A Satanic Doctrine? A Quick Response to Jared Wilson

Today I read Jared C. Wilson’s article The Satanic Doctrine of a Wrathless Cross and I let out an audible sigh about halfway through. While I am unable to offer a thorough review, I would like to offer a quick response, much like Derek Rishway did for me in response to my Missio Alliance article on penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) back in 2017. I found Derek’s comments to be helpful and clarrifying and I particularly enjoyed our interaction on atonement.

The tone I took in my 2017 piece “Is Penal Substituionary Atonement Necessary?” was intended to cut through caricature and rhetorical appeals and enter into the theological discussion of atonement without resuming the theological war that has gone on for far too long in the Church regarding the meaning of the death of Jesus.

Wilson sadly drums up a caricature of his own while critiquing Paul Young’s critique of PSA in his book Lies We Believe About God, which Wilson ironicly describes as a caricture.

That really does sound like a lot of critiques and carictures, doesn’t it? Let me get to the point.

Wilson draws upon the devil and the demonic to critique those of us who hold to a view of the atonement that is without propitiation and satisfaction. This kind of rhetorical appeal is what makes me sigh, because it is unhelpful, untrue, and lacks the kind of irenic diologue that can bridge the gaps between our churches and theological traditions.

Wilson writes, “The Devil loves this development [of a “wrathless” atonement]…. “The Devil loves a bloodless cross”… “Satan is afraid of blood.” And he concludes with “Satan would love for you to keep your gospel nice and respectable.” And perhaps I am reading Wilson wrong here, but he seems to associate those of us who do not hold to PSA to be somehow pleasing to the devil. (?) Perhaps I’m jumping to conclusions, so correct me if I am wrong, but I finished the article asking myself, “So am I teaching a satanic docrine?”

My conscience is clear. I’m confident in the gospel I preach and the doctrines I teach, but I’m far from certainty or certitude. I’m open to theological diaglogue that is respectful which means we have to throw the devil out our conversations about the atonement. I’m open to discussion about atonement but not when the devil is evoked.

I do not hold to PSA as taught in most reformed circles, but I’m not pursuing a view of the atonement that is less bloody or offensive. I preach the cross as “a stumbling block to the Jews” and most modern Americans. It is not the violent nature of the death of Jesus that is offensive, but rather the view that the death of Jesus was necessary to turn, in Wilson’s words, “God’s disposition towards those who believe in him would be not condemnation but everlasting life.”

I find this view theological offensive, but I would never say that my Reformed brothers were preaching a demonic doctrine. I reject satisfication theories of the atonement in part because I believe God is pure love and God sent Jesus not to turn God’s disposition towards us, because God’s disposition has always been towards us! In fact God’s holy disposition towards us is why the Father sent the Son.

I disagree with Wilson’s view of the atonement but agree with him that Jesus did die a bloody death on a Roman cross and that we do not need to make Jesus’ death somehow respectable for a modern audience. Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that it is a necessary part of our salvation.

What is not necessary for our salvation is that we believe in PSA. Wilson cites Romans 3:23 and 1 John 4:10 parenthetically following the line, “the blood of Christ pays the wrath owed sinners.” Again I sigh here, because neither Romans 3 or 1 John 4 say “the blood of Christ pays the wrath owed sinners.” Rather this is Wilson’s interpretation of the text and particularly the interpretation of one Greek word: hilasterion.

Wilson has a Reformed theological perspective that provides ample backing for translating hilasterion as “propitiation,” but there are other Christians of other theological traditions who hold fast to the ancient, historic, orthodox, scriptural faith who translate this one Greek word differently. And I am one, as I have written in other places.

I’d prefer that we all be honest with the text and be respectful of brothers and sisters who choose a different exegetical path. I disagree with Wilson’s view not because I am trying to tidy up the cross or please the devil. I disagree with Wilson’s view, because I am trying to be faithful to the text and the faith “once entrusted to the saints.”

I extend to my Reformed brothers and sisters the respect that allows them to interpret the atonement one way and I would ask for that kind of respect in return. We live in a polarized culture and those outside the Christian faith are watching us. We need to model theological dialogue that is much more understanding of one another’s differences.