by George Sidney Hurd
 
In considering the diverse theories of the atonement it is important to keep in mind that Christ’s death on the cross as the propitiation for our sins is central to any proper understanding of atonement. Christ’s death on the cross was so central for Paul that he said: “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2).  He further said, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1Cor 1:18).
 
None of the Early Fathers formulated anything as fully developed as what we today would call an atonement theory, primarily because at that time there was no major controversy surrounding the atonement, as there was with the Trinity and the deity of Christ. For the most part, in their writings we find only passing comments on Scriptures which relate to it. Some of them emphasized certain aspects of the atonement over others, as we shall see. However, not one of the Fathers denied Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and nearly all of them to one degree or another affirmed it, as I demonstrate in my article, The Early Fathers and Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
 
A common error in our day which was foreign to the Fathers is the tendency to adhere to one model of the atonement to the exclusion of all others. William Lane Craig aptly compares the atonement to a multifaceted jewel, of which the table or face is Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement. [i] While some insist that the only true model of the atonement is Penal Substitution, other reductionists would insist upon Christus Victor, Recapitulation, or Moral Example as the only acceptable model. However, as I hope to demonstrate, most theories contain certain elements of truth which, when rightly understood, actually complement the others, rather than negating them.
 
However, that being said, none of the various complementary benefits of the atonement would have been possible apart from Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice in which He, as the Lamb of God, took away our sins by making propitiation/expiation for them, thereby reconciling us to God. For example, in what sense could we say that Christ was victorious over Satan if in fact we are still estranged from God and dead in our trespasses and sins? (Eph 2:1,12-13; Col 1:20-22). In what sense could His moral example benefit us if, in spite of all that He went through, His blood had not made propitiation for our sins? (1Jn 4:9-11).
 
I see the varied aspects of the atonement as analogous to parts of the human body. Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement is comparable to the heart which is indispensable to the life of the body. While life wouldn’t be the same without other members of the body, we could still go on living. But life would be impossible without the heart. If Christ’s blood hadn’t first and foremost made expiation for our sins before God (Heb 9:12,14-15), we would still be dead in our sins and trespasses and alienated from the life of God. Only His blood shed for the remission of sins makes it possible for God to be just and justify the sinner who believes (Rom 3:24-26). The Christus Victor or Moral Example models, in and of themselves, could never accomplish that.
 
Recognizing the centrality and indispensability of Christ’s penal substitutionary sacrifice to any proper understanding of the atonement, we must at the same time recognize that some of the other atonement theories contain important parallel and complementary truths. The following is a brief consideration of some of the complementary aspects of the different atonement models.
 
1) Recapitulation (Eph 1:10; Rom 5:12-21;11:36; 1Cor 15:21-22,28,45; Rev 21:5)
 
Perhaps the most comprehensive all-encompassing view of the atonement is that of Recapitulation. Recapitulation is from the Latin recapitulatio. The term the Greek Fathers used was ἀνακεφαλαίομαι (anakephalaíomai), which literally means “to reunite under one head.” [ii] The word, as well as the concept it expresses, is found in Ephesians 1:9-10 which reads:
 
“having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one (anakephalaíomai) all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth — in Him.” (Eph 1:9-10)
 
While Irenaeus of Lyons (130 to 202AD) appears to have been the first to elaborate on the recapitulative aspects of the atonement, he quotes Justin Martyr (100 to 165AD) in support of this view, which would indicate that it was not unique to him. [iii] Athanasius (293 to 373AD) also laid much emphasis upon this aspect of the atonement. 
 
In brief, this view of the atonement emphasizes that through His incarnation, life and death, Christ, as our representative or corporate head, recapitulated the human race, succeeding where Adam failed. He had to be like us in every way in order to qualify as our substitute and representative head.

• As Adam received his biological life directly from God, so Christ received His biological life through divine conception.
• Adam disobeyed in a garden, bringing condemnation and death to all – Christ submitted to God’s will in a garden, bringing justification and life to all.
• Adam forfeited his dominion to Satan the serpent by partaking of the tree – Christ was victorious over Satan by being nailed to a tree, restoring man’s dominion.

 
According to the recapitulation view of the atonement, in Christ’s incarnation, life, death and resurrection, He, as the Last Adam, totally reversed the consequences of the fall and much more.  “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive... The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (1 Cor 15:22,45).
 
The universal scope of Christ’s recapitulation of all is a strong argument for Universalism. Athanasius, known primarily for the Athanasian Creed, also emphasized the Recapitulative atonement view and he was a Universalist. [iv] While Irenaeus’s writings are often difficult to decipher, he also seems to affirm the restoration of all when explaining Christ’s recapitulation of mankind. In one place he says: 
 
“Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He wanted to deprive him of the tree of life, as some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, and did not desire that he should continue a sinner forever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, putting an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God.” [v]
 
Here he says that God, out of His goodness and mercy, kept Adam from eating of the tree, which would have resulted in us living forever in our sinful state. He saw death as releasing mankind from sin so that we might afterwards live in communion with God.
 
Since the obvious conclusion of such a universal reversal is that all of Adam’s race will one day be restored, the Recapitulation model of the atonement has largely been ignored in the West, but it was prominent in the Early Church and most of Eastern Orthodoxy still emphasizes it.
 
As with the Trinity and the deity of Christ, the biblical teaching concerning Christ’s recapitulation of Adam’s race took shape in the midst of controversy. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus focused upon the incarnation and life of Jesus, as well as His true humanity, because he was countering Docetic Gnosticism which taught that God did not truly become incarnate in Christ, taking on flesh, but only had the appearance of being a man. It is clear in his writings that he also believed in what we know of today as the Christus Victor model of the atonement including Christ’s substitutionary death for our sins. These are complimentary truths, rather than being mutually exclusive. As to penal substitution, Irenaeus said:
 
“the Mediator between God and men; propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling our disobedience by his own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker.”  [vi]
“...the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property…so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man.” [vii]
“For if no one can forgive sins but God alone, while the Lord remitted them and healed men [people], it is plain that He was Himself the Word of God made the Son of man, receiving from the Father the power of remission of sins; since He was man, and since He was God, in order that since as man He suffered for us, so as God he might have compassion on us, and forgive us our debts, in which we were made debtors to God our Creator.”  [viii]
 
Here we see that we have sinned against God Himself and therefore it is from Him that we must receive forgiveness. Through His suffering, being obedient unto death, Christ made propitiation for our sins before God and cancelled our sin-debt. While Irenaeus’ primary emphasis was on Christ’s recapitulation of all who fell in Adam, penal substitution is clearly presented by Irenaeus as being that which made the recapitulation of all possible.
 
Athanasius also saw Christ’s penal substitution as being an integral part of His recapitulation of Adam’s fallen race. He said:
 
“And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father.” [ix]
“...the Lord suffered these things not for himself, but for us. And he says this again in his own person in Psalm 88: Your wrath has rested upon me; and in Psalm 69: Then I restored that which I did not take away. For although he was not guilty, he died. But he suffered for us and endured the wrath that was meant for us because of our disobedience, as is spoken through the prophet Isaiah: He took on our weaknesses.” [x]
“He it is that was crucified before the sun and all creation as witnesses, and before those who put Him to death: and by His death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not.” [xi] 
“...to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all... For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection.” [xii]
 
As with Irenaeus, Athanasius presents Adam’s race as owing a debt to God because of their sin. In order to satisfy (make propitiation for) that debt, Christ took upon Himself a body capable of suffering death that He might die in the stead of (as a substitute for) all. Note that both Irenaeus and Athanasius present Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice as propitiating God and satisfying the sin-debt which we owed to Him. Neither held to Origen’s Ransom theory which speculated that the ransom was paid to Satan, but rather saw the ransom as paying the penalty to the Father, satisfying His justice according to His own declaration that the wages of sin is death.
 
2) Christus Victor (Gen 3:15; Jn 12:31–33; Col 2:13–15; Heb 2:14–16)
 
Gustaf Aulén put forward his Christus Victor theory of the atonement in his book by the same title, published in 1931. According to this view, Christ was sent to defeat Satan, destroying his dominion over mankind and the cosmos. He claimed that it was the prevailing or classic view of the atonement held by the Church for the first thousand years prior to Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory in the 12th century.
 
Aulén is correct in that the Church has historically emphasized Christ’s victory over Satan at the cross. Both the Eastern Orthodox and also the churches of the West, which Aulén refers to as “Latin churches” affirm Christ’s victory over Satan and death at the cross to this day.
 
However, as with most modern theories of the atonement, he emphasized the subjective usward aspects of the atonement – what Christ accomplished for us, while rejecting the objective Godward aspects of the atonement – what Christ’s sacrifice accomplished for God.
 
First and foremost, the atonement consisted of Christ’s propitiatory/expiatorial sacrifice as our substitute, making it possible for God to be just and justify those who believe (Rom 3:24-26). That is the very heart of the atonement (1Jn 4:10). Apart from that, we would still be dead in our sins and trespasses and under God’s condemnation (Jn 3:18,36; Rom 3:19-20). It was Christ redeeming us from the curse of God’s Law that removed Satan’s legal rights over us as the god of this age and destroyed his power of death (Gal 3:13; Col 2:13-15; Heb 2:14-15). His redeeming blood obtained for us the forgiveness of sins and transgressions before God, thereby obtaining our eternal redemption (Heb 9:12,15; Eph 1:7). It is for that reason alone that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1).
 
The denial or diminishing of Christ’s penal substitutionary death is a prominent characteristic of all recent atonement theories, such as Christus Victor and the Scapegoat theory. Just as in Paul’s day, the cross continues to be an offense and a stumbling block to many (Gal 5:11; 1Cor 1:23).
 
Ignoring the objective focus of Christ’s sacrificial death in passages such as 1John 4:10 which emphasize that God sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins, Gregory Boyd, a proponent of Christus Victor who denies penal substitution, says: “The necessity of the cross, in my view, does not reside in God, but in the nature of our bondage to Satan and the powers.” [xiii] He said: “According to the New Testament, the central thing Jesus did was drive out the ‘prince of this world’”. (emphasis mine)[xiv] Driving out Satan is only the central thing if one believes that he could have been defeated without any need for our sins first having been forgiven through Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice as our substitute.
 
