Letters to Paul, V: the heart of the Atonement...
(Tim: Building on his series on Jonathan Edwards and the Atonement, here's another series--numbers one, two, three, four, and five--by our American African correspondent, David Wegener. But first, a note from David on the purpose of this series.)
Paul is a Zambian Christian leader, a graduate of the school where I teach. I’ve taken him as representative of one of my students so I can have a face to look at in my mind as I write these letters.
Often my students puzzle over what they hear coming from the church in the west. Much of their background has led them to accept without question what comes from western Christians. "After all, they brought us the gospel and keep coming back and helping us." My exhortation to Paul is the one given by his namesake: “Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess 5:21).
Letters to Paul (V): The Heart of the Atonement
Dear Paul: When lecturers teach on the atonement, they often start by talking about various theories of the atonement that have come up in the history of the church. The Christus victor (Christ the Victor) theory talks of how our Lord defeated Satan by His work on the cross. The moral influence theory talks of how Christ was an example for us to follow. The penal substitutionary theory talks of how Christ took our penalty and bore it; He took our place and bore our punishment.
Today, the Christus victor view is “popular”. It lets us talk way over our head about the powers of darkness and corporate evil and the sins of warfare and elitism and consumerism and on and on, as if we even know what we’re talking about. The moral influence theory is also popular. When we see what Christ has done, doesn’t it kindle within you a flame to be like Him? Doesn’t it make you want to ask, “What would Jesus do”? Doesn’t it make you want to be a better person?
As you might guess, the penal substitutionary view is not very popular. In fact, it is despised, even by professing Christians. I’m afraid I can’t call this view a “theory.” It’s a reality. It is not something a Christian can accept or reject. It is not one “model” among many. It is the heart of the atonement. It is the heart of the gospel. It is the heart of our salvation. Take it away and the other ways the Bible speaks about the death of Christ crumble to the ground.
If Christ is our example, why is that the case? Is it not because He suffered in the place of others? “Christ also suffered for you leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps” (1 Pet 2:21). Christ is our example precisely because He voluntarily took our place, bearing the punishment for wrongs He did not commit. You can’t believe in the moral influence aspect of the atonement without a prior belief in penal substitution.
If Christ defeated the devil, how did He do that? Wasn’t it by bearing our sins and God’s wrath? “The Son of God appeared for this purpose that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8). The first of Satan’s works was to tempt man into sin. Remove penal substitution and things fall apart. You can’t believe in Christ the Victor over the devil without a prior belief in penal substitution.
Jonathan Edwards would say, if you miss the substitutionary atonement, then you miss the substitute. If you miss the satisfaction of God’s justice, then you miss the defeat of the adversary. If you miss the penalty borne by Christ, then you miss His selfless example. These things stand and fall together. The doctrine of penal substitution is the heart of the atonement.
Yours with thankfulness for a violent atonement, Rev Wegener
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Daniel Meyer on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Sue McKeown on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Fr. Bill on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
"The penal substitutionary theory talks of how Christ took our penalty and bore it; He took our place and bore our punishment....As you might guess, the penal substitutionary view is not very popular. In fact, it is despised, even by professing Christians."
It's despised? Where? When? Who? In my neck of the woods, (American Midwest) This is the most popular view by far and universally accepted at every church I've ever visited and attended. I mean, I can accept that perhaps other groups at other times at other places have not cared for it, but that seriously needs to be qualified (ie "name names") before it can be tossed off as fact.
Scott,
I'm a fellow Midwesterner...it may be that the penal substitutionary atonement is easier to find here...but I find it difficult to believe that this view is as widely embraced as you suggest.
Anecdotally, I graduated from an "evangelical" college in the Midwest (affiliated with the United Brethren church). We had chapels dedicated to Christus Victor ala Greg Boyd (as he was a "special guest" for an entire week), and we had a chapel dedicated to moral government theory. One of our former profs asserted Jesus didn't have to die on the cross...if I remember correctly, he seemed to think Jesus could have simply died from old age and it would have been just as vicarious a death as the one on the cross.
We even had a former animation guy from Diney do a "chapel" where he portayed the life of Christ (with artistic liberty, of course) where an adolescent Jesus came across women bathing in a river and he feigned covering his face while actually peeking between his fingers.
I sat down with the chaplain of that institution to lament the state of our chapels and, I forget how it came up, but he professed that he beleived that Jesus no longer had a body. I think he said Christ shed it somewhere between his feet leaving the earth and entering heaven (I'm not kidding).
Anecdotally, I'd say most Midwesterners have no idea what to do with an incarnate Christ let alone a Christ who can also take on sin to make payment for it. I say this as my fellow college students largely yawned at or embraced these evil doctrines...and they were largely from the Midwest.
Hi Scott. Lots of leaders in the emergent church despise the penal substitutionary theory. Brian McLaren and Peter Rollins in America. Steve Chalke in England.
We used to call them false teachers. Now we call them fellow pilgrims who are facilitating dialogue and conversation, challenging us to think outside the box. I'm glad you haven't encountered their teachings. Warmly, David
This is shocking to me--I would have figured (in my naivete) that the Fundamentals would be "off limits", at least in what people will say publicly, in the discussions of people like the "Emergent" churches.
And so now I guess we see it not only among the Emergents, but apparently among formerly "evangelical" churches....yikes!
