Aspects of Atonement: What Did Jesus' Death on the Tree Accomplish?

[robrecht]

That was the question I was answering. Footwasher's quotation elaborates on this topic.

Which quotation of Footwasher are referring to? Tyndale, Shakespeare, Leviticus, Stott, Augustine-Calvin, Wikipedia?

[RBerman]

Which quotation of Footwasher are referring to? Tyndale, Shakespeare, Leviticus, Stott, Augustine-Calvin, Wikipedia?

I was thinking of post 76.

[robrecht]

I was thinking of post 76.

How does that address the idea of determining what is 'logically prior' in God? Do you not believe in the traditional metaphysical idea of God's simplicity, essentially that we cannot define or comprehend God with our human intellect such that we cannot fathom divisions within God? Do you believe that God has revealed logical priorities within himself? How does that work? He wants to punish us, but that would logically contradict his love for us, so to avoid contradicting himself he makes his love a priority over his anger and justice? Or God the Father sent God the Son to satisfy God's anger, requirement of just retribution, or something like that?

[hedrick]

Dodd's study is also criticized by David Hill in his detailed semantic study of hilasterion, in the book Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Hill claims that Dodd leaves out several Septuagint references to propitiation, and also cites apocryphal sources.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation

I actually looked at Hill. This isn't a technical issue. "dodd just missed some passages, so he's wrong." Hill and Dodd evaluate the same evidence differently. Much of this is because the OT isn't really explicit about how sacrifices worked, so people read their own assumptions into it

Conservatives normally think that God requires punishment for all sin. Hence the OT sacrifices are seen as punishment. I don't think that's consistent with Jesus' teachings, which see God as happy to forgive us if we repent, without leaving a further debt. I see the conservative view is ultimately a Protestant holdover from the medieval Catholic view that even after God is reconciled, there's something further due. The result of this is an assumption the Jesus' death satisfies that requirement, in parallel with the sacrificial system, which played that role also. These assumptions are deeply enough ingrained that they produce different understandings of the same passages and the same words. Liberal Protestants, who largely don't (I'm coming to believe) share the Western Augustian perspective are tending to be influenced by anabaptist and Eastern voices on issues such as the atonement.

[robrecht]

I actually looked at Hill. This isn't a technical issue. "dodd just missed some passages, so he's wrong." Hill and Dodd evaluate the same evidence differently. Much of this is because the OT isn't really explicit about how sacrifices worked, so people read their own assumptions into it

Conservatives normally think that God requires punishment for all sin. Hence the OT sacrifices are seen as punishment. I don't think that's consistent with Jesus' teachings, which see God as happy to forgive us if we repent, without leaving a further debt. I see the conservative view is ultimately a Protestant holdover from the medieval Catholic view that even after God is reconciled, there's something further due. The result of this is an assumption the Jesus' death satisfies that requirement, in parallel with the sacrificial system, which played that role also. These assumptions are deeply enough ingrained that they produce different understandings of the same passages and the same words. Liberal Protestants, who largely don't (I'm coming to believe) share the Western Augustian perspective are tending to be influenced by anabaptist and Eastern voices on issues such as the atonement.

I agree with what you are saying, but I think you might be misinterpreting "the medieval Catholic view that even after God is reconciled, there's something further due." The idea of penance is simply repentance, of allowing oneself to be changed ever more completely by God's grace and expressing our thankfulness to God and praise of his glory. It is not because God's forgiveness is not complete, bur our conversion is not fully complete.

[hedrick]

The other basic assumption I see here is the concept that righteousness means moral perfection, and that salvation has to be merited. Since we obviously aren't perfect and can't merit anything, God is thought to credit us with Christ's righteousness. I certainly do accept substitution. But I think this, like the idea that sin must always be punished, has no basis in the Bible. I recently looked at all occurrences of righteous or righteousness. In all but 2, it indicated living as God wants. This is not perfection, but includes repentance when needed. Plenty of normal people are called righteous.

Conservative Protestants most often quote two passages. One of a place in Malachi where the prophet is very discouraged about Israel, and says that no one is righteous. As far as I can tell this is not intended as a doctrinal statement that no one but Christ is righteous, but comes from that context. Paul quotes that passage, of course. One issue I've come to see in inerrancy is that it seems to lead people to ignore characteristic treatments of an issue and focus on the most unusual treatment, as here.

Anyway it's interesting to watch Calvin treat Romans. I generally agree with his treatment of the atonement in the Institutes, but when he looks at justification by faith he takes it for granted than when Paul says our faith is imputed as righteousness, he really means that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us. I see no basis for that in the text. I don't think it causes problems for Calvin's overall theology, but it does lead to some odd detailed exegesis.