Many, unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy, are unaware of the fact that the objective judicial and substitutionary aspect of the atonement was always held to within the Eastern Orthodox Church until their learning institutions came under the influence of Modernist Liberalism around a century ago, just as we saw happen in the West. For space, I will simply recommend an excellent Orthodox website called  ORTHODOX SERVANT that cites leading figures within the Eastern Orthodox Church, both past and present, which substantiate that the judicial substitutionary nature of the atonement has always been central to Eastern Orthodoxy. In his article, Atonement in the Early Church, he cites extensively from the Early Greek Fathers. Then in another article he quotes many prominent Contemporary Fathers within the Orthodox Church to show how prevalent the objective view of the atonement continues to be to this day within Eastern Orthodoxy in spite of the contemporary shift towards more subjective views of the atonement.
 
3) Moral Example (1Peter 2:21; Heb 12:1-2; Phil 2:5-8)
 
The Moral Example and Moral Influence theories of the atonement see Christ’s death as being an example of sacrificial love that was intended to bring a positive change in mankind. According to this theory, we are restored to God’s image by following Christ’s example. They commonly quote 1Peter 2:21, which says: “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps.”
 
While it is true that Christ left us an example of sacrificial love, His example has nothing to do with the atonement itself when properly understood as the expiation or propitiatory sacrifice for our sins committed against God. By Christ’s own blood He accomplished the remission of our sins, resulting in us being freely justified before God (Matt 26:28; Rom 3:24-26; Heb 9:28; 10:14).
 
If one continues reading the verses that follow 1Peter 2:21 to verse 24 we can see that His suffering was more than an example – He suffered by bearing our sins on the cross:
 
“who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness — by whose stripes you were healed.” (1Peter 2:24)
 
As we saw in the previous blog on the Sin Bearing Servant of Isaiah 53, the expression “to bear (nasa) one’s sin, iniquity, or guilt” was a legal term, meaning to suffer the penalty and consequences of one’s sin (Lev 24:15; 5:1; 7:18;16:20-22). In His suffering Jesus did much more than show us how to suffer, He bore our own sins upon the cross. As the Lamb of God He took away the sins of the world (Jn 1:29; Heb 9:28).
 
While Modernist Liberals of the 19th century like Horace Bushnell (1802-76) and Hastings Rashdall (1858-1924) divorced Christ’s penal substitution from the Moral Example theory of the atonement, Peter Abelard (1079–1142), who was the first to formulate the Moral Example theory, saw Christ as suffering as our sin-bearer, taking the punishment due to us upon Himself. In his exposition of the epistle to the Romans, commenting on Romans 4:25, Abelard says:
 
“He (Paul) attributes the cause of both Christ’s death and resurrection to us: In two ways, it is said, he died because of our sins: on one hand, because we committed the transgression on behalf of which he had to die and because we committed the sin whose punishment he took on himself; on the other hand, to take away our sins through his dying, namely to take away the punishment for the sins (while he was introducing us into Paradise) through the price of his death and through the demonstration of such a big grace (as he himself says, ‘no one has greater love than this’ [John 15;13]) to turn away our hearts from the intent to sin and to ignite them for the supreme love to him.”   [xv]  
 
So we see that, just as with the Christus Victor theory, the removal of the penal substitutionary elements of the atonement is a product of modernity. In order to remove the offense of the cross, they repackage the atonement so as to be entirely man-centered, removing any reference to Christ’s death as bearing the just penalty due to us for our sins against God, making propitiation for our sins by His own blood and saving us from the eschatological wrath of God.
 
 4) Scapegoat
 
The last and most recent atonement theory that I will be considering in this blog is the Scapegoat theory. It was first presented in 2016 by the French philosopher René Girard in his book, Mimesis and Atonement. This theory is rapidly gaining popularity among Postmodern Progressives since it presents God as totally non-retributive towards the evil and injustice of mankind.
 
He based his theory on what he calls “mimetic desire” – the tendency we have to get caught up in, or mimic, the collective desire of those who surround us. If the collective group perceives someone as being an obstacle to achieving that desire, the whole community rises up in violence against that person to destroy him or her. That is what he called the “scapegoat mechanism.”
 
According to this theory, Christ became the scapegoat, passively absorbing society’s systemic violence against Him as the ultimate scapegoat. According to them, God vindicated Christ by raising Him, their scapegoat, from the dead, in order to put an end to all scapegoating. However, if this theory were true, it would mean Christ’s death was in vain, since after nearly 2000 years, the societal tendency towards scapegoating does not appear to have diminished. One only needs to look at all the times in which whole people groups have scapegoated the Jews, as they did during the Black Death plague and in Nazi Germany during WWII, just to name a few examples.
 
Of all the theories formulated by man throughout Church history, this is by far the furthest removed from biblical historic Christianity. Paul said that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1Cor 15:3). In Hebrews we see that Christ fulfilled that which was represented in the Levitical sacrificial system by entering into the heavenly Most Holy Place with His own blood, obtaining eternal redemption and the remission of our sins before God (Heb 9:11-12; 10:12-14,18). Paul says of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice that “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:21).
 
In contrast to this, Brian Zahnd, who also subscribes to the Scapegoat theory, claims that the entire Levitical sacrificial system in which animals were sacrificed for the sins of the people, as well as the belief that Christ’s sacrifice satisfied God’s justice, have their dark origins in the violent heart of humanity. He says:
 
“The ritual sacrifice of a substitute victim has nothing to do with the justice of God. Ritual sacrifice has its dark origins in the scapegoat mechanism, where the tribe extinguishes the danger of all-against-all violence by killing a single victim. Ritual sacrifice does not originate in the heart of God; it originates in the violent heart of humanity.” [xvi]
 
Perhaps Jesus was nothing more than a scapegoat in the eyes of Caiaphas the high priest when he said that it was expedient that one should die for the people (Jn 11:49-52), but in reality, Christ came for the express purpose of giving His life a ransom for all in order to take away the sins of the world (Matt 20:28 cf. 1Tim 2:6; Jn 1:29).
 
While each of the various modern theories of the atonement contain a certain element of truth, any theory that denies Christ’s Penal Substitutionary death, through which He redeemed us from our sins and transgressions by His own precious blood, has cut out the very heart of the atonement (Col 1:14; Heb 9:15; 1Pet 1:18-19). I believe that the denial that Christ’s blood redeemed us from our sins and transgressions is the very spirit of antichrist. What we are witnessing in our day is in my opinion that which Peter prophesied would occur. He said:
“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.” (2 Peter 2:1-2).


[i] Craig, William Lane. Atonement and the Death of Christ (p. 13). “The biblical doctrine of the atonement may be aptly compared to a multifaceted jewel, each facet contributing to the beauty of the whole gem. The various facets of a gem are transparent to and refracted in one another, thereby increasing the brilliance and beauty of the whole. On this analogy, it would be an obvious mistake to try to reduce the doctrine of the atonement to just one of its many facets, as some theorists have done.”
 

[ii] The phrase: “gather together in one” is a composite word made up of ana which normally means “again” and kephalaioo, and is best translated as “to reunite or unite again under one head,” since only this rendering retains the meaning or the prefix ana. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon actually comments as to the meaning of the word in this context, saying: “God is said…to bring together again for himself (note the middle) all things and beings (hitherto disunited by sin) into one combined state of fellowship in Christ.” (emphasis mine)
 

[iii] Irenaeus quotes Justin Martyr in Against Heresies  4.6.2. Here he said of him:
“In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us."
 

[iv] The following article demonstrates that Athanasius was a Universalist:  The School of Alexandria and Athanasius 
 

[v] Irenaeus Against Heresies. Book 3.23.6
 

[vi] Ibid, Book 5.17.1, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers 1 (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979 [1885]). see also 4.8.2 where in performing the offices of the high priest Christ “propitiates” God for people.
 

[vii] Ibid, Book 5



[viii] Ibid., 5.17.3
 

[ix] Athanasius. On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 8.
 

[x] Athanasius of Alexandria. Letter to Marcellinus on the Psalms. Kindle Edition.
 

[xi] Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, chapter 37



[xii] Ibid. chapter 9
 

[xiii] https://reknew.org/2017/05/christus-victor-atonement-girards-scapegoat-theory/
 

[xiv] https://reknew.org/2018/11/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/
 

[xv] Peter Abelard, Expositio in Epistolas ad Romanos, 26/2, p. 290.
 

[xvi] Zahnd, Brian. Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God (p. 104). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 
by George Sidney Hurd
 --
The following is an excerpt from the book The Universal Solution which presents Universal Reconciliation as the solution to the debate between Calvinists and Arminians.
 ***
Total depravity is a term used to refer to the spiritually fallen and corrupted state into which every descendent of Adam is born. Due to Adam’s original sin, man comes into the world spiritually stillborn in relation to God and therefore unable to contribute in any way towards his own salvation. Even the faith by which we appropriate salvation must be received as a gift from God through regeneration due to man’s spiritual blindness.
 
Depravity: Three Views
 
Calvinism - Total Depravity
 
The doctrine of Total Depravity was first formally presented and expounded upon by Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 AD). It was also the belief of Martin Luther, John Calvin and other prominent reformers, and continues to be the belief of the Reformed Calvinist tradition to this day. The term “Total Depravity” can be easily misunderstood. It is not intended to say that man is as evil as he can possibly be. Clearly some commit more evil than others, and one can become more evil if they follow their carnal instincts or less evil in an ideal environment.
 
Total Depravity means that mankind, since Adam, is spiritually dead towards God, his Maker. Man was created for communion with God but when he died spiritually, he ceased to be God-centered and turned in upon himself, becoming self-centered. In this fallen state, even his apparently good and religious activities are carried out independently of God and for self-interest rather than being the outflow of a dependent relationship of loving communion with God. The Greek word for sin is hamartia, which means “to miss the mark.” Utter dependence upon God is the mark. All that we do, whether it comes from the “good” branches or the “evil” branches of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, constitutes a missing of the mark and therefore is sin.
 
One may religiously keep the law and yet be depraved, since his works are done in the flesh and not in God. Based upon 1John 3:4 many think that sin is defined as transgression of the law. However, the phrase “transgression of the law” is the single compound Greek word anomia, composed of “a-” meaning “no” and “nomos” which means “law.” A better translation would be “lawlessness” or doing one’s own will, rather than submitting to God. Some may be able to live a relatively moral life independently from their Creator. One can keep the law with great zeal and not be walking in submission to God, as we see exemplified in the Pharisees. Sin is simply doing what is right in one’s own eyes - partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the power of our fallen flesh rather than walking in submission to God.
 
