Featured Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

Do you disagree that there was a universal scope to the atonement? If so, we can certainly walk through the many orthodox Christians throughout history of which you seem unaware.

I like John Piper, and consider him orthodox. So let's start there (mostly because that is my position - that Christ died to redeem the elect but the cross "makes possible and purchases a bonafide offer for every person on the planet."

 

I am speaking of the doctrine of the Atonement (which, within orthodox Christianity, includes topics associated with Christ's death on the Cross as God presented Him a guilt offering).

I do not want to get into playing word games with you, brother. You can declare that the doctrine of the Cross is not the same as the doctrine of Atonement and I'm sure you have valid point in there. Technically, I suppose you could say that Christ died only for human sin in general. It is not the sacrifice but the one presenting the sacrifice that determines it's application. So it's not "for whom did Christ die" but "for whom did the Father sacrifice the Son", and any limitation belongs there (which, BTW, is how I view the scope to be determined).

But God sacrificed Jesus with a purposed universal scope. Jesus died on the cross for the same universal purposes. I know that this is not how you'll define the doctrine, and I think perhaps your doctrine is too narrow. But it is what it is. I am speaking of a broader doctrine - the doctrine of the Atonement, which historically deals with more than the removal of guilt.

To be clear - I believe that there are universal aspects of the atonement, and I do not believe these to be unintended consequences. I believe that Jesus died in such a way as to make possible the salvation of all men, but to effectively redeem the elect. Do you disagree?

 

Indeed they do. As does terms like "honest", "sincere", etc. Words have meaning, and sometimes people are just unaware that there may be uses beyond their exposure. I think that may be the confusion here. The Atonement is not necessarily limited to "the removal of guilt" (expiation). But in that term, the scope is all of it. Jesus removes all of our guilt.

The doctrine of the Atonement throughout orthodox Christianity has included more than "removing guilt". I am surprised you thought otherwise, but I also realize we all come from a variety of backgrounds and educations. But as an example that it is not "unorthodox" to treat the Atonement as a more extensive doctrine I will again point to my reference to Piper and add Leon Morris (I glanced at my shelf and saw one of his books on the Atonement). Morris wrote an entire book on the Atonement, explaining it's meaning and significance. And no, it's not a tract. He goes through the Atonement in terms of propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, etc.

So my understanding that the Atonement includes Christ's purchase of an legitimate offer of salvation for all mankind and the effectual redemption of the elect is not a view outside of orthodox Christianity. It is just that you are unfamiliar with the Atonement as a more complete doctrine, which, if you are being honest, is surprising given your stated background.

 

I though that perhaps this definition would help you understand how others have defined the Atonement. Here is the definition that Daniel Akin gave for Atonement:

"Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by offering Himself as a sacrifice, by substituting Himself in our place, paying in full the penalty of our sin and actually bearing the punishment which should have been ours, satisfied the Father, effected a reconciliation between God and man, and became our justification by imputing His righteousness to us through faith in His perfect work of atonement."

Regardless as to your disagreement with the definition, it is within orthodox Christian faith, and it includes more than the expiation of guilt. So even in mere definition we have some disagreement, but I was treating the topic as the broader doctrine. I hope this help clarify how the word is actually used within Christian theology to indicate more than expiation so that this confusion can be avoided in the future. That said, it is good to clarify terms and not take for granted our own definitions.

 

Not at all. I believe the Atonement effectual not only in expiation but also propitiation and reconciliation. So I disagree with your semi-potential view (that the Atonement is only the removal of sins, excluding propitiation, external towards "purchase" and only making reconciliation a possibility). Like I stated on another thread, we are forgiven BY the work of the Cross, not because it was made possible through that work.

I agree with you that the Atonement can be defined in terms of expiation. I disagree that it is only potential in all other terms (propitiation, reconciliation, etc). I think your view too centered on man.

"The word atonement, is almost the only theological term of English origin. It was likely first used in Tyndale's English translation as derived from the adv. phrase atonen, meaning "in accord," literally, at one. In the English Bible, it is mainly used to translate theHebrew word kipur, although it is used once in the King James New Testament to translate the Greek word katallage (see Romans 5:11). Most modern translations render this word "reconciliation" in its other occurrences throughout the N.T."