The problem of the atonement

[lotharson]

Professor Randal Rauser expressed his puzzlement on the very concept of atonement and its widespread interpretation among Evangelicals.
randalrauser.com/2013/12/god-was-in-christ-reconciling-the-world-but-how-exactly/

What are your thoughts on that?

I am myself struggling with the concepts of atonement and salvation and that’s the reason why I am on this forum.

Even though it seems very likely to me that the NT writers believed in the utter destruction of the wicked, I really want to explore with you the possibility I might be wrong.

I do hope we can have a friendly conversation in a spirit of brotherhod and I am more than willing to change my mind.

Lovely greetings in Christ.

[Cole]

I don’t really see any need for an atoning sacrifice. I’ve had a hard time understanding it all in the past. When I do something wrong to myself or others I just make amends and forgive myself. Using the blood of animals or man to somehow cleanse your sins makes no sense.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Lotharson,

You might want to do an archive search as we’ve talked about this quite a lot. I need to go at the moment but I’ll get back with you maybe this evening, as I’m sure others will as well. It’s a very interesting and important subject.

Love, Cindy

[lotharson]

Yeah and it has huge implications for the question of the eternal fate of everyone.

[Cindy_Skillman]

I did a quick search and found this: HI! which I think you might find helpful – but there’s loads more.

[Cole]

There are numerous atonement theories. Proponents of one theory have effectively criticized the other theories and vice versa. The fact is that nobody knows how the death of Jesus reconciles people to God. There is no reasonable explanation as to why Jesus died on the cross.

[Paidion]

A few years ago I began writing a book entilted The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Chapter 2 was named The Means of Mercy This chapter deals with the “atonement.”

You can read the chapter here:

theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=4094

[Cindy_Skillman]

Okay, here we go . . . I liked your article a lot. It was short (which I ALWAYS appreciate in a web article!) and the author got right to the point, nailed it, and concluded well. Good writing, good points. Anybody who hasn’t read the article should click on it – seriously, it’s maybe 500 words at the most and I think you’ll like it.

The point the author made about the judge’s son (or the judge for that matter) stepping up and offering to be executed is actually the first thing I thought about saying (I’ve heard it before, because it’s such a great point). That sort of “justice” may have actually worked in the 1100s when Anshelm pioneered this theory (more or less) but no court in the free world would accept this kind of shenanigans as justice. Why do we believe it could be acceptable to God to torture and execute His innocent and more than innocent – noble, courageous, righteous and GOOD – Son for crimes everyone knew He hadn’t committed, and then let off the real criminals (us) without so much as a slap on the wrist?

Jesus did pay our penalty, but not to God and not as a victim of God. If He was a sacrificial victim, the sacrifice was to US. It was we who demanded blood. Alan pointed out to me that the idea “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin” could very reasonably be taken as a metaphor to say, in effect, “This is not going to be easy. In fact, it’s going to be all but impossible and it’s going to cost, big time, even to the shedding of blood. Otherwise sin cannot be cured.” Notice “remission.” I haven’t studied the original language (that I remember), but the term remission is interesting. What do we call it when cancer is cured? We call it remission (because we never believe it’s QUITE cured, but at least it’s being held at bay.) I wonder why it wasn’t translated “There can be no paying for sin” instead of “There is no remission of sin.” It could have been “no remission FOR sin.” That would have worked with penal sub (PS), but nobody translates it this way to my knowledge. [tag]Paidion[/tag] or [tag]JasonPratt[/tag] might be willing to give an opinion on this. I’d be interested to hear what they’d have to say.

You see, Jesus forgave sins whenever He felt like it in the Gospels. He didn’t say anything about it being dependent on His sacrifice. In the OT sins are being forgiven left and right and again, no mention of the atonement. Isaiah (I think) even says, “Sacrifice and offerings you did not desire.” It’s not a problem of FORGIVING sins. It’s a problem of remission – of healing us from our sinfulness. Because THAT is the gospel according to Paul in Romans – that the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of sin and death.

I like Paul’s explanation of the atonement in Romans. That Jesus stood in for the entire race of Adam as the “last Adam.” He gathered the entire human race into Himself and put to death the sinful nature and the writing of the law that was against us – on the cross. Jesus needed to die not as a sacrifice to God so that God would then somehow be “allowed” to forgive sins. He needed to die for our sake – to put to death the sinful nature and the decree against us. He died to set us free. He rose to grant us (in Him, again) resurrection. It had nothing to do with satisfying the wrath of a vengeful God. (Incidentally, people have become universalists simply on the basis of a deep study of Romans, but of course you have to take Romans as a whole. Otherwise things like chapter nine might confuse you!)

