The Atonement Is Essential
20240423 View from the Tower: Liverpool Cathedral (built, 1904-1978)
I. Preface
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 previous BA (Bachelor of Arts) 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. This 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. My work in this review is non-exhaustive. A version of my work was previously presented in two articles. Today, God-willing, I wish to publish one version on Blogger and on academia.edu, so this is a revised version.
Referenced from this website
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
The atonement is essential: Part I
II Atonement
Review: 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.'
End citation
Penal substitution receives significant negative critique within and outside of the Church. But, this New Testament view is 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.
But what is substitutionary atonement?
From the
Substitutionary Atonement: The Gospel Coalition
'Definition
The penal substitutionary view of the atonement holds that the most fundamental event of the atonement is that Jesus Christ took the full punishment that we deserved for our sins as a substitute in our place, and that all other benefits or results of the atonement find their anchor in this truth.'
'Summary
All people are in need of a substitute since all are guilty of sinning against the holy God. All sin deserves punishment because all sin is personal rebellion against God himself. While animal sacrifices took on the guilt of God’s people in the OT, these sacrifices could never fully atone for the sins of man. For that, Jesus Christ came and died in the place of his people (substitution), taking upon himself the full punishment that they deserved (penal). While there are other theories of the atonement, which point to other valid aspects of what happened in Christ’s death, the penal-substitutionary element of the crucifixion secures all other benefits that come to God’s people through the death of their representative.'
Cited
'Human beings need a substitute since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Sin separates human beings from God as we see from the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden. Only perfect obedience will satisfy God’s justice, and we see this in that Adam and Eve were severed from God for one sin. As Galatians 3:10 says, “For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, Everyone who does not do everything written in the book of the law is cursed.” The curse falls upon those who transgress God’s commands, and no one is exempted (Rom. 3:9–20, 23).
Sin deserves punishment because God is holy. Breaking the law is not merely an impersonal reality, for sin represents rebellion against God himself (1 John 3:4). The heart of sin is the failure to glorify God and to give thanks to him (Rom. 1:21). Sin represents a flagrant refusal to submit to God’s lordship, and those who sin rightly deserve the retributive judgment of God. Since God is holy (Lev. 19:2) he judges those who transgress his law. God’s judgment is evident in the flood of Noah, the judgment of pagan nations in the OT, and the judgment of Israel for its sin. John the Baptist warns people to flee the coming judgment of the Lord (Matt. 3:1–12). Human beings are summoned to repent before the coming judgment arrives (Acts 2:14–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–12). Paul often refers to God’s eschatological judgment (Rom. 2:5, 16; 6:23; 9:22; 1 Cor. 1:18; 5:5; 2 Cor. 2:16; Gal. 1:8–9; Phil. 3:18–19; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:14–16; 5:9). The retributive nature of judgment is as clear as it gets in 2 Thessalonians 1:5–9. Paul argues that God is “just” to punish people forever for their sin.
God’s anger against sin represents his personal response to sin. Judgment is not merely cause and effect, but is God’s holy wrath against sin, which must be distinguished from sinful human anger.'
End citation
Important to note that as God is infinitely, eternally, purely, good, therefore, any divine anger is not in any way subject to sin and corruption as is even the most just human anger.
Cited
'Animal sacrifices do not and cannot finally atone for sin (Heb. 9:1–10:18), and such sacrifices point to the atoning death of Jesus Christ which secures complete and permanent forgiveness of sins.'
Cited
'Romans 3:21–26 is a central text on penal substitution. In the preceding section of the letter we see that all without exception are sinners deserving final judgment (Rom. 1:18–3:20). Paul affirms in Romans 3:21–22 that a right relationship with God cannot be obtained through keeping the law (since all sin; Rom. 3:23) but only through faith in Jesus Christ. How can God forgive sinners so that they stand in a right relationship with him? The answer is given in Romans 3:25–26, “God presented him as an atoning sacrifice in his blood, received through faith, to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his restraint God passed over the sins previously committed. God presented him to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so that he would be righteous and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus.” The words translated “atoning sacrifice” has a more technical meaning and can be rendered as “propitiation” or “mercy seat” (hilastērion). The word propitiation signifies that God’s wrath has been satisfied or appeased in the cross of Christ.'
