 |
| My first few years... |
Dr. Stephen Wellum was one of my theological advisers while I was attending Canadian Baptist Seminary/Trinity Western University, working on my MTS (Master of Theological Studies).
As my BA was within a Mennonite Brethren context and culture, and in Biblical Studies and not Theology, technically; Dr. Wellum assisted me with sources and knowledge in regards to Reformed theology and in particular, the work of John S. Feinberg, that was in the future, my key Reformed exemplar for my British MPhil/PhD theses.
I certainly had Reformed leanings while at Columbia Bible College for my BA, but waited until I earned my MPhil at Wales, before publicly embracing the term 'Reformed' for myself.
Online, I came across some of Dr. Wellum's recent work (italics). My work as is Dr. Wellum's, is non-exhaustive.
The Hill We All Must Die
On Four Questions to Ask About Atonement
By Dr. Stephen Wellum
Cited
The doctrine of penal substitution is under attack today — and that’s an understatement. From voices outside of evangelical theology to those within, the historic Reformation view of the cross is claimed to be a “modern” invention from the cultural West. Others criticize the doctrine as sanctioning violence, privileging divine retributive justice over God’s love, condoning a form of divine child abuse, reducing Scripture’s polychrome presentation of the cross to a lifeless monochrome, being too “legal” in orientation, and so on.
There are numerous critics of Reformed theology within the Christian Church, and critics of Biblical, Christian theology. My MPhil and PhD writing and questionnaire results (see website archives) demonstrated that significant aspects of Reformed theology were (and are) not embraced by the many evangelicals, liberals and others within Christendom, or if preferred, the Christian Community. Reformed theology certainly not embraced by critics outside of Christendom or the Christian Community.
(Christendom and the Christian Community, being those that confess a form of Christianity, not necessarily Biblical Christianity)
Penal substitution receives significant negative critique within and outside of the Church. But, this view that human sin breaks the law of God (Grenz, Guretzki, Nordling: 90), for which the penalty is death (90), therefore leading to the death of Jesus Christ for those chosen by God, to appease the law of God (90), is definitively and definitely biblical.
Atonement is a very complex theological issue and there are various perspectives from Biblical scholars. Millard J. Erickson explains that atonement theory is multifaceted including the concepts of sacrifice, propitiation (appeasement of God), substitution and reconciliation. (1994: 811-823).
Non-exhaustive, New Testament examples that support the theology of substitution within the atoning work of Jesus Christ:
Mark 10:45 English Standard Version
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Jesus Christ's death is a ransom and substitution for the sinners through the atonement.
Romans 3:25 English Standard Version
Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Propitiation: The atonement offering that turns away God’s wrath. Christ’s atoning work serves as propitiation. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (96).
Mounce explains in his Romans commentary that there is a debate whether propitiation, as in appeasing the wrath of God or expiation, the covering for sin, is a better translation. (116). He reasons that although the term 'propitiation' may not be the best translation, this Greek term is best reasoned as 'placating' God's wrath against sin. (117). This is also theologically connected to God's righteousness applied to those in Jesus Christ (118).
Cranfield writes that other meanings, other than 'mercy-seat' have been rejected in his text. (77). He reasons that the idea of propitiation is not excluded here and that 'propitiatory sacrifice' is a reasonable suggestion. (77).
Expiation v propitiation: March 24 2008
I have noted previously...
C.H. Dodd (also mentioned by Mounce and Cranfield) explains that the Greek word in Romans 3: 25 should be translated expiation and not propitiation, and claims that many Greek translations have been incorrect on this issue. Dodd (1935: 82-95).
Browning writes that propitiation is a means of warding off the just anger of God. He reasons that modern Biblical translations make it clear that the New Testament teaches that through Christ’s atoning work, expiation takes place, and an angry God is not appeased through the propitiation of Christ. Browning (1996: 305).
Anthony D. Palma explains that propitiation can be defined as the idea of appeasing God, while expiation means to atone for sin against God, as in offering or sacrifice. Palma (2007: 1). Palma explains that the New Testament idea of propitiation includes expiation, but expiation does not necessarily include the idea of propitiation. Palma (2007: 1).
Bible Hub
James Strong explains that the word discussed in Romans 3: 25, ἱλαστήριον (ilastērion), is defined as an expiatory place or thing, an atoning victim, mercyseat, and propitiation. Strong (1890)(1986: 48).
From Strong’s definition, Romans 3: 25 does allow for the idea of atonement in both the sense of sacrifice and appeasement. Strong (1890)(1986: 48). However, his definition does place more emphasis on expiation than propitiation in the atonement process in Romans 3: 25. Strong (1890)(1986: 48).
Walter Bauer explains that the meaning in Romans 3: 25 is uncertain and could be either expiates or propitiates. Bauer (1979: 375). For Strong the definition of the word from 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 is atonement, expiator, propitiation and so 1 John does not solve the issue from Romans. Strong (1890)(1986: 49).
Some within Christian traditions may reason that expiation is all that is needed within the atoning work of Christ, while others such as myself within Reformed traditions may conclude expiation and propitiation, both sacrifice and appeasement, are reasonable concepts within Christian atonement. It should be considered that any anger God would possess would be completely just, and not emotionally charged and prone to sin as human anger can be.
As well, both expiation and propitiation are legitimate tools to bring justice in God’s view, based on the New Testament. Expiation covers up and cancels the human sin against God, while propitiation deals with the righteous wrath of God, as he has been unjustly wronged.
God's wrath against humanity was atoned and substituted for by the atoning work of Jesus Christ with his death on the cross.
Romans 5:8 English Standard Version
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
The substitutionary nature of God's atonement through Jesus Christ, demonstrates divine love for humanity that is in Jesus Christ through grace through faith.
2 Corinthians 5:21 English Standard Version
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Christ's applied atoning work to those chosen, Ephesians 1-2, Roman 8-9, imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to those believers that are therefore justified.
Hebrews 2:17 English Standard Version
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Jesus Christ as incarnate infinite God and perfect human being, serves as high priest and the source of atonement for his people.
1 John 2:2 English Standard Version
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
In other words, all national and ethnic groups. This is not teaching universalism.
Dr. Stephen Wellum
Cited
All of these charges are not new. All of them have been argued since the end of the 16th century, and all of them are false. Yet such charges reflect the corrosive effects of false ideas on theology and a failure to account for how the Bible, on its own terms, interprets the cross. Given the limitations of this article, I cannot fully respond to these charges. Instead, I will briefly state four truths that unpack the biblical-theological rationale of penal substitution. In so doing, my goal is to explain why penal substitution should be embraced as God’s good news for sinners.
End Part 1
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) ‘Propitiation' in Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
DODD. C.H. (1935) The Bible and the Greeks, London, Hodder and Stoughton.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
PALMA, ANTHONY (2007) ‘Propitiation’ in Enrichment Journal, Springfield Missouri, Enrichment Journal. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/top/Easter_2007/2007_Propitiation .pdf
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
No comments:
Post a Comment