Nature of the Atonement

[Andre]

Also, Andre, a comment about Romans 8:3. Why did God send his son "for sin"? The answer is in verse 4, "in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us". You see, in chapter 7, Paul describes his stuggle to keep the law and his inability, in his flesh, to do so. However, a benefit of Christ's atonement for sin is that, by faith, we are filled with the HOly Spirit so that we can actually please God, though we are still in the flesh. God's sending Christ "for sin" is not the point of the atonement, rather it is a benefit of the atonement for those who believe.

I do not understand how this works against my position at all. You seem to be arguing that since I hold that sin is the real thing condemned on the cross, that I deny that this works to the benefit of the person who accepts Christ and gets the Spirit. I do no such thing. God's condemning of sin at Calvary - his breaking of its power - obviously is - as you say - "a benefit of the atonment for those who believe.

 

[Andre]

So are you saying you are not accountable to God for sin? Or are you saying you have the ability to not sin?

I know it is very unfashionable to say this, but I take Paul seriously when he describes a state where sin is the guilty party over and against the person who is "infected" with sin. In Romans 7, Paul absolves "himself" of blame - the text is pretty clear even though it does not sit well with our traditions.

Now I am not 100 % sure about the "degree" to which a human being can resist this "virus" that we all inherit from Adam - I suspect that we cannot. And therefore, when I read "the wages of sin is death". I understand this as:

"The inevitable result of being born with a sin nature is that we sin and that the result of sin is death, but of course it cannot be "death by punishment" since we cannot resist the sin nature and it is conceptually meaningless to talk about punishment in respect to things we cannot control".

I think that many Christians have a huge conceptual problem that they hope everyone will ignore - and in fact it is largely ignored - and that problem is this: if man cannot resist the sin for which he dies, how can that death be understood as punishment, since the very concept of punishment entails the implicit understanding that the person to be punished had the option of not doing the thing s/he is being punished for.

So I think that if I am born with a sin nature that forces me to sin, I still have a big problem - my sin leads to my death (unless God intervenes). But that death cannot properly be thought of as punishment since one cannot be true to the concept of punishment if one uses it in such a context.

It would be like saying a child born with HIV is being punished when that child succumbs to AIDS.

 

[swaimj]

These and other texts show that the word "cursed" does not necessarily involve punishment.

Again, in Genesis 3, because of sin, those who are involved in the entrance of sin into the world are cursed, that is, punished. The serpent is cursed, the woman is cursed, and the man is cursed by having to work to get from the ground what once came naturally. I disagree with you here, but I don't expect to convince you. Others will have to read the arguments and decide for themselves. Thanks for the interaction, I have enjoyed it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

As a Orthodox Christian, whose been a Baptist his whole life and even took a Catholic RCIA class before becoming Orthodox, one thing that surprised me the most is that the Orthodox view on the Atonement is radically different than the West’s view.

Looking back as a Protestant and what I was taught, in classical Substitionary doctrine, God’s justice is understood to have been offended by the sin of man (for Anselm, it’s not so much justice as “God’s honor”). God’s justice or honor is “infinitely” offended in the most classical treatments. Thus, man infinitely deserves infinite punishment. However, God’s love responds with infinite mercy and, in Christ’s death on the cross, He offers His only Son as a substitute for man, Christ Himself bearing the burden of the wrath of God on behalf of all humanity. In accepting His substitution on our behalf (by faith) man comes into a saving relationship with God.

There is no Orthodox complaint with the mercy of God or with Christ’s death as God’s saving act for mankind. The primary complaint is with the imagery of God’s wrath being raised to the point of dogma - that is to a place where the whole turn of a central doctrine of the faith depends upon this image. Equally problematic is the language about God’s justice, which is frequently described as “requiring satisfaction.”

The Orthodox problem with these images from what I have learned is that they are just that: images. The Orthodox Church teaches that, through Christ, we can know God, though God in His essence is unknowable. The mystery which surrounds God and even our knowledge of Him is essential in Orthodox understanding. There is always a warning within Orthodox theology when we speak very plainly about God - that we know only what God has made known to us - and though we know Him, that knowledge is itself frequently a mystery - something that cannot be expressed sufficiently in words.