There are many, many pictures of the atonement in scripture. I think that probably it is such a multifaceted masterpiece of love, grace and mercy that we mortals can’t begin to comprehend it in our present state. To help, we’re given multiple metaphors, but we can only get a glimpse, really, and of course, some more than others. My favorite is Narrative Christus Victor because I LOVE that story. You can write songs and poetry and fairytales about that story, and lots of people do. THAT is the story that’s always being told, of which you can find wisps and whispers in the most secular of novels and music because it is that central to our being. The most beautiful love story ever to be told and told and told.

If you want to study the atonement there are many, many books available, as well as articles on the web. Wikipedia even has a quite good article on atonement theories, and of course there’s a lot of discussion here as well. When I became a universalist one of the first things I noticed was that PS wasn’t a real good fit. I don’t say you CAN’T be a universalist and believe PS, but it seems to work better for preterists, and Reformed (yes there are Reformed universalists). I’m more in the lines of a purgatorial universalist, so (apart from being just flat illogical and offensive to me) it doesn’t fit too smoothly.

Thanks for sharing the article, which I enjoyed, and for bringing up a topic that’s always interesting.

Love, Cindy

[anon12438761]

"When the man says, ‘I did wrong; I hate myself and my deed; I cannot endure to think that I did it!’ then, I say, is atonement begun. Without that, all that the Lord did would be lost. He would have made no atonement. Repentance, restitution, confession, prayer for forgiveness, righteous dealing thereafter, is the sole possible, the only true make-up for sin. For nothing less than this did Christ die. When a man acknowledges the right he denied before; when he says to the wrong, ‘I abjure, I loathe you; I see now what you are; I could not see it before because I would not; God forgive me; make me clean, or let me die!’ then justice, that is God, has conquered–and not till then.

‘What atonement is there?’

Every atonement that God cares for; and the work of Jesus Christ on earth was the creative atonement, because it works atonement in every heart."

George MacD “Justice”

[Paidion]

Alan pointed out to me that the idea “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin” could very reasonably be taken as a metaphor…

I have often wondered why people apply that sentence to Christ’s sacrifice. It seems to be used as a proof text. Just look at the context:

18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.”
21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Clearly the author is discussing how sacrifices under the FIRST covenant were the means whereby God forgave their sins. Indeed the verse in question (vs 22) begins with “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood”. But now under the NEW covenant, everything is changed! That’s the message of the writer to the Hebrews. He goes on to explain:

24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Under the NEW covenant, it’s not simply a matter of having one’s sins forgiven, but having them DONE AWAY WITH.
This is the reason for Christ’s death which both Paul and Peter give:

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Thanks for that, Paidion! I can’t believe I never noticed that – UNDER THE LAW! – Of course!

[Cindy_Skillman]

Excellent quote, Dave. That is truly a great sermon!

[akimel]

If atonement is understood as a mechanism by which God propitiates his own wrath so that he may forgive humanity, then yes, atonement is best set aside. But if atonement is understood as the divine action by which God incorporates humanity into the divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and thereby elevating humanity into the eternal life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then atonement is the very heart of the gospel.

[Cole]

Thanks Paidion! I never noticed that “under the law” thing either. That clears up my confusion.

I still don’t think that the cross can be understood through a rational perspective though. But maybe it can be understood through a heart perspective. In the language of the heart, the poet, the artist, through story. I don’t think it can be expressed intellectually. I think we must recognize the limits of our human intellect. The kind of love revealed on the cross doesn’t fit into a theorem or formula.

[Cindy_Skillman]

I don’t think Lotharson (or anyone else) is talking about setting the atonement aside, Akimel. Many of us do have a hard time with penal substitution, though, which I suspect isn’t your favorite picture of the atonement either.

[Paidion]

I don’t think Lotharson (or anyone else) is talking about setting the atonement aside, Akimel.

It depends upon what is meant by “atonement”.

Akimel is right—for it depends upon what we mean when we use the word “atonement”. According to the understanding of some—yes, it would be best set aside.

Remember Chapter 2 of The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ entitled “The Means of Mercy” which you read and appreciated? Here is a quote from it concerning the two words which some translate as “atoning sacrifice”, others as “propitiation” and still others as “expiation”

The Greek Words ἱλασμος (hilasmos) and ἱλαστηριον (hilastārion)

The words used in the Greek New Testament and rendered as “atonement” or “atoning sacrifice in some modern translations are ἱλασμος (1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10) and ἱλαστηριον (Rom 3:25, Heb 9:5). Both are derived from the verbal form ἱλασκομαι. The Hebrew word translated as “atonement” is “kippur” and is usually rendered as ἐξιλαστηριον in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, translated about 250 B.C. in the reign of Ptolemy. Note that it differs from the New Testament word only by the addition of the prefix ἐξ (out of ). The verbal form of the Hebrew word “kippur” is “kaphar”.

