Theories of Atonement

[HondurasKeiser]

Again from this essay I'm engrossed in:

The ecosystem of superstitious rituals that would attract so much censure from the renaissance humanists, and later the sixteenth-century reformers, arose partly as a result of this new emphasis on grace detached from nature. The indulgence controversy was the most startling example of this radically nominalist posturing: given the right conditions, God can declare a sinner forgiven through a sheer volitional fiat independent of an actual change of nature. Grace came to often be perceived as a created thing, even as a buffer between God and humankind that could be conjured up with the right formula.

Though it's in reference to medieval Christianity's obsessions with relics, rituals and and currying God's grace - I don't think modern Protestants, especially Big Evangelicalism but even the Reformed, have escaped this tendency. While CrossPointe Megachurch or the Orthodox Presbyterians may think there's precious little in common between themselves and the buyers of indulgences from 500 years ago; the same transactional view of Grace, colored as it is by their view of the Atonement, is a through-line between the Catholic church of the late middle ages and the children of the Reformation. If you believe that salvation consists of saying the right prayers, feeling the right feelings, confessing the right beliefs, etc. in a one-time-for-all reception of Grace you are different only in degrees from the person that thought he could transact with God's Grace through saying the right prayers, doing the right rituals and giving to the right persons.

This may be a chicken and egg dilemma but I think that at least for the modern Protestant, their view of the Atonement lends itself or reinforces that transactional view of God's Grace. I've never understood the juridical need for a penal substitution. Given that most Reformed folk take a nominalist view of God, singularly focused as they are on His sovereignty; If God has arbitrarily declared all of mankind guilty for the disobedience of 2 people, then God can just as easily and arbitrarily declare us all innocent, thus vacating the need for a divine sacrifice. Why then this secondary play-acting of needing a penal sacrifice?

If however, God has not declared us juridically guilty but rather is informing us that all of creation is now sick and corrupted; the need for a healer and a sacrifice to overcome the ultimate consequence of our sickness, death; comes into much sharper focus. What's more, we no longer simply need to say the sinner's prayer to receive God's Grace and thus be saved, rather we need to be healed and our recognition of and submission to Christ as the only being capable of healing us is what in fact salvation is.

[JohnL]

This may be a chicken and egg dilemma but I think that at least for the modern Protestant, their view of the Atonement lends itself or reinforces that transactional view of God's Grace. I've never understood the juridical need for a penal substitution. Given that most Reformed folk take a nominalist view of God, singularly focused as they are on His sovereignty; If God has arbitrarily declared all of mankind guilty for the disobedience of 2 people, then God can just as easily and arbitrarily declare us all innocent, thus vacating the need for a divine sacrifice. Why then this secondary play-acting of needing a penal sacrifice?

If however, God has not declared us juridically guilty but rather is informing us that all of creation is now sick and corrupted; the need for a healer and a sacrifice to overcome the ultimate consequence of our sickness, death; comes into much sharper focus. What's more, we no longer simply need to say the sinner's prayer to receive God's Grace and thus be saved, rather we need to be healed and our recognition of and submission to Christ as the only being capable of healing us is what in fact salvation is.

Okay. I’m just going to share my pov of the bolded items above. My pov is based on my understanding of the Bible.

Transactional view of God’s grace - based on the definition of “transaction” which is
- Something transacted, especially a business agreement or exchange.
- Communication involving two or more people that affects all those involved; personal interaction.
I see strong evidence Biblically that God’s grace is a part of a transaction as in communication and an exchange as defined above. Why? Christianity is firmly rooted in Judaism that offered up sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus’ sacrifice in obedience to his Father (“not my will but Thy will be done” spoken in the Garden of Gethsemane) supplants those Temple sacrifices for all time. Jesus’ obedience and sacrifice cancels the disobedience of mankind inherited from the first disobedient individuals. His sacrifice unlocks the door - our belief and obedience is the action of opening that door and walking through.
Christianity cannot be seen as a divorce from Judaism. It’s a fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jews as described in the Bible. The New Testament is a continuation of the Old Testament, in which the ongoing transaction (communication) between God and the individual is recorded.
I don’t think the Reformation was about inventing a new Christianity. I think it was meant to clear the cluttered attic of junk ideas that had accumulated in the thousand or so years since the Crucifixion in order to retain the essentials of the faith regarding Christ’s birth, death and resurrection as a fulfillment of God’s promises as defined in the Bible.

