The atonement is the completed sacrificial work of Christ in His life and death to satisfy the Laws demands unto God the Father. The atonement deals with the problem of sin, so that in mercy, fallen mankind might be restored to a relationship with God. It literally means at-one-ment; what was done so we might be at one with God.
​
Why was this needed? In the Garden, Adam and Eve needed to obey the Law, or Covenant of Works (Gen 2:15), or face the consequence/wage. The Law demanded perfect obedience (righteousness) or the wage/consequence would be perfect justice (Ro 6:23a). In breaking the Covenant they died spiritually and began to die physically. They were cut off from God and under His wrath.

Grudem defines the atonement simply as, “The work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1236; c.f. 1689.8.4).

Since we were: a) disobedient, and b) are under just sentence, Jesus’ atoning work had a twofold nature to it: His active obedience and passive obedience.

• Active obedience: Jesus lived the perfect life, the life we should have lived (Phil 3:9; Mt 3:15; Ro 5:19; 2 Cor 5:21, etc). He was perfect as a child, perfect in temptation, perfect in ministry, perfect under the Law, perfect in suffering and death. In this He ‘fulfilled righteousness’ and the Father accepted His perfect life and fulfillment of the Law as righteous.
• Passive obedience: In His suffering and death, Jesus paid the punishment and final penalty for breaking the Law, for sin, which was suffering and ultimately death. Jesus suffered in leaving heaven, He suffered in living amongst sinners, He suffered when He was tempted, He suffered when His family wouldn’t believe in Him and when He was rejected, He suffered the loss of friends, He suffered betrayal. Finally, in Gathsemane as He sweat blood (not merely because of what He would face but what He received [the sentence of sin deserved]), He took the penalty of sin and bore it to Calvary through His Passion (suffering). He further suffered abandonment (God and friends), arrest, injustice, scourging, mockery, jeers and crucifixion, where the full wrath of God toward sin was poured out upon Jesus until complete payment/satisfaction was made to the Father, until He died (blood). He was a man of sorrows (Isa 53:3) who made atonement for sin (again 2 Cor 5:21, Ro 3:25, 1 Pe 2:24, etc).

The atonement, both Jesus’ active and passive obedience, fulfilled the Laws demands unto the Father such that in Christ, the Father would accept His substitute for the believer. Jesus did the work that was needed so that at-one-ment could be made. Faith is how we access these benefits. By faith, Christ’s active obedience (righteousness) is imputed/credited to our account. When the Father sees us, He now sees His Son’s perfect righteousness. By faith, our sin/unrighteousness is credited to Christ, such that because of His death/penalty, we can go free, forgiven, our account cleared. Both are needed to be at-one with God, otherwise we could be forgiven but not fit for heaven, etc.

Atonement is what Christ did. Justification by faith is how the sinner accesses Christ’s merits to be declared just, or righteous (both morally and legally).
 
Other blogs on the atonement.

As a Christian, I am a fundamentalist; I uphold the fundamentals of the faith.

Fundamentalism began in the late 1800s in response to theological/biblical liberalism that denied key tenants of the faith. Initially Fundamentalism was a thoughtful response to defend the faith (Jud 3) but by the 1920s was it was becoming increasing militant (i.e. an angry evangelical). At this time Fundamentalism emerged on the one hand and [classic] conservative evangelicalism/Baptists on the other. So today you’ll hear of Fundamentalist Baptists and other streams of Baptists. This is why I’m a fundamentalist Baptist but not a Fundamentalist Baptist.
​
*Not all Fundamentalists Baptist believe all of the following; nor is this meant to be a caricature. Rather, it is a thoughtful comparison. 

Rev. L.L. Langstroth, the father of modern beekeeping, was preaching in Dayton, OH on Oct 6, 1895. Because of his age he had to preach sitting down. He opened his sermon with these words, “Today I wish to speak to you about the love of God.” Then he died. As a preacher there would be no better way to go. Maybe the Lord was being merciful, sparing him from a difficult subject. While God’s love might seem simple enough, it is actually a difficult doctrine (not unlike the Trinity, providence or the atonement, etc). 

