I’m a “fan” of Ligonier Ministries on my Facebook account and today a short article was posted on my wall that I thought was pretty good so wanted to share it here.
Ligonier Ministries: Accepting the Atonement of the Cross
The apostle Paul wasn’t even present at the crucifixion of Christ, yet he declared that this act was an act of cosmic and supernatural proportions. This was a real drama of theological redemption. Here the curse of God’s law was visited on a man who bore the sins of His people. For Paul, the crucifixion was the pivotal point of all history. Paul was not satisfied to give an account of the event. While affirming the historicity of the crucifixion, Paul added the apostolic interpretation of the meaning of the event. He set forth propositions about the death of Christ.
The issue before the church is this: Is the apostolic propositional interpretation of the cross correct or not? Is Paul’s view merely a first-century Jewish scholar’s speculation on the matter, or is it a view inspired by God Himself?
What difference does it make? This is not a trifling matter or a pedantic point of Christian doctrine. Here nothing less than salvation is at stake. To reject the biblical view of atonement is to reject the atonement itself. To reject the atonement is to reject Christ. To reject Christ is to perish in your sin.
Please let us not soften this with an appeasing dance. Let us be clear. Those teachers in the church who deny that the death of Christ was a supernatural act of atonement are simply not Christians. They are enemies of Christ who trample Jesus underfoot and crucify Him afresh.
Coram Deo: Make this declaration: “Heavenly Father, I accept without reservation the supernatural atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross.”
Galatians 6:14: “But God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”
John 3:16–17: “For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
I can’t help but wonder what those who teach or profess belief in a moral influence theory of the atonement are putting their trust in. Can anyone who denies the substitutionary nature of the atonement really be called a Christian?
I’m a “fan” of Ligonier Ministries on my Facebook account and today a short article was posted on my wall that I thought was pretty good so wanted to share it here.
Ligonier Ministries: Accepting the Atonement of the Cross
The apostle Paul wasn’t even present at the crucifixion of Christ, yet he declared that this act was an act of cosmic and supernatural proportions. This was a real drama of theological redemption. Here the curse of God’s law was visited on a man who bore the sins of His people. For Paul, the crucifixion was the pivotal point of all history. Paul was not satisfied to give an account of the event. While affirming the historicity of the crucifixion, Paul added the apostolic interpretation of the meaning of the event. He set forth propositions about the death of Christ.
The issue before the church is this: Is the apostolic propositional interpretation of the cross correct or not? Is Paul’s view merely a first-century Jewish scholar’s speculation on the matter, or is it a view inspired by God Himself?
What difference does it make? This is not a trifling matter or a pedantic point of Christian doctrine. Here nothing less than salvation is at stake. To reject the biblical view of atonement is to reject the atonement itself. To reject the atonement is to reject Christ. To reject Christ is to perish in your sin.
Please let us not soften this with an appeasing dance. Let us be clear. Those teachers in the church who deny that the death of Christ was a supernatural act of atonement are simply not Christians. They are enemies of Christ who trample Jesus underfoot and crucify Him afresh.
Coram Deo: Make this declaration: “Heavenly Father, I accept without reservation the supernatural atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross.”
Galatians 6:14: “But God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”
John 3:16–17: “For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
I can’t help but wonder what those who teach or profess belief in a moral influence theory of the atonement are putting their trust in. Can anyone who denies the substitutionary nature of the atonement really be called a Christian?
Thanks Aaron. This is excellent. I wish they would have phrased it differently and say specifically that denying the substitutionary atonement means they are not Christians. I am not sure that the MIT people would deny that it was a supernatural atonement, but they would deny the blood atonement of substitution. They may attest that it was a supernatural event. By using the term “supernatural” instead of “substitutionary, I think it muddles the meaning the author might have intended, but I could be wrong.
I’m a “fan” of Ligonier Ministries on my Facebook account and today a short article was posted on my wall that I thought was pretty good so wanted to share it here.
Ligonier Ministries: Accepting the Atonement of the Cross
The apostle Paul wasn’t even present at the crucifixion of Christ, yet he declared that this act was an act of cosmic and supernatural proportions. This was a real drama of theological redemption. Here the curse of God’s law was visited on a man who bore the sins of His people. For Paul, the crucifixion was the pivotal point of all history. Paul was not satisfied to give an account of the event. While affirming the historicity of the crucifixion, Paul added the apostolic interpretation of the meaning of the event. He set forth propositions about the death of Christ.
The issue before the church is this: Is the apostolic propositional interpretation of the cross correct or not? Is Paul’s view merely a first-century Jewish scholar’s speculation on the matter, or is it a view inspired by God Himself?
