The Atonement Wars: Whose Atonement?

The Atonement Wars rage on in a blog post from last month of Ken Silva's on Al Mohler. It seems that Ken Silva and Al Mohler would divide the church over their pet theory of the Atonement: The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement. (Yeah you heard me right Ken, I just called the Penal Substitution model of the Atonement a theory and it is. It is just one theological theory of the Atonement out of many---so get to cracking on calling me out as a heretic because if you don't I'm sure these guys or these guys will. This post was written just for you and with you in mind).

Al Mohler goes so far as to blasphemously with idolatry proclaim:

Let’s get this straight; [in the penal substitutionary atonement] we’re either seeing the truth, or a lie. This either is the Gospel, or, it is not. The dividing line is abundantly clear; we either believe that the sum and substance of the Gospel is that a holy and righteous God—Who must demand a full penalty for our sin—both demands the penalty and provides the penalty, through His Own self-substitution in Jesus Christ—the Son—whose perfect obedience, and perfectly accomplished atonement, has purchased for us all that is necessary for our salvation—has met the full demands of the righteousness and justice of God against our sin.

We either believe that, or we do not. If we do not, then we believe that the Gospel can be nothing more than some kind of message intended to reach some emotive level in the human being, so that the human being would think better of God, and might want to associate with Him. Or, we would transform all of these categories in the theological into the merely therapeutic, and argue that the whole point of the atonement is that we would come to terms with our own problems, and come to understand that there are resources for the repair of our troubled souls beyond which we previously knew.

Dr. Mohler gets it quite wrong actually as Jesus Himself is the Gospel period not someone's pet and favorite Atonement theory. Dr. Schreiner correctly states that The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement is not the only teaching in scripture regarding Jesus' death. Although I believe that The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement is one of many valid theories of the Atonement, I don't believe it is the only theory. In fact I believe that those who hold up The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement as the only theory of Atonement grossly misrepresent God's character as revealed in Christ and therefore distort the true meaning of the Gospel. Harry Emerson Fosdick my personal hero under Jesus of course said it best when he stated:

Were you to talk to that fundamentalist preacher, he doubtless would insist that you must believe in the "substitutionary" theory of atonement - namely, that Jesus suffered as a substitute for us punishment due us for our sins. But can you imagine a modern courtroom in a civilized country where an innocent man would be deliberately punished for another man's crime? … [S]ubstitutionary atonement … came a long way down in history in many a penal system. But now it is a precivilized barbarity; no secular court would tolerate the idea for a moment; only in certain belated theologies is it retained as an explanation of our Lord's death… Christ's sacrificial life and death are too sacred to be so misrepresented.---Harry Emerson Fosdick, Dear Mr. Brown (Harper & Row, 1961), p. 136.

I also believe Brian McLaren raises a good point as well:

Theory of Atonement
Could you elaborate on your personal theory of atonement? If God wanted to forgive us, why didn�t he just forgive us? Why did torturing Jesus make things better? This is such an important and difficult question. I�d recommend, for starters, you read �Recovering the Scandal of the Cross� (by Baker and Green). There will be a sequel to this book in the next year or so, and I�ve contributed a chapter to it.

Short answer: I think the gospel is a many faceted diamond, and atonement is only one facet, and legal models of atonement (which predominate in western Christianity) are only one small portion of that one facet.

Dallas Willard also addresses this issue in �The Divine Conspiracy.� Atonement-centered understandings of the gospel, he says, create vampire Christians who want Jesus for his blood and little else. He calls us to move beyond a �gospel of sin management� � to the gospel of the kingdom of God. So, rather than focusing on an alternative theory of atonement, I�d suggest we ponder the meaning and mission of the kingdom of God.

