Defending the Doctrines of the Fall and Redemption – Part 2

An earlier article reviewed the defense of the doctrine of the fall of man, presented by Hans Madueme at the annual L’Abri Conference in Rochester, Minnesota, on February 13. This article briefly reviews contemporary theological challenges to the doctrine of Christ’s atonement for sin, presented by Henk Reitsema, co-chair of the Dutch L’Abri facility.

The Purpose of the Atonement

The atonement of Christ, Reitsema said, “means Jesus dying for our sins in our place, and thereby taking on a consequence, a punishment which we would have had to be carried by us.” Atonement theology is today under attack. But he said that theological error leads to real-life consequences. In this case, he believes, it will undermine the understanding of grace in Christian life. The atonement is quite central to Christian faith and life, and understanding it wrongly is devastating. People need to believe that grace is real. They must understand that grace “bridges the unbridgeable.”

Reitsema is concerned about a theology emphasizing “the royal priesthood,” in which Christians understand themselves to be advancing the new creation begun by Christ, to the exclusion of having a prophetic posture against worldliness, calling people to faith in Christ and repentance of sin. The prophetic “has the painful cutting edge to it.”

He referred to the contemporary song “In Christ Alone,” which focuses on Christ’s atonement, and which a Presbyterian Church U.S.A. hymn committee wanted to alter for inclusion in its hymnal. Specifically, the PCUSA committee wanted to replace the words “the wrath of God was satisfied” with “the love of God was magnified.” Reitsema said God’s love was indeed magnified on the cross, but this alteration was clearly an attempt to deny the penal aspect of the atonement.

Yet the penal aspect is central to the doctrine of atonement and the Christian faith. Reitsema referred to a painting by Rembrandt in which he appears at the foot of the cross helping raise Jesus up, apparently indicating that Rembrandt’s own sins helped put Jesus on the cross, He noted that even Pope Benedict XVI held that the doctrine of atonement, which in Catholic doctrine is sacrificial and substitutionary for sin, although not penal in a legal or forensic sense, is crucially important. But Benedict said that “the idea that God allowed the forgiveness of sins to cost him the death of his Son is widely seen as repugnant.” It is thought repugnant due to the “trivialization of evil in which we take refuge.” People would like to think that they are basically good and are “uncomfortable with this idea that Jesus would have to die” for their sin. But, in fact, (as noted in the earlier article) we are capable of “really grotesque and horrible things.”

Theories of the Atonement****

Many other aspects of the atonement than the penal aspect are legitimate, Reitsma said, but not as a replacement for Christ’s substitution for our sins as the irreducible element. Reitsema reviewed the basic theories of why Jesus died on the cross. These include:

1) Moral Influence Theory – Christ’s death inspires us to live righteous and sacrificial lives. 2) Ransom Theory – Jesus died to ransom us from the kingdom of Satan. 3) Christus Victor – Jesus died to defeat Satan and his evil influence. Christ freed mankind from bondage to evil. This, however, is used in our day to deny that Christ paid for human sin on the cross. 4) Satisfaction Theory, which holds that Christ’s death satisfied God’s offended justice and honor. It is particularly associated with Anselm of Canterbury. This indeed comes close to the idea of paying for human offense, but focuses on God’s honor, rather than human offense. 5) Penal Substitution, particularly associated with John Calvin and the Protestant Reformers. “Jesus Christ died to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin.” This is a development of Anselm’s theory in a legal direction. 6) Governmental Theory – Jesus’s death on the cross demonstrates the severity of sin. The atonement shows “the high price that must be paid” for sin, allowing God to pardon sins, but does not exact punishment on Jesus. 7) Scapegoat Theory – Jesus died as a scapegoat of humanity. Jesus was not a sacrifice but a victim, whose death demonstrates the unrighteousness of retribution and violence.

De-emphasizing Penal Atonement

While Reitsema affirmed that the atonement of Christ “is like a diamond with many facets,” he sees contemporary discussion and emphasis on non-penal aspects as leaning against or even denying penal atonement. There are harsh critics of penal atonement. It has been denounced as “economic karma thinking with a slight of hand. God does not have to do anything, not even karma. The true God is of a totally different order. Our relationship with him is not to be compared with that of a buyer and a merchant … this manner of thinking is blasphemous. We are looking to gain eternal life and God is a means to achieve that. Economic rules rule, and God must obey.” Reitsema sees a “large measure of caricature” in such an assessment.

He referred to N.T. Wright as a more measured example of unease with penal atonement and individual salvation. Jesus’ atonement as held by Wright seems to be more the redemption of creation and society than redemption of the individual from sin through Christ’s sacrifice, Reitsema said.