In our national statement of faith we affirm that “salvation is by the sovereign, electing grace of God.”[1] What is this?

It has a linguistic, biblical, theological and historical meaning.

Firstly, when handling the doctrine of election it must be remembered that it, like the Trinity and Creation, election is a “high mystery” of the Faith to be handled with “special prudence and care” (1689. 3.7).

Linguistic
Sovereign: Sovereign means to have complete claim and control (e.g. arctic sovereignty). The Lord is sovereign. He is a King who reigns. His sovereignty extends even to salvation. “Salvation belongs to the Lord.”
Electing: To elect means to choose (e.g. electing a new government). To sovereignly elect/choose in salvation means that salvation is rooted in God’s choice.
Grace: Is God’s unmerited favour toward sinners. Since we are totally depraved, dead (Eph 2) and not seekers of God (Ro 3), we could only be saved if God chose to sovereignly save us in accordance with His grace.

Biblical
Students of the Bible should be familiar with these words and concepts. Without accepting this doctrine there will be many things in the Bible that will remain closed and confusing to us. Election is a plain and unmistakable teaching of the Bible. There are numerous passages that speak of God’s free choice in salvation.

1. Deut 7:6–7: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples.”
2. Ephesians 1:4–5: “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us[a] for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
3. 2 Timothy 1:9: “who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began”
4. Rev 13:8 and 17:8: “names have not been written in the book of life before the foundation of the world.”

It is difficult to kick against the goads, or the plain meaning of Scripture.

Theological
In theological terms, what does this mean? How might we summarize what the Bible teaches about election?

Election means that God chose to save some, not based upon a foreknowledge of faith or merit, but sovereignly, freely and in accordance with His own good pleasure to the praise of His glorious grace; whereas He passes over others to the praise of His justice (1689.3.1).

Historical
The meaning of election must also be understood historically. Christians from Paul, Augustine and reformers like Luther and Calvin, and later Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Anglicans and Baptists all understood election in this biblical-theological way. In fact, if it wasn’t in the Bible it is such a doctrine that no one would believe it. Our 1953 Fellowship statements flows on from our spiritual heritage in the Convention of Ontario and Quebec which stated in 1925 their belief in, “The election and effectual calling of all God’s people.”

Just as the words “man” and “woman” have a meaning, we cannot reinvent the meaning of the phrase “sovereign, electing grace.” It’s meaning is rooted in its linguistic, biblical, theological and historical contexts.
​
FAQs
Election, while biblical, may be more easily accepted when some FAQs are addressed.

1. Pride and humility: It is often a matter of pride we reject this doctrine. Rather we are called to humbly believe all that Scripture teaches.
2. Human responsibility: Election is often seen as an offence to our human responsibility (and indeed our pride calls out, “but what of our free will!”). Surely we have free choice but not free will (Ro 6); as sinners enslaved to sin we can only chose to sin. We need God’s grace in order to believe.
3. God’s character:  God is good and wise and we must submit that His choices are best (Ro 9). Election does not make God out to be a monster but rather gracious, for without election no one would be saved.
4. Understood together: Election must be used properly for in its undiluted form it is a strong doctrine. John Newton, author of ‘Amazing Grace,’ once likened election to sugar. He said, “I use my Calvinism [election] in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar”— taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, adding, “I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted.”[2]
5. Election and the Gospel. We preach the Gospel universally, even as we teach that election is particular. We don’t know who the elect are and are called to preach the Gospel universally and indiscriminately trusting the Lord will save His own through this faithfulness. There was a door, which over it read, ‘Come whoever will.’ Upon entering it and looking back the other side of the door read, ‘Elect.’
6. Election is not the same as justification. While we are elected to be saved we are not saved until the moment the Spirit opens our eyes (e.g. Lydia) and we believe. In that moment we are justified and not before.
7. For Believer not Unbelievers. Election is never the focus with unbelievers. It is always brought in when dealing with believers to encourage humility and worship and assurance in difficulties.
8. Not Abstract. Election is not abstract but deeply personal, loving and purposeful (Eph 1:4).

