- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous Post"What is a Healthy Church?" by Mark Dever
- Next Post »A La Carte (9/10)
Atheistic Atonement
- 09/09/07
- 17
Christopher Hitchens weighs in on the atonement and John Calvin.
I just finished reading Christopher Hitchens’ atheistic screed God is not Great. Demanding the end of all religion and proclaiming that belief in God is harmful to individuals and to society, Hitchens attempts, at least in portions of the book, to mock and even to deconstruct Christian theology. I found his remarks on the atonement to be of particular interest, primarily because the atonement is a hot topic even within the church these days. I wondered, would an atheist make some of the same criticisms as supposed Christians do? If a person who proclaims Christ looks at the atonement and declares it cosmic child abuse, how much more repulsive must it appear from beyond even the semblance of faith?
So here is what Hitchens says about the atonement:
The idea of a vicarious atonement, of the sort that so much troubled even C.S. Lewis, is a further refinement of the ancient superstition [of atoning sacrifice]. Once again we have a father demonstrating love by subjecting a son to death by torture, but this time the father is not trying to impress god. He is god, and he is trying to impress humans. Ask yourself the question: how moral is the following? I am told of a human sacrifice that took place two thousand years ago, without my wishing it and in circumstances so ghastly that, had I been present and in possession of any influence, I would have been duty-bound to try and stop it. In consequence of this murder, my own manifold sins are forgiven me, and I may hope to enjoy everlasting life.Let us just for now overlook all the contradictions between the tellers of the original story and assume that it is basically true. What are the further implications? They are not as reassuring as they look at first sight. For a start, and in order to gain the benefit of this wondrous offer, I have to accept that I am responsible for the flogging and mocking and crucifixion, in which I had no say and no part, and agree that every time I decline this responsibility, or that I sin in word or deed, I am intensifying the agony of it. Furthermore, I am required to believe that the agony was necessary in order to compensate for an earlier crime in which I had no part, the sin of Adam. It is useless to object that Adam seems to have been created with insatiable discontent and curiosity and then forbidden to slake it: all this was settled long before even Jesus himself was born. Thus my own guilt in the matter is deemed “original” and inescapable. However, I am granted free will with which to reject the offer of vicarious redemption. Should I exercise this choice, however, I face an eternity of torture much more awful than anything endured at Calvary, or anything threatened to those who first heard the Ten Commandments.
The tale is made no easier to follow by the necessary realization that Jesus both wished and needed to die and came to Jerusalem at Passover in order to do so, and that all who took part in his murder were unknowingly doing god’s will, and fulfilling ancient prophecies. (Absent the gnostic version, this makes it hopelessly odd that Judas, who allegedly performed the strangely redundant act of identifying a very well-known preacher to those who had been hunting for him, should suffer such opprobrium. Without him, there could have been no “Good Friday,” as the Christians naively call it when they are not in a vengeful mood.)
Myriad questions spring to mind. But it makes little sense to answer Hitchens’ charges one-by-one. It would, I think, accomplish little. Still, it’s interesting to see how they compare to charges made by those who hate the doctrine of the atonement and yet claim to love the One who gave His life as an atoning sacrifice.
Before I sign off, I thought my fellow Calvinists would enjoy this excerpt. “Calvin’s Geneva was a prototypical totalitarian state, and Calvin himself a sadist and torturer and killer, who burned Servetus (one of the great thinkers and questioners of the day) while the man was still alive. … Calvin may seem like a far-off figure to us, but those who used to grab and use power in his name are still among us and go by the softer names of [cue scary organ music] Presbyterians and Baptists.” (You can read my take on the Servetus issue here: The Servetus Problem).
You’ve got to watch for those Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. We’re a scary, totalitarian bunch.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (17)
One of my coworkers just told me recently that he was reading this book. I had the opportunity to share the true gospel with him, absent Hitchens’ gross misrepresentations. My coworker looked astonished, as if he had never heard this before. Now that I’ve read this portion that you posted, I understand my coworker’s confusion about who God is and what he has done.
I trust that the reality of the true gospel of grace will have its powerful effect in my coworker’s life. Hitchens has nothing so powerful in his arsenal of ridicule and misinformation as the Holy Spirit does in his soul-convicting power through the Word.
but those who used to grab and use power in his name are still among us and go by the softer names of [cue scary organ music] Presbyterians and Baptists.
