Theories of Atonement

[Ernie]

I do not currently have my copy of Keeping Salvation Ethical by J. Denny Weaver (I have lent it out), but in that book he studies a handful of 19th century Amish and Mennonite authors (including Jacob Stauffer of the Stauffer Mennonites, David Beiler of the Old Order Amish, Heinrich Egly, a Wiebe of the Russian Mennonites, C.H. Wedel, and perhaps a couple others). Where his analysis winds up is that most of these authors basically took or assumed a satisfaction view of the atonement, but that it can be misleading to talk of their view of the atonement without making the connections that they all made to living a Christian life. Atonement and Christian ethics were related in all their minds. Weaver notes a difference between this linking that the pre-Fundamentalist Mennonites made and a more separated, compartmentalized, two-track mindset of Daniel Kauffman's Doctrines of the Bible.

(Note: J. Denny Weaver himself does not believe the way these men believed - he argues for a "historicized Christus Victor" view at the end of this book and in other places for a "Nonviolent Atonement" which has been mentioned upthread as a liberal view to avoid. I concur with that assessment of Weaver's view. That said, the fact that his view differs from the men he writes about if anything strengthens the claim that they did actually believe how he describes them: he's not reading his view into the past.)

Thanks CMBL. This post is significant, and I always appreciate your posts and studious responses.

[cmbl]

I do not currently have my copy of Keeping Salvation Ethical by J. Denny Weaver (I have lent it out), but in that book he studies a handful of 19th century Amish and Mennonite authors (including Jacob Stauffer of the Stauffer Mennonites, David Beiler of the Old Order Amish, Heinrich Egly, a Wiebe of the Russian Mennonites, C.H. Wedel, and perhaps a couple others). Where his analysis winds up is that most of these authors basically took or assumed a satisfaction view of the atonement, but that it can be misleading to talk of their view of the atonement without making the connections that they all made to living a Christian life. Atonement and Christian ethics were related in all their minds. Weaver notes a difference between this linking that the pre-Fundamentalist Mennonites made and a more separated, compartmentalized, two-track mindset of Daniel Kauffman's Doctrines of the Bible.

(Note: J. Denny Weaver himself does not believe the way these men believed - he argues for a "historicized Christus Victor" view at the end of this book and in other places for a "Nonviolent Atonement" which has been mentioned upthread as a liberal view to avoid. I concur with that assessment of Weaver's view. That said, the fact that his view differs from the men he writes about if anything strengthens the claim that they did actually believe how he describes them: he's not reading his view into the past.)

Thanks CMBL. This post is significant, and I always appreciate your posts and studious responses.

Thank you for your kind words. If you enjoyed Gospel versus Gospel, I think you would enjoy Keeping Salvation Ethical even more - it's taking the theological lens rather than the mission lens, while discussing the same changes.

[Nomad]

My take on the atonement: There is absolutely a legal element to the atonement, and it is complementary, interplaying with the other aspects of the atonement. If we do not have Christ's substitutionary atonement taking away our debt, our penalty, that we owed due to sin - the debt that HE paid - then we are still under shame and condemnation due to the legal penalty we owe, and we are not clothed in Christ's righteousness because His righteousness has not been imputed to us, and we are still in our own filthy rags. But if Christ has paid our penalty by the shedding of His blood in His death on the cross, then we can live without fear and shame. We need more than just that - and He accomplished more than that, certainly. (Perhaps there has been a tendency among evangelical PSA adherents to forget about the rest of His accomplishment). But we do not need less than that. We can't eliminate that part of what He accomplished. Christus Victor is the overarching theme of the atonement - it is the WHAT of the atonement. But it is a bit lacking when it tries to be the whole thing - yes, Christ achieved victory over Satan, but the "how" is a bit lacking. PSA is an important part of the "how".

I've heard the atonement described as a Christ-shaped mosaic. Christus Victor is the head - it is essential, it motivates and drives the rest of the body. PSA is the beating heart of the atonement - central to His work. Recapitulation is the feet - "How beautiful the feet of Him who brings good news." He lived and walked in our steps, so that we can walk in His. And moral influence is the hands of the atonement.

Penal substitution is good news. In the overall picture, from PSA, to Christus Victor, moral influence, and recapitulation, and any other aspects I might be missing, His saving work covers all we need; Jesus accomplished a perfect salvation. As He said on the cross, "It is finished."