 


[1] “Salvation,” in Affirmation of Faith. <https://www.fellowship.ca/WhatWeBelieve> (2023).

[2] G. Redford, and J.A. James, eds., The Autobiography of William Jay. (London: 1854; reprint, Edinburgh, 1974), 272.  

What did Jesus mean here? How did Christ fulfil the Law? What does that mean for the Law itself?

Christ Fulfilled the Law
The Law can mean: a) God’s decrees, b) Scripture, c) a Covenant, d) the Mosaic Covenant (or Covenant with Israel at Sinai), or e) God’s moral law. Given the context in the Sermon on the Mount it is almost certainly “d,” the Mosaic Law; yet with a twist.

To abolish means to unyoke, as in unyoking an animal from a cart. As such it means to break or destroy what was.

To fulfil means is to be full or to meet.

The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day feared He was a religious revolutionary who would upset their cherished possession, or rather their misinterpretations and additions (Mt 23:4; Mk 7:7), for Jesus, being perfect, never broke God’s Law. He would be much more radical and still more conservative than they thought.

Christ fulfilled the Law by doing what Adam, doing what the descendants of Abraham, and of Israel and the Kings could not do—be that perfect covenant partner. No human can by their works “fulfil the Laws demands” (“Rock of Ages”).

Christ could fulfil the Law, as Matthew is keen to point out, because He was the lawgiver greater than Moses.

The New Covenant
In fulfilling, or meeting, the demands of previous covenants, Jesus inaugurated the promised New Covenant (Jer 31:31; Ezk 36; Heb 8 et al).Jesus’ life and ministry marked a watershed or transition period between the covenants (it was inter-covenantal). When He died the veil was torn. After He ascended the Spirit was given. There is a newness in the New Covenant. New (kainos) means something new in kind, like a new invention; it isn’t new (neos) as in a new type of car but a new form of travel like a teleporter.  (The NC doesn’t abolish, replace or succeed the Old, it fulfils the promises of the Law and Prophets. It is the direct continuation of God’s plans).

According to Gal 3:15–29 the Law of Moses was temporary and served the purpose of exposing our sin and making the promise to Abraham essential. It also has a guiding quality.

As such certain aspects of the Law of Moses were no longer necessary. Since Christ was the sacrifice for sin and the Holy Spirit now made believers the living temple of His presence the Temple was obsolete and hence the ceremonial system. The dietary laws (an external sign of holiness) were no longer necessary for Christ taught that holiness flowed from Christ’s imputation and through a new heart cleansed from within by the Spirit. (Scripture emphatically declares this in Mk 7:19b, “Thus He declared all foods clean,” c.f. Acts 10). Circumcision as the covenant sign gave way to baptism, the Passover to the Lord’s Supper (Lk 22:20), and so the list could go on.

A Law Remains (The Law of Christ or Moral Law)
How then could Jesus say in Mt 5:18, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Likewise, how could he commend the “scribes and Pharisees” pursuit of righteousness, or holiness, (v. 19), and state this legal righteousness was needed to enter the Kingdom? (Truly, Christ is our righteousness and the Spirit enables us to live righteously, thus guaranteeing our place in the Kingdom, both present and eternal).
​
In saying that He would fulfil the Law of Moses and yet the law would never pass away Jesus is commending to us the Law of Christ, or the Moral Law (Gal 5:14, 6:2). While the Law of Moses as a whole has been fulfilled in Christ, a law remains which is the moral law found within it (see 2nd London Baptist Confession, ch. 19, for the classic Christian understanding of the threefold division of the Law). This is binding upon all believers to follow as our guide to holiness by the Spirit.

