 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| AsstEd Member Joined Aug 8, 2008 31 posts Location: Winnipeg, MB |
 Atonement |
Posted Oct 21, 2009; 9:41 am |
|
| Do you think MBs have a good understanding of what the atonement means? Why or why not? |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Oct 21, 2009; 1:14 pm |
|
No and I doubt most Christians have not studied the various beliefs within Christianity on the Atonement. My guess is that most would believe whichever theory they were most exposed to without any study on their own.
Here are 12 theories on this subject - http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Jesus
Which do you think is most accepted by MBs ? |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Oct 23, 2009; 10:55 am |
|
I started reading materials that links posted by AsstEd led me to and found them interesting. Were they not in the first post on this thread? I can't find them now. Were they taken down? Is the controversy among MBs that "politically correct" that Asst Ed is not allowed to post links to materials on alternate understandings? (Or am I imagining this and the links are on some thread I have forgotten how to find? 
Anyway, I would say that I was raised on the penal substitution theory of atonement without hearing it labelled. I lived in small towns and our preachers were not highly formally educated in theology, if at all. I don't recall ever hearing any other explanations of atonement.
What I guess I don't get is why people would be upset at others for suggesting (and pointing out) that scripture presents more full-orbed truths about any particular topic than we may have been taught before. I have seen this on other topics and in other denominations. For example, if you pick certain scriptures, you will believe that all sickness is a result of sin and the fall. Therefore, since God hates sin and sent Jesus to overcome it and to deliver us, it is always his will to heal every sickness every time. Therefore, if one is not healed it is either lack of faith or sin in their life. Imposition of this belief causes enormous hurt, judgment, false guilt, etc. It has a certain view of atonement, namely that "healing is in the atonement," Jesus bore our sin AND our sicknesses. Therefore, since (according to evangelicals) one is saved (delivered from sin and its penalty) by simple faith in Jesus and confessing him with the mouth, we are also healed (delivered from sickness and its consequences) in the same way. Just as God cannot "refuse" me salvation if I repent, believe in Jesus, and confess him as Lord ("thou shalt be saved",) I am "entitled" to healing because it is "in the atonement" just as sin is, and because it is solely a consequence of sin. I can "claim" my healing and, just as I cannot see a physical evidence of being saved from sin, once I "claim" healing, I am healed whether I can see it or not. If I don't keep confessing my healing ( in the face of evidence to the contrary) the devil can "steal my healing." (Since he is the thief who comes to kill steal and destroy.)
The above fails to account for all kinds of other scriptures as well as most people's life experiences. Perhaps we all know people who have been taught along these lines whose faith is rocked to the core (and maybe shipwrecked) when someone whose healing they fervently prayed for and deeply believed in does not happen - and then they get "blamed" for lack of faith and/or sin.
So, I am rambling. But I am quite wary about insistence that there is only one "right" way to understand something. To me, the claim that I have "the" truth and others who hold another scriptural view do not, is arrogant and overestimates one's own capacity to know all truth. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| perhaps we are not a monolithic group |
Posted Oct 23, 2009; 4:04 pm |
|
In response to the AsstEd's question, I'm not sure that there is a specifically "Mennonite Brethren" understanding of Christ's atonement. I tend to agree with Sudsy that more than likely individual members are influenced significantly by the environment in which they have been nurtured as Christian believers.
I also agree with Sudsy's observation that there are many theories about the atonement which have been put forward. It seems likely that no one theory will be able to replace the multiperspectival reality of God's great work of reconciliation through the incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and ascension. There likely will not be a "theory for everything" related to God's act of atonement.
Theories have a purpose. They offer conceptual frameworks to guide action. However, theories cannot replace the reality which they seek to represent or explicate. Any theory of the atonement will be finite in scope and limited in terms of how comprehensively it can express the dynamic work of God's salvation. No theory can replace the ongoing active work of God as a living Reality within history, and within the hearts and minds of Christian believers.
Theories need to be evaluated based on the criteria appropriate to the subject matter. Theological theories can be measured according to the diversity, ethical integrity, emotionality and service to others demonstrated within the biblical texts. The complexity of the social and historical realities to which God's act of atonement applies means that multiple "ah-ha" moments can occur. Not all of these epiphanies will be covered by any one theoretical approach.