Pelagianism – Denial of Depravity
 
Pelagius, a contemporary of Augustine, strongly opposed Augustine’s doctrine of predestination and denied that man inherited Adam’s original sin. According to Pelagius, man is not born depraved but neutral and free from sin, and with a totally free-will. According to him, God did not give us His law in order to reveal our sin and need of grace, but rather He gave it to us actually expecting us to keep it perfectly. He taught it was possible to live without sin.
 
Arminianism – Partial Depravity
 
The Arminians, for the most part, do not believe in self-salvation as taught by Pelagius. Most of them believe, as do the Calvinists, that we are totally incapable of saving ourselves and that the entire work of Salvation was accomplished for us by Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection on our behalf. The only participation required of man in his own salvation, according to them, is appropriating it by a personal decision of faith and continuing in that faith to the end. Paul makes it clear that true saving faith is not a work in which one can boast: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith” (Rom 3:27-29). Therefore, one cannot, in all fairness, accuse Arminians of Pelagianism simply because they insist that our decision of faith procures one’s salvation.
 
The three different views of man’s condition before God can be illustrated by a man in a river. The man, according to Pelagius, does not need to be saved because he not only can swim but he is also perfectly able to swim upstream against the current. This imaginary man does not even need a Savior and therefore could not be said to be “saved.” Jesus did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. The truth is that all mankind are born sinners and in need of salvation. “There is none righteous, no not one.” (Rom 3:10).
 
The second man, according to the Arminians, cannot swim and is drowning, and at the same time he is being swept helplessly downstream by the current. God, in His mercy and grace throws him the lifeline. If the drowning man has the faith and presence of mind to take hold of the lifeline, God will pull him to safety. Otherwise, God will not further intervene to save him out of respect for his own free-will and He will leave him to drown, being swept downstream to certain destruction.
 
The third man, according to the Calvinist interpretation, is not only drowning and in need of being rescued - he has already drowned. He is dead and at the bottom of the river, being swiftly swept downstream towards an eternal hell which God has prepared to receive all except for the few elect whom He has predetermined to rescue. All the elect, who are chosen to salvation, are drawn out of the river and brought back to life. However, the great majority (the non-elect) were either predestined by God to eternal doom before even entering in the river or, according to some moderate Calvinists, simply left to their fate without the divine intervention which He provides exclusively for the elect.
 
It should be obvious to any believer that Pelagianism is an outright denial of our need of the Savior who redeemed us with His own precious blood upon the cross and is therefore a denial of the faith. Although Calvinists often accuse Arminians of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism, it must be recognized that most Arminians equally believe in salvation by grace alone apart from works.
 
True saving faith, rightly understood, is not a work, according to Paul, and therefore does not invalidate salvation by grace alone (Rom 3:27). I personally believe, with the Calvinists, that the Scriptures indicate that even our saving faith is a gift of God, as I hope to demonstrate. However, God’s power to save has in no way been limited by this minor distinction. Jonathan Edwards, a Reformed Calvinist, was mightily used of God as was the former Arminian, George Whitefield who became a Calvinist under Jonathan Edwards’ influence. But we must not forget the other great revivalists such as John Wesley, Charles Finney and William Seymour, just to name a few, who were greatly used of God being Arminians.
 
God doesn’t seem to be limited in His power to save by whether or not one understands saving faith itself as being a gift rather than an independent personal response. His purpose in creating us is primarily relational and therefore His eternal decree must also include our personal volitional participation. I believe that God imparts faith but in such a way that it includes the personal willful response of the individual. Rather than it being a matter of “either or”, I see it as “both and.” Faith is both a gift received and personally activated by the one receiving it - much as Jesus’s command to the paralytic, “rise, take up your bed and walk” required the participation of the paralytic, even though the work of healing was performed by Jesus. Thanks be to God that we don’t have to become theologians in order to be saved! Most of us would die while still in the process of trying to split our “theological hairs.”
 
Depravity: Scriptural Testimony
 
I believe, and hope to demonstrate, that the overall testimony of the Scriptures confirms that man is totally destitute of any ability to contribute in any way to his own salvation. It will be demonstrated that even our saving faith must be imparted to us by God in order for us to be able to believe. True saving faith is a gift from God. Our only part is the spontaneous voluntary exercise of that faith, receiving the irresistibly glorious good news of the gospel by faith.
 
Spiritually Stillborn
 
“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” (Eph 2:1-3)
 
The Scriptures declare that we were dead prior to having been made alive by God through the new birth. In what sense were we dead and when did this death take place? Obviously, it is not referring to physical death. Neither could it be said that man is dead in a moral sense before the new birth. Not all unregenerate sons of Adam are incapable of living relatively moral lifestyles. Indeed, God holds all mankind responsible for their moral acts and the day will come when they will be judged for the deeds done in the body (Rom 2:12-16).
 
What Paul is saying is that we all came into the world dead towards God. Apart from Jesus Christ, who was God himself clothed in human flesh, the only two individuals who were initially alive in relationship to God were Adam and Eve. They were commanded to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and warned that if they were to eat of it, they would die in that very day. God literally said: “for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.” (Gen 2:17 LITV). Implicit in this verse we see that death, in a certain sense, would occur the moment Adam and Eve ate of the tree. Even those who partake of the “good” branches of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are dead to God. Their righteous deeds, as such, are done in the flesh, alienated from God, and therefore they are unacceptable to Him (Isa 64:6).
 
It is worthy of note that Paul; of all men the most “morally” religious - the Pharisee of all Pharisees, includes himself in this indictment: “we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others” (Eph 2:3). The “wickedly righteous” are just as much partakers of the forbidden tree as the “wickedly unrighteous” and inadvertently are in rebellion against God, just as the rest.
 
Death in Scriptures conveys, not cessation of existence, but separation. In their act of independence, Adam and Eve separated themselves from God and therefore died spiritually. Although they continued to live for many more years before finally dying physically, they became independent entities – separated from the life of God from that day forward. This condition of spiritual death passed on to all the descendants of Adam:
 
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.” (Rom 5:12)
 
The phrase “all sinned” is in the aorist tense, expressing a singular act in the past. It is referring back to Adam’s original sin as being that which caused all of his descendants to be born under Adam’s curse of death. Due to Adam’s original sin we were all still-born in relation to God and also destined to die physically – not simply because of our own sins, but because of the curse of death transmitted through our first father, Adam.​ This is what is referred to as Original Sin.  All sinned in Adam. By one man’s sin (Adam), death has reigned over all his descendants (Rom 5:17). I consider the subject of Original Sin further in my articles, What about Original Sin?, Are Babies Vipers in Diapers?, and Objections to Original Sin.
 
So, we all, as descendants of Adam, were born dead in relation to God – cut off from His life from birth (Ps 51:5). One does not expect a response from a dead person. A physician may be able to tell an ill person to entrust himself into his care, and he may be able to assist in his own recovery, but once that individual is physically dead there is no possible way to get a response from him. Only the miracle of resurrection can raise one who is already physically dead.
 
The same applies to our spiritual condition. One who is born dead towards God cannot possibly know or respond to God who is spirit. Before one can relate to God in any manner, he must first experience the miracle of the new birth – having been born from above, of the Spirit. We must be made alive before we can respond to God in any way, and that is precisely what Paul says God did for us: “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.” In God’s timing He makes us alive through the rebirth of our spirit, enabling us to understand and respond in faith to the gospel.
 
The Universalist, however, does not limit God by saying that only the elect of this age will be made alive and saved. Paul says that eventually all who die in Adam will be made alive in Christ, and that the time will finally come when the last enemy – death, will have been destroyed forever:
 
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order…The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” (1Cor 15:22-23a, 26)
 
The traditional concept of “eternal death” is foreign to the Scriptures which declare the final restoration and reconciliation of all – the gathering together of all in Christ Jesus in the dispensation of the fullness of the times (Acts 3:21; Col 1:16,20; Jn 12:32; Eph 1:10, etc.).
 
Spiritually in Bondage
 
“in which (trespasses and sins) you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in (energéo) the sons of disobedience.” (Eph 2:2)
 
In Ephesians 2, after stating that we were dead in our trespasses and sins, Paul explains further that we were under the power and influence of Satan, the prince of the power of the air. The Greek word translated here “works” is energéo from which we derive our word “energize.” In essence, Paul is saying that we were under Satan’s power. This is further substantiated in other passages as well:
 
“in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” (2Tim 2:25-26)
 
“We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.” (1Jn 5:19 NIV)
 
At what point in time did Satan gain control over the collective will of the whole of humanity? In the Garden of Eden when Adam relinquished his God-given authority to the tempter. Since that time, mankind outside of Christ has been held captive to Satan and is under his oppressive, blinding control.
 
When nations such as North Korea have fallen under communist dictatorship, all media is restricted, and their citizens are brainwashed and blinded by propaganda, leading them to think that they are the ones who are free and prosperous, while the outside world is the evil, oppressive society. In the same way, the god of this age keeps his subjects blind to the glorious gospel which can set them free:
 
“But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.” (2Cor 4:3,4)
 
Why do those in the world not believe in the gospel? Partly because the god of this age has blinded them, keeping them from seeing the light. Therefore, Adam’s race is not only dead to God or cut off from His life, but also blinded under Satan’s oppressive dominion. Apart from the miracle of the new birth, one cannot even see the kingdom of God – let alone believe unto salvation:
 
“Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (Jn 3:3)
 
Spiritually Deaf
 
Jesus, repeatedly said: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” Obviously, since every descendent of Adam comes into the world spiritually dead in relation to God, we must be made alive in order to hear God. While even the regenerate may become carnal and dull of hearing (Heb 5:11), the unregenerate do not even have the capacity to hear God. They are not simply unwilling to hear but are literally unable to hear God’s voice:
 
“Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.” (Jn 8:43)
 
Note that Jesus did not simply say that they were unwilling to hear Him but that they were unable to hear His words. The civilized world has harnessed the radio waves and we are now able to listen to music and messages in a way unimaginable in past generations. However, there are still some remote tribes who know nothing of the radio waves transmitting music all around them. Why? Because radio waves can only be heard if one has a receiver. Many of them have been amazed as they listen for the first time by means of a radio what was around them all the time.
 
