The Wonderous Cross
Hi everyone this is the first in my review of books on the atonement. This english in this review is probably a bit choppy but I felt if I didn't publish it now it wouldn't get done. So if there is any sentences that particularly grate let us know and I'll update accordingly.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
To add to the recent flurry of books defending, or rejecting, the penal substitutionary doctrine of atonement Stephen R. Holmes has added his contribution with The wondrous cross. Having read his other work Listening to the Past, I was very much looking forward to Holmes' take on PSA. The book is not his usual academic orientated work, rather it is an attempt to reach the wider evangelical world.
The core argument of the book is that the Cross is something is such a basic concept that language fails to explain it adequately. Consequently, Holmes argues that different 'stories of atonement' are needed to explain what has happened. Thus far, this is not too controversial argument, except for those who believe in a dominant atonement model that all others are merely subsidiaries thereof. This argument sets the stage for his assertion that Penal substitution, while not the dominant story, is an important (possibly necessary) story for understanding the Cross. Moreover, there are aspects of the Cross that this story illuminates that all others do not.
The book proceeds to look at the way scriptures provide an explanation for Christ's death. He starts with the Old Testament as a types of the new. He then moves onto explore the role of sacrifice culminating in Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac on mount Moriah. He argues that at its bottom all logical explanation falls short for sacrifice is ultimately mysterious.
In the next chapter Holmes naturally moves on to the New Testaments construction of the atonement. In the chapter he makes the frank admission that “There is, as far as I can see, no clearly worked out doctrine of atonement in the New Testament. Instead, there is only the raw material out of which we may and must attempt to construct such a doctrine.” However he does find some key features, such as Jesus acting being ' as our example, as our representative, and as our substitute. '
Perhaps the most interesting part of the work, unsurprisingly as Holmes is an historical theologian, is his next two chapters survey of the history of the doctrine of penal substitution. Contra Pierced for our Transgressions (a book from the Oak Hill school of theology) the early church is not brimming over with the doctrine of Penal substitution. Indeed, Holmes can find only one fully blown doctrine of penal substitution in the early Church and that in the writings of Pope Gregory the Great. He suggests that many evangelical attempts to find penal substitution in the writings of the Fathers is due there assumption that the terms used by the early church is being used in the framework of penal substitution. He is also keen (as he was in Listening to the Past) to defend Anselm from the charge of being the founder of the doctrine of Penal Substitution.
The potted history of the doctrine is continued by looking at the doctrine of the Reformers to the present day. He suggests that the first real doctrine of PSA is posited by the magisterial reformer John Calvin. He argues that Martin Luther's doctrine of the atonement leans in that direction but is more concerned with Christ dealing with Law that with the righteous punishment of God. He then notes that this way of speaking about the Cross became the established orthodoxy in the Church. Morever, this was the dominant way of talking about the cross for two hundred years.
Holmes locates the beginning of the questioning of the doctrine by otherwise orthodox Christians (there was some vehement critics, especial Scocinous, however they tended to reject other more core Christian doctrines) to begin in the nineteenth century. As such, he focuses on the eighteenth century's prevailing wind of liberal theology, not before mentioning “A group of brilliant young Scot's thinkers - John McLeod Campbell, Thomas Erskine of Linlathlen, and Edward Irving chief among them ... . ” Importantly, for though they denied Penal Substitution, Holmes notes, they did not deny the central efficacy and necessity of the Cross. The same cannot be said of the liberal theologians, for whom Christ death was only efficacious in that it influenced others to do good. Strangely, he places R. C. Moberly in this camp (where as, in this authors opinion is distantly related to the 'young scots' from whom he borrows though no where construction is not as successfully as McLeod Campbell's) . Holmes then progresses to twentieth century and to neo-orthodox school , which he notes, 'members' were divided amongst the authors on their views on this matter. The influential Christus Victor by Gustaf Allen is mentioned in it centrality of the cross in non-penal terms. Finally, touching on Liberation theology and the cross as the great act of liberation.
