Featured Atonement

When it comes to doctrine (any doctrine) where you begin determines where you end. If you begin with God’s wrath then you end up with wrath being satisfied. If you begin with death then you end up with death being overcome. If you begin with social injustice you will end with a just reign. If you begin with covenant community you will end with the Kingdom of God. This is the point I’ve been focusing on recently. Where you begin in your doctrine – what you presuppose – determines where you end in your doctrine.

In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis speaks of the theories of Atonement and notes that the theories themselves are not the thing we are asked (by God) to accept. “Many of you no doubt have read Jeans or Eddington. What they do when they want to explain the atom, or something of that sort, is to give you a description out of which you can make a mental picture. But then they warn you that this picture is not what the scientists actually believe. What the scientists believe is a mathematical formula. The pictures are there only to help you to understand the formula.” In this way, theories of Atonement are like a metaphor.

Take Penal Substitution Theory, for example. It is based on biblical penal substitution which addresses the moral implications of sin. While most occasions Scripture approaches the atonement from a different angle, it is fairly clear that in Romans Paul addresses penal aspects of sin. Biblical penal substitution presents Christ experiencing the wages of sin and sharing in our “infirmities”. The Penal Substitution Theory contextualizes the Atonement within a worldly judicial framework where sin becomes a “debt” to be reconciled through punishment. The problem, of course, is that God does not punish sin because sin cannot be punished. You can punish a disobedient child, but you can not actually punish the disobedience. If you could, nothing would be remedied. And even sin could be punished, the moral aspect of sin is only one part of the larger definition. But this does not mean the Theory itself is valueless as it communicates, through a mental picture, one aspect of the atoning work of Christ.

 

This takes us to the problem of the Atonement, which is sin. Sin entered the world and through sin death spread to all because all have sinned. We fall short of the glory of God.

But what is sin?

Grudem defines sin as “any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature” (Systematic Theology). While immorality is a sin, Scripture speaks of sin as something larger than a moral issue (Both Jesus and Paul, for example, speaks of sin as a principle and a power).

Billy Graham defined sin as any action that falls short of God’s will (Stories). Standish offers the “high view of sin” which suggests that “any weakness, limitation, or inadequacy is sin” which is supported by Romans 3 (Perfection). Pannenberg describes sin as “the universal failure to achieve our human destiny” (Systematic Theology).

Panneberg is closer to a biblical view of sin. It is more than moral transgression of God’s law (although this is part of it). It is more than an action that falls short of God’s glory or principles of social injustice (although, again, this is part of it).

Man was made for a purpose. When God created man He gave Adam the command to care for Creation. He gave man a help mate. Man was made to be in a relationship with mankind and with God. Scot McKnight explores the Atonement wonderfully in A Community Called Atonement. Here he makes the observation that when “sin is defined in such a way that it involves it involves systemic corruption, then atonement is released to become the restoration of the Eikon in all directions, a restoration that includes the undoing of systemic corruption. Atonement, then, becomes the act of God to create a kingdom people.”

 

Sorry, I should have said this at the start: I've not legitimately engaged my view here for a reason. But a conversation with @Reformed changed my mind.

That said, I am going to delete off-topic comments or insults (I normally do not in threads in which I'm active). So please feel free to disagree with me, on the topic. If you can't then please refrain from posting on this thread, but feel free to start another.

Thanks.

 

I know. First I think that I need to explain my view. I've put forward my view in the past and without context it was denounced too much Scripture not enough explanation. I'm doing it backwards this time.

In summary my view is that the Atonement is God's act of reconciliation from the Incarnation through the Resurrection. As a reconciliation it deals with systemic nature of sin, which goes beyond sin as moral transgression or sin as a power or principle. It includes these, but cannot be reduced to one.

My view is that through the Cross God was reconciling the world to Himself, and that now this ministry of reconciliation is given to us as we urge men to be reconciled to God. It addresses penal substitution in that Christ bore our sins and shared in our infirmity (Christ experienced the "wages of sin"). It addresses ransom because it also focuses not on human sin but on the Purchaser.

Another aspect is that of the covenant community. The atonement was God's act of building His Kingdom. It is the transformation, or re-creation, of men. And these recreated men are built into the Body of Christ, which lives in community (or should) with one another being Christ to a world that is lost. In this aspect, Christ is the "Firstborn" of many brethern.

So I believe that there are many ways of looking at the atonement. But each are metaphoric in a way as the whole cannot be contained in any one view.

 

I owe you an apology – I must have misspoke. When I speak of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement I am pointing to the theory that is built on (perhaps to explain) penal substitution aspects found in the Bible. By theory I mean contextualizing what is found in Scripture into something else.

Ransom is found in the Bible. The theory that God paid a ransom to Satan is not. Christ as an example is found in the Bible. The Moral Influence Theory is not. Both penal and substitutionary aspects are found in the Bible. The theory that on the Cross God was punishing Christ instead of punishing us is not.

