Modern Theology 101 - The Doctrine of Atonement

[headheart]

In our very modern times, it seems quite common to mystify the doctrine of the atonement, with phrases like 'at-one-ment' and 'oneness' etc.

Attachment 81294

When I first arrived on TWC in 2006, my very first question was about the Atonement, and while I was reading through a book by Dr. John Blanchard titled, 'How To Enjoy Your Bible', he raised the issue of how the word 'propitiation' in the AV is rendered 'expiation', in the RSV.

These are the passages, which he referred to:

a. Romans 3:25
b. 1 John 2:2
c. 1 John 4:10

He says the following about propitiation & expiation in regard to the doctrine of the Atonement;

'Although neither word is in common use today, they are importantly different in meaning. To put it as simply as possible, 'to propitiate' means to appease a person's wrath by means of a sacrifice, whereas 'to expiate' takes no account of the element of God's wrath. When the AV uses the word 'propitiation' it is not only using the acccurate translation of the Greek word but being completely faithful to the Bible's consistent teaching (stated nearly 600 times in the Old Testament alone ) that God has a settled, personal hatred of sin in every form, that man's sin ruptured his relationship with a holy God, and that something needed to be done to repair that broken relationship. 'Expiation', on the other hand, leaves out the whole idea of God's anger as a personal quality. One of the RSV's translators admits this quite freely, and says, 'Any attempt to show that there was something in the essential nature of God that demanded satisfaction for sin ends only in blackening the character of God.' But that lie of thinking is serious error. The Bible does not only teach that on man's side his wrath must be removed, and that the first can only be done when the second has take place. Expiation only involves getting rid of the problem; propitiation involves getting right with the person.'

From: How To Enjoy Your Bible by Dr. John Blanchard (used with permission)

With Modern Theology, the lines are blurred, and I would very much appreciate a candid assessement of what I have presented, as well as good, sound, biblical references, to articles, books etc ??

Sincerely in Jesus Christ our Lord,

Eric J. Sawyer.

[RBerman]

I like what Blanchard said. The doctrine of penal substitution is under heavy attack these days, and I'm disappointed how feeble is its defense in some quarters where it's believed. It's all well and good to speak of how God hates it when we hurt the world and each other. But we must also remember that sin is inherently "against God" as well and is an attack on his sovereignty which earns his wrath. But thanks be to God, he has purposed to bear his own wrath through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, leaving us free to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

[RoadRunner]

In the last sentence Dr. Blanchard says, “Expiation only involves getting rid of the problem; propitiation involves getting right with the person.”
Doesn’t getting right with the person involve getting rid of the problem?
I see it like this - sin defiled mankind and caused a separation between humanity and God, therefore God intended to purify what had been defiled and in doing so would be reconciled to mankind.
So the reason God was wrathful was because of sin but once he removed the sin He no longer has a reason to be wrathful; His wrath was removed when the sin was removed.

You might want to read Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén.

[Tercel]

Hi Eric,

I've read quite a bit on this topic, most scholars tend to discuss it at some length. I wrote a blog post here discussing this topic. I conclude that in Rom 3:25 Paul is saying God sent Jesus to humanity to 'reconcile' us to God. Likewise in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 I think the word means "reconciler", "mediator", "peace maker".

Two caveats... Firstly, there really just aren't enough surviving examples of the usage of this word to be absolutely sure what it means. Any attempts at guessing its meaning are speculative. Secondly, even if we work out what it means that doesn't really tell us much. eg my conclusion that Paul is saying Jesus reconciled humanity and God doesn't tell us anything about how he did that.

I don't like using the words 'expiation' or 'propitiation', because the average person doesn't understand what they mean. I find it's always easier to communicate and think by using simple clear explanations than technical terms most people don't understand. For this simple reason I can't regard either 'expiation' or 'propitiation' as a legitimate English translation since most English readers wouldn't understand it. That said, I basically agree that the 'propitiation' meaning (ie 'reconcile', 'to make favourably inclined') is the more-correct of those two. But again, that tells us nothing about how he does that or who he does it to. So focusing too much on the hilasterion word just isn't all that helpful.