In a similar way, we were born without the ability to even hear the good news of Jesus Christ. We may have even been raised in the church with the gospel being proclaimed from the pulpit in every message, but without really hearing it until God gives us ears to hear. In the Father’s time He draws us, permitting us to truly hear Him for the first time. All who hear Him are irresistibly drawn to Jesus, as He himself tells us in John chapter six: 
 
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.  45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.” (Jn 6:44,45)
 
Jesus here says that none of us are able to come to Him until the Father draws us. However, He also says that everyone who is given ears to really hear the Father will come to Him without fail. In the same manner, in the Father’s time, all who died in Adam will be made alive in Christ and not just the elect of this age - all will eventually be irresistibly drawn to Christ (1Cor 15:22). Jesus states that we cannot come to Him unless the Father draws him. In the present age, only a chosen few are being drawn by the Father to be of the Church of the firstfruits, the Bride of Christ. However, in the times of the restoration of all, Jesus will draw all men unto Himself and not only the elect of this age:
 
“And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” (Jn 12:32 KJV)
 
The Word “draw,” both in John 6:44 and here, is the Greek word helkô, which expresses something much stronger than a simple attraction. Strong’s Dictionary defines it: “drag (literally or figuratively).” It appears eight times in the New Testament and in each case, it expresses the idea of being drawn by a force greater than the resistance of the one being drawn:   
 
“Simon Peter went up and dragged the net to land, full of large fish, one hundred and fifty-three; and although there were so many, the net was not broken.” (Jn 21:11)
 
“… they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace to the authorities.” (Acts 16:19)
 
“…. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?” (James 2:6)
 
“Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear.” (Jn 18:10)
 
Man, separated from God, is so lost that he must be drawn or dragged to Christ. Otherwise he would not come to Him. Our “free-will” is of no avail if we can’t even see or comprehend the glorious gospel, and that is the situation in which God finds every individual. They are incapable of going to Him until He, in their day of visitation, draws them to Himself, which He will do for every man in due time (1Peter 2:12; 1Ti 2:6 KJV). In His time, He will remove the veil from the eyes of all people (Isa 25:7-8). Until then, they remain blinded and incapable of finding Him.
 
Totally Depraved by Nature
 
In the passage we have been considering in Ephesians 2:1-3, Paul, after saying that we were dead in sin and under the power of Satan, concludes by saying that we “were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” Adam was a spirit in a body of flesh before separating himself from God. When Adam sinned, his spirit died to God and he became “flesh” by nature instead of a “spirit” in a body of flesh (Gen 6:3). Sinful flesh is by nature incorrigibly hostile towards God, and no matter how much one partakes of the “good” branches of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he cannot change that which he is by nature – independent “flesh.” We cannot change our nature by self-effort or will-worship any more than an Ethiopian can change the color of his skin, or a leopard can remove his spots (Jer 13:23). And our fleshly nature is irreparably hostile towards God:
 
“because the carnal mind (mind of the flesh) is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.” (Rom 8:7-9)
 
Not only is our essential fallen nature as sons of Adam inherently hostile to God, making us by nature sons of wrath. The natural, unregenerate mind of the flesh is also unable to perceive, much less receive, the things of the Spirit:
 
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1Cor 2:14)
 
“And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever —   17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” (Jn 14:16,17)
 
Once again, we see that the problem with fallen humanity is not simply that mankind will not believe, come, yield, understand, or know the things of God. The Scriptures repeatedly declare that man, by nature, cannot believe, come, yield or understand so as to be saved. The preaching of the cross is foolishness to the natural mind because the unregenerate are incapable of comprehending it (1Cor 1:18).
 
Paul in Romans, before introducing the free grace of God, beginning in 3:21, establishes incontrovertibly that all of mankind, Jews included, are totally depraved and in need of divine grace in order to be able to respond to God or contribute in any way whatsoever towards their own salvation:
 
“What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin. 10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." 13 "Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit"; "The poison of asps is under their lips"; 14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." 15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways; 17 and the way of peace they have not known." 18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Rom 3:9-18)
 
Numerous arguments have been presented by the Arminians in an attempt to limit the universality of “all” in this indictment or diminish the extent of man’s depravity as argued here by Paul. However, they unwittingly end up contending against the obvious intent of Paul’s own argument, which is that all are hopelessly under sin, totally depraved and entirely dependent upon God’s free gracious gift of righteousness provided in Christ Jesus in order to be saved.
 
Paul’s presentation of humanity as totally depraved and in need of divine gracious intervention is not a new revelation unique to Paul. Jesus also presented mankind as being in the same hopeless, fallen condition apart from God:
 
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” (Jn 6:63)
 
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day… 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, ‘Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.’” (Jn 6:44, 64,65)
 
Once again, we see presented, not simply unwillingness to come to Him, but inability: No one can come apart from being graciously drawn by God.
 
Total Depravity Revealed by the Law
 
Arminians often argue that God would not call upon man to do anything, nor would He have given us His laws, if we were incapable of positively responding. However, the revealed purpose of the Law of Moses was to expose our inability and depravity in order to shut us up unto grace. It was given to show our depravity – not our ability. The law’s purpose was to arouse sinful passions innate to our sinful adamic nature, causing us to despair of our own independent self-efforts to achieve godlikeness. Rather than bridling evil, it produced in us all manner of evil desire:
 
“For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’ 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire.” (Rom 7:5-8)
 
Therefore, rather than God’s giving of the Law being an argument against man’s total depravity, as some Arminians affirm, we see that the law was given for the express purpose of revealing to us our depravity. It was given to bring us to an end of all confidence in the flesh. In our utter inability to attain to godlikeness through independent self-efforts by partaking of the “good” branches of the forbidden tree, we, through the Law, are slain. We are then, in this manner, prepared to receive the revelation of the grace that is in Christ Jesus our Savior: 
 
“Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (Gal 3:21-25)
 
So, the law served as a tutor to reveal our depravity and bring us to faith in Christ. Now that we are in a relationship of faith and dependence upon Christ, we are no longer under the law. It wasn’t given for us to live by, but rather to die by.
 
Inability to Believe the Gospel
 
We have seen so far that man is dead to God. In his fallen condition under Satan’s rule, he is blind and deaf in relation to God’s kingdom. We have seen that man’s problem goes beyond unwillingness to inability. Unregenerate man is by nature “flesh” and therefore cannot perceive, come, submit, know, believe, nor receive the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Jesus said: “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3).
 
In spite of all Scriptural testimony to the contrary, the Arminians insist that regeneration is the result of our own independent free-will decision of faith. Jesus said that we cannot even see the kingdom apart from the new birth or regeneration. How is it possible for fallen flesh to respond to truth that one is totally oblivious to? Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God, but flesh cannot hear, perceive or in any way submit to divine truth. That which is born of flesh is flesh. Until one is born of the Spirit, man is flesh, period. In him, that is in his flesh, dwells no good thing (Rom 7:18). Jesus said:
 
“’It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.  64 But there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, ‘Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” (Jn 6:63-65)
 
Fallen man is referred to in Scripture as “flesh” (Gen 6:3). Flesh only perceives “flesh words.” The words of Jesus were “spirit words” and for that reason, those present who were of the flesh were incapable of believing and coming to Jesus apart from the Father who gives life by His Spirit to whom He wills. Jesus knew from the beginning whom the Father had granted life by His Spirit so as to be able to hear and respond in faith to His “spirit words” which the natural man (flesh) is incapable of even hearing – not to mention believing.
 
Arminians appeal to the many passages calling upon men to repent and believe as evidence that the unregenerate man has within himself the potential to freely respond in faith. However, they once again fail to realize that, as with the commands of the Law of Moses, God’s commands are not given to show our ability but rather our inability. Even our faith is seen to be of necessity a gift of God, to the praise of the glory of His grace:
 
“Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48)
 
The word “appointed” in this passage is from the Greek word tasso which speaks of arranging in order. The idea expressed is that the Father has an appointed time for the salvation of each individual. Only when one's appointed time comes will he believe unto eternal life. For example, even though Paul knew about Jesus and His teaching during His ministry, he did not believe on Him at that time because it wasn’t his appointed time. He was also present when Stephen gave his defense by the power of the Holy Spirit but wasn’t given ears to hear and even participated in his stoning. He was doubtlessly familiar with the gospel being proclaimed by the Church he persecuted, but he could not believe because it had not yet been granted to Him by the Father to come to Christ. It wasn’t until he was on the road to Damascus that the Father’s appointed time came, granting him saving faith.
 
Some Arminians would argue that Paul was the exception to the rule, but I believe that all who have had a true saving encounter with Christ would say that they were brought to faith in a similar manner even though the details may have been less dramatic. Saving faith is a gift from God. There is no other way to explain how it happens that all who are appointed to eternal life believe without fail. It is the only way to explain how it is that all whom the Father gives to the Son will come to Him. The Lord opens our hearts to believe. Left to our fallen, depraved flesh we would have never been open to receive Him.
 
It is said of the religiously pious Lydia that “the Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14). If the Lord had not opened her heart, she would have continued to be just another religiously pious unbeliever like many of us were before we came to saving faith in Christ. Saving faith is a gift of God:
 
“For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ… to believe in Him…” (Phil 1:29)
 
Paul, in the context of suffering on behalf of Christ, reminds us as believers that our faith was given to us as a grace-gift. The word translated “granted” is charitzomai which is a derivative of the Greek word for “grace” (charis), indicating that it was graciously given to us to believe in Him. We cannot even boast in our faith since it was given unto us to believe by God Himself.
 
Paul says that boasting is excluded with saving faith (Rom 3:27). Is Paul saying that all faith excludes boasting? Absolutely not. For years I attended a church which included a time of “testimonies” in each service. Many “testimonies” were simply sanctified boasting. Some of the most repellent testimonies were those in which they boasted of their faith as though God moved or did such and such because of their great faith. Only recognizing that one believes by grace is boasting excluded.
 
Arminians insist that faith is the one thing required of our independent self before receiving His benefits, but even our faith is by grace and grace alone. In Acts 18:27, it says of Apollos that he “greatly helped those who had believed through grace.” Those of us who have believed the gospel must humbly admit that we would have never believed were it not for the grace of God enabling us to see and believe unto salvation.
 
The apostle Paul exults in “our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace” (2Thess 2:16). In what do you place your hope of eternal life, in your own personal faith, or do you rejoice with the recognition that, apart from the grace of God you would still be an unbeliever in your sins and without hope? Are you believing Satan’s lie that God has done His part, but it is up to you to do your part if you want to have any consolation or hope in eternal salvation?
 
