Atonement, Pt 4: Summary and Conclusion
Oct.26, 2009 in
Podcast Episodes
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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:11:36 — 49.2MB) | Embed
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 🙂
March 1st, 2011 at 4:20 am
For some reason I was only able to listen to 1:37 minutes of Atonement Pt.4…then it stopped. (Maybe I’m just too late)
Thanks for the great survey in parts 1-3 though. I never knew all these views had names. 🙂
I know it’s already long ago for you guys, but lately I had some weird thoughts about the atonement that I would like to run past yous and see what you think.
Where to start?…To me, sin has alot to do with shame. I reckon, you could (almost) say there is no sin if it wasn’t for shame. Shame is the thing that tells me that I’m seperate from God, not one. It’s the root of religion, I guess.
So I started taking shame as the core issue that needed fixin.
Since the day that shame entered humanity, people tried to get rid of it by appeasing God with sacrifices. He wasn’t the one who demanded these though.
When God called Israel out of Egypt and onto the mountain, the Israelites didn’t dare going up, but asked for a sacrifice system governed by God’s law. They said no to intimacy and made a blood covenant with God.
Wasn’t it this covenant that demanded a blood sacrifice? So my question is: What if Jesus died to appease (fulfill) the law that was put into place by popular demand (not to appease God), defeated death, and became the firstborn of a new creation that doesn’t live under shame anylonger?
I guess that is kinda the Christus Victor view…but where I differ is that the accuser/adversary/deceiver (Satan) to me is not a fallen angel, but the shame that has manifested itself in humanity (which is very much spiritual).
But my questioning goes further: I was kinda asking myself (and Father) why it was so hard for me to really genuinely have a feeling of gratitude for Jesus’ death (am I the only one?). I’m crazily joyous over the new creation that I’m part of, but his death…well I tried (and sometimes succeeded when the worship music was moody enough).
Anyway my last kinda thoughts were:
What if that is so because I have never been under the blood covenant that Israel made with Yahweh?
What if the cross was primarily for the Jews?…and the life of the resurrection for all of creation?
What if I was born into freedom?…into life?…into the new covenant?
What if I can just live in that freedom without feeling ashamed anymore?
Anyway, enough of that.
What do you reckon?
March 9th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Ulf, I just tried to listen to it and got well past the point you said it stopped for you, so maybe if you try again, you’ll be able to hear the whole thing.
March 9th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Thanx Steve, I already did. It worked. Listened to the whole thing. Was great.
March 12th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Raborn and Steve,
I’m thoroughly enjoying this conversation you’re having here.
It’s funny how in listening to other of your conversations I find some real knee-jerk reactions spontaneously jerking me up straight.
Something that is tremendous for me in listening to your heart discussions here is that it is being used of the Father to continue having my heart to become so much more malleable.
One of my long used expressions you guys often use is, “simply thinking out loud” sadly that is often not easily embraced with an old wine-skin mentality.
If ever there was a chance to further communicate with either of you via some form of instant chat, it would be a real joy.
Also I want to mention here in light of this 2 part conversation a book you might consider reading; Life After Death, by my good friend Bill Landon, you can order it from iUniverse.
His richest and best to your continued journey with Him.
March 12th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Thanks for the comments, Richard. Glad to have you along for the ride!
August 28th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Hey guys, i found you as i was researching atonement because i am also looking for out-of the box thinking. I have thought out a view that seems to me to have a lot in common with the Christus Victor theory. Some background might be in order. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witnesses, and modesty aside i might say as Paul did in Galatians that i was advanced relative to my peers because i was more zealous in the faith of my fathers. JW’s believe in a version of the Ransom that postulates that Jesus’s perfect life free of sin balances out Adam’s perfect life that became sinful. This view doesnt strike me as appropiate. And the lack of humility to other views and adhesion to a complex legal system also repelled me. And the whole concept of the ransom
For me, Original Sin is problematic at best, since it condemns us to pay for the sins of our fathers. This is Old Testament thinking (the god that spares the Sixth Generation after the first 5 are wiped out like Acan), but i hold the New Testament belief that salvation and sin should be individual. How i reconcile this is that we inherit sin through the body (DNA, etc) but that God realized this was unfair. So he sent his son to liberate us from the law, the law that condemns us and as Paul said in Romans creates sin.
For me, Jesus died to overthrow formal law in all its aspects, and to show that the law of love, and christian freedom, was superior. He overthrew law by showing how Law punished the perfect son of God, showing it to be oxymoronic and hollow. A reference to the law (im a law student) might be in order. In Angloamerican law there used to be two kinds of courts. One kind followed strictly the law. However, Kings decided that system was slow and unfair, so they created courts of equity to mitigate the weight of the law.
For me, Jesus overthrew law and put in its place equity, which means that we are judged according to “natural law.” I think this applies to atonement, since if Jesus Showed us not to follow these formal laws, then it stands to reason that all these legal theories that try to find equivalencies and ransoms, etc are deficient since God is capable of forgiving out of his grace and undeserved kindness.
