A word of prelude: This paper is designed for the average reader, not for seminarians. Atonement is an important subject—for everybody. There are some important controversies on that subject that everyone needs to hear. It affects our view of God, among other things.
So let’s start with a definition: Atonement is defined by Unger’s Bible Dictionary as “the covering over of sin, the reconciliation between God and man, accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that special result of Christ’s sacrificial sufferings and death by virtue of which all who exercise proper penitence and faith receive forgiveness of their sins.”
Nothing could be more important, right? Now, I’m not here to challenge the definition—the problem is in the details. First, a word of background assumption: If there are two different theories on the same subject, I believe the correct one would more likely be the one that was believed by the earliest church fathers (we’re talking about the disciples of the apostles, and the next generation to, say, 250 AD—all before the church got corrupted by marriage to the State). That is based on two things: (1) Their literature is breathtaking in its knowledge of the context of Scripture; and they developed an ability to effectively prove doctrinal theories with Scripture; and (2) If they had doctrinal questions, there was a disciple of Paul or Peter nearby (or only a generation or two removed) who could talk on the subject ad infinitum.
Well, there are indeed two different theories on Atonement. The theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (called the “Classic” theory) was good enough that it endured from the church’s apostolic beginning for 1000 more years. But it was cast aside by the “Satisfaction” theory of Anselm, a Roman Catholic church philosopher and Archbishop of Canterbury around 1080. His theory was accepted by Catholics, and later, believe it or not, by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin). Thus, most “mainline” denominations believe this way as well. I have a proof of that statement; a quote from usually reliable Wikipedia: "Calvinists advocate the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which developed in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. In brief, the Calvinistic refinement of this theory, states that the atonement of Christ pays the penalty incurred by the sins of men—that is, Christ receives the wrath of God for sins and thereby cancels the judgment they had incurred. The satisfaction view of the atonement is a theory in Christian theology about the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ and has been traditionally taught in Western Christianity, specifically in the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed circles." A secondary proof is from the Baptist Confession of Faith: "The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God."
In my discussion of these two theories, I will start with the "Satisfaction" theory, the "latecomer" put forward by Anselm.
Let’s take a closer look at Anselm’s “Satisfaction” theory. Firstly, what about his insistence that sin is, quoting Anselm, “a debt to divine justice that must be paid;” and what is wrong with his theory that says that “no sin can be forgiven without satisfaction”? He also said that a sin against a sovereign—such as what God is—is "too great to be forgiven, because it insults His majesty." So, says the theory, God could not forgive our sins without a punishment. But where is there room in this theory for God's forgiveness? And about the related idea that "No sin can be forgiven without satisfaction"--Is this idea Scriptural? Or, just maybe it is based on Medieval chivalry. Why do I suggest that? Consider this: perhaps Anselm was influenced more by the thought of his culture--when overlords were absolute rulers of their fiefs, and as sovereign they had to have fear and unquestioned obedience to run their land effectively. This theory might perceive that God is a God of justice, not mercy, since He could not simply forgive. So we're questioning whether this idea is based on Scripture.
The theory further says that God loved us enough to allow His Son to suffer and die on the Cross. That's fine, but it further states that Christ's suffering paid God His demanded ransom price for our sin—this act “appeased” His desperate need for justice. So it says that Jesus endured God’s wrath and paid for our sin. Thus, Jesus took our place—then when He suffered enough, He had paid our ransom to the Father, so we are now potentially acceptable by God, whose justice has been satisfied, since God's wrath as payment for our sin was poured out upon His Son instead of us.
Now, for comparison: Here is the “classic” theory put forth by the earliest church fathers (from 50 AD to 250 they developed this; as I say, their view held sway until Anselm in 1080). This theory states that our sin put us in rebellion to God and put us under the legal control of Satan. Satan (not God the Father) demanded a ransom, a price for our lives, as he had a right to do, because our sin placed us under bondage to him. Jesus’ suffering and death on the Cross was to pay Satan—not God. Jesus gave Satan His life for our lives. So the “substitutionary” aspect of Jesus’ incarnation still remains, but different, as you can see.
Now I realize that this presentation is over-simplified—but as I said, this is written for everybody, and it has the main germ of the theories. It’s an easy base by which we can now discuss the issues. So here are my main problems with Anselm's theory:
1. Because God is a divine sovereign, does that automatically mean He cannot simply forgive our sins? Did He send His Son to the cross based on an insatiable quest for justice, yet no mercy? Did He really “demand” payment for our sin, either from us or from His Son? Did He have to pour out wrath because of our sin? This is what Anselm was saying. For one possible response, let’s look at Matthew 18:21-27:
Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
Jesus (God) cherished the art of forgiveness. Consider also James 2:13: Mercy triumphs over judgment.
These verses clearly show that God, despite being a divine sovereign, whatever that may mean to Anselm, wants to forgive and have mercy on us. If we do our part.
Consider this too, though: The Matthew parable above says He requires us to forgive each other. Matthew 6:12, part of the Lord’s prayer also says:
And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors
So, we ask Anselm, would God assert justice without mercy, and then turn around and tell us that we need to be forgiving, without worrying about justice? Is God a “do as I say, not as I do” person? I think not. By reading the "Satisfaction" theory so followed today, you get the idea that God was inflexible, and wanted all justice and no mercy; that He wanted to pour wrath on His Son, that all this suffering by Jesus was His Father’s quest for blood appeasement. Now, I don’t want to take away from how we should have a righteous fear of God; He is not a “grandpa that overlooks my faults.” But I have a serious problem with the rigidity of God as One who lacked the grace of mercy, and must be wrathful. To Jesus or us. Scriptures above say otherwise (read also the prodigal son, Luke 15).
