The editors of The Sword and Trumpet recently received two copies of a new booklet on the doctrine of Christ’s atonement, entitled “The Gift of Redemption: Price or Penalty?” by Lester Troyer. Since the atonement is an issue of perennial significance, and one which has received a fair amount of attention recently, I was interested to read what the author has to say.
He admitted in a letter sent along with the booklet that his views may not match the views of The Sword and Trumpet, and invited us to critique his views. I am responding to that invitation with several articles which will interact with the various ideas he presents. In this, I will interact with the author’s arguments as honestly as I can, aiming for a charitable but clear response. I read the booklet thoroughly in an attempt to understand him as well as possible. In the spirit of fairness, I am including the author’s contact information so readers can read his arguments in context. Readers who would like to get a copy of this booklet can write to the author at lestroyer@norcell.us.
The booklet represents an alternative position to the one held by the editors of this paper. We have represented penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) in our publications, and we will continue to defend it as a biblical doctrine. While it’s true that the term has been variously defined (and sometimes improperly), we know of no better way to define Christ’s work.
Summary
The booklet begins with a sketch of the author’s understanding of substitutionary atonement, including quotes from evangelical leaders such as Erwin Lutzer, Paul Washer, John Piper, and Randy Alcorn. He also quotes an Anabaptist but doesn’t cite the quotation. With a quick Google search I was able to locate the article. It was written by Tony Sanchez, one of our board members and an occasional contributor to our magazine. These quotations together represent the “evangelical” view of the atonement which is, according to the author, making inroads into the Anabaptist camp.
He then lays out four roadblocks which he believes should prevent Anabaptists from accepting substitutionary atonement as a biblical view. I’ve summarized them below.
- Substitutionary atonement describes the atonement as paying a “penalty for sin” rather than as a “remission of sin.”
- Substitutionary atonement is incompatible with the concept of the leavening process of sin. Christ could not have taken our sin without Himself becoming sinful.
- Substitutionary atonement means that Jesus paid the penalty for our sin. If this is so, then our sins are already paid for in full.
- Substitutionary atonement misrepresents the sufferings of Christ.
He wraps up the paper with some thoughts on substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness.
Strengths
Before I critique his views, I do want to commend what is commendable. At the outset, the author admits the seriousness of the issue. He says these are “weighty matters” which “reflect on our concept of God in conjunction to God’s justice, mercy, and grace.” He also aims to be gracious, a goal which is more-or-less met throughout the paper.
And he embodies some legitimate concerns. He objects to the idea of Christ becoming sinful on the cross, a view I, as a penal substitutionary atonement adherent, also reject. He is also concerned that, because substitutionary atonement can lead logically to limited atonement, the free offer of the gospel is dampened. Third, he is concerned that a faulty understanding of the atonement (and imputed righteousness) will encourage sinful behavior among those who believe that Christ’s atonement fully removes the consequences of their sins.
My Concerns
I will summarize my concerns here and expand them later. My primary concern is with his view of the atonement, which I think is unbiblical and at times contradictory. We will look at this more closely going forward. This is, as he says, a key gospel issue, and in my opinion he mishandles it.
A second concern is that he often misrepresents the position he is critiquing (straw-man arguments). Many of his criticisms simply don’t stick when compared to penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). For example, he interacts with PSA throughout the paper as if all PSA proponents think Jesus became a sinner on the cross. But all of the evangelical quotations he includes speak as if Jesus is condemned as a sinner. None of them say that Jesus was a sinner on the cross. The Anabaptist quotation from Tony Sanchez specifically says, “Jesus [bore the penalty for our sin as our Substitute] without becoming sinful.” Other misrepresentations will be discussed later in this column.
I am also concerned about the author’s lack of citations. This will seem petty to some readers, but it’s important. I searched in vain for citations of quotations from those he criticizes. It is sometimes acceptable to provide a general quotation without a reference, but total neglect is uncharitable. When an author does not cite his opponents, he denies them the privilege of being understood in their original context and on their own terms. Without citations, individuals are presented in a poor light and consequently be misunderstood. The author of this paper freely speaks of those “from within the Anabaptist camp,” of “Anabaptist brethren who subscribe to the penalty view,” and of “a growing Calvinistic worldview within the Anabaptist camp,” all without providing a breadcrumb trail so serious readers can verify his claims.
A fourth concern is that the author makes arguments that are confusing and sometimes contradictory. For example, he speaks of “the unbridgeable rift between penalty and price” (he rejects “penalty” but accepts “price”), but then defines “price” like PSA defines “penalty.” By price, he means “We receive mercy because justice is satisfied in the blood of the cross.” But justice satisfaction is at the center of PSA. He rejects all PSA notions, then borrows that language to define his view. That may mean he is closer to PSA than he realizes, but it also means he doesn’t understand his own view or PSA very well.
Similarly, he criticizes those who make the atonement a gospel issue, but he then makes belief in substitutionary atonement a gospel issue. Two quotes will show what I mean. On page 4 he criticizes PSA advocates by saying, “Substitutionary atonement has been presented as central to the gospel—to be accepted on the same level as believing the literal Adam and Eve, and in the virgin birth of Christ.” This is obviously intended as a criticism. But at the bottom of the next page he says, “The concept of wrath upon the Son is utterly foreign to the Scriptures, and should be rejected as heresy.” Which is it? He takes issue with those who say belief in substitutionary atonement is a gospel issue, but has no qualms about saying substitutionary atonement is heresy.
We will have the opportunity to substantiate all of the above data as we move forward. For the sake of our readers, it will be necessary at times for me to prioritize clarity over courtesy. I have no ill-will toward Troyer, though I am concerned about his doctrine and its effects.
Reasons for Writing
As a part of this introductory article, it will also be helpful for you to understand why I think it is necessary to write a response to this booklet. Someone may think I am overexaggerating the issue by criticizing an otherwise unknown piece of work. I have several reasons for interacting with it. Primarily, I’m writing because this booklet is being actively distributed among Anabaptists, and I am concerned about its negative effects. The Sword and Trumpet was sent an early copy of the manuscript. The same manuscript was sent to a number of influential Anabaptist individuals and publications for exposure and distribution. There is apparent support from another Anabaptist paper, which printed a summary article along with information on ordering the full booklet.
I am concerned for its effects on the spiritual health of individuals within the Anabaptist community. Chris Good rightly described substitutionary atonement as “the bedrock of the gospel.” Many essential doctrines rise and fall with our view of the atonement: the nature and extent of sin, our need of salvation, justification by faith, imputed righteousness, Christian obedience, pride and humility, the character of God, and so forth. Christian assurance rests on our understanding of Christ’s atoning work. A faulty view of the atonement will inevitably produce flimsy Christians.
I’ve chosen to interact extensively with this booklet because it represents many misunderstandings of the nature of the atonement, misunderstandings which are not unique to this author. He may be at the center of the discussion, but he’s not alone in his views. I’m interacting with them at length because it provides an opportunity to respond to a number of misunderstandings of the atonement.
Future articles in this column will include a summary of a few of the main issues of the booklet, an expansion of some of the issues introduced above, and a careful look at each of the main arguments of the booklet. Readers are encouraged to read thoughtfully.