We can over and under shoot in sports, hunting and when driving. All of these can be detrimental. What is more detrimental is when we over or undershoot in the presentation of the Gospel. What I mean is when we diminish the Gospel by limiting it or when we embellish it and so enlarge it; when we bring the question of the extent of the atonement into its proclamation. The Gospel is neither "Christ died for you," nor "Christ may have died for you." The Gospel is the Gospel, it does not depend upon the extent of the atonement.

When this over/under happens, I confess, my neck twitches because of the biblical and theological imprecision involved, not to mention the unnecessary insensitivity it shows to Christians of differing beliefs (General and Particular)- can't we simply agree in the Gospel? 

Before we get the Gospel out, we must first get it right. Gospel agreement is foundational to salvation and Christian fellowship. 

Limiting It

I have met and heard (both historically and present day) of those who only preach the Gospel to God’s elect, or refrain from offering the Gospel or calling sinner’s to repent for fear of preaching to the unelect. (Yet we show we are among the elect by believing the Gospel!).

This paralyzes hearers from believing the Gospel because they are left wondering… It also reduces faith to a mere passive acceptance or realization that you are among the elect.

Though the Bible speaks about election, NO WHERE does it tie it to the Gospel's proclamation.

Enlarging It

I have met and heard (both historically and present day) of those who preach the Gospel and insist, even base it solely or rest it heavily upon, the claim that Christ died for everyone (in a specific sense) or that Christ died for you (in a specific sense), and that all you need to do to be saved is to realize this. (Certainly there is universal value in Christ’s death and the Gospel is to be published to everyone).

This often immunizes hearers from truly believing the Gospel because they think they’re ok because of Christ’s death or have an interest in Christ or passively "accept" Him vs actively trusting in the Gospel or think that belief is the same as mental assent (e.g. if you believe Christ died for you, you will be saved). 

Though the Bible speaks about the extent of the atonement, NO WHERE does it specifically tie it to the Gospel's proclamation. 
​
What then is the Gospel? 

Gospel (original god spell, or good news in old English) comes from the Greek word euaggelion. In the ancient world this was the announcement of a king’s victory. It was good news! Jesus is that King who through his life, death and resurrection won a spiritual victory over sin and death and hell. Trusting in His Gospel brings to the believer all of the benefits the King won.

Its proclamation doesn't depend on the extent of the atonement and may be described as: 

, …The Israel of God. (Galatians 6:16)

Who did Paul have in view in his benediction? After all the Galatians were comprised of both believing ethnic Jews and believing ethnic Gentiles.

The NLT says, “May God’s peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God.”
The NIV says, “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.”
The ESV says, “And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and [which can translate ‘even’] upon the Israel of God.”

It is clear from the context of Galatians that Paul is referring to the Galatian believers as “the Israel of God.” The term Israel can mean a number of things in the Bible: a definition (one who struggled with God), a man (Jacob), a nation, the Old Covenant community, a political entity or generally God’s people. Here it is in the last sense that Paul is using “Israel.”
​
In fact, this is a great sub-theme of Galatians, especially, chs. 3–4. Contrary to the Judaizer’s false gospel, one doesn’t have to become Jewish (i.e. the Old Covenant community, which ethnic Israel had embodied) to be saved or be part of God’s family. God’s people are those who relate to God through faith in Christ/Gospel/NC. There is a newness in the NC. It is not merely a reforming of the OC. Christ had fulfilled the Old Covenant and ushered in the New Covenant governed by His 12 Apostles (think 12 tribes of Israel). We become Abraham’s offspring through faith (3:7) and there is no saving or meritorious distinction between “Jew and Gentile” (3:28), we are all “one in Christ Jesus.” Together we form God’s “new creation.” (Gal 6:15). Just as the word ‘church’ was used in the Greek Old Testament to speak of Israel (OC people of God) so today we can speak of Israel as referring to the Church (NC people God). From a NC perspective these are interchangeable words. Throughout Galatians Paul has been arguing that the Gospel produces a new multi-ethnic people of God who are justified by faith in the Messiah/Christ and live in accordance with the Law of Christ (moral law) by His Spirit. To enjoy the benefits of this Covenant one did not have to go backward in salvation history but forward. (Yet understandably transitions are not always the easiest to perceive when we are in the midst of them, Lk 5:3739, Acts 15).

