A Beautiful Vision of God (part 1)

One can hardly speak of the Father, at least in a healthy way, without first speaking of the Trinity. However, for the earlier part of my life, I didn’t see it this way.

For whatever reason, I envisioned God functioning in more of a pyramid type of rulership, much like the Western courtroom: I imagined God the Father as the “big man upstairs” who was seated a little higher than the rest; Jesus was situated on the right side just a notch below, all while the Holy Spirit was kind of out and about stirring up good church meetings and such.

You see, in much of the West, and in many of our minds, there has long been a separation of the nature of Jesus—whom everyone seems to like—and the nature of the Father, whom many seem to be a little intimidated by. This dualistic perspective of the Trinity communicates the Son to have a tender heart, while the Father seems to have a more callous one.

This is revealed in the way we talk about the Trinity, where we say things like: “Yeah, he’s a God of love, but he’s also a judge.” Or “God is good, but he’s also wrathful.” As if those things are two opposing elements of his nature (notice the word “but”). Sadly, it’s as if we imagine God having split personalities.

That’s like saying when I see my children participating in things that are harmful, I have to put aside the love attribute to activate the judge attribute. Or that the need to act requires that I switch over to my judge side. Absurd! Any parent would understand that the expression of my judgment over any impending situation would only be an expression and outflow of my love.

For instance, if I saw my son, Luke, driving his car towards a cliff, you better believe I’d judge the situation with reckless love and do my best to stop him. Likewise, if my daughter, Olivia, believed any lie concerning her worth, you better believe you’d see the wrath of Robby surface, because I love her and want nothing more than to see her walk in full confidence of her identity.

Inside of this (earlier-mentioned) dualism concerning God’s nature, we tend to picture the Father as the hard judge, while Jesus gets off the hook as our loving attorney. We imagine that, through Adam’s disobedience, the Father had something against the human race, but Jesus—in his unrelenting love—came to satisfy and save us from the Father’s wrath. Almost like he had to come to calm the Father down.

We use terminology like “he paid our debt,” implying that Jesus had to come in order to zero out the impending ledger owed to the debt-conscious deity. Sadly, this concept, central to the doctrine of Penal Substitution Atonement, splits the Trinity right down the middle.

For this reason, I will be focusing on this specific doctrine in the following sections, as it is quite arguably the most prevalent and, in my opinion, has the potential to bring significant harm to our view of the Father. However, please note that this is not the only atonement theory in the history of the church—there are several others (i.e. Moral Influence Theory, Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, Scapegoat Theory, etc.).

You may be asking: what is the doctrine of Penal Substitution Atonement? For the sake of laying aside my own bias and providing hard, simple facts for a second, I’ve listed a portion of an article entitled “What is the doctrine of penal substitution?” from “Got Questions,” a leading online resource in the West:

“In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.”

Before we dive in, it’s interesting to note that a “satisfactory” atonement model wasn’t prevalent until the eleventh century, when a man by the name of Anselm of Canterbury developed a theory that, through our iniquitous lifestyles, we had offended God’s honor. In his famous work, Cur Deus Homo? or “Why Did God Become a Human?,” Anselm writes, “The honour taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow.”

Although quite extensive, Anselm’s fundamental idea is that one of God’s primary characteristics is justice, and such justice demands the restitution of his honor. If not, punishment (of those who dishonored God by sinning) would follow. As Richard Rohr points out, “Thinking he could solve the problem of the medieval code of feudal honor and shame, Anselm said in effect, ‘Yes, a price did need to be paid to restore God’s honor, and it needed to be paid to God the Father— by one who was equally divine.’”

As an Italian Benedictine monk, philosopher, abbot and theologian in the Catholic Church, Anselm—towards the end of his life—held the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This allowed him the leverage to establish many of his concepts as theological pillars. One of those concepts was the Satisfactory Atonement model—what Rohr suggests as quite possibly “the most successful piece of theology ever written.”

Anselm’s theory was a precursor to the theological concepts laid forth by two Protestant Reformation leaders, John Calvin and Martin Luther. However, Calvin was the one most responsible in taking Anselm’s concept a step further (and in a more legalistic direction) by suggesting that, in light of our ongoing iniquity as well as God’s response to such offenses, the entire human race deserved just punishment. For this, Christ would have to come and take our place to bear the just punishment we “deserved.” This would mean death on the most brutal of torture devices, the cross. Calvin would propose this gruesome undertaking as a substitutionary atonement to the Father—what would become known as the doctrine of “Penal Substitution Atonement.”

Clearly, this model is very much rooted in punitive concepts, thus reflecting more of a legal, forensic framework. Hence, the word “penal” (synonyms include punitive, retributive, and vengeful). I assume Calvin’s background as a trained lawyer had a large part in influencing the way he interpreted the gospel (we all have our own biases that influence how we view God and the gospel). Theologian Stephen D. Morrison brings out the legal, punitive framework in his article, “7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized”:

“The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice. This legal balancing of the ledgers is at the heart of this theory, which claims that Jesus died for legal satisfaction. It’s also worth mentioning that in this theory the notion of imputed righteousness is postulated.”

Please understand that it’s not my heart to discount every point in the Penal Substitution theory. I believe each model throughout church history (this one included) has bits and pieces of truth embedded within them. Yet, there are still many discrepancies I would like to point out, especially as it pertains to the relational nature of the Father and Son.

To be continued…Stay tuned for part 2, as we dive deeper in discovering a more, “Beautiful Vision of God.”

*This blog is an excerpt of my latest book, “Fascinated: Living in Awe of the Father.” If you’re eager to read the entirety of this blog, jump on over and order it HERE