Arminians argue that faith must precede regeneration, while Calvinists insist that faith must of necessity follow regeneration, since fallen flesh is totally depraved and unable to respond to the gospel. Jesus said that we cannot even see the kingdom apart from regeneration. How then are we to believe the gospel apart from the new birth which opens our eyes to see it in its glory for the first time? Arminians point out that, in the New Testament, the invitation is often extended to sinners, telling them to believe without any reference to the need for a prior regeneration. However, it is not to be anticipated that each invitation would be accompanied with a theological discourse explaining that if the hearers do not believe, it is because it was not given to them to believe at that time.
 
Considering all that we have already seen concerning man’s total depravity, I cannot agree with the Arminians when they say that we independently believe as a personal free-will decision, and then God follows up on our faith by regenerating us. We exercise the faith that is granted to us when the Lord opens our heart for the first time, thereby enabling us to perceive and receive the gospel. Perceiving, which is necessary in order to believe and receive Christ, requires regeneration (Jn 3:3). Many have confused the order as set forth in John 1:12,13:
 
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Jn 1:12-13)
 
Since “receiving” and “believing” are mentioned in the sentence before regeneration, they think that faith chronologically precedes regeneration. However, upon closer examination, we see that regeneration takes place because of God’s will – not because of our faith and receiving. God brings about regeneration as an act of His sovereign will – not by a decision of our own will. This is further confirmed by James who says:
 
“Of his own will he gave birth to us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.” (James 1:18 WEBA)
 
If it was our own free-will act of faith that brought about regeneration, then it would be regeneration by the will of the flesh. We were born of God or regenerated because God first willed it. Those who were chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world, in the time preordained by God, exercise their God-given faith, believing and receiving Christ.
 
We see the same sequence in 1John 5:1, where John says: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Although the New King James Version conceals it, this verse clearly indicates that regeneration precedes faith. “Is born” is not in present tense as the translators rendered it. It is in the perfect tense and the passive voice. The verb translated “believes” is in the present, active. Therefore, it should read “Whoever is believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God.” In other words, if one is believing that Jesus is the Christ, it is because he had already been born again prior to believing.
 
However, I don’t see a discernible separation in time between regeneration and our willing response of faith. To argue about which came first is comparable to asking what came first in creation - the chicken or the egg. The obvious answer is neither. The chicken was created together with the eggs in one creative act, just as the plants were created already bearing seeds. The same can be said concerning the new creation. We were re-created, with faith being as much a part of the miracle of the new creation as regeneration itself. Faith is just as integral and spontaneous in the new birth process as is the first breath of a newborn coming out of the birth canal. 
 
In Adam all die – we are born separated from God and dead in sin. However, the good news, which was proclaimed in the Early Church, but was suppressed upon entering the Dark Ages, and even to this day continues to be overlooked both by Calvinists and Arminians, is that, in God’s own time, all who die in Adam will be made alive or regenerated through the gift of faith in Christ at the time ordained of the Father, from before the foundation of the world.
 
“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order…. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him that God may be all in all.” (1Cor 15:22,23a, 28)
 
In conclusion, we have seen that the overall testimony of Scripture is that man, in his fallen condition is totally depraved, dead towards God, under the power of the god of this world, spiritually blind, without ears to hear God, and by his very nature a child of wrath. His nature, which is flesh, is at enmity with God. God’s purpose in giving us the Law was to confine us all under disobedience in order to finally have mercy upon all (Rom 11:32). In this present age, the Father is drawing a few elect people to make up the Bride of Christ. However, before Christ delivers up all things to the Father and God becomes all in all, Christ will have drawn all men unto Himself.
 
“For of (ek) Him and through (dia) Him and to (eis) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:36)
 
Depravity: The Universal Solution
 
Obviously, one can be a Universalist and a Pelagianist at the same time. Many liberal Universalists downplay or deny man’s lost condition and absolute necessity of salvation through faith in Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Nevertheless, the Scriptures are clear in that we are all under sin, and one must repent and believe the gospel, having been born again of the Spirit, in order to even see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it. Since Pelagianism is self-salvation, a Pelagianist cannot be said to be saved, since biblical salvation requires a Savior outside of oneself.
 
A religious Pelagian Universalist would be like the Pharisees in the sense that they trust in their own righteousness. Jesus said of them: “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt 21:31). It is not that they will never enter but that they will have to enter in the same way as the tax collectors and harlots – through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Those who early recognize their depravity are the first to come to repentance and faith, being born again into the kingdom of God. No one will enter the kingdom of heaven as a Pelagianist. He must enter in by the straight and narrow way – by grace through faith, having been born again of the Spirit.
 
Biblical Universalists, however, would agree with the Calvinist in that all are not only born sinners in Adam but born dead in our sins and totally dependent upon being made alive by grace through Jesus Christ. The only difference is that the Universalist believes with Paul that “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1Cor 15:22). The Universalist can say without apology, to the praise of the glory of God’s grace, that the same all who die in Adam will in due time be made alive in Christ. All, having originated in Christ by creation, will be finally restored to Christ before He delivers the kingdom back to the Father and God becomes all in all. As Paul declares:
 
“For of (ek) Him and through (dia) Him and to (eis) Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom 11:36)
 
All of creation came out of (ek) of God, exists through (dia) Him and will be finally reconciled to (eis, ‘into’) Him. The Universalist does not see the elect as having been chosen to the exclusion of the rest but rather for the benefit of the rest of mankind. We are chosen to be a royal priesthood, a light to the nations, the Church of the firstfruits of the rest of God’s new creation:
 
“Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.” (James 1:18)
 
We, the elect of this age, are only the first to hope in Christ (Eph 1:12). We are only the firstfruits. The firstfruits of a harvest are the first chosen, but only a very small part of the total harvest. Jesus said: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (Jn 6:44). But He promised that He will eventually draw all men unto Himself (Jn 12:32). All of God’s creation will finally be restored and set free into the glorious liberty of the manifest sons of God – the firstfruits of God’s new creation, in the time of their manifestation, when He makes all things new (Rom 8:18-23; Rev 21:4-5). In the coming ages, the Church of Jesus Christ – we who have first believed, will be put on display – manifested to the rest of creation, for the praise of the glory of His grace, bringing about the final restoration of all (Eph 1:10-12; 2:7; Acts 3:21; Rom 8:18-23).
 
The Arminians have difficulty explaining why our loving Father, seeing that man is lost and drowning in a river he didn’t choose to be in in the first place, after throwing out the lifeline, simply leaves those who fail to take hold of the rope to drown without further intervention. It is even more irreconcilable with the Love of God considering that the vast majority of mankind never even saw the lifeline – they never heard the good news of salvation, or else they were too spiritually blind and disoriented to avail themselves of it.
 
We all know that no loving father would allow his own child to drown simply because the child resists his efforts to save him. He may wait until the child stops struggling before intervening to save him, but to let the child drown simply because he, in his confusion, resists his father’s efforts to rescue him, would be unthinkable. Are we as fathers, made in the image and likeness of God, more compassionate than our Heavenly Father?
 
Traditionalists would say that we should not question God’s ways. However, it is not a matter of questioning God. What we are commanded to do is to question man’s interpretations of God’s ways when they go against God’s revealed nature as seen in Scripture, or when they fly in the face of all reason. Did not Jesus rebuke the multitude saying: “Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?” (Luke 12:57). Are we not told to be like our loving heavenly Father who loves all, including His enemies? (Matt 5:44-45). How can we be like Him by loving our enemies and doing good to them while at the same time believing that God will actually be torturing them throughout all eternity, accordingly as it has pleased him, for the praise of the glory of His infinite justice? [i]
 
The Calvinists have an even greater dilemma than that of the Arminians because, according to the illustration of the river, the God of the Arminians at least throws out the lifeline for all those who are drowning. Although most drown anyway since they do not take hold of the lifeline in time, either for lack of knowledge or lack of will, at least Arminians can come closer to saying that there is no partiality with God.
 
The Calvinists, on the other hand, say that God in eternity predestined only the few chosen elect unto salvation. [ii] The rest were (at least by default) predestined to eternal wrath. They insist that His election is not based upon any merit or demerit of the individual but solely upon God’s good pleasure in order to receive glory unto Himself. In the case of the elect, it is for the praise of the glory of His grace. But for the vast majority, who were not chosen to salvation, He is pleased to consign, from all eternity, to an everlasting fiery hell, to the praise of His glorious justice.
 
More will be said about this at a later time, but for the moment it should be obvious that the Calvinists present God in a manner which more closely resembles the vindictive pagan deities who find glory in the misery of their subjects in order to demonstrate how mighty they are, rather than the God of Scripture who declares that He not only loves all, but that He Himself is love, and demonstrated it by reconciling all His creation unto Himself by the blood of the cross of Jesus Christ (2Cor 5:19; Rom 5:8; Col 1:16,20).
 
Traditionalists, both Calvinists and even many Arminians, generally acknowledge, with the Biblical Universalist, that God is sovereign, having foreknown and predetermined all things from eternity, and is working all things according to His own will. While some Calvinists emphasize a predetermined will based upon a particular love for the elect only, the Arminians would base His election upon Him having foreseen their choice. They both recognize that the fall and redemption were foreknown and included within His plan for the ages, as do the Universalists. However, according to them, ultimate salvation only benefits a select few. The rest, according to them, are destined by God Himself to an eternal fiery hell which has no redemptive purpose.
 
The eternal plan for the vast majority, according to them, is to subject them to an eternal - never ending torment, by a “loving” God, whose wrath against them is never placated throughout all eternity. This unending wrath is against their sins, which, even according to them, is due to their misfortune of having been born enslaved by nature to sin and Satan due to Adam’s disobedience.
 
Lorraine Boettner, a prominent Calvinist, explains the sinner’s plight saying: “Human beings are born with a corrupt nature but are nevertheless fully responsible for the sins they cannot avoid because of this condition.” [iii]  This traditional model of eternal torment for helpless victims is perhaps more compatible with the ancient pagan demigods of Greek mythology, who were humanlike and capricious, but this barbaric doctrine is in no way worthy of the all-knowing, all-wise God of the Scriptures whose essential nature is declared to be love.
 
The Arminians attempt to resolve this contradiction of the divine nature by saying that God voluntarily limits His sovereignty by the free-will decisions of His fallen children. He loves all equally, and in love took away the sins of the whole world once and for all in the person of Jesus Christ upon the cross. Now He can be just and at the same time justify the ungodly who receive Him by faith.
 
