From Steve Gregg:
””””””””””””-
I receive many inquiries concerning my opinion about atonement theories. Having just responded to one, I thought I would post it for the benefit of others who are inclined to inquire:
Atonement Theories
Steve,
I am really trying to study the concept of Penal Substitution because it seems like it is under attack. I would love to hear your opinion.
””Van
----------------------------------------------------------
Hi Van,
Many people are critical of the Penal Substitution concept, because they think it portrays God as demanding an act of violence to persuade Him to forgive people, whereas, He is naturally disposed toward forgiveness, and would, seemingly, not make such a demand. They say that the Christus Victor concept was the early church's view, rather than Penal Substitution, which was introduced by Anselm centuries later.
I still believe in Penal Substitution, though I agree with many of the claims of the critics. Christus Victor is indeed taught in the Bible (but so is Penal Substitution, in my opinion). I don't know why the latter view did not become prominent until Anselm's time, but he is not the one who introduced the concept into the Bible.
Penal Substitution seems to be the concept behind the Passover, the entire sacrificial system, and the rituals of Yom Kippur, in the Old Testament. The language associated with these rituals is adopted without embarrassment by the New Testament writers to describe what Jesus has done (e.g., 1 Cor.5:7; John 1:29; Rev.5:6; Heb.9:11-14, 22).
There are several competing "theories" of the atonement, including Christus Victor, the "Ransom" theory, the "Moral Influence" theory, the "Public Justice" theory, the "Penal Substitution" theory, etc. Each of these can legitimately rally passages of scripture to their support. Does this not suggest that all of them are true? That is how I see it. To my mind, there is none of these theories that, if correct, would preclude the others from also being correct. Why should we have to choose between the many facets of the atoning work of Christ that are all presented in scripture?
The criticism that Penal Substitution makes God out to be reluctant to forgive seems like nonsense to me. It is not God, but justice itself, that demands a penalty for criminal acts committed. Paul said that God's dilemma was how to be both "just," and "the justifier of those who believe" (Rom.3:26). To solve the dilemma, He set forth the sacrifice of Christ as a propitiation for man's sins (v.25).
Clearly, Paul sees God as the one who is motivated to forgive and justify sinners. Yet, His own character of unvarying justice must be squared with such a seemingly-unjustified acquittal. The substitution of Christ as the sacrifice in our place resolves the difficulty.
Atheists argue that, by requiring Christ to die for us, God cannot escape the charge of being a "child abuser." Yet, the Father did not make this decision unilaterally. The plan was agreed upon between the Father and the Son. Christ "gave Himself" for us (Gal.2:20). He was not forced to die against His will. Jesus Himself said that He came to "give His life as a ransom" (Mark 10:45). At any time, Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to rescue Him from the danger of being crucified (Matt.26:53). It was His own decision to do this. There was no divine "child abuse” on God's part. It would be more scriptural to view it as God abusing Himself. It is He who took on human form in order to accomplish man’s redemption. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor.5:19). God purchased the church "with His own blood” (Acts 20:28).
I can think of biblical reasons for affirming each of the atonement theories, and no biblical reasons for excluding any of them.
Steve Gregg
Addendum:
Some (not all) of those who object to this doctrine have a larger agenda. They wish to absolve God of all involvement in any violent or lethal transactions. They want us to believe that God, throughout history, has been as seamlessly non-violent as Jesus was in His brief tenure on this planet. Thus, the wars and exterminations of the Old Testament, the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the death of Ananias and Sapphira, the death of Herod””even the bloodshed in the Book of Revelation, is thought to be unworthy of the non-violent god whom they have crafted according to their own image. In order to promote this artificial deity, they must persuade us that Moses, David, the Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles were all, at times (perhaps, most of the time!) mistakenly attributing to God commands and actions that were not His. Once you discredit these authors, there remains no reliable word from God in scripture. Very convenient. This leaves us to affirm only such things as we subjectively find unoffensive.
The Bible knows no such god as the one they imagine. The non-violence of Jesus, during His 3-year redemptive mission, is mistaken for the only side of God that is ever expressed. However, if the Book of Revelation is authentic, then even Jesus, when in judgment mode ("the wrath of the Lamb"), is greatly to be feared. That God may, in certain seasons, extend inexplicable patience, and, at others, fearsome judgments, is the clear teaching of scripture. The brief lifetime of Christ on earth was one of the former seasons. the Bible unambiguously describes, and predicts, many of the other kind.
At the end of history, God will sort all things out in accordance with His justice and His mercy. However, during earth's history, death is a universal reality for all mortal beings””one that God Himself mourns, but will not end until the resurrection. In the meantime, human deaths (all of which are admittedly inevitable) are sometimes, in the interest of the general good of mankind and of God's kingdom, moved forward in time, by some specific judgment acts of God.
However, because of Christ's death and resurrection, all people””even innocent people who died in temporal judgments (e.g., infants who died in the flood)””will receive justice at the hands of a Judge with whom mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13).
