Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

[Revmitchell]

NEW ORLEANS (BP) -- New Testament scholars N.T. Wright and Simon Gathercole addressed the meaning of the atonement at the 14th annual Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum, Nov. 10-11, at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

The question considered was whether substitution -- the view that Christ died in the place of sinners -- is enough to communicate the full meaning of atonement. In a departure from previous Greer-Heard forums, this year's event featured conservative Christian speakers who agree on the doctrines that all Christians, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox affirm. Wright, former Bishop of Durham for the Church of England and a leading New Testament theologian, cautioned against reducing the atonement to a single summary statement such as Christ's death means believers "can go to heaven."


Wright called for seeing the atonement as "shorthand" for the full biblical story of redemption history and new creation. Wright noted the Gospels are primary witnesses to the meaning of Jesus' death; any model of atonement that stands alone becomes "wooden and disjointed;" Jesus' death during Passover is key and showed that the Last Supper replaced the temple sacrificial system and was Jesus' final interpretation of his death; and that understanding these points should change how atonement is depicted.


Affirming that Jesus' death broke sin's power, defeated the powers of darkness and reconciled the world to God, Wright cautioned that reducing the atonement to "God needed to kill someone and it happened to be his own son" is a pagan idea imported into today's thinking.

Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

 

[Revmitchell]

The purpose in this thread is not to necessarily discuss this subject freehand but discuss the arguments made in the op in the way the theo's and prof's lay it out.

 

[JonC]

"Wright warned that today's culture thinks Christianity teaches that an angry God had to be assuaged, a teaching Wright called 'a lurch toward … pagan narratives in which an angry God demands an innocent victim.'"

I agree with Wright here. I have encountered theology that leans toward the idea that the Atonement centers on the appeasement of an angry God by way of an innocent sacrifice. This is not what is taught in the Old Testament, but it is an idea that permeates pagan doctrine.

Gathercole's observation that Romans 5 focuses on a "life for a life" exchange is not, IMHO, accurate to the text. Christ dying for the unworthy is not necessarily an exchange in terms of a substitution. Christ dying for the unworthy, the just for the unjust, is sacrifice as the righteous is offered to save the unrighteous but this does not have to be a substitution.

 

[Revmitchell]

"Wright warned that today's culture thinks Christianity teaches that an angry God had to be assuaged, a teaching Wright called 'a lurch toward … pagan narratives in which an angry God demands an innocent victim.'"

Pagan narratives are often similar in fashion to the truth found in scripture. Doesn't make what is in scripture pagan. And yes, an angry God who has to be assuaged, is what propitiation is all about. Not sure how that is missed.

 

[JonC]

Pagan narratives are often similar in fashion to the truth found in scripture. Doesn't make what is in scripture pagan. And yes, an angry God who has to be assuaged, is what propitiation is all about. Not sure how that is missed.

True. When we read the OT we can't miss that it came through an ANE worldview. But even through that worldview there were differences. For example, the idea of a temple through which man would draw a god to a city or a people is not the same as the Tabernacle. Pagan sacrifice is not the same (although it is similar) to biblical sacrifice. I suppose what has to be decided is whether or not this pagan idea of appeasing a god is something that belongs to the Atonement, or if (like with the tabernacle and with sacrifices) it means something else.

Either way, we seem to agree that the idea of appeasing an angry god through sacrificing the innocent is in fact pagan narrative. We just may disagree that it is also biblical narrative.

 

[Revmitchell]

True. When we read the OT we can't miss that it came through an ANE worldview. But even through that worldview there were differences. For example, the idea of a temple through which man would draw a god to a city or a people is not the same as the Tabernacle. Pagan sacrifice is not the same (although it is similar) to biblical sacrifice. I suppose what has to be decided is whether or not this pagan idea of appeasing a god is something that belongs to the Atonement, or if (like with the tabernacle and with sacrifices) it means something else.

Either way, we seem to agree that the idea of appeasing an angry god through sacrificing the innocent is in fact pagan narrative. We just may disagree that it is also biblical narrative.

Then you have a problem my friend since that is exactly what propitiation is. Not my word but Pauls'. Further Wright's issue was not that it is not biblical but that it should not be seen as the only or even the predominant view in scripture. I disagree with the latter but still he does hold to an appeasing of an angry God.

 

[JonC]

Then you have a problem my friend since that is exactly what propitiation is. Not my word but Pauls'. Further Wright's issue was not that it is not biblical but that it should not be seen as the only or even the predominant view in scripture. I disagree with the latter but still he does hold to an appeasing of an angry God.

While I agree that offering an innocent victim to satisfy the demands of an angry god would be a propitiation, I disagree all of those elements are inherent in the Word. Propitiation adverts undesired consequences. It is an appeasement. You have expanded the definition to incorporate more than the word actually means.

