Nature of the Atonement

[Paidion]

It may be helpful to consider George MacDonald's chapter on Justice in his Unspoken Sermons Series 3. It can be read from the link which follows:

Justice

[steve7150]

It may be helpful to consider George MacDonald's chapter on Justice in his Unspoken Sermons Series 3. It can be read from the link which follows:

Justice




I'm reading his book called "The Evangelical Universalist", except it's Gregory MacDonald.

[Paidion]

I've read that book. He makes some interesting points. Many confuse Gregory MacDonald with George. George lived most of his life in the 1800s. He died in 1905. There's a mailing list of those people who are highly impressed by George's writings. The mailing list is called "Wingfold" and thoughts are exchanged by its members but through email. I used to be on it, and am thinking of joining again. Interestingly enough, most of them do not believe in the final reconciliation of all to God (George MacDonald did believe in that reconciliation).

[benstenson]

The Christus Victor, Satisfaction, Substitution, and Ransom views of the atonement make really do make wonderful poetry (not sarcastic). But when speaking literally and objectively about what God and Jesus did I believe the Moral Influence view should be the foundation. However, the Moral Influence view by itself appears to be naive of authority, law, justice, etc. Providing this Moral Influence requires upholding moral law which leads to a Moral Government understanding of the atonement. Basically the Moral Influence view plus some understanding of the nature of authority and the resulting obligations produces the Moral Government view.

A basic understanding of free will leads to the Moral Influence view. When combined with a basic understanding of authority this produces the Moral Government view.

Lacking an understanding of free will or authority results in confusing the figurative/poetic views with a literal/objective understanding.

[Paidion]

So are you saying, Ben, that Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross, merely provided an example of self-sacrifice which we would be wise to follow? When we are aware of His loving self-sacrifice, we, too, are prompted to give of ourselves for the sake of others?

Do we not, through Christ's sacrifice receive the enabling grace of God to overcome wrongdoing and to live righteously as per Titus 2:1-11?

And did Peter not write: ... and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed (of your sin-sickness). 1 Peter 2:24

[benstenson]

So are you saying, Ben, that Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross, merely provided an example of self-sacrifice which we would be wise to follow? When we are aware of His loving self-sacrifice, we, too, are prompted to give of ourselves for the sake of others?

Do we not, through Christ's sacrifice receive the enabling grace of God to overcome wrongdoing and to live righteously as per Titus 2:1-11?

And did Peter not write: ... and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed (of your sin-sickness). 1 Peter 2:24

I do believe that Jesus death is an instructive example and a gracious, compelling influence, but I did not mean to say that Jesus' death is solely those things. I believe Jesus' suffering and death also served to justify God in offering us pardon on the condition of repentance. Like the Bible says, without the shedding of His blood the forgiveness of our sins would not have been possible.

I do not believe that the atonement literally enables men to obey God since the law only requires what we are able to do in the first place. My understanding is that God's grace teaches us (Titus 2:12) to do that which we already knew we deserved death for not not doing (Romans 1:32). I believe this guilt presupposes both the knowledge and the ability to avoid wrongdoing.

I believe that Jesus figuratively bore our sins in His body. I understand this to mean that he physically received the suffering that was necessary (because of our sins) to justify the offer of conditional pardon. I believe this enables God to accept our repentance (death to sin). Also that it influences us to repent. And that His wounds figuratively heal us by graciously influencing us to turn from sin and by removing the obstacle of our fatal criminal record.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Okay, let's consider your humble opinion as it might apply to a human situation. Suppose you are a man with two teen-ages sons. You have house rules for which there are consequences ---- unpleasant consequences if they break them. One son always follows the rules. But your other son just broke a rule big time. The curfew rule is 11 P.M., and he didn't come home until 4 A.M. It would certainly be "just" to punish him big time. But then your good son says, "Please punish me instead and let my brother off." If you do that, would your sense of "justice" in the situation be satisfied. One aspect of "justice", perhaps the most basic aspect is "fairness". Would punishing your good son in place of the other be just and fair? If you did it, would you feel that justice had been done?

This example makes a lot of sense logically. It makes the penal substitution view look pretty foolish. In fact, I laughed when I read it because it made so much sense. However, I still think that in the mystery of God, for some reason, that this is what happened at the cross of Christ.



This verse seems to teach that we are saved from God's wrath on the basis of Christ's death. In one sense, we are being saved from God Himself, for He is a consuming fire.

[RICHinCHRIST]

The following passage does not state that we receive the righteousness of God as an outer cloak. It rather states that we become the righteousness of God.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Does not becoming the righteousness of God imply that God's righteousness becomes an integral part of our character?

