Theories of Atonement

[Neto]

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.

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.

Yes, they must add ideas in order to discredit the other theories/explanations. (I would say that most, if not all, do this to varying degrees. But there are also many theories of the atonement - perhaps permutations of the basic 8 or so - which I have not studied or evaluated to any appreciable degree.)

[Ernie]

Yes, they must add ideas in order to discredit the other theories/explanations. (I would say that most, if not all, do this to varying degrees. But there are also many theories of the atonement - perhaps permutations of the basic 8 or so - which I have not studied or evaluated to any appreciable degree.)

Yes, the big name theories often do this.
But some theories, like Keith Crider's, don't.
But then few people are interested in his theory either as a "theory", because it simply points out the "additions" in various theories and then compiles what the scriptures have to say on the topic. It doesn't give any intellectually stimulating and novel arguments.

One person who read the book was disappointed because it didn't really advance a rational theory in contrast to the ones it critiqued. And this is exactly the sort of book that gets me excited. Let's say what the Bible says on a topic, everything the Bible says, and then stop right there. We don't need to do anything further. If do, we are likely to advance a heresy at some point.

https://christianlight.org/sacrifice-or-penalty

[MattY]

Yes, they must add ideas in order to discredit the other theories/explanations. (I would say that most, if not all, do this to varying degrees. But there are also many theories of the atonement - perhaps permutations of the basic 8 or so - which I have not studied or evaluated to any appreciable degree.)

Yes, the big name theories often do this.
But some theories, like Keith Crider's, don't.
But then few people are interested in his theory either as a "theory", because it simply points out the "additions" in various theories and then compiles what the scriptures have to say on the topic. It doesn't give any intellectually stimulating and novel arguments.

One person who read the book was disappointed because it didn't really advance a rational theory in contrast to the ones it critiqued. And this is exactly the sort of book that gets me excited. Let's say what the Bible says on a topic, everything the Bible says, and then stop right there. We don't need to do anything further. If do, we are likely to advance a heresy at some point.

https://christianlight.org/sacrifice-or-penalty

Okay, I have questions. None of my answers to these questions tend toward the view in that last paragraph.

Is everything that the Bible teaches spelled out literally in those exact words? Are there no doctrines that are deduced by comparing multiple Scriptures? Doesn't comparing Scripture with Scripture allow us to arrive at a deeper understanding of Scripture as a whole, with information synthesized in a way that is not exactly spelled out in any one place? "“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” For example, it is no where explicitly stated that we should not baptize infants, but we arrive at that teaching by deducing that very young children cannot exercise faith and are saved until the age of accountability (another teaching that we deduce without it being stated in so many words), therefore they should not be baptized until they are old enough to understand their sinfulness, repent and believe.

Doesn't this leave no place for intellectual curiosity and stimulating deeper study of Scripture? Where is the place for learning - what is there left to learn if everything is plainly and simply spelled out? Isn't that an anti-intellectualism to be avoided? The Bible is clear and plain enough that the simplest person can grasp its essential, necessary teachings for salvation, but deep enough for readers of the highest intellectual ability to study and never fully fathom.

We can study and pull out deeper truths from its depths (Matt. 13:51-52; Hebrews 6:1-2), as many have during church history, and profitably learn from their doctrinal insights. Throwing all that away seems unnecessarily limiting and a turn-off to intellectually minded people.

[MattY]

Regarding the Atonement, I think there is a better way to "not explain it" that doesn't cut off doctrinal debate or limit attempts to explain its various aspects more deeply. At the end of the day the half-dozen or so models of the atonement can never fully explain it, and like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant, they are trying to grasp at some truth of it. But the Atonement is not just something to be put into cognitive propositions or expressed in words (though that certainly has its place as I've argued), but something to be experienced. Receive it, walk through it with the Word as you read it and especially as it is read and preached in church, as an act of worship and adoration of Christ who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Then, as Brad East says in this video, "You will know by the end what the Atonement is." (At about 34:00). He refers to walking through it, experiencing it in narrative form, with the liturgy read on church on Thursday, Friday and Saturday on Easter weekend, but I'm trying to adjust it to a more Anabaptist-like church and personal experience. I find that the right way to "not explain it" - not to limit doctrine and intellectual exploration, but to know that the point is to receive and experience its truths in our life.

[MattY]

That video I just posted is so good. And there's a lot for PSA opponents to agree with in the sections on objections to PSA. But there's another really good part that I want to point out starting around the 24-minute mark.

"I'll add one more [point] and it's the most gut-level because for adherents it's the best part of it and for opponents, it's the worst part of it. And it's this, that when Christ cries out on the cross, 'my God my God why have you forsaken me?', then he really is, in some psychological, emotional, and subjective sense, abandoned by God. He suffers God-forsakenness, which is another way of saying hell...The Father never does anything but love the Son, and the Son knows that's true. But nevertheless, in solidarity with us, He goes to the very depths of God-forsakenness before rising up from it. And for adherents, this is literally - there is nothing greater in the good news than this, because it shows us the depth of God's love for us... But then opponents say, wait a second. How could that possibly be true? That on the cross, Jesus, the Son of God, is alienated from God. How could that possibly work?... It's very subjective, it's very experiential [in the gut of the opponent or adherent of PSA]. How do you think about and experience your own sin and need for grace? And I think that some - not all, but some - who really feel that deeply, PSA speaks to them because it means that's the depth that God went to try to rescue me in His love."

[Ernie]

That video I just posted is so good. And there's a lot for PSA opponents to agree with in the sections on objections to PSA. But there's another really good part that I want to point out starting around the 24-minute mark.

