C.S. Lewis think the theory as to what the point of
this dying was is not so important (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
l
The central Christian
belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a
fresh start. Theories as to how it did this did not matter.
l
All sensible people know
that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you no good. But the modern
theory of nourishment, all about the vitamins and proteins, is a different
thing.
l
A man can eat his dinner
without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what
Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not
know how it works until he has accepted it.
l We are told that Christ was killed
for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled
death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be
believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did this all are, in
my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do
not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing
itself.
l
Laying down your arms,
surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the wrong
track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor: that is
the only way out of our “hole”. This is repentance: unlearning all the
self-conceit and self-will, killing part of yourself.
l
Some complain that if
Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in
their eyes, “because it must have been so easy for Him.”
l
The perfect submission,
the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because
He was God, but were possible only because He was God. If I am drowning in a
rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which
saves my life. Ought I to shout back, “No, it’s not fair! You have an
advantage! You’re keeping one foot on the bank”?
Importance
l
Augustine said, “I
believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.”
Reason puts man on road toward God, and faith informs and elevates reason. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/augustine’s-confessions-and-the-harmony-of-faith-and-reason
l
My personal thought in
response to C.S. Lewis’ analogy of how a man can eat his dinner without
understanding exactly how food nourishes him: Well, he certainly would not know how
it works until he has accepted it. So if he’s been eating junk food
consistently, he will gradually know how it works when his health and weight
starts to suffer! We may not need to think too much about “how it works” when
we receive Christ, but if we don’t seek understanding and accept heretic doctrines,
we will deviate from the truth!
l
There is a wide range of
ideas, but there is no one theory that fully explains everything.
l
It is important to
construct a coherent and viable formulation of each particular theory.
l
It is important to
determine the viability of these theories of atonement for the life and work of
the church today.
|
Classifications (Schmiechen)
|
Representative theories
|
|
Christ died for us:
Sin, the moral life, and the impact of sin on the
relation of humanity to God.
|
1Sacrifice
2Justification by
grace
3Penal
substitution
|
|
Liberation from sin, death, and demonic powers:
Also concerned with sin, but expands the problem
to include the powers of evil, death and Satan
|
The major revival in the last part of the
twentieth century.
|
|
The purposes of God:
God and God’s eternal purpose. Something new is
happening that far exceeds the forgiveness of sins. Primarily concerned about
the new life Christ brings. The story of Jesus is about God and God’s divine
intentions for the world.
|
1The renewal of
the creation
2The restoration
of the creation
3Christ and the
goal of creation
|
|
Reconciliation:
Restoration of the true knowledge of God. Reconciliation
between conflicted groups. Jesus is the Reconciler creating unity and peace.
|
1Christ the way
to the knowledge of God
2Christ the
reconciler
3The wondrous
love of God
|
The Story of Atonement (Sykes)
The Christian narrative:
l
Setting: God’s world
l
Theme: The rescue of the fallen world and of
humankind from destruction
l
Plots: The biblical narratives, from creation and
election, to incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension.
l
Resolution: The last judgment, heaven and hell, and the
new creation.
Four idea-complexes:
l
Obedience: Contrasting Adam’s disobedience with the perfect
obedience of the second Adam
l
Slavery: Relating to redemption and setting free. Slavery
is the metaphor for the consequence of sin.
l
Judgement: Relating to condemnation and acquittal.
l
Cultic: A symbolic event. Relating to sacrifice. Passover
lamb, the blood of Jesus, the sinless offering, a substitute goat. Jesus is not
simply an innocent and uncomprehending victim. He understands and accepts what
is happening.
From this we see a plurality of narratives for
atonement. Sykes separates out two groups of narratives:
l
The leading agent is God
the Father, who out of love for the world and humanity, provides and puts
forward nothing less than his very own substance (his only son) as the final
remedy for sin (Mark 12). Understanding of atonement: God’s grace in not
allowing humankind simply to reap the full consequence of sin.
l
Jesus, the Son of God,
gives himself out of love for humanity, and does so freely and without
compulsion. This is the narratives of the Synoptic Gospels. Understanding of
atonement: Jesus’ own self-offering. Freely subordinates his own will to the
will of his heavenly Father.
l
Our instinct is to
empathise with the second.
