Another argument against penal substitution and similar atonement theories

Consider for the moment the fact that Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature (Hebrews 1:4). We may pull from that the fact that Jesus acts in every way the Father would, within the limitations of humanity of course. So, however Jesus acts we would conclude that God would act in the same manner.

Notice then Jesus on the cross. He was put up there unjustly. While up on the cross, Jesus asks the Father to forgive those who were crucifying them because they did not understand what they were doing. Implicit in this, of course, is the fact that Jesus had forgiven them. And yet, this forgiveness was given to those who had rejected Him as the Messiah.

If God's forgiveness is procured by satisfying His wrath, then we have a problem with the forgiveness of God the Father and the forgiveness of Jesus. Lets look at some solutions some might propose.

1) That God forgives on the basis of the satisfaction of His wrath, but Jesus can forgive without that - However, Jesus asks for forgiveness for those whom had rejected Him as Messiah, and thus one can not say that they are atoned by Jesus' sacrifice. The problem with this is that it paints a separate picture of the Father and Jesus. They are not of the exact same nature. Furthermore, one might say that Jesus is even more righteous than God the Father.

2) Jesus did not forgive them - First off, the idea that Jesus would as God to forgive someone He would not seems contradictory. Furthermore, this also paints Jesus as not knowing the nature of God because He would ask forgiveness of those when He Himself had not forgive them.

3) Jesus is predicting their future forgiveness -This denies the nature of the plea. It is a request to God, not a prediction.

4) The type of forgiveness asked for is a different type of forgiveness than the forgiveness of eternal salvation - This makes an artificial distinction between types of forgiveness no where mentioned in the Bible, and supposes that one type of forgiveness is drastically different from another form.

5) All people are forgiven - This presupposed a universal redemption, which I will not argue against here other than to say that it isn't Biblical.

The easiest understanding of the event and its implications is that Jesus had forgiven them who were not currently atoned for, and that God having the same nature does not forgive by having His wrath satisfied.

A conversation

John- So here is a question for you. Can we understand God?
Austin- No.
John- Did Jesus understand God?
Austin- Good point.

My theory on atonement theory

So in my musings for the past couple weeks, my idea on atonement theory is something that I would like to lay out there, not intended to be dogmatic nor do I intend to focus a great amount of time on it.

First off, a critique of penal substitution (a form of satisfaction theory). For those who don't know, the basic premise is that because of our sin, God is angry with us and therefore in order for God to forgive us, He takes His wrath out in the death of Christ in order to allow us to be forgiven. I have two problems with this idea:
1) It first off paints God as not all-powerful. It in a sense says that God can not do something, and that is forgive someone without seeking vengeance. Basically, this paints God as a god who is bound by some law that states that God must seek vengeance for sin. And often times this idea is portrayed in the idea that it is some spiritual law. Although, with that said, this does not destroy the idea of penal substitution, though it does mean that we need to be careful to defining wrath as spiritual law that God must follow Himself.
2) The point that I think shows penal substitution to be flawed is that forgiveness that comes from wrath is not truly forgiveness. For us, forgiveness is defined as not seeking vengeance. And yet, we conceive of God having to be unforgiving by seeking vengeance in order to forgive. This is like me beating up someone so that I can forgive someone else. While it may relieve my anger towards the second person, we would not really define that as forgiveness. To paint that picture as how God forgives I believe is counter to what forgiveness is.

So what then can explain the atonement? First lets see what Scripture does state about it, either in the Old Testament foreshadowing, or in the New Testament texts about the death of Jesus.

1) That as a result of the atonement a person is forgiven (Leviticus 4:20, among others)
2) That there is a cleansing that comes from blood (Exodus 29:36-37; Leviticus 12:7-8; Hebrews 9:13, 22)
3) By Jesus' blood, there is forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28)
4) Jesus' blood is seen as cleansing our conscience of sin (Hebrews 9:14)
5) Jesus is said to have taken upon our sins in His body so that we could live to righteousness (1 Peter 2:24)

This is by no means exhaustive of all verses, and this does not include some verses that I find questionable.

