Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

[agedman]

One of the aspects of propitiation that is more often forgotten is that propitiation does NOT restore fellowship and it really has NOTHING to do with God's ability to love or not to love.

Rather, propitiation restores the ability of God to exercise His redemption to those whom He chooses.

Christ restored that ability once, for all time, for all people.

However, that restoration does not determine the salvation of all people, nor does it even suggest that anyone is saved.

Propitiation involves both the seat and the blood. (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10)

 

[JonC]

That sounds logical to human reasoning.

HankD

What part sounds logical to human reasoning? That if a theory denies Scripture it is suspect?

 

[HankD]

What part sounds logical to human reasoning? That if a theory denies Scripture it is suspect?

...My God, My God why have you forsaken me. The love of Father for the Son was eclipsed (perhaps) but not canceled by His wrath until propitiation was fulfilled symbolically illustrated by the darkness that overtook the earth for three hours.

Matthew 27
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

HankD

 

[JonC]

I also agree with Gathercole that, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with N.T. Wright, Wright should be considered seriously and he affirms substitutionary atonement albeit not in the “traditional way” and brings our attention to other things to see in the death of Christ.

Too often, at least on this forum, people lump others into camps and "vote along party lines". What is ignored here (at least, perhaps, by new comers) are the contributions to evangelical studies that N.T. Wright has offered for decades. While we may reject his ideas we shouldn't ignore them or dismiss all he has contributed for a few doctrines of disagreement. The same goes for men like C.S. Lewis and Karl Barth.

 

[JonC]

...My God, My God why have you forsaken me. The love of Father for the Son was eclipsed (perhaps) but not canceled by His wrath until propitiation was fulfilled symbolically illustrated by the darkness that overtook the earth for three hours.

Matthew 27
45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

HankD

I do believe it sounds logical (humanly) that God forsook the Son by somehow withdrawing His love (even if not entirely). Perhaps this is because of our own finite nature as we are disposed to such changes and even retractions from what we may have said at one time in the distant past. BUT God is both immutable and eternal. His Word stands. My question, then, is why would we reject Scripture to make Christ's words on the cross mean anything than what is already affirmed in Scripture?

It was God's will that Christ suffer and die. The Son was obeying the Father. God was offering Christ as a guilt offering.

Is there a reason to reject that Christ's cry of anguish, that He was forsaken by God, points to this already testified event (of God, by His will, having the Messiah endure ridicule and suffering and die at the hands of men only to be vindicated by being raised to life) in favor of a theory not stated in Scripture (that God was wrathful towards the Son as He angrily punished Him) when that theory itself denies other passages concerning God and His Messiah?

 

[Aaron]

No, it doesn't fly in the face of what Wright is saying. Wright has affirmed, elsewhere, that what Jesus did was take the "cup of God's wrath" and suffered this "wrath" for all of humanity. Christ suffering at the hands of men, by the will of the Father, that wrath that all of humanity will suffer and that alienation that all mankind experiences, in order that we may not experience the wrath that is to come is no less a propitiation. Here is the difference - NOT propitiation itself but how that is articulated in the Atonement (Wright speaks of wrath against humanity, Christ experiencing this wrath, not primarily as our substitute but as our representative).

@Revmitchell objected to my definition of propitiation being this act of Christ which delivered us from the wrath to come because it did not include an innocent victim suffering at the hand of an angry God. This is why I am not a Calvinist. But it is not a rejection of the idea of propitiation (I still insist that Christ is a propitiation, that there is a wrath to come that through His work we avoid).

Not that I completely agree with Wright but another interesting thing is that everything Wright affirmed in this article in terms of belief is directly from Scripture. Nothing that he denied is directly from Scripture. Perhaps this is an idea we could also explore.

Summed up, Wright said that Christ's death and our salvation was a microcosm of God's plan to redeem and restore his creation.

Wrath is coming to destroy this creation, but there is a way of escape. And THAT's the testimony of the Scriptures.

It's no bigger than that. It's no deeper. The Atonement is what happened at the Cross. The redemption of men. Not this creation. God's plan for the rest of this creation is that it be burned up. It's not going to be restored. It's not going to be redeemed. It's not going to be purified.

The salvation of men. THAT is the end of the story. Now tell me again how Christ did not suffer as man's substitute.

 

[JonC]

Summed up, Wright said that Christ's death and our salvation was a microcosm of God's plan to redeem and restore his creation.

Wrath is coming to destroy this creation, but there is a way of escape. And THAT's the testimony of the Scriptures.

