Atonement

by Greg Robertson 

June 1999

The purpose of this study is to bring a greater understanding of the salvation which produces good trees which bring forth good fruit. Jesus said that "a tree is known by its fruit." The question to answer is this: What is it that makes the tree that produces good fruit? To try and superficially produce the fruit without that which changes the tree from being a bad tree to being a good tree, is the methodology that the religions of the world -- based on outward commandments and laws -- have brought into use. Christianity is unique in that sense because it is based entirely upon the person and work of Christ. If the person and work of Christ are removed, there is no "doctrine" or "religious practice" that can bring a person to salvation. Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6.

The author of this study believes that the biblical canon of 39 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books are the final authority for Christian faith and practice. If we are to search and find the truth of God, I believe this attitude needs to be present. If the reader has an attitude that the "teaching magisterium" of the church is on a par with Scripture, this writing will be of little benefit. The "teaching magisterium" is temporary and has often erred and led people away from the truth of God. On the other hand the Scriptures are permanent, inerrant and infallible. Although the "teaching magisterium" is more or less a catchword for Roman Catholicism, the same level of authority, often contradicting Scripture, has been achieved in much of contemporary Protestantism. Now the "magisterium" is called "God's anointed" or "God's anointed and appointed leader" or "the flock group leader" or simply the "leadership." The implications are the same -- "turn off your intelligent and biblical evaluation of what the 'magisterium' says and does. Let the 'spirit,' disconnected from Scripture, guide you. Let your 'heart' speak, not your 'mind.'" If anyone questions whether or not this is happening in the contemporary church, they would do well to read some of what Hank Hanegraaff of the Christian Research Institute has written, including Christianity in Crisis and Counterfeit Revival. In the named books one will find an honest and loving care and concern for the people involved in the movements he addresses, with careful documentation of facts and a solid commitment to the Scripture as his guide -- in the power of God's true Holy Spirit. Then read and listen to his critics in their condemnations and malicious attacks on him. 

Edward John Carnell has what I consider to be a proper attitude toward Scripture, and wish to emulate in this writing, when he says: "The doctrines of Scripture can be apprehended only as we approach the text with a spirit of meekness. Humility before the facts is the precondition of all learning, whether of Christianity or botany." (2)

Many years ago, before my exposure to the biblical renewal which came through the 16th century Reformation, I would have approached the subjects of Scripture on a completely different basis. I felt there were certain things about God which we could know in detail before we even read what He had to say about Himself in the Bible. I felt we could know details about God by looking at nature or at our own characteristics. Although there is some truth to this as explained in Romans chapter one, in line with the thought of Finney and others I took it to a much greater extreme. Creation is not a good source for details about God. For the details we need messengers from the Creator to tell us what He has to say about Himself. Those messengers have already said what He wanted them to say and we have their message in the biblical canon. So in my early Christian days my "naturalistic" presuppositions about the nature of God, the nature of man, the results of the fall into sin, and the condition of my own heart, formulated my way of thinking about other things.

The deep study of what God has revealed through His servants is not harmful, although many in today's world, including Christian circles, seem to think it is. C. S. Lewis boldly proclaims that the study of theology is practical and important, especially in today's confused world: ". . . Theology is practical: especially now. In the old days, when there was less education and discussion, perhaps it was possible to get on with a very few simple ideas about God. But it is not so now. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones -- bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties to-day are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected." (3)

Richard Lovelace, professor of church history at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary agrees that our theological ideas have far-reaching practical consequences, especially in the area of revivals. In Dynamics of Spiritual Life he states: ". . . The purity of a revival is intimately related to its theological substance. A deep work cannot be done without the sharp instruments of truth. Unless revival involves and issues in theological reformation, its energy will be contained and its fruits will not last."(4)

The Bible commands to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." (5) And we know that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." (6)

James Petigru Boyce, the 19th century Baptist theologian, points out an important aspect of objective Scripture research: "Theology is defined as a science. It is eminently worthy of that name. It lacks nothing that constitutes a science. It is concerned in the investigation of facts. It inquires into their existence, their relations to each other, their systematic arrangement, the laws which govern them, and the great principles which are the basis of this existence, and these relations. As in other sciences, there is much that is absolutely known, much beyond this that is little questioned, much that is still matter of speculation, and much as to which there is decided difference of opinion. New facts are constantly developing in this science, as in others, which enable us to verify the facts and principles heretofore accepted, when true, and to modify them when erroneous." (7)

An Historical Fact, Atonement

In the following I will deal with the data of atonement, Scripture. Then I will show how theologians throughout history have dealt with the Scripture data. After that is an exposition of the Governmental or Rectoral view of atonement.

THE DATA OF ATONEMENT

The only way sinful people can be accepted by a holy God, is through the atonement of Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross. It is God's method of joining sinful people back unto Himself; of restoring the relationship broken by our sin. Atonement is at the center of all theology and is the chief purpose of God becoming man. Only through atonement can we be reconciled to God.

Theologians sometimes disagree about what must take place for an effective reconciliation. Some say there is nothing from God's side of things which must be removed--the whole problem in reconciliation is on man's side of things. Others play the middle of the road, saying atonement affects God somewhat but is chiefly to affect man. Still others claim that the main purpose of atonement is to remove the wrath of a holy God against sin. This last group does not deny that man is changed through atonement, but the change which takes place in man is understood as a result of atonement, not a means to it.

The differing ways of approaching the data of atonement is similar to the way the data of the creation/evolution debate is handled.

Creationists begin with the conviction that the Bible is supported by good science and try to evaluate the evidence from within the "creation model" of origins. Evolutionists, on the other hand, begin with the conviction that there is no supernatural and what we observe in the present world is the result of uniformitarian principles ("rates of change are constant" as opposed to catastrophe, "rates of change are not always constant and often need to be explained as results of volcanos, the flood, etc.), and they edit everything and fit it into the "evolution model" of origins. The real question then becomes: Which model best fits the data? Because of widespread evolutionary propaganda and indoctrination, the general public and even much of Christendom is shamefully ignorant of the overwhelming scientific arguments for a young earth and the impossibility of evolution.

Christopher Chui, formerly of the Orange County chapter of the Creation Science Association exposes some of the dishonest "editorializing" going on in the evolution arena. In Chui's 1985 tract "Reconsider the Age of the Earth" he explains: "There are basically three currently accepted methods of dating, although there are actually more than eighty different dating methods. Of these, all give ages less than a billion years except the three currently accepted methods, namely, the uranium-thorium-lead method, the rubidium-strontium method and the potassium-argon method. And of these, more than thirty actually give ages less than ten thousand years! The three currently accepted methods give long ages. The longer the earth's 'age,' the better is the chance for mega-evolution."

Other scientists point out that even the accepted dating methods are subject to human manipulation according to the presuppositions of the person "adjusting" the measuring devices.

Both sides of any issue must be able to stand up under pressure from opponents. Under the pressure of unbiased scientific investigation, evolution loses the debate. That's why so many evolutionary scientists have resorted to vitriol, misrepresentation and name calling.

Views of atonement also fall under the pressure of objective analysis. The very fact that the "satisfaction" view of atonement has historically stood this test has been effectively used in its defense. Its opponents are many, but its strength is not weakened.

The data Christians have for forming views on atonement is found in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Because this is where we are to receive the greatest input for understanding the work of Christ, the following is a list of the most explicit texts on the subject. All references are from the New American Standard Bible:

"But the LORD was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, and the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in his hand. 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." Isaiah 53:10-11.

