It is not uncommon when discussing the atonement for someone to bring up the ugly, inappropriate, phrase "the mechanics of the atonement." Generally this is done to protest, either mildly or strongly, against the necessity of knowing the framework of beliefs that sees the atonement as a work of self-giving on the part of the triune God whereby the Son voluntarily agrees to bear the sin of his people by taking their place and bearing their condemnation. I have never understood that when discussing something so personal as the Father not sparing his own Son but giving him up for us all (Rom. 8:32) or the Son being delivered up for our trespasses, it could ever be thought appropriate to refer to this as the "mechanics of the atonement." The very phrase jars with the profound, personal, God-ward, depths of the meaning of the Cross. In its worst form that phrase is used to obvert attention from this explanation of the atonement (penal substitution) to another. But in doing so, let us be clear, a phrase is being used that creates prejudice and misrepresentation against substitutionary atonement.
It is strangely reassuring to know that Gresham Machen was having to deal with the same prejudice in his own day. Please not how he aims to uncover heart issues in the avoidance of the Bible's teaching about the Cross:
According to Christian belief, Jesus is our Saviour, not by virtue of what he said, not even by virtue of what he was, but by what he did. He is our Saviour, not because he inspired us to live the same kind of life that he lived, but because he took upon himself the dreadful guilt of our sins and bore it instead of us on the cross. Such is the Christian conception of the Cross of Christ. It is ridiculed as being a "subtle theory of the atonement." In reality, it is the plain teaching of the word of God; we know absolutely nothing about an atonement that is not a vicarious atonement, for that is the only atonement of which the New Testament speaks. And this Bible doctrine is not intricate or subtle.
On the contrary, though it involves mysteries, it is itself so simple that a child can understand it. "We deserved eternal death, but the Lord Jesus, because he loved us, died instead of us on the cross"--surely there is nothing very intricate about that. It is not the Bible doctrine of the atonement which is difficult to understand--what are really incomprehensible are the elaborate modern efforts to get rid of the Bible doctrine in the interests of human pride.
Modern liberal preachers do indeed sometimes speak of the "atonement." But they speak of it just as seldom as they possibly can, and one can see plainly that their hearts are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross. Indeed, at this point, as at many others, one has the feeling that traditional language is being strained to become the expression of totally alien ideas.
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism, p. 118-9
7 comments:
In my experience, it is often people who talk of substitutionary accounts of atonement who end up talking of the 'mechanics of the atonement'. I fully square up with your statement:
the atonement as a work of self-giving on the part of the triune God whereby the Son voluntarily agrees to bear the sin of his people by taking their place and bearing their condemnation.
Yet too often those who favour substitutionary accounts of atonement get hung up on how it happens. The fact is indicative of any account of atonement which seeks to posit any ontological freight to the accomplishment of Christ on the Cross i.e. if Christ acheived something ontologically ACTUAL then it seems logical that we should be able to notate this down mechanically You can see this in your Machen quote:
According to Christian belief, Jesus is our Saviour, not by virtue of what he said, not even by virtue of what he was, but by what he did.
Therefore, it seems obvious that if Christ DID something, then we can talk about what he did i.e. the mechanics of what he did.
He then goes on to say:
Modern liberal preachers do indeed sometimes speak of the "atonement." But they speak of it just as seldom as they possibly can, and one can see plainly that their hearts are elsewhere than at the foot of the Cross.
Therefore, I'm guessing Machen is warning US that we do not get too bound up in the mechanics of the atonement. I think the argument that penal substitution is too mechanistic is often a fair one. However, I am convinced that the penal substitutionary model of atonement is vital to any account of the atonement. Gresham Machen's words should warn us not to get too engrossed in the particulars as to miss the whole to which they point.
Hi Jon,
First, on Machen. This is an extract from his chapter on salvation in Christianity & Liberalism. What he is countering is the view of the atonement that vilified its God-ward atoning nature (curiously the same kind of attack that one finds in some books by evangelicals today). He is clear that what Christ did had an effect on God's wrath and that this idea is not so complex that it is beyond the grasp of children.
Second, on my comments about "the mechanics of the atonement." I find it a curious phrase. What I am concerned with is its use and rhetorical value. Sometimes words and phrases become a standard part of a discussion but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are appropriate or truly belong. I have tended to hear words like "mechanics" used in a way that disparages the importance of understanding what Christ suffered and why. I recall one occasion where someone slipped between the word "mechanics" and "chemistry set" when wanting to skirt around the issue of penal substitution. We must speak of the meaning of the atonement. If I could I would send that phrase into Room 101.
Martin,
On Machen: I wholeheartedly agree with you. Machen is standing against those for whom the atonement was really just an ideal following the philosophy of Hegel developed loosely from Kant. He is arguing for an ontology. He wants the atonement to achieve something rather than being just exemplar:
He is our Saviour, not because he inspired us to live the same kind of life that he lived, but because he took upon himself the dreadful guilt of our sins and bore it instead of us on the cross.
Therefore, WE have a need to talk about what Christ did - what he achieved. This is why the liberals don't really talk about the 'atonement' - for the liberals, the cross is not the atonement - just another part of the ideal life lived by Jesus.
On Mechanics: To me it sounds like you want all the baggage that the word "mechanics" carries with it - i.e. technical language of what was achieved on the cross in terms of how it was achieved e.g. Christ saved x from y in terms of z on the Cross. That's mechanics isn't it? Does removing the word remove what is ultimately poised behind the word?
Jon,
On mechanics: yup, that's what I said.
Why choose the word "mechanics" when there are other, better, terms? Doesn't it have baggage of its own? An impersonal term like that rhetorically seems a better fit for opponents of penal substitution doesn't it?
Depends what you mean by "impersonal" ;-) The Fathers used the word personal to mean "of subsisting relations (something which is backed up by the Baptist Conf 1689 but not West Conf). Seems picky? I just wonder why you are so concerned about the term 'personal'? If you're harking back to the trinitarian debates (which I imagine you are saying: I have never understood that when discussing something so personal as the Father not sparing his own Son but giving him up for us all (Rom. 8:32) or the Son being delivered up for our trespasses, it could ever be thought appropriate to refer to this as the "mechanics of the atonement.")
Am I being picky? I don't think so... You need to watch your definition of personal - is it referring to the persons of the trinity? (in which case read John Webster or Tom Weinandy on the personal relations of the trinity - v. good) or do you mean a more modern type of relationalism a la existentialism - which I doubt - ?
I think I can sympathise with you but you are seeking to find the mechanics but wanting to call it something more warm - maybe "relational" would do? I can't see a way around it myself... Maybe simply trinitarian? I do see why you want out of the phrase "mechanics of atonement" but that's what you kind of intimate. It reminds me of theologian talking of an ordo salutis? Sorry to be rambly etc. but now you've got me as stumped as you are!
Jon,
Read my second paragraph in the OP. I was referring to the persons in the trinity. Why would you think I was going all existential?
because of your use of the word personal
Post a Comment