A Short Criticism Of Zane Hodges' Atonement Theology

Zane Hodges

 Zane Hodges and GES hold to a distinct form of universal atonement, where the death of Christ takes away the eternal punishment for sins from every man unconditionally, from both believer and unbeliever. He avoided universalism by denying that hell is a payment for our sins but as the result of not having eternal life (which he defined as distinct from being saved from the penalty of sin).

However, there are multiple problems with this view, and these have been pointed out by Jody Dillow in his book "Final Destiny". The scriptures speak of hell as the punishment for sins multiple times, the chief examples include 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and Matthew 25:46, both of which call hell punishment:

Matthew 25:46: And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

2 Thessalonians 1:9: These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Special attention should be paid to 2 Thessalonians 1:9, as it uses the Greek word "tino", which specifically refers to a payment (Thayer's Greek Lexicon). Now, if the payment of the eternal penalty of sin is not conditional upon faith, then how can this verse speak of it as payment?

What about John 1:29 however? Many of those who believe in Hodges' view argue that the traditional view of the atonement makes it so that Jesus only "potentially" died for all, as Wilkin writes:

Four-point Calvinists and Arminians say that Jesus Christ died for everyone, but that it only counts for those who believe that He is God, that He died for their sins, and that He rose bodily from the dead. Until you believe those things, you do not gain the benefit of Christ dying for your sins. In this view, Christ’s death is potentially for all, but is actually only for those who believe in the atonement. 

I have multiple criticisms of these comments, firstly, it is not merely 4-point Calvinists and Arminians who hold to this view, it is also taught by Provisionists/Baptist traditionalists, Lutherans and Anglicans along with almost all non-Calvinists traditions. This view has also been taught by Free Grace theologians, for example Dillow writes:

This view teaches that the death of Christ provisionally achieved a satisfaction  for the sins of all men, and it becomes actual for the one who believes. The atonement  is “sufficient for all,” but “efficient” for those who believe on Christ alone for justification.

 What then was the atonement intended to accomplish? The intent of the  tonement is to satisfy the justice of God completely in a limited and specific sense.  The intent of the atonement as Paul explained elsewhere was “for the demonstration,  I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the  justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26). The atonement freed  God so that He would be just when He justified those who believed. It did not obligate  Him to provide a payment to anyone, but it made the payment available to “the one who has faith in Jesus.”

Wilkin's comments on this view making the atonement "potentially for all", I would argue are a mischarecterization. Jesus did in actuality for every man,  Jesus actually took away the sin of every man by paying for it in the cross, however we receive it by believing in Jesus, Ryrie makes an analogy for this view:

In one school where I have taught, the student aid was handled in this way.  People made gifts to the student aid fund. Needy students applied for help from that fund. A committee decided who would receive aid and how much.  But when the actual money was distributed, it was done by issuing a check to the student, who then was expected to endorse it back to the school, which  would then place the credit on his account. The money was not moved directly from the aid fund to the individual student’s account. The student had to receive it personally and place it on his account. Let us suppose you gave a gift to cover one student’s tuition for one year. You could properly say that his tuition was fully paid. But until the selection is made by the committee, and until the student receives the gift and places it on his account,his tuition is not paid. If he fails to endorse the check, it will never be paid even though it has been paid

This is not meant to be a personal attack on Hodges, however I majorly disagree with him on this issue.