"I'll add one more [point] and it's the most gut-level because for adherents it's the best part of it and for opponents, it's the worst part of it. And it's this, that when Christ cries out on the cross, 'my God my God why have you forsaken me?', then he really is, in some psychological, emotional, and subjective sense, abandoned by God. He suffers God-forsakenness, which is another way of saying hell...The Father never does anything but love the Son, and the Son knows that's true. But nevertheless, in solidarity with us, He goes to the very depths of God-forsakenness before rising up from it. And for adherents, this is literally - there is nothing greater in the good news than this, because it shows us the depth of God's love for us... But then opponents say, wait a second. How could that possibly be true? That on the cross, Jesus, the Son of God, is alienated from God. How could that possibly work?... It's very subjective, it's very experiential [in the gut of the opponent or adherent of PSA]. How do you think about and experience your own sin and need for grace? And I think that some - not all, but some - who really feel that deeply, PSA speaks to them because it means that's the depth that God went to try to rescue me in His love."

Do you see how much conjecture there is in this and how little scripture text?

[Nomad]

Regarding the Atonement, I think there is a better way to "not explain it" that doesn't cut off doctrinal debate or limit attempts to explain its various aspects more deeply. At the end of the day the half-dozen or so models of the atonement can never fully explain it, and like the proverbial blind men describing an elephant, they are trying to grasp at some truth of it. But the Atonement is not just something to be put into cognitive propositions or expressed in words (though that certainly has its place as I've argued), but something to be experienced. Receive it, walk through it with the Word as you read it and especially as it is read and preached in church, as an act of worship and adoration of Christ who is the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Then, as Brad East says in this video, "You will know by the end what the Atonement is." (At about 34:00). He refers to walking through it, experiencing it in narrative form, with the liturgy read on church on Thursday, Friday and Saturday on Easter weekend, but I'm trying to adjust it to a more Anabaptist-like church and personal experience. I find that the right way to "not explain it" - not to limit doctrine and intellectual exploration, but to know that the point is to receive and experience its truths in our life.

Thank you for posting this video MattY. I appreciated the tone in how they approached this topic.

[MattY]

That video I just posted is so good. And there's a lot for PSA opponents to agree with in the sections on objections to PSA. But there's another really good part that I want to point out starting around the 24-minute mark.

"I'll add one more [point] and it's the most gut-level because for adherents it's the best part of it and for opponents, it's the worst part of it. And it's this, that when Christ cries out on the cross, 'my God my God why have you forsaken me?', then he really is, in some psychological, emotional, and subjective sense, abandoned by God. He suffers God-forsakenness, which is another way of saying hell...The Father never does anything but love the Son, and the Son knows that's true. But nevertheless, in solidarity with us, He goes to the very depths of God-forsakenness before rising up from it. And for adherents, this is literally - there is nothing greater in the good news than this, because it shows us the depth of God's love for us... But then opponents say, wait a second. How could that possibly be true? That on the cross, Jesus, the Son of God, is alienated from God. How could that possibly work?... It's very subjective, it's very experiential [in the gut of the opponent or adherent of PSA]. How do you think about and experience your own sin and need for grace? And I think that some - not all, but some - who really feel that deeply, PSA speaks to them because it means that's the depth that God went to try to rescue me in His love."

Do you see how much conjecture there is in this and how little scripture text?

I think you're missing the point. I should have added the next sentence immediately following, where he makes his point. "And I think, even if that doesn't speak to you and me, we can honor that in others for whom it does speak to them." The point is specifically for PSA-detractors who don't understand the emotional appeal of it, how it is treasured and seen as God's deep love for us.

But as for what you call conjecture, those sentiments come from meditating on Jesus's cry on the cross and comparing it with Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, Gal. 3:13, 2 Cor. 5:21, etc. It's not conjecture with no basis, something that we have no reason to talk about, since it comes from His own words. Jesus went through Psalm 22 on a real experiential level (see vss 6, 7, 12-18).

[Ernie]

But as for what you call conjecture, those sentiments come from meditating on Jesus's cry on the cross and comparing it with Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, Gal. 3:13, 2 Cor. 5:21, etc. It's not conjecture with no basis, something that we have no reason to talk about, since it comes from His own words. Jesus went through Psalm 22 on a real experiential level (see vss 6, 7, 12-18).

Every theory that is advanced uses scripture to advance its case. (conjecture with basis)
If we eliminated the conjecture, we wouldn't have all these theories.

Again, I make a difference between establishing and advancing doctrine (whether in statements or in theories) vs. sharing thoughts and opinions about what might be reality.
When a person advances doctrinal theory or doctrinal statements using conjecture, it by default entices someone else to advance a theory that takes into account the things the first person didn't take into account in his theory.
I propose that if we include everything the Bible says about atonement in our understanding, and don't let certain pieces trump other pieces, but let them stand on their own, I think there is a much better likelihood that we will end up with a fuller understanding.

[Nomad]

But as for what you call conjecture, those sentiments come from meditating on Jesus's cry on the cross and comparing it with Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, Gal. 3:13, 2 Cor. 5:21, etc. It's not conjecture with no basis, something that we have no reason to talk about, since it comes from His own words. Jesus went through Psalm 22 on a real experiential level (see vss 6, 7, 12-18).

Every theory that is advanced uses scripture to advance its case. (conjecture with basis)
If we eliminated the conjecture, we wouldn't have all these theories.

Again, I make a difference between establishing and advancing doctrine (whether in statements or in theories) vs. sharing thoughts and opinions about what might be reality.
When a person advances doctrinal theory or doctrinal statements using conjecture, it by default entices someone else to advance a theory that takes into account the things the first person didn't take into account in his theory.
I propose that if we include everything the Bible says about atonement in our understanding, and don't let certain pieces trump other pieces, but let them stand on their own, I think there is a much better likelihood that we will end up with a fuller understanding.

You should watch the video Ernie.