There are many comments I could make about this post but I will only comment on the filthy rags part.
The context for filthy rags has to do with emptiness in religious rituals when they are divorced from true repentance. It does not refer to God or Christ's righteousness being imputed.
Most people who refer to this (folks influenced by Protestant thought) haven't thought much about the context of the phrase that they use freely when speaking of things related to salvation and the Gospel.
Paul says that works done in the right spirit are a sweet-smelling savor to God.
I feel sorry for the millions of listeners in Protestant and Protestant influenced settings who don't study the word deeply for themselves, and who hear this filthy rags stuff, and assume that good works are something to be esteemed. Such folks don't get to experience the favor that God intends for them to experience as they do the works of God and live lives that are pleasing to Him.

MattY,

I've found out that when a self-proclaimed nonresistant "Kingdom Christian" REALLY wants to insult someone...then calling them "Protestant" or comparing them to the Protestants is the ultimate name call....no need to take it personal though.

[joshuabgood]

It's not intended as a name call but a genuine classification. A lot of us Anabaptists and Kingdom folks don't realize how we are influenced by Protestantism. In our perspective we are just "christian." That was my perspective for a long time. PSA wasn't an atonement theory, it was Christian. That is just the way it was.

[JohnH]

It's not intended as a name call but a genuine classification. A lot of us Anabaptists and Kingdom folks don't realize how we are influenced by Protestantism. In our perspective we are just "christian." That was my perspective for a long time. PSA wasn't an atonement theory, it was Christian. That is just the way it was.

Coming from the other side of things, in evangelical circles in the 1990s, PSA was drilled into you as the “correct” doctrine and part of why other Christian groups (specifically Catholics) are so flawed. Along with the propaganda that other groups believe in salvation via works.

[Nomad]

It's not intended as a name call but a genuine classification. A lot of us Anabaptists and Kingdom folks don't realize how we are influenced by Protestantism. In our perspective we are just "christian." That was my perspective for a long time. PSA wasn't an atonement theory, it was Christian. That is just the way it was.

The majority of the time the word "Protestant" is said in order to silent someone in a negative way.

I grew up with the opposite experience of you. My dad loved everything "Kingdom Christian"...we had all the books and I heard all the David Bercot/ John D/ Dean Taylor/ Gary Miller/ Finny/etc messages. For Christmas my parents would buy me 4 CDs by Bercot. I read the Ante-nicene writings and studied their beliefs...much more than I studied the Bible.

15 years ago, I would have argued rather loudly against PSA and more for something that looked like Phillip Hess's version of "Christus Victor" or Bercots "Ransom Theory". But, through a series of events I changed my mind on some things. However, just because I changed my mind isn't an argument that I am now correct...I'm still learning. Plenty of people change their mind to something wrong. I say this because I've heard some claim they used to be more "Protestant-minded" and changed...this being an argument in their eyes that they now MUST hold the correct view because they changed their mind. But changing your mind doesn't actually mean you changed correctly...it just means that: you changed your mind.

[joshuabgood]

It's not intended as a name call but a genuine classification. A lot of us Anabaptists and Kingdom folks don't realize how we are influenced by Protestantism. In our perspective we are just "christian." That was my perspective for a long time. PSA wasn't an atonement theory, it was Christian. That is just the way it was.

The majority of the time the word "Protestant" is said in order to silent someone in a negative way.

I grew up with the opposite experience of you. My dad loved everything "Kingdom Christian"...we had all the books and I heard all the David Bercot/ John D/ Dean Taylor/ Gary Miller/ Finny/etc messages. For Christmas my parents would buy me 4 CDs by Bercot. I read the Ante-nicene writings and studied their beliefs...much more than I studied the Bible.

15 years ago, I would have argued rather loudly against PSA and more for something that looked like Phillip Hess's version of "Christus Victor" or Bercots "Ransom Theory". But, through a series of events I changed my mind on some things. However, just because I changed my mind isn't an argument that I am now correct...I'm still learning. Plenty of people change their mind to something wrong. I say this because I've heard some claim they used to be more "Protestant-minded" and changed...this being an argument in their eyes that they now MUST hold the correct view because they changed their mind. But changing your mind doesn't actually mean you changed correctly...it just means that: you changed your mind.

All true. But I don't think it is name calling when something is rightly categorized protestant.

