Enjoying God Ministries

The subject of the nature of Christ’s atoning death is once again making headlines and filling blogs. I had long ago intended to write some brief observations on the topic, but then got busy with other matters. However, I’d like now to begin addressing this point that will no doubt be sporadic and spread out over the next few weeks.

“But why give yourself to yet another controversy, Sam?” Good question. Let’s remember that the church has never been without controversy. Throughout its history, virtually every tenet of faith, regardless of importance, has come under attack. Some of these theological battles were not worth fighting, while others demanded immediate and decisive attention.

Make no mistake: beliefs matter. “Bad theology,” said J. I. Packer, “hurts people.” It is also true that some beliefs matter more than others. Some doctrines, such as that of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the nature of salvation are worthy of debate and precise thinking. Heresy is not always a bad word, for it identifies what is false that we might see and embrace what is true.

We’ve witnessed several theological controversies in the past decade that were more than deserving of our careful and devoted attention. The debate over Open Theism is a case in point. I’m convinced that the discussion over the nature of Christ’s sacrifice is even more crucial and can be ignored only to the serious detriment of the Church. This is an issue that threatens the integrity and substance of the gospel itself and thus puts the souls of men and women in eternal danger. I know that sounds alarmist and extreme, but I still believe it’s true.

Needless to say, I’m deeply disturbed by the increasing trend among those who claim to be evangelical Christians of denying, indeed mocking, the doctrine of the penal substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

These folk are not denying that Jesus died on a cross. Nor are they suggesting that the gospel can exist apart from what Jesus did on behalf of sinners in his life, death, and resurrection. What they are denying, with ever-increasing frequency and fervency, is that in his death he was a vicarious substitute for sinners, personally bearing and exhausting in himself the punishment warranted by our transgressions. What they are denying is that he endured the wrath of God and thereby satisfied the demands of divine justice on behalf of those for whom he suffered.

Numerous books are taking up this denial that Christ endured and satisfied the wrath of God against sin, but the one that seems to have provoked the debate and is most often cited as a source for those who embrace its perspective is the volume by Joel B. Greene and Mark D. Baker, “Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament & Contemporary Contexts” (IVP, 2000, 232pp.).

One of the more puzzling things is that InterVarsity Press chose to publish this book. IVP has for years been viewed as a standard-bearer for evangelical publishing. It’s unsettling to me that they have lent the otherwise long-standing credibility of their name to a book of such horrendous theological content.

In the next installment I want to provide a brief summary of the book so that you can see what is being said concerning the death of Christ. I will also make reference, when appropriate, to other books that have followed the lead of Greene and Baker in their denial of penal substitutionary atonement (hereafter PSA). Then, secondly, I’ll work progressively through the book, The Nature of the Atonement (also published by IVP) in which Gregory Boyd, Tom Schreiner, Joel Greene, and Bruce Reichenbach address our theme.