It's no bigger than that. It's no deeper. The Atonement is what happened at the Cross. The redemption of men. Not this creation. God's plan for the rest of this creation is that it be burned up. It's not going to be restored. It's not going to be redeemed. It's not going to be purified.

The salvation of men. THAT is the end of the story. Now tell me again how Christ did not suffer as man's substitute.

Well, no. What Wright actually said in the article was that Christ's work should not be reduced down to the idea of getting people to heaven. Instead he suggests it may also incorporate things like a new creation and a kingdom. Personally, if you believe redemption so man centered then I say go for it, stand for what you believe.

 

[HankD]

I do believe it sounds logical (humanly) that God forsook the Son by somehow withdrawing His love (even if not entirely). Perhaps this is because of our own finite nature as we are disposed to such changes and even retractions from what we may have said at one time in the distant past. BUT God is both immutable and eternal. His Word stands. My question, then, is why would we reject Scripture to make Christ's words on the cross mean anything than what is already affirmed in Scripture?

It was God's will that Christ suffer and die. The Son was obeying the Father. God was offering Christ as a guilt offering.

Is there a reason to reject that Christ's cry of anguish, that He was forsaken by God, points to this already testified event (of God, by His will, having the Messiah endure ridicule and suffering and die at the hands of men only to be vindicated by being raised to life) in favor of a theory not stated in Scripture (that God was wrathful towards the Son as He angrily punished Him) when that theory itself denies other passages concerning God and His Messiah?

Had He not voiced the prophetic cry of the 22nd Psalm then I would agree:
Psalm 22
<To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.>
1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

true the psalmist does not call his suffering the wrath of God but Jesus however only cries out the first line in the Psalm so the dynamics are still unknown.

You have your human logic and I have mine to contemplate the great and glorious mystery of the atonement.

One thing we can both know and cherish is that whatever the details of human redemption involved it was accomplished;

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

three days later the resurrection;
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

And as the season of the Incarnation approaches : Glory to God in the Highest.

HankD

 

[JonC]

Had He not voiced the prophetic cry of the 22nd Psalm then I would agree:
Psalm 22
<To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.>
1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

true the psalmist does not call his suffering the wrath of God but Jesus however only cries out the first line in the Psalm so the dynamics are still unknown.

You have your human logic and I have mine to contemplate the great and glorious mystery of the atonement.

One thing we can both know and cherish is that whatever the details of human redemption involved it was accomplished;

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

three days later the resurrection;
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

And as the season of the Incarnation approaches : Glory to God in the Highest.

HankD

Read the entire Psalm. And then consider:

How was He forsaken? God was far from His deliverance.
He cries but is not answered.
But the fathers trusted in God, and He delivered them.
He is a reproach of men and despised by the people.
All who see him sneer and mock.
They say - "Let God deliver him".
Yet God brought Him forth and made Him trust Him
He petitions God for deliverance.
His suffering is described.
He pleads for deliverance.
God has not despised nor abhorred the affliction.
He has not hidden His face from Him
But when He cried to Him for help, He heard.
The afflicted will be satisfied. All who seek Him will praise the Lord.

What part of this psalm leads you to believe that God despised Christ on the cross? What part leads you to believe God hid His face from Him? Where does this psalm have God being wrathful at all to the Righteous?

This is a good example of what I mean when I say we cannot take a meaning of "forsaken" that denies Scripture itself. We can't decide that "forsake" means God has hidden His face from Him when the Psalm itself denies such an interpretation. The whole point is that God vindicates and delivers the Messiah from affliction.

 

[HankD]

Read the entire Psalm. And then consider:

How was He forsaken? God was far from His deliverance.
He cries but is not answered.
But the fathers trusted in God, and He delivered them.
He is a reproach of men and despised by the people.
All who see him sneer and mock.
They say - "Let God deliver him".
Yet God brought Him forth and made Him trust Him
He petitions God for deliverance.
His suffering is described.
He pleads for deliverance.
God has not despised nor abhorred the affliction.
He has not hidden His face from Him
But when He cried to Him for help, He heard.
The afflicted will be satisfied. All who seek Him will praise the Lord.

What part of this psalm leads you to believe that God despised Christ on the cross? What part leads you to believe God hid His face from Him? Where does this psalm have God being wrathful at all to the Righteous?

This is a good example of what I mean when I say we cannot take a meaning of "forsaken" that denies Scripture itself. We can't decide that "forsake" means God has hidden His face from Him when the Psalm itself denies such an interpretation. The whole point is that God vindicates and delivers the Messiah from affliction.

But He only cried out the first line, so that's as far as we can go with what He meant.
In fact there is no statement that He was even quoting the Psalm.
Probably but not certain.

