The Signifance Of Christ’s Crosswork: Challenges and Responses to Why Christ Died -- By: Gary E. Gilley

Journal: Journal of Dispensational Theology
Volume: JODT 15:45 (Aug 2011)
Article: The Signifance Of Christ’s Crosswork: Challenges and Responses to Why Christ Died
Author: Gary E. Gilley


The Signifance Of Christ’s Crosswork: Challenges and Responses to Why Christ Died

Gary E. Gilley

Gary E. Gilley, M.B.S., Th.D., senior pastor, Southern View Chapel, Springfield, Illinois

When Steve Chalke and Brian McLaren accused evangelicals who believed in the substitutionary death of Christ of embracing a form of divine child abuse,1 Christians everywhere reacted. Having sung with passion for years that great line penned by Charles Wesley, “Amazing love, how can it be that Thou my God shouldst die for me,” Christians could not believe that they were being accused of promoting child abuse by men who claimed to be at least on the fringes of the evangelical community. What McLaren and Chalk did was suddenly cause all to see the long-standing debate by theologians with regard to the meaning of the cross. Almost no one in Christian assemblies doubts the historicity of the crucifixion, but why Christ died has long been contested. Of late, due to the rising popularity of everything from the Emergent Church2 to the Ancient-Future Faith movement3 to the New Perspective on Paul,4 the significance of Christ’s crosswork (often called the atonement) has been questioned. In particular, what has often been called “penal substitution,” which is that the Son “suffer[ed] instead of us

the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin,” has come under intense attack.5 It is the purpose of this article to identify the various views held by Christians with regard to the atonement, analyze briefly the three major theories, and then develop a biblical defense for penal substitution as the central meaning and purpose behind the cross.

Atonement Theories

There are several major models of the atonement that have been held by assorted Christian groups at various times, and continue to hold influence in some groups today. Early in this article, it is important to mention that while this author does not believe that any of these explain the primary purpose of the cross—a position reserved for penal substitution—some of the views have a measure of biblical support and, when not forced to the place of preeminence, enhance one’s understanding of the atonement.

The Example (Or Moral Influence) Theory

There is no doubt that this is the most widely affirmed view among traditional liberals and emergents (modern liberals). The i...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()