-----------------------------
The author seems fixated on the legal perspective, that somehow the atonement has legal implications for the sinner. Calvinists tend to believe this, but it is false. Jesus' death was sacrificial, not legal. Neither was it like a financial transaction in that no one got paid. Jesus' death was efficacious solely because His blood completely washed us of sin (Rev. 7:14).
The use of the word atonement misleads us. The KJV translation of the word is propitiation, not atonement. We think this more correctly represents the effect of Jesus' sacrifice.
Propitiation [hilasmos] is the satisfaction or turning away of wrath. However, atonement is an OT concept, it is the covering over of sin, not the forgiving of it.
None of the theories provided, including the author's preferred one, account for the biblical reality that Jesus' sacrifice was the fulfillment of what is represented in the OT: A sacrificial death where the spilled blood of the spotless lamb was the sufficient agent of cleansing.
Despite the author's Calvinistic claims, Jesus' propitiation is not limited:
1Jn. 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice [hilasmos] for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Further, Jesus was not our substitute. The OT sacrifices were not substitutes. Jesus was not punished by the Father. The OT sacrifices were not punished by the priest. Jesus did not pay for our sin, He paid for us:
1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price...
Lastly, the author doesn't quote a single Scripture or even provide a reference to Scripture. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.
Theories over Centuries
Over the centuries, theologians have articulated several different theories or models of the atonement. Most of the models get something right, though some are much closer to the mark than others. We will look at ten models, concluding with penal substitution, which is at the heart of the atonement and the “theory” that holds all the biblical insights of the other theories together.
1. Recapitulation theory (Irenaeus).
According to this model, Christ lived out all the stages of human life in such a way that his life of obedience compensated for Adam’s life of disobedience. Christ obeyed the Father, reversing the curse in Adam and setting us free from the tryanny of the devil. This understanding of the atonement is right in what it affirms, though there is nothing about the satisfaction of divine wrath and little about Christ bearing the penalty of sin.
2. Ransom to Satan (Origen).
In this popular and well attested model, Christ’s death is seen as a ransom to purchase man’s freedom. The atonement is directed toward Satan, who was duped—like a fish is fooled by bait on a hook—into thinking the cross was his triumph when it was his defeat (think of the sacrifice of Aslan made to the White Witch in Narnia). The contemporary version is usually referred to as Christus Victor, meaning Christ is the one who vanquished the powers of hell. While this is certainly one important aspect of the atonement, the theory gives too much power to Satan in making him the object of the payment.
3. Commercial theory (Anselm).
Anselm’s theology of the atonement represented a major step forward in biblical reflection. In Anselm’s thought, Christ’s death brought infinite honor to God. In turn, God gave Christ a reward, which (needing no reward himself) he passed on to man in the form of forgiveness and eternal life. Importantly, Anselm understood that the atonement was directed toward God and that man’s main problem was dishonoring God. And yet the nature of the transaction is somewhat vague. Christ’s death is offered as a tribute—rooted in God’s honor instead of God’s justice—but it is not clearly a vicarious suffering for the penalty of sin.
4. Moral influence theory (Abelard).
For the medieval theologian Peter Abelard, Christ’s death showed God’s great love, which in turn gave man the impetus to repent and believe. In Abelard’s theory man’s main problem is spiritual neediness, with the atonement directed toward man in order to convince him of God’s love. This makes Christ’s atoning work strictly voluntary rather than a necessity according to the logic of divine justice.
5. Example theory (Socinus).
According to Faustus Socinus, the sixteenth-century anti-Trinitarian heretic opposed by every branch of the church, Christ’s death was an example of obedience and piety that can inspire man to the same virtues. The Socinian view of the atonement is not only Pelagian in its conception; it devalues the deity of Christ and calls into question the necessity of the incarnation itself. If man only needs to be inspired, why did God have to become man, and why a violent death on the cross? Socinianism fails where all man-directed atonement theories fail: it underestimates the plight of sinners, overestimates the power of human ability, and does nothing to account for the holiness and justice of God.
