Thanks to Travis for introducing us to the various theories of atonement. It was particularly amazing that all of you were able to enter straightaway into the various issues of the debate seeing that for many of you it was the first time you’ve probably been introduced to these theories.
Malcolm's group rightly pointed out the insidious nature of the Ransom Theory. It would look like, because of our sin, we belong to Satan, and God buys us back with the death of Jesus, only to then turn the tables on Satan with the Resurrection. Implicates God for what would look like a sleigh of hand. Further it makes Satan out to be the one who demands payment and not God. We need to be clear that it was God’s holiness, not Satan’s, that was offended, and payment had to be made to God to avert His wrath. Furthermore, Satan did not have the power to free man, God alone had the power.
Brent’s group pulled down the hidden weaknesses of the Moral Influence Theory. It made Jesus out to be just another charismatic martyr whose life and death merely inspires people to live morally well. It gives the idea that people are able to raise themselves out of sin by their own bootstraps. If this were so, then Jesus' death was not necessary as an expiation for sin. It made the basis for the death of Christ His love rather than His holiness. It assumes that people’s emotions can be moved sufficiently to lead them to repentance. There is no running away from the clear teaching of the Word that the death of Christ was substitutionary (Matt. 20:28). Sinners are justified before a holy God, not merely influenced by an example of love.
Aun’s group examined what is perhaps the most popular of all the theories - Penal Substitution.
Travis pointed out the vital difference between what is a “penal crime” and what is a “pecuniary crime”. Consequently, opponents have argued that no criminal justice system in the world would ever consider it is just to punish the innocent in place of the guilty. Further, this theory gives the impression that sin is an external matter to be transferred from one person to another. But is it? This group also pointed out that Penal Substition made God out to be an austere Judge whose interest is chiefly forensic. Recently Steve Chalke from the UK mounted a fresh attack on Penal Substitution by arguing that it portrays God as a vengeful Cosmic Child Abuser. But I remember Leon Morris saying that whilst such criticisms may be valid they do not rock the essential basis of the Penal Substitution view. He helpfully points out that there is a “double identification”: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). Packer himself may have some aversion with Penal Substitution but he warms up to it and positively affirms that there is a "substantial rightness of the Reformed view of the atonement."
I like Travis' emphasis that it is helpful to look at these critiques not as attempts to pull down our faith but to build it up by saving it from the older, perhaps cruder forms of understanding.
# posted by Andrew @ 11:25 AM
