Budding Theologian: I worry that, of all the analogies throughout the Bible, we overemphasize the “sacrifice as payment for sins” idea at the expense of the others. In chapter 6 of The Cross of Christ, John Stott even says the sacrificial system is the best way to understand the atonement, but he doesn’t give any reasons. He just assumes the reader will agree. So, I can’t help but ask, “Why?” Why not look at all the analogies and let them inform each other? After reading other views, especially some within the Christus Victor tradition, I now see them everywhere in the NT. Before, since I was only conscious of PS, I completely missed out on them.
You said, “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 be changed? How can one’s nature be changed without taking care of the guilt? I do not see how it does or can be.” Two points I want to make in response: (1) I think this quote of yours sums up the difference in the way we see it. I understand PS as saying we can’t enter God’s kingdom without punishment for our sins; whereas, I think more along the lines of God can’t allow the unrighteous to enter his kingdom so He makes us righteous, which makes sense of Hebrews 2:14-17 (note: you defined propitiation as “a sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath” but I looked multiple places and the word “sacrifice” wasn’t anywhere, it was replaced with “act”). To paraphrase Hebrews 2:14-17: “By making us righteous, an act, through Christ’s sacrifice God’s wrath is appeased, or propitiated.” Where there is righteousness God’s wrath is not needed.
(2) Does punishment actually take away guilt? I don’t think it does. If you commit a crime, you’re always guilty of committing that crime even after you have received punishment. People receive punishment because they’re guilty, not to take away their guilt. So, God must forgive us of our sins even after punishment has taken place, especially those sins committed after we become Christians.
I’ll be gnawing on what you’ve said. Maybe I need to look into the Holy Spirit and its role in making us righteous, which is something you touched upon in your last post. Anyway, thanks again Peter. I’ll stop bothering you with this topic…at least for a little while.
My Response: You haven’t “bothered” me at all! I have enjoyed talking about these things with you, and I’m glad that you are wrestling with this issue. Like I’ve said before, not many really care about trying to understand what they believe and why. You are light years ahead of 99% of Christians–in my estimation.
After reading your last reply, I think a couple of thoughts here need to be clarified. First, you are correct that PS says we cannot enter God’s kingdom without our punishment for sin being taken care of. In fact, Scripture itself is replete with such an idea. Just take, for example, the entire OT sacrificial system. It is entirely built upon the idea that blood must be shed (punishment by death) for sins to be taken away. As Hebrews says, “Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin” (Heb. 9:22). In fact, much of the book of Hebrews is dedicated to this idea, see esp. Heb. 8-10, that Jesus satisfies the punishment for our sins. (See Leon Morris’ book that I referred to earlier on the idea of “propitiation” as being “a sacrifice that turns away God’s wrath.”) It seems to me that the sacrificial system shows very clear support for PS. (Remember, too, the punishment that God promised would incur for Adam and Eve if they ate of the tree: death.)
You say that you think more along the lines of “God can’t allow the unrighteous to enter his kingdom so He makes righteous which makes sense of Heb. 2:14-17.” But why can’t God allow the unrighteous to enter his kingdom? What’s the reason for this? I would say, and I think Scripture shows, it is because God is holy and we are not. Failing to be holy is just another way of saying that we are guilty of transgressing God’s moral law, which is a reflection of his nature. Guilt always incurs punishment, and so the need for forgiveness (“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”). Thus there is a necessity for our punishment to be taken care of. In fact, if this is not so, then there is no need for hell–which is clearly about punishment. (Perhaps you’re flirting with the idea that there is no hell? But that would be another discussion.)
But here’s the catch, as you would say: guilt is never really “taken away” by punishment. And you are correct in a certain sense. But acceptance of PS does not demand one to say we are not guilty as such—at least in a very strict sense. PS simply focuses on the fact that the punishment that is demanded because of our guilt is taken care of. This is why PS is so important: the focus is upon what Christ did for us–a substitutionary effect. He fulfilled the Law (perfect righteousness) for us and paid the penalty for those who do not. We do not have to fulfill our punishment because Jesus did it for us—he is our substitute. So, the point is not so much that our guilt is taken away (although it is taken care of, see below), but that God says “no punishment for you because my Son took it for you.”
You say that you think more along the lines of God making us righteous. The fact of the matter is that so does PS. The question is how this is accomplished. How does God make righteous in the CV model? Just by declaring it? If this were so, why all the shedding of blood throughout the OT era? Wouldn’t all that have been needless? How does Christ’s death actually deal with the punishment for sin established so long ago in the Garden in the CV model? Those who follow the PS model typically see Christ’s fulfillment of our punishment as imputed, or reckoned to our account. We are not made righteous; we are considered righteous because of what Christ did. We are no longer considered to be guilty because Jesus fulfilled the requirement of the law on our behalf. (Although in a sense, we are still guilty as such, i.e., it will always be a fact that we have sinned.)
So, you are correct that God must still forgive us even after punishment has taken place. But how is this possible? In the PS model, it is because Christ himself took the punishment for our sins on the cross: “When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Colossians 2:13-14).
And again, I’m not sure how we can get around verses that seem quite clear to support PS: Isa. 53:5 – “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” Isa. 53:11 – “As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.”
In summary then, I just can’t see how CV actually deals with the sin problem and its effects. How does Christ’s death actually do anything about sin in the CV model? Why does Christ actually need to die in the CV model?
Take care, my friend!
Grace,
Peter Jay Rasor II
Dear Budding Theologian,
Peter’s answer is very good (of course). But I detect something in your opening remarks that might be leading you in the wrong direction. You say, “I worry that, of all the analogies throughout the Bible, we overemphasize the ‘sacrifice as payment for sins’ idea at the expense of the others.” It is not clear that the sacrifice as payment for sins is an analogy. I know that language about God is probably best understood as being analogical, but that does not make everything said in scripture, strictly speaking, an analogy.