In recent years, it has become rather faddish for critics of traditional atonement theory to dismiss the idea of penal substitution as a form of cosmic child abuse. In other words, these critics assert that it is a morally evil injustice for God to punish His innocent Son for the sins of all other human beings. They further assert that this kind of “redemptive violence” is simply incompatible with a God who is love. Stephen Chalk and Alan Mann, in their book The Lost Message of Jesus, state it this way:
The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.
Later, they give their understanding of the atonement when they state:
The truth is, the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his Son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.
This moral influence theory of the atonement is not new or original with Chalk and Mann. It was first advanced by a medieval scholastic theologian named Peter Abelard (1079-1142), who
“emphasized the primacy of God’s love and insisted that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment to the Father to satisfy his offended dignity. Rather, Jesus demonstrated to humanity the full extent of God’s love for them” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 803)
In other words, on the cross, God showed to what extent He was willing to go to demonstrate the depth of His love for humanity, and His great love so demonstrated should cause human beings to respond in love to God. Certainly, God is love (1 John 4:7-21) and the cross is a demonstration of God’s love (Romans 5:8), but the above definition simply does not go far enough to explain why the cross is effective as a means of salvation for human beings. In what follows, I will give some reasons why this critique, that penal substitutionary atonement is “cosmic child abuse”, is completely unfounded and why a penal substitution view of the atonement is essential to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
First, it goes against the overwhelming testimony of Holy Scripture. It is no overstatement to conclude that the nearly unanimous witness of the Biblical authors from beginning to end is that Christ died as a substitute for the sins of humanity. There is not enough space here to quote all the verses that would serve to prove this point, so a few will simply have to suffice. As it relates to the Old Testament, one could argue that the entire sacrificial system was pointing to the death of Jesus, because that system is based upon the foundational assumption that the death of animals can substitute and atone for the sins of human beings. But, the premier text on this topic is the “Suffering Servant Song” of Isaiah 53, which says in part:
But he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds. We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished him for the iniquity of us all. (verses 5-6)
And, in the New Testament, there are numerous verses that could be quoted to show that the first followers of Jesus understood his death as a substitutionary atonement for sin. Due to space limitations, a few will have to suffice. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul says, “For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” Also, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” In Romans 4:25, he says “He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” And not only Paul, but we see that the other writers of the New Testament understood the atonement in this way as well. In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter wrote, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness.” And in 1 Peter 3:18, he wrote, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God.” In 1 John 4:10, John writes, “Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (propitiation) for our sins.” And the author of Hebrews, says in Hebrews 2:9, “But we do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace he might taste death for everyone.”
In light of all this, we are safe to conclude that the Old and New Testament authors unanimously understand the death of Jesus as a substitute making atonement to God for the sins of humanity.
Second, this view also misunderstands the essential character and nature of God in two ways. First, as it relates to His character, proponents of this kind of moral influence theory exalt God’s love over and against His other attributes, namely His holiness and justice. God’s character attributes cannot be so divided as to pit them against one another. He is a God of love, but he is also and equally a God of holiness and justice. Moreover, His attributes are interrelated, such that his love is just and holy, and his holiness and justice are loving. To pit God’s justice against His love is to recapitulate that ancient heresy attributed to Marcion of Sinope (c. 85-c. 160), who believed the wrathful Hebrew God of the Old Testament was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. That heresy was rightly condemned by the fathers of early church.
Also, as it relates to the nature of God, this view fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine of the trinity. These critics of the traditional penal substitutionary view seem to assume that the Son was an innocent third party separate and distinct from God the Father. Therefore, they argue that it is unjust for God to punish the Son for the sins of all humanity. However, the Son is not some innocent disconnected third party in this discussion; no, the Son is God himself. The second person of the trinity was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, so it was the second person of the Trinity that died on the cross. We must not disconnect God’s threeness (in persons) from his oneness (in essence). After all, Christians are fundamentally monotheists; Holy Scripture clearly teaches that there is one God. So, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons. So, if the second person of the trinity died on the cross for the sins of humanity, then we must say that God himself died on the cross for the sins of humanity. Thus, the Son was a willing participant in the crucifixion, as God took the sins of humanity onto himself.
