I’m doing some reading about atonement theory.
I’ve got A Community Called Atonement, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, and Atonement for a ‘Sinless’ Society.
Any other ideas?
It’s interesting to me that while all Christians agree that we are saved by Jesus’ death on the cross, we can’t agree upon a unified theory for explaining how our salvation is achieved. Even more interesting is that the writers of the Bible seem uninterested in providing a complete theory. They give us bits and pieces and hints and allusions, but an all-encompassing theory of atonement that settles the matter once and for all we do not have.
Or do we?
What do you think?
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
Well, at the chance of me looking like a simpleton.
I am saved by grace due to my faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Does it really need to be any more complicated?
John R.W. Stott – The Cross of Christ
B.B. Warfield – The Person and Work of Christ (part two would be especially helpful)
Just don’t let go of its subsitutionary nature. It is necessarily subsitutionary. If you believe that Christ was dying on the cross for sin, and not just sin in general, but your sin–that sin–than your view of the atonement is supremely important. (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:1-12; 1 John 4:10)
if you believe the cross was just a dramatic event, sort of a general sacrifice, without legal ramifications and particular implications for the individual, the church and all of creation than you have the freedom to ascribe to any one of the many atonement theories. All of which are weak and powerless.
Oh yeah…one more:
John Piper – Pierced for our Transgressions
Atonement is a story. Then. Now. Yours. Mine. Good reading: Atonement by Ian McEwan. Powerful, contemporary and surprisingly sexy. It has even been made into a film…for those who do films. rtrr
Crime and Punishment, Dostoyvsky
I still like the Search for Significance by Robert McGee.
Peace.
Oh! The Places You’ll Go by Dr. Suess.
I think there are bits and pieces of the story of atonement in the scriptures, because salvation is different for each individual. I believe God allows this difference so we don’t ascribe to the “law” again. If it is suppose to be the exact same for each individual then we would make it the “law” and Jesus would not be the reason for salvation — our action would then be the reason.
By giving bits and pieces of the story, we have our own story and each person can relate how they have come to know the truth, the truth being Jesus.
I may not have this right, so I am anxious to see what you share with us in your reading. But for now this is my conclusion and I believe God has the right and the will to come to each person in His way, not our way.
Good thoughts, friend.
“Jesus Was A Jew” by Arnold Fruchtenbaum has some good stuff, I think.
This subject intrigues me. I will elaborate on what I started to say above…
The older classical Protestant view emphasied the efficacy of the atonement of Jesus Christ. In other words, when Jesus Christ died on the cross He secured the salvation of all His elect (I know this is a C of C blog, but bear with me). The love that He displayed there could in no way be described as an attempt. This was the bedrock assumption of the Protestant church from the time of the Reformation down to the first part of the nineteenth century.
But a century and a half ago, evangelicalism walked away from this older reformational understanding of the cross. Put another way, evangelicalism fell away from evangelicalism. In place of an efficacious cross, evangelicals began to substitute an atonement which did not actually accomplish anything in particular, but rather expressed a feeling on the part of God — as the tee-shirt has exhorted us, He loves you “this much.” This was understood as a divine feeling that was certainly willing to do something for us if the sinner would only [fill in the blank]. Various evangelical traditions filled in their blank in different ways — walking the aisle, filling out a card, raising a hand. But in the older theology, there was no blank to fill in. The cross had filled in everything.
Hey Wade, I’m starting a series on the cross next weekend, so I’ve kinda been immersed in it lately. In addition to the two you mentioned (and of course Stott) you might find Mark Baker’s,”Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross” helpful. Also Neil Livingstone’s “Picturing the Gospel.” I’ve also enjoyed Bonhoeffers “Meditations on the Cross”, Tom Smail, “Windows on the Cross and Barbara Brown Taylor’s “God in Pain.”
Within Romans, for instance, atonement is described in at least five or six different ways. I agree, atonement is a multi-faceted, multi-layered cornerstone of the Christian faith.
“Jesus and the Victory of God” and “Evil and the Justice of God” are excellent treatments of atonement by N.T. Wright.
I’m convinced, we’ve got to hear what African thinkers and Latin American thinkers are saying to the established folks like us.
Hence, some of the liberation stuff is really good–“God of the Opressed” (Cone), “We Drink From Our Own Wells”(Guitterez)–two standard intro works to atonement from people on the margins of White/Protestant theology.
I think McLaren does a good job of describing different understanding of the atonement in “The Story We Find Ourselves In.”
