Theories of Atonement

[Neto]

Good observations Neto. Another detail surrounding Penal Substitutionary Atonement that troubles me is the difference between "turning away" wrath and "satisfying" wrath. I'm open to scriptural correction but I'm not sure the wrath of God for evil is satisfied, that is why he intends to isolate all of it for eternity in the lake of fire. For now it is stored up in bowls for the final judgement. I understand the wrath of God for evil in context of his righteous judgement, not as a personal emotional state.

Yes, I hesitated to use that term, thus in quotes, to indicate that I have my doubts about that type of statement. (I know that I was not clear on that - I often get really long-winded, and was attempting to avoid that.) (Or, that the term might be used in a very figurative manner, but not as it is often used in theological statements by certain parties.)

[cmbl]

Thought this was interesting...

Kauffman's Doctrines of the Bible from 1928's section on the atonement contains the following headings, with explanatory text underneath each one:

We therefore look upon Him [Christ] as:
1. Our Ransom
2. Our Propitiation
3. Our Substitute
4. Our Advocate

Later, under "the nature of Christ's death," the headings are:

1. It was by Divine decree
2. It was voluntary
3. It was penal.
4. It was expiatory.
5. It was vicarious.
6. It was mediatorial.
7. It was heart-rending.
8. It was glorious.

The explanatory text under "3. It was penal:"

The whole world was guilty before God. The penalty for guilt must be paid. On the cruel cross Christ paid the penalty, "A ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28), for "the Lord hath laid on HIM the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6).

Contrast that with Keith Crider's Sacrifice or Penalty?, published by CLP in 2018, which directs the reader to,

Consider the "punishment" statements below. These kinds of statements are common in mainstream Christian books and in the notes of most study Bibles. Each statement is false, or at least is based upon false teachings.
"God punished Christ for man's sins."
"Christ paid the penalty for our sins."
"Christ died as the recipient of our punishment."
"Jesus took our punishment upon Himself."
"Jesus suffered the torments of Hell for us."
"Jesus experienced spiritual death in our behalf."
"Jesus took our sins upon Himself, became sinful, and experienced the wrath of God."
"Jesus death appeased God's wrath on sinners."

(emphasis mine in both quotes.)
Bolded texts are saying precisely the opposite thing in books by Mennonite publishing houses 100 years apart. At least one of these books and perhaps both are repeating what is popular in their day.

Also, in 1928, the polemic purpose was uniting with fundamentalism against modernism. Mennonite academics of that time were trying to show that Anabaptists were orthodox Christians. In 2018, the polemic purpose is distancing ourselves from mainstream evangelical Christanity, the theological heirs of the fundamentalists.

[barnhart]

... in 1928, the polemic purpose was uniting with fundamentalism against modernism. Mennonite academics of that time were trying to show that Anabaptists were orthodox Christians. In 2018, the polemic purpose is distancing ourselves from mainstream evangelical Christanity, the theological heirs of the fundamentalists.

I like this analysis. I suspect Kaufman would use different language if he were alive today and could see the direction fundamentalism has taken.

[ohio jones]

Bolded texts are saying precisely the opposite thing in books by Mennonite publishing houses 100 years apart.

And both are presently being sold by CLP.

... in 1928, the polemic purpose was uniting with fundamentalism against modernism. Mennonite academics of that time were trying to show that Anabaptists were orthodox Christians. In 2018, the polemic purpose is distancing ourselves from mainstream evangelical Christanity, the theological heirs of the fundamentalists.

I like this analysis. I suspect Kaufman would use different language if he were alive today and could see the direction fundamentalism has taken.

Perhaps he would be like Harold S. Bender, who around 1920 identified the greatest threat to the Mennonite Church as Modernism. And then in the 1950s he said that the greatest threat to the Mennonite Church is Fundamentalism.

[cmbl]

Perhaps he would be like Harold S. Bender, who around 1920 identified the greatest threat to the Mennonite Church as Modernism. And then in the 1950s he said that the greatest threat to the Mennonite Church is Fundamentalism.