Thus to speak of God’s wrath (as the Scriptures certainly do) is not to say that God is angry in any way comparable to the anger of man (which is what I thought as a Baptist). To speak of God’s wrath is a theological statement about the rupture in our relationship with Him and should not be confused with a statement about how God feels. Much use of the imagery of wrath in modern conservative Protestantism is often used in this literal manner, coming dangerously close (and in some cases crossing the line) of saying things about God that are simply untrue and deeply offensive.

There are as well problems with speaking of God’s justice in terms that are all too human. St. Isaac of Syria famously remarks that we know nothing of God’s justice, only His mercy.

St. Issac's argument is drawn from examples such as the parable of the workers in the vineyard - those who begin work late in the day are paid the same as those who work all day. There we see only God’s mercy, not His justice (the Saint says). That God is just is not a point of argument - what it means to say that God is just, however, remains largely a mystery. Anyone who claims to know what he means when he speaks of God’s justice is delusional.

Of course, raising such questions can sound like an echo of liberal Protestant attacks on Scripture and its reliability. The Orthodox Church does not question the reliability of Scripture, only its misuse or misinterpretation. In general, Orthodoxy is uncomfortable with a dogma that seems new or foreign to its own continual usage. If it is central then why does it find no place in the Creeds or the Councils?

Of course, Orthodoxy did not face the same opponents as the West has had within its own internal life. Conservative Protestants, having been wearied by the constant shifts and changes and chimeric positions of liberal Protestants, are justifiably cautious when things that seem so certain for them are questioned by anyone.

Orthodoxy has never wavered on the atoning death of Christ, nor questioned that His blood was shed for us, nor that He is the only way to the Father. The language of Orthodoxy has been shaped in the crucible of the great doctrinal debates surrounding the Trinity and the Doctrine of Christ - as well as within the spiritual world of apophatic theology, in which great care is taken not to assert of God what cannot be asserted. This language and this world have preserved a spiritual Tradition that has not wandered from the Truth nor lost its mooring in the reality of God. Conservative Protestants can be understood in their anxieties, but their anxieties cannot be justified in the face of Orthodox faithfulness.

Orthodox questions about Substitionary Atonement language and imagery are a worthy discussion for Protestants. It is the voice of Christian Tradition, rooted in the Fathers that call for carefulness when speaking of God and circumspection when asserting something as dogma. Orthodoxy is no stranger to dogma and holds it in the highest regard (you can’t imagine), but just so, it questions a dogma when it cannot find it within its own two-thousand year history of councils and canons.

Something to think about…

In XC
-

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Andre
I am not sure how the above text can be reconciled with the position you hold. Paul says that he cannot do what he knows is right. How can a person be responsible for a behavour that s/he cannot control.


GE
Paul didn't say that. Read everything he said; he said Christ is able to deliver him from his body of death - which means that's how Paul was able to do what he otherwise was not able to do. More important: That is not what counts in the judgment of the atonement; what counts in the judgment of atonement is what Jesus is or was able to do FOR and on behalf of us.

Is the alcoholic responsible for his own state? Or is alcohol - or God - to be blamed? No one sinner is sinner because of sin; he is sinner because of himself, and therefore responsible for those very sins he enslaved himself to and cannot help doing. What do you think is sanctification? It is the saved sinner's LIFELONG battle against his own self his own old man his own sin and sinfulness. You do not deny sanctification, do you?

Andre:
Plus, at the cross, God condemns sin, not Jesus.


GE:
God made Christ sin for us, and condemned Christ in our place. That's primary Protestant Faith. That is major Protestant Faith. That's the whole Protestant Faith.

If the reader - that is you now - let go of doctrinal pre-commitments ands look at this text as objectively as possible, it clearly assigns the responsbility to him and absolves no one - not in the least degree. It did not dissolve Christ even: He had to pay the full price for forgiveness of sins; that, friend, is 'atonement'.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Can you define 'atonement' or 'the nature of atonement' in one word? That only word is Grace.