Another aspect of the topic, and Josh is touching on it above, is context. How does our context/world-view impact our ideas of atonement or lack of. The perspective I’m most perplexed and curious about is the Asian world-view of shame/honor. When someone approaches life through the lens of shame/honor instead of guilt/innocence (a generally Western view) then ideas about what Jesus accomplished in his life, death and new life become quite different. Different aspects of scripture begin to jump off the page. I don’t know any books that discuss the Asian atonement perspective directly… but Ravi Zacharias touches on it in “Jesus Among Other Gods”.
Good stuff from all. Thanks
Jay–this isn’t a Church of Christ blog. Blogs aren’t authorized by the New Testament so it can’t be affiliated with Church of Christ. We’ve got lots of readers and commenters (like yourself) on here from all different backgrounds. But anyway, here is my question for you: is your understanding of the atonement grounded in what Scripture actually says about the atonement or is it grounded in what the reformers said Scripture says about the atonement?
I’m a penal-substitution guy, myself. Although I’m now interested in what impact the shame/honor worldview would have. But at this point I haven’t seen any other theory that matches up as well with Scripture. I agree with Josh that the atonement is multi-faceted, but for me this is the most complete explanation.
Well I AM the only one who listed scripture references in my comments ;).
Good question. I would hope my understanding of the atonement is found in what Scripture says. Now, I do believe that the Reformers pretty much threw strikes when it came to atonement views, but I would agree with you if you said the limited atonement view of Calvinism was more of a logical deduction than an explciitly biblical conclusion. I also think Anselm and Augustine could hold there own in this are, and I do like much of what Scot McKnight and NT Wright conclude…so it isn’t strictly reformer driven.
It has been said, but it does help to remember, that the cross was a mutli-faceted event. There was a lot going on in that one scene, making it a very holistic in nature. It JUSTIFIED sinners who were legally guilty of breaking God’s law. It PROPITIATED God’s wrath. It REDEEMED a people back from slavery. It CONQUERED Satan, sin and death. It is EXEMPLARY in nature. It IMPUTED all believers with Christ’s righteousness. It PAID our debt or RANSOM to God, and EXPIATES all our filth. That’s pretty holistic.
And it was an atoning sacrifice. But let’s not confuse these other cross words with atonement. I think that’s a danger. These different words have different conclusions. All of which make the cross that much more important and that much more powerful.
Perhaps the Old Testament sacrificial system provides the best illustration for someone looking for a bilbical position. In the OT the High Priest would offer a sacrifice for the sins of the whole nation on the Day of Atonement; this is, in effect, unlimited atonement (maybe the general or broad base variety). Then, each worshipper would repent of their own sins as demonstrated by the giving of their own sacrifices; this is, in effect, limited atonement. Now, ultimately these sacrifices were temporary, having to be repeated annualy…a way to pacify the wrath of God year after year. But Jesus was a once for all atonement sacrifice. Complete in every way. An atoning sacrifice which actually satisfied the wrath of God. Christ’s death is an atoning sacrifice with widespread implications, but very necessary individual and subsitutionary application.
If you just read the Gospels, for instance, it’s tough to cling to “penal subsitution” only. It’s about the powers being unmasked (Wink and Luke), shame overturned (Asian culture), selfishness being undone (Individual), the sin (John’s word) of the people totally forgiven, the price being paid (Matthew), discipleship’s ultimate destiny (All four).
Then Paul really messes things up.
My point…
The Gospels are midrash upon the cross event as are the letters of Paul, and Revelation. Multi-layered, multi-faceted. Complex. Beautiful. A tapestry of sorts that from one side seems chaotic–but on the other side, is one of the truest stories I know.
I think a more important thing to emphasise is how we live knowing that we are atoned for. How does the fact that we have experienced atonement change the way we live? In the end that’s what matters.
Mark Heim “Saved From Sacrifice” will, at the very least, take you into a consideration of atonement that isn’t raised elsewhere.
I think even non-philosophical types, especially non-Christians considering the faith, ask difficult questions about the cross regarding coherence. We haven’t done a great job of asking those questions.
‘Who is Jesus paying for our sins?’
‘If God, then God isn’t forgiving us, he’s accepting payment. And if he’s the one paying, that’s like taking currency out of your left pocket, putting it in your right, and saying: ‘O.K. the debt is covered.’
‘If Jesus/God is paying evil/Satan/principalities: Why does God have to play by the rules of a weaker construct? He’s God?’
Jay said, (I know this is a C of C blog, but bear with me).
Wade said, Jay–this isn’t a Church of Christ blog. Blogs aren’t authorized by the New Testament so it can’t be affiliated with Church of Christ.
thanks Wade for answering this, and I agree.
Brad
Mark–that is good stuff and it shows why no single theory of atonement can capture the mystery of salvation. Sooner or later analogies and metaphors break down.
Atonement is a multi-faceted diamond.