Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 2:17 pm
Well, Bercot is glad to set the record straight.
...
Anyway, it seems clear that Bercot and Taylor are still best of friends and joke and laugh about their differences.
I didn't listen to Dean's talk, but I listened to part of David's yesterday. My opinion is that the discussion on the atonement matters only insofar as people attempt to distort or detract from what scripture says, and neither of them are doing that. They're both trying to explain by way of the scripture and quoting early Christian writings what is not fully knowable. We don't know all of what God had in mind by allowed Jesus to die on the cross. We know much about what was accomplished by that death, but we don't know exactly how and why in every detail.
I think there are those who do seem to distort or detract from what the scripture says, and that would be where the problem lies. So I'm not saying this is not an important issue; just that some of our disagreements on the topic are more a reflection of its complexity, mystery, and the fact that scripture simply doesn't give us all the technical details of how our sins were atoned for.
One possibility is that explanations of the atonement are merely analogies, not some mechanistic process by which it happens. The analogy of Christ's death to Passover is a rather obvious one.
barnhart wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 7:05 am
I can accept penal and substitutionary atonement to the extent that it is in the scripture, you will find it if you look for it but it doesn't seem to me to be the primary view or analogy used in the scripture. I have at least two critiques of the way it is commonly used or presented.
1. PSA reduces the sacrificial system of the old testament to substitutionary atonement and since Jesus' death is the culmination there is no room for other types of sacrifice. Some were thank offerings presented in gratefulness, some were fellowship offerings, some were presented in gratitude at the safe birth of a child. These response/relational type offerings don't seem to have a place in PSA. The work of Jesus is reduced to the point that his life, teaching, example, resurrection and ascension are rendered unimportant details. In this atonement theory Jesus may just as well have been killed by Herod and fulfilled his blood sacrifice as an infant.
2. PSA presents the wrath of God as the problem to be resolved. I question this assumption. God's emotions are not entirely parallel to ours because they are based in complete knowledge and justice. His anger is a good thing just as his judgement is a good thing, both are expressions of his determination to create and preserve what is good. God is not the problem that needs to be solved in the atonement.
If the PSA can be presented in a way that that doesn't create these distortions and holds close to scripture, I can accept it as one of several analogies used in the scripture to talk about atonement and it wouldn't surprise me to find the early church did as well.
I agree with this Barnhart. I liked Mr. Bercot's explanation though sometimes I find his explanations or arguments to be a little too "just-so" and/or novel - at the end of the interview he brought up the Masoretic version of Isaiah 53 vs. that of the Septuagint. Clearly the LXX is better for his argument but I think he elides some important nuances about the Masoretic Text by simply dismissing it or it's use for the Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome. I think his argument would be strengthened, and I want his argument to be strengthened against the likes of MacArthur, Piper, et al., if he dug a little deeper and engaged with the texts a little more. I found something like this to be helpful and a profounder, fuller argument than what Bercot had to offer: https://newhumanityinstitute.wordpress. ... 53-part-3/
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Dec 01, 2025 2:17 pm
Well, Bercot is glad to set the record straight.
...
Anyway, it seems clear that Bercot and Taylor are still best of friends and joke and laugh about their differences.
I didn't listen to Dean's talk, but I listened to part of David's yesterday. My opinion is that the discussion on the atonement matters only insofar as people attempt to distort or detract from what scripture says, and neither of them are doing that. They're both trying to explain by way of the scripture and quoting early Christian writings what is not fully knowable. We don't know all of what God had in mind by allowed Jesus to die on the cross. We know much about what was accomplished by that death, but we don't know exactly how and why in every detail.
I think there are those who do seem to distort or detract from what the scripture says, and that would be where the problem lies. So I'm not saying this is not an important issue; just that some of our disagreements on the topic are more a reflection of its complexity, mystery, and the fact that scripture simply doesn't give us all the technical details of how our sins were atoned for.
I don't think the HOW is all that important, or God would have seen fit to lay it all out for us. The WHY is much more important in my mind, but I DO agree that we do not know the answer to "WHY?" 'in every detail'. For me, the really important question, one which can be easily answered is What was God's core or main motivation in "doing the atonement". Even this word, 'atone' shows the core meaning. It was a new word constructed by one of the early English translators, made up from the phrase 'at one'. God's over-reaching purpose was, in His great and unlimited love, to reconcile us to Himself, to restore the relationship with His most prized bit of creation, that communion which was lost through sin, in the garden.
In the list of the different theories of the atonement, each one shows scriptural support. The fault (a serious one) is the efforts of the proponents of each one of them to defeat and disprove all of those other than the one they themselves favor. Pitting Scripture against Scripture is a grave heresy.
Medical-Ontological Substitution. That is a new one for me.
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
Neto wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:05 amIn the list of the different theories of the atonement, each one shows scriptural support. The fault (a serious one) is the efforts of the proponents of each one of them to defeat and disprove all of those other than the one they themselves favor. Pitting Scripture against Scripture is a grave heresy.
I would say that each one includes scriptural support. But some theories also ADD ideas not really supported by scripture, and that is what Barnhart, Mike, and Bercot are addressing.
1 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
I like what Mike said. I think the danger is perhaps in locking in on one to the exclusion of all others....and then you get the imbalances. But truth is there is a mystery. It's OK. You should be able to discuss and disagree and still be brothers in Christ, like Dean and David demonstrate.
Personally I am most compelled by the suffering servant motif.
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
joshuabgood wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:45 am
Personally I am most compelled by the suffering servant motif.
I also like the way this thread ties together the victory of the cross with the victory of the faithful (and sometimes suffering) church. It presents unified vision of the redemptive work of God past, present and future.
Another atonement theory I have come to appreciate is the moral influence version. Often I find it dismissed as liberal modernist inspirational positivism but in it's proper place as a portion of the Atonement, not the whole story, it is quite biblical and shows reverence for the life and teaching of Jesus that can seem like a relatively unimportant detail in other atonement theories.