Actually, I don't know that I should be so surprised.....far too many "theoretically" fundamental churches are more concerned with the pastor's hobby horses ("I don't drink and I don't chew, and I don't go with girls that do") than with theology.
Thanks for the names, David.
Still, while it is evident that dissention exists, I'm still not sure it's more "popular" than the traditional view. After all, I had to learn about Brian Mclarin's heresies through an article denouncing them. All of the churches in my area and all evangelical authors still hold to the penalty view. Just because a few people here and there disagree does not suddenly make the traditional view "unpopular."
"One of our former profs asserted Jesus didn't have to die on the cross...if I remember correctly, he seemed to think Jesus could have simply died from old age and it would have been just as vicarious a death as the one on the cross." by Craig French.
Hmm, that seems to be poorly worded, but as I understand it, the important fact is that Jesus died, then rose again, not neccissarily how he died. The point is that Jesus was sinless, born without original sin and not sinning in his life time. Because of that, He would not have died. period. Had he not given up his life, then rose from the dead and ascended, he would still literally be running around the planet today, bodily incarnate just as he was 2000 years ago. So he would not have died of old age period.
Still, that brings up a raft of questions. Would Jesus die from injury? Remember, the Bible says that death is because of sin, so that does make one wonder if attempts to destroy his body would have killed him? Being sinless and all. I'm not so sure it would have if you are being Biblically accurate. In that view, it was not the cross itself or the spear itself that killed Jesus. Jesus was sinless, he would not have died. He would have had to make the decision to die. It is the act of dying itself that the principle derives it's meaning from. Jesus paid a debt which he did not owe. Because of that, this payment would be allowed to cover other people's debt.
But if you suggest that he had to specifically be killed, that the Romans had to destroy his body to kill him, it suggests eternal life isn't really eternal life at all. You reduce to a sort of "conditional immortality," where in a sinless person would live forever only if that person were never in a grievous car accident or shot or immolated or other such thing.
On that view, The act of dying is the important thing. How so is not as important, but Jesus may have allowed the circumstance of his death to be on the cross to more starkly illustrate that he paid the price for sins he did not commit. Living to 89 and seeming to die of "old age" would have still worked, but the message would have been muddled.
Dear Scott,
I'm sorry to say that you seem to have proved David Wegener's point with your latest comment. Your comment does not show a coherent understanding of the penal substitutionary atonement. It *does* require that he be put to death, and on a tree, no less. That is *how* he bore the curse for us, as Gal 3:13 says.
As to the question of how common these positions are, you might want to familiarize yourself with a bit more with what is going on in the church today. The entirety of all the mainline denominations have rejected the atonement. Are they a majority by themselves? No. That's just the old fogeys. But the emergent church has also rejected the atonement. And that's just the college students and 20-somethings. And the third most popular "Christian" book last year was "The Shack" which, in my experience, was primarily read by the 30-60 age group. And who knows who watches TBN?!
So you haven't ever run into somebody who denies explicitly the penal substitutionary atonement? You've never heard it referred to as cosmic child abuse? That doesn't actually mean anything. Like most heresies, it is almost always sneaky. Take some time to listen to what people are actually saying, and I think you'll be surprised.
Joseph-
Oh please. The book of Galations was denouncing dogmatic adherence to the law in favor of the gift of faith. The point was that the law never did anything to save someone's life or soul. Everyone who adhered to the law ended up dead anyway. Jesus became "the curse" by dying. The author found it apropos to drive the point in by quoting Deuteronomy 21:22 about laws regarding the corpses of those who were legally hanged.
However, by misreading the passage, you come to the idea that becoming the curse means literally to hang from a tree, as though The Law called for all people who sin in any kind of way to be hung from a tree. And that's absurd. No, the wages of sin are death. The penalty is death. Jesus substituted the death of others with his own. If it was all about hanging on that tree, then Jesus would have only overcome Deuteronomy 21:22, and only succeeded in abolishing a specific form of the death penalty.
Scott: "Jesus substituted the death of others with his own. If it was all about hanging on that tree, then Jesus would have only overcome Deuteronomy 21:22, and only succeeded in abolishing a specific form of the death penalty."
Apparently you know better than the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul. Jesus hung on a tree as a curse, in accordance with the law. That is what God's Word says.
Gal 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
Paul also says in Romans 5:6 that Christ died at the "right time". Jesus could have died many times, but He actually avoided it because His time hadn't come. I think it's safe to say He wasn't superstitious about the time of day, so He had specific parameters to fulfill...like being betrayed...the disciples being scattered. Seems the Holy Spirit is a stickler for specifics. Yes, Jesus had to hang on a tree, and it had to be during the Passion week, and no bone could be broken...so falling off of a cliff the Tuesday before the feast of unleavened bread just wouldn't work nor would dying in his sleep...besides, taking "up your cliff" doesn't have the same ring to it, and everyone loves a good nap...so a cross it had to be and that is what becomes the Christian's identity.
It truly is ironic, and not at all surprising, to get into a debate about the atonement with somebody who claims that specific doctrine isn't in any danger and almost nobody hates it.
So, taking Craig's point, and making it a bit more pointed:
The fact that Jesus was put to death hanging from a tree is exactly what is offensive about the atonement, from the moment it happened, until today. Your claim that Jesus could have died any old way and redeemed us just the same, not only ignores the OT prophecies that needed to be fulfilled, it also does away with the offense of the Gospel.
Yours with thankfulness for a violent atonement,
-Joseph
Add new comment