"And He took a cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.'" Matthew 26:27-28.

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." Mark 10:45.

". . . Shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Acts 20:28.

". . . Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Romans 3:24-26.

"But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8.

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that, just as it is written, 'LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.'" I Corinthians 1:30.

"Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed." I Corinthians 5:7.

"For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." I Corinthians 6:20.

"You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." I Corinthians 7:23.

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. . . ." I Corinthians 15:3.

"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation." II Corinthians 5:18.

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." II Corinthians 5:21.

"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly." Galatians 2:21.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, 'CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE . . .'" Galatians 3:13.

"In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace, which He lavished upon us." Ephesians 1:7-8a.

"But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity." Ephesians 2:13-16.

". . . And walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma." Ephesians 5:2.

". . . Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Colossians 1:12-14.

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with Him." I Thessalonians 5:9-10.

"Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Hebrews 2:17.

"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Hebrews 9:11-14.

". . . But now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Hebrews 9:26b.

". . . Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from you forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." I Peter 1:18-19.

". . . And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." I John 2:2.

"By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." I John 4:9- 10.

"And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy art thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.'" Revelation 5:9.

"And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth." Revelation 14:3.

This list is not exhaustive, but is sufficient as a core of biblical information on the atonement of Christ. If space allowed it would also be helpful to go through the Old Testament usage of sacrifice and atonement.

ATONEMENT -- After the Fact

The texts listed in chapter one make it obvious that some kind of payment or ransom was made in atonement. Christians through the centuries have argued back and forth about "who" the "price," or the "ransom" was paid to. Some have maintained it was paid to Satan. Others say God was paid. Still others hold that it is a paradox with no clear answer. Some have argued, obviously against Scripture, that no payment was made at all.

We will find that a person's presuppositions can influence him or her to reject the plain truth of Scripture and to find an alternate meaning, fabricated from extra-biblical sources.

At least a light overview of the various historical views on atonement is essential to fully understand the issue at stake. Understanding what has been taught and is being taught will help us steer clear of theological blunders others have developed in the past.

Vernon Grounds

A clear and concise presentation of historical views of atonement can be found in Baker's Dictionary of Theology. (8)

Here, atonement is split up into four basic time periods, each including specific theologians and specific views. The time periods include the Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern periods.

In the first period, the Patristic, Vernon Grounds lists Irenaeus (ca. 130-ca. 200) as the most influential writer, holding the stage for almost a thousand years. Irenaeus held to the Scripture view that "we are bought with a price; redeemed." Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254) argued that the price was paid to the Devil. Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389) disagreed with the ransom (payment) teaching. Augustine (354-430) spoke in terms of a "satisfaction" having been made to God's justice through atonement, and he introduced terms such as the fall, original sin, and justification. The Greek Fathers viewed Christ as not only Victor and Conqueror, but also a Revealer, Benefactor, Physician, Victim, and Reconciler.

The second period, the Medieval, is most influenced by the theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). His famous Latin work Cur Deus Homo is what Grounds calls a "soteriological milestone" because of its brilliance in establishing the necessity of Christ's death for our salvation.

Anselm's views were met with fierce opposition by Abelard (1079-1142) who taught that the chief purpose of atonement was to exhibit the great love of God and thus draw man into His service. Under Abelard, Christ's death becomes "a tragic martyrdom" and "a heart rending spectacle." Abelard had opponents too, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) revived the idea that ransom was paid to the Devil.

The third period, the Reformation, was most influenced by the German reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546). Luther is not so easily pinned down in neat categories of classification. He was unsystematic, paradoxical, and anti-scholastic. Actually Luther believed the work of Christ was too wonderful, and had too much breadth to be neatly categorized. His writings show clearly, however, that he believed Christ's death to be a propitiatory sacrifice, without which, the possibility of "justification by faith" is lost.

The Reformation period would be incomplete without the mention of John Calvin (1509-1564), from the French speaking part of Switzerland. Calvin was much more systematic than Luther and is best know for his theological work Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin has received much criticism for his doctrine of predestination. On atonement he taught that God's "divine justice" was the object of satisfaction.

Another, less well know theologian coming in at the tail end of the Reformation era, yet very influential and worthy of mention, is Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). Grotius, a Dutch lawyer, brought a philosophy of law into the theological arena and taught "the atonement as an administrative necessity laid upon God if in his benevolence he would forgive human sin." This is known as the "governmental" or "Rectoral" view of atonement. The fourth period, the Modern, has been influenced by theologians Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889), Emil Brunner (1889-1966) and Karl Barth (1886-1968), to mention just a few.

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), founder and long time president of Dallas Theological Seminary, splits the atonement teachings into three distinct time periods having to do with the names of their chief Christian thinkers. (9)

First, there is the period from the beginning of the Christian era to Anselm. Chafer explains that before Anselm there was no need for detailed explanation about atonement -- acceptance was by simple faith. The early church held almost universally that the ransom was paid to Satan.

Second, is the time from Anselm to Grotius. Anselm maintained that the ransom was paid to God, because it was God's honor which was robbed, and man who robbed it and must pay it back.

Third, is the time from Grotius to the present. Grotius is chiefly associated with the Governmental theory and has, according to Chafer, "held strong influence over men of liberal minds." (10) Chafer says this view is the only "notable competitor" to the satisfaction view held by the church for generations. Chafer also discusses five "theories in general." 1) The Maturial Theory views people as morally disabled, but encouraged by Christ's death and resurrection. 2) The Moral Influence Theory (begun by Faustus Socinus, 1539-1604) aims at the moral reformation of people. Socinus was not chiefly concerned with what the Bible had to say. He believed he could trust as well in human reason. 3) The Identification Theory, wherein Christ is so identified with mankind that he can confess and repent on their behalf. 4) The Rectoral or Governmental Theory (covered in depth in chapter three). 5) The doctrine of Satisfaction, which is divided into two categories--the absolute and the moderate. The "absolute" designation is related to the Calvinistic "Limited," (11) or "Particular" Atonement. The "moderate" designation implies the death of Christ was for all (not limited to the elect), but is only applied when one has faith in Christ.

James Oliver Buswell, Jr.

Baptist theologian James Oliver Buswell, Jr. lists the main atonement views as: 1) Patristic Ransom Theory; 2) The Roman Catholic Doctrine--Indulgences; 3) The Moral Influence View; 4) The Governmental View; 5) Other Supernaturalistic, Non-Substitutionary Views. (12)

James Petigru Boyce

Another Baptist theologian, James Petigru Boyce, expounds seven views of atonement: (13)

1) The lowest of them, the Socinian, "proceeds from the principle that God is pure benevolence, that vindictive justice is incompatible with his character, and that upon mere repentance, God can and will forgive the sinner." (14) There appears to be a complete disregard for the testimony of Scripture with the Socinians, whose remnants today can be found among the Unitarians.

2) The Middle Theory stands between the Socinian and "evangelical" views. Christ, because of his work on the cross, has received the power to forgive sins and relent punishments, upon the sinner's mere repentance.

3) Moral Influence is the view for which Horace Bushnell and McLeod Campbell are best known. Much like the Middle Theory, the Moral Influence Theory holds that sins can be forgiven upon mere repentance. According to this view there was never any obstacle in the nature of God to prevent Him from forgiving sin, but man lacked the motives for repentance. These motives are received through the spectacle of the cross of Christ.

4) The Ethical Theory was suggested by the Andover divines and is much like the Moral Influence Theory. There is no imputation of sin to Christ, or of righteousness to Christians, according to this view.