Reading these sort of gross misrepresentations of the gospel normally irritate me - but thanks to how you decided to end this post, you’ve left me with a smurk on my face pondering the fact that Hitchens’ wrote about me. ;)
On a more serious note, this really emphasizes how we must remain clear and Word focused when we preach the gospel. Hitchens’ arguments don’t hold up against the Word of God, but if we water down the gospel, we watered down our defense, and we then water down the most powerful thing of all…The Gospel!
It’s interesting how much his description of the atonement resembles that of many liberal Christians. It suggests to me that his Christology and theirs may be similar.
It also tells me that we have done a poor job explaining the gospel to our culture. We focus so much on the Father and the Son that we forget to explain that the one and only God sent God to die on the cross and pay the debt we owed to God. Yes, the Trinity can be confusing, but it sounds less like child abuse when you phrase it that way.
Though I find Hitchens thoughts highly uninformed and unstudied, in any desire that might reveal God’s will in the necessity of Christ’s death; his rants do seem to contain a kernel of what many people find hard to accept in a general sense. Of course, in love and study, these questions can be answered. Yet I, like you, find any attempt to answer these types of statements or books a foolish waste of time.
It must be conceded, however, that Calvin’s idea of God’s salvation plan - that being a God who arbitrarily picks and chooses the condemed and saved among those who have no choice but to be what they are - is little different than Hitchens athiest idea.
That is not to say that Calvin did not have much to offer. He did. But the overall concept was flawed.
Firstly why refer to Penal Substitution as *the* atonement? It’s merely an understanding of the atonement and even PSA devotees recognise that the full picture of the atonement is bigger than PSA.
Secondly, why the need to engage in guilt by association? The criticisms that “liberal” Christians make on PSA should be addressed on their own merit, not dismissed because they may be held in common by Christopher Hitchens.
Finally, why laugh off Hitchens’ criticisms of John Calvin and his descendants? Wouldn’t it be far more effective to refute the charge that there is an intrinsic link between Calvinism and violence than to nervously dodge the issue?
…the scandal of the Gospel is at least this old: 1 Corinthians 1:18-31
Wouldn’t it be far more effective to refute the charge that there is an intrinsic link between Calvinism and violence than to nervously dodge the issue?
Nervously dodge? Anyone who regularly reads blogs should know by now that Calvinists comprise less than 10% of the Southern Baptist Convention. Anyone who attends Presbyterian churches (PCA ones, at least) also know that while the leadership is required to hold the doctrines of grace, the people in the pews are not necessarily of the same mind. We didn’t even need the Lifeway study to know that most Baptists are not Calvinists; all that did was confirm what we already knew. Common sense argues against Hitchens on that point.
As to Calvin, sober historians/historical research look at the whole picture, not the part that they think validates their bias. Again, Hitchens shows a lack of common sense. Do we really need to refute (especially among ourselves) someone who can clearly be shown to lack this basic mental trait in his book?
Sadly, as illustrated by the first comment, there will be many who demonstrate the same lack of common sense and just take Hitchens’ words as “gospel truth.” Hitchens’ book is The DaVinci Code all over again for some of us. A worthless piece of literary trash to be frank, quite entertaining to be sure, and easily debunked by most knowledgeable Christians.
The part that sobers me about it is that there are many ignorant Christians who will read this book or books like it and allow their faith to be shaken rather than investigating for themselves.
David wrote: “Wouldn’t it be far more effective to refute the charge that there is an intrinsic link between Calvinism and violence than to nervously dodge the issue?”
I’m sorry, David, but I think it might be far more effective first to establish such a supposed “intrinsic link.” Secondly, to insist that anyone is nervously dodging any violent acts by any of the reformers hints to me that you probably didn’t finish reading the post since Tim actually links to his treatment of the Servetus issue at the end of his post. Did you see that?
Perhaps I’m the one that’s confused, David, but I fail to see any intrinsic link between Calvinism and violence. And I also fail to see any dodging of the Servetus affair. You might want to consider substantiating your claims before asking to have them refuted.