In the King James Version, ἱλασμος is translated as “propitiation”, that is, an appeasement or conciliation of an offended power. It is so rendered also by Darby, by the Douay translators, and by the translators of the New King James Version, and of Young’s Literal Translation.

The translators of the Revised Standard Version render ἱλασμος as “expiation”, that is, the act of making amends of reparation for wrongdoing. This is also the meaning of the English word “atonement.” In current English, “atone” is used in precisely the same way as “expiate.” If I accidentally run into the neighbor’s fence post and break it off, the neighbour may tell me, “You’re going to have to atone for that!” In other words, I’m going to have to “make up for it” in some way, perhaps by repairing the fence myself. In the NIV and the NRSV ἱλασμος is translated as “atoning sacrifice.”

So if we understand “the atonement” as “a propitiation”, that is Christ dying to appease or conciliate the Father who is offended with our sins, then I “set it aside”, that is I don’t recognize the theory as having any correspondence to reality.

What about understanding “the atonement” as “an expiation” or “an atonement”? Both of these have the meaning of making amends. Did Christ die to “make amends” for our sin so that the Father was able to let us off the hook? I don’t think so. I have to set that aside as well.

But the Greek words so translated actually mean “a means of mercy”. Christ died to provide a means of mercy toward the sinner. How was it a means of mercy? Again, did He die merely to make it possible for the Father to forgive us or overlook our sin? Not at all! He died in order to SAVE us from our sins, that is, DELIVER us from them. Paul was able to say:

Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. (Ephesians 4:28,29)

Paul was able to give this instruction because he knew that when the Ephesian Christians began to appropriate the enabling grace of God through faith in Christ, they would be enabled to carry out these instruction to live righteously. As he wrote to Titus:

[Christ] gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. (Titus 2:14)

What a means of mercy that is!—That we be delivered from our sinful natures and be regenerated, transformed, blessed with a different nature! But this is not a once-for-all transformation. Salvation is a life-long process. Paul himself said, “I die [to my self-serving nature] DAILY.”

So if by “atonement” we mean “a means of mercy by which we can be delivered from sin”, then I DEFINITELY WON’T set THAT aside! But then why call that “the atonement”? Why not simply call it “the means of mercy”?

[Cindy_Skillman]

Ah yes, I see what you’re saying, Paidion, and your explanation of the word sometimes translated (wrongly imo) as propitiation was very helpful. Thanks again! Atonement isn’t a word often used in non-religious context around here, and to me, it means “at one ment,” which is its etymology. To make “at one with.” That’s what Jesus did in freeing us from sin – He made it possible for us to be at one with our Father. Not (imo) because Father needed reconciling to US, but because WE need reconciling to Him. Jesus died and rose to reunite us with Father – by destroying sin in the flesh, by setting us free from the bondage of the world, by giving us new birth into the family of God (and there may be other things I’ve left out).

But yes, if you’re talking of atonement as propitiation, I absolutely agree THAT should be left behind!

Love, Cindy

[Cole]

I still don’t see how a story of someone dying on a cross and rising frees us from anything. If we have free will we don’t need to be freed from anything anyway. We just need to exercise our free will and stop sinning. I don’t know about you but watching Jesus suffer and get beat isn’t very liberating. It makes me sick.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Cole, that’s your (and my) problem. You AREN’T free. That’s one of the reasons Jesus went to the cross – to set you free. He whom the Son shall set free shall be free indeed, Jesus said. This statement implies something less than complete and total freedom. Yes, you can choose what to do now and in five minutes and in ten, but you will nevertheless find that you are unable to live a perfect life (or you’re lying, and that’s a sin! ) Read Paul’s take on it in Romans 5-8.

[Paidion]

Atonement isn’t a word often used in non-religious context around here, and to me, it means “at one ment,” which is its etymology. To make “at one with.”

Well, I don’t think that’s its etymology. I think somebody got the idea because the English word “atonement” can be divided into the three words “at-one-ment”. But interestingly enough the King James Bible uses the word “atonement” only once in the New Testament (Rom. 5:11), and that is NOT the Greek word which is translated as “propitiation”. It is the Greek word “καταλλαγη” which actually means “reconciliation”. Virtually all other translations so render it, including the New King James. And this word in fact DOES mean “to make at one with.”