Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

atonement

It Is Finished

by

That’s what Jesus said on the cross some 1,980 years ago.

That’s why “Holy Week” pictures like these are so sad.

Comment 66 is mine:

Thanks for the quality photos. As usual, they are first-class. I profit immensely from looking at the photos posted here each week.

The actions captured in these photos, however, simultaneously sadden and infuriate me. This is not pure Christianity as found in the Old and New Testaments. These are warped traditions that have turned the good news about Jesus Christ on its head.

For an explanation of why Jesus died (and why acts like self-inflicted wounds are not only unnecessary but actually offensive to God), see John Piper’s book The Passion of Jesus Christ: Fifty Reasons Why He Came to Die. Free PDF here.

Atonement: Four Views

by

I’m taking a Ph.D. seminar with Dr. Graham Cole at TEDS this semester: “Historical Theology: The Atonement.” (BTW, Dr. Cole is currently working on a book on the atonement that will be part of D. A. Carson‘s New Studies in Biblical Theology series; it probably won’t be finished until around 2010.) Consequently, I’m doing a fair bit of reading on the atonement. Last Thursday I enjoyed reading one of the latest contributions on the subject:

Beilby, James and Paul R. Eddy, eds. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.

The four views defended are:

  1. Christus victor: Greg Boyd
  2. Penal substitution: Tom Schreiner
  3. Healing: Bruce Reichenbach
  4. Kaleidoscopic: Joel Green

The thesis of the first three essays is that their view is the primary facet of the atonement–not that it is the only facet. Green argues that no facet should be primary.

Bottom line: Schreiner cleans house. First class. Well done. Highly recommended.

Point of interest: Boyd’s response to Schreiner involves a five-page comparison and contrast of his view with Schreiner’s as it lines up with C. S. Lewis‘ depiction of Aslan’s death in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (pp. 100-105). Boyd lists two “profound” differences between Schreiner’s view and his/Lewis’ view.

  1. “First and most fundamentally, Lewis believes that self-sacrificial love is a ‘deeper magic’ than the law, while Schreiner, so far as I can see, does not” (p. 102).
  2. “Because of their differing views on ‘deep magic,’ Lewis and Schreiner provide very different answers to the question, Who demanded that the deep magic of the law be satisfied with ‘a kill’? For Schreiner, it is God. For Lewis (and most advocates of the Christus Victor view) it is the devil. Here is where the rubber meets the road in terms of the difference between these two views . . .” (p. 103).

For years I have been baffled by the number of people who have no problem with using Aslan’s death as an illustration (without qualification) of Christ’s atonement. Although it is wonderfully illustrative for some aspects of Christ’s atonement, it is fundamentally flawed by placing too much authority and initiative in the hands of Satan (i.e., the white witch).

For more on problems with the Christus Victor view (which often includes some form of the ransom-to-Satan theory), see explanations and refutations in standards systematic theologies. Wayne Grudem‘s Systematic Theology is a good place to start (p. 581 et al.).

Update:

  1. See this Reformation 21 review.
  2. Master Scripture Index for New Studies in Biblical Theology