It seems to me that no distinction is properly made between intentional and unintentional sin. Under the Mosaic Law, the High Priest once a year symbolically atoned for the unintentional sins of the people by offering the blood of unblemished animals in the Holy Place (Num.15:27-31). Sin sacrifices were never intended to vicariously atone for wilful intentional sin:
“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto YHVH; peradventure I shall make atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto YHVH, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin, and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And YHVH said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.” (Exodus 32:30-33) Moses’ request was denied on the basis that he could not suffer vicariously for intentional sin, vicarious suffering being a totally pagan concept.
“But everyone will die for his own sin…” (Jeremiah 31:30).
“No man can by any means redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him” (Psalms 49:7).
“The person who sins will die…” (Ezekiel 18:20).
“…everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16, II Kings 14:6).
The Israelites were consistently warned that there was no vicarious atonement, no atonement through ritual sacrifices that had become a “cover for sin.”
Nor did these rituals replace the true sacrifices required by God e.g:
“For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)
“For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of Elohim are a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart; These, O Creator, You will not despise.” (Ps 51:16-17)
“Therefore, O king, may my counsel be acceptable to you. Atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged.” (Daniel 4:27)
The authors of the New Testament drew an analogy between the crucifixion of Jesus and the yearly Day of Atonement sacrifice. In retrospect, they realised that the blood of Jesus could be viewed as a climactic finale to the entire Mosaic covenant’s sacrificial system which began with blood and has now ended with blood:
“Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, ‘This is the blood of the Covenant which God commanded you.’ And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:18-22)
The governing statement of the passage is “according to the Law.” The shedding of blood under the Law did not vicariously atone for intentional sin: it was merely a corporate and symbolic atonement for sins committed in ignorance. (Hebrews 9:6-7) The blood of Jesus is analogous to this corporate and symbolic atonement. It does not atone for wilful, individual sin. Under the New Covenant, there would also be no vicarious atonement, no “cover for sin” that the Mosaic system had been seen to provide in the minds of Israelites. The words of Jesus himself must be our guiding light and the ultimate authority on the issue:
“If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22)
Note also that this statement is a total rebuttal of the doctrine of Original Sin which has replaced the Law’s cover for sin that Jesus took away.
his rants do seem to contain a kernel of what many people find hard to accept in a general sense.
They do, as do the works of men like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. That is the reason I read them. If you read these books you will know many of the common arguments against God and can prepare yourself to answer these charges. It is worthwhile to be prepared since chances are some of your neighbors have the same questions and concerns!
When man is the measure of all things, the idea of the substitutionary death of Christ for sinners is bound to be absurd, as is the idea of being responsible for one’s own sins, committed against a God who is holy and just. Until God awakens us to the fact that he alone is the measure of all things, we are unable to stand in awe of the his love, which provided a way of salvation despite being under no obligation to do so.
To relegate the atonement to the category of “tale” and “superstition” is much less demanding than taking God at his word.
Let us just for now overlook all the contradictions between the tellers of the original story and assume that it is basically true.
Tim, does Hitchens go on and explain this claim further? I would be interested to know (1) what the contradictions are that he refers to, and (2) why he still goes through with the atonement rant despite claiming the Gospel story to be riddled with contradictions from the beginning
Nath was spot on in his assessment:
On a more serious note, this really emphasizes how we must remain clear and Word focused when we preach the gospel. Hitchens’ arguments don’t hold up against the Word of God, but if we water down the gospel, we watered down our defense, and we then water down the most powerful thing of all…The Gospel!
Unless we take the bull by the horns and center our study on teaching on the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, we have nothing. Exclude that, and you might as well throw the whole Bible out the window, since it’s just a random assortment of stories without that unifying thread.
John Murray’s classic discussion of the nature of Christ’s atonement can be found here: http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=620
Thanks for the review Tim, good stuff. If you haven’t yet, I’d recommend reading Douglas Wilson’s review of it as well. He deals with each chapter and offers some excellent critiquing (especially on the atonement/human sacrifice issue). You’ll also find mixed in with those entries links to his debate with CH on the CT website in case you missed that (which deals with the atonement issue some more).
I have not yet read this (Hitchen’s book) but probably will eventually. My father, a non-believer, read Harris’ “End of Faith” last year and to my shame I am now just getting around to doing it. I hope it will provide a springboard for dialogue between my father and I.
test 1,2,3