Holmes moves on to explorer in detail his idea of stories of the salvation. He argues that evangelicals (and a good few others) have been guilty of seeing there story as being the key one and that all others are merely explanations of this one. In contradiction to this, Holmes argues that biblically this is an unsupportable position. Moreover, these different 'stories of salvation' should help to enhance the believers vision of the cross as they each provided a necessary, but limited, perspective on Christ's atoning work. There a special place is derived from the fact that because '...they describe something we have no other grasp of.' Obviously, this all provides the basis for Holmes' argument on that penal substitution is one aspect atonement.
Before exploring the strength of the Penal substitutionary atonement it is important to clarify what Holmes believes this is (as there often seems to be an abundance of penal substitutionary doctrines of the atonement). His short definition is that:
"The term penal substitution denotes a way of talking about the cross in terms of crime and
punishment: we have broken God's law, and deserve to be punished for that, but God in his love provides a substitute, his Son, who will take the punishment so that we don't have to. As a result, we are freed from [objective] guilt and enabled to become children of God."
Interestingly, the punishment that Holmes argues that Christ bears is that of death (unlike, some which argue that it is essentially hell). Nevertheless, to argue this creates more problems than it solves as all of us die, irrespective of Christ's death in our place. However, the fact that Christ died can be seen as receiving the 'wages of sin', a punishment arguably, though the thought that this aspect is by itself vicarious is is less so.
Holmes latches upon the metaphor of forgiveness as a way of explaining what penal substitution is about. The cost of Forgiveness is born by the forgiver. Furthermore, he argues that, perhaps, penal substation is the only 'story of salvation' that allows the full cost of salvation to be expressed. Holmes does not deal with the possibility of using the 'cost of forgiveness' motif as a 'story of salvation'. Also, he argues that PSA, though not exclusively, declares the free nature of salvation.
Finally by way of epilogue Holmes reviews Steve Chalke's and Alan Mann's 'The Lost Message of Jesus'. He is generally positive about the book. He notes Chalke's now infamous line that “The fact is the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he hasn't even committed.” To which he makes the response (I wish all defenders of PSA had made) that this is not penal substitution and those who think it is should change there doctrine of PSA. That said he is not so complimentary about some of Chalke's later comments on the issue.
Holmes ends with a call for tolerance (in the best sense of the word) between evangelicals disagreeing on the 'how' of the cross. This is as, our perspective is necessarily limited and our models of atonement are attempts to articulate the ineffable. This conclusion is most certainly the most valuable part of the work. Combined with his assertion that,“Penal substitution was, for Protestants at least, a dominant story of salvation between 1600 and 1800.” For, if one is to reject penal substitution does the writings on the cross by these writers become merely superfluous. Here, Holmes, is at his best reminding the Church of the need to listen to the voices of the church's past makes an excellent point.
However, here there is another possible direction that Holmes could take. He notes the 'stories of salvation' all have proper theological concerns specific to them. Furthermore, Holmes, admits that he has not heard a 'story of salvation' that express the concerns of penal substitution in a better way. If such a story existed, and was able to overcome some of the difficulties attached to PSA would that not be better way. Though, it would be incumbent upon the sympathetic critic of PSA to produce such a model. Furthermore, this would not necessary lead to a devaluing of tradition, for the concerns of those (past and present) who assert Penal substitution would be affirmed, while not their specific story of salvation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
NEXT I. H. Marshall's new book on the atonement
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
To add to the recent flurry of books defending, or rejecting, the penal substitutionary doctrine of atonement Stephen R. Holmes has added his contribution with The wondrous cross. Having read his other work Listening to the Past, I was very much looking forward to Holmes' take on PSA. The book is not his usual academic orientated work, rather it is an attempt to reach the wider evangelical world.
The core argument of the book is that the Cross is something is such a basic concept that language fails to explain it adequately. Consequently, Holmes argues that different 'stories of atonement' are needed to explain what has happened. Thus far, this is not too controversial argument, except for those who believe in a dominant atonement model that all others are merely subsidiaries thereof. This argument sets the stage for his assertion that Penal substitution, while not the dominant story, is an important (possibly necessary) story for understanding the Cross. Moreover, there are aspects of the Cross that this story illuminates that all others do not.