Satan’s power over us
Temptation:
l
Seductive temptation:
Satan’s ability to lead men and women astray and to make them so unlike their
Creator, so ungodly. This is a major aspect of his efficacy as the enemy of God
and God’s holy law.
l
Deception: “father of
lies” (John 8:44). False doctrines in the churches. Sham version of
Christianity: outward form of godliness while denying what gives it strength
(2Timothy 3:5).
l
Believing the lie further
blinds individuals who can no longer recognise the true shape of things. The
lies of seduction, to which the lies of self-justification are soon combined, grow
into the symbolic system of a culture.
l
Many afflictions result
from actions that have been inspired by the devil as Tempter: either the
self-destructive consequence of a person’s own transgressions or the effects of
the work of evildoers in aggression, dishonesty, persecution.
l
Temptation is suggestion.
It requires, in order to succeed, to find what it cannot create: the formally
free consent of the human person.
Accusation:
l
Satan is called the
Accuser/adversary.
l
Luke 22:31: Satan’s aim
in “sifting” the apostles is probably to charge them with unworthiness and
inadequacy before God.
l
If Satan’s opposition to
the Lord were a matter of mere power, the rebel’s finite resources would equal
zero when confronted with infinity, but his force resides in the rightness of
his accusation.
l
The devil holds the power
inasmuch as he seduces into deadly ways those who lack judgement, and he
secures their condemnation as the prosecutor of human kind. Using the force of
law, he demands successfully that they die.
l
The law of God, precisely
because it is good and holy, separates us, condemned sinners, from our good and
holy God, and we fall prey to agencies of wickedness.
Victory over evil, the evil is dealt with by (Pugh):
l
Undoing its basis: The
patristic theories understand man as having come under the authority of the
devil. A ransom is paid to buy off the devil’s claims.
l
Nonviolently resisting
it: The feminist take on the patristic theory that takes note of the way in which
the devil is overcome in the ransom theory. He is not overcome by force.
l
Taking power from it: The
Word of Faith. Shares the fundamental patristic starting point, that human
surrendered their authority to the devil at the fall. The cross and resurrection
are construed as a dethroning of the devil and an enthronement of born-again
man.
Atonement Theories
Theory
|
Author
|
Emphases
|
Presuppositions
|
Critique
|
Remarks
|
|
Ransom or Classic/ Dramatic
(victory
over the forces of evil)
|
Irenaeus early 2nd century –202
|
1Recapitulation theory of
atonement:
Sees the atonement of Christ as reversing
the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience.
2The
death of Christ as a ransom by which God "justly liberated"
human beings from Satan's captivity.
|
It
was appropriate that God should obtain what he wished through persuasion,
not by the use of force, so that the principles of justice might not be
infringed, and at the same time, that God's original creation might not
perish.
|
|
1Only tentatively
introduced the idea that the ransom was in fact paid to the devil.
2Did
not emphasise the idea that the devil had any legitimate rights over humans.
|
|
|
Origen 185-254
|
1Humans
are ransomed (Mk1045) from Satan with Christ’s blood.
2Satan
released humanity, only to find he couldn’t hold Christ
in his resurrection (Satan miscalculated the ransom bargain
through self-deception).
|
1If we
were bought, the price would have been paid to the one who held us
captive–Satan.
2Humanity’s
problem: enslavement to an unfit owner - Satan.
|
1Anselm: Satan, being himself a rebel and
outlaw, could never have a just claim against human beings.
2The
Catholic Encyclopedia calls the idea that God must pay the Devil a ransom
"certainly startling, if not revolting."
|
1Mark
10:45 uses the word ransom.
2Dominant
until Abelard. “Dramatic theory” - Origen spoke of the cosmic drama involving
heavenly powers.
|
|
|
Athanasius 318
|
It is only by taking on a real human body,
capable of dying, that God was able to redeem fallen human nature.
|
The
Word takes on a body capable of death in order that this body might be worthy
to die instead for all humanity, and remain incorruptible through
the indwelling Word, and thus put an end to corruption through the grace of
his resurrection.
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory of Nyssa C4
|
1Satan
was deceived by God, thinking that Christ, weakened in his
humiliation, would become his.
2Satan
deserved to be deceived–after all, he had once deceived humanity.
|
1Justice
required that an appropriate price be arranged with the owner of
sinners–Satan. Force was not appropriate.
2The
end effectively justified the means. Moreover, God’s motivation was love.
|
1The
idea of a deception surrounding the death of Christ.
