Spurgeon Saturday
Atonement Theory?
“When I see Christ on the cross, Christ in the tomb, Christ risen from the dead, Christ at the right hand of God, I understand that he took away my sin. He died; he was buried; he came forth from the grave, having destroyed my sin, and put it away; and he has gone into the heavens as my Representative, to take possession of the right hand of God for me, that I in him and with him may sit there for ever and ever. To me, Christ’s sacrifice is a business transaction as clear and straight as mathematics could make it. I care not that men decry what they call ‘the mercantile theory of the atonement.’ I hold no ‘theory’ of the atonement; I believe that the substitution of Christ for his people is the atonement for their sins; and that there is no other atonement, but that all else is theory.”
Do you think the Reformed position on penal substitutionary atonement overstates forensic justification of sinners to the exclusion of other atonement narratives such as Christ ransoming sinners from Satan (popularized in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe)? I'm not arguing against PSA at all. But I wonder if we skim over the depth of the atonement in our efforts to protect against atonement narratives that are incompatible with PSA. Is it wrong to say that Christ's death both expiated God's wrath and ransomed sinners from the tyranny of Satan?
I like your question. Yes, I think Christ's death satisfied God's wrath, so that the curse of sin is removed. The redeemed are removed from being subjected to the tyranny of Satan. God is sovereign over who is outside of his protection and who is inside (his adopted children). Satan doesn't have that authority to hold anyone (except as God allows), so no payment to him would have any effect.