This is why these two theories need their proper place along side of the Penal Substitution theory for a more holistic understanding of the Atonement:

The Moral Influence theory

This view of the atonement limits Christ's death to a radical example of His love that influences sinners morally but does not pay any price on their behalf. God's justice demands no payment for sin. First Peter 2:21 is the primary text for this view. "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example." But just a few verses later (v. 24) Peter refers to the subsitutionary aspect of the cross, "He Himself bore our sins in his body on a tree…" Even in this primary passage regarding the moral influence of Christ's death, it can't stand alone without the central message of substitution.

Christus Victor

This view attempts to limit Christ's work on the cross to the defeating of the powers of evil. Indeed, Col. 2:15 assets; "He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him." Indeed Christ's death defeated the powers of darkness. But directly preceding this statement in verse 14, Paul points to the substitutionary aspect of the cross by stating, "By canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross." Here as in other contexts, PSA stands in the central place.

These two views (Christus Victor and the Moral Influence Theory) are indeed presented in scripture. But they can't stand alone. These views are only complementary to the sacrificial death of Christ. Someone over the course of my studies referred to the various presentations of the cross as a choir in which all the biblical references to the cross are harmonious. I would like to adjust the metaphor and suggest that the sacrificial death of Christ is the "soloist" and the other biblical references to the cross are "background singers" that enhance the soloist's voice.

Ken Silva This Video Is For You!

After critiquing my friend and fellow Campbell University classmate Tripp Fuller as well as my friend John Harrison---I thought I'd send you this video, Ken:



Perhaps it may serve you well!

In Defense Of Drew Tatusko's Position On Scripture Continued

Continuing from my last post: TheoPoetic Musings: Scripture And Liberty Of Conscience: In Defense Of Drew Tatusko's Position On Scripture

Here is the Greek Text of John 14. The keywords I would like to highlight are commandments, words and Comforter. In Greek these words are respectively: ἐντολὰς which deals with a prescriptive injunction of religious law, ῥήματα which is distinct from the Logos(Christ) and literally means "Divine Utterances"---but does not refer to the bible and finally, παράκλητον who is the Guide that God sent to lead us to all Truths.

Thirdly, in all things Christ has authority as per:

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 28:18 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ [τῆς] γῆς.

Notice how there is no mention of βύβλος (the bible) nor ῥήματα (the Divine Utterances) in this verse but as it plainly states:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (RSV)

Therefore we can conclude that any authority the scripture has is imbued to it through Christ via the Holy Spirit.

Next here are some Baptist views of scripture:

Baptist Faith And Message 1963---I. THE SCRIPTURES

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of Gods revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.

Ex 24:4; De 4:1-2; 17:19; Jos 8:34
Psa 19:7-10; 119:11, 89, 105, 140
Isa 34:16; 40:8; Jer 15:16; 36:1-32
Mat 5:17-18; 22:29; Lu 21:33; 24:44-46
Joh 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Ac 2:16; 17:11
Rom 15:4; 16:25-26; 2Ti 3:15-17
Heb 1:1-2; 4:12; 1Pe 1:25; 2Pe 1:19-21

Roger Williams said:

"Christ is King alone over conscience is the sum of all true preaching."

A BRIEF

CONFESSION

OR

DECLARATION

OF

FAITH



XXIV. That it is the will, and mind of God (in these Gospel times) that all men should have the free liberty of their own Consciences in matters of Religion, or Worship, without the least oppression, or persecution, as simply upon that account; and that for any in Authority otherwise to act, we confidently believe is expresslly contrary to the mind of Christ, who requires that whatsoever men would that others should do unto them, they should even so do unto others, Mat. 7. 12. and that the Tares, and the Wheat should grow together in the field, (which is the world) until the harvest (which is the end of the world,) Mat. 13. 29, 30, 38, 39.

