What About Depravity? A Continuing Dialogue on Atonement

(Note: This is the second installment of an on-going dialogue about the Atonement. See the previous post for the first installment.)

Budding Theologian: Thanks for the response. I was glad to see you recommend John Stott’s The Cross of Christ. It’s actually on my very long “books to read” list. I just so happened to have a copy of the book’s sixth chapter, “The Self-Substitution of God,” so I read it after reading your post. Below are a couple of things I wanted to flesh out so you know where I’m coming from.

When you say the atonement is primarily about Christ’s death I think you’re right. But I still can’t separate it from the problem of sin and the incarnation. Without the problem of sin Christ’s death becomes unnecessary, right? Also, not just anyone could have died for our sins. A man could not have died to save us from our sins. This is where I get into cloudy territory in my ability to comprehend God’s nature–but even God, The Father, couldn’t have died to save us from our sins. It had to be Jesus Christ, The Son.

I really do think to understand Christ’s atonement we have to look at other areas of theology. But even if that were so, there are verses with a Christus Victor (CV) nature that speak directly to Christ’s death (i.e., Heb 2:14). When I come across passages like Heb 2:14 I don’t see how Penal Substitution (PS) can make any sense of them. Having said that, you’re right; I personally have been relying too heavily on the resurrection to understand Christ’s atonement.

After reading your response I understand where my hang up with PS lies. It comes down to how I see the problem of sin. PS primarily understands it in legal terms. Christ took on the punishment (a legal term) for our sins. Although I do believe I deserve punishment for my sins, I don’t see it as the primary problem the atonement solved. I think the fact that I have a sinful nature, that sin exists within me at all and I can do nothing about it, is a bigger problem. In other words, it’s an ontological issue; part of who I am is sin (see, e.g., Ezekiel 36:26). If I didn’t have a sinful nature, then punishment wouldn’t be an issue. PS doesn’t solve an ontological problem; it solves a legal one.

So, when I read passages like 2 Cor 5:21, I don’t think it’s applicable to PS at all. PS is retributive punishment—punishment because it is deserved, nothing more. But we receive something according to 2 Cor 5:21, i.e. freedom to pursue “the righteousness of God in Him.” Isaiah 53 does seem to express PS, except for the short phrase “we are healed by his wounds (v5).” But isn’t Isaiah 53 taken differently in the New Testament? From what I’ve studied, 1 Peter 2:21-25 references Isaiah 53. If not, it sure does seem similar. I couldn’t help but notice that the Apostle Peter added the line “we might live for righteousness” (v.24). So, although I agree Isaiah speaks to PS, I don’t think Peter uses it in the same way. The passages in Corinthians and Peter show a shift in our ontology due to Christ’s death.

Romans 6 gets right to the heart of how the ontological problem of sin is solved. It says we “are baptized into his death (v3),” “joined with him in the likeness of his death (v5),” and “our old self was crucified with him (v6).” I don’t see how PS accounts for any of this language. These phrases sound more like participation instead of substitution. Through Christ, and only through Christ, our sinful natures are put to death so that we may “walk in the new way of life (v4),” “no longer be enslaved to sin (v6),” “freed from sins claims (v7),” and “live to righteousness” (2 Cor. 5:21 and 1 Pet 2:24). Because we participated in Christ’s death, our sinful nature has been put to death. Our ontology has changed, we are made new.

When you say “the crux of the Christus Victor theory is that Christ’s death or atonement was a payment to Satan” I have to disagree, at least a little. What I just expressed above (ontological participation we can call it) are ideas I found in CV literature. As you can see Satan never came into play. Don’t get me wrong; Satan does come in elsewhere but not necessarily with regard to our personal sin. I find CV really complicated. Most of them don’t believe a systematic understanding of the atonement is possible (CV is held by the Eastern Orthodox who believe theology in general cannot be put together systematically). CV proponents tend to deal in motifs. It’s a completely different approach to theology than we Protestants are used to. Oftentimes it gets accidentally caricatured because it’s foreign and unsystematic.