Nevertheless, according to them, those who for one reason or the other fail to make the free-will decision for Christ during the brief window of opportunity between the “age of accountability” and death, will forever lose their free-will to choose Christ – even if they didn’t choose Him for the simple reason that they never heard the gospel. And the “sovereign” God who loved them so much that He reconciled the whole world unto Himself, having taken away their sins, will later find himself bound by His own holiness to torment them forever in His wrath even though He loves them and gave His Son to be the propitiation for their sins, thus enabling Him to maintain His holiness and at the same time be propitious to them in spite of their sins.
 
Arminians not only unwittingly limit God’s sovereignty in order to protect the free-will of man to choose or reject Him: They also deny His sovereignty to save the lost after death. God’s sovereign will for an individual, which is their salvation, is limited, according to them, to one’s lifetime, because He chose to limit Himself to the limited “free-will” of fallen, confused and lost mortals.
 
However, after death when they can finally see clearly what Christ accomplished for them upon the cross, somehow they lose forever their free-will to repent and believe the gospel. In turn, God who loves all without exception of persons and desires that all be saved must now also somehow eternally limit His own “sovereign” free-will, condemning forever those whom He loves to eternal torments. His love and mercy which never come to an end must now somehow end forever for the only ones still in need of mercy – the lost multitudes. The loving Father, who does not reject forever (Lam 3:31-33), must now somehow violate His own word and subject the objects of His love to eternal wrath without any motive other than that of unending vengeance for their sins which Christ already bore in their place upon the cross.
 
The Calvinists, on the other hand, get around this problem by denying that love is a part of God’s essential nature. To them, love is not God’s essence but only an attribute. It is not even God’s governing attribute.  According to them, His holiness is His essential attribute, as though God’s nature could somehow be divided.
 
However, our God, who is love, found a way to be holy and just while at the same time justifying the ungodly through His greatest demonstration of love on the cross. In the cross, mercy and truth met together, and righteousness and peace kissed each other (Ps 85:10). In the cross, God demonstrated that His nature is not divided. He is love, and at the same time He is holy and just in forgiving unworthy sinners. He shows wrath, but in corrective love. He rejects, but not forever, because He is love. He is a consuming fire, but His fire only consumes the dross and refines the gold, because God is love.
 
Calvinists, in order to justify the traditional doctrine of an eternal hell for the majority, must deny that love was God’s motive in creation. To them God’s purpose in creation is to magnify His glory, period. God, from eternity, created hell and predetermined that the majority of humanity would suffer eternal torment for the sole purpose of magnifying His infinite justice. God receives glory by creating an eternal fiery hell and predestining the vast majority of mankind to suffer at His hands in order to bring praise to His name, magnifying the glory of His infinite justice in the form of implacable wrath.
 
In contrast, the Universalist sees the glory of both God’s infinite justice and His infinite love demonstrated in the cross of Jesus Christ, taking upon Himself the sins of the whole world, instead of presenting Him as one who eternally torments all but a select few eternally in hell in order to receive admiration.
 
If God indeed needed to receive praise by showing not only His love but also His holiness in the form of unending wrath and eternal torture, we would at least expect Him to choose the majority for salvation and only destine a few to eternal torment, since He could adequately show all creation how holy He is by torturing just a few, without needing to torment the majority. To torment the vast majority, while only showing mercy on a few would actually mitigate His glory rather than magnifying it.
 
Clearly in the Scriptures, God’s glory is best displayed in the Cross. God is ultimately glorified in the praise of the glory of His grace. His infinite wisdom is best revealed in converting His enemies into His most devout subjects. The God of infinite love and mercy would never seek to receive glory by setting in motion a plan for the ages which would end in eternal ruin and misery for the vast majority. The glory of agape love is in giving – not receiving. While God is seen at times to be glorified when the enemies of His people are defeated, His glory should not be seen in the act of avenging, but rather in the act of graciously delivering his people from their enemies. Ultimately, His glory is magnified by conquering His enemies by the power of His love:
 
“Say to God, ‘how awesome are Your works! Through the greatness of Your power your enemies shall submit themselves to You. 4 All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to You; they shall sing praises to Your name’.” (Ps 66:3-4)
 
The psalmist declares that all the earth will worship and sing praises to Him when, through the greatness of His power, even His worst enemies submit themselves to Him. His glory is displayed in the greatness of His love, not His wrath. I personally feel troubled and indignant when I contemplate how much God’s glorious loving character has been villainized by the traditional doctrine of eternal torment. Even John Piper who has put forth his best effort to present the traditional Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity in a manner worthy of God, when set alongside of the Calvinist doctrine of the Limited Atonement, refers to it as a “terrible truth.” [iv] And this in spite of the fact that he modifies the traditional model in order to make it more palatable. Any way you approach this terrible traditional doctrine, one cannot help but feel a sense of blasphemy just contemplating the logical conclusions implicit in both Arminian and Calvinist dogma.
 
Traditionalists designate these “truths” as doctrines too “terrible” and mysterious for mortal man to contemplate. They discourage any sincere criticism, calling it “divine mystery.” According to them, to bring into question the Scriptural validity of these terrible, dark mysteries is to exalt one’s own reason to the point of becoming judges of God’s ways and borders on blasphemy. However, with all due respect, we are not questioning God but rather man’s interpretations of God in the light of the Scriptures. We are commanded in Scripture to test all things, to hold fast what is good and abstain from every form of evil (1Thess 5:21-22). I do not believe that anyone can sincerely and critically carry these traditional doctrines to their inevitable, logical conclusions without recognizing that they are monstrously evil, unscriptural and unworthy of our God, and that we should therefore reject them without reserve.
 
I recognize that there are many dear men and women of God who hold to these doctrines whose love and devotion towards God are unquestionable. However, I believe that the majority of them have not dared to critically examine these “terrible dark truths” in the light of God’s nature as revealed in the Scriptures. Sadly, for many, the approval of man is more important than the approval of God, and for that reason, they are not willing to think outside of the traditional box.


[i] The Westminster Confession of Faith of Calvinism states: “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.”
 

[ii] They would argue that the elect are not just a few but a great multitude. Nevertheless, throughout history not even ten percent of all humanity could be said to have been Christians.

 
[iii] Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 63

 
[iv] Piper, John (2013-11-10). Five Points (Kindle Locations 223-229). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.
 


 
 


[i] The Westminster Confession of Faith of Calvinism states: “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.”
 

[ii] They would argue that the elect are not just a few but a great multitude. Nevertheless, throughout history not even ten percent of all humanity could be said to have been Christians.

 
[iii] Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 63

 
[iv] Piper, John (2013-11-10). Five Points (Kindle Locations 223-229). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition.

by George Sidney Hurd
 
In part one of this series on the atonement I emphasized the importance of a correct definition of the atonement. We saw that the primary meaning of the Hebrew word kippur is expiation or the removal of sin by a substitutionary sacrifice, rather than at-one-ment which is the literal meaning of our English word atonement. Our word atonement better describes the reconciliation which resulted from Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice, rather than the expiation itself. This improper rendering of kippur has facilitated the denial of Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement by its opponents. 
 
In part two, we saw that the Early Church Fathers uniformly described the sin-bearing Servant of Isaiah 53 as bearing in Himself the just penalty due to us for our sins as our substitute. In part three, I demonstrated that the terminology employed throughout Isaiah 53 is that of penal substitution.
 
Here I will be addressing the claim made by some that God’s justice is not in any way forensic or legal in nature but purely relational and restorative, and that He can therefore simply forego justice without any need to satisfy His justice through Christ’s substitutionary atoning sacrifice. While surely relationships are of utmost importance to God, one cannot have communion with God, who is perfect in justice, to the subversion of justice.
 
In Scripture we see that God is immutable in His justice and truth. Just as it is impossible for God to lie, even so it is impossible for God to go counter to His own justice. Righteousness and justice are said to be the very foundation of His throne, and He has said that He will by no means acquit the guilty or leave them unpunished (Ps 97:2; Num 14:18; Pro 11:21; Ex 34:7). This creates a conundrum which has no solution apart from the gospel truth that, in love, God Himself, in the person of Christ, bore the just penalty due to us for our sins.
 
Keith Giles, who opposes Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement in favor of a social justice gospel based upon a Moral Example model of the atonement, repeatedly insists that we must go to the four gospels if we want to understand what the gospel entails.[1] However, what He fails to consider is that the gospel before the cross could not have included the atonement, except by way of anticipation. It wasn’t until the close of His ministry that Jesus actually made atonement by shedding His own blood on the cross for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28). The full revelation of the gospel of Christ’s atoning death, burial and resurrection is primarily given to us through Paul (Eph 3:2-6; Rom 16:25-26). And in no other epistle is it more clearly set forth than in the epistle to the Romans.
 
Romans contains the clearest comprehensive and systematic presentation of the gospel that can be found in the New Testament. Martin Luther said of Romans that it is “The chief part of the New Testament and the purest gospel.” William Tyndale, who was the first to translate the Bible into English, called Romans “The light and way into the whole of Scripture.”
 
Romans 1 thru 8 constitutes the chief doctrinal portion of the epistle. In 1:16-17 Paul states in a nutshell that which he develops throughout the epistle:

“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’”  I think that the Revised Standard Version renders well what Paul was saying in the final phrase. It reads: “He who through faith is righteous shall live (Ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται).” In other words, the justification that makes alive is that which is received by faith, not the justification that one vainly seeks after that is based upon works.
 
In these chapters the full-orbed gospel is progressively unveiled in four stages: 1) condemnation, 1:18 thru 3:20; 2) justification, 3:21 thru 5; 3) sanctification, 6:1 thru 8:17, and finally 4) glorification, 8:18-25. Then in 8:31 to the end of chapter 8 he summarizes, describing the practical outcome of these four truths, beginning with, “What then shall we say to these things?...”
 
Forensic Motifs
 
Since Paul begins by demonstrating that all stand guilty and condemned before God prior to introducing the gospel of God’s free justification as a gracious gift through the redemption that is in Christ, he makes abundant use of forensic or legal motifs, especially in the first five chapters. In the first three chapters he sounds a lot like a prosecuting attorney presenting all, both religious Jews and pagan Gentiles, as guilty before the divine court of law, and worthy of the death penalty.
 