And perhaps our outlook should be like Robert Friedmann, who wrote in 1949 in Mennonite Piety Through the Centuries,

In spite of all this historical awakening, the church at large is still extremely vulnerable to influences from outside, particularly from popular fundamentalism and popular liberalism. Unless there is a resolute and conscious turn to her own particular message, the hidden temptation of "Pietism" within the church will remain.

[barnhart]

And perhaps our outlook should be like Robert Friedmann, who wrote in 1949 in Mennonite Piety Through the Centuries,

In spite of all this historical awakening, the church at large is still extremely vulnerable to influences from outside, particularly from popular fundamentalism and popular liberalism. Unless there is a resolute and conscious turn to her own particular message, the hidden temptation of "Pietism" within the church will remain.

Fascinating. Do I understand correctly that piety is the common root he sees in both theological liberalism and theological fundamentalism?

Second question, in this book does he expand on his vision of the "own peculiar message" of the church?

[HondurasKeiser]

And perhaps our outlook should be like Robert Friedmann, who wrote in 1949 in Mennonite Piety Through the Centuries,

In spite of all this historical awakening, the church at large is still extremely vulnerable to influences from outside, particularly from popular fundamentalism and popular liberalism. Unless there is a resolute and conscious turn to her own particular message, the hidden temptation of "Pietism" within the church will remain.

Fascinating. Do I understand correctly that piety is the common root he sees in both theological liberalism and theological fundamentalism?

Second question, in this book does he expand on his vision of the "own peculiar message" of the church?

I've always understood them to be 2 sides of the same erroneous coin.

[barnhart]

And perhaps our outlook should be like Robert Friedmann, who wrote in 1949 in Mennonite Piety Through the Centuries,

Fascinating. Do I understand correctly that piety is the common root he sees in both theological liberalism and theological fundamentalism?

Second question, in this book does he expand on his vision of the "own peculiar message" of the church?

I've always understood them to be 2 sides of the same erroneous coin.

I can see that. How does piety fit in, hyper individualism?

[Neto]

Fascinating. Do I understand correctly that piety is the common root he sees in both theological liberalism and theological fundamentalism?

Second question, in this book does he expand on his vision of the "own peculiar message" of the church?

I've always understood them to be 2 sides of the same erroneous coin.

I can see that. How does piety fit in, hyper individualism?

As a 'pietist' myself, I maintain that there is no either-or in the balance of personal devotion and brotherhood submission. The balanced Christian life will contain both. Without brotherhood individualistic "Me and Jesus" 'theology' takes over, and life in the Body of Christ is starved out and dies. Without personal devotion legalistic obedience to some leader or group's individualistic expressions and rules will squash out the central elements of a personal relationship between each soul saved by the grace of God and the Savior. Life in the Spirit of God will be starved out.

[Piety and brotherhood was written into the founding document of the Mennonite Brethren, my spiritual heritage. So it IS possible to have both. Obviously where a balance is the objective, it takes work to maintain it, and that starts with the realization of the spiritual dangers that lie at either extreme.]

[cmbl]

Fascinating. Do I understand correctly that piety is the common root he sees in both theological liberalism and theological fundamentalism?

I would need to re-read the conclusion to his book, but I think he is referring to "Pietism" in scare quotes to symbolize Mennonites seeking the genuine spirituality found in other Christian movements rather than seeking the genuine spirituality that is their own heritage.

As far as Pietism proper, Friedmann views Pietism as weakening the world-confronting, visible-church nature of early Anabaptism. (My opinion is that that may be true, yet it almost seems as if Friedmann wanted Swiss Brethren Mennonites to retain the spirit of the 1500s into the 1700s and 1800s and into today...With coming to America and finding religious freedom, things were going to change somewhat.)

Second question, in this book does he expand on his vision of the "own peculiar message" of the church?

For Friedmann's vision of the own peculiar message of the Mennonite church, I recommend his The Theology of Anabaptism: An Interpretation. His vision does come through in Mennonite Piety through the Centuries, but is succinctly stated (with abundant reference to translated documents of Swiss and South German Anabaptists) in The Theology of Anabaptism.