Wright acknowledges that people must be “put right” with God through the atonement, but shies aware from discussing “the depravity of our sin.” Like others who de-emphasize sacrificial or penal atonement, Wright emphasizes the Christus Victor theme. But Reitsema, while acknowledging that redemption will be cosmic and societal, is concerned that the atonement must be at least personal salvation from sin. He believes that Wright is afraid of caricatures and mockery of Christ’s atonement and personal salvation heard in our day, and thus how penal substitution will be heard in a highly secular culture. Wright does concede that early church fathers held two aspects of the atonement prominent in their writings: 1) God in Christ on the cross ‘won a great victory” over evil (Christus Victor), and 2) Christ died “as somehow in our place.” Yet Wright does not go so far as to call it an “atoning sacrifice.”

Wright notes that the Apostle’s Creed affirms Christ’s death but offers no particular theory of atonement. He sees Anselm as the real impetus to the idea of the satisfaction of God in the atonement. But he regards its idea of satisfying God’s honor as tied to the high medieval period, and less understandable in our day. Reitsema observed, however, that Anselm quoted Augustine “profusely” is establishing his doctrine of the atonement.

The Need for a Strong Doctrine of Sin

Reitsema referred to the gross depravity mentioned in The Brothers Karamazov (noted in the earlier article). These are the types of things which really do happen, and they support the need for penal atonement. As noted in that article, very ordinary people are capable of these things, pointing to the potentiality that we have for evil. He said that Calvin was “anxious to distinguish his theory from Anselm’s,” by emphasizing God’s justice and holiness. Calvin wished to emphasize that the atonement involved “the combination of God’s justice, holiness, and love.” People cannot simply be forgiven without payment for their sins.

Thus, what is needed to understand the requirement for penal atonement is “a robust doctrine of sin.” He said that Wright on the other hand in understanding the fall and sin since the fall emphasizes missing our “vocation,” and idolatry as the result of missing our vocation. Wright holds that “we were called to something, and by not fulfilling that calling” we have our real problem. Reitsema said that Wright “does not want to use the formulation of human depravity.” Classic Protestant versions of the atonement Wright characterizes as seeing “heaven, and fellowship with God in the present, as the goal, and sin [as] bad behavior deserving punishment” leading to “an angry divinity who is pacified by human sacrifice.” Wright believes instead that the goal of Christ’s death on the cross is “a renewed human vocation, with God’s renewed creation.”

Reitsema said that we are indeed intended for relationship with God in a renewed creation. The fall should be understood not just as violation of a moral law requiring punishment (although it is that) but as “relational violation” (putting oneself in God’s place by attempting to do the one thing God had forbidden man, i.e., delineating good and evil). “You’re not allowed to get creative” on that.

In Reitsema’s accounting, people are called “not just to keep certain moral standards … and to enjoy God’s presence, here and hereafter,” (which Wright criticizes as an inadequate doctrine) but to be “a visible presence of God’s goodness in the world.” This indeed is the priestly function of Christians in the world. But there is also a prophetic call to repentance. The actual vocation of Christians is to be salt in the world. Salt gives “flavor and depth to life” (the priestly function) but “also has a bite” (the prophetic function).

Reitsema said that for Wright, the idea of covenant faithfulness is key. We were called to a vocation which we missed. Idolatry lies at the heart of sin. The goal of Christianity is not heaven, according to Wright, but a redeemed earth. Reitsma on the other hand does not think that Wright accords sufficient seriousness to human depravity, from which people must be redeemed. Christians are called not only to be the royal priesthood of a new creation, but also “the bearers of an unpopular message, the prophetic” against sin.

Biblical and Patristic Support for Penal Atonement

Turning to the Bible for an authoritative doctrine of the atonement, Reitsema quoted Rom 3:21-25 (particularly v. 25 “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.”). He said that when Wright comments on this issue, he makes covenant central and de-emphasizes its meaning as payment for sins. But payment for sins is the most basic need of human beings, without which righteous cultural development would not be possible.

Reitsema said it is simply not true that the early Christians talked only of “Christ victorious.” Reitsma quoted Eusebius of Caesaria (260-339 A.D.) and the Epistle of Diognetus, who proclaimed a penal nature of the atonement. Eusebius quoted Isaiah 53:5 on the atonement. He held that in this verse that “Christ being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself, and therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners and will be pained on their behalf and not on his own.” Reitsema said that this is an “incredibly clear articulation of the doctrine of atonement, substitutionary atonement.” Earlier, in the second or third century A.D., in the Epistle to Diognetus, it is said that “in his mercy, he (Christ) took upon himself our sins, he himself gave up his own son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins, in whom it was was possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God. O the sweet exchange of Jesus in our place … that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners.”

Reitsema said that “there is something deeply pastoral” about penal atonement, with God being willing to take our sin without annihilating us. Reitsema concluded with Isaiah 55 (“Come all you who are thirsty”). Substitutionary atonement addresses human depravity. “We need to be honest and go places that are not always very comfortable” for people in our day, to bring the message of salvation.

More from IRD:

Defending the Doctrines of the Fall and Redemption – Part 1

The post Defending the Doctrines of the Fall and Redemption – Part 2 appeared first on Juicy Ecumenism.