I find it interesting that some people associate a "propitation" reading of hilasterion with proof of Penal Substitution. I am personally a counter-example to this: I hold a "propitiation" reading of hilasterion and am strongly opposed to penal substitution. I'll give an analogy to explain:
You never do your share of the cleaning and your wife gets upset with you for it. You could buy her flowers to appease her. Or you could start doing your share of the cleaning. Both achieve reconciliation (ie "propitiate" her), but only one of the two actually fixes the underlying problem (ie "expiates" the problem). So if you say that you propitiated/reconciled your wife it tells me nothing about whether you gave her flowers or started doing your share of the cleaning. As Blanchard phrased it "Expiation only involves getting rid of the problem; propitiation involves getting right with the person." Getting right with the person doesn't tell me how you got right with the person, only that you did it somehow.
Penal substitution is a bit like the flowers, it's a way of getting right with the person that doesn't involve fixing the underlying cause of human sinfulness, it achieves propitiation without expiation - "justification" without needing "sanctification" first. In some other atonement views, human sanctification removes the underlying cause of God's anger, which achieves propitiation through expiation - "justification" as a result of "sanctification". So to say that God and man have been reconciled really helps us very little in working out how they were reconciled... so I see little connection between penal substitution and the fact of propitiation. The connection is rather, that if expiation could be proved then penal substitution would have to be false because it denies expiation.

I'm curious about what you are referring to when you say "Modern Theology". There is an academic journal with that name, but I doubt that's what you're referring to.

[headheart]

In the last sentence Dr. Blanchard says, “Expiation only involves getting rid of the problem; propitiation involves getting right with the person.”
Doesn’t getting right with the person involve getting rid of the problem?
I see it like this - sin defiled mankind and caused a separation between humanity and God, therefore God intended to purify what had been defiled and in doing so would be reconciled to mankind.
So the reason God was wrathful was because of sin but once he removed the sin He no longer has a reason to be wrathful; His wrath was removed when the sin was removed.

You might want to read Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén.

Hi Road Runner,
I find that starting with ourselves is part of the reason why we never really understand the doctrine of the atonement.
I believe first: G_d is Holy, Holy, Holy and as such he is so very perfect, that not one of us will ever be able to even stand in His total presence, without the atonement. Whenever G-d has revealed himself to our race, it has always been frightening. Hence the Cosmos, the angels and prophets, and finally the incarnation. G_d is always putting a shield between Himself and us. The problem is not G_d's as if he were somehow rattled, it is our need to reduce G_d to understandable terms such as anger, wrath that we make Him to be so. It is because when we approach G_d it is like being in front of an extremely powerful x-ray machine, that is almost deadly to our very existence, and as long as we are covering our sins our experience of Him will cause us to perceive Him as awful. But when we confess and forsake our sin, then we begin to understand the atonement, not as a doctrine but as an actual experience, and progressively so, as we learn of the height, depth, breadth, and length of the unsearchable riches of all that He has in Jesus Christ.

Thanks for the read. I will look around.

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[headheart]

I'm curious about what you are referring to when you say "Modern Theology". There is an academic journal with that name, but I doubt that's what you're referring to.

Hi Tercel,

'In our very modern times, it seems quite common to mystify the doctrine of the atonement, with phrases like 'at-one-ment' and 'oneness' etc' (op.)

I have bookmarked your blog-post and will give it a read when I have rested. Thanks.

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer

[headheart]

I'll give an analogy to explain:

<snip>

When I think of DOT, I think of 'the Lamb of G_d', 'the cross', 'the sacrifice' and 'the blood that was shed, for the remission of sins' These ideas are very graphic and easy to understand.

The idea of Oneness, is certainly top A for me. Whatever needed to be done to put us right with G_d, is not yesterday, today or tomorrow's news. It was something worked out by G_d, on our behalf.

Our participation in this is represented in the two (non-sacramental graces) - 'Christian Water Baptism' and 'The Table of the Lord'.

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[headheart]

Add 1: Modern Theories of Atonement:

The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).

The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).

The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.

The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.

Aulén claims to be reintroducing the "classic idea of the atonement," the Christus Victor theory. He says it is the "classic" view of the atonement reflecting the Early Church Fathers as well as Scripture and distinguishes it from the later developed Satisfaction theories of the middle ages which he calls the "Latin" view. Aulén states that Satisfaction theory was only fully articulated by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century, and the Moral Exemplar Influence finds its genesis in Peter Abelard and has been popularized by 19th and 20th century liberal theologians.• Edited by a Moderator •

• Edited by a Moderator •

From: Atonement of Christ @ Wikipedia

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

Moderated By: TolkienFan

Please do not exceed fair use of copyrighted material.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[hedrick]

Hi Eric,


Penal substitution is a bit like the flowers, it's a way of getting right with the person that doesn't involve fixing the underlying cause of human sinfulness, it achieves propitiation without expiation - "justification" without needing "sanctification" first. In some other atonement views, human sanctification removes the underlying cause of God's anger, which achieves propitiation through expiation - "justification" as a result of "sanctification". So to say that God and man have been reconciled really helps us very little in working out how they were reconciled... so I see little connection between penal substitution and the fact of propitiation. The connection is rather, that if expiation could be proved then penal substitution would have to be false because it denies expiation.