Finally, Drew is right in this:

However, a key to the problem is a misinterpretation of one passage that has been misused for all forms of biblical inerrancy and/or infallibilism.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Because scripture has its source in God means that it has a special use for the functions that Paul names here. This in no way is meant to be interpreted as plenary verbal inspiration as Muslims understand to be the source of authority for the Qu'ran. Although Silva appeals to "the literal Greek" in his post, what he fails to understand is that the Greek text of the New Testament is an amalgamation of fragments that scholars worked very hard to assemble in what they believed was the most accurate rendering of what was likely the original source.

However, even if you go to the Greek text, which one? Modern translations come from critical editions that have been edited and assembled by groups of biblical scholars based on manuscripts and fragments scattered all over the world. It is inspired because it is animated in the same way that the Spirit of God animates the human spirit to discern the unfolding of God's revelation. This is the same Spirit that hovers over the void in Genesis. Moreover, did Paul intend his letter to Timothy to be placed on the same level as the Torah, Nev'im, and Kethuvim? To claim this is highly doubtful. Scripture is useful to be sure, but to claim that Paul was ascribing the same authority to his own letters as he ascribed to those Scriptures of the Old Testament is a judgment that Christians make.

The problem is that even if we uphold that the text is "verbally inspired" and assume we have in front of us exactly what God "said" still places the burden of the person interpreting to understand what the text was supposed to mean in the context in which it was written. Further, the translations are interpretations and reading itself is an act of interpretation. Along the path from constructing the Greek text from and into so many critical editions and manuscripts there are interpretive decisions that the reader of the English text is assuming were made correctly. This is why a literal reading or "literalism" is nothing more than a hollow ideology that is less about understanding the Bible than in ascribing authority to one's self. And this is precisely why authority cannot come from just the text, but the risen Christ who reveals the unfolding grace and love of God in the church and in the world.

While Silva claims that I have "enough formal education to confuse" myself, his own reading of his mythic infallible text relies on the work of hundreds and hundreds of biblical scholars before him who brought the text to us in the state we receive it. But I am sure he will not now say that his text is an amalgamation of other more educated and perhaps more confused scholars than myself. Which makes this claim equally as odd, and equally as misinformed as his clear desire to distort the text that lies in front of him for reasons I shall not judge.

The biblical literalist in their zeal for the false doctrine of inerrancy is yet to answer which is the best text and how we would know. Most literalists continue to remain ignorant of the canonization process of the scriptures as well in their blind slavery to the dead letter of the text of scripture like their ancestors the Pharisees were rather than the Spirit of the text as Christ and Paul call us to.

Romans 7:5-6 (New International Version)
5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

See also: TheoPoetic Musings: Luther, The Biblical/Textual Critic, TheoPoetic Musings: Literal and Figurative Language in the Bible And Bibliolatry, TheoPoetic Musings: Sola Scriptura Or Prima Scriptura: Not Solo Scriptura, TheoPoetic Musings: John Dominic Crossan On Bible Literalism, TheoPoetic Musings: Historical criticism today: a word to evangelicals, TheoPoetic Musings: The Absurdity Of Biblical Inerrancy and TheoPoetic Musings: Biblical Criticism Continued.

Scripture And Liberty Of Conscience: In Defense Of Drew Tatusko's Position On Scripture

"For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else's conscience?" (1 Cor. 10:29, NRSV).

Recently Drew Tatusko tweeted this statement:

@dtatusko: our authority comes not from scripture alone, but from the risen christ.

In which Ken Silva---Fundamentalist Calvinist apologist--- took offense to and responded promptly with this post:

OUTLAW PREACHERS ARE WRONG CONCERNING SOLA SCRIPTURA
By Ken Silva pastor-teacher on Sep 18, 2009 in AM Missives

Today Andrew (Drew) Tatusko Tweets:

@dtatusko: our authority comes not from scripture alone, but from the risen christ. #outlawpreachers #badpresbyterian (Online source)

You may recall that Apprising Ministries introduced you to Tatusko, who has just enough formal education to confuse himself, in Jay Bakker, Radical Love, And Homosexuality when he made the following stupid statement:

trying to pick a fight with ken silva: http://bit.ly/16pSkB (Online source)

Well, Tatusko’s Tweet has the largely Biblically illiterate group who’ve crowned themselves outlaw preachers now sprouting up around head Outlaw gay affirming “pastor” Jay Bakker, all in a tizzy.

