Part 8 of Response to The Gospel as Center, Chapter 8: “Christ’s Redemption”

Last updated on: April 15, 2012 at 12:33 pm by Roger E. Olson

Part 8 of Response to The Gospel as Center, Chapter 8: “Christ’s Redemption” 2012-04-15T12:33:12-05:00 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.

Part 8 of Response to The Gospel as Center; Chapter 8: “Christ’s Redemption” by Sandy Wilson

Sandy Wilson is pastor of an Evangelical Presbyterian church. That’s a distinct denomination: The Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I’ve been told it is somewhat less conservative than the PCA but more conservative than the PCUSA.

Again, I approached this chapter assuming it would emphasize penal substitution as part and parcel of the gospel and probably also promote belief in limited atonement. I was right in the first place but wrong in the second place. Nothing in the chapter refers to limited or definite atonement although the author does repeatedly refer to Christ’s love and death “for us.” Whether the “us” includes all people or only the elect is never explicitly stated.

For the most part, the chapter is simply a presentation and defense of traditional evangelical belief about God’s love and Christ’s life, death and resurrection for people’s salvation. Page 144 contains the clearest statements about the atoning death of Christ. It saves us from God’s wrath; God imputed our sins to Jesus, Jesus expiated our sin to taking them to himself, Jesus Christ satisfied the righteous wrath of God and propitiated God. He turned God’s wrath away from us and satisfied the righteous demands of God’s justice.

One statement by the author with which many evangelical, even many who believe in the penal substitution theory, will disagree is on page 143. There the author endorses the imputation of Christ’s active obedience to “us.” (Again, left unclear is whether “us” refers to those unconditionally elected or to all who freely respond to the gospel call by faith.) According to Wilson, he, Jesus “lived perfectly for us so that when we put our trust in him, we receive all the benefits of his perfect performance, his perfect obedience to the Father. Everything he did goes on our record. … God has imputed to us the merits of his Son’s perfect life.”

Some evangelicals will disagree with that and argue that only Christ’s passive obedience, that is, his suffering the penalty of our sins in our place, is imputed to us in justification. This has traditionally been a difference between Reformed and Wesleyan evangelicals. Reformed have traditionally believed in imputation of Christ’s active obedience as well as his passive obedience. Wesleyans have traditionally believed in only imputation of Christ’s passive obedience.

Then there are those, like N. T. Wright (and at times John Wesley), who believe that imputation is only of righteousness, not “Christ’s righteousness.”

So strong an emphasis is placed on imputation of Christ’s righteousness in this chapter that I assume the author is attempting to correct, perhaps even rule out as inconsistent with the gospel, belief that imputation is only of Christ’s passive obedience or mere righteousness (not Christ’s righteousness).

It seems to me it is enough to believe that Christ died in our place, becoming sin and a curse “for us,” in order to cover over our sins (hilasterion, the mercy seat sprinkled with the blood of sacrifice). It seems to me that the penal substitution theory can be pushed too far so that it becomes an item of a systematic theology rather than something based on biblical imagery—that is, an analogy and not a literal description.

I grew up with penal substitution being preached just about every other Sunday. It was part and parcel of the gospel as we understood it. And by “we” I mean evangelicals generally in the 1950s through the 1970s. During seminary I began to discover other images and theories of the atonement—Christus Victor, recapitulation (Ireneaus), perfect penitent (C. S. Lewis), governmental theory (not that different from penal substitution as you find it in classical Arminian theology), etc. But among evangelicals these were always emphasized not as alternatives to penal substation (except perhaps governmental theory) but other facets of Christ’s atonement.

Only in recent years, so far as I know, have American evangelicals begun to question substitutionary atonement and want to replace it entirely with something else. And here, by “substitutionary atonement” I do NOT mean the full blown Reformed doctrine of double imputation tied to federal theology, but simply the idea that Christ died in our place, taking on himself our sin and guilt, and making it possible for God righteously to forgive us.

I agree with Scot McKnight in A Community Called Atonement that “the Bible does teach penal substitution.” (p. 113) But I also agree with him that the penal substitution theory can easily be “overly judicialized or reified.” And I agree that it is only one, even though a crucial, image of atonement. Many Reformed folks will think McKnight’s and my description of penal substitution does not go far enough. McKnight puts it in a nutshell: “He [Jesus] died instead of us (substitution); he died a death that was the consequence of sin (penal).” (p. 113)

I get the impression for Wilson’s chapter that he and The Gospel Coalition (and he implies very strongly that he is speaking for it) believe double imputation, the full Reformed doctrine of atonement, that our sin and guilt was imputed by God to Jesus and that his active and passive obedience are imputed to us in justification, is necessary for the gospel. I disagree.

Toward the end of the chapter Wilson writes about “Christ, Our Only Hope.” This section seems to be aimed at correcting or even ruling out as heresy inclusivism. He says The Gospel Coalition makes it a “nonnegotiable doctrine” that “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved.” (p. 146) Okay, but what evangelical(s) deny this? I don’t know of any. Even Pinnock affirmed that.

But here is one sentence of The Gospel Coalition’s statement of faith (quoted on page 148) that I and many evangelicals have trouble with: “The hearts of sinful humans are given a longing for heaven only by hearing and believing the gospel, which, of course, means that the church’s obedience to the Great Commission is of the utmost importance.” I and even many conservative evangelicals believe God has placed “eternity in their hearts” so that all people everywhere have a longing for heaven, for God and his salvation. Of course, they don’t know the details, but the desire for salvation is there. It is always combined with sin, of course, but even total depravity does not utterly destroy the desire for a savior. What it destroys is ability to save oneself or find salvation apart from Jesus Christ. (That leaves open the question whether a person can be saved by Jesus Christ without hearing his name in this life.)

I identify with Lesslie Newbigin’s oft-quoted statement in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (182-183):

“It has become customary to classify views on the relation of Christianity to the world religions as either pluralist, exclusivist, or inclusivist … [My] position is exclusivist in the sense that it affirms the unique truth of the revelation in Jesus Christ, but it is not exclusivist in the sense of denying the possibility of the salvation of the non-Christian. It is inclusivist in the sense that it refuses to limit the saving grace of God to the members of the Christian church, but it rejects the inclusivism which regards the non-Christian religions as vehicles of salvation. It is pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but it rejects a pluralism which denies the uniqueness and decisiveness of what God has done in Jesus Christ.”

Uncategorized

Previous Post

April 12, 2012

And Now...It's Time's Turn: April 16 (2012) Cover Story about Heaven

Next Post

April 17, 2012 Another Round in the Theodicy Debate (This Time Involving Bob Dylan!)

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

In Revelation, what is the correct sequence of events in the End Times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, false prophet rises from earth, mark of the beast given False prophet rises, dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, mark of the beast given Mark of the beast given, dragon cast to earth, beast rises, false prophet rises Beast rises from sea, dragon cast to earth, mark of the beast given, false prophet rises