I hope this helps you understand what I’m struggling with. Because of the way I understand sin, the problem of sin is not solved in PS. The fact that sin exists at all, specifically in me and with regard to the atonement, is a larger problem than the legal demands of sin. Thanks for taking the time to read it.

My Response: I think you are correct when you say that Christ’s death cannot be separated from the problem of sin and the incarnation. As you observe, Christ’s death is unnecessary if no sin exists. I agree also that not just anyone could have died for the sins of the world–it had to be the God-man. Now, the question of whether God the Father could have died for the sins of the world is an interesting, speculative question. I have no idea. Could the Father have become incarnated rather than the Son? I do not know. And I agree, too, that we have to look at other parts of theology to understand the atonement fully. My point is that with the different theories we are discussing, they are asking what the atonement specifically accomplished. The three theories we are discussing have different answers to that question.

In regard to PS, I would say that it is not the whole story of salvation, but it is the whole meaning of what Christ’s death accomplished on the cross. I would argue that if you do not have PS, then the guilt of sin is not taken care of. I believe that CV does not deal properly with sin. It leaves the punishment part entirely out of the picture. So philosophically speaking, PS is a necessary condition for atonement, while CV (as traditionally understood as I outlined previously) in its entirety is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to understanding the atonement. Remember that sin, as Cottrell puts it, gives us a “double trouble”: guilt and depravity. CV does not do anything for our guilt (and thus resulting punishment), but PS does. Note that Heb. 2:14 is in the middle of a thought. Continue on to read Heb. 2:17, which is the conclusion: “Therefore, he had to be made like his brethren in all things . . . to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Propitiation is “a sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath,” the very thing PS expresses.

In addition, I do believe that 2 Cor. 5:21 speaks directly to PS: “He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf.” I’m not sure how to understand this phrase apart from PS–Jesus is our substitute (a.k.a. our substitutionary atonement). The remainder of the verse, note, does not say that we are enabled “to pursue the righteousness of God,” as you say. Rather, it says “so that we might become the righteousness of God.” So, here, Paul is saying that Christ becomes sin and we become righteous; Christ traded places with us sinners–he acts as our substitute. What about Isa. 53? It seems to me that the point is that Christ’s wounds are taken for our wounds. The emphasis, then, is this: “We are healed by his wounds.” This sin problem (possibly the entire package–guilt and depravity–in some sense) is taken care of by his wounds rather than our own.

So what about our sinful nature, or depravity? How is that taken care of? It seems to me that PS does not, as you have recognized, deal with this aspect directly. And I think there is a reason for it. It is because it does not directly affect it. Rather, our nature is changed via God’s work directly upon the sinner’s heart, a.k.a. “regeneration.” Christ’s work on the cross and the work he accomplishes to change our sinful nature–make us new–are two different works, although they are related (which, by the way, is a very important point not to be missed). It seems to me that in order to do the latter (regeneration) the former (guilt) must be taken care of. How can CV make one’s nature (or “ontology” as you say) be changed? How can one’s nature be changed without taking care of the guilt? It seems clear to me that it is the work of the Holy Spirit who changes our nature, or regenerates us (see, e.g., Titus 3:5). I do not see how the CV model explains the change in our sinful nature.

Note, too, that Rom. 6 is talking about baptism, the time when we are regenerated. What Paul is doing here in this passage, in my opinion, is painting a picture of how our old self in baptism is put to death, and when we arise out of baptism we are new creatures (because the Holy Spirit has made us new creatures). Two things occur in baptism: forgiveness of sins and regeneration (Acts 2:38). So, PS nor CV is in view here; it seems to me that the Spirit’s work of regeneration is. That’s the point as v. 4 indicates: so that we may walk in newness of life (which is the point of being born again, or regenerated).

Certainly, the element of CV that is true is that Christ is victorious over death and sin, but how so? I would argue via PS and the Resurrection. That’s where the Resurrection comes into play. Christ triumphs over the grave and the power of Satan via the Resurrection. No Resurrection; no Christus Victor. That is where Christ gains the victory.

Grace,

Peter Jay Rasor II

(Check back next week for part 3 of this dialogue.)