|
|
The Cross and the Essence of Christianity
In attempting to interpret in a comprehensive and responsible way the various atonement metaphors found within the New Testament, theologians have formulated a number of "theories" of the atonement. Before elucidating these dominant theories individually, a word of explanation and a word of caution are in order.
First, in the plain speech of the late professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Walter T. Conner, a theory is "a string long enough to tie up all the facts." This simple assertion reminds us that all of the facts of Scripture must be effectively addressed if our "theory" of the divine accomplishment of redemption is to be faithful to the entire witness of Scripture.
Second, when we speak of the atonement as "theory," we must employ extreme caution. Biological evolution is a theory. The atonement is a fact; the testimony of the Scriptures, the witness of the Spirit, and the very existence of the Church all prove this. It is the theologian's attempt at explaining this phenomenon that may be aptly described as theoretical. Each of these "theories" must be weighed against the witness of the Word of God before it is allowed to move beyond the hinterland of theory onto the hallowed ground of "sound doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:3).
Toward An Explanation of the Cross of Christ
That salvation is to be linked with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is characteristic of Christian theology down through the ages. A significant debate in more recent theological literature has concerned whether the cross can be said to be illustrative or constitutive. In other words, did Christ simply make known some insights concerning an unchangeable situation - or did He establish a new situation? With this question we come to a central aspect of soteriology: does the cross of Christ illustrate the saving will of God, giving shape to some hitherto vague notion? Or does it make salvation possible in the first place? Is it illustrative or constitutive?
The former approach has been characteristic of much writing inspired by the Enlightenment, which treats the cross as a historical symbol of a timeless truth. The liberal theologian John Macquarrie firmly defends this approach in his Principles of Christian Theology:
Is it not that, at a given moment, God adds the activity of reconciliation to his previous activities, or that we can set a time when his reconciling activity began. Rather it is the case that at a given time there was a new and decisive interpretation of an activity that had always been going on, an activity that is equiprimordial with creation itself.
A similar approach is associated with Oxford theologian Maurice F. Wiles, who argues in his Remaking of Christian Doctrine that the so-called Christ-event is "in some way a demonstration of what is true of God's eternal nature." Wiles asserts here that Christ died to reveal the saving will of God, not to establish that saving will in the first place. The coming of Christ is an expression and public demonstration of God's saving will.
Yet among these liberal theologians the debate is far from over. In his Actuality of Atonement, the London-based theologian Colin Gunton suggests that non-constitutive approaches to the atonement run the risk of degrading into a purely subjective doctrine of salvation. It is, he argues, necessary to say that Christ does not simply reveal something of importance to us; He achieves something for us - something without which salvation would not be possible. Gunton argues that there must be some sense in which Christ is a substitute for us: He does something that we ourselves cannot do. To deny this is to revert to some form of a purely subjective understanding of atonement.
Much closer to home, the venerable John Murray, in his classic work Redemption - Accomplished and Applied, describes our Lord's crosswork as "the most solemn spectacle in all history, a spectacle unparalleled, unique, unrepeated, and unrepeatable." Furthermore, Murray argues that, far from being mere window-dressing, the cross serves a neccessary purpose: "God appeases his holy wrath in the cross of Christ in order that the purpose of his love to lost men may be accomplished with and to the vindications of all the perfections that constitute his glory." Wayne Grudem, an heir to the muscular orthodoxy of which Murray is an exemplar, furthers this constitutive understanding of the crosswork of Christ by declaring that our Lord's death earned our salvation by "paying for our sins on the cross." Robert L. Reymond rightly reminds us that "the crosswork of Christ is central to the Christian faith and its proclamation because of who it was who died on the cross and what he did there."
So it is that one's view of the cross will of necessity fall into one of these two categories: illustrative or constitutive. We will thus briefly consider the major "theories" of the atonement by sorting them into these two groupings.
Illustrative Theories
The Example Theory - The example theory of the atonement was taught by the Socinians, followers of Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), an Italian theologian who settled in Poland in 1578. The example theory asserts that Christ's death simply provides us with an example of how we should trust and obey God perfectly, even if that trust and obedience leads to a horrible death. Advocates of this view appeal to 1 Peter 2:21 for support: "For to this you have been called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in His steps." The view is inadequate because it fails to responsibly address Christ's death as redemptive, as sacrificial, as propitiatory. Moreover, it leads to the pursuit of "autosoterism," self-salvation.
The Moral Influence Theory - First advocated by Peter Abelard (1079-1141), a French theologian, and later by Congregationalist Horace Bushnell (1802-76), the moral influence theory holds that Christ's death was simply a way in which God demonstrated His love for humanity by identifying with our sufferings, even to the point of death. Christ's death therefore becomes a great teaching tool that shows us the extent of God's love and draws from us a grateful response, so that in loving Him we are set free. This view fails because it robs the atonement of its objectivity; it has no discernable effect on God.