5) The Governmental Theory includes the necessity for God to uphold the moral government of the universe and the honor of His law, which would be damaged if He simply forgave sin without consequences.

6) The Arminian view holds that "Christ died, and that for sin; but only in the sense that makes it consistent for God to offer salvation to men on the ground of evangelical obedience, and not of perfect legal obedience." (15) According to this view Christ's death actually lowers the demands of the law.

7) The Lutheran view teaches that Christ's death is a satisfaction to the justice of God. Sin is imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner through faith.

8) The atonement is General, but is limited in its application, where it is particular. Andrew Fuller is the best known proponent of this view.

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield

Conservative protestant theologian B. J. Warfield (1851-1921) in his scholarly work The Person and Work of Christ, breaks down the teachings on the work of Christ into five categories. (16) First there are the "theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating upon Satan, so affecting him as to secure the release of the souls held in bondage by him." These views were widely held in the Patristic age and emphasize the "triumphantorial" aspect of Christ's work, but were gradually replaced by the "satisfaction" view of Anselm. Satan was either bought-off, overcome, or outwitted. A strong sense of sinful bondage was part and parcel of this view.

Second are the "theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating physically on man, so affecting him as to bring him by an interior and hidden working upon him into participation with the one life of Christ; the so-called 'mystical theories.' The fundamental characteristic of these theories is their discovery of the saving fact not in anything which Christ taught or did, but in what He was. It is upon the Incarnation, rather than upon Christ's teaching or His work that they throw stress, attributing the saving power of Christ not to what He does for us but to what He does in us." Warfield lists about 50 theologians who have held the mystical view in one form or another, including the Platonizing Fathers, Osiander, Schwenckfeld, Franck, Weigel, Boehme, B. F. Wescott, Swedenborg, Menken, and Irvine.

Third are the "theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating on man, in the way of bringing to bear on him inducements to action; so affecting man as to lead him to a better knowledge of God, or to a more lively sense of his real relation to God, or to a revolutionary change of heart and life with reference to God; the so-called 'moral influence theories.'"

In these theories no atonement is made without the response and cooperation of the individual. The atonement becomes subjective, bringing the person to a state of mind and heart which will make him or her acceptable to God. There is nothing in God which stands in the way of a person's forgiveness. The Socinians are listed as being the first to formulate such subjective views of atonement. People who have held these views in one way or another include F. D. Maurice, F. W. Robertson, Horace Bushnell, Albrecht Ritschl, S. T. Coleridge, and W. N. Clarke.

Fourth are the "theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating on both man and God, but on man primarily and on God only secondarily. The outstanding instance of this class of theories is supplied by the so-called 'Rectoral or governmental theories.' These suppose that the work of Christ so affects man by the spectacle of the sufferings borne by Him as to deter men from sin; and by thus deterring men from sin enables God to forgive sin with safety to His moral government of the world." These views are much like the "moral influence" views, but they differ in that the "influence" views major on a revelation of God's love to break down the sinner, while the "governmental" views major on the sinner's realization of God's hatred for sin as the means of bringing about the necessary moral reformation for atonement. Listed among the proponents of this view are Hugo Grotius, F. Godet, Joseph Gilbert, R. W. Dale, many of the New England Puritans when their Calvinism began to break down and the "satisfaction" view was replaced by the "Rectoral," the American Congregationalists, N. W. Taylor, Charles Finney, Albert Barnes, some of the early Wesleyans, and most of the American Methodists--especially John Miley.

Fifth are the "theories which conceive the work of Christ as terminating primarily on God and secondarily on man." John McLeod Campbell, R. C. Moberly, and Schleiermacher have held this view. It replaces "satisfaction" with "sympathetic identification." Christ confesses and repents on our behalf according to this view.

Warfield also mentions the "middle theory" (between "moral influence" and "satisfaction") in this fifth category, and then he writes about the "established church doctrine of satisfaction":

This doctrine, which has been incorporated in more or less fullness of statement in the creedal declarations of all the great branches of the Church, Greek, Latin, Lutheran, and Reformed, and which has been expounded with more or less insight and power by the leading doctors of the churches for the last eight hundred years, was first given scientific statement by Anselm in his "Cur Deus Homo" (1098). (17)

Warfield perceives some psychology at work in the several views people tend to espouse: "The fact is, the views men take of the atonement are largely determined by their fundamental feelings of need--by what men most long to be saved from. And from the beginning three well-marked types of thought on this subject have been traceable, corresponding to three fundamental needs of human nature as it unfolds itself in this world of limitation. Men are oppressed by the ignorance, or by the misery, or by the sin in which they feel themselves sunk; and, looking to Christ to deliver them from the evil under which they particularly labor, they are apt to conceive His work as consisting predominantly in revelation of divine knowledge, or in the inauguration of a reign of happiness, or in deliverance from the curse of sin." (18)

Warfield cites three particular lines of thought dominant among the many views of atonement: "Broadly speaking, the field has been held practically by the three theories which are commonly designated by the names of Anselm, Grotius, and Abelard; and age has differed from age only in the changing expression given these theories and the relative dominance of one or another of them." (19)

Bruce Milne

Bruce Milne in his handbook of Christian belief, Know the Truth, places the many views of atonement into three simple categories: The objective interpretations; the subjective interpretations; and the modern interpretations.

In the first category, Milne lists only a few of the most well known figures -- Anselm, Luther, and Calvin. In the secoond he lists Abelard and Schleiermacher. And in the third he lists Gustaf Aulen (20) and a more recently developed approach, the "political interpretation," which understands the church's mission in terms of socio-political commitments and is often related to Marxism. (21)

Conclusion of General Explanations

All these many views of atonement are divisible into two basic groups: the objective, and the subjective views. The objective views center on Christ's work of atonement. The subjective views center on the person's response to what Christ has done. The objective views understand all merit in accordance with Christ's completed work, while the subjective views, in one way or another, see the work of Christ as a means of helping people do something whereby God's favor is merited. In the subjective views atonement is incomplete until a person does something to complete what God has started. From one perspective, the subjective views represent a means whereby people can save themselves -- with Christ's help.

The subjective views place emphasis on the "human ability" to achieve something that pleases God and makes it possible or wise for Him to forgive the sinner; the objective views place emphasis on "human inability" to do anything which makes us acceptable to God. The subjective views see us as weakened maybe, but not incapacitated, while the objective views see us, when it comes to pleasing the perfectly holy and just God, as hopeless cripples.

It seems Paul is correcting the Jews for thinking they could gain acceptance with God by their own "God aided efforts" where he says in Romans10:1-10, "Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: 'The man who does these things will live by them.' But the righteousness that is by faith says: 'Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' ' (that is, to bring Christ down) 'or 'Who will descend into the deep?' ' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? 'The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,' that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

Keith Green, late founder of now defunct Last Days Ministries, explains what seems to be a very subjective view of atonement with words like "partnership" and His blessing "your decision": "It's like a partnership folks. God can't forgive you until you see you need forgiveness and are willing to turn from your sin. Then God, through the Holy Spirit, will help you to turn and will bless your decision. You take a step toward God and He'll take twenty toward you--that's the way it works. It is true that without God loving us first, we could not be saved. He made the first move. He always does. But He will not do what He requires of the sinner himself to do, and that is to repent. In other words, God made the first move--He gave us Jesus--before we were born, Jesus died. It isn't imputed righteousness--it's imparted righteousness. Imputed means you're not really righteous, but God considers you righteous. Imparted means you're not really righteous, but God wants to make you righteous. Its the difference between making us and making believe that we're righteous."(22)

At first glance this may seem quite sound and reasonable. But if Green was correct it would completely contradict the conversion of Paul the Apostle, who was an overachieving Pharisee, and turn his Christian conversion, where he claimed to be justified by faith instead of works, into a backsliding away from being "righteous." After his conversion he called all his former "righteousness" the equivalent of "dung" which did nothing to improve his standing before a truly holy God. Entire movements in the contemporary church are caught up into this "dung" righteousness. In stark contrast to the words of Keith Green, which are a reflection of what many today in American Christianity believe, Dutch theologian and father of Arminianism, James Arminius (1560-1609) explains his objective view of atonement: "The last article is on justification, about which these are my sentiments: Faith, and faith only (though there is no faith alone without works), is imputed for righteousness. By this alone we are justified before God, absolved from our sins, and are accounted, pronounced and declared righteous by God, who delivers his judgment from the throne of Grace. '. . . He has been made sin for me, that through faith, I may be the righteousness of God in him'" [II Corinthians 5:21].