I am going to look at your profile Andre. I think you are very young. And understandably, much confused. God does not mind those things while he loves your soul. That is all that counts.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

So, I was wrong, 1958, hey? And a believer at 19? It must be your 'interests' that confuse you: "Artificial intelligence" and such stuff! Over my head; I must admit!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Reminds me of when I was a youngster of about 19. I wasn't the brightest 'intelligence' there is; today still isn't. I hoped I could improve my IQ a bit. So some preacher came to our town and gave answers to question; I asked him mine, and he was quite perplexed. Now later on I realised, God knew the best when He gave me what I have between the ears. And from then on I was never worried about how much brains I had; only about the fact I use so little of it.

I think it's much the same with Grace. Grace that forgave my sins, is all the Grace I ask or could wish to ask of our loving heavenly Father.

 

[Andre]

I am not sure how the above text can be reconciled with the position you hold. Paul says that he cannot do what he knows is right. How can a person be responsible for a behavour that s/he cannot control.

Paul didn't say that. Read everything he said; he said Christ is able to deliver him from his body of death - which means that's how Paul was able to do what he otherwise was not able to do. More important: That is not what counts in the judgment of the atonement; what counts in the judgment of atonement is what Jesus is or was able to do FOR and on behalf of us.

You are arguing a different point here. I quoted Romans 7 where Paul says that he cannot do what is right:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out

So, naturally, I raised the very legitimate objection that we cannot be held responsible for that which we cannot control. I agree with you that Christ enables us to do what is good. But the point remains: Paul, at least in this text, describes a state where he simply cannot do what is good. And to the extent that this is true, he cannot be legitimately held accountable (unless there was previous freedom - see below).

No one sinner is sinner because of sin; he is sinner because of himself, and therefore responsible for those very sins he enslaved himself to and cannot help doing.

Paul says this:

20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Your point only works if there was some previous freedom Paul had in respect to "doing what is right". I think that the Romans 7 text is non-commital here. Are you saying that Paul is only now enslaved and that he is still accountable because in the past he "freely" allowed himself to let sin in the door? If so, that position clearly does work with the text, although it does seem to contradict the original sin doctrine.

I am indeed open to the assertion that Paul here is describing but one aspect of the sin problem, focusing on "sin as a power which invades me and takes over so that it (sin) is the responsible party". Despite implications by me to the contrary, I want to go on record as saying that I am unsure about the degree each unsaved person has in respect to "choosing" to sin before ultimately becoming enslaved.

However, there are some very challenging contradictions that we "let slide" in the church. And in this context, perhaps the biggest one is the idea that we are born with an irresisitable inclination to sin and yet we are also morally accountable for the sins that result.

That view is, frankly, absurd - the only way we can be morally accountable for sin is if we have the power of contrary choice. I am up in the air on the matter of whether we have that choice or not (before accepting the lordship of Jesus).

To this point, the reader will understandably see me as denying that freedom. I apologize for the confusion.

 

[Andre]

If the reader - that is you now - let go of doctrinal pre-commitments ands look at this text as objectively as possible, it clearly assigns the responsbility to him and absolves no one - not in the least degree. It did not dissolve Christ even: He had to pay the full price for forgiveness of sins; that, friend, is 'atonement'.

Paul is clear in Romans 8:3. It is not Jesus that is condemned at Calvary, it is sin. I am not sure how you work that into your position:

3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,...

 

[Andre]

Deleted my own post - sorry

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Andre:
"You are arguing a different point here. I quoted Romans 7 where Paul says that he cannot do what is right:

For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out"

GE:
And Paul is still arguing the same point in Romans 7:24-25!

Now read 8:1: There is therefore underline 'therefore' - "No condemnation to sin ...??" Answer me that?

 

[Marcia]

I know it is very unfashionable to say this, but I take Paul seriously when he describes a state where sin is the guilty party over and against the person who is "infected" with sin. In Romans 7, Paul absolves "himself" of blame - the text is pretty clear even though it does not sit well with our traditions.

Now I am not 100 % sure about the "degree" to which a human being can resist this "virus" that we all inherit from Adam - I suspect that we cannot. And therefore, when I read "the wages of sin is death". I understand this as:

"The inevitable result of being born with a sin nature is that we sin and that the result of sin is death, but of course it cannot be "death by punishment" since we cannot resist the sin nature and it is conceptually meaningless to talk about punishment in respect to things we cannot control".

....It would be like saying a child born with HIV is being punished when that child succumbs to AIDS.

