Of all the atonement views, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross. The alternatives either minimize or deny 1) that God’s holy justice is essential to him, 2) why our sin is first against God (Ps. 51:4), and 3) why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross. Before we can speak of the horizontal results of the cross (e.g., moral example, inter-personal reconciliation, etc.), we must first speak of the vertical: namely the triune God, in his Son, taking his own demand on himself so that we, in Christ, may be justified before him (Rom. 5:1–2). The other views miss this point. For them, the object of the cross is either our sin (forms of recapitulation), or Satan (ransom theory), or the powers (forms of Christus Victor). But what they fail to see is that the primary person we have sinned against is God, and as such, the ultimate object of the cross is God himself.

Trying to state all that our Lord Jesus achieved in his glorious work is difficult given its multi-faceted aspects. John Calvin sought to grasp the comprehensive nature of Christ’s work by the munus triplex—Christ’s threefold office as our new covenant head and mediator—prophet, priest, and king. What Calvin sought to avoid was reductionism, the “cardinal” sin of theology. Yet, although there is a danger in prioritizing one aspect of our Lord’s work, Scripture does stress the centrality of Christ’s priestly office and his sacrificial death for our sins (Matt. 1:21; 1 Cor. 15:3–4). And given the centrality of Christ’s cross, it is crucial that we explain it correctly.
However, one problem we face is that, throughout church history, there have been a number of atonement theologies. Unlike the ecumenical confessions of Nicaea and Chalcedon that established orthodox Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, there is no catholic confession regarding the cross. From this fact, some have concluded that no one view best explains what is central to the cross—a conclusion I reject. The truth is that despite an ecumenical confession, all Christians have agreed that Christ’s death “is for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3) resulting in our reconciliation with God.
While conceptual clarity of the doctrine occurred over time, similar to other doctrines, clarity and precision was achieved, as various atonement debates occurred. Specifically, it was during the Reformation and post-Reformation eras, building on the work of people like Anselm, that conceptual clarity occurred in the articulation of penal substitution as the best theological explanation for why the cross was necessary and what it achieved.
Recently, however, some have challenged the claim that penal substitution best explains what is central to Christ’s cross. We are told repeatedly that penal substitution does not account for the richness of the cross. What is needed is not one view but multiple views. Is this correct? My thesis is that it is not, and for at least two reasons. First, views other than penal substitution fail to grasp the central problem that the cross remedies, namely our sin before God. Second, from another angle, other views stress various legitimate results of the cross, but without penal substitution as the foundation, the results alone cannot explain the central problem of our sin before God. Before developing these two points, let me first describe the basic atonement views set over against penal substitution.
Atonement Views in Historical Theology
Over the centuries, five main atonement theologies have been given:
Recapitulation
First, there is the recapitulation view, often associated with Irenaeus and Athanasius. This view interprets Christ’s work primarily in terms of his identification with us through the incarnation. By becoming human, the divine Son reversed what Adam did by living our life and dying our death. Adam’s disobedience resulted in the corruption of our nature and the deprivation of Godlikeness. Christ reverses both of these results in his incarnation and entire cross-work. Especially in Christ’s resurrection, immortality and reconciliation with God is restored to us. This view captures much biblical truth. Christ’s work is presented in representational and substitutionary terms. But its central focus is on sin’s effects on us and Christ’s restorative work, not on our sin before God and the need for Christ to satisfy God’s own righteous demand against us by paying for our sin.
Christus Victor (Or Ransom)
Second, Christus Victor is another view of the cross, often associated with the ransom theory to Satan. The primary object(s) of Christ’s death is (are) the powers which he liberates us from, namely, sin, death, and Satan. Like recapitulation, this view captures a lot of biblical truth, especially Christ’s defeat of the powers (Gen. 3:15; John 12:31–33; Col. 2:13–15; Heb. 2:14–16; Rev. 12:1–12), but unlike penal substitution, God is not viewed as the primary object of the cross.
