Part 1. Theories on the Atonement - Father God's Freedom

Galatians 5:1 TPT
Let me be clear, the Anointed One has set us free — not partially, but completely and wonderfully free! We must always cherish this truth and stubbornly refuse to go back into the bondage of our past.

John 10:10 TPT
A thief has only one thing in mind-he wants to steal, slaughter, and destroy. But I have come to give you everything in abundance, more than you expect — life in its fullness until you overflow!

The relationship you have with God is the foundation that determines the level of Christ likeness you experience. The doctrine of atonement that you believe likely has the most significant influence on your relationship with God. Anyone who desires to move into the promises of freedom that Christ offers must first deal with their understanding of the work of Christ so their faith can rest upon him and what he has done. Your view of the work of Christ influences directly how you view God, and how you believe God views you.

Penal substitution atonement has a wide degree of acceptance among those in the western church, mostly because it is the main atonement belief of the Baptist and Presbyterian denominations. The main purpose of this first article is not to dissuade anyone from believing in penal substitution atonement, for as a doctrine it does have value in demonstrating the difference between God‘s holiness and man sinfulness. But rather, the purpose is to show the holes in the doctrine that must be filled if we are to see God correctly and move into His Victory.

While I do not wish to denigrate this doctrine, I do need to show the major flaws that caused these holes. During the time of lords and servants and great class distinction, at the end of the 11th century, Anselm, an Italian monk for the Catholic Church, began working on a new doctrine of atonement which is called satisfaction atonement. John Calvin would later modify this doctrine into penal substitution atonement theory.

Anselm did not believe that Satan had any power over man. How he might arrive at this belief sort of makes sense since after the cross, Jesus tells his disciples that He now has all authority under heaven and on earth when previously He had stated that Satan was the ruler of this world. Because he did not believe that Satan had any power, Anselm desired to formulate a new doctrine of atonement that was contrary to the current belief system which stated that the cross delivered us from the powers of Satan, sin, and the curse.

Anselm’s Desire to remove Satan from the narrative is actually a strange one considering that the first prophecy about the coming Messiah is found in reference to Satan being defeated by Jesus. Genesis 3:15 NKJV “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.” Here we see that man will continue to struggle again Satan. But, when Christ comes, the head of the snake, Satan, will be bruised— meaning that Christ will strike directly upon Satan’s authority on the earth.

Christ calls Satan the ruler of this world and the prince of the power of the air. Paul defines Satan and his minions as principalities and powers. Hebrews 2:14 says that Satan had the power of death. And in 1 John 3:8 it says that Christ “was manifested to destroy the works of the devil.” It is indeed a very strange thing that Anselm would seek to remove Satan from the narrative all together.

Anselm also struggled greatly with the nobles in that time. Despite that, he demonstrates that he agreed with the common theme that nobles had a right to demand honor from their servants. And, if their honor is damaged by a servant, they had a right to demand restitution or punishment to restore their honor. Anselm then attributed this mentality to God.

Look at this quote from him. “Necessarily, then, when God’s honor is taken away, either it is paid back or else punishment follows. Otherwise, either God would not be just toward himself, or he would lack the power to enforce either repayment, or punishment. And it is impious to think such a thing.”

Jesus, God in man, who only says what he hears his father saying, says that he refuses to receive honor from man. “I do not receive honor from men.” John 5:41 NKJV

Through the centuries we have learned a better definition of honor. Honor is not something you extract from those under you in order to maintain it. You maintain your honor by maintaining your character regardless of how others treat you. Christ reflects the theme when he says to his disciples that they are not to be like those in authority, who lord over those under them.

These two gross assumptions by Anselm create huge holes within his theology which will continue through to the theory of penal substitution atonement.

And yet, Penal substitution atonement theory is even more inadequate. It fails to demonstrate what a relationship with God looks like for the one that has believed on Jesus. And, It fails to adequately display the work of reconciliation and the work of redemption.

