Theories of Atonement

[HondurasKeiser]

Wow. Someone DEFENDED Tulip? And I was shaking my head at folks arguing for penal.

Do folks understand, not me speaking as a Catholic, but almost all historical anabaptists would clearly reject TULIP thinking?

Who defended TULIP?

[Nomad]

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.

I appreciate the reminder that changing one's mind just means that one has changed one's mind.

Would you care to share more about the series of events and why you changed your mind?

I can't give all the details because of how long it would take (and how boring it would be for you all)...and I have to much respect for some who are involved in the "Kingdom Christian" movement who attend my own church who I love and respect so I dont want to give off the perception that I despise them. It definitely has effected some relationships I have had.

One factor that played into it was the level of priority I found myself placing on pre-nicene teachings (Historic Faith I called it), Bercot, Finny,etc... and how vague some of the concepts I was confidently promoting actually were. I found I had a lot of passion coupled with a lot of theological loose-ends. And I was rather smug about it, which I didn't like. Not that I have all the answers now...and its very possible I misunderstood aspects of the teachings being promoted. I still appreciate some of what I was taught...and obviously I haven't gone completely over to the Protestant side. I'm still Anabaptist and don't plan to leave...unless I'm told to.

[HondurasKeiser]

Thus, to say that human beings have “a fallen nature” refers to more than simply each individual’s inability to stop sinning; rather, it refers to the way human beings are oriented towards disordered affections that present substitute notions of what it means to flourish. These substitute notions of human flourishing compete with the God-given vocation originally bestowed upon mankind by the Creator God. Thus, the curse of Adam and Eve after they disobeyed God was not a purely juridical act that might have been otherwise – rather, being cursed with death was a natural and organic correlate to cutting oneself off from the ultimate Source of life. To use an analogy from Wright’s book The Day the Revolution Happened, the death and judgment that follows sin is like having an accident from driving around a corner too quickly rather than getting a speeding ticket (the latter is arbitrary, whereas the former is organically related to the offense itself). As human beings pursue substitute notions of human flourishing that are separate from the Source of life, human beings move away from everything that gives health to our souls. The result is that we become progressively subhuman.

I got to this essay from reading Dreher's blog who had it recommended to him by a former evangelical-turned-Orthodox. The essay is the first in a 3-part series asking the question: "Was Calvin a Nominalist?". I'll read anything critical of Calvin and the Reformed so naturally I was drawn to this. The above quote is, I think, a good distillation on the nature of our unatoned-for state and thus gives dimension to what Christ's atonement actually does. Like others here, I am not fully in one "atonement camp" but if there's one that I am most skeptical of, it's most certainly PSA.

[HondurasKeiser]

The atonement corollary:

I have suggested that the Old Testament presents the law of God as a means for enabling man to reconnect with God and realize his telos. But throughout the Old Testament, particularly in the prophetic corpus, the insufficiency of the law is repeatedly emphasized. This was a theme that was put into sharp relief in the first century when Jesus Christ burst in on the scene. A key aspect of Christ’s ethical teaching was that the law of God is insufficient to heal man’s fallen nature. Since the essence of sin is the disordered affection of the soul, what is needed is not more commands, but the actual healing of the soul. Throughout the Gospel of John especially, but also in the synoptic tradition, Jesus teaches that what is needed is for the divine life to personally unite with human nature. Only in this way can human nature actually be healed (“saved”) and begin realizing its proper telos. Jesus taught that this is exactly what was happening in and through His own ministry.

Through descending down into death, the God-man was able to lift out of death those who were perishing. The most obvious manifestation of this was the way in which Christ’s life-giving death was able to give life to those in the graves (Matthew 27:52-53, Ephesians 4:8-10, 1 Peter 3:19). But Jesus also defeats the death-principle through actually reuniting human nature to God. This is a theme that would later be developed through the writings of church fathers such as Athanasius of Alexandria. Even in the New Testament writers we find the recurring idea that through the cycle of Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, the life of heaven became injected into human nature, making it possible for humanity to begin realizing its telos.