Moral Influence (or Example)
Third, the moral influence view was promoted within non-orthodox theology. It had its roots in the theology of Peter Abelard (1079–1142), but came into its own with the rise of classic liberal theology (eighteenth to nineteenth centuries). It taught that God’s love is more basic than his justice and that God can forgive our sins without Christ satisfying divine justice. God is not the primary object of the cross. Instead, Christ’s death reveals God’s love and sets an example for us.
The Governmental View
Fourth, the governmental view arose in the post-Reformation era and it is identified with Hugo Grotius, John Miley, and the Arminian tradition. Against penal substitution, this view denies that God’s justice necessitates the full payment of our sin since God’s justice is not viewed as essential to him.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Carmen Christi is packed with theological significance, and is beautiful in its form. It was likely sung in the early churches and we ought do the same. It is cited by Paul to remind us of Jesus’ attitude toward others. Jesus counted all his advantages as nothing and made himself a servant. While we cannot imitate the incarnation itself, we can adopt the same attitude toward others as Jesus.

It Isn’t About Me
One of the most famous and well-known passages in all the Bible is the famous hymn to Christ (the Carmen Christi) of verses 6-11 of Philippians 2. Martin Luther writes in his famous essay The Freedom of the Christian, that this passage is a prescribed rule of life which is set forth by the Apostle Paul, who exhorts us to devote our good works to the welfare of our neighbor out of the abundant riches of faith. John Calvin tells us that anyone who reads this passage but fails to see the deity of Jesus and the majesty of God as seen in his saving works, is blind to the things of God.[1] The passage contains a very rich Christology, but is included in this letter not to settle any debate over the person and work of Jesus, but to instruct Christians how to imitate Jesus in a profound and significant way. The Carmen Christi speaks directly to our modern world by reminding us that the self-centered narcissism of contemporary culture is not a virtue, but runs completely contrary to the example set for us to follow by Jesus in his incarnation.
As many of you know, our system of chapters and verses are not in the original biblical text and were first introduced in the 16th century. While they are very helpful in allowing us to find “chapter and verse,” there are times when the chapter breaks disrupt the flow of thought of the original author. We find this in the transition from the opening chapter of Philippians as we move into chapter two. As we go through our passage, we will see that Paul’s exhortation which opens the second chapter is really an expansion of his desire for the Philippians to stand firm (vv. 12-30) and is the basis for his introduction of the Christ hymn (which we will cover momentarily).
Standing Firm in the Face of Persecution
In expressing his candid thoughts to the Philippians, the apostle is reflecting upon the persecution which he himself had faced, particularly in the light of the news which just reached him from Philippi that the Philippians were still facing significant persecution. When Paul was first in the city of Philippi, he was arrested and thrown into jail (Acts 16:12 ff.). Paul was miraculously delivered, the jailer and his household came to faith in Jesus, and as recounted in Acts 17, shortly thereafter, Paul left the city to continue his missionary journey to the Greek cities of Thessalonica and Berea, before finally making his way to Athens.
When Paul writes this letter to the Philippians about ten years later, he is in jail again–this time under house arrest in Rome. Paul knew something about persecution. He knows that the Philippian Christians are facing persecution as well. The Philippians may not be in chains, but they are finding that their fellow Greco-Romans are not accepting nor tolerant of their faith in Jesus. And then there are the Judaizers who have arrived on the scene and are now disrupting church life in Philippi.
After reflecting upon these things, in the concluding verses of chapter 1, (vv 27–30) Paul exhorts the Philippians,

let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

Paul’s Exhortation to the Philippians
The Philippians are to do several things. The first is to live their lives in a manner worthy of the gospel which Paul had preached to them. Their conduct in the face of persecution should grow out of their understanding of the person and work of Jesus. The second thing they are to do is to stand firm in one spirit and in one mind in the face of those persecuting them. The third is not to be frightened by anything their opponents–the Judaizers and Greco-Roman pagans–may throw at them. Jesus is more powerful than all and he will protect his church.