The atonement, a penal substitutionary atonement, is at the very center of the Christian Gospel, that Jesus Christ bore the sins of humanity on the cross and died in their place to satisfy their deserved punishment before a just and holy God. Let us not shrink from this fact in fear or shame, but embrace it as the glorious demonstration of God’s love that it is.
Faith seeking Understanding 
On Sola Scriptura and the Use of Bible Study Resources
Five hundred years ago, the leaders of the Protestant Reformation championed the refrain sola scriptura, that scripture alone is the ultimate and final authority for all questions pertaining to Christian faith and practice. It is a refrain that continues to ring out today in Bible believing churches all over the world. The perspicuity, sufficiency, and authority of the Bible are convictions that are foundational for the overall health and wellbeing of the church, and this is especially so when these truths are under the kind of direct attack that they have suffered in this current cultural climate. It is no understatement to say that the trends of the culture are moving against the authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Therefore, it is imperative for every new generation of Christians to affirm, proclaim and defend these truths.
However, in my experience, there is widespread misunderstanding about what the doctrine of sola scriptura actually means. Many Christians commonly confuse the doctrine of sola scriptura, or “scripture alone”, with a position that might be called solo scriptura, or “scripture only”. Solo scriptura is the position that Holy Scripture is the only valid resource for matters of Christian faith and practice, and usually, it holds that other kinds of extra biblical resources are unnecessary, nay even inappropriate. According to this perspective, biblical commentaries, historical studies, biblical and systematic theologies are typically viewed as distractions or obstacles in the study of the Bible rather than as aids in the process. These resources are typically viewed as merely the opinions of men, and so they are deemed to be inappropriate for the Christian who truly wants to hear the voice God in His Word.
Now, I think that the believers who hold this kind opinion are genuine in their desire to know and obey the Word of God, and this should be applauded. But, to eschew all extra biblical resources out of some supposed devotion to the primacy of Holy Scripture is fundamentally short sighted and unwise. This is primarily because God has gifted his church with pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4.11), and these gifts have been preserved for us in the form of commentaries, theologies, and the like that have been passed down through the ages. Moreover, the Proverbs remind us that “A fool’s way is right in his own eyes, but whoever listens to counsel is wise” (Proverbs 12.15), and “Without guidance, a people will fall, but with many counselors there is deliverance” (Proverbs 11.14). In other words, it is in keeping with Biblical wisdom to listen to the counsel of those who have studied the Bible before us. Or to put it another way, “[Interpretations] fail when there is no counsel, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15.22).
Of course, the doctrine of sola scriptura rightly affirms that these extra biblical resources do not stand above the Bible in any kind of authoritative or determinative way. The Bible is norma normans non normata; it is the norming norm that is itself not normed. On the other hand, biblical commentaries, systematic theologies, and the like are norma normata, or “normed norms”, in the process of biblical interpretation. They are the guard rails that keep us from falling into the canyon of interpretive subjectivism, but they are ultimately subservient to that final authority which is the inspired and inerrant Word of the one true and living God. This is the doctrine of sola scriptura rightly understood; it is the affirmation that scripture the final and highest authority on matters pertaining to Christian life and practice, but it is not the only authority on these matters.
So, when it comes to reading and studying the Bible, Christians are right to avail themselves of the plethora of resources both modern and ancient that are available today. This includes but is not limited to biblical commentaries, biblical, systematic, and historical theologies, socio-cultural background studies, linguistic and literary aids, and many others. These are valuable helps in the interpretive process. However, as helpful as these kinds of books are, we must remember that nothing can substitute for simply reading the Bible; this is the God-ordained means by which we are transformed into His image by the renewing of our minds. As Charles Spurgeon once said, “Visit many good books, but live in the Bible. ” Or as the Bible itself reminds us,
For more on this topic, see also:
On the Use and Benefit of Tradition
On Hermeneutics & Interpreting the Bible
Share this:
2 Comments | tags: Authority of Scripture, Bible Reading, Bible Study Methods, Bible Study Resources, Biblical Commentaries, Biblical Theology, Charles H. Spurgeon, Counselors, norma normans non normata, norma normata, Perspicuity of Scripture, Phillip Powers, Reformation, Scripture Alone, sola scriptura, solo scriptura, Sufficiency of Scripture, Systematic Theology, Wisdom | posted in Church History, Hermeneutics, Systematic Theology