Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

The “commercial view of the atonement” is described as measurable “pain units” equal to what the elect would have suffered in hell; what does that model imply about God’s intentions and the nature of Christ’s suffering, and which alternative picture of God is suggested by the Jimmy Carter draft-amnesty analogy?

Another way to ask: If the atonement is like counting “pain units” equal to what the elect would suffer in hell, what does that say about what God meant to do and what Jesus suffered? What different picture of God do you get from the Jimmy Carter draft-amnesty example?

Direct Answer Finny says the commercial model implies a fixed, measurable payment aimed at a defined group (the elect), so God’s intent and the atonement’s extent are automatically limited. The Jimmy Carter analogy suggests instead that Christ’s work creates a real, objective provision for everyone, while the benefit is only enjoyed by those who actually come and receive it.

Support from Transcript:

Finny defines the commercial view: Jesus suffered a quantifiable amount of “pain units” on the cross.
Those units are “equal to the suffering that the elect should have had in hell.”
He argues: if you hold that model, “you better believe… limited atonement… it’s very commercial… mechanical.”
He tells the Jimmy Carter story: draft dodgers were told, “come back… no prosecution… All is well.”
Yet “not everybody came back,” showing a universal provision with non-universal participation.
He applies it: Jesus’ death is “efficacious… provides for everybody, but not everyone chooses to apply it to themselves.”

Discussion Follow-ups Does the “payment” model or the “amnesty offered” model better match the way Scripture calls people to repent and believe?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10