This is why new theories have been put forward within history. There is a social and historical component to each theory of the atonement but none can replace what God has done, and continues to do, through Christ and the Holy Spirit. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Oct 23, 2009; 6:16 pm |
|
Lorne wrote:
| Quote: | | I started reading materials that links posted by AsstEd led me to and found them interesting. Were they not in the first post on this thread? I can't find them now. Were they taken down? Is the controversy among MBs that "politically correct" that Asst Ed is not allowed to post links to materials on alternate understandings? (Or am I imagining this and the links are on some thread I have forgotten how to find? |
Lorne, you are correct. To my recollection 2 posts have been removed at the beginning of this Thread. One from the Assnt Ed - which put us on a blog type site regarding the Study Conference. And another post of mine which took us to a resource site which had Presentor notes and other information.
But before we get our knickers in a knot: it is possible that the software that runs this Forum can't handle it when we post links especially it seems from within the MB. That being said some explaination about the 'missing posts' would be appreciated. My initial response to having a post deleted wasn't positive - I hadn't even cussed or anything. 
I'm assuming we can find the information we had been linked to on the Canadian Conf website. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Oct 23, 2009; 6:23 pm |
|
| actually, I think Assnt Ed tweaked things and started a new Classroom called - Confessing Jesus in a Pluralistic World. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2009; 12:05 am |
|
Hello Lorne and WCFOM, could you be looking for the links that are included in the Online-only Content forum of the MB Herald classroom? I have been following the two links provided there - one by the AsstEd and one by WCFOM. Personally I resonate with Mark Baker's concerns about focusing on only one understanding of the atonement - i.e. the penal substitution theory.
The penal substitution understanding of the atonement developed in the 16th century. For some reason, strong advocates for this understanding often divide the application of the atonement into two categories. The two categories are 1) atonement offered only for the elect and 2) atonement offered for all. It seems that for many this dichotomy can become a flashpoint in thinking about the extent of the atoning work of God. Some are worried that if the declaration is made that Christ died for all, then all are necessarily saved.
The missing link between the polar ends is human voluntary agency. Human voluntary agency means that a human being can say 'yes' or 'no' in response to God's reconciling action.
Generally, Calvinists are worried that allowing human agency into the equation implies that salvation becomes a human act as well as a God-act. Their concern is to affirm 'faith alone' rather than any combination of 'faith and works'. God alone is the One who acts to save those God has elected for salvation.
Generally, those who believe in the need for some responsive human action to the atonement have a less deterministic view of human agency. The atonement is seen to be a God-act, however the personal effectiveness of God's action becomes available through the human choice to respond positively to God's reconciliation or to reject it. While the offer is for all, not all will choose to enter into (participate in) God's act of atonement.
A lingering question concerns "What about those who have not heard the gospel?" This question is addressed differently by the various positions on human agency.
Last edited by roadrunning on Oct 24, 2009; 9:58 am; edited 1 time in total. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2009; 9:19 am |
|
LINK
Link to Cnd Conf resource page for the Study Conference
I hope I am using the correct computer syntax |
|
|
|
| lornewel Member Joined May 11, 2004 553 posts Location: Abbotsford |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2009; 9:43 am |
|
| I discovered the links I was looking for under Re-discovering the scandal of the cross. |
|
|
|
| AsstEd Member Joined Aug 8, 2008 31 posts Location: Winnipeg, MB |
| disappeared links |
Posted Oct 29, 2009; 1:16 pm |
|
Sorry for causing confusion, then disappearing!
The links were not taken down, only posted elsewhere. Link to an online article on atonement by Mark Baker here, and other articles and book titles here.
The Canadian conference event page provided above provides links both Mark Baker's and Doug Heidebrecht's presentation notes, to reflections on the study conference at the Herald journal, and to Gil Dueck's Bible study. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| three topic for discussion |
Posted Oct 31, 2009; 2:17 pm |
|
There are a number of key components to the Penal-Substitution Theory of the Atonement which make it unique from other theories. I was wondering if other participants on this forum would be interested in discussing the following.