"But I do not deny that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us; that is, that it is accounted or reckoned for us and for our benefit, because this very thing--that God reckons the righteousness of Christ to have been performed for us and for our benefit--is the cause why God imputes to us for righteousness our faith, which has Christ and his righteousness for its object and foundation, and why he justifies us by faith, from faith, or through faith."(23)

The foregoing quotes show clearly how atonement and justification (how we are made just or righteous before God) are intimately related. The relationships go much deeper, however. The presuppositions one holds guide the direction and web of thought which link the system together. Relevant to this are questions about the condition of humankind after the fall of Adam and Eve. What is the extent of the fall into sin of the human race? Those who think of us as not all that bad off, are often opposed by argument that even the idea of an only "partially fallen" race proves the claim of a "completely fallen" race. (24)

Howell Harris, a missionary minded Calvinist, knew John and Charles Wesley (25) personally. He made the following observation about them: "I have been long waiting to see if Brother John and Charles should receive farther Light, or be silent, and not oppose Election and Perseverance; but finding no Hope thereof, I began to be stagger'd about them what to do. I plainly see that we preach two Gospels, one sets all on God, the other on Man; the one on God's Will, the other on Man's Will; the one on God's chusing, the other on Man's chusing; the one on God's Distinguishing Love, making one to differ from another; the other on Man's being better than another, and taking more pains, and being better husband of his Grace than another, more passive under the Hand of the Spirit than the other; and if both shou'd come to Heaven they cou'd not harmonise in Praises . . ." [emphasis his]. (Truthfully, it seems that these accusations do not fit with the truth about what the Wesleys taught. See one of John's sermons included in this web site. THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS  He clearly taught the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and human salvation as entirely the work of God in Christ.) (26)

In the following chapter we will look into the Governmental view of atonement which I had become completely convinced of after spending 5 1/2 years in Youth With A Mission. 

THE GOVERNMENTAL VIEW OF ATONEMENT

Foundational Aspects of the "Governmental" or "Rectoral" View -- Pelagian Thought

To fully understand the Governmental view of atonement, we must first understand the views and presuppositions which underlie it. The things we presuppose or believe about human nature lay the cornerstone for our views of God and the work of Christ in salvation. If we believe we have been "little effected" from the sin of Adam and Eve, instead of "much affected," our views will tend to be brought to Scripture in search of confirmation, instead of taken from Scripture in a humble submission to truth. Personal experience can also influence how one views our natural mental and moral ability. Augustine (354-430), who had a very immoral life before his conversion, emphasized God's grace and sufficiency in salvation.

On the other hand, Pelagius (contemporary of Augustine), a pious British monk who had never experienced the deep struggle with sin that Augustine had, emphasized natural human ability. Pelagius taught we should take hold of our lives and discipline ourselves to live sinless lives. He even went to the extreme of teaching that some people have lived their whole lives without sinning, and therefore needed no savior. The equation "ability equals responsibility; inability equals no responsibility" (27) with all its logical inferences, is the bottom line of Pelagian thought and influences all subsequent historical views of salvation on the "man centered" (28) side of the spectrum. When Pelagius visited Rome in the early fifth century, he reacted to the excuses apathetic Christians were making for their sin, with a statement reflecting the foundational premise mentioned above -- "ability equals responsibility; inability equals no responsibility":

"Away with such despicable excuses," he would say. "It is not the strength that you lack, but the will. Up, rouse yourselves. You could do better if you would. God has given you a nature that enables you to choose the right. You can avoid sinning if you wish. If you sin, it is not because you are under any compulsion to sin, but because of your misuse of your freewill. Besides, it must be remembered that to commit sin and then to lay the blame on the weakness of your nature is really to lay the blame on God, who gave men this nature. God commands nothing impossible. It is sheer profanity to say that God has laid certain duties upon us and at the same time has given us a nature incapable of performing them." (29)

Throughout the history of the Christian church, these same basic "topologies," if you will, have appeared with various alterations. Church historian, theologian and ecumenist Philip Schaff (1819-1893) writes of the basic differences in the two approaches:

"It comes at last to the question, whether redemption is chiefly a work of God or of man; whether man needs to be born anew, or merely improved. The soul of the Pelagian system is human freedom; the soul of the Augustinian is divine grace. Pelagius starts from the natural man, and works up, by his own exertions, to righteousness and holiness. Augustine despairs of the moral sufficiency of man, and derives the new life and all power for good from the creative grace of God. The one system proceeds from the liberty of choice to legalistic piety; the other from the bondage of sin to the evangelical liberty of the children of God. To the former Christ is merely a teacher and example, and grace an external auxiliary to the development of the native powers of man; to the latter he is also Priest and King, and grace a creative principle, which begets, nourishes, and consummates a new life. The former makes regeneration and conversion a gradual process of the strengthening and perfecting of human virtue; the latter makes it a complete transformation, in which the old disappears and all becomes new. The one loves to admire the dignity and strength of man; the other loses itself in adoration of the glory and omnipotence of God. The one flatters natural pride, the other is a gospel for penitent publicans and sinners. Pelagianism begins with self-exaltation and ends with the sense of self-deception and impotency. Augustinianism casts man first into the dust of humiliation and despair, in order to lift him on the wings of grace to supernatural strength, and leads him through the hell of self-knowledge up to the heaven of the knowledge of God. The Pelagian system is clear, sober, and intelligible, but superficial; the Augustinian sounds the depths of knowledge and experience, and renders reverential homage to mystery. The former is grounded upon the philosophy of common sense, which is indispensable for ordinary life, but has no perception of divine things; the latter is grounded upon the philosophy of the regenerate reason, which breaks through the limits of nature, and penetrates the depths of divine revelation. The former starts with the proposition: Intellectus procedit fidem; the latter with the opposite maxim: Fides procedit intellectum. Both make use of the Scriptures; the one, however, conforming them to reason, the other subjecting reason to them. Pelagianism has an unmistakable affinity with rationalism, and supplies its practical side. To the natural will of the former system corresponds the natural reason of the latter; and as the natural will, according to Pelagianism, is competent to good, so is the natural reason, according to rationalism, competent to the knowledge of the truth. All rationalists are Pelagian in their anthropology; but Pelagius and Coelestius were not consistent, and declared their agreement with the traditional orthodoxy in all other doctrines, though without entering into their deeper meaning and connection." (30)

Other "Thinkers"

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

It is impossible to size up someone of such stature as Thomas Aquinas in a sentence or two. The Thomistic anthropology (teaching covering the nature and characteristics of man) is basic to the theological structure of the Roman Catholic Church, and is, in the estimation of most protestant thought, an "anthropocentric" (man centered), as opposed to a "Christocentric" (Christ centered) system; thus bringing it into a sort of brotherhood with Pelagianism. The Roman system, tracing itself back to Thomas, is often called semi-Pelagian.

