I do not think St. Paul in Romans 12:18 had in mind reducing the atonement to a state of reductionism simply to ensure no one was offended.
The apostle’s call to live peaceably with all men is grounded in the profound reality of Christ’s finished work on the cross, which demands neither dilution nor simplification that obscures its full biblical and theological weight. In the friendly chat given in the Eltham Good Friday service by the Rev. Don Elliot, a presentation of the atonement was offered that, while it may have been well-intentioned, revealed significant exegetical and doctrinal gaps that merit careful reflection.
To top it off, it seems Christ suffered the crucifixion, not as fulfillment of counsel between members of the Trinity, but rather because we, the human race, had become spiritually and morally broken.
The conversation began by highlighting Jesus’ final cry from the cross, “It is finished” (John 19:30). This declaration is rightly understood as the completion of Christ’s redemptive mission. However, the discussion failed to unpack fully what “it” entails.
The atonement is not merely the cessation of Jesus’ suffering but the fulfillment of the righteous demands of God’s law, the satisfaction of divine justice, and the vindication of God’s holiness. The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that Christ, by His obedience and death, “did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified” (WCF 11.2). Calvin’s Institutes emphasize that Christ’s obedience was active and passive, fulfilling the law’s requirements and enduring the punishment due to sinners. Without this exposition, the atonement risks being perceived as a vague or incomplete event rather than the decisive accomplishment of salvation.
Moreover, the chat mentioned Jesus as the Lamb of God but did not develop this crucial Christological truth. John the Baptist’s declaration in John 1:29 that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” is foundational for understanding the atonement’s nature. This title connects Jesus to the Old Testament sacrificial system, where lambs were offered for the sins of the people. The atonement is substitutionary and propitiatory: Christ bore the punishment for sin in our place, satisfying God’s wrath and reconciling sinners to Himself. Neglecting this teaching diminishes the gospel’s power and obscures the covenantal continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
At approximately four minutes into the chat, there was a notable inaccuracy in recounting gospel events. Such imprecision undermines the credibility of the message and the trustworthiness of the speaker. Faithful preaching requires diligent engagement with Scripture, as the Westminster Larger Catechism reminds us that ministers must “rightly divide the word of truth” (WLC 5). Errors in biblical narrative, even if unintentional, can lead to confusion and weaken the gospel’s impact.
A significant portion of the chat employed a “gap” metaphor to illustrate the distance between God and man, which Jesus bridges. While pedagogically helpful, this metaphor was presented without connecting it to the doctrines of imputation and regeneration. Sin was defined merely as “spiritual and moral brokenness,” a description that falls short of biblical teaching. Scripture defines sin as rebellion against God’s law, a violation of His righteous standards that incurs guilt and condemnation (Romans 3:23; 1 John 3:4). The Reformed tradition insists on the forensic nature of sin and salvation: we are guilty before God, and Christ’s atoning work imputes His righteousness to us by faith alone (WCF 11.2; WLC Q33-38). Without this forensic framework, the gospel risks becoming a therapeutic message of moral improvement rather than a call to repentance and faith.
Furthermore, the chat did not press the necessity of the new birth, the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit that brings sinners from death to life. Jesus told Nicodemus that “unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The new birth is not optional or peripheral but essential for salvation. It is the Spirit’s regenerating power that unites believers to Christ, enabling them to receive His atoning benefits. The absence of this emphasis weakens the experiential and covenantal dimensions of the gospel, leaving hearers without a clear summons to repentance and spiritual transformation.
These omissions and imbalances have serious pastoral consequences. When the atonement is presented without clear exposition of Christ’s fulfillment of the law, propitiation of God’s wrath, substitutionary sacrifice, and the necessity of regeneration, hearers may be left with a shallow or distorted understanding of salvation. They may view Christ’s death as merely an inspiring example or a moral bridge rather than the decisive act that satisfies divine justice and grants new life. This risks fostering a moralistic or therapeutic spirituality that fails to confront the sinner’s guilt, repentance, and need for new birth.
In conclusion, the atonement must be preached with theological precision and pastoral clarity. It is not enough to announce that “it is finished” without explaining what has been finished: the law’s demands met, God’s justice satisfied, sin’s penalty borne, and the sinner’s debt canceled. The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world must be proclaimed as the perfect sacrifice, fulfilling the covenant of grace. The gospel call must include the necessity of the new birth, the Spirit’s sovereign work that unites sinners to Christ and imparts eternal life.
Therefore, any presentation of the atonement, even in a friendly chat such as this Good Friday chat, must maintain exegetical integrity, doctrinal fidelity, and pastoral seriousness. Only then can it truly bring sinners from death to life, from enmity to peace with God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