1. The history of penal-substitution theory.
2. The characteristics of the penal-substitution theory and how these differ from some other theories.
3. How penal punishment and forgiveness are related to each other?
I will briefly discuss each of these here as an opening contribution. If others choose to enter in, that would be great.
1. History of the penal-substitution theory (I will use PST for short): In Theopedia (Satisfaction theory of atonement) the following can be found.
Around 1000 AD, St. Anselm of Canterbury formulated the ‘satisfaction doctrine’ into a cohesive systematic theology. Anselm argued that human sin (human disobedience) defrauded God of the honor was worthy of. Christ’s death was the ultimate act of (human) obedience and gave God great honor. Because Christ had not sinned, Christ’s surplus of obedience could repay the deficit of honor other human beings owed God. Christ’s honor paid for our lack of honor.
John Calvin, and other Protestant reformers, shifted Anselm’s satisfaction theory from God’s honor to God’s need for punishment. The important difference is that “For Anselm, Christ obeyed where we should have obeyed; for John Calvin, he was punished where we should have been punished.”
I would be interested in discussing Calvin’s view of the atonement in light of other historical views.
2. The PST focuses the atonement on God’s need to punish or to ‘satisfy God’s wrath’. Human sacrifice (the undefiled sacrifice of a sinless human – Jesus Christ) is required to appease God’s anger toward sinful humanity.
Some other theories of the atonement see Christ’s death as the result of human acts of violence and evil which God is willing to endure and forgive in order to conquer sin and evil. They do not see God as the one who demands the human sacrifice of Christ in order to forgive.
To understand the PST view more fully in comparison to other historical theories of the atonement, it is important to go back into history and examine theological views on human sacrifice.
I would be interested in discussing the matter of human sacrifice if anyone else is.
3. There are a number of different ways of theorizing about the relationship between penal punishment and forgiveness. Calvin saw the need for punishment in order to forgive. The matter of election of some but not all comes into play here. Election is a controversial theological idea and deserves further discussion in MB circles when PST is being discussed.
For some other theories, God’s forgiveness eliminates the need for punishment but still allows room for God’s justice and the ultimate destruction of evil.
I would be interested in discussing the relationship between forgiveness and justice if others are. |
|
|
|
| Sudsy Member Joined Sep 23, 2003 2833 posts |
| |
Posted Nov 1, 2009; 3:29 pm |
|
Although I have a brief knowledge of some of the theories, I think I better leave this debate to the theologians. I take it from looking briefly at some of Mark Baker's comments on this that the main concern is in being more effective in evangelism by sometimes using alternative presentations of the Gospel that are not based foundationally on the penal substitution theory.
Is this the main objective of doing this study - to become more effective soul winners ? It seems to me the main problem with being effective is in not presenting any Gospel message in words. I have seen the Holy Spirit do His work to John 16:8 with some very simple presentations of the Gospel. However, I don't have a problem with fine tuning one's presentation through studying various presentations of the same Gospel as the Spirit leads. Yet, IMO, it must retain the same basic Gospel that we find in 1 Cor 15:1-8. Although we may prefer a different presentation to use, many have been saved through the penal substitution presentations, including my family. I believe God works in powerful ways as the scriptures are presented and they expose man for who he is and what he needs.
Anyway, I am eager to read what others have to share on this subject. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Nov 2, 2009; 9:37 am |
|
Gay Lynn, I hope some others will engage with this Thread.
I remember a line from a systematic lecture dealing with the Cross many long years ago which seems to have stuck. It went something like this: the Cross is like a diamond and can be viewed from various perspectives (i.e. the different theories about what was accomplished on the Cross).
I will likely be an interested reader when (hopefully) other Forum members engage with this thread. I’m wondering if at its core this is more of a systematic debate (important though it may be and is something a bit foreign to Anabaptist thought?). I’m wondering why there must be a ‘controlling metaphor’ in regards to our view of the Cross? Must we sign off on only one controlling theory? I reread the 2 Herald August letters to the editor on the atonement subject. One writer argues that PSA is the foundational view that the bible presents (interesting argument and perhaps an argument which could be studied via the biblical exegetical route rather than systematics. The other writer argued that the debate matters because PSA personalizes our encounter with the Cross while other views do not.