Thomas taught that the human mind is not completely fallen and is still capable of arriving at some theological truth before ever receiving God's revelation in Scripture: "But there are some truths which the natural reason also is able to reach. Such are that God exists, that He is one, and the like. In fact, such truths about God have been proved demonstratively by the philosophers, guided by the light of natural reason." (31)

According to Thomas, the sin of our first parents did not add so much a sinful nature to man, instead it subtracted the state of "original righteousness": ". . . This same original justice was forfeited through the sin of our first parents. . . ; so that all the powers of the soul are left, as it were, destitute of their proper order, whereby they are naturally directed to virtue; which destitution is called a wounding of nature." (32) Thus, we were left without the righteousness required to please God. We became "sick," but not "dead in sin." The "Angelic Doctor" worked out a complicated system with several kinds of grace. Submission to the pope was a necessary prerequisite to salvation, as well as an accumulation of merit through the saints, the pope, the sacraments, good works, and faith in Christ. (33)

Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) espoused a human-centered form of theology which denied some of the major doctrines of Christianity, which is now known as Socinianism; so named from the Italian family Sozzini, especially Fausto Sozzini. Remnants of Socinianism can still be found today in the Unitarian Church. Socinianism denies ". . . Not only the doctrine of the Trinity but those of original sin, . . . vicarious satisfaction, and justification by faith alone." (34) Socinianism is in opposition to both Calvinism and Roman Catholicism. (35) The Socinians taught that it is not possible for God to have absolute foreknowledge, a teaching also found in many present day proponents of the Governmental or Rectoral view.

The Governmental views of Grotius and the views of Socinus were similar in many ways:

"Socinus believed that Scripture should be interpreted rationally. This philosophical framework led him to deny the deity of Christ. In his view Christ had a human nature and did not become God until after his resurrection. . . . Socinus did not believe Christ's death on the cross brought forgiveness of sins because God could forgive sins without the necessity of Jesus' atonement. Repentance and good works brought forgiveness from God." (36)

As we will soon see, Grotius agreed that Christ's death was unnecessary, except for the fact that something had to be done to uphold the honor of the law, which would be damaged if forgiveness were freely given on the basis of repentance.

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)

Hugo Grotius, or Huig van Groot in Dutch, was the first to clearly formulate the so called "Governmental," or "Rectoral" view of atonement. Grotius was a Dutch Remonstrant (protestant Arminian resisting strict Calvinism) who was at one time imprisoned by Calvinists for his opposition. He escaped prison in a book chest and cut short his "life sentence." As a lawyer, politician, and Arminian theologian, he disliked division among Christians, wrote against war, and wrote a treatise on international peace. (37)

Grotius was somewhat of an apologist (he was able to give a reasoned defense for Christian belief). He wrote a manual of evidences for faith to deal with pagans and Muslims on the basis of "natural revelation."

His work, De Satisfactione Christi (1617), espoused his view of atonement. Although he kept the term "satisfaction," it took on a new meaning: "God punished the innocent Christ in the stead of guilty man, not, however, to satisfy His justice, but to demonstrate, by making an example of Christ, how He hates sin, thus to uphold the authority of the Law before men and to fill men with hatred of sin." (38) Grotius battled furiously with Socinianism and held to the main doctrines of the Christian faith, but at the same time he partook of the basic "rationalistic thought" which the Socinians, Thomists, and Pelagians used before him, and thereby created supposedly Scriptural views, although lacking in some places and adding in others. He had a high view of human ability -- mental and moral. "Grotius states clearly that Christ propitiates (1 John 2:2) us 'by giving us the strength to refrain from sin hereafter.'" (39)

Arminianism

Although James Arminius and John Wesley taught contrary to Grotius on the nature of God, human nature, and the atonement, many Arminians adopted his views and zealously propagated them. N. W. Taylor (1786-1858), (40) Charles Finney (1792-1875), (41) and others propagated the system in America:

"N. W. Taylor's Theology was entitled: "Moral Government," and C. G. Finney's Systematic Theology was a treatise on Moral Government, although it called itself by another name. But because New England ideas of government were not sufficiently grounded in God's holiness, but were rather based upon utility, expediency, or happiness, the very idea of government has dropped out of the New School theology, and its advocates with well-nigh one accord have gone over to the Moral Influence theory of the atonement, which is only a modified Socinianism. Both the Andover atonement and that of Oberlin have become purely subjective. For this reason the Grotian or Governmental theory has lost its hold upon the theological world . . . ." (42)

Contemporary Moral Government Teaching

In recent times there has been a revival of the Governmental view. Finney's books are being republished and widely distributed. New authors have arrived and begun to take the Governmental position, adjust it, add to it a little, and expound it at great length. It has taken the form of a Christian Apologetics system. (43)

The tenets of Pelagius are repeated almost word for word as the contemporary teachers deny there is a sinful nature, depravity, or imputed righteousness. A theodicy (treatise relieving God of any responsibility for evil) is not necessary, (44)  because most of the contemporary Moral Government teachers deny that God can know the future choices of free-will beings (not a tenet of Pelagius or Grotius, but clearly a tenet of the Socinians).

Foundations for the Contemporary View

The question is not whether we like the idea of God being "vengeful, vindictive, or angry"; it is not whether our minds accept or reject such a God. The only honest question is: How does Scripture portray God?: "They object that it is a disparagement of the Divine Being to predicate of Him anger, wrath, enmity, as if nothing less than Christ's substitutional suffering and death could reconcile Him to man. Only Scripture can tell us what conceptions of God are worthy or unworthy of Him, and Scripture tells us that according to His righteousness God is angry with sinful men." (46)

Underlying all false, unbiblical teaching, is the element of human interjection. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for going outside God's revelation to form their own teaching. (47) This "human" element is found in Charles Finney and has been passed on to the contemporary Moral Government teachers. In his Systematic Theology, Finney says: ". . . Since the gospel has announced the fact of the atonement, it appears that natural theology or governmental philosophy can satisfactorily explain it; that reason can discern a divine philosophy in it. Natural theology can teach. . . ." (48) Finney elaborates at length, explaining what we already know about God before going to Scripture. In his next section, "The fact of atonement," he lists Scripture passages which speak of atonement. Then he finishes off his writing on atonement with a section on what constitutes the atonement. So, in three sections Finney explains atonement by natural theology, shows what the Scriptures say, and then jumps back into "natural theology" (that which is known without reference to Scripture) to explain what the Scriptures mean.

In another of his books, Finney expounds a few basic principles of the Governmental view and then states: "Thus far we may advance safely and on solid ground by the simple light of nature. If there were no Bible, we might know this much with absolute certainty. To this point even infidels are compelled to go." (49) The problem here is that many conscientious believers find contradictions between Finney and Scripture. Maybe "infidels" agree with him, but many believers don't.