Reconciliation and redemption are about the image of God. Penal substitution atonement fails to restore the image of God in man and fails to restore the image of God to man. For the work of the cross, redemption, is meant to bring man into Christ likeness thereby restoring the image of God in Man. Reconciliation is meant to restore the relationship between God and man thereby restoring the image of God in the eyes of men.

God has clearly demonstrated that he desires to be seen as a father and not as a judge to those who call Him father. Penal substitution atonement theory leaves man with a view of God that He is still a judge in their life, leaving them with a sense of failure, always to wonder in their heart if they actually were reconciled. It is a common theme within congregations who embrace this theology to engage in continual acts of repentance so that the members can feel like they are saved again. This is a great failure.

God has clearly expressed that his divine purpose in the cross is that we be “conformed to the image of Christ”. This is the image of God in man. Penal substitution atonement theory does not address this in any way, but wholly ignores the resurrection of Christ as part of the work of atonement. This work is just as significant as the death of Christ.

Furthermore, punishment is not how one is reconciled to God. Throughout Scripture it is always been repentance, though often tied to a sacrifice, that causes men to be reconciled back to God, Old Testament and New Testament alike. Consider Matthew 18:21-22. The real problem is that man cannot repent of his nature. The cross plus the resurrection allows men to repent of their very nature. The flesh and nature of man was crucified on the cross in Christ. All those that believe in Him are born again into the nature of God.

Penal substitution theory therefore fails to address the transformation spoken about in the gospels. It leaves men in the Fallen state. It is contrary to God being love and fails to reveal God‘s desire to enjoy man. It is God’s delight over us that produces this transformation in us.

It also fails to address the curse problem and the problem with sin as a power over man. In fact, it also starts with the premise that Satan was never a significant problem for man. By failing to address the problem with the curse and the problem with Satan, it leaves man vulnerable to the lies of Satan who seeks to convince man that they are still under the curse and will always struggle with sin.

Penal substitution atonement theory seeks to display the nature of God through the lens of the law. But, God is not defined by the law. God does not want to have a legal relationship with mankind. God defines himself as a father not as a judge. Penal substitution atonement theory attributes the nature of the law upon God. It paints him as petty and desiring his ego stroked. It’s supposes is that God’s honor can be affected by man. It displays punishment of sin as God’s primary need and perverts God’s definition of love which is found both in the fruit of the spirit and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.

*I realize that the previous words are a little extreme, but I left them in not to be offensive but to illustrate the emotions that this type of doctrine stirs within the heart of one who has only known God as a father. To the unbeliever, condemnation remains. Paul says that those who do not believe remain children of wrath. But I was saved at an early age, and though I had to have a divine encounter in order to deal with the shame and condemnation I lived under for feeling like I had failed God, God never approached me as a judge, but only as a father. Therefore, I had to be reconciled to God as a father towards me rather than a judge judging me. *

Penal substitution atonement theory also seeks to attribute the wrath of God to being poured out on Christ alone. While some may suggest it is alluded to in the Old Testament, this concept is actually spelled out nowhere in Scripture. In fact, in the New Testament, the wrath of God seems to be reserved strictly for those who are contrary to the work of Christ, and it is consistently portrayed as being future to the New Testament writers. Never does the New Testament come even close to suggesting that the wrath of God is being poured out on Christ on our behalf. In Revelation it is Christ himself who is performing the wrath of God. So the wrath of God is never poured out on Christ, instead it is poured out upon those who are contrary to Christ and by Christ. It seems to be connected to those who choose the law over Jesus.

Have you ever noticed how Jesus and Paul’s quotations of the old testament is often distinctly different from what we read ourselves? The answer is the Septuagint. The Septuagint was a Hebrew to Greek translation popular during the New Testament times. The Septuagint is not influenced by popular American theology or culture, instead it is reflective of Hebrew culture and theology. This makes it an invaluable resource to those who are translating the old testament. English translators use this text to ensure that their translations properly convey the original meaning of the Hebrew authors, but they don’t always get this correct.