I remember well the first time I read Romans as a new believer. Since I didn’t understand what Paul was leading up to, by the time I got to chapter 3 verse 20 I felt guilty as charged and was questioning whether or not there was any hope for me. I can’t describe the joy and peace that flooded my soul when I continued reading verses 21 through 24 which read:
 
“BUT NOW the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” 
 
In the first three chapters Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, convicts us of our sin and guilt so that we will look to the Lord for His mercy and pardon. He shows us that we are all under condemnation so that we will gladly receive God’s free gift of justification in Christ. Paul later summarizes in Romans 11:32 saying: “For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.”
 
Paul first establishes the reality that all are disobedient and in need of God’s mercy. No one seeks His mercy until they are first made aware of their guilt and need of mercy. No one will look to Him for justification unless they are first made aware that they stand condemned before God. No one seeks to be saved until they become aware that they are lost and in need of the Savior.
 
Eventually all will have become convinced of their own disobedience and guilt and will look to the Lord for salvation. Eventually every knee will have bowed, and every tongue confessed Jesus Christ as Lord. Some, just like the self-righteous Pharisees or the liberal Sadducees, will be among the last to acknowledge their own sin and guilt, looking to God for His mercy (Matt 21:31). But as Paul indicates in Romans 11:32, eventually all will have acknowledged their own disobedience, looking to the Lord for mercy.
 
The opponents of the doctrine of Christ’s Penal Substitution often deny that God’s justice is in any way punitive or retributive in spite of the many direct statements in Scripture to the contrary (Rom 12:19; 13:4; 2Thess 1:8; Heb 10:30, etc.).  Brian Zahnd, for example, denies any form of retributive justice in God, saying: “The only thing God will call justice is setting the world right.” [2] As with many of their statements, that is a half-truth. The Scriptures agree with what he affirms but not what he denies. While it is true that God’s justice will ultimately set the world right, it is not true that God’s justice is never retributive. I demonstrate both the retributive and restorative nature of God’s justice in my article, The Justice of God.
                                                                                                                
Perhaps nowhere in Scripture is God’s retributive justice presented more clearly in judicial terms than in Romans. Just to help put into perspective how much the legal, forensic element pervades throughout Paul’s epistle to the Romans, I formulated the following list of words used by Paul in Romans having forensic or judicial connotations.
 
The Greek word for “judicial” is dikastikós. Its numerous cognates like dikaiosúne “justice,” dikaioma “just judgment” and dikaiosis “justification or acquittal” are used 66 times in Romans, one of which is hupódikos which means “under sentence, guilty, condemned.”  The phrase “the judgment of God” (krima tou theou) occurs 4 times, with the word “judgment” (krima) and its cognates appearing 31 times, 7 of which are katákrima and katakríno which mean “condemnation or adverse judgment.” The word orgé, or “wrath” is used 12 times, 10 of which refer to the wrath of God. According to Kittel’s 10 volume lexicon, the word orgé was often used to refer to the “legitimate attitude of the ruler who has to avenge injustice, and carries the meaning of “punishment,” just as we see it used here in Romans. [3]
 
In addition to these words, we also see other forensic terminology being employed by Paul, such as egkaléo katá, which is a forensic term meaning “to criminate, to bring a charge against.” Also, we see logízomai, which means “to impute or account as,” being used 13 times in reference to Christ’s righteousness which is imputed to those who believe. If that were not enough, the word “law” (nómos) occurs a total of 74 times in Romans, and parábasis and its cognates which mean “transgression or violation of the law” are used 14 times.  All together forensic and transactional terms occur a total of 233 times in Romans! In the light of all this, to me it seems unreasonable for anyone to claim that Penal Substitution is not taught in Scripture and that it was merely the invention of Calvin’s legal mind. No other religion in the world is as firmly based upon law and justice as is the Judeo-Christian faith.
 
The following is a list of the forensic terms used in Romans along with textual references to the most relevant passages.
 
dikaiosúne – justice, righteousness (34 times, the phrase dikaiosúne theou  “righteousness of God” occurs 6 times (Rom 1:17; 3:5,21,22; 10:3,3b)
 
dikaiokrisía – just sentence, righteous judgment (Rom 2:5)
 
dikaioma – just judgment, just ordinance or requirement, just act, justification (5 times: Rom 1:32; 2:26; 5:16,18; 8:4)
                                                                                                                
dikaióo – to justify (16 times, 14 times referring to God justifying man (Rom 3:20,24,26,28,30; 4:2,5; 5:1,9; 6:7; 8:30,30b; 8:33)
 
dikaíosis – justification, acquittal (2 times: Rom 4:25; 5:18)
 
hupódikos – guilty, condemned, subject to sentence (Rom 3:19)
                                                                                                                                   
ekdíkesis – full execution of justice, vengeance (Rom 12:19)
 
adikía– injustice, unrighteousness (7 times: Rom 1:18,18b,29; 2:8; 3:5; 6:13; 9:14)
 
ádikos – unjust (Rom 3:5)
 
********
kríno – to judge (18 times, 4 times referring to God judging according to His law: Rom 2:12; 3:4,6,7)
 
kríma – judgment (6 times: Rom 2:2,3; 3:8; 5:16; 11:33; 13:2)
 
katákrima – judgment against, condemnation (3 times: Rom 5:16,18; 8:1)
 
katakríno – to condemn (4 times, 2 referring to the condemnation of God: (Rom 8:3,34)
 
eglaléo katá – to criminate, to bring a charge against (Rom 8:33)
 
orgé – wrath (12 times: (Rom 1:18; 2:5,5b,8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22,22b; 12:19; 13:4,5)
 
thumós – passionate anger, wrath, indignation (Rom 2:8)
 
anapológetos – without  a defense or justification (2 times: Rom 1:20; 2:1)
 
nómos – law (74 times Rom 2:12,13)
 
anómos – lawless, without law (2 times: Rom 2:12,12b)
 
parabátes – transgressor, law-breaker (2 times: Rom 2:25,27)
 
parábasis – transgression, violation of the law (3 times: Rom 2:23; 4:15; 5:14)
 
paráptoma – transgression, offense - antithesis to justification (9 times: Rom 4:25; 5:15,15b,16,17,18,20; 11:11,12)
 
logízomai – account as, impute (18 times, 12 times in reference to imputed righteousness: Rom 4:3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,22,23,24; 6:11)
 
Examining the key passages where these words appear makes the forensic nature of the atonement even more evident. For brevity, I will only be focusing on a few.
 
Declared Guilty (Rom 3:19)
 
Paul spends the better part of the first three chapters establishing that all, both Jew and Gentile alike, stand guilty and condemned under God’s law. He shows that the Gentiles, although not having the law, will be judged by the same standard, since they have the law written in their hearts, their conscience approving or accusing them, leaving them without excuse (Rom 2:14-15; 1:20). He says that the Gentiles intuitively know that those who practice sin “deserve to die,” but they suppress the truth in their own unrighteousness (Rom 1:32,18).
 
Then in 3:19-20 he makes his closing statement in which he presents the whole world as being guilty and condemned before God with no possibility of being justified by their own works:
 
“Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty (hupódikos) before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified (dikaióo) in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:19-20)
 
Paul says that all of humanity stands guilty or condemned (hupódikos) before God. When judgment day comes, no one will be justified or declared righteous (dikaióo) in His sight for having kept the law. These are clearly forensic terms: guilty is antonymous with not guilty – to not be justified in His sight is to be condemned (c.f. Jn 3:18).
 
Declared Just – Justified by Grace apart from Works (Rom 3:21-24)
 
Immediately after showing that the whole world stood guilty and condemned before God without any possibility of self-justification, Paul unveils a righteousness that comes from God as a free gift of grace to all who believe/receive. He continues saying:
 
“BUT NOW a righteousness from God (dikaiosúne theoú), apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God (dikaiosúne theoú) comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified (dikaióo) freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” (Rom 3:21-24 NIV ©1973)
 
I here quote from the NIV since I believe that it properly renders dikaiosúne theoú here as “a righteousness from God,” rather than “the righteousness of God.” In this context, it isn’t referring to God’s moral attribute of righteousness, but rather a righteousness which comes from God as a gift through faith in Jesus Christ. The word “righteousness” appears here in the anarthrous without the article (a righteousness), and, considering the context, it should be understood as a genitive of source, “from God,” rather than a possessive genitive “of God.” Of the 7 times that this phrase appears in the New Testament, 5 refer to a righteousness from God, the righteousness of Christ which is imputed or put to the account of (logízomai) those who believe (Rom 1:17; 3:21; 3:22; 10:3,3b). Other translations, such as the Tyndale Bible of 1526 and the Weymouth Bible (1903) also render it as a genitive of source. Since the primary focus of Romans is upon Christ’s righteousness which is imputed to those who believe, the only instance where “the righteousness of God” refers to God’s moral attribute is in Romans 3:5 where Paul is still contrasting our unrighteousness with God’s righteousness.
 
Explanation of how God can justly justify the Unjust (Rom 3:24-26)
 
Especially for a Jew familiar with God’s law, but also for anyone living within the Roman Empire, being one of the most law-based societies in history, Paul’s original readers would have wanted an explanation as to how God could be just, while at the same time justifying the unjust. Right after declaring that the righteousness of God comes to sinners apart from the law through faith, he follows up with an explanation as to how free justification was made possible for sinners. He says:
 
“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption (apolútrosis) that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth (protíthemai, ‘publicly displayed’) as a propitiation (hilastérion) by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:24-26)
 
Paul explains that God is able to justify us through, or by means of, Christ’s redemption. The word apolútrosis, “redemption,” is a strengthened form of lútrosis which means “to set free by paying a ransom price.” [4] Our bondage was to sin and its penalty, death (Rom 6:22-23). Redemption includes “the forgiveness of sins,” the “redemption from transgressions” (Eph 1:7; Heb 9:14-15). Christ became a curse for us in order to redeem us (exagorázo) [5] from the curse of the law under which we were bound because of our transgressions against it (Gal 3:13-14).
 
There is much debate as to whom the ransom price was paid. However, to me, the Scriptures clearly indicate that the ransom was made to God Himself. Christ offered Himself up “to God...for the redemption from transgressions” (Heb 9:14-15). It was into the heavenly Most Holy Place that Christ entered with His own blood, thereby obtaining redemption for us (Heb 9:12). Yet, while Christ’s redeeming blood was presented to God as the redemptive price for our sins, we also see that God at the same time purchased us for Himself with that same blood sacrifice (1Cor 6:20).
 
