matter of ‘heart’ belief:

“On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there. One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.” Acts 16:13-14

Several women were listening to Paul preach, but we are told quite clearly that God opened Lydia’s heart to ‘hear’ the words of Paul. Lydia believed with her heart Paul’s words and was saved.

If what I have said above is true, it leaves us with a question:

Why do we so often ask others if they have made a ‘confession’ of faith but rarely ask them if they ‘believed in their hearts’?

Something to think about. . .

“If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” – Rom 10:9-10

The good news is NOT Jesus?

Posted by Dan C. on

Well, the Apostle Paul disagrees, with this preacher, on at least two levels. First of all there’s the little matter of the the Gospel message itself, the Gospel Paul was not ashamed of (Rom 1:16); the Gospel he clearly defined to the believers in Corinth (1 Cor 15:1-4). Whether or not unbelievers don’t want to hear “about no blood on no cross”, it’s the message they must hear and believe if they aren’t going to spend eternity in hell.

Secondly, Paul has something to say about his ‘best life now’

In a recent sermon, a popular Health, Wealth & Prosperity (HWP) preacher asked and answered his own question:

Q: “Do you know why the people on your job really ain’t Christians right now?”

A: “Because you are preaching to them Jesus Christ.”  . . . “That’s not what you’re supposed to preach.”.

In the same sermon, we also find other little tidbits:

“People ain’t worried about no blood on no cross.” . .“You gotta talk about how to solve people’s problems.”. . .“The good news is not Jesus. The good news is the Kingdom.”

Being a faithful Health, Wealth & Prosperity (HWP) type, by “good news of the Kingdom’ he meant having dominion over all of our ‘life’ circumstances and being successful and prosperous in all things, since God created man to have ‘dominion’ (which He did).  However, what this preacher’s heretical message seems to forget is that there was something called The Fall, with its effect in bringing sin into what had been a creation God looked upon and pronounced “good” & “Very good”.

There’s nothing new here, except perhaps the blatant lie that preaching the crucified Jesus is somehow wrong – that “The good news is not Jesus”. I’ve not heard any of the Word Faith Heretics being so bold as to declare the lie behind their warped theology so openly. What this preacher did get right is that people don’t want to hear “about no blood on no cross”. They want to know how to have their “best lives now” (to quote another popular heretic). They what their itching ears tickled (2 Tim 4:3).

Well, the Apostle Paul disagrees with this preacher on at least two levels. First of all there’s the little matter of the the Gospel message itself, the Gospel Paul was not ashamed of  (Rom 1:16); the Gospel he clearly defined to the believers in Corinth:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you ,old fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” 1 Cor 15:1-4

Not only did Paul define the gospel (the good news) as having everything to do with ‘blood and a cross’, the blood and the cross was the major theme of his ministry:

“And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men[c] but in the power of God.” – 1 Cor 2:1-5

Whether or not unbelievers don’t want to hear “about no blood on no cross”, it’s the message they must hear and believe if they aren’t going to spend eternity in hell.

Secondly, Paul has something to say about what his ‘best life now’ was all about:

“Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one.  Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers;  in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst” –  2 Cor 11:24-27

Jesus called those who suffer for His name’s sake blessed, and even promised that his followers would be persecuted:

“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.” Matthew 5:11

“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.”  – John 15:18

To be fair, our subject preacher did not omit the preaching of the cross and the new birth altogether, he merely maintained that talk of being born again should follow the promises of ‘Kingdom’ living (HWP and dominion). However, that’s nothing more than a spiritual con game, if not THE great con pervading much of today’s evangelicalism – hook ‘em with promises of their ‘best lives now’ and leave talk about Jesus’ death for our ‘sin’ (blood and a cross) until later, if at all.  It’s a ‘bait and switch’ that produces many false converts and lines the pockets of  many a televangelist.

It also denies the sovereignty of God in evangelism. The duty of the preacher (and all of us) is to merely be faithful in the preaching the same gospel that Paul and the Apostles proclaimed (Christ died for our sins) and leave the saving to God, who opens hearts to hear and brings lost souls to the Blood and the Cross.

__________________________

If you’ve read this and don’t believe that a preacher would actually say what the above evangelist is quoted as saying, you can hear it for yourself here.

What is the Gospel? – R. C. Sproul

Posted by Dan C. on

I always like good definitions of the Gospel. This is one of those. . .

What Is the Gospel?

by R.C. Sproul

There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the Gospel. But as important as that is, it is often given to massive distortions or over simplifications. People think they’re preaching the Gospel to you when they tell you, ‘you can have a purpose to your life’, or that ‘you can have meaning to your life’, or that ‘you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.’ All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the Gospel.

The Gospel is called the ‘good news’ because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well-being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God.

The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead – so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the Gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it? The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity.

Online Source: Ligonier Ministries

Do You Believe Jesus?

Posted by Dan C. on

What a silly question! Of course you do! What believer doesn’t?

