I suppose it is possible to look upon the passion of Christ--it's beatings, whipping, stabbings, humilitations, crucifixion, rejection by God, and death--in pity and say, "that was awful," while simultaneously doubting whether it was really tantamount to all the punishment for all the sin that has ever been and will ever be committed. Really, people have been treated to far worse fates before and since, and their deaths are not looked upon with any wonder. The reasoning in such an approach seems to calculate that what occured was not sufficient to bear the cumulative weight of sin. There was not enough blood shed, nor enough anguish experienced, and only one death incurred, and that accounts for every sin ever sinned?
The problem in such logic, as I see it, is that the atonement of Christ was not suffered cumulatively, but vicariously, prototypically. For Christ's passion to be effective vicariously for any individual whatsoever, it would only have to be sufficient for the very worst individual that ever lived. Adam and Eve were prototypically the best that mankind would ever be, Christ on the cross had to be prototypically the worst that mankind could ever be. So the cross does not have to "mathematically" reflect the sum total of all punishment against sin, it merely has to be sufficient to encompass the very worst individual any individual could be.
Really, we're not all that different from one another. Our conceptions of degrees of sin and punishment are a bit stilted as I see it. Does being Hitler or Stalin and missing out on God differ substantially from being grumpy Uncle Charley who refused to believe in Christ and missed out on God too? The Lake of Fire may have warmer eddies in one spot than another, but how much does it matter when one is swimming in fire and drinking flames? If there are gold medals awarded in the race to hell, they can only be made of fool's gold.
What the atonement had to be in order to be for all, was sufficient for any sinner to gaze upon it with faith and say, "that was me." We aren't saved in groups but as individuals, the atonement of Christ was masterfully fashioned by God to work perfectly in that regard. It does so because it functions vicariously, not cumulatively and any sinner that ever lived can see sufficiency in the cross for himself or herself.
The problem in such logic, as I see it, is that the atonement of Christ was not suffered cumulatively, but vicariously, prototypically. For Christ's passion to be effective vicariously for any individual whatsoever, it would only have to be sufficient for the very worst individual that ever lived. Adam and Eve were prototypically the best that mankind would ever be, Christ on the cross had to be prototypically the worst that mankind could ever be. So the cross does not have to "mathematically" reflect the sum total of all punishment against sin, it merely has to be sufficient to encompass the very worst individual any individual could be.
Really, we're not all that different from one another. Our conceptions of degrees of sin and punishment are a bit stilted as I see it. Does being Hitler or Stalin and missing out on God differ substantially from being grumpy Uncle Charley who refused to believe in Christ and missed out on God too? The Lake of Fire may have warmer eddies in one spot than another, but how much does it matter when one is swimming in fire and drinking flames? If there are gold medals awarded in the race to hell, they can only be made of fool's gold.
What the atonement had to be in order to be for all, was sufficient for any sinner to gaze upon it with faith and say, "that was me." We aren't saved in groups but as individuals, the atonement of Christ was masterfully fashioned by God to work perfectly in that regard. It does so because it functions vicariously, not cumulatively and any sinner that ever lived can see sufficiency in the cross for himself or herself.
4 comments:
Sounds a bit like identification to me.
Peter,
After seeing your last post, I fear I may have misinterpreted what your comment was saying. Sorry if I did. Let me rephrase my response and see if it makes more sense.
I can see your point, both in regard to Christ becoming a real man as well as man truly coming “into Christ.” If one is speaking of Christ’s identification with man in order to be the Lamb of God, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Romans 6 work together to bring forth how substantive that identification was.
When it comes to man’s identification with Christ, I think an approach to vicariousness that perceives an actuality in the substitution is required. I don't believe we can unite (or entwine) as Paul envisions in Romans 6 without seeing Christ on the cross as actually ourselves (i.e. I was “in Christ” on the cross).
An idealized, prototypical sacrifice, such as I put forth, could be seen as identification (in both directions) by similitude rather than actuality. I was silent on that subject in the post. I think you and I agree that approach, which rests on imputation without actuality, leaves Christ as no more than an OT sacrifice and the sinner still conscious of guilt. The writer of Hebrews says that such an OT sacrifice is not sufficient vicariously and could not cleanse conscience of sin.
Really, the thing I wanted to get at with this article is the individual nature of the atonement's functioning. That is really what plows a chasm between orthodoxy and universalism, it seems to me, and elucidates why Christ could die prototypically for all but only those with faith can benefit.
Let me know if that’s clearer, or only muddies the waters more.
Kutztown,
Question: What do you do with Isaiah 53 that says that he laid the sins of us all upon him?
Anonymous (Peter, I assume),
I merely say that He did. ;-)
I think the question is how he did. Christ was offered as everyone's sin offering--perfect, singular and communal--yet united with individually (Romans 6). That, in effect, makes Christ everyone's personal sacrifice. We all come to the altar, so to speak, with our own sacrifice for our own sin, it just so happens that we're all bringing the same lamb. He is the bearer of the sins of us all, and he is the bearer of my sins. I think that is in line with the sense of Hebrews 10 as well (even if a bit extended).
So I don't think a cumulative understanding is essential to hearing Isaiah 53 properly; although I'd have to admit, that if there was no Romans 6, that is most likely the way I would see it.
Post a Comment