This, as Ian Barbour points out, leads simply to philosophical speculation, and not biblical truth: "In contrast to biblical theology, natural theology [emphasis his] (both in the narrower sense of arguments from nature, and in the broader sense of arguments from characteristics of existence) has usually encouraged the more rationalistic attitudes of analytical detachment and philosophical speculation. . . . In the jargon of linguistic analysis, natural theology uses 'spectator-language,' whereas biblical theology uses 'actor-language.'" (50)

The contemporary Governmental proponents feel Christian doctrine must support practical Christian piety and zealousness. In the words of the most influential present-day teacher, Gordon C. Olson: "So, how important it is then, we should strive--now get the weight of this thought--we should strive earnestly to eliminate every theological concept that hinders our spirituality and our spiritual zeal. There must be a full and a beautiful, and a lovely, harmonious area of truth which is conducive to real spiritual zeal." (51)

George Otis, Jr., a disciple of Mr. Olson who learned the theology at the Swiss YWAM base, uses his own presuppositions as a grid to tell Scripture what it must mean in relation to atonement: "One of the deceivers' most damaging deceptions centers around--of all events--the atonement. Like the Pharisees of old, they portray a God who is only interested in things legal. The idea perpetrated here probably is derived from the words "ransom" and "redeem" and it is that Jesus paid for our sins." (52)

Francis Pieper (1852-1931), a theologian of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, answers Otis' style of reasoning rather pointedly: "Your quarrel is with Scripture. Scripture demonstrates that the process of reconciling the world is in all its factors juridical. The Law of God requires of man a perfect obedience (Matt. 22:37 ff.). This is juridical. The Law pronounces the curse upon the transgressor (Gal. 3:10). This verdict is juridical. Christ, who is above the Law (Matt. 12:8), is placed under the Law (Gal. 4:4-5). This is a purely juridical procedure imputing human guilt and punishment to Jesus, making Him to be sin for us who in His own Person knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21), God proceeded in a purely juridical manner. It is juridical throughout to exact the penalty from Christ, who had not deserved punishment, but suffered it, "the Just for the unjust" (1 Pet. 3:18). It is juridical throughout, a pure actus forensis, when God no longer charges men with their sins ("not imputing their trespasses unto them," 2 Cor. 5:19), but on account of Christ's righteousness pronounces all men justified (Rom. 5:18). Furthermore, "the Word of Reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:19), which proclaims the accomplished reconciliation, brings the grace of God, the forgiveness of sins, to all nations (Luke 24:47), and asks nothing of man but to accept it by faith, is not this message juridical?" (53)

Tenets of Contemporary Moral Government

The tenets of contemporary Moral Government have not changed significantly from the teaching of Grotius and those who follow his basic line of thought:

"(1) Man has a natural ability to serve God, and his failure to do so lies in the lack not of power, but of inclination [emphasis his]. It is therefore not necessary for man to wait for an experience of religion, for a man who desires to know God may seek Him; and through repentance, prayer, and right living he will experience God's forgiving love. (2) Self-forgetful love is the essence of the religious life. (3) Divine action both to save and to punish man flows from God's wise benevolence for the manifestation of divine glory. This view led to the New England, or governmental, theory of the atonement, similar to the Rectoral theory developed by Hugo Grotius. The New England theology minimized the value of Christ's passive obedience and viewed justification primarily as man's union with Christ, whereby man shares Christ's active obedience. (4) Edwards and his school sought to foster among the Calvinists an emotional type of Christian character based on an immediate communion between God and the human soul. This endeavor is reflected in such Congregational leaders as Timothy Dwight (1752 to 1817) and Charles Finney (1792 to 1875), the great revivalist and later president of Oberlin College." (54)

The Governmental system is not automatically faulted because its proponents start their knowledge of God with nature. This only becomes a serious problem when they begin to deny what the Scriptures say when the Scriptural message conflicts with their preconceived ideas. When we find them contradicting Scripture, realizing the faulty starting point helps us discover the basic error. Olson forces Scripture into his mold: "When the words reconciliation, propitiation, ransom, redemption, and the like, are used in connection with the sufferings of Christ, we are to understand them as modified by Bible usage and not seek to inject various shades of meanings that have been developed in the secular world." (55)

Olson shows a bizarre inconsistency with this approach to "Bible" words when he later uses "Bible" words to prove we must be sanctified and perfect. (56) Apparently "ransom, redeem and propitiation" are not worthy of careful study in the Greek, but "perfect, perfection, establish, ground, form, confirm" are.

Contemporary Reformed theologian Leon Morris addresses such inconsistency in his book The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance:

"We should also notice that early Christian writers like 1 Clement and Hermas undoubtedly had the idea of propitiation. They use the verb with the accusative of the Deity and in the sense 'propitiate.' With this construction there is no possible doubt. I have been arguing that there is continuity of meaning, that there is the wrath of God and a forgiveness that takes account of it in both the Old Testament and the New and this, of course, goes on into the early church. But if those who hold that the Septuagint translators and the New Testament writers worked out a new meaning for the word-group are correct, then nobody understood them until our own day. Their new understanding perished with them. We do not find it in the literature of the early church or anywhere else until our own day. It is a big claim that every Christian generation but our own has failed to understand this not unimportant piece of biblical teaching." (57)

Human Need in Moral Government

George Otis, Jr. makes clear the "ability equals responsibility" equation: "If I am born with an inability to obey God, then can you conceive of a better excuse for not obeying Him? If I can't obey God, then why should I be disturbed that I'm not obeying God? Yet the Word of God declares emphatically that all men are without excuse! This indicates that all men are responsible for their own choices, which implies they are free to make their own choices. If I was born with an inability to do what God says if I don't I'll go to hell [sic], how can we justify eternal punishment with the love of God?" (58)

The idea of a sinful nature is maintained by the Governmental adherents, but the meaning has been altered. Instead of meaning all areas of our life have been affected by the fall, and even our good works are polluted by sin, it now means something entirely different: "Thus we concur that a law or sinful nature is present but we must also see that it originated by choice. A good example of this is a junkie bound by an addiction to heroin. He cannot help put [sic] crave drugs; but its origin was in his choices." (59)

Olson states the premise in similar terms: "Our developed depravity or sinful tendencies become a strong persuasive force for evil, but we ourselves in our innermost personalities, our wills, have the God-given ability to choose and perpetuate sinful rebellion or insubordination, or renounce it in an energetic climax in breaking down and turning to God. Men cannot blame anyone but themselves for their lost estate and their impenitent condition." (60)

In another place Olson says "All sin can be resolved into a wrong voluntary action and is not some sort of fixity in back of our wills causing action." (61)

Contemporary Bible teacher Winkie Pratney further elaborates this view of the "sinful nature" in his Youth Aflame manual espousing Governmental views: "Assuming that man sins because it is his nature to sin, also assumes that sin is natural. A dog barks because he is a dog. A man can also bark if he chooses to. Does this prove that he is a dog? No, it proves that he has chosen to do a thing he was never created to do naturally. If a man sins, it merely proves that he has so chosen to sin; and his sin will certainly be treated as unnatural in the eyes of God." (62)

This same basic thought is traceable straight back to the mental workings of Pelagius: "ability equals responsibility; inability equals no responsibility."

This altered idea of the "sinful nature" highly influences what a person believes is necessary to save us. More orthodox views of the work of Christ are thought unnecessary and out of sync with the "character of God." According to the Governmental view there is nothing in God which must be removed before He can freely forgive. His holiness is not something of His essential nature, it is what He has chosen to "do" by His own free will. (63)

God can simply choose to forgive. He holds nothing against anyone, but if He freely forgives us, according to this view, we will become lax and think we can sin freely and still be forgiven. We would lose our respect for His righteous regulations, which He gave us for our own welfare. Besides, if we could not resist our sinfulness because of a sinful nature, sending a savior is not "grace" (according to this view), God would be obligated to do something, if we had no choice but to be sinners.