Now that we’ve answered the silly question, consider the following words of Jesus:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” “ – John 6:37-40

Without trying to explain away anything we find troubling in the above passage, what is Jesus saying?

1. There exists a group of people given by the Father to the Son.

2. All those given to the Son by the Father will come to the Son.

3. The Son will lose none of those who come to him, but will accomplish His mission on earth.

4. All who believe in the Son have eternal life and will be raised up on the last day.

Do you STILL believe Jesus?

Question: "What are the various theories on the atonement?"

Posted by Dan C. on

  – from GotQuestions.org

Answer: Throughout church history several different views or theories of the atonement, some true and some false, have been put forth at different times by different individuals or denominations. One of the reasons for this is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal many truths about Christ’s atonement, so it is hard, if not impossible, to find any single “theory” that fully encapsulates or explains the richness of this doctrine. Instead, what we discover as we study the Scriptures is a rich and multifaceted picture of the atonement as the Bible puts forth many interrelated truths concerning the redemption that Christ has accomplished. Another contributing factor to the many different theories of the atonement is that much of what we can learn about the atonement needs to be understood from the experience and perspective of God’s people under the Old Covenant sacrificial system. Since having a correct view of the atonement of Christ is a key to understanding much of the Bible, even a survey of the differing theories of atonement can be beneficial.

The atonement of Christ, its purpose and what it accomplished is so rich that volumes have been written about it, and this article will simply provide a brief overview of many of the theories that have been put forth at one time or another. In looking at the different views of the atonement, we must never lose sight of the fact that any view that does not recognize the sinfulness of man and substitutionary aspect of the atonement is deficient at best and heretical at worst.

Ransom to Satan: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a ransom that was paid to Satan to purchase man’s freedom from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that man’s spiritual condition is in bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to secure God’s victory over Satan. This theory has little, if any, scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history. It is heretical in that it thinks of Satan, rather than God, as the one who required a payment be made for sin and thus completely ignores the demands of God’s justice as seen throughout Scripture. It also has a higher view of Satan than it should and views him as having more power than he really does. There is no scriptural support for the idea that sinners owe anything to Satan, but throughout Scripture we see that God is the One who requires a payment for sin.

Recapitulation Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as reversing the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. It believes that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. It cannot be supported scripturally.

Dramatic Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as securing the victory in a divine conflict between good and evil and winning man’s release from bondage to Satan. The meaning of Christ’s death was to ensure God’s victory over Satan and provides a way to redeem the world out of its bondage to evil.

Mystical Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a triumph over His own sinful nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. Those who hold this view believe that knowledge of this will mystically influence man and awake his “god-consciousness”. They also believe that man’s spiritual condition is not the result of sin but simply a lack of “god-consciousness”. Clearly this is one of the most heretical of all these theories because to believe this, one must believe that Christ had a sin nature, while Scripture is clear that Jesus was the perfect god-man, sinless in every aspect of His nature (Hebrews 4:15).

Example Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as simply providing an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to be obedient to God. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually alive and that Christ’s life and atonement were simply an example of true faith and obedience and should serve as inspiration to men to live a similar life of faith and obedience. This and the moral influence theory are similar in that they both deny that God’s justice actually requires payment for sin and that Christ’s death on the cross was that payment. The main difference between the moral influence theory and the example theory is that the moral influence theory says that Christ’s death teaches us how much God loves us and the example theory says that Christ’s death teaches how to live. Of course it is certainly true that Christ is an example for us to follow, even in His death, but the example theory fails to recognize man’s true spiritual condition—dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1)—and that God’s justice requires payment for sin which man is in no way capable of doing.

Moral Influence Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s love which causes man’s heart to soften and repent. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by seeing God’s love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death was to demonstrate God’s love toward man. While it is true that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God, this view is also heretical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christ’s atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin.
Commercial Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as bringing infinite honor to God. This resulted in God giving Christ a reward which He did not need, and Christ passed that reward on to man. Those that hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is that of dishonoring God and so Christ’s death which brought infinite honor to God can be applied to sinners for salvation. This theory, like many of the others, denies the true spiritual state of unregenerate sinners and their need of a completely new nature, available only in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Governmental Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude towards sin. It is through Christ’s death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death. Those that hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute. This view falls short in that it does not teach that Christ actually paid the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that God’s laws were broken and that some penalty was paid.

Penal Substitution Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. In doing so Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness and reconciling man to God. Those that hold this view believe that every aspect of man, his mind, will and emotions have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin for those whom God elects to save and that through repentance man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. This view of the atonement aligns most accurately to Scripture in its view of sin, the nature of man, and the results of the death of Christ on the cross.

Recommended Resources: The Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns and Logos Bible Software.

Two other good articles can be found here and here.

__________________________

The above is dedicated to “Bones’, who has an aversion to the idea of  a wrathful God, as well as the penal substitution theory of the atonement.