The Governmental Theory (Arminianism) - The governmental theory of the atonement was first taught by a Dutch lawyer turned theologian, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). This very popular theory holds that God did not actually require payment for sin, and, because He is God, He could set aside that requirement and forgive sins without a payment of any sort. Why then the death of Christ? It was, according to this view, God's demonstration that as the just Lawgiver and Governor of the universe He would exact some kind of penalty whenever His laws are broken. God sent Christ to the cross as a signal example of how His justice would strike one who had broken His commandments. Thus Christ did not pay the penalty of the actual sins of any real sinners, but simply suffered to show that when God's laws are broken there are dreadful consequences.
Constitutive Theories
The "Devil-Ransom" Theory - This view was held by the early church theologian Origen (ca. 185-254) of Alexandria, Egypt. The idea behind this theory was that Satan, by successfully tempting mankind, had acquired a claim to them; they were his prisoners awaiting release. Christ is offered to the devil as a payment of that ransom; the exchange was duly made at the cross; but in the resurrection God reclaimed His Son, so that both His risen Son and redeemed sinners are God's. The Devil, being duped by God's wisdom, takes the bait and loses his prize.
This theory fails because it elevates Satan to a status which is almost on part with God (in that God must compete with him to rescue the souls of men), and it diminishes the character of God in that God uses trickery to defeat the devil. Furthermore, it posits Satan as the real problem for humanity, rather than the effects of the Fall.
The Vindication of Honor Theory - This view was popularized by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), a careful and profound theologian. In his short treatise, Cur Deus Homo? (the title is best translated simply "Why a God-man?"), Anselm sets out twin theses. The first is the helpless human plight. All are sinners, and the plight of fallen humanity was located, not necessarily in exceeding sinfulness of sin, but in the fact that these sins were committed against a jealous God, who demanded satisfaction.
Anselm's second thesis sets forth the divine remedy for this plight. None can satisfy the "debt" of sin but God, yet none should satisfy it but those who have incurred it, that is, ourselves (homo). The logically compelling solution is that there must be a God-man, the Deus-homo. As man, the God-man, though Himself without sin, ought to make satifaction, and, as God, He can do so. This proposed solution to the human plight turns on the worth of the God-man; a life of such incomparable greatness, yielded up to God in obedience, is a far greater good than all human sin is an evil; thus the gift of one life outweighs all sin and the offense against God's honor is removed.
This view is extremely close to the biblical understanding of the atonement, but it to be judged ultimately inadequate because it locates the offense of the Fall in the honor of God, as opposed to the purity of His nature. God is not nursing an injured ego; He is wrathful over sin because He is "majestic in holiness" (Exodus 15:11), with eyes too pure to look at evil and wrong (Habakkuk 1:13).
The Biblical View of the Atonement
Christ's Death as Penal Substitution - The view of Christ's death presented and endorsed here has been frequently described as penal substitution. Christ's death was "penal" in that He bore a penalty when He died. His death was also a "substitution" in that He was a substitute for sinners when He died. This is the orthodox understanding of the atonement. The plight of humanity here elucidated is neither enslavement to the devil nor merely the wrath of a deity whose honor has been sullied; it is the fallen nature of humanity. Humans are "dead...in trespasses and sins" (Ephesians 2:1), spiritually hopeless and helpless, altogether inert, until revived "in Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:17).
This view of the atonement is sometimes called the theory of vicarious atonement. A "vicar" is someone who stands in the place of another or who represents another. Christ's death was therefore "vicarious" because He stood in the place of sinners and represented them. As their representative, He took the penalty that they deserve.
An Orthodox Statement Relative to the Nature of the Atonement
"Moved by His incomprehensible love for sinners, the triune God was pleased not to abandon our corrupt and rebellious race to the misery and Hell that it justly deserved, but to undertake to save a great multitude of human beings who had absolutely no claim to His mercy. In order to bring this plan into execution, the Second Person of the Godhead, the Son, took unto Himself a fully human nature, becoming in all things like His brethren - sin excepted. Thus He became the Second Adam, the head of a new covenant, and He lived a life of perfect obedience to the divine law. Identifying with His own, He bore the penalty for their sin on the cross of Calvary, suffering in the place of sinners - the Just for the unjust - the holy Son of God for the corrupt children of Adam. By His death and resurrection, He provided the basis for the reconciliation of God to men and of men to God, for the propitiation of a righteous Trinity, justly angered by our sins, for the redemption of a multitude of captive sinners whose redemption was secured at the great price of His own blood. He offered Himself as a sacrifice sufficient to blot out the sins of the whole world and secured the utmost triumph over the enemies of our souls - sin, death, and Satan. Those who repent of their sins and believe in Jesus Christ are thus to be absolved of all their sins and are adorned with the perfect righteousness of Christ Himself. In gratitude to their Savior, they are to live lives of obedience and are increasingly renewed into His likeness by the power of the Holy Spirit. This good news is to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all mankind. Unto Him, who loved us and loosed us from our sins by His own blood and made us to be a kingdom of priests to our God and Father, be honor and glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen."
