Category: sin

Yom Kippur – The Foreshadowing of Christ

(This is a continuation of the series entitled, “A Pastoral Soteriology.” It assumes the reading of eariler posts.)

The culmination of the sacrificial system of atonement in the Old Testament Law was demonstrated and applied in the yearly observation of “Yom Kippur,” or, “The Day of Atonement.” While the sacrificial system tirelessly went about its business of providing blood offerings – literally twenty four hours a day – this special holy day provided the principle application of the sin offering for the entire nation. As such, Yom Kippur demonstrated more articulately the nature of Christ’s later work of redemption than perhaps any other requirement of the sacrificial system. Continue Reading

5 Replies

Atonement in the Old Testament Law

As noted in the last post, the Penal Substitution Theory of the atonement is by far the best and most accurate understanding of the work Jesus provided on the cross according to the scriptures. While the nature of the atonement has been observed, a true understanding of penal substitution requires a comprehension of the underlying principles which had been put into effect by God prior to Jesus’ work on the cross. Continue Reading

11 Replies

The Penal Substitution Theory: On the Mark

The Penal Substitution Theory

While all atonement theories examined thus far have failed at producing a biblically-based portrayal of the doctrine of salvation, Anselm had at least gotten close with his Necessary-Satisfaction Theory. Building upon some of those very principles, the Penal Substitution Theory, proposed by John Calvin (1509-1564), rightly aligned the missing theological puzzle pieces to present an accurate depiction of the work Christ completed on the cross.

Primarily, atonement theories are intended to illustrate how atonement was produced from Christ’s death on the cross. As such, a sound theory must not only make some valid assertions concerning the nature of Christ’s work, but must illustrate the entire historical revelation of the atonement as defined in scripture. Calvin’s Penal Substitution Theory does that with great skill.

A proper understanding of the Penal Substitution Theory requires a holistic approach to God’s revelation of atonement throughout scripture. Jesus did not merely show up on the playing field and create something new. Rather, he realized and fulfilled what God had already established; a substitutionary system of atonement. As Jesus noted,

Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV)
¹⁷“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Clearly, Jesus himself understood his work to be complimentary to what had already been established. His work was to be that which would fulfill the law and the prophets rather something entirely new and unrelated. No system examined in this series thus far has expressed atonement in terms that related it as a fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. The Recapitulation Theory disregards the Law almost entirely. The Ransom Theory has God paying off Satan, which is dramatically opposed to the Old Testament Law in which God himself receives (or rejects) man’s sin offering(s). The Moral Example Theory completely disregards the punitive nature of the Law; attempting to implement a works oriented salvation which disregards the penalty of former sins. The Mystical Theory, in addition to being just plain weird, offers absolutely no hint of vicarious atonement as outlined in the Law. And, the Necessary-Satisfaction Theory, while working off of good principles, still misappropriates certain legal aspects of atonement as depicted in the Law.

A good atonement theory must adequately illustrate how God’s program of redemption in the Law was systematically fulfilled and completed by the work of Christ! Otherwise, Christ cannot be understood as having fulfilled the Law.

Calvin’s theory connected the proper dots.

Details of Christ’s fulfillment of the Law will be examined over the next several posts, yet at this point it should at least be noted that what Jesus “fulfilled” was a substitutionary system of atonement: the sacrificial system of the Old Testament Law.

Overall, the Penal Substitution Theory can be understood as a more comprehensive fleshing-out of Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory. Anselm had the basic idea, but missed key points which Calvin properly illuminated.

The Essence of the Penal Substitution Theory

The Satisfaction Theory rightly articulated that a debt was owed to God by mankind. This debt required that satisfaction be attained by God. Yet, it incorrectly defined man’s offense as the defilement of God’s honor. While surely God’s honor became diminished in man’s eyes because of sin, it is not God’s honor which is in need of satisfaction according to the scriptures. Rather, it is God’s wrath for sin which is in need of satisfaction, as has already been illustrated. Jesus noted,