Link to August Herald letters
link |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| the letters expressing concern |
Posted Nov 2, 2009; 10:18 am |
|
Thanks for posting the link to the Herald letters expressing concern about letting go of the PSA theory. It seems to me that the main concern is that the meaning of Christ's death not be lost. This is my concern as well. Christ truly died to 'save us from our sins' and to 'give us eternal life'. This, I believe, is the central meaning of the atonement.
There is a conceptual configuration I use which is drawn from I Corinthians 15:12ff.
In Adam, (as humans) all die. In Christ, all will be made alive "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (see I Corinthians 15:22,26)
Without the death and resurrection of Chirst, we could not be 'made alive'. Christ 'overcame' death through his resurrection, providing access to life eternal.
Christ was able to 'overcome' sin as well. In the usual pattern humans follow, temptation leads to sin leads to death (James1:15) and each of us, as human beings, sin and die. As we can observe and experience, human beings are all sentenced to death.
We all die a natural death as 'ordained by God'. Much as we may try to fight this 'sentence' of death, we cannot escape it through any natural means. In this way, the 'human' death of Jesus belongs to the natural pattern God has ordained: Humans are born and die. Jesus, as born to Mary, was able to die on the cross as the result of violent human acts against him (real human sins). Without the incarnation, such a death would have been impossible for God, as the divine Giver of Life, can not be 'put to death'.
Uniquely, as both human and divine, Christ 'overcame' both sin and death. Jesus did not sin when tempted. He remained obedient to the end of his life. Though he was killed on a criminal's cross, he obediently endured this shame for the hope of the resurrection. And his hope was realized. Christ was raised from the dead as the 'first-fruits of the resurrection'.
A major difference between the PSA view and some other views of the atonement is "Who needed Christ to die?" The PSA view sees God as needing Christ's death in order to retain a particular element of justice in relation to the punishment of human sin.
Wayne House, in his analysis of the various atonement theories, points out that it could be humans - not God - who needed Christ to die. God, in his sovereign love and power, met our human need by choosing to give the incarnate life of His Son to atone for the disobedience of humanity which led to 'the sentence to death' in the Garden of Eden.
In all of this analysis, it is important to remember that God is Trinitarian, as 'three persons in One" . The PSA view seems to divide the persons of the Father and the Son such that the death of the Son was somehow distinctly removed from the Father, other than the Father mourns having to destroy His Son. |
|
|
|
| gay lynn voth Member Joined Jan 25, 2005 693 posts |
| understanding is not necessarily 'systematic' |
Posted Nov 2, 2009; 11:02 am |
|
WCFOM - you noted: | Quote: | | I’m wondering if at its core this is more of a systematic debate (important though it may be and is something a bit foreign to Anabaptist thought?). I’m wondering why there must be a ‘controlling metaphor’ in regards to our view of the Cross? Must we sign off on only one controlling theory? |
I see the discussion of theological ideas as the attempt to come to a shared understanding of who God is and what God has done and is doing among us. Some theologians do think that this understanding needs to be 'systematic'. Systematic implies a coherent and logical arrangement of all the theological parts within a whole or complete system.
Not all theologians think that theology can be as 'neat and tidy' as 'systematic theology' would like it to be. The question about the relationship between systematics and the Bible is simply: Does the theological content of the Bible display a 'systematic' approach or is the theology of the Bible more 'messy' than a systematic theology would have it be?
If we try to place our human theories about God 'on top of' or 'in control of' what God is doing, I believe we will miss much of who God is and what God is doing. The Bible gives us a diversity of perspectives, in and of itself.
The 'system' of the biblical texts gives a historical view - set in time and space - as well as a divine, eternal view - the God's eye view from before creation till the 'end of the ages'. It seems likely that human beings will not be able to construct one controlling theory that can contain all the diversity of natural human history, let alone the eternal perspectives of God who is 'before and after time'. That seems a bit much to expect from any human theory.
I see Mark Baker to be making this point - The Bible itself is providing more than one view of the atonement when it talks about the saving work of God - in and through Christ.
God is so Great - beyond a full human comprehension. The work of the atonement is multi-faceted and extends into history till the 'end of time' when all will be fully reconciled to God so that "God may be all in all" (I Cor. 15:19) I agree that our need for clarity and systematic understanding should not replace, overshadow or denigrade the theology of the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