So what can include all these aspects? There is forgiveness, there is cleansing of sin, there is a substitution, and there is an righteous living that comes from it. At first impression then, there seems to be a dual work of atonement, that Christ's blood averts wrath and that Christ's blood takes away sinfulness and brings about righteousness. If this is the true idea of the atonement, then this still leaves us to explain how the atonement in both manners.

Allow me though to propose that Christ's death directly only brings about the cleansing of sin, and that forgiveness is a result of the atonement (though they are inseparably linked in sacrificial thinking). How so?

First off, consider that it is said that Christ came in order to take away sins in 1 John 3:5. This establishes, I believe, that Christ's atonement definitely about taking away sinfulness as this fulfills the mission of His coming.

What about forgiveness? Lets take the example of how we are to forgive presented by Jesus. In Luke 17:3-4, Jesus commands to forgive people that repent of what they have done. Why would Jesus say we should forgive then (though by no means absolving us of forgiveness in other situations)? I speculate that is because we can have some certainty that they would cease from their offending activity by saying they could repent.

Apply this to God then. Imagine a man repenting of their sins (desiring to stop sinning, but yet the atonement had not happened? How could the possibly change their life so as to fulfill their claim to repentance? They could not, if by Christ alone we are freed from sin. But if there is a hope for a fulfillment of repentance by the death of Christ, then God would forgive a repentant man because they could stop the offending activity through Christ's blood. Thus, in that way, there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22).

This would explain then why only once in the New Testament is forgiveness ever spoken of in direct conjunction with blood (at least in my recollection), and that is in Matthew 26:28, which is obviously based upon the Old Testament sacrificial understanding (by the phrase "blood of the covenant" which comes from Exodus 24:8) where atonement procures forgiveness (but not speaking of how). In other instances though, it is never said forgiveness itself is received by the blood of Christ.

There are obviously other passages to explain that some might see forgiveness directly coming from Christ's death, and those should definitely be discussed. I am not 100% confident in my idea, and hence I am definitely not dogmatic about it.

Thoughts? Opinions? Agree or disagree? Keep in mind that I am not fully developing atonement theory here, but I am speaking more about the benefits and how they are obtained. Why Christ's death is an atonement is something a bit deeper and something I am not prepared yet to answer (and may never be).

Found a little free time

I've found a couple of days where I only have a test to take, so I have a little free time on my hands.

Last Sunday I changed topics from maturity to what it means to have faith as Paul uses it. It means four things:
1) Biblical faith is a trust that God can and will do what He says and not merely a belief that He exists and that He can do something
2) Biblical faith often times believes ideas that are absurd according to science and other forms of knowledge as God is a God who can and does do otherwise impossible things
3) Biblical faith does not grow weary with the passing of time, knowing that God may take 10s, 100s, or even 1000s of years to fulfill His promises
4) Biblical faith takes what it believes as a fact, and does not merely treat it as a good possibility. It does not prepare for what happens in case what is believed does not happen.

I am also preaching at the same churches for this coming Sunday and maybe the next. And while I appreciate the opportunity, I am sad as to why I have it. The pastor of the two Methodist churches is currently in the hospital and from what I heard there is a chance he may not make it. So keep that in your prayers.

Also, in my free time that I have had, I have managed to read N.T. Wright's book on Paul. A lot of interesting thoughts there, many of which I agree with, some of which I disagree with. The book definitely makes me more sympathetic to the "New Perspective" and I find myself agreeing with it to some degree. Perhaps I will write a review on it and expound my opinions on it a bit more later.

Finally, I may be becoming a student local pastor in the Methodist church.

Been busy

So the past week has been really busy and it looks to be busy for a little while. I am finishing up my last classes for my undergrad work, working on my internship at Wesley Foundation, and preaching this coming Sunday and possibly the following Sunday's. So my blogging will probably be a bit limited, if not totally stopped, until I am finished with my classes.

