Atonement
First of all, before I begin I would like to commend Adrian for his concern regarding my spiritual well being in his posts on the atonement. Secondly, I would like to suggest, however, that he has not clearly understood me so his description of my view has not been always the most accurate. Thirdly, In this blog article I am going to assume a fair amount of knowledge of the discussions of the early church, particularly nicean and Chalcedonian orthodoxy. I will use terms like homoousion Monophysite, Nestorianism. If you have no idea about what these terms mean, and/or the discussions surrounding them, I would respectfully ask you do read up on your early church doctrines. This is not because I think that only people who are trained in theology can discuss theology. Rather it is because repeatedly in my discussions with those who are sympathetic to Adrian their lack of knowledge of these points makes the task infinitely harder and exasperating. I am not suggesting that you must agree with the position on the early church to discuss these points but that you at least know what they are and state if you disagree with them.
I also want to say that I am sympathetic with the 'classic evangelical' position. And I am in agreement with it in its absolute refusal to suggest that God can just forgive sins. The wrath of God is a reality. A reality that if we are at all faithful to the biblical witness must be taken seriously-even by God himself.
The Holy Love of God
God is Holy Love. This statement is fundamental in any understanding of Christianity. God’s holiness is his absolute moral perfection. Our first and final word in all theology must be the glory of God. Man only has realty in as much as it is caught up with the glory of God.
God in his boundless Holy Love, as the communion of Father, Son and Spirit, Created the world from nothing. The pinnacle of this creation was humanity, who were made to be God’s image bearers to creation. The tragedy of Eden was that man rejected this vocation and sinned. Man rejected the Goodness of God. Humanity had rejected and devalued that which was most valuable.
God in asserting the value of his holiness must reject the rebellion and the rebellious. His Holy Love for his rebellious creatures must issue out in Wrath. That is in the rejection of what human sin. His way of doing this is death, the ending of the creature back to nothingness from whence humanity came.
If God stopped here he would be worthy of our praise, if he let man slip back into the nothingness from which he came he would be both Holy and Loving. But God in his infinite and free goodness, with no compulsion but an act of free Holy Love, sent his Son. That is the Father sent his Son, his Son willingly obeyed and by the Spirit of God.
In the incarnation, the Son of God took upon himself our fallen and alienated humanity. He came to deal with both the legal and the ontological problems of human sin. He took our doom and judgement upon himself willingly by becoming man-by taking our ontologically fallen nature. He stood under the verdict of the Holy Love of God issuing forth as Wrath. All his life he lived under the Wrath of God. What is more, being the eternal Son of the Father this verdict was his own. He rejected sin in all its sinfulness. His life was one continuous agreement to the Wrath of God to sin.
When the sinfulness of Man had done its worse in rejecting God, in the person of Jesus. Jesus took this rejection by Man and made it the rejection of God upon sin. He in his own Person willingly took the doom of men to himself as man (as well as God). He willingly took our punishment*, our penalty, to himself and turned it to praise. He praised the Father’s rightful judgement on sinful man by willingly submitting to and enacting this Judgement by the power of the Holy Spirit. This he did as our substitute and representative -vicariously. He died for us in our place.
God the Father took this praise of the Son as the perfect satisfaction of his Wrath. Being the perfect agreement, in word and action, to the Holy Love of God. Death had met it end. God the Father, by the Spirit, raised Jesus from the dead. Thereby, affirming the purification and change ontologically and legally within human kind.
Where upon Jesus ascended and so sent his Spirit. This means that we can follow in Jesus footsteps.
This is only the briefest of explanations, though there is a farther question I would like to ask. Why do we, or God, punish! Is punishment and end in its self or it its goal something else? Is it not to impress upon the sinner the weight of the majesty that they have offended- The shear wickedness of there act. In short its goal is a perfect repentance.
*Jesus was not punished by the Father, but took our punishment. This is why I normally object to the term punishment. Because it implies someone, normally the Father, punishing Jesus. Whereas Jesus was the one enacting the judgement, the wrath of God, against sinful humanity.
I also want to say that I am sympathetic with the 'classic evangelical' position. And I am in agreement with it in its absolute refusal to suggest that God can just forgive sins. The wrath of God is a reality. A reality that if we are at all faithful to the biblical witness must be taken seriously-even by God himself.
The Holy Love of God
God is Holy Love. This statement is fundamental in any understanding of Christianity. God’s holiness is his absolute moral perfection. Our first and final word in all theology must be the glory of God. Man only has realty in as much as it is caught up with the glory of God.
God in his boundless Holy Love, as the communion of Father, Son and Spirit, Created the world from nothing. The pinnacle of this creation was humanity, who were made to be God’s image bearers to creation. The tragedy of Eden was that man rejected this vocation and sinned. Man rejected the Goodness of God. Humanity had rejected and devalued that which was most valuable.
God in asserting the value of his holiness must reject the rebellion and the rebellious. His Holy Love for his rebellious creatures must issue out in Wrath. That is in the rejection of what human sin. His way of doing this is death, the ending of the creature back to nothingness from whence humanity came.
