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).