Paul reminds them in verse 29, that the only reason any of them are believers in Jesus is because God has granted them faith (he has given them faith as a gift–cf. Ephesians 2:8) and because he has, the Philippians inevitably will suffer persecution. They will suffer for the sake of Christ just as Paul has suffered because of the world’s hatred of Jesus. Just as he is imprisoned in Rome because of his faith in Christ, it was the case when he had been with them in Philippi previously. If God grants the one (faith) he also grants the other (persecution).
So, here is where the modern chapters and verses break up-Paul’s thought. Verse one of chapter two is the continuation of and expansion upon his discussion in verses 27-30. In fact, as Paul speaks of the inevitability of persecution and the need to stand firm in the face of it, he now points the Philippians to the means by which they might fulfill (do) those things Paul has just exhorted them to do, and to do that the Philippians need to have the same mind about these things that Jesus did (v. 5).
If There Is Any Encouragement in Christ . . .
But before Paul includes the Carmen Christi–reminding them of who it is and what he has done that they are to imitate–Paul makes a very impassioned plea which includes four conditional sentences (which begin with “if’), which if true, and they are, will bring to pass the hoped for result in verse 2, that Paul’s joy may be complete.[2] The opening verse reads, “so” (which connects this to the previous verses in the previous chapter), “if there is any encouragement in Christ, [if there is] any comfort from love, [if there is] any participation in the Spirit, [if there is] any affection and sympathy,” all pointing to things Paul assumes the Philippians currently possess. Yet, the force of the conditional sentence is an indication that these are things which the Philippians might be in danger of losing if they do not stand firm.
We can put it like this: if there is any encouragement still present, if there is any comfort from love still present, if there is any participation in the Holy Spirit (his indwelling and his fruits), and if there is any affection and love among the brothers and sisters, then Paul’s joy will be complete.[3] More importantly, the Philippians will successfully endure the persecution which they were then facing.
How do the Philippians accomplish those things necessary to make Paul’s joy complete? Because encouragement, comfort, participation in the Spirit, and affection and sympathy are present among the Philippians (the implication of the conditions being fulfilled), then the Philippians can indeed accomplish what Paul has just exhorted them to do. “Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.” If the false teachers haven’t completely taken over (and the implication is that they haven’t–far from it), the Philippians are to resist them by being of one mind, demonstrating love for one another, and being in full accord. This is for their good, but it will also bring the apostle joy, knowing that the Philippian congregation–for which no doubt he feels a bit of responsibility–will survive the efforts of the Judaizers from within to distort the gospel of Jesus, and from the persecutors without, who encourage these saints to deny their faith in Jesus. But the Philippians must stand firm and be of one mind, but in order to do so, they must adopt a particular mind-set which is, as Paul is about to explain, the same mind-set as Jesus.
Bad News for the Self-Centered: Count Others as More Significant
But being of one mind, having the same love, and being in full accord, requires that certain sinful conduct cease. Rather than focus on specific behaviors, in verse 3, Paul focuses upon the mindset that the Philippians ought to have. He tells them “do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves”, unlike those plaguing Paul in Rome, who out of envy and jealousy seek to take advantage of the circumstances while Paul is confined. In contrast to those troubling the Philippians, Christians are not to do things from the motive of selfish ambition. In English, selfish ambition means something like seeking to gain advantage over another (“owning them” to use a contemporary expression), or further one’s own cause or circumstances, even if others are negatively impacted. But the root of the word in Greek refers to a hireling or mercenary, and in context here, it means something like “vain glory” or “vanity.” Another nuanced meaning of the term is “pretentiousness.”[4]
Paul’s discussion is like cold water in our faces. In the modern world, Paul’s exhortation to put away “selfish ambition” could be understood as “don’t be so narcissistic.” Strive to stop foolishly thinking that everything in life is about us–that our needs and desires always come first, and are far more important than the needs of others. This is the collective sin of so much of modern America. How many commercials can we recount where we are told that “you deserve” something which we probably do not need or cannot really afford, but which someone wants to sell us. The appeal is made to our base narcissism, “you deserve it.” In our culture, ambition and conceit are virtues, but Paul calls them sins. In American life, everything centers around the self, while Paul’s exhortation is to do the opposite–make sure that everything we do flows out of a due consideration of the needs of others. Paul even says, in humility–that is lowliness, i.e., the mind-set of a slave or servant–consider others more worthy (or more important) than yourselves. These are not easy words for Americans to hear, much less practice.
