Theology of Holiness: 7b: Atonement

This is the second part of atonement. Once again, without the atoning work of Jesus Christ, salvation would be impossible. We, as humans, have no capacity for saving or delivering ourselves, no matter what kind of life we lead. The work of salvation is found ONLY in Jesus Christ. He ALONE is "the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through (him)" (John 14:6, NRSV). May Christ be glorified!

The atonement has also been viewed through the lens of ransom. “Just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28, NRSV). “The theory with the greatest claim to having been the standard view in the early history of the church is probably the so-called ransom theory” (Erickson, 2006, p.810). It is this “approach to the doctrine of the atonement which seeks to maintain justice” (McGrath, 2005, p.328). “Christ’s gift of his life as a ransom suggests a transaction made in order to purchase freedom for slaves” (Bilezikian, 1993, p.145). The early church doctor, Irenaeus, espoused this view of the atonement. “The Lord therefore ransomed us by his own blood, and gave his life for our life, his flesh for our flesh; and he poured out the Spirit of the Father to bring about the union and fellowship of God and humanity” (Irenaeus as cited in McGrath, 2005, p.328).
Further, Anselm of Canterbury agreed with this interpretation. “And since the only possible way of correcting sin, for which no satisfaction has been made, is to punish it; not to punish it, is to leave it uncorrected. Furthermore, to leave sin unpunished would be tantamount to treating the sinful and sinless alike” (Anselm of Canterbury as cited in McGrath, 2005, p.340). The justice of God is emphasized here. There is a certain satisfaction that had to be met in order to right the wrongs, so to speak. “Satisfaction cannot be made unless there is someone who is able to pay to God for the sin of humanity” (Anselm of Canterbury as cited in McGrath, 2005, p.341).
Another key view of the atonement is the thought that Christ stood as a substitute for all of humanity. By all rights, humanity should have to pay for all of its sins. However, Christ intervened in order to save us. From a historical perspective, “Athanasius was probably the first to propound the theory that the death of Christ was the payment of a debt due to God” (Wiley, 1946, p.225). This concept of Christ’s substitution and payment for our debt is also espoused by DeNeff. “Christ bore our punishment. He paid the price for us. Consequently man has nothing to offer God but the merits of Christ” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.65).
A common phrasing of this view of atonement is: “Christ came to pay a debt he didn’t owe because we had a debt we couldn’t pay”. The concept of penal substitution deals with the fulfilling of God’s just requirements. “Jesus absorbed all the sins that had ever been committed” (Schenck, 2006, MIN543 lecture). Atonement “is most frequently used in the sense of a substitute for penalty, a victim offered as a propitiation to God, and hence an expiation for sin” (Wiley, 1946, p.217). The term, propitiation, means to “appease the wrath of an offended person” (Wiley, 1946, p.223). “The vicarious sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin as a conditional substitute for penalty, fulfilling, on the forgiveness of sin, the obligation of justice, and the office of penalty in moral government (Miley as cited in Wiley, 1946, p.218).
The legal ramifications of the atonement must not be forgotten. As a just God, he requires a just payment for the many sins that humanity has committed in their rebellion against him. “Orthodox satisfaction would seem to be the dominant conception in the view of atonement” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.61) that is presented by Wesley. Just exactly what that payment is and how it is conceived is open for conjecture. What cannot be debated is the fact that Christ’s atonement, when viewed through whatever lens necessary, was able to pay this just requirement in full. “As a result of this adjustment the consequences of neither God’s justice nor his mercy have been fully exerted. Without mercy his justice would have sentenced us to the everlasting captivity of the devil; His mercy, on the other hand, would have freed us without the payment of a just ransom” (Lindstrom, 1980, p.63). This is the crux of the gospel, as presented in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life” (KJV).