John 3:36 (NIV)
³⁶Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

And Paul exclaimed,

Ephesians 2:3 (NIV)
³All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

Understanding the problem of sin properly- that it invokes God’s wrath- is key to understanding the nature of the satisfaction Jesus secured in the atonement. It was God’s wrath over sin which was in need of satisfaction. The atonement is oriented toward the securing of justice rather than honor. God’s law had been broken, invoking his wrath. And, being a just God, he demanded that payment be rendered for the broken Law. Such payment is not a mystery in the biblical narrative. God prescribed his punitive decision prior to the offense, clearly noting in the Garden of Eden that,

Genesis 2:17 (NIV)
¹⁷… you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

With justice as a defining attribute of His nature, God cannot simply overlook one’s sin. Sin is an offense to his Law; an illegal (penal) action requiring a just sentence, which God prescribed to be death to the offender. What Jesus did on the cross was to quite literally apply the payment to God for the crimes of humanity.

Romans 6:23 (NIV)
²³For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God had always upheld the wages of sin. They have never – nor will they ever change. And, God’s sense of justice demands that wrongdoing be punished and that the offended party (himself) be compensated. Jesus’ death on the cross accomplished both. The sins of man were paid vicariously (more on that in coming posts) and God’s justice was upheld.

2 Corinthians 5:21 (NIV)
²¹God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The atonement was penal in nature, because it provided the means of payment for the breaking of God’s Law which man had engaged. It was substitutionary in nature, because the payment was obtained vicariously by another: Christ.

Romans 3:22-26 (NIV)
²²This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– ²⁶he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

The substitutionary nature of Christ’s death will be examined in more detail in the following weeks. One cannot truly understand how Jesus fulfilled the Law without first understanding the nature of the Law itself. Suffice it to say at this point, however, that the Law provided a means of restitution for man’s sin through vicarious (substitutionary) means. God, in his graciousness, offered a system of atonement by which an acceptable animal could be sacrificed on man’s behalf, thus paying the required death sentence. Such is the nature of the Law; as it details the processes and requirements of such penal substitutions to be made. When Christ fulfilled the Law, he became the final perfect sacrifice for sin; rendering the Law utterly completed. Thus, “not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

The Penal Substitution Theory of atonement rightly identifies the critical components of redemption by faith in Christ Jesus. God’s wrath was invoked by man’s sin. His justice demanded restitution. In grace, he provided a substitutionary system of atonement, which Christ completed – once and for all.

Isaiah 53:5-6 (NIV)
⁵… he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. ⁶We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 Replies

The Necessary-Satisfaction Theory of Atonement

Continuing our examination of numerous atonement theories which have circulated the church throughout history, it must be observed that thus far in this series there has not been revealed a tremendous amount of success in the packaging of such systems into understandable, yet valid theological thought.

The Recapitulation Theory misses the vicarious nature of Jesus’ death altogether. The Ransom Theory essentially glorifies Satan as the one who was to be appeased for the wages of sin. The Moral Example Theory is little more than a warmed over “good ol’ boys get in” mentality and the Mystical Theory relegates God to one of the plethora of pagan gods of yore; being reached via essential practices rather than his own initiative which is accomplished by grace through faith. Furthermore, most of these theories place robust emphasis on man’s role in salvation; asserting that Christ’s work on the cross provided a means for man to complete the work of redemption rather than Christ completing the work himself. Continue Reading

7 Replies

More False Atonement Doctrine: The Moral-Example Theory

(A continuation of the series, A Pastoral Soteriology.)

Jesus noted, “wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it (Mat 7:13). To that end, it should be no surprise that there are so many erroneous theological theories in relation to each properly determined and biblical one. Continuing the pursuit of a good and valid atonement theory, today’s post once again yields only a failed attempt which resembles nothing more than man recasting God in his own image.

The Moral-Example Theory

The moral example theory was proposed by Pelagius (354-420 AD), himself an opponent of the concept of original sin, believing that sin was a matter of choice rather than an ingrained and universal affliction. Pelagius further believed that it was possible for man to live a sinless life within himself. His atonement “theory” certainly did not fall far from the tree. Continue Reading

5 Replies

Unsound Theories of Atonement

(A continuation of the series, A Pastoral Soteriology.)