They’ve been ReTweeting it as if there’s some divide between Jesus—the Living Word of God—and the text of Holy Scripture—the written Word of God. And this is because all false prophets and teachers must first attempt to circumvent the Bible in order to advance their myths.

(Read full text: Here).

And subsequently Drew fired back with this post:

ken silva's reading problem
Sep 19th, 2009 by Drew Tatusko. Print This Post

Ken Silva has blessed us with another opportunity to learn what not to do. I use him for teaching moments and this is a good one. Ken Silva decided it was in his best interest to challenge a statement which I tweeted:

@dtatusko: our authority comes not from scripture alone, but from the risen christ.

Now anyone reading this who disagrees is not left with many options. Either authority is based on only scripture as if there is no living Christ to guide us, or it is a combination of the two. Quite simple. Not for Silva who needs to read into things while offering the presumption that he's got it all together for us. So this is what Silva reads from this:

Now, I have no way to know why someone like Drew Tatusko wants to work to make people think Sola Scriptura is somehow in opposition to Jesus; however, I can judge that his reasoning is fatally fallacious spiritually

.

What? A conditional statement as I made which is "not alone…but also" is not a statement of opposition where the subject and the predicate are mutually exclusive. He further confuses this by saying the following which appears to agree with the tweet I posted which got him upset:

the Risen Christ—the Lord God Almighty Who’s placed His authority and His Word above all things

The emphasis on "and" is mine to illustrate the reading problem. So either Silva is being fantastically dishonest or he has a problem with reading into a text in a process called eisegesis. What we ought to do with scripture is a process of exegesis which is extracting the best possible meaning of a text as it was conveyed at the time of its writing. I am not going to judge which of these two options we are seeing here, but it appears a combination of the two is in play. Silva is clearly building yet another strawman. For what reason I have no idea.

However, a key to the problem is a misinterpretation of one passage that has been misused for all forms of biblical inerrancy and/or infallibilism.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Because scripture has its source in God means that it has a special use for the functions that Paul names here. This in no way is meant to be interpreted as plenary verbal inspiration as Muslims understand to be the source of authority for the Qu'ran. Although Silva appeals to "the literal Greek" in his post, what he fails to understand is that the Greek text of the New Testament is an amalgamation of fragments that scholars worked very hard to assemble in what they believed was the most accurate rendering of what was likely the original source.

(Read on: Here).

And here is Ken Silva's response to that: DREW TATUSKO DEMONSTRATES CONFUSION FOR US. So anyways, here are some thoughts pertaining to this argument:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, the Word Of God is not the bible, but Jesus Himself as per:

This false idea of the bible being the Word Of God is based on a faulty reading of the English translation of John 1:1-Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. (en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.) Had the author or authors of John meant what bibliolaters want this verse to mean he or they would have written: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ βύβλος, καὶ ὁ βύβλος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ βύβλος. (...biblos): in the beginning was the bible, and the bible was with God and the bible was God or similarly...hagiographa (Divine Writings).

Secondly, God never promised us a bible or a canon of scripture as a guide but a Comforter---the Paraclete/Holy Spirit as scripture plainly teaches:

[John 14]
The believers' relation to the glorified Christ

1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And you know the way to the place where I am going." 5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?" 6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.

15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.

18 "I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. 19 In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. 21 They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them." 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will reveal yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23 Jesus answered him, "Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me.

25 "I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not let them be afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I am coming to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you this before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me; 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us be on our way.---(NRSV).

I'll continue my thoughts in my next post: TheoPoetic Musings: In Defense Of Drew Tatusko's Position On Scripture Continued