Isaiah 53 is the only place found in scripture where it seems to suggest that God wanted to punish Christ on our behalf, but there is controversy surrounding the translation of the three verses within Isaiah 53, Isaiah 53:5, 8, and 10, that seem to suggest this. The Greek Septuagint LXX paints a vastly different picture for these three verses. It paints a picture of Christ accepting the plague of sin, of which God desires to free him, and us. This is in no way suggesting that Christ sinned, but rather that sin was a plague upon humanity that Christ overcame on our behalf.

You can get a feel for this translation by reading Young Literal Interpretation of the Bible.

For the transgression of my people he was punished (Isaiah 53: 8).

V.S.

By the transgression of My people he is plagued (Isaiah 53: 8 YLT).

Looking at the cross, it is not that God is motivated by wrath against man’s sin. It’s actually about God desiring to get his kids back, willing to pay any price. His motive is clear, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son…”, “There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for another.“ Wrath is never mentioned in any scripture as connected to Christ on the cross. “Love is a surrendered life for the sake of another.” -Dan Mohler

I will show a little grace so you can understand why some of the concepts still have merit. If you replace the concept of “God” in penal substitution atonement with “the law“, then, and only then does it make sense. The law demands punishment, restitution, and a substitute sacrifice, not God. Such was the reason that condemnation still lived within me even after the cross.

Many must cling to this view of atonement because they find worship in the contrast between a holy God and their sinful state. In fact they have to return to this contrast time and time again, remaining vigilant, so their worship can stay pure. I do desire to honor their diligence to the work of the cross as they see it.

But, they don’t know that there’s a worship that comes from transformation. I believe the worship that occurs because of transformation is much deeper because it does remember who you were and where you came from, and recognizes that the transformation had nothing to do with your ability to fix yourself. This worship is the honor of the depth of his love that would change a sinner like me. There’s also a worship that comes from the embrace of reconciliation. If someone clings to the penal substitution idea of atonement, often times they will shy away from an embrace from God because it is contrary to the worship they see when they compare themselves to God. But to know that God would embrace a man who doesn’t deserve love yet still calls me His own, that also produces a deep level of worship that flies in the face of that contrast but does not diminish it.

The benefit of Penal substitution atonement is that it proves that God has forever judge sin in Christ on our behalf. For those who are students of penal substitution atonement they often don’t struggle with these shortcomings because they have other ways of filling in the gap‘s, but for a Spirit filled believer who is seeking to function in power you must also deal with these shortcomings.

In summary, these are ares that this theory of atonement falls short, specifically for those who are pursuing the fullness of Christ empowered through the baptism of Holy Spirit.

Satisfaction Atonement:

Rejects the work of Satan against man
Suggest God needs His honor protected

Penal Substitutionary Atonement:

Doesn’t address the work of Satan against man
1. Doesn’t adequately address the conquering of Satan
2. Doesn’t address the power of Satan spoke of by Christ and the apostles
Misses the full work of reconciliation
1. Displays God primarily as a judge
2. Does not transition man into a new relationship with Father God
3. Does not adequately recognize God as a father
4. Does not define what a relationship with Father God looks like.
5. Supposes God is driven by A need to punish
Does not recognize Christ’s dominion over sin in a believer
1. Leaves man in a state of failure as a sinner
2. Does not recognize the effect of the cross on the sin nature
Misses the real work of redemption
1. Does not recognize the transformative work of the cross
2. Does not recognize God‘s desire for transformation
3. Does not speak to the resurrection of Christ
4. Does not define Christ likeness
Does not define the curse
1. Does not recognize Christ canceling the curse
Does not recognize the problem of the law
1. Links God’s nature to the law
2. Leaves man with a legal relationship to God
3. Ignores the wrath of God on the law
4. Does not define Christ fulfillment of the law
Points the wrath of God at Christ
Paints God as an angry God
Doesn’t address the issue of value or the fear that “no one would want me”.

What it does do is help men see how much they have failed God. But, I don’t believe that God wants us to remain in that state.

Part 2. Christus Victor