[Nomad]

It's not intended as a name call but a genuine classification. A lot of us Anabaptists and Kingdom folks don't realize how we are influenced by Protestantism. In our perspective we are just "christian." That was my perspective for a long time. PSA wasn't an atonement theory, it was Christian. That is just the way it was.

The majority of the time the word "Protestant" is said in order to silent someone in a negative way.

I grew up with the opposite experience of you. My dad loved everything "Kingdom Christian"...we had all the books and I heard all the David Bercot/ John D/ Dean Taylor/ Gary Miller/ Finny/etc messages. For Christmas my parents would buy me 4 CDs by Bercot. I read the Ante-nicene writings and studied their beliefs...much more than I studied the Bible.

15 years ago, I would have argued rather loudly against PSA and more for something that looked like Phillip Hess's version of "Christus Victor" or Bercots "Ransom Theory". But, through a series of events I changed my mind on some things. However, just because I changed my mind isn't an argument that I am now correct...I'm still learning. Plenty of people change their mind to something wrong. I say this because I've heard some claim they used to be more "Protestant-minded" and changed...this being an argument in their eyes that they now MUST hold the correct view because they changed their mind. But changing your mind doesn't actually mean you changed correctly...it just means that: you changed your mind.

All true. But I don't think it is name calling when something is rightly categorized protestant.

Just read and listen to some of the negative comments made towards Dean because of his view. Here's a direct quote example:

" We've lost Dean to the Anselm lead reformers!"

Dean's a man who has exhibited "Kingdom Christianity" in about every way. And yet, he takes one divergent view and he is now classified as a "reformer" and "lost"....

[joshuabgood]

Just read and listen to some of the negative comments made towards Dean because of his view. Here's a direct quote example:

" We've lost Dean to the Anselm lead reformers!"

Dean's a man who has exhibited "Kingdom Christianity" in about every way. And yet, he takes one divergent view and he is now classified as a "reformer" and "lost"....

That is fair. I guess I missed that quote. I have no ill will towards Dean...he happens to be a good personal friend of mine. Further i would idealize not looking down on Protestant, or any other faith tradition. I would idealize being able to converse for understanding and be able to categorize and classify what views are associated with which tradition and evaluate them as such.

[MattY]

My take on the atonement: There is absolutely a legal element to the atonement, and it is complementary, interplaying with the other aspects of the atonement. If we do not have Christ's substitutionary atonement taking away our debt, our penalty, that we owed due to sin - the debt that HE paid - then we are still under shame and condemnation due to the legal penalty we owe, and we are not clothed in Christ's righteousness because His righteousness has not been imputed to us, and we are still in our own filthy rags. But if Christ has paid our penalty by the shedding of His blood in His death on the cross, then we can live without fear and shame. We need more than just that - and He accomplished more than that, certainly. (Perhaps there has been a tendency among evangelical PSA adherents to forget about the rest of His accomplishment). But we do not need less than that. We can't eliminate that part of what He accomplished. Christus Victor is the overarching theme of the atonement - it is the WHAT of the atonement. But it is a bit lacking when it tries to be the whole thing - yes, Christ achieved victory over Satan, but the "how" is a bit lacking. PSA is an important part of the "how".

I've heard the atonement described as a Christ-shaped mosaic. Christus Victor is the head - it is essential, it motivates and drives the rest of the body. PSA is the beating heart of the atonement - central to His work. Recapitulation is the feet - "How beautiful the feet of Him who brings good news." He lived and walked in our steps, so that we can walk in His. And moral influence is the hands of the atonement.

Penal substitution is good news. In the overall picture, from PSA, to Christus Victor, moral influence, and recapitulation, and any other aspects I might be missing, His saving work covers all we need; Jesus accomplished a perfect salvation. As He said on the cross, "It is finished."

There are many comments I could make about this post but I will only comment on the filthy rags part.
The context for filthy rags has to do with emptiness in religious rituals when they are divorced from true repentance. It does not refer to God or Christ's righteousness being imputed.
Most people who refer to this (folks influenced by Protestant thought) haven't thought much about the context of the phrase that they use freely when speaking of things related to salvation and the Gospel.
Paul says that works done in the right spirit are a sweet-smelling savor to God.
I feel sorry for the millions of listeners in Protestant and Protestant influenced settings who don't study the word deeply for themselves, and who hear this filthy rags stuff, and assume that good works are something to be esteemed. Such folks don't get to experience the favor that God intends for them to experience as they do the works of God and live lives that are pleasing to Him.

