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?

Aaron - 17 January 2010 08:21 AM

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

Stan Ermshar - 17 January 2010 11:22 AM

Aaron - 17 January 2010 08:21 AM

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.

All,

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.

In Christ,

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.

Stan