Exploration of the Atonement
Since I wrote about Andrew Jones yesterday, I thought I'd link to a post of his today on differing theories of the atonement. The historical Reformed view is of penal substitution as the focus, and that is where I find myself as well. However, as the Bible lays out other views, such as the atonement providing victory over the powers of darkness and this world (Christus Victor), I feel that we should embrace those views as well so that our view of the atonement is as large as the Bible makes it out to be (this is what Mark Dever proposes in his Christianity Today article). We probably have no idea what Jesus fully accomplished on the Cross, but it is clear to me that He paid for our sins, defeated Satan, death, hell, and conquered our flesh and the curse of sin. He also restored us to the image of God and through the resurrection and ascension He gave us new, eternal life, and the power of the Holy Spirit. God did so much on the cross, that I think that is is hard to limit it to just ONE perspective, although for me, the substitutionary atonement for our sins leads out, but not to the exclusion of everthing else.
Romans 11:33-36 says:
33Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34"Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?"[j]
35"Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay him?"[k]
36For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
The Cross of Christ is the wisdom of God. Shouldn't that wisdom be multi-faceted? Shouldn't we have a FULL understanding of what God did through Christ instead of just a narrow focus? I like what Scot McKnight says:
“For goodness sake, let’s use all the images for atonement so the story will become grander that we can imagine! The atonement, friends, is a banquet, and we need to sample each course as it comes along.”
Just some theological thoughts for the weekend. How do you see it?
Don't forget the class we had on atonement at Gateway. The blog if I remember correctly is http://atonementclass.blogspot.com. Of course I will always find it hard to place the work of the cross in any box I can come up with, it is truly the hinge of history and God's greatest display of grace and mercy.
Posted by: Rob Slagle | October 06, 2006 at 01:19 PM
I think that the original English root of atonement is actually at-one-ment or at-one-with the Father and Christ. When I personally discovered that the atonement process was one designed to bring us into a special relationship with the Father that is describe in chapters 12 to 17 of the book of John. It is a revolutionary conversation with Christ's disciples. I don't understand why we don't pay more attention to our relationship with the Father since that is what Christ desired.
Posted by: Bill Wilkie | October 06, 2006 at 08:22 PM
Maybe I'm too simple or something, but atonement means reconciliation. We are reconciled to God by the subtitutionary death, and its effect of wiping away our sins. So we stand in right relationship with God, because of Jesus' finished work.
That relationship brings us lots of stuff which we may or may not appropriate in our lives. But, to me, the atonement is the equivalent of the payment for my sin. The rest of it is something else.
Posted by: Bob Cleveland | October 06, 2006 at 09:01 PM
Alan, I just found this new post....
Then I read Andrew Jones' blog post...
Then I read the Dever article on Christianity Today....
Now it is late, my head is spinning (in a good way), My heart is full, and I feel a little like the author of Hebrews, "Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain...".
Basically, I do identify with the Christus Victor idea of the atonement, as it was stated in the Dever article. He left it fairly vague what exact spiritual forces Christ freed us from. I am sure he meant to do that. I would think by that, he means to imply that it was not simply redeeming us from the clutches of wicked spiritual beings who held us in their grasp...but also from other less personal spiritual forces. By that I mean He set us free from this body of sin and death. That Jesus liberates us from being in (literally one with) sin. This would be the fulfillment of Isaiah 61 and Luke 4....coming to set the captive free and loose the chains. If it only meant a kind of "payoff" or redemption on behalf of, or even TO those personal spiritual forces then I would feel uncomfortable with it. But he seemed to suggests it is broader, the main gist of it being a call into freedom and release from bondage....with direct connotations to the major Jewish motif of the redemption of the children of Israel from Egypt.
But, are there not some aspects of this theory that state the payment was kind of "to" the devil in order to redeem us? It seems there were some hints at this in the Passion of the Christ and I think also in some of C.S. Lewis's writings and imagery he uses. Am I right in that? That I am not in favor of. Any payment or ransom or redemption work has got to be centered on the power of God's justice, righteousness, Holiness and purity, and man's rebellion and offence to those characteristics, and cannot be centered on any lesser "antagonist" ( or protagonist if you will). Am I right??
Posted by: Andrew Hicks | October 09, 2006 at 01:10 AM
Yes, you are right. But, you shifted from Christus Victor to the Ransom perspective. In the Ransom perspective, we were held in the clutches of the devil and Jesus gave his life to ransom us. 1 Timothy 2:6 "who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." I have a bit of a problem with that as well, if it that is the only perspective. In the sense that the Devil has a claim on us because of sin, and when Jesus paid for our sins he set us free from the Devil's claim, I am alright with that. But, if you see it as Jesus was payment from God to the Devil for our sins, no, I don't think that is right.
Posted by: Alan Cross | October 09, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Alan, In regards to the atonement, I am learning what that means. Not having read or heard much about the atonement, my eyes have been enlightened and I have been meditating on the scripture 1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. A friend of ours, Ashley Crow and I were talking about this. It is life changing when you realize that He bore all our sins once and for all in his body and as you said, defeated Satan, death, hell, and conquered our flesh and the curse of sin. I love the "so that" in that verse -- "so that we might die to sins an live for righteousness." I think before I missed that, not that we do it in our own strength, but by the power of Christ that is work in us for his good pleasure we do die to sin and live for righteousness.
Posted by: Laura | October 09, 2006 at 12:04 PM