2Dualistic
mindset that accorded considerable power to the devil.
3Emphasises
the costliness of salvation.
4Speaks
about salvation from sin, not
merely salvation from its penal consequences.
|
“the
hook of deity gulped down along with the bait of flesh” cf. *Gregory the Gt (C6)
Jb411 - re atonement? *Augustine (C4) - cross is like a mouse
trap, with the blood as the bait. God only permitted the deception.
|
Victory (closely related
to ransom/ dramatic theory)
|
Aulén 1930
|
1Commonly
expressed in various atonement theories composed by the patristics,
portraying a heavenly battle between God and the devil.
2Christ’s
death defeated Satan and made human freedom possible.
Christ himself was undefeated, passing to new life via resurrection.
3Note
verses like 1Jn38; 519; Jn1231; 2Tim110;
Rom79; Heb.214
|
1Humans
at the time of the fall have delivered themselves into the hands of
the devil, who now rightly owned them.
2Humans
are held by various forces: flesh, sin, the Law, death; with the
powers of evil ruling over the world.
3Only
a suitable substitute or price paid on behalf of the enslaved humans
can release them from the devil's rightful dominion/domination.
4NT
statements that appear to teach satisfaction are to be understood in terms of
the victory motif.
5Assumes
that the classic view of victory is the only truly biblical view - tends to
ignore or distort other views.
|
1Correct
in what it affirms (the victory, struggle and cost involved in the
atonement), but inadequate in its omissions.
2Fails
to explain how the victory over sin, death and Satan is achieved.
3
Aulen’s contrast (pp.95-96) between the ‘legalistic’ basis of OT
forgiveness and the ‘sovereign Divine Love’ of the NT has a Marcionite
tendency.
4Not
taking into account “the human and even tragic elements in the story”.
5Give
the Devil certain rights over humans.
6Involves
battle in the heavenly realms that hardly impacts us as humans.
|
1Christus Victor
(1930). See reading from H.D. McDonald, 258-65.
2See
also H. Blocher, ‘Agnus Victor…’ in
Stackhouse (ed.) What does it mean to
be saved? pp.67-91.
3The
focus of the modern version is on the recognition of the evil and God’s
victory over them in and through the cross of Christ, rather than on the hold
that the devil or Satan has over humans.
|
|
Non-Violent Atonement
|
J. Denny Weaver
|
1Jesus’
death was caused by his opponents. Nonviolently resisting evil.
2God
the Father did not require his death
3The victory
of the atonement comes in the resurrection, not the death of Jesus.
4God forgives
sinners gratuitously.
|
1Nothing
in God requires Jesus’ death: not satisfaction of honour or a legal
requirement.
2Satan
stands for the forces of oppression in the world, opposed to God.
3Forgiveness
is simply given by God. Justice is not an issue.
|
1
Absolutises the Anabaptist distinctive of non-violence
2 Underplays or
ignores Biblical references to the predestining of Jesus’ death (e.g.,
Acts 2.23; 1 Pet 1.20), the wrath of God and the
death of Jesus as a judicial/penal event
|
Traces
the further development of the Christus Victor theory into the liberation
theology of South America, as well as feminist and black theologies of liberation.
|
|
|
Walter Wink
|
Portrayed the Christus Victor as a nonviolent
theory of atonement that unmasks systemic evil.
|
The
effect of this unmasking disseminates across the world, re-sensitising
humanity to its own propensities towards this kind of evil.
|
|
|
|
Satisfaction
|
Anselm 1033-1109
|
1Satisfaction
is made by Christ, to satisfy a principle in the very
nature of God the Father, God’s justice.
2Satisfaction
couldn’t be made by humans, who at best, can only give God his due.
3Defeat
of the devil was also necessary-impossible for humans to achieve.
4Only
God could make the satisfaction required and only a human could make
satisfaction for humanity, doing what was fitting: so God became human.
5Christ
honoured God fully, as required in his life; in his death he performed a work
of supererogation (i.e., he gave more than was required). The excess
is put to the account of humanity.
6Did
not involve any sort of payment to Satan. Emphasis on compensation to the
Father; formulated against the backdrop of European medieval penal system
|
1 God
is to humanity as a feudal lord, whose honour has been offended.
2Adequate
satisfaction was essential.
3 Sin =
failure to give God his due. Sin left unpunished would leave God’s
economy out of order.