The book proceeds to look at the way scriptures provide an explanation for Christ's death. He starts with the Old Testament as a types of the new. He then moves onto explore the role of sacrifice culminating in Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac on mount Moriah. He argues that at its bottom all logical explanation falls short for sacrifice is ultimately mysterious.
In the next chapter Holmes naturally moves on to the New Testaments construction of the atonement. In the chapter he makes the frank admission that “There is, as far as I can see, no clearly worked out doctrine of atonement in the New Testament. Instead, there is only the raw material out of which we may and must attempt to construct such a doctrine.” However he does find some key features, such as Jesus acting being ' as our example, as our representative, and as our substitute. '
Perhaps the most interesting part of the work, unsurprisingly as Holmes is an historical theologian, is his next two chapters survey of the history of the doctrine of penal substitution. Contra Pierced for our Transgressions (a book from the Oak Hill school of theology) the early church is not brimming over with the doctrine of Penal substitution. Indeed, Holmes can find only one fully blown doctrine of penal substitution in the early Church and that in the writings of Pope Gregory the Great. He suggests that many evangelical attempts to find penal substitution in the writings of the Fathers is due there assumption that the terms used by the early church is being used in the framework of penal substitution. He is also keen (as he was in Listening to the Past) to defend Anselm from the charge of being the founder of the doctrine of Penal Substitution.
The potted history of the doctrine is continued by looking at the doctrine of the Reformers to the present day. He suggests that the first real doctrine of PSA is posited by the magisterial reformer John Calvin. He argues that Martin Luther's doctrine of the atonement leans in that direction but is more concerned with Christ dealing with Law that with the righteous punishment of God. He then notes that this way of speaking about the Cross became the established orthodoxy in the Church. Morever, this was the dominant way of talking about the cross for two hundred years.
Holmes locates the beginning of the questioning of the doctrine by otherwise orthodox Christians (there was some vehement critics, especial Scocinous, however they tended to reject other more core Christian doctrines) to begin in the nineteenth century. As such, he focuses on the eighteenth century's prevailing wind of liberal theology, not before mentioning “A group of brilliant young Scot's thinkers - John McLeod Campbell, Thomas Erskine of Linlathlen, and Edward Irving chief among them ... . ” Importantly, for though they denied Penal Substitution, Holmes notes, they did not deny the central efficacy and necessity of the Cross. The same cannot be said of the liberal theologians, for whom Christ death was only efficacious in that it influenced others to do good. Strangely, he places R. C. Moberly in this camp (where as, in this authors opinion is distantly related to the 'young scots' from whom he borrows though no where construction is not as successfully as McLeod Campbell's) . Holmes then progresses to twentieth century and to neo-orthodox school , which he notes, 'members' were divided amongst the authors on their views on this matter. The influential Christus Victor by Gustaf Allen is mentioned in it centrality of the cross in non-penal terms. Finally, touching on Liberation theology and the cross as the great act of liberation.
Holmes moves on to explorer in detail his idea of stories of the salvation. He argues that evangelicals (and a good few others) have been guilty of seeing there story as being the key one and that all others are merely explanations of this one. In contradiction to this, Holmes argues that biblically this is an unsupportable position. Moreover, these different 'stories of salvation' should help to enhance the believers vision of the cross as they each provided a necessary, but limited, perspective on Christ's atoning work. There a special place is derived from the fact that because '...they describe something we have no other grasp of.' Obviously, this all provides the basis for Holmes' argument on that penal substitution is one aspect atonement.
Before exploring the strength of the Penal substitutionary atonement it is important to clarify what Holmes believes this is (as there often seems to be an abundance of penal substitutionary doctrines of the atonement). His short definition is that:
"The term penal substitution denotes a way of talking about the cross in terms of crime and
punishment: we have broken God's law, and deserve to be punished for that, but God in his love provides a substitute, his Son, who will take the punishment so that we don't have to. As a result, we are freed from [objective] guilt and enabled to become children of God."