Nominalist view of God - isn’t that the doctrine that states that abstract concepts (such as God), general terms, or universals have no independent existence but exist only as names? Are you saying that they don’t believe God exists independently but only as a name? Or is there another meaning to nominalism that’s being used here? Nominalism reminds me of the fad spirituality that we are merely products of the universe trying to figure itself out. It’s a self-centered ideology instead of God-centered. That doesn’t square with what the Bible says in terms of humans, creation, and our relationship with God.

Christ as healer - I can get on board with that but that’s only one of his roles or traits according to the Bible. Yes Jesus repairs our relationship with God by his sacrifice on the cross. He is the Word of God. He goes to battle against sin and defeats it so he is also a warrior in that context. He is the Lamb of God who is the one sacrifice that supplants all the Temple sacrifices before him. He is King of all. He is Messiah, the Savior of all if we believe and walk daily in his teachings.

[Bootstrap]

All these fancy, authoritative sounding theological terms. Building structures well beyond what Scripture tells us directly.

I’d rather use the same words Scripture uses and the same imagery Scripture uses. That's my issue with many theologies of atonement: they change the tone. They shift the focus. They are no longer mostly about what Jesus is mostly about, or what Paul is mostly about.

The New Testament gives us living pictures—temple, family, covenant, sacrifice, shepherd, adoption, victory, healing. These images are relational and concrete. They keep the focus on Jesus himself—dwelling with us, reconciling us, defeating death, healing what’s broken, bringing us into God’s household. “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11).

Theological systems, though, almost have to turn Christianity into a coherent philosophy—the way the Attic Greeks did with their schools of thought. That impulse really came into the mix with Constantine, when Christianity began to be shaped by the intellectual and political structures of empire. But the earliest church didn’t feel the need to make the gospel into a philosophical system. It was good news, embodied and proclaimed, not an abstract theory.

Theological systems can be helpful if they shed light on what Scripture is already saying. But when they become the main thing, they risk building a whole new structure on top of the foundation instead of pointing us deeper into it.

[MattY]

This may be a chicken and egg dilemma but I think that at least for the modern Protestant, their view of the Atonement lends itself or reinforces that transactional view of God's Grace. I've never understood the juridical need for a penal substitution. Given that most Reformed folk take a nominalist view of God, singularly focused as they are on His sovereignty; If God has arbitrarily declared all of mankind guilty for the disobedience of 2 people, then God can just as easily and arbitrarily declare us all innocent, thus vacating the need for a divine sacrifice. Why then this secondary play-acting of needing a penal sacrifice?

If however, God has not declared us juridically guilty but rather is informing us that all of creation is now sick and corrupted; the need for a healer and a sacrifice to overcome the ultimate consequence of our sickness, death; comes into much sharper focus. What's more, we no longer simply need to say the sinner's prayer to receive God's Grace and thus be saved, rather we need to be healed and our recognition of and submission to Christ as the only being capable of healing us is what in fact salvation is.

Well this brings up the opposite question, why can't God simply heal us and make us all well? What's the purpose of the cross then? After all the Bible shows plenty of people being healed without someone dying to heal them.

But maybe the problem with your first paragraph is that it's not arbitrary, neither the guilt nor the declaration of innocence. I don't know anyone who would say that it's arbitrary, but that it's all about God's righteous character, which He cannot violate because He cannot change and is always righteous. His love and justice don't conflict nor are they arbitrary, but the cross is where they meet and shine the brightest. The modern world doesn't grasp the concept of corporate headship very well, given how individualistic we are, but that's what is going on. Adam is our corporate head by birth and nature and we are somehow wrapped up in him and his fall; his guilt is ours, and even if it isn't, the sin nature was passed down and we are all guilty for what we have done anyway. But Christ re-headships humanity through his sinless life of perfect obedience, so that all those who are in Him have their sins and their guilt - their penalty - taken away and nailed to the cross. This brings the need for the cross into focus for me. Otherwise it fades and becomes about what I do not what Christ did.

[joshuabgood]

Well this brings up the opposite question, why can't God simply heal us and make us all well? What's the purpose of the cross then? After all the Bible shows plenty of people being healed without someone dying to heal them.

The cross isn't so much a means of slavation, as it is the method of salvation. Hence we are to pick up our cross. It's not so much that he went to the cross so we dont have to appease an angry God...as it is he went to the cross to show us the true path to salvation and healing. This is why he is the forerunner and the first fruits of the dead.

[Nomad]

Well this brings up the opposite question, why can't God simply heal us and make us all well? What's the purpose of the cross then? After all the Bible shows plenty of people being healed without someone dying to heal them.