4 God
has not only been deprived of what was his due, but he has also been dishonoured.
|
1 Christ’s
death as a work of supererogation is not a biblical idea.
2 Anselm
has been criticised for his use of concepts tied to his context and culture
(satisfaction, honour, etc). Whether the feudal framework of Anselm has some
affinities with the honour/shame dimensions of the Biblical texts and
with the Biblical picture of God’s concern for the glory of his name. Referenced to God's honour rather
than his justice and holiness.
|
Espoused
by the Roman Catholic Church.
|
|
Penal
substitution
(Punished/ penalised in place of
sinners/ substitution)
|
Calvin 1509-64
|
1The
mediator had to swallow death and conquer sin, \ the
redeemer had to be life and righteousness (& \ God.
2God
cannot suffer and die, and humans cannot conquer death.
The human and divine meet in the redeemer. God
gave himself in the person of his Son.
3The Mediator
is Christ (anointed) – prophet, priest and king.
4God’s
love is the ground of the atonement (Ro. 58,10, Jn 816.
5Christ
endured death for us. (“incomprehensible judgment”)
6Emphasises
the resurrection in connection with Christ’s victory.
7Combines
sacrifice (which propitiates God who both loves us and shows wrath toward us)
and the forensic category of penal substitution.
|
1The
purpose of the incarnation was to propitiate a holy God.
2The priest
and the victim are the same.
3Humans
are depraved in nature and conduct, attracting God’s wrath.
4Christ’s
life of obedience, teaching, death, resurrection and ascension are all
important.
5The power
& efficacy of the cross are dependent on the resurrection.
“Christ,
in his death, was offered to the Father as a propitiatory victim.” (Institutes
II.xvi.6)
the
guilt and penalty of our sin was laid on Christ \ it
is no longer imputed to us.
|
1
Takes both God’s love and God’s justice seriously
2 Strong
Biblical foundations (though some critics argue otherwise, eg. that OT
sacrifices are solely about expiation and not propitiatory or penal).
3
Central and foundational in the Bible’s account of the work of Christ, but
not the totality; underpins and is complemented by accounts of the cross as
victory and moral influence.
4 Some
versions of Penal substitution fail to emphasise the unity of the three
Trinitarian persons in the wrath of God against sin and in the love of God
that propitiates God’s wrath.
5 Some
versions of penal substitution fail to emphasise the representative
underpinnings of Christ’s substitutionary death.
|
See Institutes, Book II
Critiques
and responses: See Erickson, 833-836, and notes.
Extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory which Reformers saw as insufficient because it
was referenced to God's honour rather than his justice and holiness and was
couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution.
|
|
Penalty and Victory
|
Luther 1483-1546
|
1 Christ’s
death is victory over sin, death, Satan and the law-wrath of God.
2 Humanity,
led into disobedience by Satan, is under God’s wrath.
3 Used
imagery of the bait of Christ’s humanity and hook of deity.
|
1The
divine law expresses God’s essential justice. God must punish transgressors
to be true to His nature.
2Humans
cannot remove their guilt, while God cannot just forgive.
3Law
and gospel produce in man a “dualistic struggle” that resolves in “despairing
utterly in self and believing absolutely in Christ”.
|
|
The
penal view is the dominant one in Luther.
|
|
Moral-Influence Theory
(Demonstration
of God’s love)
|
Abelard 1079-1142
|
1 Jesus’
death shows God’s love for us.
2 Jn 15:13
3 God’s
love in Christ arouses an answering love in humans for God. The
purpose and result of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral
improvement
|
1 People’s
fear and ignorance of God needed rectifying.
2 Christ’s
death primarily affects humans, not God.
3
Humankind doesn’t share in Adam’s guilt.
4 People have tendencies to good
as well as evil.
5 God
can freely forgive.
|
1Defective
view of sin.
|
Formulated
by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm’s
Satisfaction theory
|
|
|
Schleiermacher 1768-1834
|
1 Christ’s
total obedience (active and passive) results in our being assumed
(being moved) to dependence.
2 Christ
is our exemplary representative, not our vicarious satisfaction
(substitute).
|
1 The
Redeemer is like all humans but differs in “the constant potency of his
God-consciousness, which was a veritable existence of God in Him”.
2He
assumes believers into the power of his God-consciousness
3Reacted
against the idea of divine wrath resting on Christ. Denies
that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice.
|
1 Inadequate
conception of God - unduly subjective, based on human self-consciousness. Minimises
such qualities as justice, holiness, and righteousness.