As I pointed out before, you must read Rom. 7 in the context of the rest of Romans and the rest of the NT, and the rest of the whole Bible. I think you are making a very wrong interpretation about sin being like a virus, a view I've never heard before.

If you cannot accept the points made by others here that counter yours, then do you accept the fact that God tells us we are accountable, even if you don't understand it??

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; Rom. 3.19

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Very well answered! Amen!

 

[Andre]

If you cannot accept the points made by others here that counter yours, then do you accept the fact that God tells us we are accountable, even if you don't understand it??

Marcia - I responded to this, but somehow my post was lost. Sorry, but I choose not to retype my lengthy response. My short answer is this: I still think that sin is a "force" but that we may be able to resist it. To the degree that we can resist it, we can indeed be held accountable.

How do you make sense of the Romans 8:3 statement about sin being condemned. I will keep pointing out - that verse says sin was condemned, not Jesus.

 

[Andre]

Now read 8:1: There is therefore underline 'therefore' - "No condemnation to sin ...??" Answer me that?

I am not sure how answering this question undermines the position that God condemned sin at the Cross and not Jesus. Perhaps you can tell us why you think 8:1 is relevant? You seem to think that the only way there can be "no condemnation" is for Jesus to have been punished in our stead. That would be a circular argument.

I do have something to say about Romans 8:1, though. Note what Paul goes on to say:

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For the mind set on the flesh is (O)death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7because the mind set on the flesh is (P)hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

8and those who are (Q)in the flesh cannot please God.
9However, you are not (R)in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God (S)dwells in you But (T)if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
10(U)If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who (V)raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, (W)He who raised (X)Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies [a]through His Spirit who dwells in you

In Paul's writing the word "for" functions like "because". Paul is here re-visitng what he wrote in Romans 2. In Romans 2 - even though many in the reformation basically ignore that material or come up with wild theories to make it "go away" - Paul says that there will be a works-based judgement at the end at which some will indeed receive eternal life based on their works.

Now here in Romans 8, he explains how this works. In 8:3, God has condemned sin - a fact that I think you guys are basically ignoring - and he gives the Spirit. As the above text says, the Spirit then molds us into the kind of person who will pass the Romans 2 judgement.

This is why there is no condemnation - not because God has to "punish" someone so that the world can be saved, but rather through the condemning of sin on the Cross, and the action of the Spirit, we become the people who will indeed pass the Romans 2 judgement.

Remember - we can be healed by his "stripes" without those stripes being directed at Him (Jesus). I think Romans makes a compelling case that sin is the real target of God's wrath, not Jesus.

 

[Andre]

My argument about the nature of the atonement does not hinge solely on Romans 7 and Romans 8:3 - I believe that other material in Romans, and material from the Old Testament supports the following general model:

"Gods' plan of redemption is to first build up sin in national Israel through Torah, then concentrate the sin of the world into one person - Jesus, in whose flesh sin is then condemned".

Highlights of the wider argument:

1. The fundamental reason why God established a covenant with Abraham (e.g. as per Genesis 15) is to use Israel to deal with the Adamic sin problem which afflicts all mankind (and all creation as well);

2. Israel re-enacts the sin of Adam in the Sinai desert with the making of the golden calf;

3. Israel is then given the Torah which, as Paul asserts in both Romans 5:20 and Romans 7, causes sin to actually increase in Israel. God's plan is underway;

4. While the plan to rescue creation from sin is indeed the "Abraham-Israel" plan, Israel cannot carry it out since she, too, is under Adam (Paul makes this argument in the early part of Romans 3);

5. Does God abandon his plan since Israel has proved faithless? No he does not - He finds a faithful Israelite to fulfill it - Jesus.

6. What are the "mechanics" of this plan - how does it work? Well, as per Romans 5:20 and Romans 7, we discern the divine intent to use Torah to increase sin in Israel. Romans 7 is about Israel.

7. In Romans 9, Paul uses the potter and pot metaphor clearly in relation to Israel and God's right to make her into a vessel fitted for destruction. The material in Romans 9 is not about pre-destination of individuals, it is part of the argument of Romans 5:20 and Romans 7 - that God has the right, as the potter, to accumulate sin in national Israel. In Romans 9, Paul compares Israel with Pharoah - and God "hardens" Pharoah to enable the great act of redemption of the Exodus. Through giving Torah to Israel, God is hardening Isreal (by accumulating and concentrating sin in her) in order that the world will be saved.

