Thinking about the Atonement or Reconciliation

[JonC]

Perhaps this quote will help understand the two main differences in thinking about the reconciliation between God and man in Christ:

Is this God's plan, to become a human being and die, so that God won't have to destroy us instead? Is it God's prescription to have Jesus suffer for sins he did not commit so God can forgive the sins we do commit? That's the wrong side of the razor. Jesus was already preaching the forgiveness of sins and forgiving sins before he died. He did not have to wait until after the resurrection to do that. Blood is not acceptable to God as a means of uniting human community or a price for God's favor. Christ sheds his own blood to end that way of trying to mend our divisions. Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us.



(Mark S. Heim. Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross)

 

[MB]

Perhaps this quote will help understand the two main differences in thinking about the reconciliation between God and man in Christ:

Is this God's plan, to become a human being and die, so that God won't have to destroy us instead? Is it God's prescription to have Jesus suffer for sins he did not commit so God can forgive the sins we do commit? That's the wrong side of the razor. Jesus was already preaching the forgiveness of sins and forgiving sins before he died. He did not have to wait until after the resurrection to do that. Blood is not acceptable to God as a means of uniting human community or a price for God's favor. Christ sheds his own blood to end that way of trying to mend our divisions. Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us.



(Mark S. Heim. Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross)

I have to disagree with this quote; The Bible says very clearly how sin can be forgiven.
Heb_9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It wasn't God demanding the death of Christ for the sins of the world. It was the Law that demanded it. If Christ hadn't died for our sins we would all be lost.
Christ forgave sins this is true. Though Christ is the one who payed for them.
MB

 

[JonC]

I have to disagree with this quote; The Bible says very clearly how sin can be forgiven.
Heb_9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

It wasn't God demanding the death of Christ for the sins of the world. It was the Law that demanded it. If Christ hadn't died for our sins we would all be lost.
Christ forgave sins this is true. Though Christ is the one who payed for them.
MB

I agree. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. But at the same time Scripture teaches God is faithful to forgive upon repentance.

I agree with the quote if it is recognized that "God used our own sin to save us" points to Christ's blood.

 

[MB]

I agree. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. But at the same time Scripture teaches God is faithful to forgive upon repentance.

I agree with the quote if it is recognized that "God used our own sin to save us" points to Christ's blood.

Do you
you mean he used our own sin to make us miserable and self loathing. Conviction of my sins made me feel this way. My convictions brought me to Christ
MB

 

[JonC]

Do you
you mean he used our own sin to make us miserable and self loathing. Conviction of my sins made me feel this way. My convictions brought me to Christ
MB

I mean that Christ submitted Himself to suffer and die as a human being under the wages of sin. On the cross the Christ faced sin and death under the system of the world. God raised Him on the third day.

I thought the quote highlighted the difference between the views.

 

[MB]

Perhaps this quote will help understand the two main differences in thinking about the reconciliation between God and man in Christ:

Is this God's plan, to become a human being and die, so that God won't have to destroy us instead? Is it God's prescription to have Jesus suffer for sins he did not commit so God can forgive the sins we do commit? That's the wrong side of the razor. Jesus was already preaching the forgiveness of sins and forgiving sins before he died. He did not have to wait until after the resurrection to do that. Blood is not acceptable to God as a means of uniting human community or a price for God's favor. Christ sheds his own blood to end that way of trying to mend our divisions. Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us.



(Mark S. Heim. Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross)

These two questions above underlined. With the statement afterwards about the two questions is stating that God's plan is wrong. It was God's plan for His Son to die for the sins of the world. He died for the sins, men of the future would commit. Just as He died for the sins of those He already had forgiven.

We aren't saved from sacrifice but His sacrifice saves us. The debt was not to God yet the debt was to the Law and it had to be satisfied inorder that God would remain just in saving us.
The death of Jesus was required to satisfy the Law not God.
MB

 

[percho]

Perhaps this quote will help understand the two main differences in thinking about the reconciliation between God and man in Christ:

Is this God's plan, to become a human being and die, so that God won't have to destroy us instead? Is it God's prescription to have Jesus suffer for sins he did not commit so God can forgive the sins we do commit? That's the wrong side of the razor. Jesus was already preaching the forgiveness of sins and forgiving sins before he died. He did not have to wait until after the resurrection to do that. Blood is not acceptable to God as a means of uniting human community or a price for God's favor. Christ sheds his own blood to end that way of trying to mend our divisions. Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us.