2 Humankind
needs forgiveness as much as a greater God-consciousness
|
|
|
|
Ritschl 1822-1889
|
The
Declaratory Theory: Christ died to
show men how greatly God loves them.
|
1 Christ
is a human who can be called God because of his vocation.
2 Christ
achieves redemption (community formation) by being the perfect revelation of
God.
3 Christ’s
death awakens our love.
|
1 Sub-biblical
Christology and doctrine of sin.
|
|
|
Vicarious Confession or Penitence
|
J. McLeod Campbell
|
1A
perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin.
2 In
his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned
sin, and by this, confessed it.
3The
atonement produces in us the spirit of sonship.
|
1Rejected
substitutionary and penal view.
2A
repentance equivalent to the sin committed would atone for sin (cf. Phineas
in Numbers 25)
|
|
Scottish
theologian.
An
objective view, in that the atonement means something to God.
Also
akin to subjective views, like the Moral Influence Theory.
|
|
Governmental Theory
|
Grotius 1583-1645
|
1 The
role of God here is as a ruler rather than as a creditor or a master.
2Jesus’
death is a nominal, not a real, satisfaction of God’s judgment. Christ was not punished on behalf of the human
race. His death actually paid the penalty for no man's
sin.
3The atonement
was necessary in the interests of good government in the world.
|
1God
is a God of law. He can relax any law he has made.
2God
is Ruler, so sin is not an attack on a private individual, but on the Ruler.
3God
loves.
4God
always acts in the interests of good government.
|
1God is
Ruler of the world (but can God simply relax his laws?)
2Claims
to deal with the satisfaction of divine justice (adequately?)
3Is it
valid to say that the goal of Christ’s death was good government?
|
|
Argument for nonviolent atonement (Weaver)
Atonement theory involves 3 targets: God, Satan,
sinful mankind
Question: Why Jesus died for us?
|
|
Theory
|
Targets/objects
|
Who ultimately killed Jesus
|
|
Christus Victor
|
Ransom
|
Devil
|
Devil
|
|
|
Cosmic battle
|
Devil
|
Devil
|
|
Atonement
|
Satisfaction: Catholic
|
God’s honour
|
God
|
|
|
Penal substitution: Protestant
|
God’s law
|
God
|
|
|
Moral influence
|
Us
|
God
|
In response to “Who needs the death of Jesus?”, Weaver
offers narrative Christus Victor as both nonviolent atonement and narrative
Christology: The death of Jesus is not a divine requirement. The rule of the devil
attempts to rule by violence and death, whereas the rule of God rules and
ultimately conquers by nonviolence.
Objections to penal substitution
1.
Misunderstands the Bible
l
It rests on unbiblical
ideas of sacrifice, of the ancient pagan religions.
Response:
l
OT sacrificial imagery
and atonement language may not only be about averting divine wrath and enduring
punishment/death in place of another, but those elements are certainly present
as a crucial part of the picture in numerous important texts, and in the larger
salvation-historical narrative.
l
OT rituals form much of
the biblical background to the NT teaching about Christ’s sacrificial death
were radically different from many of the pagan practices of other ANE peoples.
God’s anger is not the volatile and erratic caprice of pagan deities: “It is
never unpredictable, but always predictable, because it is provoked by evil and
evil alone.”
2.
“Cosmic child abuse”
l
A vengeful Father,
punishing his Son for an office he has not even committed.
Response:
l
Jesus willingly went to
his death. “I lay down my life”. Child abuse involves an unwilling victum,
unable to understand fully what is happening.
l
Jesus died to bring glory
to himself, to save his people, and to glorify his Father. Child abuse is
solely for the gratification of the abuser.
l
God was working through
human agents, such as those who conspired against Jesus, to accomplish his
purposes.
l
God foresaw, planned and
was in full control of the death of Christ.
3.
Distortion of the Nature
of God: Incompatible with the love of God/hypocrisy
l
“be perfect… as your
heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). If the cross is a personal act of
violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but born by his Son, then it
makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to
repay evil with evil.
l
The most profound
theological truth expressed in Scripture is “God is love” (1 John 4:8).
l
“I don’t judge you. I
leave that to a wrathful, angry God to do,” thunders Ned Flanders to Homer
Simpson.
l
“A divine paradox”: On
the one hand, Christians believe in God’s grace and goodness, but on the other,
they believe that one of the central acts of their faith is bound up in his
vengeance and wrath.
