The Necessity of Christ’s Atonement: Murray’s Theological Examination of God’s Sovereign Love

Having published three articles regarding my crypto adventure for the last three days, this was my first time releasing a piece on Hive on one of the issues I studied last semester as a theological student. For some time now, my father has been pushing me to gather my knowledge into an electronic portfolio. In response to that motivation, I am now offering my preliminary analysis of John Murray's book, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, and its first chapter.

In the first chapter, John Murray talks about The Necessity of the Atonement. He explains the motive behind God's great act of atonement, asserting that it was solely motivated by His "free and sovereign love" (p. 9). The love that God offers in this salvation to the elect is something that distinguishes between empty professors and genuine children of God. This love was planned accordingly, not a product of an afterthought, and this fact testifies to His character. God is love, and therefore, this love springs from His being. However, it is a mistake to say that God is forced to love sinners because He is love. The action of love that accomplished the appearance of redemption has brought divine revelation to human thought. This means that the redemption accomplished by Christ on the cross was the highest pinnacle of divine revelation and is worthy of attention—any attempt to surpass this great act of redemption, for Murray, is but unwarranted (ibid.). Nevertheless, despite saying that love was the “cause or source” that motivated God to accomplish the great atonement, Murray acknowledges that it does not address "the reason or the necessity" (p.11) as to why God would perform such an act. Why not pursue alternative methods for saving mankind? Is the atonement offered on the Cross the sole means of salvation? Such inquiries, as paraphrased by the writer, are crucial for Murray to comprehend the work of Christ and should not be disregarded (ibid.)

So, regarding this matter, Murray discusses the two prominent stances held among the circles of Christendom. One asserts that God could save even without the atonement (but the Epistle of Hebrews refutes this notion), while the other is the Protestant position, stating that "God’s will to save … is of free and sovereign grace" (ibid) and that God is not obligated to save anyone but does so by His own good pleasure—and this saving act was secured by God only through the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ (ibid.)

In conclusion, the Scripture passages, as addressed by Murray, go into which interpretation is more suitable to tackle the necessity of atonement and the impossibility of multiple avenues for salvation apart from the atonement. His arguments are based on the inherent necessity of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice once God determined to save humanity. Drawing support from passages such as Hebrews 2:10, 17 and 9:9–14, 22–28, he advocates for the view that the shedding of blood in Christ's sacrifice is an absolute consequence of God's decree for salvation; and according to him, these Scriptural considerations will constrain us to hold this view (p.18). Hence, Murray contends on the nature of Christ, the holiness of God, and the demands arising from sin, this then became the factor within Murray's theological framework, agreeing with the protestant position.

In short, John Murray argues that God's act of atonement, motivated by His sovereign love, was necessary for salvation, emphasizing that Christ's substitutionary sacrifice is the sole means of redemption as affirmed by Scripture.

Reference:

Murray, John. Redemption: Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955. Reprinted April 1980.

Posted Using InLeo Alpha