 

[Yeshua1]

NEW ORLEANS (BP) -- New Testament scholars N.T. Wright and Simon Gathercole addressed the meaning of the atonement at the 14th annual Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum, Nov. 10-11, at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

The question considered was whether substitution -- the view that Christ died in the place of sinners -- is enough to communicate the full meaning of atonement. In a departure from previous Greer-Heard forums, this year's event featured conservative Christian speakers who agree on the doctrines that all Christians, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox affirm. Wright, former Bishop of Durham for the Church of England and a leading New Testament theologian, cautioned against reducing the atonement to a single summary statement such as Christ's death means believers "can go to heaven."


Wright called for seeing the atonement as "shorthand" for the full biblical story of redemption history and new creation. Wright noted the Gospels are primary witnesses to the meaning of Jesus' death; any model of atonement that stands alone becomes "wooden and disjointed;" Jesus' death during Passover is key and showed that the Last Supper replaced the temple sacrificial system and was Jesus' final interpretation of his death; and that understanding these points should change how atonement is depicted.


Affirming that Jesus' death broke sin's power, defeated the powers of darkness and reconciled the world to God, Wright cautioned that reducing the atonement to "God needed to kill someone and it happened to be his own son" is a pagan idea imported into today's thinking.

Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

Finally, Wright and those who foster NPP admit that PST is foreign and pagan concept per them!

 

[Yeshua1]

True. When we read the OT we can't miss that it came through an ANE worldview. But even through that worldview there were differences. For example, the idea of a temple through which man would draw a god to a city or a people is not the same as the Tabernacle. Pagan sacrifice is not the same (although it is similar) to biblical sacrifice. I suppose what has to be decided is whether or not this pagan idea of appeasing a god is something that belongs to the Atonement, or if (like with the tabernacle and with sacrifices) it means something else.

Either way, we seem to agree that the idea of appeasing an angry god through sacrificing the innocent is in fact pagan narrative. We just may disagree that it is also biblical narrative.

There is real Wrath of a Holy God against all sin, and the Savior taking upon Himself that due penalty is NOT pagan, but biblical!

 

[Yeshua1]

While I agree that offering an innocent victim to satisfy the demands of an angry god would be a propitiation, I disagree all of those elements are inherent in the Word. Propitiation adverts undesired consequences. It is an appeasement. You have expanded the definition to incorporate more than the word actually means.

It is to secure propitiation for the due wrath of God that must be directed in judgement against sin!

 

[Revmitchell]

While I agree that offering an innocent victim to satisfy the demands of an angry god would be a propitiation, I disagree all of those elements are inherent in the Word. Propitiation adverts undesired consequences. It is an appeasement. You have expanded the definition to incorporate more than the word actually means.

No I haven't.

 

[TCassidy]

Psalm 7:11 God judges the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Psalm 80:4 O LORD God of hosts, how long will you be angry against the prayer of your people?

God being angry with us may not be all that pagan a concept!

 

[JonC]

Psalm 7:11 God judges the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Psalm 80:4 O LORD God of hosts, how long will you be angry against the prayer of your people?

God being angry with us may not be all that pagan a concept!

I guess it depends somewhat on how one understands this anger.

 

[JonC]

No I haven't.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you.

My point is that the word "propitiation" does not mean appeasing an angry god by sacrificing the innocent. When you made the error of stating I did not know the meaning of the word I took the comment as a rejection of my statement.

Christ was an atonement for sin to, in part, save us from God's wrath against sin (to save us from the consequences of sin which is death).

 

[TCassidy]

I guess it depends somewhat on how one understands this anger.

Yeah, I guess that is why Jonathan Edwards never wrote a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Maybe he didn't understand what God was angry about.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, I guess that is why Jonathan Edwards never wrote a sermon entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Maybe he didn't understand what God was angry about.

I agree. Maybe he didn't.

 

[TCassidy]

I agree. Maybe he didn't.

I suggest reading it.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God by Jonathan Edwards

 

[HankD]

I guess it depends somewhat on how one understands this anger.

Hebrews 3
8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.

HankD

 

[Revmitchell]

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you.

My point is that the word "propitiation" does not mean appeasing an angry god by sacrificing the innocent. When you made the error of stating I did not know the meaning of the word I took the comment as a rejection of my statement.

Christ was an atonement for sin to, in part, save us from God's wrath against sin (to save us from the consequences of sin which is death).

As many times as you have explained your position on this I have yet to understand it other than you believe that propitiation does not mean to appease an angry God. But it does.

 

[JonC]

As many times as you have explained your position on this I have yet to understand it other than you believe that propitiation does not mean to appease an angry God. But it does.

After Bill forgot his wife’s birthday, he tried to propitiate the situation by purchasing her the pearl necklace she always wanted.

Does this mean Bill appeased an angry god? No, it doesn't.

And I have not explained my view of propitiation many times. I believe you may be thinking of my rejection of Calvin's theory of the atonement, not propitiation itself.

Here is my definition of propitiation in terms of the work of Christ - I believe Christ's life and death was an atonement that, among other things, averted God's wrath. We all have sinned and the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus. I don't think this is a difficult concept.

Whatever happened to addressing the article?