As far as I can see, when Paul says that faith is imputed as righteousness, he means that God treats our faith as fulfilling his requirement, i.e. it is treated as living the way God wants us to, which is what righteousness means.

[robrecht]

The other basic assumption I see here is the concept that righteousness means moral perfection, and that salvation has to be merited. ...

Who is it that you think are making these basic assumptions? I agree with you about inerrancy.

[hedrick]

Who is it that you think are making these basic assumptions? I agree with you about inerrancy.

Calvin, certainly, but as far as I know, classic Reformation theology see righteousness as something that we can't have and can only be imputed from Christ. I don't know early theology as well as the Reformation, but my impression is that some of this goes back to Augustine.

[robrecht]

Calvin, certainly, but as far as I know, classic Reformation theology see righteousness as something that we can't have and can only be imputed from Christ. I don't know early theology as well as the Reformation, but my impression is that some of this goes back to Augustine.

I must have misunderstood. I though you were saying that the basic assumptions were that some assume that we should continue to strive for ever more perfect moral perfection in order to merit salvation. I though maybe you were trying to characterize Catholics this way. We do believe the former but not the latter.

[hedrick]

I must have misunderstood. I though you were saying that the basic assumptions were that some assume that we should continue to strive for ever more perfect moral perfection in order to merit salvation. I though maybe you were trying to characterize Catholics this way. We do believe the former but not the latter.

Of course we should strive for perfection, but not to merit salvation.

No, my understanding of a common Protestant view is that in order to be saved we have to be righteous, and we can only be righteous if we are sinless. Since this is impossible, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. I think this misunderstands both the Biblical meaning of righteous and Paul's use of imputation.

I'm not describing Catholic views here, though it seems that the Protestant position I'm describing could only have arisen in the Catholic West, particularly in the 16th Cent.

[robrecht]

Of course we should strive for perfection, but not to merit salvation.

No, my understanding of a common Protestant view is that in order to be saved we have to be righteous, and we can only be righteous if we are sinless. Since this is impossible, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. I think this misunderstands both the Biblical meaning of righteous and Paul's use of imputation.

I'm not describing Catholic views here, though it seems that the Protestant position I'm describing could only have arisen in the Catholic West, particularly in the 16th Cent.

I'm not sure how much we are to blame, but I don't deny it. It seems like maybe he was a little imbalanced and probably never should have been accepted into a religious order. I don't know if the story about his fear of being killed in a lightning storm is true or not but it sounds like he suffered from a bad case of scruples and seized on a rather simplistic reading of Paul as a way out of his dilemma. I also think he had a genuine desire to reform abuses of the church, but he may have been much more effective had he remained within the Church of his day. But I've never really studied his biography so I apologize if I have offended any Protestants and I am open to being corrected.

[hedrick]

[RBerman]

I actually looked at Hill. This isn't a technical issue. "dodd just missed some passages, so he's wrong." Hill and Dodd evaluate the same evidence differently. Much of this is because the OT isn't really explicit about how sacrifices worked, so people read their own assumptions into it.

Give us more credit than that! It's not as if the term "propitiation," and its connotations, has no place in the history of Christian theology, or of the way hilasmos, hilasterion, and similar words were used in Biblical and extra-Biblical documents.

Conservatives normally think that God requires punishment for all sin. Hence the OT sacrifices are seen as punishment. I don't think that's consistent with Jesus' teachings, which see God as happy to forgive us if we repent, without leaving a further debt. I see the conservative view is ultimately a Protestant holdover from the medieval Catholic view that even after God is reconciled, there's something further due. The result of this is an assumption the Jesus' death satisfies that requirement, in parallel with the sacrificial system, which played that role also. These assumptions are deeply enough ingrained that they produce different understandings of the same passages and the same words. Liberal Protestants, who largely don't (I'm coming to believe) share the Western Augustian perspective are tending to be influenced by anabaptist and Eastern voices on issues such as the atonement.

God is happy to forgive, precisely because Christ has propitiated God on behalf of all those who call upon his name. This view may be shared between Protestants and medieval Catholics, but it can be found much earlier, as evidenced by the Vulgate texts I discussed previously, not to mention the Greek NT itself.

[RBerman]

I also think [Luther] had a genuine desire to reform abuses of the church, but he may have been much more effective had he remained within the Church of his day.

Remaining was Luther's hope as well. Unfortunately, he was excommunicated when he refused to shut up about his concerns.

[robrecht]

Remaining was Luther's hope as well. Unfortunately, he was excommunicated when he refused to shut up about his concerns.

Excommunication could have been avoided, I suspect, and even if not, is never final. I think if Luther had been more politically astute and less apocalyptic, he could have had a greater effect upon the church and been less manipulated by the German nobility. But, again, I am no expert in 16th century politics.