No Small Potatoes I'd Say

How then could God express simultaneously his holiness in judg­ment and his love in pardon? Only by providing a divine substitute for the sinner, so that the substitute would receive the judgment and the sinner the pardon. We sinners still of course have to suffer some of the personal, psychological, and social consequences of our sins, but the penal consequence, the deserved penalty of alienation from God, has been borne by Another in our place, so that we may be spared it. ~John Stott, The Cross of Christ, page 134

Stott put his finger on the pulse of the gospel when he penned those words. The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is one of the most misunderstood and under applied doctrines to grace the pages between the front and back covers of the bible. While I never have claimed to be a high and mighty theologian, I don't believe this doctrine takes a rocket scientist to grasp.

Theopedia states, Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

...The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

You may wonder, "So why all the fuss about atonement?" I suppose it would be helpful if I attempted to define the nature of atonement before I continue blogging about it. Recently I blogged here about the doctrine and I didn't dance around it as much as I barely scratch the surface. So, I figured I'd follow up the post.

The modern day Merriam-Webster Edition explains, the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. And, reparation for an offense or injury: Satisfaction. The idea here is that we were separated from God and had no remedy in and of ourselves to address our eternal dilemma and right our dastardly wrongs—God's wrath needed satisfying and we were in absolutely no position to satisfy it. God's answer was atonement, the only solution possible. And to the chagrin of the opponents of such a view of atonement—it is this very atonement which plumbs the depths of God's kindness and embodies the demonstration of his scandalous love.

As beautiful and pointed of a text as you will run across on atonement can be found in Romans Chapter 5. Paul writes,

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation (italics mine).

...16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

I know of no other portion of scripture that could be any clearer and if this isn't a case for penal substitutionary atonement I need some help from someone who can disassemble Paul's points here. It is this gospel of atonement which makes our personal redemption and our subsequent eternal destiny secure.

No small potatoes I'd say.