[JohnH]

Wow. Someone DEFENDED Tulip? And I was shaking my head at folks arguing for penal.

Do folks understand, not me speaking as a Catholic, but almost all historical anabaptists would clearly reject TULIP thinking?

Some people in Anabaptist circles have flirted with Calvinism; for example, BMA now requires ministers to affirm they won’t promote (or hold to) certain Calvinist doctrines. It usually starts with flirtation with perseverance of the saints / eternal security.

I view this as a drift away from Anabaptism though. I encourage people who feel strongly pro-Calvinist to find a good, healthy Reformed Baptist sort of church (or PCA, etc.) and go thrive there.

[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?

I think PSA is absolutely essential in holding up thr P in TULIP...and I think it, taken exclusively by itself as atonement theory, nearly inexorably concludes in it. If God only sees the blood of Jesus in PSA then P not only makes sense but is the logical result.

I don't see it this way. In my opinion the U in TULIP plays the role that you are assigning to PSA. Unconditional election logically results in L, I, and P. If election is unconditional, of only certain individuals that God has chosen, then logically atonement was intentionally limited from the beginning, grace is irresistible, and perseverance of the saints is assured. QED. (Another possibility behind even the U is compatibilism, that is, determinism supposedly being compatible with free will. If God has exhaustively determined everything, then unconditional election and the rest follow).

But that's not necessary at all, due to corporate election. When one sees the picture of corporate election in Scripture as the primary focus of election and predestination, it blows ULIP out of the water...IMO. Salvation, in a sense, is by allegiance alone - allegiance to Christ. That is, it is by being part of the body of Christ, and no other way. Faith unites us to Christ (not head knowledge, but a humble trust in Him for salvation and repentance from sin and dead works), and this is the only way to be saved. Christ is the corporate head of all of us who trust in Him, and therefore the atonement that Christ provided on the cross covers all who are in Him. But if we reject Him and turn away, ceasing to follow Him, we are outside of Him and no longer covered by His blood, and we again fall under condemnation.

And if I could comment a little further on "perseverance of the saints"...I think the Calvinist view of P (which is not the Free Grace theology's view called Once Saved Always Saved) logically destroys assurance, as described in the link below. Life is in the Son and if we are in the Son, we can have present assurance of eternal life. But the Calvinist must claim that any who fall away never truly were saved in the first place - in spite of the love, faith, and godly fruit that they produced while they were ostensibly believers. If they were simply deluded, how can we be sure that we are not likewise deceived and will never fall away? But the Bible gives assurance of present salvation only. We do not have infallible assurance of final salvation, because we must continue to persevere in the faith.

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress. ... assurance/

[joshuabgood]

I get what you are saying but...as was explained to me many times "all your past sins, present sins, and future sins are 'under the blood' and when God sees you he doesn't see you, he sees the perfect life of Jesus. Therefore nothing you can do can get you outside of that grace. Anything less denies the sufficiency of the atonement."

[joshuabgood]

Why we are on the topic of Calvin. (There is none other like DBH).

[Bootstrap]

Here's a table that explores two different accounts of the Atonement in two different columns.

I resonate more with the second column. But I think the first is also found in Scripture. I think Calvinism builds a theory on the first column and uses that theory to reach conclusions to go beyond what Scripture says. And it often ignores the very important things we see in the second column.

[cmbl]

I think this discussion by NT Wright ties in to discussion of penal substitutionary atonement earlier on this thread. "Penal substitution can be expressed in very damaging ways...if that's what people have heard and are hearing, then we've got some serious work to do because we have taken John 3:16 God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, and what people have heard is God so hated the world that he killed his only Son." Yet by the end of the video, NT Wright agrees with a different, sympathetic portrayal of penal substitutionary atonement.



My understanding is that, elsewhere, NT Wright when asked, which atonement theory he believes in, has said "All of them."