The cross isn't so much a means of slavation, as it is the method of salvation. Hence we are to pick up our cross. It's not so much that he went to the cross so we dont have to appease an angry God...as it is he went to the cross to show us the true path to salvation and healing. This is why he is the forerunner and the first fruits of the dead.

I would see it as both "a means" and "a method" combined.

[MattY]

... PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

This is the part I find hard to understand. What is the motive behind it. Why erase the relational/merciful characteristics of God and only focus on his justice and anger at sin. What purpose is it serving?

Probably the same as "hellfire-and-brimstone" preaching...a sort of shock and awe approach to urge listeners into repentance or a greater appreciation for Jesus, I imagine.

By the way, Ernie's friend either depends too much on Eitan Bar, or he's Eitan Bar himself. Most of the quotes are unconfirmable, since if Googled, they only appear on Eitan Bar's site and here on this thread.

[Nomad]

... PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

This is the part I find hard to understand. What is the motive behind it. Why erase the relational/merciful characteristics of God and only focus on his justice and anger at sin. What purpose is it serving?

Probably the same as "hellfire-and-brimstone" preaching...a sort of shock and awe approach to urge listeners into repentance or a greater appreciation for Jesus, I imagine.

By the way, Ernie's friend either depends too much on Eitan Bar, or he's Eitan Bar himself. Most of the quotes are unconfirmable, since if Googled, they only appear on Eitan Bar's site and here on this thread.

I wondered this myself. His quotes of evangelicals were basically word for word from a book I read by Eitan on this very subject years ago. Though I would be a little surprised if Eitan is in Ernie's social circle.

[HondurasKeiser]

... PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

This is the part I find hard to understand. What is the motive behind it. Why erase the relational/merciful characteristics of God and only focus on his justice and anger at sin. What purpose is it serving?

Probably the same as "hellfire-and-brimstone" preaching...a sort of shock and awe approach to urge listeners into repentance or a greater appreciation for Jesus, I imagine.

By the way, Ernie's friend either depends too much on Eitan Bar, or he's Eitan Bar himself. Most of the quotes are unconfirmable, since if Googled, they only appear on Eitan Bar's site and here on this thread.

I don’t think it’s just shock and awe. Calvinists really believe this. Calvin taught that it’s not only necessary but also right and good that the reprobate are predestined to eternal torment because it’s only then that Gods glory can shown in his saving a few of us. See RC Sproul preaching: “May the Lord curse you and abandon you. May the Lord keep you in darkness and give you only judgment without grace. May the Lord turn his back upon you and remove his peace from you forever.” to get a modern taste of it. Or John Piper saying that if God predestines his son to hell, that’s a good thing.

[MattY]

... PSA's opponents want to use the most stark or offensive language, which was often ill-advised or easy to be misconstrued, and demand that that exact language show up in historical examples of PSA or else it's not present.

This is the part I find hard to understand. What is the motive behind it. Why erase the relational/merciful characteristics of God and only focus on his justice and anger at sin. What purpose is it serving?

Probably the same as "hellfire-and-brimstone" preaching...a sort of shock and awe approach to urge listeners into repentance or a greater appreciation for Jesus, I imagine.

By the way, Ernie's friend either depends too much on Eitan Bar, or he's Eitan Bar himself. Most of the quotes are unconfirmable, since if Googled, they only appear on Eitan Bar's site and here on this thread.

One of the confirmable quotes, the one from Piper, shows a lot more nuance than piling a bunch of quotes together would indicate. For example, in the sermon, the word "wrath" appears just once, and "hate" twice. The word "love" appears 22 times. The title of the sermon is taken from Isaiah 53:10, "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him." The translation is accurate by the way, the typical translation of the word being delight, pleased, favor, desired. It has to do with the will of the Lord. And in what way did it please the Lord? Not in the suffering in and of itself, like some sort of sadistic pleasure. But Piper lists two ways (and no others):
1) In the success of what the Son accomplished in dying - the justification of many sinners, as it says in vs 11, and
2) The depth of the Son's love for the Father's glory - "in that love the Father took deepest pleasure."

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/th ... ng-the-son

Personally, I would just say, the depth of the Son's love for the Father. And Jesus said (John 10:17), "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life." The Three in the Trinity always love and take pleasure in each other, not less the Father in the Son's love and submission to Him. And in fact, when Jesus considered pleasing His Father and the sinners He would save in doing so, ultimately it was his pleasure to lay down His life, was it not? Obviously this is not saying it was easy. But it was God's will, and the Messianic prophecy in the Psalm says, "I delight to do your will, oh my God." The Hebrews writer quotes this as referring to Christ's sacrifice. And what delights the Son pleases the Father, and vice versa.