If you have not read the recent discussion threat responding to my posting about Edwards’ and Piper’s views of the atonement, this might not make a lot of sense. (Well, it might not anyway!)
Apparently Piper is on a crusade to crush criticism of the penal substitution theory that portray it as divine child abuse and God as a blood thirsty tyrant demanding his pound of flesh.
I agree with Piper that those are false portrayals of traditional penal substitution theory of the atonement. I wish people who know little about it would read thoroughly first and only then present their critiques.
The classical penal substitution theory does NOT portray God as a bloodthirsty tyrant and does NOT imply divine child abuse. Given the doctrine of the Trinity, which it assumes, Christ’s suffering was completely voluntary. It’s not as if God took a poor, innocent human being and sacrificed him for us. It’s that God, the Son, volunteered to suffer this death for us. And, I believe, with Moltmann, that the Father suffered, too. I think to say otherwise is to drive a wedge between the Father and the Son and incline the theory toward divine child abuse (or at least make the Father seem cold and unloving).
Personally, I think the governmental theory accomplishes everything the penal substitution theory does. And, I think we need to avoid any idea that one theory says everything or is even absolutely necessary to Christian orthodoxy. As long as one believes everything Scripture says about the cross it matters little whether he or she affirms a particular theological theory of the atonement.
To those who insist that the penal substitution theory is the only orthodoxy view of the atonement or who claim it is necessary for Christian orthodoxy I ask how they account for the fact that it is not found in the church fathers or in any of the ecumenical creeds.
Now, please DON’T send in quotes from church fathers about Christ bearing our sins or being our substitute, etc. I know you can find those in their writings–right along side imagery of Christ as the conqueror over Satan and Christ as a ransom paid by God to Satan, as our example, etc., etc. What I am saying is that the whole package of the penal substitution theory isn’t found explicitly taught in the church fathers. I think it is a fair deduction from all that Scripture says, but even Scripture doesn’t spell it out.
However, having said that, I do think denial of any objective-transactional aspect of the atonement is dangerous to the gospel. Purely subjective theories fall short; they cannot account for how the atonement takes care of the guilt problem. They are inextricably tied to an optimistic, perhaps even Pelagian, view of humanity when taken alone.
To me, anyway, the gospel IS that Christ died for our sins in the sense that his death made it possible for God to forgive sinners righteously. Take that away and the preaching of the cross gradually (or suddenly) fades away. So does the gospel.
19th century theologian Horace Bushnell talked about “Christian comprehensiveness” and argued that all the theories of the atonement carry some of the truth. All are descriptions of facets or aspects of Christ’s atoning work for us. I agree. Especially Christus Victor is important alongside something like penal substitution or vicarious sacrifice or the governmental theory.
I admit that my own mind is not settled about penal substitution versus governmental theory. Both are objective and transactional; Christ’s death made it possible for God righteously to forgive sins. Then there is the so-called “vicarious sacrifice” theory of Bushnell and the British congregationalist theologians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Forsyth, Dale, et al.). I’ve never fully understood those views even though I’ve read them. The idea in them is that Christ represented us to God in his death on the cross. I guess the idea there is to keep an objective element in the atonement while avoiding talk about punishment. I don’t think it works. But it’s better than just a moral example theory which, I’m afraid, is where many in the left wing of the emerging church movement are headed.
So, I stand uncomfortably alongside Piper in this matter–that an objective view of the atonement is necessary. Whether that has to be penal subsitution or governmental or vicarious sacrifice is less clear to me than to some Calvinists I know.
Finally, to me, anyway, so-called limited or particular atonement is much worse than subjective theory (as bad as that is taken as the sole explanation for why Christ had to die). I agree with recently deceased evangelical statesman Vernon Grounds that “It takes an exegetical ingenuity which is something other than a learned virtuosity to evacuate these texts [cited in the context] of their obvious meaning: it takes an exegetical ingenuity verging on sophistry to deny their explicit universality.” (Grace Unlimited, p. 27) One verse he cites immediately before that quote is 1 John 2:2. The only way to try to get around that to hold onto limited/particular atonement is to interpret “world” as some people. That’s simply not good exegesis of that passage.
So, it seems to me that those believers in limited/particular atonement who harshly criticize fellow evangelicals who criticize penal substitution are like people living in a glass house throwing stones.
Someone posted a comment here accusing me of blasphemy for allegedly saying that God is a monster. He didn’t read carefully. So I’ll say it again: IF I believed in limited atonement I would have to consider God a monster. I am NOT saying Calvinists who believe in limited atonement believe God is a monster. Fortunately, they’re not as consistent as I would feel the need to be were I ever to become a Calvinist.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In