Response:
l
The Bible never makes
assertions about God’s anger, power or judgment independently of his love.
God’s anger is an aspect of his love, and to understand it any differently is
to misunderstand it.
l
In light of our
understanding of God as the perfect father we begin to see the objects of his
burning anger are not his beloved children but the evils, attitudes and
behaviours that ensnare and seek to destroy them.
l
The NT speaks of the
sacrifice that takes away the wrath of God as one that was itself motivated by
God’s own love, and provided at cost to God himself (not just the Son).
l
Wrath in humans is sinful
because of human nature. Divine wrath in God is not sinful because God does not
have sin.
l
The Bible does not urge
us to imitate all of God’s actions or every aspect of his character. We are
urged to avoid some things precisely because God uniquely has the right to
them, eg. The first and second commandants forbid a person from setting himself
up as a deity to be worshipped. We should not take revenge, not because
retribution is inherently wrong, but because it rests with God.
4.
Penal substitution
legitimates violence
l
Reciprocal violence is a
vicious circle, a downward spiral. Hatred and suspicion breed hatred and
suspicion.
l
If the church could not
rediscover a deeper understanding of the cross, the society can get caught in the
grip of the lie that violence can be redemptive. Penal substitution distorts
God with its inbuilt belief in retribution and the redemptive power of
violence.
l
The ethic of nonviolence
or “assertive meekness” demonstrated by Christ.
l
Will our Christ-centred
faith be part of the word’s answer or part of its problem?
Response:
l
Penal substitution
certainly presupposes the validity and legitimacy of the exercise of punitive
force (within the constraints of justice). But not all force is ‘violence’; the
Bible reserves the use of the vocabulary of ‘violence’ for uses of force that
are predatory, anarchic or disproportionately vindictive.
l
The objections display a
deficient understanding of the OT sacrificial system, seeing sacrifice as a
symptom of a violent and socially dysfunctional society rather than as God’s
appointed means to atone for the sin of his people. In the OT, it is ‘organised
violence in the service of social tranquillity.”
l
There are important
differences between the death of Jesus and other acts of violence perpetrated
by sinful human beings against each other and against God.
5.
Unjust transference of
guilt/punishment
l
Suppose that a judge,
upon finding a defendant guilty, proceeds to punish not the defendant, but an
innocent party. Would this not be improper?
Response:
l
If the one who bore our
punishment in our place was a third party, disconnected from both God and
humanity, that could certainly be said to be the case. But the one who bears
our punishment is the divine Son – the forgiver bearing the cost of the
forgiveness – and the representative human, to whom his people are united by
faith. The one who provides the payment is the same one who requires it. The
Father did not place the punishment on someone other than himself:he is both the
judge and the person paying the penalty. Human scenarios where one
person is punished in place of another are at best very imperfect analogies
for what takes place on the cross.
6.
Fails to resonate with
the culture we live in
l
The whole idea of a
vengeful God is offensive to persons today.
Response:
l
That doesn’t mean we are
to abandon the doctrine; it just means we need to work harder in showing and
explaining those concepts for our culture as we explain the meaning of the
death of Christ.
7.
Divides the Trinity
Response:
l
The work of God in
salvation is an act of the whole Trinity. Certainly there are distinctions between the
particular parts that the Father, the Son and the Spirit play in the work of
atonement. But there is still
a perfect concurrence in which the Son and the Spirit are wholly at one with
the Father in his wrath against Sin (e.g. Matt 3:11-12, Rev 6:16), and the
death of the Son is endured not only by the Son but also by the Father and the
Spirit (cf. Rom 3:24-26, 5:1-8, 8:32, John 3:16).
Definitions:
Propitiation: offering a sacrifice to appease God’s
wrath.
Expiation: wiping out our sin, because of Jesus.
This is used for the translation of Romans 3:25.
References:
Blocher, Agnus Victor from What does it mean to be Saved
Chalke, Redemption of the Cross, from the Atonement Debate
Chung, Miyon. “Penal substitution and Victory theories” Lecture Notes,
Morling College, October 11, 2016.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Pugh, Atonement
Theories
Schmiechen, Atonement
Theories
Sykes, The Story of Atonement
No comments:
Post a Comment