If God stopped here he would be worthy of our praise, if he let man slip back into the nothingness from which he came he would be both Holy and Loving. But God in his infinite and free goodness, with no compulsion but an act of free Holy Love, sent his Son. That is the Father sent his Son, his Son willingly obeyed and by the Spirit of God.
In the incarnation, the Son of God took upon himself our fallen and alienated humanity. He came to deal with both the legal and the ontological problems of human sin. He took our doom and judgement upon himself willingly by becoming man-by taking our ontologically fallen nature. He stood under the verdict of the Holy Love of God issuing forth as Wrath. All his life he lived under the Wrath of God. What is more, being the eternal Son of the Father this verdict was his own. He rejected sin in all its sinfulness. His life was one continuous agreement to the Wrath of God to sin.
When the sinfulness of Man had done its worse in rejecting God, in the person of Jesus. Jesus took this rejection by Man and made it the rejection of God upon sin. He in his own Person willingly took the doom of men to himself as man (as well as God). He willingly took our punishment*, our penalty, to himself and turned it to praise. He praised the Father’s rightful judgement on sinful man by willingly submitting to and enacting this Judgement by the power of the Holy Spirit. This he did as our substitute and representative -vicariously. He died for us in our place.
God the Father took this praise of the Son as the perfect satisfaction of his Wrath. Being the perfect agreement, in word and action, to the Holy Love of God. Death had met it end. God the Father, by the Spirit, raised Jesus from the dead. Thereby, affirming the purification and change ontologically and legally within human kind.
Where upon Jesus ascended and so sent his Spirit. This means that we can follow in Jesus footsteps.
This is only the briefest of explanations, though there is a farther question I would like to ask. Why do we, or God, punish! Is punishment and end in its self or it its goal something else? Is it not to impress upon the sinner the weight of the majesty that they have offended- The shear wickedness of there act. In short its goal is a perfect repentance.
*Jesus was not punished by the Father, but took our punishment. This is why I normally object to the term punishment. Because it implies someone, normally the Father, punishing Jesus. Whereas Jesus was the one enacting the judgement, the wrath of God, against sinful humanity.
posted by xopher_mc | 3:25 pm
5 Comments:
Good post, I've copied it onto my blog.
Richard,
you make a promise at the beginning of your post and then, quite spectacularly break it. You say, ‘I will use terms like homoousion Monophysite, Nestorianism.’ and then you don't.
I'm no expert, nor am I sure that I want to be, but your argument sounds a lot more dependent on John McLeod Campbell than it does Athenasian. It might be helpful if you either fully included the church fathers in your discussion or refrained from using them as a club to deter the merely orthodox (or as you so gregariously label them: ‘those who are sympathetic to Adrian.’)
I’m quite sure that many of those who are so sympathetic will not be as ignorant of patristics as you assume and directing them to look to revise there is a bit of a red herring in the post as we have received it. No doubt you did have some uses in mind for a few Greek words :-)
At the minute your post reads a bit like a student essay where the high intentions of the introduction are not met and said student has not bothered to reread his introduction after writing the body of the essay.
Well done for spotting Mcleod Campbell :)
I sort of wrote it off in one go as it were. You are quite right that it should really deal with those issues. though honestly Adrian doesnt have a clue about patristics. So when I have in person said "the doctrine of the Trinity doesnt allow you to speak like that". He dont have a clue as to what I am talking about and says 'I just want to be faithful to the bible'.
Maybe I should do three posts in reference to the atonement and homoousion, monophysitism and nestorianism.
If you do disagree with my blog article would you be as kind as to point out the flaw in the arguement lies . Or if not direct me to where I may be better adviced.
I'd read Adrian's pieces around the 'net, and yours, and I have several problems with the "penal substitution" camp -- not that they're 100% wrong, but that it's such a partial theory that it's a distortion and ends up being wrong by that one piece standing alone and saying how important it is. "Transaction theology" at its worst ends up taking the holiness out of our redemption; also removes or displaces discussion of our transformation; also obscures the active role of Christ in being the agent of our redemption not just the price tag needed for some other effective agent; also turns the cross of Christ into an event at which we are spectators or beneficiaries but not participants. These are not minor points.
Though I think certain schools of theology are obliged to follow a penal-substitution model because the person and work of Christ are under the "Limited" heading of a certain theological system ... "Atonement" is not really satisfied until our fellowship with God Himself is restored.
Take care & God bless
Richard,
I think that the major flaw in your argument is that you try to do two things in it and don’t concentrate on the join. It seems to me that what you want to say is that you agree with the basic Reformed explanation of the Atonement except that the Reformed get it wrong about punishment.
If I were to do that (though I don’t want to) I’d use as much of the Reform language as possible and expend as many ¶s on punishment as on atonement.
I find it difficult to advise where you could find your argument better put since I’m not familiar with anything that attempts to do these two things but some might say that Joseph Bellamy, Jonathan Edwards’s friend, comes pretty close to saying what you’re saying.
To advise you how to come at your own argument from another angle I would suggest that you ask yourself how God’s honour is maintained in spite of our adoption as heirs. A different perspective on redributive justice might just pop out of a consideration of that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home