8. In Romans 11, Paul repeatedly asserts that the "stumble" of the Jew has brought salvation to the world. This makes perfect sense in the light of this model - Israel has been the place where sin is accumulated and brought to its full height. She stumbles, because God has used her to accumulate the world's sin.

9. In Romans 8:3, we have the climax: God has concentrated the sin of the world into one person - Jesus acting as Israel and then condemns it.

10. The covenant has been fulfilled.

 

[Marcia]

Marcia - I responded to this, but somehow my post was lost. Sorry, but I choose not to retype my lengthy response. My short answer is this: I still think that sin is a "force" but that we may be able to resist it. To the degree that we can resist it, we can indeed be held accountable.

How do you make sense of the Romans 8:3 statement about sin being condemned. I will keep pointing out - that verse says sin was condemned, not Jesus.

So that brings us back to "what is sin?" You are using circular arguments.

Of course Jesus was not condemned - he took on the condemnation we deserve because of our sin. Sin being condemned means that the power of sin was broken on the cross. Until then, men were slaves to sin. The Atonement broke that power and the veil in the Temple ripped in two. This signified that those who believe in Christ could be free from the power of sin and from the penalty of sin.

Before Christ, under Law> People strive to overcome sinful actions through obedience to the law (but are still saved by faith in God)

After Christ, under grace> The power of sin is broken; one can resist sin through God's power of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ, and one can be free from the penalty of sin through faith in Christ

The power to resist sin does not mean one can be sinless but it means one is regenerated and sanctified - there is increasing ability to resist sin. The difference in a life before and after Christ is immense - there is spiritual regeneration - the person is "a new creature in Christ" - and the believer has the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Andre]

So that brings us back to "what is sin?" You are using circular arguments.

I have been clear that sin's meaning includes, but is not limited to, an element of being a commodity or "force" - a thing that can be "localized". I do not deny that the word "sin" also refers to various actions we perform.

But I think a powerful argument can be made from Romans (and I have sketched it out) that sin has the property of being subject to localization and concentration - this is what God uses Torah for in respect to Israel.

I do not pretend to have a full model for what sin is. But for the purposes of this argument, I am asserting that sin has this feature of being a force or virus or whatever other metaphor one can use to capture the notion that it is a "thing" in an of itself, and is not only a moral category for our actions.

My argument is not circular. It would be circular if I used the assumption that sin is a "force" to make the point that sin is a "force". I have not done this. I have used an argument that sin has this property of being a thing that can be deceived, concentrated, and lured in order to show that sin is a force (or at least can be throught of as such) that was then condemned (or broken) at the Cross.

 

[Andre]

Of course Jesus was not condemned - he took on the condemnation we deserve because of our sin.

But I am making the more specific claim that Jesus was not "condemned in our place" as if there is some cosmic rule that God has to "punish" someone in order for sins to be forgiven. There are different ways to understant the notion "he took on the condemnation". I am simply arguing that this really did not involve "punishment" of Jesus but rather his being the necessary place where sin is accumulated so that sin can be condemned. Jesus dies, of course, but as the unavoidable consequence of the only solution to the sin problem - gather "sin" in one place and then, when it is thus "vulnerable", condemn it.

Sin being condemned means that the power of sin was broken on the cross. Until then, men were slaves to sin. The Atonement broke that power and the veil in the Temple ripped in two. This signified that those who believe in Christ could be free from the power of sin and from the penalty of sin.

Before Christ, under Law> People strive to overcome sinful actions through obedience to the law (but are still saved by faith in God)

After Christ, under grace> The power of sin is broken; one can resist sin through God's power of the Holy Spirit upon faith in Christ, and one can be free from the penalty of sin through faith in Christ

The power to resist sin does not mean one can be sinless but it means one is regenerated and sanctified - there is increasing ability to resist sin. The difference in a life before and after Christ is immense - there is spiritual regeneration - the person is "a new creature in Christ" - and the believer has the power of the Holy Spirit.

I am not sure if you think I would disagree with you on the above. I entirely agree with this material. Do you think I have written anything that contradicts what you have written here?