This isn’t replacement or supersessionist theology but fulfilment and continuationist theology. Jesus was Jewish. The earliest New Covenant believers (until Acts 11:19) were Jewish. Though many Gentiles believed and joined Israel under the OC under the NC this became a fuller ingathering (c.f. Isa 49). Since Abraham/Moses there had always been a mixture of ethnic Jews and Gentiles in the OC community (Israel), because God’s plan of salvation had always been to redeem a people for Himself from every tribe and tongue and nation (Gen 12; classic view 1689.26.1). This he did progressively through Covenants, of which the New Covenant is most expansive.

What then of ethnic Israel? Paul addressed this in Romans 9–11 (Romans very much being an expansion of Galatians). You can see a brief visual depiction of this here. In short, the faithful remnant of ethnic Israel under the OC believed in the NC (the early Jewish believers, Acts 1–9). While some ethnic Jews presently believe many do not. Yet at the end of the age Paul envisions a great revival of ethnic Jews and their ingathering into the Body. 

*To self-realize is to become who you want to become through mental envisionment.
​
I recently came across two ‘interesting’ presentations of the Gospel from reputable evangelical ministries. (Sadly they are all too common as a bit of research revealed and common knowledge attests). They may be said to be a presentation of the ‘self-realized Gospel.’ They go something like this:

Example #1

[after a list of questions, including “Do you believe that Jesus is your lamb?”]

“Did you give the right answers to these questions? Do you believe your answers to be true? If so, then the Bible says Jesus has paid the punishment for your sin. He is your Saviour. You will never have to be afraid of the Second Death or the Lake of Fire…”

[then it adds there is “one more important thing to say” and provides what it calls a thank you prayer or a type of sinner’s pray]

Example #2
​
Simpler versions of this would include ‘Jesus died for you, you just need to believe that to be saved’ or ‘God is love, you just need to accept His love to be saved,’ etc.

I have no doubt many who put forward these sorts of messages are well-intentioned. There is certainly much orthodox truth in what they say. There is belief that we must assent to in order to have something to believe in and be saved. (our sinfulness, Jesus' death and resurrection as historic, etc). The shortcoming is ‘what must I do to be saved?’ It is not to passively give mental assent to something. It is not to rely on your own work of mental understanding. It is not passive believe or presumptuous interest but saving faith.

This message is put forward and then we wonder why people don’t change or fall away—they’ve never believed! This message may have become popularized because of self-realization in broader culture (eastern religions), New Thought/Word of Faith, making the Gospel more palatable to a non-Christian public and doctrinal illiteracy. Whatever the reason, it sadly isn’t the full Gospel.

We know this is not the Gospel by knowing the Gospel itself and also by knowing heresy.

The Gospel in the Opening of Acts
“Anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Acts 2:21)

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord…” (Acts 3:19–20a)

See What is the Gospel?

Heresy
The self-realized Gospel may be considered as a form of Socinianism. Apart from holding some very unorthodox views, Socinius (1539–1604) taught that one is saved merely through mental assent to certain doctrines. While the self-actualized Gospel is often very orthodox it shares this ‘assenting’ in common. But even the demons believe, James tells us, but they are not saved!

Socinianism in this broad sense is alive and well, embraced by many (like one I spoke to yesterday, last week, people who sit in the pews, the wider nominal Christian public).

In conclusion, a self-realized Gospel relies on self and mental assent. The Gospel comes with empty hands and relies completely on Jesus. It is a declaration that calls sinners to actively repent and believe. 

Let us help each other get the Gospel right and also to get it out in order that many may be saved.

"Justification is the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls," Martin Luther once said, yet two visible branches of Christianity, Catholic and Protestant, differ widely on what justification is. Explore these two different views in the document below.