Understanding that sin carries the penalty of death, separation and God’s extended wrath toward the sinner brings one to the natural yearning to understand the nature of the provision God has made for the restoration of man from this condition. Obviously, this series is concerned with such illumination; God has made atonement available. The details concerning God’s provision of atonement is both something so simple that a child can grasp it, yet so complicated than a man can spend his entire life attempting to systematize it fully. The child can understand that “Jesus died for my sins,” yet the theologian may spend years trying to fully understand how exactly the provision of Christ was applied to the account of the sinner. Continue Reading

7 Replies

The Wrath of God

It is very popular among certain soft-spoken pseudo-theologians today to downplay and “preach away” the existence of God’s wrath toward man’s sin. Placating today’s whiny “I’m okay, you’re okay” cultural sentiments, they express anti-biblical platitudes which decry that “a loving God” would simply not reveal his anger toward mankind whom he loves. Indeed, many are perfectly contented with the idea that God is incapable of genuine wrath; claiming that it is outside of his perfect nature to be prone to jealousy and anger. “Rock star” preachers, such as Rob Bell, gain standing ovations from such gross misrepresentations of biblical theology, such as Bell’s “The God’s Are Not Angry” sermonette tour. Ending with the phrase “God is not angry because God is love” is a certain crowd pleaser at such gigs.

Others, such as popular emergent author, Alan Jones, declare that penal substitution is a “vile doctrine” (Reimagining Christianity, p. 168) and that anger is inconsistent with love as a characteristic of God. The position of this warped understanding of the gospel is based upon the sentimental and philosophical perception that love and anger are somehow mutually exclusive qualities. Noting that “God is love” and that everything God does is “inspired by love,” they contend that God is incapable of exhibiting wrath because wrath is not motivated by love. These men must not have children. Continue Reading

3 Replies

The Basis for Salvation: Man is Sinful

One of the most difficult aspects of evangelism in today’s culture is the communication of the need for such a thing as “salvation.” Indeed, it seems a world view of self adulation has engulfed many in post-modern culture, where ideas of right and wrong are frequently re-cast as personal life choices rather than offenses to a divine creator. To that end, “sin” is in many cases categorically denied as a stringent reality in favor of the idea that right and wrong are relative to one’s own experience.

Added to that confusion are a mass of false preachers and teachers who are more than willing to elevate man’s “lost” status before God to something more akin to a child who has misplaced his father in the mall rather than one who has willfully and combatively lashed out against the authority of almighty God. Trends in neo-Christianity present salvation as something inherently man-inspired; frequently admonishing only that man properly involve himself in God’s work and lift himself up by his bootstraps to meet God’s expectations. Continue Reading

3 Replies

What Kind of God?

[original article published in Fort Bend Herald, Sunday, February 24, 2013]

An age old question has found new life in recent debate concerning the seeming incongruity of an all-loving, all-powerful God being willing to bring the harshest of judgments upon his creation. To be exact, the debate is generally kick started by some rendition of the question, “What kind of God would send people to an eternal judgment in Hell?” The question is of course baited and the outcome presumed self-evident. Supposedly one should nominate only a malevolent God as capable of such judgment. Surely a loving God couldn’t be responsible for such harsh condemnation.

The answer tends to fall in one of several templated responses. One group, believing the sentiment of the question, would say that in fact God does not send people to Hell at all. Either Hell is an humanly-imposed product of the misinterpretation of Jesus’ (and the Old Testament Prophets, Apostles, church fathers, etc) words or in fact it is in some way a temporary sentence by which man can be properly refined, finding ultimate escape into eternal life. Some believe in a form of annihilationism; that unbelievers will simply die without hope for Heaven, yet without judgment in Hell or any other punitive resort. Some contend that God doesn’t ‘send’ anyone to Hell, but that men choose to go to Hell, as if they put their name in the wrong column of a sign-in sheet. And some still hold to the classic Christian position that – in fact – we do serve the ‘kind of God’ who would sentence people to Hell and carry out such sentence first hand.