(Mark S. Heim. Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross)

I believe before the foundation of the world it was God's plan to become a living soul and die. I believe that is the very reason Adam was created and the help meet woman was taken from him, so the Son of God could be manifested from a virgin woman.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this darkness, against evil, spiritual forces in the heavens.

The battle was always against spiritual forces and it would be through the blood and through the flesh that God through the Son of God would win the battle.

Speech: “All the world’s a stage”
BY WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE


(from As You Like It, spoken by Jaques)


All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.


John 3:6,7 that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. 'Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above;

 

[AustinC]

Not surprisingly, JonC falls upon philosophy to muddy the waters.

Surprisingly, MB provides a coherent and well thought out response.

Carry on...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perhaps this quote will help understand the two main differences in thinking about the reconciliation between God and man in Christ:

Is this God's plan, to become a human being and die, so that God won't have to destroy us instead? Is it God's prescription to have Jesus suffer for sins he did not commit so God can forgive the sins we do commit? That's the wrong side of the razor. Jesus was already preaching the forgiveness of sins and forgiving sins before he died. He did not have to wait until after the resurrection to do that. Blood is not acceptable to God as a means of uniting human community or a price for God's favor. Christ sheds his own blood to end that way of trying to mend our divisions. Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us.



(Mark S. Heim. Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross)

That's a really bad quote. It misunderstands just about everything about the cross. M.B. has it right.

 

[JonC]

Not surprisingly, JonC falls upon philosophy to muddy the waters.

Surprisingly, MB provides a coherent and well thought out response.

Carry on...

Obviously you are not aware that other positions (here a position articulated prior to your own) exists within orthodox Christianity.

Let me explain. There are several views of what you call "the Atonement" (what Scripture refers to as "reconciliation"). Your view is one of these views. But it is not the only one.

The waters appear muddy because you are unable to examine other views within their own contest. If you could then you would be able to evaluate the other position and accept or reject it.

But as long as you see muddy water you will not grasp other views much less evaluate them against Scripture.

There are several free online courses that are avaliable discussing these issues. I would recommend you take one and then address the topic knowingly rather than out of ignorance.

 

[JonC]

That's a really bad quote. It misunderstands just about everything about the cross. M.B. has it right.

Of course the quote does not reflect PSA. For that I recommended Pierced for Our Transgressions by Andrew Sach, Mike Ovey, and Steve Jeffery. While I disagree with PSA I believe the quote you offered was very good in defining the view.

But why do you believe that the quote is so bad in representing an opposing position?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If course, in your respective he has it right.

Your spelling is getting as bad as Y1's!

I do not believe the writer is correct as a whole either (but I do think he is closer to the truth than MB).

What do you believe he got wrong about the cross (using Scripture, please)?

Is this God's plan, to become a human being and die, so that God won't have to destroy us instead?

That is a tendentious way of stating it but how many Bible quotes do you want? 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.'

Is it God's prescription to have Jesus suffer for sins he did not commit so God can forgive the sins we do commit? That's the wrong side of the razor.

Again, we're spoiled for choice. 'For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was stricken........He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth.'

Jesus was already preaching the forgiveness of sins and forgiving sins before he died. He did not have to wait until after the resurrection to do that.

So many verses! 'For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.'

Blood is not acceptable to God as a means of uniting human community or a price for God's favor.

'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.'

Christ sheds his own blood to end that way of trying to mend our divisions. Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation.

Isaiah 53:8 again.

Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine.

I think you'll find He did. 'That God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us

Well he got this bit right. 2 Corinthians 5:21.

 

[JonC]

Your spelling is getting as bad as Y1's!


That is a tendentious way of stating it but how many Bible quotes do you want? 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' Again, we're spoiled for choice. 'For He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgressions of My people He was stricken........He had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth.'
So many verses! 'For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.' 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.'
Isaiah 53:8 again.
I think you'll find He did. 'That God might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'
Well he got this bit right. 2 Corinthians 5:21.

I was grilling hamburgers outside and typing on my phone. My spelling is not the best, but that is not typically the issue on these forums (I usually type in Word and spell check).

I also believe that He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the Tree, that He died for our sins, that He came to give his life for a ransom for many, that without the shedding of blood there is no remissions of sin, that God is both just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

But I think that the quote in the OP is more biblical than PSA. The reason is that, should I have continued, it would have been made clear that God gave His Own Son to suffer, to shed His own blood, under the curse and the powers of evil - taking on our sin and becoming a curse for us.