That natural law revealed to Paul in Romans, Galatians, etc. teaches that salvation is individual. But the inheritance of sin doesnt allow us to realize our potential for salvation. Therefore, God judges us on the basis of our spirit (thats why Paul emphasizes so much the spirit as opposed to the fallen nature of the body). He doesnt have to, but he does it (in the process showing mercy on our fallen body) because his son showed the law, any law, as inferior and incapable of providing salvation (Galatians 3:21) That way he conquers original sin for those whose spirits, whose free will,make them try to live up to his standards.
I know the comment is long, and the thoughts somewhat unformed, but im just starting on this journey and i hope joining your discussions will be helpful, so that the truth shall set us free. I would love ur comments and look forward to them.
August 29th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Hey LuisB just noticed your comment and interested to see you were raised a JW too. Nice to hear of others being led out by Father. How long have you been out? 15 years for me and my hubby. Much love to you Bro.
August 29th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
Hey dahne i’ve been out for 3 years now. I was driven out mainly by emphasis on legalism and formalism, like the doctrine of the ransom and of hierarchy. I was brought up JW, my whole extended family is JW still and at age 17 I broke away. I couldn’t really express these uneasy feelings until I read brother franz’s books and understood how thoroughly unchristian is legalism after Jesus freed us from law and sin. I’m glad you got out as well. I’m new to these forums but I’ve felt the need to share and try if I can to get to know Father better, I would be much obliged if you could share your experiences adjusting to our Christian freedom.
August 29th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Welcome LuisB!
We are glad to have you along on the journey! I am so glad that you found these podcasts. One of our thoughts in doing these came from my own internet searches and lack of finding alot of audios of people talking about different ideas of the atonement. I have been really studying out this subject for a few years now and I am coming to radically different conclusions than the penal theory that I have been presented with for most of my life.
You said:
That way he conquers original sin for those whose spirits, whose free will,make them try to live up to his standards
Are you saying that Jesus conquered original sin only and therefore paved the way for us to begin a walk with God wherein we overcome daily sin ourselves? Just asking for clarification sake. Ah, the limits of written communication.
We have had some really good conversations on atonement in the last few months. As a matter of fact, our most recent episode which was just posted is the first part of a conversation with Brad Jersak, editor of Stricken by God?, a book about reunderstanding the atonement as a human crime and a divine victory. We will be posting part 2 in a few days. I think you will enjoy it: http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/2011/08/stricken-by-god-with-brad-jersak-part-1/
Also, I did an interview with Sharon Baker, who also contributed to Stricken by God?. Here is a link to this 2-part episode:
http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/2011/07/restoring-justice-rethinking-atonement-and-razing-hell-with-sharon-baker-part-1/
http://www.beyondtheboxpodcast.com/2011/07/restoring-justice-rethinking-atonement-and-razing-hell-with-sharon-baker-part-2/
Thanks for joining the conversation! Make yourself at home!
August 29th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Daphne,
Welcome! Thanks for joining in. I look forward to hearing more about your journey. 🙂
August 29th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Hey, Raborn! Well, maybe this sounds a bit libertino (im a native spanish speaker, im looking for the right word, possibly its epicurean). Thats the farthest thing from my mind, Christian freedom must be used carefuly. But i think that God decides to ignore in a sense that sin of the body, the sin of the flesh. He says, “hey, i know you cant be what i want you to be in the flesh, but i appreciate your sincerity.”
So for me, when in 1 Corinthians 15:56, 57 Paul says Christ conquered Law, he means all Law, and through Law, sin itself. Christ, with his death, showed the hollowness and contradiction within legalism and opened the way for loving and undeserved kindness. So when legalism ends, sin ends in a way, we are no longer judged by the sin within our flesh and its influence on our spirit, but upon the inclination of our spirit and the sincerity with which we try to bend our bodies to His will.
I dont think that we can overcome daily sin, since that would seem to contradict scripture that tells us we cannot be saved through works alone. But I do think that God ignores our fleshly sins when the inclination of our will redeems us. So for me grace is directed to our spirit (Romans 8:12-17) as god ignores the sin in our bodies (both original and daily) if we show him with our faith that our spirit wants to obey.
Now, whether the sin in the flesh influences and induces sin in our spirit, well thats another question. one that i dont feel sure about right now. But id love to discuss it.
This is all very unformed, and i look forward to hearing from you both in your podcasts and in communication. Thanks for making this place available!
August 30th, 2011 at 12:03 am
Oh raborn, and btw MAYBE this all has to do with Jesus himself being flesh and blood. 2 postulates, and then a conclusion. First, Jesus died on the Cross, though he was perfect and without sin. Second, death ocurrs through sin and sin from law. If Jesus died yet was withuot sin, then theres something inconsistent there. So maybe thats the way Jesus showed the hollowness of law and its futility. Just a thought, since that would also tie in with some of the Christus Victor theories that show Jesus triumphing over all sin. Maybe what should be said is that Jesus triumphed over all LAW, and by extension sin itself. Once again, thanks for your forum!
November 5th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Howdy! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new apple iphone!
Just wanted to say I love reading your blog and look forward to all your
posts! Keep up the great work!