You are absolutely right that we cannot afford to get it wrong. It would be better to simply preach the actual gospel (Christ crucified) without explanation than to offer the wrong explanation. That said, have you ever wondered how Christianity made it for so long without a well articulated view of the atonement?

In terms of Penal Substitution Theory advocates, I would look to John Piper and Tim Keller. I also like Wesley. In terms of Substitution I appreciate Luther. I consider many Anabaptists have to say, but unfortunately (like many Penal Substitution Theory advocates) they typically elevate their theory at the expense of other biblical views (especially those like Weaver). I like Wright on Christus Victor and Penal Substitution (his view of Penal Substitution is probably the closest to mine). I think that C.S. Lewis has good insight on some aspects as well (although he is not a theologian). And T.F. Torrance. I've always liked Karl Barth's Christ-centered approach to the Atonement as well. And David Wells (another favorite).

If I had to pick a contemporary author with whom I agree on this topic, it would be Scot McKnight.

But I believe that we need to allow Scripture to dictate how we interact with Scripture, so I don't think that we need to fall into one camp or another. These theories are like (to borrow from McKnight) golf clubs. If you have one, you may make it through the game but it'll be ugly. The atonement far exceeds the theories of it.

 

I’ve always enjoyed Christian history. I am not sure it is fair to say that theology increased during the Reformation (or shortly afterwards) as much as it shifted form. I agree that academic dedication and studies began in earnest, but I am not certain that we are the better for it.

As you probably know, the “gospel presentation” has changed as well. It went from a presentation of the gospel proper (the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Messiah) to a presentation of the explanation of the gospel. With the former, it was a gospel experienced (most often, through an encounter with Christians and their testimony). From the Reformation until the mid 20th century the gospel (in Protestant churches) focused on becoming a part of the community and then evidences of faith within the Church. And from the mid-1900’s forward it has focused on generating a belief or decision.

Sometimes I think it is because the original gospel presentation depended on a gospel that “had feet”. But that’s just my opinion. I see the Reformation as making great strides in scholarship. But I also sense a bit of danger in the type of scholarship that came out of the movement.

In a way. I think that there is a danger to following one view. Much has come, as you noted, out of the Reformation. But what if they were wrong. One of my favorite authors is John Piper. Yet he even questioned Wright’s NPP because it challenged a four century view (a view that came from the Reformation). When we look at teachers we pick what teachings we believe are biblical and discard the rest. Many Baptists like Sproul. He was not a Baptist, so they “spit out” the parts they reject.

It is not that I hold a hybrid view, or a compilation. That is why I started by speaking of sin. The atonement solves the sin “problem”. Sin is more than a moral issue, so the atonement is more than the Penal Substitution Theory. It is more than Christ as an example, etc. I believe that when we choose a view and interpret Scripture from that lens we blind ourselves to the depth of Scripture. We also can come out with heretical ideas (like God separating from Christ for three hours on the Cross; or God paying Satan a ransom).

But on this topic there are several I do agree with. I would consider my view to be along the lines of C.S. Lewis, Scot McKnight, and perhaps to an extent N.T. Wright. Reading Scripture it seems that the most common theme is Christus Victor, and the most common focus is the Kingdom of God. If I were to describe my position, it would be the Ransom view (not Origen’s but the early church view of a Ransom paid to liberate us from the bondage of sin and death).

As a graduate student I concentrated on systematic theology (it was a tough choice between that and Church History). Systematic theology by nature incorporates human reasoning. So I completely agree here. My only comment is that we need to acknowledge the finiteness of our reasoning and that it exists in our understanding. The larger issue comes in when we build on these models we know in part.

Here, if we are not careful, Yeats rings true - Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer; things fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. We have to watch that we do not build theory upon theory as doctrine.

I’m a compatibilist.

 

I know. R.C. Sproul and Tim Keller believe in infant baptism.
Karl Barth's wife wouldn't divorce him so he moved his mistress in.
John Gill believed that the angel Michael was Jesus.

I am not suggesting we follow men. I am saying that God works through imperfect people.

 

I don't think that is what @Reformed meant (I think he was asking the difference I was making between the Penal Substitution Theory and penal substitution in general).

If it helps, here are a few sources that you can learn about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement –

Millard Erickson (Christian Theology) deals with Penal Substitution Theory on pages 833-839 in a subsection titled “Objections to the Penal-Substitution Theory”.

Norman Geisler (Systematic Theology vol. 1) deals with Penal Substitution Theory (he indicates it could also be called “Legal Substitution Theory”, although I’ve not seen it referred to in this way) on page 835.

Thomas Schreiner defends the Penal Substitution Theory in the book The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (pg. 67).

J.I. Packer and Mark Dever deal with Penal Substitution Theory throughout the book In My Place Condemned He Stood noting “Theories in this set [that look to Christ as bearing a penalty we deserved] such as the satisfaction theory and the penal-substitution theory, emphasize how Christ represents us” (pg. 103)

I still have not unpacked my library (probably never will in full), so that's all I can check quickly.

Hope it helps.