The difference is not Scripture but interpretation (I suspect that you know this).

My question is why do you believe the quote is bad insofar as it explains the difference between PSA and Christus Victor views.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The difference is not Scripture but interpretation (I suspect that you know this).

My question is why do you believe the quote is bad insofar as it explains the difference between PSA and Christus Victor views.

You asked for Scripture, so I gave you Scripture. I didn't see C.V. in the quote. It looked (and still looks) like some liberal mumbo-jumbo to me. Perhaps if I'd seen a bigger extract..........but I could only see what you posted and respond to that.

 

[JonC]

You asked for Scripture, so I gave you Scripture. I didn't see C.V. in the quote. It looked (and still looks) like some liberal mumbo-jumbo to me. Perhaps if I'd seen a bigger extract..........but I could only see what you posted and respond to that.

I can't speak to his position as a whole.

Mark Heim is a Professor of Christian Theology at Yale Divinity School. He is a Baptist. His work looks through what he views as "bad atonement theology". Insofar as that goes, I agree with the quote in the OP. But as I understand his view as a whole I do not know that I'd say he holds a Christus Victor position.

And it does not matter. I'm not arguing for his position. But I do find the quote accurate with the exception that I'd clarify "God used our own sin to save us" to explain that this is speaking of the blood shed for us. Christ lay down His life willingly to suffer and die under the powers of sin and death to liberate us from that bondage.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps this quote will help understand the two main differences in thinking about the reconciliation between God and man in Christ:

Is this God's plan, to become a human being and die, so that God won't have to destroy us instead? Is it God's prescription to have Jesus suffer for sins he did not commit so God can forgive the sins we do commit? That's the wrong side of the razor. Jesus was already preaching the forgiveness of sins and forgiving sins before he died. He did not have to wait until after the resurrection to do that. Blood is not acceptable to God as a means of uniting human community or a price for God's favor. Christ sheds his own blood to end that way of trying to mend our divisions. Jesus' death isn't necessary because God has to have innocent blood to solve the guilt equation. Redemptive violence is our equation. Jesus didn't volunteer to get into God's justice machine. God volunteered to get into ours. God used our own sin to save us.



(Mark S. Heim. Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross)

That theology is so wrong, as Paul and other Apostles knew that at the Cross, the sinless lamb of God agreed to become our sin bearer, as without that substitution death, God the father had no means to declare lost sinners now saved and still remain Holy!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. But at the same time Scripture teaches God is faithful to forgive upon repentance.

I agree with the quote if it is recognized that "God used our own sin to save us" points to Christ's blood.

Until Jesus died in our stead, there was no way God could forgive and still remain Holy, as he could not just tell us"I see your repentance, so welcome back"

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course the quote does not reflect PSA. For that I recommended Pierced for Our Transgressions by Andrew Sach, Mike Ovey, and Steve Jeffery. While I disagree with PSA I believe the quote you offered was very good in defining the view.

But why do you believe that the quote is so bad in representing an opposing position?

It represents the view well, but the view expressed is not biblical!

 

[Yeshua1]

You asked for Scripture, so I gave you Scripture. I didn't see C.V. in the quote. It looked (and still looks) like some liberal mumbo-jumbo to me. Perhaps if I'd seen a bigger extract..........but I could only see what you posted and respond to that.

I just finished the Apostolic preaching of the Cross, by leon Morris, and that book is well worth reading on this issue!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I just finished the Apostolic preaching of the Cross, by leon Morris, and that book is well worth reading on this issue!

I haven't red that. I wil look out for it.
The book I would recommend is The Doctrine of Reconciliation by A.W. Pink, which is surely the most detailed treatment of that particular doctrine which is mentioned in the title of this thread.

Pink writes in his introduction: "It is His sacrificial work which is prominent, yea, dominant in the reconciling of God to His people. It was by the shedding of Christ's precious blood that God was placated and His wrath averted. It was by Christ being chastised that peace has been made for us. And it is by the preaching of the cross that our awful enmity against God is slain and that we are moved to abandon our vile warfare against Him."

The Book is available on line: The Doctrine of Reconciliation You can read more about it here: The Doctrine Of Reconciliation by Arthur W. Pink