Atonement, Pt 4: Summary and Conclusion
Posted by Steve - October 26, 2009
After three episodes outlining various views of atonement theory, Ray and Steve conclude the series by wrapping up their thoughts on the subject and summarizing the views discussed.
We hope you enjoyed this series, and that it has sparked some thinking about the atonement and why it can be very important in our view of the Father.
Beyond the Box: Atonement, Pt 4 - Summary and Conclusion [71:36m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Beyond the Box is the podcast of Raborn Johnson and Steve Sensenig. We have been encouraging each other in the journey outside the bounds of institutional religion for several years now and share many of our candid thoughts and questions in our podcast.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
So I followed you all the way to the end, and have yet to have my internal question answered. So I must ask it now. How does figuring out what label you fit under go beyond the box? Aren’t you actually figuring out which box you fit into with all these theory conversations?
October 27th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for the podcasts on the atonement, I didn’t understand it all but I enjoyed it and it has made me aware of a broader view. Have no idea where I fit, but I am not in the penal substition camp that I was taught in the IC. I am reconciled to God, redeemed, and part of the family and that is what matters. That is all I know.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Big C,
You said:
How does figuring out what label you fit under go beyond the box? Aren’t you actually figuring out which box you fit into with all these theory conversations?
I think you are missing the point. I don’t believe that I or Steve are trying to give people labels with which to brand themselves. Most of us who grew up in the institutional church have only been presented with a very narrow view of what it means to say “Jesus died for my sins”. Since this is such a pivotal part of our faith, I believe that we need to really wrestle with what this idea encompasses. We were simply trying to expose others to the ongoing dialog about the atonement that has been going on for centuries within the Body of Christ. When we state our opinions we are simply letting others know where we currently are in our journies, but this is not intended to try to squeeze others into a “label” that we approve of.
Going “beyond the box” does not mean that I have to come up with completely new ideas. Just by claiming the name of Christ I am grafting myself into a movement that is 2000 years old and bigger than my individual convictions. For me, the phrase “beyond the box” just means that I refuse to simply let others do my thinking for me. But, this doesn’t mean that my thinking is done in complete isolation from others endeavoring to walk in Christ.
I hope this helps!
October 31st, 2009 at 10:42 am
Ray and Steve,
Thank you for the series. I fully enjoyed it and was looking forward to each installment. And, practically, I think it does matter. If my view of God is that He is just waiting to catch me doing something wrong and discipline me, it will drive my behavior. Conversely, if I believe He is crazy about me and seeking my best at all times then I see Him as a safe place.
I was tilted toward there is probably some truth in each of the metaphors until you kind of popped that one in the head.
But doesn’t the Bible talk about the Church with many metaphors that seemingly contradict — an Army, a Family, etc. Each one sheds a different perspective of the Body.
I am still considering all that was discussed. I found much to appreciate in the Christus Victor. And it was helpful to know that it used to be ‘orthodoxy’.
Hmmmmm, today’s orthodoxy may be tomorrow’s heresy.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Dwight,
Uggh…I just finished typing a comment and the page expired…gotta start over
You said:
“doesn’t the Bible talk about the Church with many metaphors that seemingly contradict — an Army, a Family, etc. Each one sheds a different perspective of the Body.”
Great observation! This is why I am sympathetic to the Kaleidoscopic view. The Kaleidoscopic view says that there are many metaphors that help us understand the atonement and that no one of these should be described as dominant. While I agree that there are many metaphors used in Scripture to describe the atonement, I also believe that there is a dominant one: ie. Christus Victor.
The Christus Victor view is the only view that seems to necessitate the reconciliation of the entire cosmos to God. The other views seem to just describe aspects of the work of Christ from a human perspective. Christus Victor can include each of the other metaphors in a single overarching grid which includes both anthropological and universal effects. In Christus Victor God is the healer (Therapeutic view), the Substitute (Penal view), the example of love (Moral Influence view), etc. While I believe that the other views contain some great observations about the work of Christ, I think that Christus Victor is the best at reconciling (pun intended) these other views and holding them in balance with each other.
In the same way, I agree with you that there are many metaphors used to describe our relationship with God. But once again, I do believe that there is one overarching grid which holds all of the others in balance. I think that the dominant lens through which Scripture describes our relationship with God is that of a family. This seems to be a recurring descriptor throughout the Old and New Testaments. I don’t know of any other metaphor that is used so consistently or which can better help us understand our relationship with God.
This is just where I’m at on all of this. Thanks for thinking out loud with us on this Dwight. Any further thoughts you have on this are more than welcome