I agree with much of your posting. But I would point out that you have reversed the model that most Protestants accept. I would say that justification recognizes (or in some contexts, establishes) our acceptance by God. This puts us into a relationship through which God will lead us to sanctification. I.e. the goal of justification is sanctification.

You are correct that in 3:25 Paul doesn't explain how atonement works. He simply says that in Christ God is actually dealing with our sins, not just passing over them. My reading of this is that he deals with our sins by placing us "in Christ", a relationship within which Christ, through the Holy Spirit, will regenerate us. While he doesn't explain in 3:25, later he discusses more specifics. In Rom 6, Paul says that we are regenerated because through our union with Christ we die to sin and are raised to new life. What does that mean? Through him our old self dies and is replaced by a new one. I agree with you that this actually deals with the problem. It isn't just a way of trying to pacify God by giving him flowers. But it deals with the problem by changing our motivations. Paul's idea that justification puts us into a position to be sanctified is that the same as Jesus' position that good trees produce good fruit. We need to be "born again." But the purpose of being born again is not just to be an exciting spiritual experience. It is to produce a renewal of our character and lives.

By the way, I should note that giving flowers is not a useless gesture. It is normally done as a sign of repentance. It's a lie unless it is followed by changed behavior. But there's a lot to be said for signs.

[headheart]

Add 2: The Historic Theories of Atonement:

The Ransom Theory:

The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.

The Recapitulation Theory:

Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. See main page on Recapitulation theory of atonement

The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory:

The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man).• Edited by a Moderator •• Edited by a Moderator •


From: Atonement of Christ @ Wikipedia

Sincerely,
Eric J. Sawyer.

[Zguy28]

Perhaps more than one theory apply. For instance, I hold to Penal Substitution, but I also see Christus Victor in play as well.

[RBerman]

Perhaps more than one theory apply. For instance, I hold to Penal Substitution, but I also see Christus Victor in play as well.

Right. The problem is with those who actively deny penal substitution, not with those who either hold multiple aspects of the atonement as true or those who haven't given it much thought.

[headheart]

Right. The problem is with those who actively deny penal substitution, not with those who either hold multiple aspects of the atonement as true or those who haven't given it much thought.

Hi RB, and Zguy28,

This thread is very stimulating and insightful, for me, and after following the link 'Penal Substitution Theory' under the heading 'Penal Substitution' (above), I discovered the following under the sub-title: Propitiation Language:

"The language of propitiation specifically implies God's hatred of sin and emphasizes the gracious work of Christ as sin-bearer ( Romans 3:25 ). The Bible further includes the forensic, legal language of justification ( Romans 3:20-26 , Romans 4:25 , Romans 5:16-18 ) These images make clear the reality of our guilt and the required penalty." ( link )

There is a ( link ) to: "Nothing But The Blood" by Mark Denver @ Christianity Today, which reads as follows:

"I've just been told that I'm too Atonement-centered."

My sister in Christ was serious, humble, and a little confused. I said, "What do you mean 'too Atonement-centered'?" I had never heard the charge.

A Christian friend told her that she talked too much about Christ's death, which dealt with our guilt due to sin. I responded that knowing and accepting this truth was the only way to a relationship with God, and that I didn't think it was possible to be "too Atonement-centered."

Few other doctrines go to the heart of the Christian faith like the Atonement.

Congregations sing at the top of their lungs:

"My sin, not in part but the whole, has been nailed to the cross, so I bear it no more, praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!"

(...read more...)

I could help noticiing that most of the Scripture mentioned in the sub-heading 'Protiation Language' is from Romans 3-5 Seeing as PS, was extended by the 16th century Reformers, out of Anslem's - Satisfaction Theory, would I be correct in thinking that his ideas were also developed from studying Romans and .. (NT), or could he have been working straight ouf of the Old Testament ?



This is fun!



Sincerely,

Eric J. Sawyer
Ghostbusker



-------------------------------
Propitiation @ Theopedia

[RBerman]

I have no knowledge of Abelard's thought process. My primary interest in such matters is whether a given doctrine is defensible from Scripture, not so much the history of how we came to figure that out.

[headheart]

I have no knowledge of Abelard's thought process. My primary interest in such matters is whether a given doctrine is defensible from Scripture, not so much the history of how we came to figure that out.

Abelard? Okay, I will look around, maybe someone else knows.

Peace,
Eric