In a recent post I said that Scripture is interpreted for us by the Holy Spirit, so a helpful line of consideration is to see if the Holy Spirit has taught the same thing through church history. Understanding that there has always been false teaching throughout church history, we aren't simply considering tradition or even preponderance of content. We're looking for a thread, as it were, of constant agreement from the beginning until today. If you interpret Scripture in a brand new way, it suggests the Holy Spirit has failed up until you came on the scene. I thought it would be interesting to do a sample run on this concept to see what we can see.
Consider, for instance, the topic of the Atonement. What exactly is that? Well, in all cases, in order to interpret Scripture, you have to use ... you know ... Scripture. Starting with "Well, in my opinion" doesn't work. What does Scripture say? Go from there. You can't interpret Scripture from "my opinion." You have to interpret it from Scripture. So what does Scripture say? Well, the Old Testament is full of atonement, a sacrificial system devised by God that included perfect lambs and scapegoats and all for the atonement of the sins of Israel. The concept carries over into the New Testament seemlessly. The author of Hebrews wrote, "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb 9:22). John the Baptist said about Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29). Same concept, new covenant. Jesus said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Isaiah prophesied that YHWH would lay on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6). Paul wrote "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Gal 3:13). Paul wrote of Jesus as "Whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith" (Rom 3:25). He told the Colossians that God canceled our "record of debt" by "nailing it to the cross" (Col 2:13-15). Leviticus says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life" (Lev 17:11) and Ephesians says, "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:7). Atonement, then, must include biblically a ransom, the shedding of blood, appeasement of God's wrath (the meaning of "propitiation"), redemption, payment. These factors aren't simply opinions; they're biblical.
So what does history say on the subject? The first theory of the Atonement was known as the Ransom Theory. Now, where do you suppose they came up with that cockamamie idea? Oh ... yeah ... Jesus. He said it. Not so radical, then, I guess. Actually, literal. Now ransom is a payment paid for the release of a prisoner. Okay, good, we have payment. Got it. In time, others came up with other theories. Mind you, other theories are not, in and of themselves, a problem. They just have to correspond to what we know. Anselm offered the Satisfaction Theory, holding that God's honor was offended by sin. Someone else offered the Moral-Example Theory that held that Jesus died to teach humans to be moral. (How the logic works on that I'm not clear, but ...) And so on. My point is that the Ransom Theory came straight from Scripture. When other theories surfaced, they were fine as long as they came straight from Scripture and didn't contradict the one that, you know, Jesus offered. To say, "Well, this also occurred in the Atonement" is fine, but "No, that Ransom Theory is wrong and my new theory is right" is simply contradicting Jesus, which won't work at all. When Jesus claimed He came to pay for sin and your pet Atonement theory says, "No, He did not," you know it can't be from the Spirit.
There are not a few who object to the Penal Substitutionary Atonement idea. They don't do so because it violates Scripture. They do so because it violates their opinions, their preferences, their own prior values. "A God of wrath who needs appeasement? Never!" Except it's in Scripture (e.g., Rom 1:18). "Jesus appeased God's wrath on our behalf? Don't be silly!" Fine, but that's what the texts say. "What kind of God requires blood for sin?" The God of the Bible ... repeatedly. And -- here's my real point -- that's what was believed in the first theory of atonement. If your version doesn't agree with that version (which is rooted directly in the words of Jesus), it would seem that you might be suffering from deception. My point here is not the Atonement. My point is that Scripture is interpreted for us by the Spirit. He doesn't change; He doesn't make mistakes. We have, biblically, deceitful hearts, so we have to count on a reliable aid to understand God's Word. He's that reliable aid.
11 comments:
A bit off topic, but I've always thought that there are aspects of all of the major atonement theories that contain Biblical Truth, and that a consolidation of all of them might be valuable.
Obviously, the notion of a sacrificial system of atonement runs clearly through scripture. I've heard it argued that YHWH killing animals for their skins to cover Adam and Eve was the first picture of atonement in scripture. I'm not 100% sure that's the case, but it's interesting to consider.
To your topic, I agree that the notion that the Holy Spirit was somehow lacking for over 2000 years until he spoke to some random guy on the internet seems fanciful to say the least. Further, to argue against scripture and historical consensus based primarily on one's feelings/Reason/critical thinking ability or anything grounded in one's self seems presumptuous.
The only problem I have with the current Ransom Theory is who the ransom is paid to. I think that most of the other theories have good parts, but if you hold to only one, you're missing out on the grandness of the work Christ did.
Craig, I wrote one on that a while back and agree. The problem, however, is that some of the "atonement theories" don't include anything about ... atonement. An atonement theory ought to say how atonement was achieved, but some say, "Jesus came to show us a way" or the like with no atonement mentioned.
David, your "problem" is the same problem they debated back when it first came out. Yes, yes, Jesus paid the ransom. To whom? Some said Satan and some said God. Of course, if it was Satan, it makes no sense because that suggests that something was owed Satan, and that's nonsense. God the Son gave His life to pay God the Father for my sins, canceling the certificate of debt. That question, though, is why the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory came about because it is a more robust answer. Not a contradictory answer; a robust answer.
Stan,
I agree. Yet, I do think that there is a sense in which Jesus did come as an example to us, although it's not necessarily an atonement. But yes, I think that each theory has some Truth to it, and that synthesizing them probably gives a fuller picture. If I have to choose one, I'd argue that Substitutionary Atonement probably is the best option, but that it's not 100% prefect. Robust is a good term
This is an example of how difficult it is to express something that can't be fully understood in terms that we can comprehend, it should be understood that the term SA is shorthand for a robust doctrine with significant biblical support.
Once again, a helpful, solid post on the right way to think--i.e. biblically.
Craig, yes, Jesus is an example of Christian living, but the Moral-Example Theory says that is the purpose of His dying on the cross. It in fact denies any atonement or ransom or any salvific work.
David,
I'm aware of that, and in fact pointed out that fact. However, I'd suggest that without Jesus' life (which is our example) Jesus' death wouldn't have meant what it did. My point is still, that there might be a grain of something in even the Moral Example theory that adds to a more full understanding of The Atonement.
Art,
Well, I guess someone showed you how dreadfully wrong you are.
Sorry,
Instead of Art, that should have said Stan. I guess that's what I get for not proofreading. There is a devastating dismantling of your (Stan) posts that showed up over the weekend. It's making me question whether or not you really know what you're talking about. The use of scripture and historic Christian scholarship brought to bear on your posts is breathtaking in it's depth. I'm quite sure that you are considering shuttering your blog after this masterful dissection of your posts.
I admire the ability of some people to take one snippet of a larger thought out of context, while simultaneously divorcing that one cherry picked proof text from the totality of scripture and insisting that it says what X thinks it says, and that doing so somehow negates the rest of the paragraph, let alone the rest of scripture.
I'm fascinated by those that think the Holy Spirit has helped them to understand that God made a mistake in the Old Testament.
Stan,
But we have no "data" to use that allows us to Reason our way to proving that the Holy Spirit even exists.
It all goes back to the most basic of all sin, pride. Wanting to be able to stand in judgement of YHWH and to find Him wanting.
Post a Comment