What difference does it make? This is not a trifling matter or a pedantic point of Christian doctrine. Here nothing less than salvation is at stake. To reject the biblical view of atonement is to reject the atonement itself. To reject the atonement is to reject Christ. To reject Christ is to perish in your sin.
Please let us not soften this with an appeasing dance. Let us be clear. Those teachers in the church who deny that the death of Christ was a supernatural act of atonement are simply not Christians. They are enemies of Christ who trample Jesus underfoot and crucify Him afresh.
Coram Deo: Make this declaration: “Heavenly Father, I accept without reservation the supernatural atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross.”
Galatians 6:14: “But God forbid that I should glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.”
John 3:16–17: “For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
I can’t help but wonder what those who teach or profess belief in a moral influence theory of the atonement are putting their trust in. Can anyone who denies the substitutionary nature of the atonement really be called a Christian?
Thanks Aaron. This is excellent. I wish they would have phrased it differently and say specifically that denying the substitutionary atonement means they are not Christians. I am not sure that the MIT people would deny that it was a supernatural atonement, but they would deny the blood atonement of substitution. They may attest that it was a supernatural event. By using the term “supernatural” instead of “substitutionary, I think it muddles the meaning the author might have intended, but I could be wrong.
Stan
Given that this comes from Ligonier Ministries, RC Sproul and his group, with an intended audience of those familiar with their ministry, I’m pretty sure the substitionary atonement is pretty well understood to be what they mean by atonement.
As a long time student of R.C. Sproul I can assure everyone here that he believes fully in the atonement that was accomplished on the cross at Calvary. And that it was fully effective and fully substitutionary by its very nature and purpose. By my interpretation, the use of the word “supernatural” was to clearly emphasize that nothing from the “natural” world could have accomplished this incredible miracle of salvation.
Of course it is the death and resurrection of Christ that secures our salvation. The MIT folks would say that the atonement was not substitutionary, but they don’t deny the bodily resurrection of Christ which is indeed a “supernatural event” and necessary for our salvation.
I know what they meant, but it could be said with more specificity, especially when addressing what is not Christian. I think it is important to be specific and clear, or some may misunderstand.
It is very serious for the MIT folks to deny the blood atonement, because this denies that there was a supernatural element to the death of Christ.
I stumbled across a quick historical summary of different views on the atonement. It is on Jonathan Moersch’s blog, and the post I am referring to is located here. In his summary, I was struck by the way the Reformed have basically used the best of the history of theological explanations of the atonement while sort of bringing a coalescence of all the Biblical metaphors and data to bear in our own doctrine of the atonement.
He also gives a good quick summary of the Moral Influence Theory.
I stumbled across a quick historical summary of different views on the atonement. It is on Jonathan Moersch’s blog, and the post I am referring to is located here. In his summary, I was struck by the way the Reformed have basically used the best of the history of theological explanations of the atonement while sort of bringing a coalescence of all the Biblical metaphors and data to bear in our own doctrine of the atonement.
He also gives a good quick summary of the Moral Influence Theory.
Nate
Thanks Nate for these links. I am currently engaged in a debate on a conservative SDA forum where we are debating the moral influence theory vs the Biblical view. There is a very clever debater who is a lawyer by trade who is pushing Maxwellism, and I am arguing against it.
I just stumbled across that very thread yesterday, and enjoyed reading your posts immensely! 1 Peter 2:24 is a pretty big one for substitutionary atonement. Also, if he says anything about you “reading your assumptions into the text” or anything like that don’t take it. God bless Stan, I’m amazed and convicted by the patience you show over there.
Here is another blog post, from Against Heresies (Martin Downes), on the atonement. It could be of some help in your discussion. I cringe when I read some of the things said over there. I have no idea how you’re able to keep a calm demeanor about it. Well, I suppose it is God’s grace working in you. God bless you Stan.
Just came across this text today that while not dealing with SA should make one tremble when thinking about being placed in the hands of an angry God:
Heb 10:28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Yes, what we deserve is the active punishment of a holy God for our crimes. An utterly holy and righteous Judge cannot wink at sin without violating His divine character. But thankfully God Himself has condescended to suffer this punishment for us. What amazing grace, yeah?!
Speaking of the Moral Influence Theory, the feature article in the latest Proclamation! magazine deals with this teaching, from the perspective of what the SDA Church teaches children about who Jesus is. The article is entitled “Do your children know Jesus?” and is available online here: http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2010/1/doyourchildrenkn.html
