Avoidance of Atonement “theories” in some churches

[zoidar]

I have noticed a trend recently, at least in my church. It seems that someone or a group of Christian scholars have decided that there are various “theories” of atonements (and there seems to be an assumption along with that that these theories are competing....that there can only be one right one, or that a person can only select and hold to one), and there is also the assumption that these theories are complicated.

This has seemingly led to my pastor completely avoiding the topic altogether, as well as an avoidance of the topic in Christian education materials (example: confirmation material, Sunday School literature, etc.). My pastor would not go anywhere near giving a reason that Jesus died on the cross on Good Friday (or at any other time). Thus, his sermons on Good Friday and Easter left me feeling very empty.

Does this seem to be a trend that others are seeing?

Based on my pastor’s sermon last Sunday, he basically said he doesn’t feel that theology is very important at all. He considers theories about the atonement to be “some complicated mathematical atonement theory” that he doesn’t believe is necessary for someone to believe in.

I do not agree with him at all about this subject, as by not talking about it, we are left with only a social gospel.

There are different theories about the atonement, but we can know things directly from the Bible that Jesus bore our sins, died for our sins, rose from death to give us eternal life and so on. Without this there is no Christianity. I don't think it's necessary for a preacher to go into specific details about the atonement, but there is a need to preach repentance and salvation by forgiveness through the cross.

 

[Baby Cottontail]

There are different theories about the atonement, but we can know things directly from the Bible that Jesus bore our sins, died for our sins, rose from death to give us eternal life and so on. Without this there is no Christianity. I don't think it's necessary for a preacher to go into specific details. But there is a need to preach repentance and salvation by forgiveness through the cross.

That is what I mean —I want to hear about repentance and salvation by forgiveness through the cross. I don’t want silence on the topic.

I am not asking for him to go into great detail. But I do want to hear the gospel, especially at Good Friday and Easter time.

 

[zoidar]

That is what I mean —I want to hear about repentance and salvation by forgiveness through the cross. I don’t want silence on the topic.

I am not asking for him to go into great detail. But I do want to hear the gospel, especially at Good Friday and Easter time.

I haven"t been to your church, but if the pastor refuses to talk about Jesus dying for our sins for our salvation, I would go to another church. Jesus is not only a saviour, he is THE saviour of the world.

 

[hedrick]

You provided a fantastic analysis that is more comprehensive than entire books written to address the subject. I just have a couple of comments on the last statements, quoted above:

1) As far as how our union w/ Christ transforms us, only the Moral Influence theory addresses this issue.

I think both Paul and Calvin would say that what changes us is something spiritual. Calvin speaks of a “communion of righteousness” between us and Christ that happens because of our “mystical union” with him. For Paul those with faith are “in Christ”, and die and rise with him. A more prosaic paraphrase might be that it is the action of the Holy Spirit that unites us with Christ and changes us.

Of course the Holy Spirit often works using visible means, so moral influence is perfectly acceptable as part of the explanation. I would suggest that if we really identify with Christ, experiencing with him the suffering and death for our sake ought to have an effect on us.

2) I think imputation of righteousness is not an unavoidable biblical conclusion. Jesus makes us righteous, or helps us to become righteous, but the idea of imputation of his righteousness reminds me of imputation of Adam's sin and both are unnecessary conclusions.

Paul certainly speaks of imputation. However you can ask what he means. A critical text is Rom 4:3, which says that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness. The term reckoned can have an accounting or legal sense.

During the Reformation debates, righteousness was understood as moral perfection. Hence reckoning faith as righteousness had to be a kind of legal fiction, because the person wasn’t actually morally perfect. Generally the Reformers concluded that it was Christ’s perfection that was credited to us in a legal or accounting transaction. They don’t seem to notice that Paul never says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. He says our faith is imputed as righteousness. That’s a pretty odd omission if it was the basis of justification.

(The Bible never demands moral perfection for proper status before God, though it does expect repentance. Paul talks about no one being righteous in the context of his argument against works righteousness. It's works righteousness that makes righteousness a moral accomplishment. That's the view Paul is rejecting.)

But it is very likely that Paul meant righteousness as proper status before God, not moral perfection. Hence the simplest understanding of Rom 4:3 is that God accepts faith either as establishing or as a sign of our being one of God’s people. After all, the core issue of Romans is whether circumcision is necessary to make us one of God’s people, so the question of what makes us one is what Paul is talking about.

At times the context suggests that faith is a sign of being one of God’s people, but at other times Paul is pretty clearly saying that it makes us one.

But this can still reasonably be called imputation. Our faith is accepted (imputed) as a sign that we are God’s people. I think it’s pretty hard to argue that Paul doesn’t mean at least this. But in this understanding it’s not a legal fiction, which may be what you are resisting. Faith actually does make us God’s.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do theories of Atonement address the following statements in Hebrews?

Heb 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Heb 9:22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Heb 9:23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

Heb 10:2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?

Heb 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water

You and I must mean different things by "theories of atonement". I don't see any contradiction between how I think the Atonement was done, nor what it accomplishes, nor what the implications are, and the verses you show here. What's the problem?

 

[Andrewn]

Generally the Reformers concluded that it was Christ’s perfection that was credited to us in a legal or accounting transaction. They don’t seem to notice that Paul never says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. He says our faith is imputed as righteousness. That’s a pretty odd omission if it was the basis of justification.

Yes, it's this conclusion that I disagree with. The problem is that the Reformers' interpretation is now considered standard Christianity by lot of people, as a part of Penal Substitution.

