Breshears
ETS 2001 Atonement
Page 10
Millard Erickson also appeals to penal-substitutionary as the basic meaning of the
atonement
15
but he focuses more on substitution developed in the areas of sacrifice, propitiation
and reconciliation. But the penal aspect is rather less emphasized than in Berkhof.
Happily, Erickson adds exposition of Christ's work as example, demonstration of God's
love and justice, and triumph over evil as valid insights, which make sense only if substitution is
true.
16
I concur with this combination but wonder if he is a bit more cautious than need be to
affirm the legitimacy of these facets. It is almost like he feels himself on a slippery slope and
needs to hang on tightly to the guardrails.
He gives up the logical puzzle feel of Berkhof and makes attempts to be more faithful to
the biblical text. That leads him to abandon definite atonement in favor of a universal provision
in the objective atonement of Christ and a limited application by the free, sovereign choice of the
electing God.
17
This is followed by a discussion of the impact of Christ's work in areas other than
sin, areas such as physical and emotional healing but ties this more to the work of Christ in
general than to the cross.
Lewis and Demarest have leveled the field significantly. Rather than arguing a central
theme as Packer, Berkhof and Erickson do, they develop atonement as a "multi-faceted
diamond"
18
where in the just and loving divine initiative, the sinless Christ died spiritually and
physically in our place as a substitutionary sacrifice, provided (1) forgiveness of guilt, (2)
freedom from enslaving addiction to sin, flesh and law, (3) victory over evil spirits, (4)
propitiation and (5) reconciliation to God and other humans. They extend this to the resurrection
work of Christ in order to counteract every dimension of sin, legal, experiential, relational and
cosmic. They also argue for universal objective provision with subjective application to a more
limited group of those whom the Father sovereignly chooses for salvation.
15
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2
nd
Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 829-836.
16
Ibid. 836-839.
17
Ibid. 846-852.
18
Gordon Lewis & Bruce Demarest, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1990), 2:401-408.
I find the multifaceted jewel approach more satisfactory although like Erickson
everything hinges on the divine initiative and on the substitution of the God-man as mediator
between God and man. This still fits clearly in the more objective side of atonement thinking.