About the atonement

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:28 pm by Roger E. Olson

About the atonement 2011-08-18T19:28:54-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

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.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 1, 2011

Jonathan Edwards and John Piper on the atonement

Next Post

February 6, 2011 Crossless Christianity?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the name of the garden where Jesus prayed before His arrest?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Eden Gethsemane Bethany Golgotha