What does Christ's work on the cross actually mean for us sinners? Was it Christ receiving the punishment that we deserve? Or was it simply and example of the punishment that we deserve. These are the two main theories regarding our atonement. The first is known as the penal-substitution theory. This is the theory that is believed by the majority of Lutheran's and Calvinists. The second theory is known as the Governmental theory of atonement. It is held by traditional Methodists, and it seems that most modern evangelicals hold this theory as well.
Most of us are familiar with the penal substitution theory. This theory basically says that on the Cross Jesus received the punishment for each and every one of our sins. In is Grace, God had mercy on us and did not demand payment for our sins from us, but only from His Son.
The Governmental theory on the other hand assigns a much different meaning to Christ's sacrifice. Wikipedia offers a brief overview of this theory:
"governmental theory holds that Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but it did not consist of Christ receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. Instead, God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin by punishing his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. Christ's suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received. On this basis, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus appeasing his wrath."
The first thing one notices when reading this descriptions is that Christ was not our substitute in the punishment that we deserved. The punishment Christ received, according to this theory, was not a sacrifice or payment, but simply an example of God's displeasure with sin. This theory makes Christ's death to be nothing more than an example of what could happen to us if we continue to sin.
After reading that, one question should jump out in your mind. How does punishing an innocent man, Jesus, demonstrate God's anger with sin? If God were to give us an example of his anger with sin, would he not choose to do so by punishing those who are sinful?
God has in fact given us examples of this sort. Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as the Babylonian captivity and the life of king Saul all give us a vivid example of God's anger with sin. Punishing an innocent man simply as an example would have not only been pointless, but counter-productive. If even the perfect man is punished as an example, how could any of us imperfect creatures have any hope for salvation?
The theory continues by saying that on the basis of Christ's punishment, God is free to forgive our sins. This is a concealed way of saying that if you heed the example, God will forgive you. If you turn from sin, make a decision for Christ, and become faithful, God will be able to forgive you. This obviously leads to a legalistic form of Christianity. Whether or not you are forgiven depends only on your own actions. You are forced to save yourself by heeding the example.
Obviously, this theory is completely foreign to scripture. Christ says that he came to give is life as a ransom (Matt 20:28), not as an example of what we must do to become our own ransoms. Isaiah, when speaking of Christ, did not see him as an example, but said that he was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. We are healed by his stripes. (Isaiah 53). Paul tells us that we were redeemed by Christ (Gal 3:13 is one example) not that we were simply shown what punishment might be like. Peter certainly believes that "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree". (1 Pet 2:24)
Although this view has no support in scriptures, it seems that it is a popular view. It gives us something to do, a way we can save ourselves. Of course it is all a lie. We are only saved by Christ's bearing of our sins. There is no other way. Praise God for sending His Son to take our sins on himself that we do not have to endure the punishment we deserve. Let us spread this wonderful message as far and wide as possible.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi. The wikipedia quote doesn't really distinguish the governmental view from the payment of the debt theory, because Wiki stresses that God punished Jesus. In reply to another who didn't quite understand the main point of the governmental view, I wrote-
Hi,I just want to add what I feel would clarify better the governmental theory of the atonement. I thought this was necessary, for when you explained the governmental view, several times you asserted that the effect of the atonement was the satisfaction of justice. I think that the governmental view, properly explained, makes the argument that the purpose of the atonement was not the satisfaction of justice at all. The atonement so answers the purposes of government that the satisfaction of justice is rendered wholly unnecessary. Several early writers who held the view tried to retain a distinction between retributive and public justice. Although such distinctions are both true and useful, they tend to weigh the gospel down in technical explanations, even though I think explanation is still necessary. Coming back to my point, an atonement is simply a substitute for punishment. This means that punishment is not carried out at all. And it is NOT because justice has been satisfied. The law only threatened action against sinners; hence, satisfaction