The question is only valid, of course, if in fact the scriptures claim that Hell is real and that God sends people there. In the short space allotted, it can be quickly noted from the words of Christ himself that such is true. Jesus’ account of his return and judgment speaks of the fate of the sinful in these terms: “(The King) will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’” (Matthew 25:40-41) Jesus affirms this position also in Matthew 10 and 23, along with numerous other references, yet from this text alone three things can be clearly seen: First, that Jesus proclaims a literal judgment of fire, second, that this judgment is eternal and third, that the King himself issues the sentence. Other New Testament authors concur in clear language, such as Paul’s note in 2 Thes. 1:8-9, “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction….” Thus, according to the scriptures, the question is valid: Just what kind of God would sentence people to Hell?

The question is actually answered clearly in the earlier portion of the 2 Thes. text above. Verses 6-7 note, “God considers it just to repay with affliction… those who do not do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” Romans 3 concurs, noting that until Christ took the full weight of the guilt of sin for the believer upon himself that in God’s forbearance “he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (v25-26)

Rarely does one question a judge who sentences a child molester to a life sentence in prison. We consider the penalty of such sin justly carried out by the utter segregation of the offender for the duration of his life. What kind of judge issues such a sentence? A just one – who upholds the law and considers the crime truly reprehensible. No further examination need be sought out for God’s upholding of his sentence for sin. He is just. He hates sin. He will satisfy its sentence.

Thanks be to God that He is in fact also a loving and forgiving God. In Christ he has taken out his full retribution on sin for those who trust Christ alone as their sacrifice of atonement. But he remains yet just. Every man’s sins will be punished: either through Christ or the sinner himself.

Quick to Listen – Slow to Tweet

Relationships once developed slowly via personal encounter. Every chance meeting and handshake provided another casual conversation that gradually vetted the acceptable parameters of agreement on issues important to the two parties of a budding friendship. To the degree that two people found familiarity and commonality a friendship developed. Contrarily, when dissonance in virtue and ideology was uncovered a certain calculated distance was programmed into the relationship and the two parties silently negotiated an acceptable barrier for future encounters. At the end of such process, legitimate friendship was the result of natural commonality between two people. “Friends” were those who were generally in agreement with one another in areas considered important or desirable.

How profoundly certain things have changed in the social networking generation we now enjoy. Becoming “friends” is in theory as simple as clicking a button on a Facebook profile screen of someone who perhaps has been never actually seen with the human eye of the friender. Unlike the former process of methodically screening potential relationships through calculated conversation, now a person’s life story, political and social ideologies and a full array of revealing conversation with others is instantly displayed, organized and ingested in a single sitting. Gone completely is the discipline once required to garnish such privileged information.

In this setting our lives are on display to a much wider audience than many seem to realize. Things once said between friends with a wink of the eye are now heralded well beyond the privy of those who may have understood the sentiment of an inside anecdote. The concept of an ‘inner circle’ simply does not exist in online form. That which is posted on a social network is literally enshrined forever for public scrutiny.

The warning of James 1:19 must be seriously calulated more today than ever before: “let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger.”

It seems that every week I see some exceptionally awkward situation being aired in full living color on someone’s Facebook wall. Personal disagreements are publicly posted in shameless attempt to illicit sympathy over issues which, if only left alone, would resolve themselvesg. Yet, “quick to anger” translates to “quick to tweet” in our current social paradigm. The frustration of the moment coupled with instant internet access persuades people to speak before they think and lash out before they listen. The friendships of yesterday provided a built-in buffer from such rash behavior. We went home, had a warm evening in the safety of family, slept on it and only then was the outside world encountered once again.

I was once told after a particularly frustrating conversation to write a letter to the person who had offended me stating everything I truly wanted to say. Then, I was instructed to fold it up and read it again in twenty four hours and send it only if I still felt the same way. Surprisingly to me, after twenty four hours I no longer wanted to say most of what I had written. I threw the letter away in the end, and no damage was done to an important friendship. What I practiced that day was the art of being “quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger.”

I would propose that any social networking post involving personal grievance be left alone entirely. Yet, if you simply must write something, rather than posting it to the entire world why not email it to yourself, have dinner, hug your kids, sleep on it and then read it again tomorrow. If it really needs to be said it will still need to be said tomorrow. Let us practice being quick to listen and “slow to tweet” that our own sin of anger be not what is actually on display when we next click the ‘submit’ button and reveal our condition to all.