But it is very likely that Paul meant righteousness as proper status before God, not moral perfection. Hence the simplest understanding of Rom 4:3 is that God accepts faith either as establishing or as a sign of our being one of God’s people.

I agree with this. The verb "logizomai" in Rom 4:3 simply means 'to consider' or 'to regard' (also 'to be considered' and 'to be counted as').

At times the context suggests that faith is a sign of being one of God’s people, but at other times Paul is pretty clearly saying that it makes us one. But this can still reasonably be called imputation.

I'm fine with this. But it isn't what people mean by imputation.

"Imputation is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our "law-place," undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins."

Imputation Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

From the above definition, it seems that 'imputation' as a theological concept means that something that is not deserved and not earned is nevertheless reckoned or added up to a person's account. That is not a biblical understanding.

 

[bling]

I have noticed a trend recently, at least in my church. It seems that someone or a group of Christian scholars have decided that there are various “theories” of atonements (and there seems to be an assumption along with that that these theories are competing....that there can only be one right one, or that a person can only select and hold to one), and there is also the assumption that these theories are complicated.

This has seemingly led to my pastor completely avoiding the topic altogether, as well as an avoidance of the topic in Christian education materials (example: confirmation material, Sunday School literature, etc.). My pastor would not go anywhere near giving a reason that Jesus died on the cross on Good Friday (or at any other time). Thus, his sermons on Good Friday and Easter left me feeling very empty.

Does this seem to be a trend that others are seeing?

Based on my pastor’s sermon last Sunday, he basically said he doesn’t feel that theology is very important at all. He considers theories about the atonement to be “some complicated mathematical atonement theory” that he doesn’t believe is necessary for someone to believe in.

I do not agree with him at all about this subject, as by not talking about it, we are left with only a social gospel.

You did wonderfully to see the issue, but in defenses of your preacher, the five most common theories of atonement cannot be combined with the exception of the Moral Influence Theory (which any and all parts of Jesus’ life on earth is a moral example). There is more going on here then just Jesus’ example.

Each one of these theories have books written on them in support of the theory and explanations for why the other theories are wrong. You can use these books to support any conclusion, but in reality, they are most likely all wrong with the truth to be found from scripture and not some scholar trying to sell you a book. Although I am ready to write a book on Atonement if someone does not do it first.

The only reason it is complicated and would take a book to resolve is because of all the preconceived ideas.

1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?

2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?

3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?

4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?

5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).

6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.

7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.

8. They do not fit what went on with minor sins (unintentional sins) being atoned for (Lev.5).

9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.

10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.

11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).

12. All will give illogical the interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word “for”.

13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.

14. The atonement sacrifice losses its significance by being rolled up with the death burial and resurrection.

15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain:

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but we might find the greatest understanding in Ro. 3:25, since there is Godly logic in what happened.

Atonement is one of those religious concepts which is best understood through experiencing it, then trying to explain it. Unfortunately, the new Christian is filled with ideas about atonement prior to experiencing it, so they are brain washed into trying to feel something that does not happen and quenching what should happen.

One of the advantages the Jews before Christ’s sacrifice had with atonement was personally going through the atonement process for very minor sins (unintentional sins). Lev. 5 explains why, what sinner goes through in the atonement process and might be a good place to start, since Lev. 4-5 is where atonement begins. There is also the advantage of the Lev. 5 atonement being for the individuals personal and actual sins.

We might be able to take the atonement process for very minor sins and extrapolate up to what it could be like for rebellious disobedience directly towards God requiring death for the sinner with no atonement possible under the Old Law.

It would be best to imagen yourself as a first century (BC) Jewish man who just accidently touched a dead unclean animal. If you are real poor you are going to have to work an extra job help someone else for money to buy a sack of flour. If you live in the city and have money you are going to have to go out and buy a lamb and some grain to feed it. You are not a shepherd, so you will have to drag or carry a balling, thirsty and hungry lamb to the altar. You get up early to hike into Jerusalem wait in line for hours to hand the flour or lamb to the priest and watch them go through their part of the atonement process which if you all did everything right will result in God forgiving you and you feeling forgiven.

There is more to what and why this happens which we can find in Lev. 5:

5…they must confess in what way they have sinned. (which we need to do in the atonement process)

6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed… Here the reason for atonement is given “as a penalty” (punishment but better translated disciplining).

If the sacrifice was made as a “payment” for a sin: these sins are all the same and God considers all people the same, so the sacrifice would need to be the same (a lamb for all or doves for all or flour for all) but they are not the same. The different values of the sacrifices, is an attempt to equalize the hardship/penalty (disciplining) on the sinners and does not suggest a payment being made to God especially a payment to forgive a sin. God does not need a bag of flour to forgive sins.

The intention of the sinner going through all this, would be, all the benefits that come from being Lovingly disciplined.

We really need to go through every verse relating to atonement and sacrifice to gleam a true understanding, but you asked for other word used to describe Jesus’ sacrifice:

Try just this small part of it:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper (this is what the Ransom Theory of atonement has), but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?

There is one very likely kidnapper and that is the person holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which is described as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

Yes, Christ is the ransom payment for all, but the kidnapper can accept or reject the payment. If the kidnapper rejects this unbelievable huge payment, the payers of the ransom are going to be upset with that kidnapper.

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

 

[bling]

To answer the questions in the OP, I have definitely seen a trend of thinking that some theories - or ways of explaining - the atonement are less healthy than others, and an avoidance or de-emphasising of those theories.

For what it's worth, I agree with that to some degree, but I don't at all agree that theology is unimportant. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi, and all that. I also don't see contemplative spirituality and robust theology as being mutually exclusive!

You might read my post 47.