So this Sunday I will be preaching on Hebrews 5:12-6:2 and how, while Christ's death and resurrection that we celebrate on Easter helps us to become a new creation, we have to progress onward in maturity, whether an infant or adult in Christ (of course by the Holy Spirit).

What is a theologian?

I read "10 Propositions on being a Theologian" by Kim Fabricus of the Faith and Theology blog the other day and it got me to thinking about the topic. What all does it mean to be a theologian? Why should we study theology? What is theology's primary purpose? Where do we derive theology from?

So I am endeavoring to attempt to answer the question of "What is a theologian?" Actually, the more pertinent question is "What should a theologian be?" as the answer to what a theologian is, is a person who studies the topic of God. There is nothing more to it really. But as to what a theologian should be, the answer is not so simple.

What should a theologian be?

1) A theologian serves the Church - He does not study for his own entertainment or curiosity. They may enjoy it and may be curious regarding to truth about God, but if that is their sole or primary motivation then they are as much value to the Church as the scientist who is an atheist.

2) A theologian is to be a holy person - The author of Hebrews in chapter 5 says that the man who discerns good from evil is the one who is to be given the solid food (the deep Christian). Paul proclaims in 1 Corinthians 2-3 that the man who is spiritual (the one who is constantly follow the Spirit) is the one who understands the wisdom of God. A person who claims to be a theologian but lacks a righteous life has little true understanding.

3) A theologian is to be a humble person - Any person who takes pride in who he is and thinks much of his intellect will be extremely prone to stubbornly hold onto their ideas in the face of evidence that suggests differently. He should not think much of his intellect, but instead recognize that he is all too much prone to errors, if not even more so than others due to his heightened chance for pride.

4) A theologian is to be constantly be reforming his thought in all areas - Any person who thinks they are set in their knowledge on a certain topic probably knows very little because in all likelihood they forced their theology to be true and in fact know very little because the truth will probably bring up new questions in the area that contradict his understanding. It is like a psychologist who claims to know all there is about a certain aspect of personality.

5) A theologian is not to be a person who routinely creates new ideas - While he is to reform his thought, to create a new idea is to say that all the people of the past were in error. That isn't to say that there are not times where a theologian uncovers a new teaching, but if one is constantly coming up with something new, they are in all likelihood going to be error. Instead, the theologian express old things in a new way so that the people whom they serve may understand.

6) A theologian is to be a person who would rather be obscure than well-known - Any man who wants to be well-known is a man who faces temptation to be please other people or to conflict other people just to attain attention. They are constantly in conflict when invited to functions that recognize their theological aptitude and accomplishments because they serve as a temptation.

7) A theologian should be one who understands and explains truths in a simple manner - So often times when people think of theologians, they think of people who talk about obscure topics using terminology that competes with the complexity of nuclear physicists. And unfortunately, this is not far from the truth for some theologians. On the other hand, Jesus spoke about the deep things in a more simple manner. For instance, with Nicodemus he used birth to portray a deeper spiritual reality. Now not everyone may understand the deep truths in even the simplest manner, but theologians should not speak in 10 syllable words with thoughts only another theologian could understand, but in a way that a child could begin to grasp it. The writers of the Bible did not make a habit of speaking about things that were complicated, but they instead preferred to address the simple and explain things in a simpler manner.

8) A theologian should focus first on the practical - Too many times, theologians try to tackle the deeper issues, such as predestination, the atonement, the Trinity, etc., etc. primarily. For what purpose does this serve though? Whether the Son was subordinate or co-equal with the Father has no real matter with how a person should live their life. What is more important, the precise relationship between the Father and the Son or how a man can become more holy in their lifestyle?

9) A theologian should be a psychologist - They may not understand the neurotransmitters in the brain or know about the different mental disorders that people suffer from, but they are to understand people in relation to sin, holiness, and humility. If they don't have this, their knowledge does little to serve the church.