The Governmental thinkers feel they have the true view of God's grace, because there is nothing in us to force us into being sinners--but we have sinned anyway. True grace, according to the contemporary Moral Government teachers, is held in the fact that people, without compulsion of nature, choose to sin, and God sent Jesus anyway. (64)

Acceptance with God, therefore, is wholly dependent upon the person. Within the Governmental view, God does not freely forgive and accept people into His family, until good Christian morality is observed: "It is not the matter of whether or not we "accept" Christ but whether Christ accepts us--that is the crucial issue. Will, indeed, Christ accept us the way we are as so many today infer? Will the King of kings come in to rule over a garbage dump? The notion that the sinner's condition is irrelevant at salvation only reveals the extent of our ignorance of God and the nature of salvation."(65)

This seems to imply that morality is a means to an end instead of a fruit of God's free salvation offered in Christ. It seems Christ death on the cross is only marginally necessary in the Moral Government system.

"They are rules of life to show man the right way of holiness and happiness. If broken, their rights must be upheld by punishing the law-breaker. A penalty shows the seriousness of disobedience and tends to prevent the law from being broken again. God needed a substitute for the penalty of the law that would uphold the law and yet have as much effect on the law and the law-breaker as the penalty itself would have had. Faced with terrible difficulty, the Godhead's infinite wisdom found the only possible way to satisfy both the demands of justice and their loving choice to show mercy and pardon." (66)

Aside from the fact that this portrays the "Godhead" as sitting up in heaven scratching Himself, trying to figure out how to save man, it stops short of answering the question about a murderer still having to go to the gas chamber for his crime. According to Moral Government Theology, Christ took the punishment so that we would see the seriousness of sin and stop sinning. Try that on the police officer next time he tries to give you a ticket for speeding -- "Jesus became man and suffered a horrible death on the cross as a law breaker, and that includes speeding, so you shouldn't make me pay for that ticket. It would be like paying it two times, officer!"

Cunningham uses the example of a king who made a law and his mother was the first one to break it. "'Would he be just and allow the people to say his law means nothing?' He would be just, and he would uphold the law. The king took the beating his mother deserved." (67)

Thus, the only problems left to deal with are on man's side of the deal. Cunningham, in a popularized fashion, explains it in simple terms. God must: (1) Make an impression about the evil of sin; (2) He must obtain the reformation and good conduct of the sinner, and; (3) He must reveal the Lawgiver's character. (68)

Olson sums up the man-sided part of salvation in a few sentences: "The only thing left is for man to repent of all sin and stupidity and seek the face of God in proper humbleness, identifying himself in a committal of faith to the sufferings of Christ for his sins, as the only hope of his forgiveness and spiritual restoration from a state of ruin. God, then, can become joyful in loving forgiveness (Lk. 15:7), consistent with His righteous obligations, 'because He delights in unchanging love' (Micah 7:18). . . . It is man's will in response to God's loving approach of mercy that determines his salvation--God will never coerce the sanctity of man's moral freedom." (69)

Otis explains "God's tasks" in atonement much like Cunningham in "Why the Cross?":

"In order for God and man to once again enjoy a mutual, loving, happy relationship, several obstacles needed to be dealt with, We'll take a preliminary look at the various problems in order. . . . (1) TO REMOVE THE JUST CONSEQUENCE OF DEATH FROM A LAW VIOLATOR HE LOVES (THE GOVERNMENTAL PROBLEM). . . . (2) REVEAL HIMSELF TO MAN (THE PERSONAL PROBLEM). . . . (3) REVEAL MAN TO HIMSELF (THE HYPOCRITICAL PROBLEM). . . . (4) MAINTAIN THE RESTORED RELATIONSHIP BY ESTABLISHING A POWERFUL SIN-DETERRENT BARRIER (THE MOTIVATIONAL PROBLEM)." (70)

Repentance is central to the contemporary Governmental view. There does not at first appear to be any problem with this, until the altered definition of repentance is understood. Flatly stated, repentance means to stop sinning, according to this view. (71) Cessation of sinning brings one back under God's Moral Government. The death of Christ takes care of past sins. Living by God's regulations causes His future blessing: "Moral government is an association of moral beings under intelligent supervision of a benevolent Ruler. Moral government is an arrangement to regulate the conduct of moral beings by enlightening their minds as to what actions are right and proper, and by solemn pronouncement that certain consequences will follow right action and opposite consequences wrong action. Moral government, therefore, functions upon the principle of promising rewards for obedience and threatening appropriate punishment for disobedience." (72)

Basically, according to Olson, everyone has broken the law (due to the influence of the physical environment); through Christ's suffering and death, the love of God and the horror of sin was made known; this causes repentance (cessation of sinning); and the blessing of living under God's government is experienced by the believer, who must now maintain a relationship with Him by following His loving regulations. (73)

Our motives, after a revelation of the cross, should be only responsive adoration for the loving father.

Conclusion

It only takes one clear verse of Scripture to undo all the "anthropocentric" theologians have spent so much time and effort developing. There are, however, multitudes of such clearly stated nuggets of truth in God's Word: "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:4-5).

Over the years I have somewhat changed my attitude toward those who do not hold to what I believe to be a correct view of atonement. After an experience I had in Youth With A Mission I became very strong in the opinion that having correct ideas about the details of atonement were extremely important and I began to question whether or not incorrect views could be held by a true Christian. Then, after my experience in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod where I observed many who held correct views yet showed no evidence that they actually had a living relationship with Christ, I became less inclined to place such an importance upon correct viewpoints and more importance upon the attitude of the heart. God is larger than our viewpoints and He is the one who decides to whom He will apply His forgiveness won by Christ on the cross. This, however, should be considered in light of sermons such as the one preached by John Wesley, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. 

It should also be stated at this time that I believe many of the deceived and deceiving leaders in Youth With A Mission do not have a right heart before God (as is evident in their lack of repentance), and on judgment day will hear the distressing word's of Christ, "Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity -- I never knew you!"

Only God is the Judge and it is only God Who has the wisdom and understanding to determine to whom he will apply the blood over the doorpost, so that the death angel will pass by in forgiveness. It is clear in Scripture that "Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness"; that "the just shall live by faith"; that "as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become the children of God"; and that "it is by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves." 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arminius, James. The Writings of James Arminius. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion. New York: Harper Torchbooks; Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1971.

Boyce, James Petigru. Abstracts of Systematic Theology. n. p.: Broadman Press, 1887.

Braun, Jon. It Ain't Gonna Reign No More. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc. Publishers, n. d.

Bromiley, Geoffrey W. Historical Theology: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Buswell, James Oliver, Jr. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1963.

Carnell, Edward John. The Case for Orthodox Theology. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1959.

Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. New York: Penguin Books, revised edition, 1972.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Chafer Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, renewed 1975.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1984.

Finney, Charles G. Principles of Victory. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981.

Finney, Charles G. Systematic Theology. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1976.

Halverson, William H. A Concise Introduction to Philosophy. New York: Random House, Inc., 1981.

Harrison, Everett F., ed. Baker's Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1960.

Kerr, Hugh T., ed. Readings in Christian Thought. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, 1976.

Lovelace, Richard. Dynamics of Spiritual Life. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

Mayer, F. E. The Religious Bodies of America. Saint Louis:Concordia Publishing House, 1961.

Milne, Bruce. Know the Truth. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1982.

Morris, Leon. The Atonement. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

Moxon, Reginald Stewart. The Doctrine of Sin. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1922.