2. The second problem I have is the issue of “who was Jesus paying” with His suffering and death—was He paying His Father, suggested by Anselm, or was He paying Satan, suggested by the church fathers’ classic theory? First of all, Jesus was willing to be the “ransom." As Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 say:
...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many
And as repeated in I Timothy 2:6:
who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time
So, given that Jesus was indeed ransomed, here’s my question: To whom is a ransom supposed to be paid? Well, how much sense is it that a ransom be paid to the father of the one being held for ransom? Does that idea pass the smell test? You don’t need to watch many criminal shows on TV to see how senseless that sounds. Yet that’s what Anselm is suggesting. The classic theory, on the other hand, holds that we are held as ransom by Satan—and any payment would be made to Satan. That makes more sense right away, since ransoms are paid to the bad guy who is holding the person you want released. Satan had a bondage claim on us because of our sin. He was the bad guy to whom ransom had to be paid.
The question you might have now is: What right did Satan have for holding Jesus instead of us, the sinners? Well, here’s where the substitutionary aspect comes in. The problem was us. We, starting with Adam, have all sinned and have therefore put ourselves under Satan’s control. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t know how much God hates sin. Jesus has said we all have a master; it is either God or Satan. Look at Matthew 6:24.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Note: “mammon” means driven by worldly gain—that’s how most unsaved people serve Satan, whether they know it or not.
We all sin, which is a rebellion against God, and we become rebels, and start our accountible lives under Satan’s mastery. He is our “father” if we’re unsaved. Further proof of that is how Jesus called those who don’t love Him children of the devil. Look at John 8:42-44a:
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. .. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning…
This is echoed in I John 3:10: In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
But God, thank Him, still loved us sinners, and wanted to free us from Satan’s control. Satan demanded ransom to release us. God’s Son was willing to pay that ransom, to be our substitute, placing Himself (temporarily, as it turned out) under Satan’s control in exchange for us. Satan, not having perfect knowledge, was willing to accept this as ransom payment. His thinking was, by tormenting and killing Jesus, he would kill his biggest enemy and forever have control over us. But he didn’t bank on the resurrection. Thank God for that! Since the ransom was paid by Jesus at His death, our sins which held us to Satan were paid for--to Satan, and we were set free.
We, of course, are not free if we refuse to acknowledge these facts and are not willing to be under our Savior's claim on our life as Lord.
Scripture is also clear on who is satisfied by the ransom of Jesus. Is it God or Satan? As Galatians 1:3-4 says, Jesus delivers (redeems) us—not from His Father (as Anselm claims), but from this “present evil age”—that means Jesus bought us from Satan’s realm:
Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age
Finally, Acts 20:28 says: Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock…to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Now think with me: Did Jesus purchase the church from the payee--His Father! so Anselm would say? Well, does that mean God had ownership of the church, so He had Jesus suffer so He could “sell” it to His Son who purchased it from Him? Huh? That makes no sense. No, the church was purchased for a ransom price from an enemy holding it up for ransom—Satan. That’s what a ransom is all about.
3. My third problem with Anselm is of an underlying, hidden fact of his theory. If we accept Anselm’s view that Jesus paid our debt to God, then God has to stamp "paid" on our debt, and legally cannot burden us with our debt again. That means He cannot unsave us. As any good lawyer will tell you, reinstating a debt is impossible once it has been paid. Once your debt is paid, you’re done. No retraction possible. This leans, as you can probably guess, toward the “once saved always saved,” or eternal security, view of salvation. (I have a huge blog disputing that view, elsewhere on this site. That view is attractive, but Scripturally wrong.)
The classic theory of atonement, written by early church fathers, follows their view against the theory of eternal security; they held the opposite view. They’re saying, remember, that God was not “paid” for our sins; Satan was. God simply forgave our sins when we trust the work of Christ. Thus, God received no consideration (payment) for our sins (except our humility and worship, which is what He really wants). This opens the door for later possible retraction; God can unsave us if we aren’t abiding in Christ or being unfruitful (John 15:1-6, and Galatians 5). Lawyers will tell you that when no consideration is paid for a debt, retraction of a "debt-forgiveness" move is possible. Scripturally, this is also clearly taught in “the rest of the story” of the servant of Matthew 18 above. We left off with the Master forgiving his debt, verse 27. Let’s bring up Matthew 18:28-34:
“But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.”
After we’re forgiven of our sins, and become initially saved, if we later fall back into “the ways of the world,” such as greed and unforgiveness as exampled here, we could lose our salvation (the debt is reimposed and you could be “delivered to the torturers” if you cannot pay). These verses clearly teach how we can lose salvation. (I’ve covered losing salvation in other blogs too).
I trust you agree that the Scriptural evidence backs the early church fathers. They have a better view of God from Scripture: God is forgiving, but if we deny Him in word or behavior, and express no repentance, he will deny us. He did not heap wrath upon His Son, nor was He anxious for blood appeasement. Let usall know Him and love Him.
Acknowledgement to Dave Bercot’s CD, “Atonement #1.”
No comments:
Post a Comment