MattY,

I've found out that when a self-proclaimed nonresistant "Kingdom Christian" REALLY wants to insult someone...then calling them "Protestant" or comparing them to the Protestants is the ultimate name call....no need to take it personal though.

I don't take it personally. I knew Ernie 20 years ago when he was dean at CBS and I was a student. I have no problem with him.

I do find it weird that "Protestant" around these parts of Mennoworld seems to be a more negatively perceived word than "Catholic." But oh well. After all, "Radical Reformer” still has the word ”Reformer" in it. Perhaps it's due to the main perceived "threat"/the main place that we lose people or that churches drift towards, which creates a desire for sharp distinctions, putting up walls and warnings, misunderstanding or exaggerating disagreements, etc.

And as far as PSA and Dean Taylor are concerned, if people are coming for him, well they'll have to come for Dirk Phillips as well:

Now, if this sin was to be paid for, this death removed, the righteousness of God satisfied, and life brought again to dead humanity, Jesus, the Son of the Most High, had to appear, become man, take our sin upon himself, die for us (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:31; 2:21; Rom. 8:1; Isa. 53:4-6; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3: 21, 24; 3:18), and by his death and blood triumph over the devil, sin, death and hell, yea, by the one offering of his body, forever reconcile us. with God his Father (Heb. 10:10). Therefore John says that the Son of God was manifested to take away our sins; “and in him is no sin” (1 John 3:5). And Paul says: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law; being made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13), and again: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). This is what the apostle explains in other words, namely, that God “made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (which is Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son) —that is, as an offering for sin—”that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21).

For the sake of this righteousness, that is, that we might be justified. Jesus gave himself unto death, and became the most despised of all men, even as the prophet says: “He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed,” etc. (Isa. 53:2-5).

Christ might therefore well say in the time of his suffering as David prophesied of him: “I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head” (Psa. 22:6, 7). And again: “Dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.”

In this we are given an idea of God’s justice. that he so sorely afflicted and humiliated his only begotten Son for the sake of the sins of his people; for how terribly God hates sin is shown in the fact that he could not reconcile himself for the disobedience and transgression of one man (by whom we all became sinners, Rom. 5:12)—for his righteousness (justice) endureth forever—until he had permitted his beloved only begotten Son to be so unmercifully maltreated by the ungodly and heathen {Matt. 27; John 19), his pure and holy body to be thus wounded, to have his head pierced with a crown of thorns, and at last to suffer the bitterest and most shameful death for us on the cross! Oh, how the only begotten Son of God, Christ Jesus, our Lord and faithful Savior, suffered for us all! (John 3:16). He who is the eternal wisdom and truth of God, who cannot lie nor err, him they accused as a liar and a deceiver of the people; he who is the justifier and sanctifier of all believers (1 Cor. 1:30), the innocent Lamb of God, who knew no sin, yea, who taketh away the sin of the world (John 1:29), him they numbered with the transgressors; he who is the peace of all Christians, and the reconciliation of all that is in heaven and on earth (2 Cor. 5:19; Isa. 53:4-6; Eph. 1:10; 2:14; Col. 1:20), him they accused and complained of as a turbulent founder of a sect; he who is the brightness of the eternal light (2 Cor. 4:4), a spotless reflection of the divine glory, the express image of the invisible God (Heb. 1:2, 3; Col. 1:15), in whose face the angels of God desire to look, and in whose brightness all the saints of earth are reflected, from him they hid their faces, and called to Pilate: “Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Yea, him who is the Lord of the whole earth they rejected and would not receive as their King. He who clothes all true believers and baptized Christians with the robe of righteousness and with the mantle of salvation, him they stripped and nailed naked to the cross, and cast lots over his vesture (Psa. 22:18). He who gives the water of life freely to all (John 4:10; 7:37; Rev. 22:17), him they gave vinegar to drink when he thirsted (John 19:28, 29). He who is the Prince of Life (Acts 3:15), him they put to death. And all this the heavenly Father, the almighty God, laid upon his only begotten Son Jesus Christ on account of our sins’, and yet, sad to say, this is so little thought of by the whole world. It is true many people claim the atoning merits of Christ’s death and blood, but few are found who diligently meditate upon and take to heart the suffering of our Lord that they may be bettered thereby, die unto sin, and live unto righteousness."