Interestingly, the punishment that Holmes argues that Christ bears is that of death (unlike, some which argue that it is essentially hell). Nevertheless, to argue this creates more problems than it solves as all of us die, irrespective of Christ's death in our place. However, the fact that Christ died can be seen as receiving the 'wages of sin', a punishment arguably, though the thought that this aspect is by itself vicarious is is less so.
Holmes latches upon the metaphor of forgiveness as a way of explaining what penal substitution is about. The cost of Forgiveness is born by the forgiver. Furthermore, he argues that, perhaps, penal substation is the only 'story of salvation' that allows the full cost of salvation to be expressed. Holmes does not deal with the possibility of using the 'cost of forgiveness' motif as a 'story of salvation'. Also, he argues that PSA, though not exclusively, declares the free nature of salvation.
Finally by way of epilogue Holmes reviews Steve Chalke's and Alan Mann's 'The Lost Message of Jesus'. He is generally positive about the book. He notes Chalke's now infamous line that “The fact is the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he hasn't even committed.” To which he makes the response (I wish all defenders of PSA had made) that this is not penal substitution and those who think it is should change there doctrine of PSA. That said he is not so complimentary about some of Chalke's later comments on the issue.
Holmes ends with a call for tolerance (in the best sense of the word) between evangelicals disagreeing on the 'how' of the cross. This is as, our perspective is necessarily limited and our models of atonement are attempts to articulate the ineffable. This conclusion is most certainly the most valuable part of the work. Combined with his assertion that,“Penal substitution was, for Protestants at least, a dominant story of salvation between 1600 and 1800.” For, if one is to reject penal substitution does the writings on the cross by these writers become merely superfluous. Here, Holmes, is at his best reminding the Church of the need to listen to the voices of the church's past makes an excellent point.
However, here there is another possible direction that Holmes could take. He notes the 'stories of salvation' all have proper theological concerns specific to them. Furthermore, Holmes, admits that he has not heard a 'story of salvation' that express the concerns of penal substitution in a better way. If such a story existed, and was able to overcome some of the difficulties attached to PSA would that not be better way. Though, it would be incumbent upon the sympathetic critic of PSA to produce such a model. Furthermore, this would not necessary lead to a devaluing of tradition, for the concerns of those (past and present) who assert Penal substitution would be affirmed, while not their specific story of salvation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
NEXT I. H. Marshall's new book on the atonement
posted by xopher_mc | 1:00 am
2 Comments:
Thanks for this summary Richard. I'm actually reading Holmes' books at the moment, so your review is timely.
One question: do you think that Holmes is right to identify John McLeod Campbell as a rejector of PSA? This would not be my reading of JMC, especially in his work apart from 'The Nature of the Atonement' (though the idea is not absent even there). To be sure, he rejects the doctrine as propounded in its cruder forms, but (as you know from Forsyth), this is a different thing than rejecting the penal elements in Christ's atoning work.
Your thoughts?
I think the question is with McLeod Campbell and even Forsyth is whether they subscribe to PSA according to Holme's definition. Maybe I misunderstand Forsyth , here where I think he differs from Holmes' definition. That while Christ does suffer the penal sufferings of fallen man, he does not suffer then as substitute. What he does that is vicarious is offer the perfect 'Amen' to that suffering as right.
As I hinted in the essay the question of whether Christ suffers hell is important as it qualifies the nature of Christ's suffering. As many writers seem to use 'Christ death for us' to by synonymous with Christ suffering hell for us. This is on the one hand logical as to say that he dies instead of us is patently untrue as we all still die (a point well made by Thomas Erskine in The brazen serpent). To say that the death itself is substutionary must mean that 'death' here means something more the ceasation of life. I, however, don't think this makes sense I think that death means simply death. What the, consequently, is different with Christ's death is the manner in which he dies. Namely, it is a death to sin. It is an 'Amen' to death being the right wages of sin.
In this sense I think that Campbell and Forsyth present the manner of his death being substitutionary, rather than his death in-it-self. Whereas, most people, including Holmes, seem to argue that the death itself is substitutionary.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home