Russell Moore on the Atonement

In light of the recent discussions on the atonement, I was pleased to read Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, discuss some of the very issues I wanted clarification upon in regard to the doctrine of Multiple Intentions/Unlimited Limited Atonement.

Moore has been working on a series titled "Theology Bleeds: Great Commission Emphasis." As of late, he has posted a strain of articles on Christ as the Warrior-King claiming His throne through God's plan of redemption. From March 5, in "Triumph of the Warrior-King: A Theology of the Great Commission, Part 3," Moore writes:

The centrality of Christ in the accomplishment of redemption establishes both the universal scope of the mission of Christ and the freeness of the gospel offer, seen in the way Jesus is called the Savior of "the world," literally the entire cosmos (John 3:16-17). The universal scope of the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world further grounds the global and cosmic nature of the Great Commission.

Some Christian theologians have tended to abstract the atonement from Christ himself, as though the atonement were simply a strictly commercial transaction of so-much wrath for so-much sin. And yet, the New Testament presents propitiation more specifically in terms of the sinner's union with Christ as his substitute and representative.

Moore argues that Christian theologians, specifically five-point Calvinists, concentrate too much on the atonement in "economic" terms, the proportionate amount of holy wrath for each individual sin. Students at Southern have told me that he calls such historic Reformed view of the atonement "man-centered" since it's so concerned with the sins of individuals rather than Christ's intent to show Himself as King. Furthermore, for us as a blog, we finally have an official statement from a four-point Calvinist in regard to the expected limited atonement objection of double payment.

Not only does Moore note the overemphasis on the balanced equation of divine punishment upon Christ in the place of sinners, he points out in the prior paragraph that the natural understanding of the Great Commission in its universal scope would lead to a natural understanding of an atonement with a universal scope.

Moore continues by explaining how a sinner becomes right with God according to this view.

Thus, the apostle John writes: "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2 NKJV, emphasis added). This does not result in universalism precisely because the benefits of the atonement come only through union with Christ the covenant king. Believers, before they came to faith, were not justified before God, and their sins were not seen as propitiated, even though no one disputes that Jesus objectively died for them.

Instead, Scripture writes, we too were "children of wrath, like the rest of mankind" (Eph 2:2 ESV). Jesus propitiates the wrath of God in his sacrifice, but the benefits of this propitiation become the believer's when he comes into union with Christ through belief in the gospel. This faith union is the transition from condemnation to righteousness, from wrath to grace, from the dominion of Satan to the kingdom of Christ (Col 1:13-14). Theologian Bruce Demarest correctly concludes that "by divine intention Christ's suffering and death are universal in its provision and particular in its application."

The SBTS dean is keen to observe that our salvation was not actualized at the cross. We still had to come to faith for the wrath of God to no longer abide upon our heads (John 3:36). In the same sense that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us only at the point of saving faith, the propitiation for our sins does not take place toward us until we individually repent and trust in Christ, which is when we are linked to the atonement's benefits.

In other words, just as God does not see us as righteous before coming to Christ, He does not subside in His just anger toward us until faith links us to Christ as the propitiation (satisfying sacrifice) for our sins. What's more, it was God's intent for Christ to bear the sins of the whole world (meaning every person who ever lived) while only meaning to apply the blessings the atonement brings to the elect, Moore says.

In the footnotes of the post, Moore cites J.L. Dagg's Manual of Theology as a source for this understanding of the atonement. Since I have that book, I will have to brush up on his analysis of the doctrine in the coming days.

Moore also explains the implications this view has toward our understanding of those who never come to trust in Jesus.

Those who refuse to come to Christ insist on standing before God without a Mediator. Thus, they bear their own sins (Num 18:22; John 3:18), and receive a heightened condemnation as those who have "trampled" the blood of Christ (Heb 10:26-31). The freeness of the gospel offer means that Great Commission Christians must crucify any hesitation to proclaim the gospel to any sinner in any place at any time. The gospel of the apostles is not offered only to the elect, but to all sinners without distinction. Thus, Jesus and the apostle Paul calls on Christians to plead with persuasion and urgency for all sinners, on behalf of Christ himself, to be reconciled to God through the atoning mission of Jesus (2 Cor 5:17-63).

Moore's comments do cause me to examine the issue further before coming to a final, case-closed verdict. Of course, as with any doctrine, I must be open to biblical rebuke and correction. Most assuredly, I will post my thoughts in detail once I come to a more comfortable, settled position on the subject.

Finally, regardless of where each of us stand on this issue, let us be faithful to the Great Commission in proclaiming a Christ whose death on a cross at a place called Calvary is sufficient to blot out the transgressions of any sinner.

I'd love to know your thoughts on Moore's commentary and where each one of you lean on the extent of the atonement (and why, if possible).

The entire article on how the atonement relates to the Great Commission can be found here. Russell Moore is the executive director of The Henry Institute (www.henryinstitute.org).