 |  | | | |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
II. Views of the AtonementHistorically, however, the church has seen the accomplishments of the cross from many developed and developing viewpoints. A. Assumptions behind the ViewsDiffering viewpoints of the atonement are based primarily on one's Theology Proper, Christology and Anthropology.
Furthermore, the final assumption asks if the Christ's death on the cross changed how God relates to humanity or how humanity relates to God. Did the cross change humans so that they can now related to God, or did the cross satisfy God sufficiently so that He is now able to reach out and related to humanity? B. Some Historic Views of the Atonement1. InspirationThe inspiration viewpoint of the atonement states that Christ's death is an example for us to follow. Christ's willingness to obey the Father to the point of death on the cross, Christ as an example for us of the ultimate in love for God. This viewpoint was put forth in the 16 th century by Faustus Socinus. Socinus believed God was not retributive, that Christ was merely a great human teacher not ontologically different from any other human, and that humans have the capacity within them to please God. 1 Peter 1:21 does indeed state that Christ's death can serve as an example to follow. However, Socinus ignores the biblical terms surrounding the crucifixion, such as ransom, sacrifice and atonement. 2. DemonstrationThe demonstration or “moral example” viewpoint of the atonement states that Christ's death on the cross was a demonstration of God's love. As humanity sees the depths of God's love for us exhibited in God's willingness to sacrifice His own son, humanity will respond by following after God. Peter Abelard articulated this viewpoint in the 12 th century, in reaction primarily to Anselm's satisfaction viewpoint (see below). Like Socinus, Abelard believed God was not judgmental. However, Abelard did believe in the divinity of Christ, and His death thereby reflected the love of God. Humanity, however, was not inherently sinful and only needed to realize the depths of God's love in order to follow after Him. As such, the effect of the cross was changing humanity's mind about the nature of God. While it is certainly true that the cross demonstrates the depths of God's love for us (Romans 5:8), Abelard does not see humanity as inherently sinful, and therefore there is no satisfaction or restitution involved in His death. 3. AdministrationThe administration or governmental theory states that humanity's sin has disrupted the order of God's creation. Therefore, Christ's death serves as at token punishment for all humanity. God could forgive humanity of its sin without the cross, but in so doing, it would have minimized the nature of humanity's sin. Therefore Christ's death demonstrates the severity of the sin problem. But since God can forgive without the cross, the cross is strictly necessary in order to pay for everyone's sin. Hugo Grotius first promoted this viewpoint in the 16 th century in response to the Calvinist teaching of the day which emphasized the wrath of God and the offensive need for God to demand a blood sacrifice. Grotius believed that if God demanded payment for sin, then his forgiveness would be conditional. Grotius' viewpoint, however, makes the atonement as optional. If the cross was merely a demonstration of the severity of sin, could not have God made this point in a less dramatic way? Furthermore, while the blood atonement may seem barbaric and unappealing, the scriptures seem to emphasize the need for God's wrath to be appeased through blood sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22). 4. RansomThe ransom viewpoint states that when humanity fell, people became slaves to Satan. Christ's death on the cross served as a ransom payment to Satan to free a captive humanity. In His death, Christ's life was exchanged for those held hostage by Satan. This was the dominant viewpoint within the church up to the time of the Protestant reformation. It is the dominant viewpoint of the atonement held by African American churches. This view is also sometimes known as the Christus Victor viewpoint, because it emphasizes Christ's victory over Satan and sin. The fall of humanity allowed all of creation to fall under Satan's domain, thereby corrupting the beauty of all creation. Christ's victory on the cross, therefore, was the first act in restoring all of creation (Romans 8:20-21). This viewpoint emphasizes not just what was accomplished by Christ on the cross, but looks forward to the completion of Christ's victory over the corruption of creation, when at His return He restores justice, peace and righteousness to the world. Scripture clearly teaches that Christ's death serves as a ransom (Mark 10:45) and that believers have been bought with a price (1 Corinthians 6:20). Furthermore, the cross is the beginning of the salvation of not just individual iniquity but the salvation of societal and universal iniquity (Romans 8:20-21). Someday that will indeed be fully realized in Christ's return when He eliminates all injustice, prejudice, and poverty. Scripture, however, does not state that the ransom was paid to Satan. Indeed, it is God who needs to be paid, not Satan. Our offense was against God, and He is the victim who demands restitution. Furthermore, this viewpoint can lead some to believe that Satan has equal or nearly equal power to God. Satan is not the dualistic opposite of God (i.e. Satan's ying to balance God's yang). 5. SatisfactionThe satisfaction viewpoint states that at the fall, humanity dishonored God, creating a debt of honor. Only Christ's death can satisfy this debt of honor by the giving of His life. God's honor is now restored and Christ has obtained a reward from God which He now freely bestows to humanity in the form of His grace. The satisfaction viewpoint differs from the vicarious substitution viewpoint. In the vicarious substitution, Christ's death satisfies a judicial debt. That is, sin requires punishment and Christ's death serves as that punishment. In the satisfaction viewpoint, Christ's death satisfies a debt of honor. This viewpoint was articulated by Anselm in the 12 th century, and is the viewpoint held by Roman Catholicism. It is true that humanity's sin created a debt to God which must be paid. Restitution is indeed required in order to restore fellowship with God. However, the scripture doesn't speak of a debt of honor. Indeed, humanity, nor any created thing, can damage the honor or dignity of God. Instead the debt we owe is judicial in nature. C. Penal SubstitutionEach of these viewpoints contain truth what Christ accomplished in His death. Scripture does indeed teach that:
However, none of these viewpoints address the foundational problem of humanity which resulted from its sin. Only the vicarious, penal substitution of Christ adequately explains the mechanism of the redemption of humanity. 1. Definition:The penal substitution, or vicarious substitution, viewpoint states that Christ's death is a substitute for our punishment. Human sinfulness has broken God's moral standard. Therefore, all humanity must pay the penalty for sin, namely death. When Christ died, His death is substituted for our death. Christ's death is the payment of the penalty for our sinfulness. The vicarious substitution theory states that:
2. Objections to Penal Substitutiona. Objection 1: Substitutionary and sacrificial offerings can not pay for the crime of another.i. Objection StatedHow can the death of a single human be sufficient to pay for the penalty of billions of humans? Would not Christ need to die repeatedly for each and every person? Furthermore, in a realistic judicial setting, what judge would allow another person to take the sentence of another guilty person? If our American judicial system would not consider this to be “just” why would God consider this as just? ii. Objection AnsweredJesus substitutes himself as our representative. When we become saved, we become united with Christ in His death. We suffer his death with Him, and thereby suffer death ourselves. (Galatians 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. The guilty (us) have indeed died, in that we are unified with Him in the midst of His death. So it is not that one man can atone for the entire world. Rather, we are there with Him in death through our unity with Christ [1]. This will be developed more fully later. The glory of Christ is in the cross, not through the cross. Our glory, therefore, is not attained on the other side of the cross, but in our identification with Christ in the midst of the cross. Prosperity gospel says we are on the other side of the cross and now entitled to the glory. In Him, we don't have to identify with Christ and His suffering, because He did. But we must identify with Christ in the cross in order to be saved. This changes our perspective on suffering. Understanding this means that when we face hardship we don't “endure” it, but we welcome it as a chance to share in the suffering of Christ. b. Objection 2: Debases God by making Him wrathfuli. Objection StatedPenal substation makes God into a blood-thirsty god of wrath. It seems to emphasize the wrath of God over His love. What kind of God is it that requires that blood be spilt before He can forgive? What makes God any different than any other vengeful pagan god? ii. Objection AnsweredGod's wrath is not the opposite of love. The opposite of love is apathy. What we deserve is not judgment and punishment, but God's indifference. But God loves us too much to ignore us. So he pours out His wrath so that we might repent. Wrath is not a separate attribute of God, but is an outworking of His Holy-love. To use an analogy, the solar energy from the sun remains consistent. But based upon how that solar energy is received, it can either melt wax or harden clay. So it is with God's Holy-love. It remains consistent. It only appears to be different depending upon how it is received. To some, God's involvement is perceived as love, while for others it is perceived as wrath. It is the condition of a person's heart which determines how His Holy-love is received. c. Promotes opposition between Father & Son.i. Objection StatedUnder the penal substitution view, when Jesus cries out on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” (Matthew 27: 46), this is interpreted to mean that God the Father had turned his back upon the Son. Because the Son had taken on the sins of the world, the Holy God could no longer abide with the Son. Furthermore, when in the garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus asks for the cup to pass from Him (Matthew 26: 39), the Son again seems to be in conflict with the Father. Based on these interpretations, penal substitution seems to pit the God the Father against God the son. ii. Objection AnsweredSalvation was an act of the Trinity. The Father & Son agreed together to accomplish this (2 Cor 5:19) that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. D. Unity with ChristIn Ephesians 5, the apostle Paul teaches about the marriage relationship, reminding his readers of the teaching of Genesis 2 that “the two shall become one flesh.” But then Paul changes his focus, stating: (Ephesians 5:32) This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Paul is saying that the human marriage relationship is a living analogy of our relationship with Christ. Our relationship with Christ is not like marriage, but marriage is like our relationship with Christ. In Matthew 22:30 Jesus teaches us that after the resurrection, there will no longer be marriage. After the resurrection, our union with Christ will be consummated (Revelation 19:7-9) and there is no longer any need to have a “type” of this relationship to help us understand our relationship with Christ. We are married to Christ. We are mystically and spiritually united with Him. There is a real exchange of identities. Christ takes on our sin. We take on Christ's righteousness. The analogy is not so much that of a judicial court, where the judge declares us not guilty and Christ guilty. Instead, the analogy is closer to the nature of property ownership in a community property state. Under this legal understanding, when a husband and wife are married all their individual assets are now jointly owned. Likewise, both husband and wife are jointly responsible for each others liabilities. The difference is that Christ brings all the assets and we bring all the liabilities. When we marry Christ, we are righteous, because Christ is righteous. Likewise, Christ is sinful because we are sinful. Footnotes[Next: Humanity's Part in Salvation]
|