6. Governmental theory (Grotius).
In this understanding of the atonement, often associated with the seventeenth-century political theorist Hugo Grotius, the cross demonstrates that the law must be upheld and sin must be punished. Christ’s death is not a vicarious sacrifice but a way for God to uphold his moral governance of the universe. Grotius so emphasized God’s rectoral justice (maintaining moral rectitude) to the exclusion of God’s retributive justice (inflicting penalties on those who fail to live by this moral rectitude) that it is hard to know upon what basis Christ specifically (as opposed to someone else) had to die.
7. Mystical theory (Schleiermacher).
Like the moral influence theory, the atonement, in this model, is meant to effect a change in man. Unlike the moral theory, which is merely ethical in inspiration, the mystical theory argues that a change was wrought in man deep in his subconciousness. Like the liberal theology he inspired, Friedrich Schleiermacher’s theory had no real place for man’s inherent guilt and depravity.
8. Vicarious repentance (Campbell).
According to the nineteenth-century Scottish theologian John McLeod Campbell, the atonement represented Christ’s identification with us. Christ lived a life of self-sacrifice, identified with us by suffering on the cross, and repented on our behalf, thereby leading God to be merciful to sinners. The problem with Campbell’s theology is that it makes mercy a necessary attribute of God and justice an arbitrary one. And yet justice that can be set aside (rather than satisfied) is not really justice, and mercy that must be administered is not really mercy.
9. Elect and effective (Barth).
According to Karl Barth, since Christ assumed human nature, his death must have been intended for all those with that nature. Similarly, because God decreed to make himself known to the world in Christ, the atonement must be effective in all people. Barth and his followers are notoriously difficult to pin down when it comes to the universalist implications of their views, but it is hard to see how the incarnation and the atonement don’t effectively save everyone upon a Barthian understanding.
10. Penal substitution (Protestant Reformers).
This view was emphasized by Calvin and Luther, but traces can also be found in Justin Martyr and Tertullian. It continues to be the dominant understanding among confessional Reformed Christians and among other evangelicals. On this view, Christ’s death was a substitutionary sacrifice meant to satisfy the demands of God’s justice. Man’s main problem is depravity, and thus the atonement is directed toward God as a payment for the law’s prescriptive and penal demands. This understanding of the atonement does not eliminate every aspect of the other views, but it most fully explains the biblical data for the meaning of the cross. The atonement may be more than a substitutionary sacrifice, but it is not less. None of the other theories make sense if Christ did not die in our place to assuage the wrath of God. As John Stott puts it, “Substitution is not a ‘theory of the atonement.’ Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself.”1 In penal substitutionary atonement we find hope for sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.
Notes:Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006, 199.
Over the centuries, theologians have articulated several different theories or models of the atonement. Most of the models get something right, though some are much closer to the mark than others. We will look at ten models, concluding with penal substitution, which is at the heart of the atonement and the “theory” that holds all the biblical insights of the other theories together.
1. Recapitulation theory (Irenaeus).
According to this model, Christ lived out all the stages of human life in such a way that his life of obedience compensated for Adam’s life of disobedience. Christ obeyed the Father, reversing the curse in Adam and setting us free from the tryanny of the devil. This understanding of the atonement is right in what it affirms, though there is nothing about the satisfaction of divine wrath and little about Christ bearing the penalty of sin.
2. Ransom to Satan (Origen).
In this popular and well attested model, Christ’s death is seen as a ransom to purchase man’s freedom. The atonement is directed toward Satan, who was duped—like a fish is fooled by bait on a hook—into thinking the cross was his triumph when it was his defeat (think of the sacrifice of Aslan made to the White Witch in Narnia). The contemporary version is usually referred to as Christus Victor, meaning Christ is the one who vanquished the powers of hell. While this is certainly one important aspect of the atonement, the theory gives too much power to Satan in making him the object of the payment.
3. Commercial theory (Anselm).
Anselm’s theology of the atonement represented a major step forward in biblical reflection. In Anselm’s thought, Christ’s death brought infinite honor to God. In turn, God gave Christ a reward, which (needing no reward himself) he passed on to man in the form of forgiveness and eternal life. Importantly, Anselm understood that the atonement was directed toward God and that man’s main problem was dishonoring God. And yet the nature of the transaction is somewhat vague. Christ’s death is offered as a tribute—rooted in God’s honor instead of God’s justice—but it is not clearly a vicarious suffering for the penalty of sin.
4. Moral influence theory (Abelard).
For the medieval theologian Peter Abelard, Christ’s death showed God’s great love, which in turn gave man the impetus to repent and believe. In Abelard’s theory man’s main problem is spiritual neediness, with the atonement directed toward man in order to convince him of God’s love. This makes Christ’s atoning work strictly voluntary rather than a necessity according to the logic of divine justice.
5. Example theory (Socinus).
According to Faustus Socinus, the sixteenth-century anti-Trinitarian heretic opposed by every branch of the church, Christ’s death was an example of obedience and piety that can inspire man to the same virtues. The Socinian view of the atonement is not only Pelagian in its conception; it devalues the deity of Christ and calls into question the necessity of the incarnation itself. If man only needs to be inspired, why did God have to become man, and why a violent death on the cross? Socinianism fails where all man-directed atonement theories fail: it underestimates the plight of sinners, overestimates the power of human ability, and does nothing to account for the holiness and justice of God.
6. Governmental theory (Grotius).
In this understanding of the atonement, often associated with the seventeenth-century political theorist Hugo Grotius, the cross demonstrates that the law must be upheld and sin must be punished. Christ’s death is not a vicarious sacrifice but a way for God to uphold his moral governance of the universe. Grotius so emphasized God’s rectoral justice (maintaining moral rectitude) to the exclusion of God’s retributive justice (inflicting penalties on those who fail to live by this moral rectitude) that it is hard to know upon what basis Christ specifically (as opposed to someone else) had to die.
7. Mystical theory (Schleiermacher).
Like the moral influence theory, the atonement, in this model, is meant to effect a change in man. Unlike the moral theory, which is merely ethical in inspiration, the mystical theory argues that a change was wrought in man deep in his subconciousness. Like the liberal theology he inspired, Friedrich Schleiermacher’s theory had no real place for man’s inherent guilt and depravity.
8. Vicarious repentance (Campbell).
According to the nineteenth-century Scottish theologian John McLeod Campbell, the atonement represented Christ’s identification with us. Christ lived a life of self-sacrifice, identified with us by suffering on the cross, and repented on our behalf, thereby leading God to be merciful to sinners. The problem with Campbell’s theology is that it makes mercy a necessary attribute of God and justice an arbitrary one. And yet justice that can be set aside (rather than satisfied) is not really justice, and mercy that must be administered is not really mercy.
9. Elect and effective (Barth).
According to Karl Barth, since Christ assumed human nature, his death must have been intended for all those with that nature. Similarly, because God decreed to make himself known to the world in Christ, the atonement must be effective in all people. Barth and his followers are notoriously difficult to pin down when it comes to the universalist implications of their views, but it is hard to see how the incarnation and the atonement don’t effectively save everyone upon a Barthian understanding.
10. Penal substitution (Protestant Reformers).
This view was emphasized by Calvin and Luther, but traces can also be found in Justin Martyr and Tertullian. It continues to be the dominant understanding among confessional Reformed Christians and among other evangelicals. On this view, Christ’s death was a substitutionary sacrifice meant to satisfy the demands of God’s justice. Man’s main problem is depravity, and thus the atonement is directed toward God as a payment for the law’s prescriptive and penal demands. This understanding of the atonement does not eliminate every aspect of the other views, but it most fully explains the biblical data for the meaning of the cross. The atonement may be more than a substitutionary sacrifice, but it is not less. None of the other theories make sense if Christ did not die in our place to assuage the wrath of God. As John Stott puts it, “Substitution is not a ‘theory of the atonement.’ Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself.”1 In penal substitutionary atonement we find hope for sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.
Notes:Stott, John. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006, 199.
No comments:
Post a Comment