10) A theologian should be a counselor - Anyone who tries to understand God and His grace given to humanity needs to understand the needs of those whom God gives grace so that he could be a means of grace. While he can't save anyone, he can give deeper spiritual insight for those who struggle.

11) A theologian is not one who reads or writes many books, but one who spends much of the time they could be writing with thinking, prayer, Bible reading, and meditation - Long one, huh? Solomon says it best; "Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. There is no end to the making of many books, and much study is exhausting to the body" (Ecc 12:12 - NET). Books are pf value, and I do not mean to speak against writing and reading, but these things are wearying, and the tired theologian is the person whose capacity for understanding is weakened.

12) A theologian is to be an exegete - A person who claims to be a theologian and derives their teachings from the Bible should be obsessed with exegesis, to the point that it assumes a higher role than theology itself. In doing that, theological understanding comes naturally and is less likely to be influenced by the subconscious desires of many theologians to create something new and fresh.

If a theologian falls short of these routinely, they are coming to closer to being worthless for the church, if they are not already there.

By no means is this everything, but it is something that many theologians and those who aspire to be (such as me) can fall short of frequently.

Justification and Philippians 3:9

I previously went over the idea of justification in Romans 3:19-4:8 (Justification and Romans 3:19-4:8). There I posited that Paul does not deny the concept of justification by works in general, but rather he denies a few things:
1) Justification can be obtain by works that come form the Law of Moses
2) A man can only be justified by works
3) A man obtains his own initial justification

Paul also affirms that:
1) Justification can and is initially obtained in the repentant sinner on the basis of faith
2) The faith that justifies is the faith that mimics the faith of Christ (who is our prime example of the Christian walk) and Abraham

However, there are an ample amount of verses that discuss the topic of justification or talk about a related topic. Can we understand those verses within their context in such a way that it easily integrates with the above idea of justification? This is part of an on-going series I will be doing on this topic. You can breathe easy though. Each post will be shorter than the first one, so no need for an all-nighter with a pot of coffee in order to read anything.

Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For we are the circumcision, the ones who worship by the Spirit of God, exult in Christ Jesus, and do not rely on human credentials -- though mine too are significant.

If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless.

But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things -- indeed, I regard them as dung! -- that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of the faith of Christ (the righteousness based upon faith that comes from God). I do that in order to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. - Philippians 3:2-11 (NET with changes made in bold)

This verse is very similar to the justification verses of Romans 3. The context is talking about the Law of Moses and obedience to it. But here, the context is even more explicit. Here Paul specifically talks about his status as an Israelite and and a Pharisee and how he was blameless according to the Law.

I think Paul's statement that he was blameless according to the Law is an important thing to grasp. Many people presume that the Law was not to be followed for justification because no man could obey it. This has influence what we thought of the Law and of obedience to God's commandments. But Paul in fact states the very opposite. He was blameless according to the Law. He did follow it, and rather well (Now blameless doesn't need to be taken as perfect obedience, but rather as a person in whom there could be little fault. Blameless, in this instance, is relative and not absolute).

So at this point then, Paul describes his past status is meaningless and accounted for nothing with being a part of Christ. Instead, what was important is that he mimic the faith that Jesus Christ had (Note: "faith of Jesus Christ" here is the exact same phrase in a similar context as Romans 3:22), and it is by that faith that lived righteously.

To support further the idea of mimicking the faith of Jesus is in mind by Paul, there are two instances in Philippians that talk about emulating Jesus. First is in Philippians 2:5, "have this attitude which was also in Christ Jesus." Second is at the end of the passage I quoted up above " to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead." Here Paul talks about being like Christ in the suffers He partook, to be like Christ was when He died and as a result to take part in the resurrection from the dead. There is definitely the idea of emulation of Christ here. And Christ went through His sufferings until death by His trust in God (1 Peter 2:23). Therefore, it is very probable that Paul had in mind having the faith that Christ exhibited in order to emulate the way Christ was in suffering and death so that he (Paul) could be righteous and obtain the resurrection.

Up next in this series on justification are the verses in Galatians.