The very next sentence explains a lot:

Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

To obtain this righteousness by faith, we must "work together with Him", that is, coöperate with Him in this gift of righteousness which comes from Him. But we are urged not to "accept it in vain". If this gift is not worked out in practical righteousness, then it has been "received" in vain. In other words, it has not been received at all. Would this be the case with those who think they have received an "imputed righteousness" ---- a mere "being counted righteous" while actually continuing in unrighteousness?

I think I agree with your point here, Paidion. Once when I was reading James chapter 2 I came across a verse that made me question my understanding of imputed righteousness or of salvation by faith alone.


This verse has the same word, synergeo, as 2 Cor. 6:1: "Working together". If our faith must "work together" with our works, then how can it be said that faith alone is what saves us? It doesn't make sense. This verse doesn't even say that faith "produces" works, as many would affirm. It does not say that works are an evidence of true faith. It just says that faith must work together with our actions. In fact, it says that our works must make our faith perfect. I've always heard preachers say the opposite: "True faith is what makes our works complete". No. It says works make our faith complete, not the other way around.

[Homer]

Perhaps our difficulty with faith and works lies in our western view of faith. We tend to separate faith and the action that comes from faith. But there is no way that an abstract quality such as faith can be shown to exist absent the objective action produced by that faith.

According to the "Handbook of Biblical Social Values" faith has the meaning of "faithfulness". Indeed, the Greek word pistis can be translated "faithfulness" or "fidelity". A number of scriptures can be cited as proof of this relationship of faith and faithfulness.

Consider the following (see another similar example, Matt. 9:2):

Luke 5:17-20
New King James Version (NKJV)

17. Now it happened on a certain day, as He was teaching, that there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come out of every town of Galilee, Judea, and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was present to heal them. 18. Then behold, men brought on a bed a man who was paralyzed, whom they sought to bring in and lay before Him. 19. And when they could not find how they might bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the housetop and let him down with his bed through the ceiling into the midst before Jesus.
20. When He saw their faith, He said to him, “Man, your sins are forgiven you.”

What did Jesus see? He saw men laboring to get to Jesus and denominated their action as "faith". A similar case was the woman with the issue of blood who struggled through the crowd to Jesus to be healed. He informed her that her labor of faith had brought her healing.

The problem with Paidion's little story about the man punishing the innocent son for the sin of his other son is defective due to Paidion's view of God the Father and God the Son as separate individual persons. As a trinitarion, I see God internalizing the punishment himself through the personae of the Son. Forgiveness always entails a cost and God took it upon himself through the Son.

The difficulty with all of this, and indeed universalism, is that we can in no way make ourselves right. We can never pay for our sins, no matter that we spend 10,000 years in hell. That will not even pay for one. We can never, apart from Christ's rightousness, become not guilty. Though a murderer be executed for his crime, and be said to pay for his sin, he is as guilty after his execution as he was before.

[steve]

The difficulty with all of this, and indeed universalism, is that we can in no way make ourselves right.

I don't see how this presents a special difficulty to universalists more than to anyone else. I'm pretty sure that most evangelical universalists would agree that "we can in no way make ourselves right." Only God can justify. However, we can make the right decision to trust in Him and receive justification. The only difference between the universalist and the traditionalist, in this matter, is whether such choices can be made after death, as well as before. The difference, it seems to me, is little broader than a hair's breadth.

We can never pay for our sins, no matter that we spend 10,000 years in hell. That will not even pay for one.

This may be true, but do we know this to be the case? I mean, a stronger biblical case could be made affirming that a person pays the penalty for his sins when he dies (Rom.6:23). If there is additional punishment after death, how do we know what length of time under torture is fitting for a given sin? Even the traditionalists seem to believe that torment is a just penalty (payment?) for sins. They extend the torment out eternally. But how do we know that even an eternity of human suffering can balance the books?

If neither temporal nor eternal suffering does not pay off the sin debt, then the books must remain eternally unbalanced—a bad economy (it seems to me), and one I would be surprised to find created by a wise God passionate for just settlements. On the other hand, if human suffering can indeed pay off that debt, where is it written that one sin requires more than 10,000 years of suffering for its repayment? I think your affirmation, above, sound a lot like what I would dutifully have said myself, due to my evangelical upbringing, until I began to require of myself biblical support for my opinions.

We can never, apart from Christ's rightousness, become not guilty. Though a murderer be executed for his crime, and be said to pay for his sin, he is as guilty after his execution as he was before.

I wonder about the last sentence. I am not saying you are wrong, but I wonder if the scriptures support this notion. Romans 6:7 says (in the Greek), "He who has died has been justified from sin." If guilt cannot be removed, even by the suffering of a just penalty, then what is the purpose of penalties? And how can Jesus' payment of a penalty on our behalf remove the stain of guilt, if the payment of a penalty does not have this affect? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they make me more reticent than I once was to affirm theological propositions that go beyond what is written.