How could the redemption price have been paid to God at the same time that it was God who purchased us for Himself? It was against God’s own immutable justice that we had transgressed. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23). It was through our disobedience that we came under the dominion of sin and death. In order for us to be free from sin’s penalty and dominion, God’s justice first had to be satisfied. Since the penalty for sin was death and all have sinned, man was unable to reverse his own condition. But God became flesh in the person of the Son and shed His own innocent blood as our substitute and representative Head, thereby obtaining eternal redemption for us and reversing the curse brought upon us due to Adam’s transgression (Rom 5:15-19). As our representative Head and Kinsman Redeemer, Christ paid the just penalty which God’s immutable justice required for our sins and transgressions, while at the same time purchasing us with His own blood (Acts 20:28).
 
Set forth as a propitiation by His blood
 
Romans 3 verses 25 and 26  make it even more evident that Christ’s redemptive blood was presented to God Himself as the satisfactory redemptive price for our sins, thereby making it possible for God to be just and justify the unjust who place faith in Christ. Paul says that Christ’s blood shed upon the cross was “set forth” or “publicly displayed” (protíthemai) as the expiatorial sacrifice for sins (hilastérion) which satisfied His justice, thereby demonstrating that He did not simply forego justice, overlooking sin when He left sin unpunished before the cross.  Additionally, Paul says that Christ’s propitiatory sacrifice demonstrates that at the present time God is just when He justifies those who put their faith in Jesus - that He doesn’t simply set aside justice when He justifies sinners.
 
In the first article in this series, Defining Atonement, I demonstrated that the word “propitiation” (hilasmós) and its cognates are used throughout the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (LXX) as the equivalent of the Hebrew word for “expiation” (kippur) in which blood sacrifices were offered to make expiation for the sins of the children of Israel. The cognate of hilasmós used here is hilastérion which was the word used in the LXX for the Hebrew kapporeth which was the propitiatorium or covering for the ark made of pure gold with two cherubim, often referred to in English as the mercy seat.
 
In order to understand why Jesus is said to have been publicly displayed as “a hilastérion by His blood,”  it is essential that we understand the function of the hilastérion. It served to cover the ark and that which was contained within it (Ex 25:21; Heb 9:4). Each of the three things contained within the ark were representative of the sins of the people: 1) The two tablets of the covenant which they transgressed; 2) The golden urn containing the manna which Aaron was told to put in the ark when they complained to the Lord because they had no food (Ex 16:33), and 3) Aaron’s rod that budded which symbolized their rebellion against Aaron, God’s anointed representative (Nu 17:10).
 
Once a year on Yom Kippur or the Day of Atonement/Expiation, the High Priest sprinkled the blood of the expiatorial sacrifice upon the hilastérion or covering of the ark, making propitiation/expiation for the sins of the people for another year, thereby making it possible for the glory of the Lord to remain above the hilastérion between the two cherubim (Ex 25:22). When Paul says that Christ was publicly displayed as the hilastérion by His blood, hilastérion is being used as an adjective rather than a substantive. He was set forth as a propitiatory/expiatorial sacrifice, once-and-for-all taking away the sins of the world. [6]
 
Condemnation and Justification are Forensic Motifs
 
We have seen how the whole world stood guilty before God and condemned since all have sinned (Rom 3:19,23). This guilty verdict is not something unique to Paul. Jesus Himself said: “he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Jn 3:18). Paul explains in Romans 5 that all of us, being under the federal headship of Adam, were condemned by his one act of disobedience (Rom 5:16).
 
Condemnation does not consist in making someone guilty, but in declaring them guilty. In the same manner, justification does not consist of making someone righteous, as in behavior modification, but forensic, declaring someone just. Justification is a once-and-for-all acquittal, not a process. It is a positional righteousness and distinct from sanctification or practical righteousness. Note the tense of the verbs:
 
“Therefore, having been justified by faith (aorist passive), we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ... 9 Much more then, having now been justified (aorist passive) by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Rom 5:1,9)
 
Even as condemnation came to all through Adam’s one offense, resulting in condemnation, so also Christ’s one act of obedience as our representative Head, resulted in justification for all, to be received (not achieved) by faith. The moment we believe we are justified. As Paul points out, Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him (logízomai) for righteousness (Rom 4:3). As indicated above, the word logízomai is used 12 times in Romans referring to imputed righteousness (Rom 4:3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,22,23,24; 6:11).
 
In spite of the fact that Paul so repeatedly and emphatically states that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those who simply receive it by faith, the opponents of Penal Substitution aggressively resist the truth of imputed righteousness and often even mock it. George MacDonald, who would reduce Christ’s atoning death to nothing more than a moral example, says the following concerning the belief that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those who believe:   
 
“The apostle says that a certain thing was imputed to Abraham for righteousness. What was it that was thus imputed to Abraham? The righteousness of another? God forbid!.. To impute the righteousness of one to another, is simply to act a falsehood...” [7] “This...the righteousness which is of God by faith – so far from being a thing built on the rubbish heap of legal fiction called vicarious sacrifice, or its shadow called imputed righteousness, that only the child with the child-heart...can understand it.” [8]
 
While George MacDonald is very verbose, making it  difficult to find a simple concise statement on any given issue, his contempt for the doctrine of imputed righteousness is unmistakable. To him, the glorious truth of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice for us in which our sins were imputed to Christ in order that His righteousness might be imputed to us, is rubbish. His denial of the inerrancy of Scripture emboldened him to exalt his own reason above divine revelation. Concerning the biblical truth that Christ’s vicarious death on our behalf was necessary in order to satisfy God’s justice he says: “You say he does, for the Bible says so. I say, if the Bible said so, the Bible would lie...[9] Such an attitude towards the Holy Scriptures certainly does not reflect our Lord who said, “the Scriptures cannot be broken,” and “the Scriptures must be fulfilled” (Jn 10:35; Mark 14:49).
 
I believe that today Jesus would say to those who deny the efficacy of His vicarious sacrifice the same thing that He once said to the Sadducees: “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (Mark 12:24). Those who oppose the gospel truth of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us by grace through faith fall into the same error as the unbelieving Jews that Paul referred to in Romans 10. He said of them:
 
“For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.  3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.” (Rom 10:2-3 NIV)
 
As much as the opponents of Penal Substitution may be opposed to it, the forensic and transactional concept of imputed righteousness through faith is central to the gospel. Justification includes forgiveness, but it is more than forgiveness. It is an acquittal, yet it is much more than just an acquittal. It is nothing less than the imputation of the merits of Christ to our account. In Christ, we are not simply regarded "as if" we were righteous, we actually are the righteousness of God in Him.
 
“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Cor 5:21)
 
Christ became legally guilty on our behalf, that we might become legally righteous or just in Him. We are now the righteousness of God in Christ! The opponents of Penal Substitution refer to this disparagingly as transactional justice, but the Apostolic Fathers referred to it as “the sweet exchange.” [10] Paul says that “having been justified (passive aorist) by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand” (Rom 5:1-2). Justification is a standing we have received, not a process to be achieved. “That having been justified (passive aorist) by His grace we should become heirs” (Titus 3:7). It is of God’s doing that we are in Christ who has become unto us righteousness (1Cor 1:30). We are “accepted (charitáo, lit. ‘graced, highly favored’) in the beloved” (Eph 1:6).
 
In conclusion, while few would deny that God loves us and desires relationship above all else, the Scriptures reveal to us that, apart from Christ’s vicarious sacrifice, redeeming us from our sins and iniquities, such a relationship would have never been possible, being that God is also perfectly just and the Judge of the living and the dead. And while the specific Greek word for “forensic” (δικανικός) doesn’t appear in Romans, its cognates appear 66 times, along with a multitude of other forensic terms.
 
It is precisely because of His great love for us that He sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1Jn 4:10). While it is the subject of the next blog, God sending His Son to be the propitiation for our sins is certainly a much greater demonstration of His love than that of the Moral Example Theory of the atonement. According to that theory, God sent His beloved Son to be mocked, scourged and nailed to a cross to die a cruel death for the sole purpose of showing us how loving He is! Instead of His precious blood having redeemed us from our sins and transgressions (Eph 1:7; Heb 9:14-15), they deny that Christ’s blood has any value beyond showing us how much He loves us. Denying that Christ’s blood purchased our redemption is what Peter calls “a destructive heresy” (2Peter 2:1-2).
 
In the next blog I will be considering how the other theories or models of the atonement are complementary to Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement. However, without Christ having shed His blood for the propitiation of our sins, there couldn’t have been any atonement or reconciliation.
 
“He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins... 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” (Col 1:13-14,20)
 


[1] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=penal+substitutionary+atonement+debate
 

[2] Zahnd, Brian. Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God (p. 86).
 

[3] Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Copyright © 1972-1989 By Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., NT:3709
“In secular literature orge takes on the sense of anger as the most striking manifestation of powerful inner passion, thumos.  ‘orge…becomes in the political life of the following period the characteristic and legitimate attitude of the ruler who has to avenge injustice.’ ‘orge relates, not to the verdict (Aristot. Rhet., I, 1, p. 1354 a, 16 ff.) but only to the sentence. In virtue of this orge itself acquired the meaning of ‘punishment.’ Apart from the moral wrath which protects against evil and which is sometimes expressly called dikaia orge (righteous indignation) (Demosth. Or., 16, 19; Dio C., 40, 51, 2; Ditt. Syll.3, 780, 22), orge in Gk. came under a predominantly negative judgment.
 

[4] The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament NT:629: “apolutrosis; gen. apolutroseos, fem. noun from apolutrao, ‘to let go free for a ransom,’ which is from apó (575), from, and lutrao (3084), to redeem. Redemption. The recalling of captives (sinners) from captivity (sin) through the payment of a ransom for them, i.e., Christ's death. Sin is presented as slavery and sinners as slaves (John 8:34; Rom 6:17,20; 2 Peter 2:19). Deliverance from sin is freedom (John 8:33,36; Rom 8:21; Gal 5:1).
 

[5] Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, NT:1805: exagorazo, a strengthened form of agorazo, "to buy,” denotes "to buy out" (ex for ek), especially of purchasing a slave with a view to his freedom. It is used metaphorically in Gal 3:13 and 4:5, of the deliverance by Christ of Christian Jews from the Law and its curse.
 

[6] See Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, commenting on Romans 3:25
 

[7] MacDonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 216). Start Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.
 

[8] Ibid p. 219

[9] Ibid p. 188
 

[10] Mathetes, The Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter 9
“He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous... For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”