of justice can only consist in the the punishment of the lawbreaker.1. The issue has to do with the REASON for punishments. If something can serve the same purpose that punishments are designed to serve, then justice does not have to be satisfied. Without thinking about it, many theologians assumed that the main purpose of punishments was to satisfy justice. As if justice is never a means to an end, but exists for its own sake.2. But God did not attach penalties to precepts (thus creating LAWS) in order to satisfy justice in case the precept was violated. Without a penalty, a precept is merely advice or suggestion. I do not think that atoning sacrifices were designed for this purpose of satisfying justice either. But, the purpose of an atonement is to repair or heal a relationship that has been rendered by sin. Hence, 'at-one-ment'. God did not send Jesus in order to balance the books or to make sure that he gets to excercise justice. He sent Jesus in order to repair a broken relationship and he did it out of love, and to bring forgiveness. If the death of Jesus could reclaim us from the apostasy of sin and restore our fellowship with God, then there is really no need for punishment- we could be wisely and safely forgiven if we repent and believe. How persons can think that either penalties or atonements were designed specifically with the aim of satisfying justice is utterly beyond my comprehension. Strict justice can only be satisfied anyway by the punishment of the lawbreaker. That IS justice in its excercise. That is even blind justice. It can never be satisfied by the punishment of the innocent.3. The interests of government may be satisfied by atonements, but justice can never be satisfied by them. Moral anarchy results when preachers proclaim that forgiveness consists in the satisfaction of justice or the payment of a debt. Atonement is properly expiation and reconciliation; not propitiation like the gods of the nations require. Jesus suffered unjustly at the hands of sinful men, but he was not punished by God. The perversions existing in men's minds concerning the operations of God are proof of both moral depravity and the existence of the devil. Thanks for the opportunity to express my unique perspective. Peace, Doug Gibson
Mr. Gibson,
An initial reading of your comment raises a great number of questions. A few of the more pertinent ones are listed below.
1. You stated "The atonement so answers the purposes of government that the satisfaction of justice is rendered wholly unnecessary." How does the atonement accomplish this. If this is the purpose of the atonement why did the atonement have to involve both death and separation from God?
2. If "the satisfaction of justice is rendered wholly unnecessary" will God punish anyone, if so for what purpose?
3. Will/have the threats of the law ever be/been acted upon by God? If so, for what purpose? If not, was God being deceptive in making those threats?
4. You also state "If something can serve the same purpose that punishments are designed to serve, then justice does not have to be satisfied." What is the purpose of punishment, and in what way did the atonement serve the same purpose?
5. What does it mean that Jesus bore our sins on the tree(1 Peter 2:24)? For what purpose did Jesus bear our sins? If Jesus did bear our sins, are we still Guilty in God's eyes for them?
6. Is God a just God, or is he not? If he is, would he not his own just-ness compel him to satisfy justice?
7. You state that "the purpose of an atonement is to repair or heal a relationship that has been rendered by sin." In what way was that accomplished by Christ's atonement. What did his death do to heal our relationship with God?
Here again. Ryan, to continue, I think it was your fourth point-
5. continued. Jesus died 'so that whosoever believeth may have eternal life.' Also Paul wrote that Jesus died and rose again on our behalf that those who live should no longer live for themselves.
6. Again, justice does not exist for its own sake. It is a means to an end. You have the answer when you discover why God has laws and a government.
7. Jesus' death as an atonement repairs our relationship to God when we repent and believe. thanks, Doug
Mr. Gibson,
You have failed to answer the questions, even the ones you did address.
#5. You said why Jesus died, and you even gave the answer from scripture. However my questions was why Jesus "Bore our sin." You did not answer that question.
#6. I did not say anything about justice existing for its own sake. I asked if justice could possibly exist for God's sake since he himself is a just God. You did not address the issue.
#7. You gave what you believe to be the purpose for atonement. However you did not say how it accomplished its purpose. What problem does the atonement solve, and how does it do so?
The atonement serves to take away our sins. Our sins have been placed on Christ and he bore our sins and their punishment, both physical (the cross itself) and spiritual (My God, My God why hast thou forsaken me?). All of my sin has been imputed from myself to Christ.
This alone does not repair my relationship with God. However it is essential in order for that to happen. For me to simply have my sins for given is not good enough though, which is why Christ not only takes my sin from me, but he imputes his righteousness to me. I am clothed with Christ.
Post a Comment