HankD

 

[JonC]

But He only cried out the first line, so that's as far as we can go with what He meant.
In fact there is no statement that He was even quoting the Psalm.
Probably but not certain.

HankD

I disagree. I believe Psalm 22 foreshadowed the cross, to include the statement for him to call out for God to save Him, the soldiers casting lots, and the Father not hiding His face.

Christ was not quoting Scripture. He was fulfilling it.

But if not, then consider this as well - if the only part of Psalm 22 that is applicable is that first line then none of it is applicable because it has an entirely different meaning. I can't buy into that kind of logic. Psalm 22 isn't the only Scripture that type interpretation denies.

 

[Aaron]

Well, no. What Wright actually said in the article was that Christ's work should not be reduced down to the idea of getting people to heaven. Instead he suggests it may also incorporate things like a new creation and a kingdom. Personally, if you believe redemption so man centered then I say go for it, stand for what you believe.

"Wright called for seeing the atonement as "shorthand" for the full biblical story of redemption history and new creation."​

"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."​

"Instead, a "robust Trinitarian theology" is needed to show that Jesus' death radically changed the world and restored the vocation assigned to humans in Genesis 1, 2 and 3, Wright explained."
​

There you go. According to Wright, the redemption of men was not the end. It was only a microcosm of God's plan for His creation. There's no other conclusion.

 

[JonC]

"Wright called for seeing the atonement as "shorthand" for the full biblical story of redemption history and new creation."​

"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."​

"Instead, a "robust Trinitarian theology" is needed to show that Jesus' death radically changed the world and restored the vocation assigned to humans in Genesis 1, 2 and 3, Wright explained."
​

There you go. According to Wright, the redemption of men was not the end. It was only a microcosm of God's plan for His creation. There's no other conclusion.

According to Paul the redemption of men was not the end. The kingdom is here. We are given the ministry of reconciliation. Our hope is in the resurrection. All things will be made new.

 

[Aaron]

According to Paul the redemption of men was not the end. The kingdom is here. We are given the ministry of reconciliation. Our hope is in the resurrection. All things will be made new.

Except this heaven and earth, which will be burned up.

 

[JonC]

Except this heaven and earth, which will be burned up.

Do you believe that means nothing here is of consequence?

And how does this prove your claim that Wright rejects the idea of propitiation?

 

[HankD]

I disagree. I believe Psalm 22 foreshadowed the cross, to include the statement for him to call out for God to save Him, the soldiers casting lots, and the Father not hiding His face.

Christ was not quoting Scripture. He was fulfilling it.

But if not, then consider this as well - if the only part of Psalm 22 that is applicable is that first line then none of it is applicable because it has an entirely different meaning. I can't buy into that kind of logic. Psalm 22 isn't the only Scripture that type interpretation denies.

OK but I still hold to the wrath of the Father eclipsing His love for the Son for a season of propitiation.

HankD

 

[Rebel1]

People here know my position on this, so no need for me to repeat it.

 

[Aaron]

Do you believe that means nothing here is of consequence?

And how does this prove your claim that Wright rejects the idea of propitiation?

Only Christ, and Him crucified.

Give it up Jon. The sophistry you desire is not in the Gospel. God has chosen the foolish things to confound the 'wise.'

Jesus came into the world to save sinners. It's that simple.

 

[thatbrian]

We are given the ministry of reconciliation.

We are given the ministry of reconciliation. We act as ministers to reconcile people to their God. People, not oak trees.

There is some good in Wright's point about not reducing everything to personal salvation; however, Christ's blood which was spilled onto the ground did not redeem the Earth. The Earth will be destroyed and made again, while people, God's elect, will be redeemed.

 

[JonC]

OK but I still hold to the wrath of the Father eclipsing His love for the Son for a season of propitiation.

HankD

Many do, as did I at one time. One day I preached a sermon on the topic, as I had done before. I thought at the time it was one of the best I had done. That evening I was convicted of teaching my own ideas and not God's Word. I dont mean this lightly, it was a very serious matter for me and I didn't preach for a couple of years as I weighed my ideas against Scripture.

Most here would have agreed with that sermon, but even now as I think about it I have a feeling of sorrow. But this is a good as it keeps me in God's Word and reminds me of the greater responsibility we have when we teach.

So I understand your view. If I were you I don't think my mind would have been changed through argument or the testimony I just gave. We look with hope to the same resurrection, I also beliece Christ to be the propitiation for the sins of the world, and I don't think our disagreement here prevents our unity and fellowship elsewhere.