Look to our Own Interests and that of Others
Paul goes on in verse 4, to flesh out a bit further what he means. “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” Of course, it is important to care for our own needs and take care of those for whom we are responsible.
Read More
Related Posts:

If you keep “glorifying God through faithful and clear communication of your text” as the goal of your preaching, then trimming down your sermon can become just another act of faithfulness and worship.

For me, the hardest part of preparing a teaching or sermon is figuring out what information to leave out. Cutting down a sermon is incredibly difficult. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that it is very hard to find actual guidance on how to trim down a sermon. There are dozens of great resources for how to write better sermons, how to outline, how to write sermon application. But I have found very little concrete guidance for how to discern what parts of a sermon to keep, and what to edit out.
The Problem of Over-stuffed Sermons
There is an unfortunate tendency to equate a good, Biblical sermon with how many details a preacher or teacher gives. This tendency leads to what I will call “over-stuffed” sermons. These are sermons that are Biblical, sound, but try to communicate too much information in the allotted time slot. Sermons that are over-stuffed end up becoming less clear to the congregation. Listeners spend so much time trying to keep track of the many details you are giving rather than meditating on the main point of the text.
Now, I want to make an important distinction before going on. As a Bible-teacher or preacher, you must go into a great level of detail in your analysis when preparing a sermon. In your Bible study leading up to a preaching or teaching, you must dig into any and all details contained in your text. You must cross-reference, outline, look up the original languages, make observation after observation, and more if you want to get to the meaning of the text you are teaching. However, the art of preaching is in discerning which details to actually present to your congregation in a Sunday morning sermon. In other words, when you go from your study to the pulpit, you must trim down your sermon to only the most important textual details. If you simply go up and preach your detailed Bible study notes, chances are you are preaching and over-stuffed sermon.
The Solution: Trim Down Your Sermon to the Essential Details
In my experience, sermon length is generally driven by how many details you end up communicating in your sermon. How many points and sub-points do you have? How many words do you define from the pulpit? What cross-references do you include? Historical anecdotes? Illustrations? Applications? Therefore, to trim down a sermon, you must discern which of these details are essential to communicate, and which are secondary. The essential details should end up in your final sermon. Secondary details, on the other hand, you can trim out of your sermon to fit your allotted time and to ensure your congregation does not get lost in an over-stuffed teaching.
This seems obvious so far. But the question is how do you trim down a sermon? How can you discern which details are essential and which are secondary? Most of the time when I have asked for guidance on trimming down a sermon, I have gotten some form of “there is an art to it” or “I’m not that great at it myself, so I’m a bad example.” While it is certainly difficult to make universal rules, there is a helpful process you can go through to at least help you discern what details are essential and which are not. The process is simple: go through each section, point, detail, or cross reference in the first draft of your manuscript, and ask the following four questions (in order):
1. Does this detail give information that is mostly repeated elsewhere in the sermon?
I call this the “redundancy” test. Repetition is important in communication, but if you go to 10 cross-references in a sermon which all make the same point, maybe you can cut 8-9 of those cross-references and save yourself (and your listeners) some time. If a sermon point, observation, or application is too similar to information previously given in your sermon, you should probably cut it. Redundant details are by definition secondary and non-essential.
Read More
Related Posts: