Installment one.
Installment two.
This is our last post regarding the author's chapter on the atonement. All our comments are found at the bottom.
d. Other views of the atonement. In contract to the penal substitution view of the atonement presented in this chapter, several other views have been advocated in the history of the church.
(1) The ransom to Satan theory. This view was held by Origen (c. A.D. 1850 c. 254), a theologian from Alexandria and later Caesarea, and after him by some others in the early history of the church. According to this view, the ransom Christ paid to redeem us was paid to Satan,, in whose kingdom all people were by virtue of sin.
This theory finds no direct confirmation in Scripture, and has few supporters in the history of the church. It falsely thinks of Satan rather than God as the one who required that a payment be made for sin, and thus completely neglects the demands of God's justice with respect to sin, It views Satan as having much more power than he actually does, namely, power to demand whatever he wants from God, rather than as one who has been cast down from heaven and has no right to demand anything of God. Nowhere does Scripture say that we as sinners owe anything to Satan, but it repeatedly says that God requires of us a payment for our sins. This view also fails to deal with the texts that speak of Christ's death as a propitiation offered to God the Father for our sins, or with the fact that God the Father represented the Trinity in accepting the payment for sins from Christ. (see discussion above.)
(2) The moral influence theory. First advocated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142), a French theologian, the moral influence theory of the atonement holds that God did not require the payment of a penalty for sin, but that Christ's death was simply a way in which God showed how much he loved humans beings by identifying with their sufferings, even to the point of death. Christ's death therefore becomes a great teaching example that shows God's love to us and draws from us a grateful response, so that in loving him we are forgiven.
The great difficulty with this viewpoint is that it is contrary to so many passages of Scripture that speak of Christ dying for sin, bearing our sin, or dying as a propitiation. Moreover, it robs the atonement of its objective character, because it holds that the atonement has no effect on God himself. Finally, it has no way of dealing with our guilt - if Christ did not die to pay for our sins, we have no right to trust in him for forgiveness of sins.
(3) The example theory. The example theory of the atonement was taught by the Socinians, the followers of Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), an Italian theologian who settled in Poland in 1578 and attracted a wide following. The example theory, like the moral influence theory, also denies that God's justice requires payment for sin; it says that Christ's death simply provides us with an example of how we should trust and obey God perfectly, even if that trust and obedience leads to a horrible death. Whereas the moral influence theory says that Christ's death teaches us how we should live.
pg. 257
(4) The governmental theory. The governmental theory of the atonement was first taught by Dutch theologian and jurist, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). This theory holds that God did not actually have to require payment for sin, but, since he was omnipotent So, he could have set aside that requirement and simply forgiven sins without the payment of a penalty. Then what was the purpose of Christ's death? It was God's demonstration of the fact that his laws had been broken, that he is the moral lawgiver and the governor of the universe, and that some kind of penalty would be required whenever his laws were broken, Thus Christ did not exactly pay the penalty for the actual sins of any people, but simply suffered to show that when God's laws are broken there must be some penalty paid.
The problem with this view again is that it fails to account adequately for all the Scriptures that speak of Christ bearing our sins on the cross, of God laying on Christ the iniquity of us all, of Christ dying specifically for our sins, and of Christ being the propitiation for our sins. Moreover, it takes away the objective character of the atonement by making its purpose not the satisfaction of God's justice but simply that of influencing us to realize that God has laws that must be kept. This view also implies that he has not actually made payment for those sins. Moreover, it makes the actual earning of forgiveness for us something that happened in God's own mind apart from the death of Christ on the cross - he had already decided to forgive us without requiring any penalty from us and thin punished Christ only to demonstrate that he was still the moral governor of the universe. But this means the Christ (in this view) did not actually earn forgiveness or salvation for us, and thus the value of his redemptive work is greatly minimized. Finally, this theory fails to take adequate account of the unchangeableness of God and the infinite purity of his justice. To say that Good can forgive sins without requiring any penalty (in spite of the fact that throughout Scripture sin always requires the payment of a penalty) is seriously to underestimated the absolute character of the justice of God.
***
These four theories are the only alternatives the author will discuss, which surprises us. None of them address or challenge his reformist doctrine or better explain the Bible, they are more like fanciful speculations than doctrinal statements. Surely there must be more scholarly trains of thought regarding possible alternatives to the author's doctrines.
We would make no claim with regard to our own scholarliness. However, we shall restate our position with reference to the author's claims, absent preconceptions and speculation, and using Scripture.
- Jesus did not die to pay the penalty for our sins, he died for our sins
Ro. 4:25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
1Co. 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures...
Ga. 1:4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age...
1Jn. 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins...
- Jesus did not get punished in our place
Ga. 2:20 The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
Ep. 5:2 ...just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
1Ti. 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all men...
Tit. 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness...
("For " in all these verses is huper, which doesn't mean "in the place of." It means on behalf of, for the sake of, concerning. He died for our benefit, not in substitution of us.)
- Jesus sacrificial death was not atonement
"Atonement" in the OT means "to cover over." Jesus didn't "cover over" our sins, He completely washed them away (propitiation).
1Co. 6:11 But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
- Jesus' death was not a payment to anyone
Ro. 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of propitiation...
Ep. 5:2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
He. 10:10 ...we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
- The Bible always references Jesus' death for sin, never as a payment for sin
Re. 5:9 And they sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.
- Jesus was not forsaken on the cross
Ps. 22:24 For he has not despised or disdained the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help.
Mt. 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Jn. 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.
- Jesus did not have our sins imputed to him
1Pe. 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.He. 9:28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
("Bore" and "bear" are both anapheró, which means (a) I carry up, lead up, (b) I offer up (on a high altar) as a sacrifice, offer up to God on high. Our sins were carried by Him, not imputed to Him.)
- General sins have not piled up waiting for God's wrath
He. 10:17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” [Jer. 31:34] 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
(...)
No comments:
Post a Comment