New International Bible Society. The Holy Bible (New International Version). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Corporation, 1978.

Olson, Gordon C. The Truth Shall Make You Free. Franklin Park, Illinois: Bible Research Fellowship, Inc., 1980.

Otis, George, Jr. The God They Never Knew. Van Nuys, California: Bible Voice Publishers, 1978.

Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. 4 vols. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951.

Pratney, Winkie. Youth Aflame. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, revised 1983.

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1910.

Sell, Alan P. F. The Great Debate. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Strong, Augustus H. Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907.

Thornbury, J. F. God Sent Revival. Grand Rapids: Evangelical Press, 1977.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1950.

CASSETTE TAPES

Cunningham, Loren. "Why the Cross?" Sunland, California: Pilgrim Tapes (Youth With A Mission), 1983.

Olson, Gordon C. "Sharing Your Faith." Sunland, California: Truth Tapes (Youth With A Mission), 1975.

^{Relevant Web Resources}

^{Footnote number one is missing due to document editing.}

2. Edward John Carnell, The Case For Orthodox Theology, p. 57.

3. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, p. 133.

4. Richard Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life, p. 262.

5. I Timothy 2:15.

6. I Timothy 3:16.

7. J. P. Boyce, Abstracts of Systematic Theology, p. 3.

8. Everett F. Harrison, Editor, Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 71-78.

9. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. III, pp. 124-164.

10. Chafer, vol. III, p. 139.

11. Limited Atonement or Particular Atonement is the Calvinistic doctrine that Christ's death is an exact payment for the sins of the elect only.

12. James Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, vol. II, pp. 84-103.

13. James Petigru Boyce, Abstracts of Systematic Theology, pp. 295-340.

14. Boyce, p. 295.

15. Boyce, p. 310.

16. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, pp. 356-369.

17. Warfield, p. 368.

18. Warfield, p. 373.

19. Warfield, p. 375.

20. Aulen (1879-1978), a Swedish Lutheran theologian and professor at the University of Lund, wrote a popularly read book on historical views of atonement, Christus Victor. In it he explained what he perceived to be the subjective, Latin (penal), and the classic views of atonement. He then developed his own view of atonement emphasizing Christ as victor over hell, death, the world and the Devil. A motif similar to Aulen's is found in the early church, but the early Christian thinkers went on into a more balanced, complete view of Christ's work.

21. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth, pp. 164-170.

22. Keith Green, "What's Wrong with the Gospel?" vol. I, video tape.

23. James Arminius, The Writings of James Arminius, vol. II, pp. 473-474.

24. The teaching that every aspect of our being has been affected by the fall, is called "total depravity."

25. John Wesley (1703-1791) is the English founder of Methodism, and is known for his emphasis on Christian sanctification and an Arminian theological approach (in opposition to the Calvinistic teaching of predestination and election). Charles Wesley is his song-writing brother who worked with him in his evangelistic crusades.

26. Alan P. F. Sell, The Great Debate, pp. 61-62.

27. Pelagius' argument is that God would never hold us responsible for something we are unable to perform. If God demands complete obedience to moral law, from birth to death, it is completely possible to live a life without ever sinning, according to Pelagian thinkers. Scripture clearly says, however, that ". . . all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Therefore, an explanation other than that of Pelagius must be in order. Pelagius uses reason and logic to contradict Scripture.

28. Views which concentrate on what the "person must do" for his or her salvation, instead of what Christ has done."

29. Reginald Stewart Moxon, The Doctrine of Sin, p. 50.

30. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. III, pp. 787-789.

31. Hugh T. Kerr, ed., Readings In Christian Thought, p. 107.

32. Kerr, p. 116.

33. Schaff shows how fundamental the thought of Aquinas is to Roman views. "To the pope, it belongs to determine what is of faith. Yea, subjection to him is necessary to salvation." Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. V, p. 674. See pages 671-672 about the need for accumulation of merit for salvation. Also see Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction, pp. 196-209, for a short synopsis of Aquinas.

34. Owen Chadwick, The Reformation, p. 202.

35. Sebastian Castellio (or Castalio, b. 1515), who knew Calvin, influenced the thought of Socinus. Schaff says "Castellio left no school behind him, but his writings exerted considerable influence on the development of Socinian and Arminian opinions. He opposed Calvinism with the same arguments as Pighius and Bolsec, and charged it with destroying the foundations of morality and turning God into a tyrant and hypocrite. He essentially agreed with Pelagianism, and prepared the way for Socinianism." Schaff, vol. VIII, p. 627.

36. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 1031.

37. Grotius was a strong advocate of Christian tolerance, but at the same time was embroiled in controversy of theological significance with Calvinists and Socinians.

38. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, vol. II, p. 359.

39. Pieper, p. 384.

40. Taylor is known as the founder of New Haven Theology, a modified form of Calvinism. He stressed free will and revivalist methodology.

41. American revivalist who held the Governmental view of atonement. Finney was a social activist and theologian who taught at Oberlin College. He believed Christians were capable of living sinless lives.

42. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 742.

43. George Otis, Jr., The God They Never Knew, p. 31 reads: "If we made known a God who was reasonable, creative, loving, and personal, it wouldn't be easy for the world to resist Him." Otis has taken his conception as to what such a god would be like, and ended up simply elaborating and explaining old heresies.

44. For a theodicy to be necessary God must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. If He is not all-good He is exonerated on the grounds that evil is a part of Him. If He is not all-powerful He is exonerated because He can't do anything about evil. And if He is not all-knowing He is exonerated because of ignorance. William H. Halverson, A Concise Introduction to Philosophy, p. 186.

45. Loren Cunningham, "Why the Cross?" Pilgrim tapes: Sunland, California, 1983.

46. Pieper, vol. II, p. 352 (emphasis added).

47. "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men" Mark 7:7 (NIV).

48. Charles Grandison Finney, Systematic Theology, p. 199.

49. Finney, Principles of Victory, p. 39.

50. Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion, p. 222.

51. Gordon C. Olson, "Sharing Your Faith" tape series (40 tapes), tape 1.

52. Otis, p. 26 (emphasis his).

53. Pieper, vol. II, pp. 354-355.

54. F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America, p. 358.

55. Olson, The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. T-VIII-7.

56. Olson, p. T-XIV-5.

57. Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance, pp. 175-176. Morris, in this section of his book, shows the faulty reasoning of those who deny God could be angry or wrathful.

58. Otis, p. 62 (emphasis his).

59. Otis, p. 76.

60. Olson, p. T-XV-6. See appendix for Olson's charts illustrating the extent of our present "sinful" condition.

61. Olson, p. T-XIV-3.

62. Winkie Pratney, Youth Aflame, p. 81.

63. "'God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.' What this means is that God's moral character is absolutely perfect, that He is presently living up to all that His intelligence tells Him He should be doing. This is why He can be called a holy Being. God is not holy because He is holy--He is holy because He chooses to use all His attributes in a loving (agape) way. Holiness involves choice and enlightenment." Otis, p. 38.

64. Otis, p. 62.

65. Otis, p. 141.

66. Pratney, p. 98 (emphasis his).

67. Cunningham, cassette tape.

68. Cunningham, cassette tape.

69. Olson, p. T-XV-6.

70. Otis, pp. 85-86.

71. "*Remember--Repentance doesn't mean that we cease to be guilty--but that we cease to sin." Otis, p. 155 (emphasis his).

72. Olson, p. T-IV-5.

73. "In the process of denying personal holiness as an attainable state, the very essence of what God desires in relationship with man is shunned." Otis, p. 36.