End Citation
James Strong explains that the word discussed in Romans 3: 25 is ἱλαστήριον (ilastērion hilasterion), 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).
Strong's Concordance
hilastérion: propitiatory Original Word: ἱλαστήριον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: hilastérion
Phonetic Spelling: (hil-as-tay'-ree-on)
Definition: propitiatory Usage: (a) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation, (b) the covering of the ark, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement.
Cited
Englishman's Concordance
Romans 3:25 N-ANS
GRK: ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς
NAS: displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood
KJV: hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through
INT: God a mercy seat through the
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 according to String. Strong (1890)(1986: 49).
End Citation
Cited
'Such an idea fits well with the flow of thought in Romans, for we see in Romans 1:18 that “God wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people.” We are also told in Romans 2:5 that those who don’t repent and soften their hearts are “storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed.” Romans 3:25–26 teaches us, then, that God’s righteousness, God’s holiness and justice, are satisfied in the death of Christ. In the cross of Christ, God is shown to be loving and holy, merciful and just, the “just and justifier” of those who put their faith in Jesus. God has not compromised his justice since Christ has borne the penalty deserved for sin, dying as a substitute in the place of sinners.
We see the same truth in Galatians 3:10–13. No one can escape God’s curse by works of the law since all without exception sin. The solution to the evil of human beings is set forth in Galatians 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, because it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” The curse every person deserves is removed for those who put their trust in Christ, because Christ took the curse we deserved upon himself. He took the penalty we deserved, fulfilling the words of Deuteronomy 21:23 that those who are hanged upon a tree are cursed.
The same truth is found in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “[God] made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” We have here the great exchange. Jesus took our sin by dying in our place, and we received his righteousness.
Nor is this teaching restricted to Paul. Jesus himself clearly teaches penal substitution in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” We have an allusion here to Isaiah 53. Jesus as the Son of Man of Daniel 7 is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. In surrendering his life in death, he died as a ransom in place of many. His death constituted the payment demanded for the sins committed. The same teaching is also present in the Gospel of John: “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus, as the sacrificial Lamb of God, whether it is the Passover Lamb, the lamb in the sacrificial system, or the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 (or even all three), dies as a sacrifice in the place of sinners.'
References from this source
Charles Hill and Frank James, eds., The Glory of the Atonement
David Peterson, ed., Where Wrath and Mercy Meet
James Beilby and Paul Eddy, eds., The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views
J. I. Packer “Penal Substitution Revisited”
J. I. Packer, “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution”
J. I. Packer and Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He Stood. See a brief summary of chapter 2 here.
John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied
John Stott, The Cross of Christ
Leon Morris, Apostolic Preaching of the Cross
N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began
Robert L. Dabney, Christ Our Penal Substitute
Simon Gathercole, Defending Substitution. See a brief book summary here.
Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions.
End Citation
The Atonement Is Essential
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 is certainly not generally 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)
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).
Based on scripture, especially the New Testament, I accept expiation, propitiation, substitution and reconciliation as core aspects of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Through his applied atoning work, regenerate (John 3, Titus, 1 Peter 1, as examples) believers, being divinely moved to embrace the gospel, are justified and sanctified by grace through faith alone, for good works, and never by good works (Ephesians 1-2, Romans, Galatians as key examples).
Non-exhaustive, New Testament examples that support the theology of substitution within the atoning work of Jesus Christ:
Mark 10:45 English Standard Version (ESV)
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 (ESV)
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).
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).
III The Nature of God
Desiring God: May 4, 2019: The Hill We All Must Die On: Four Questions to Ask About Atonement continued
Dr. Stephen Wellum continued...
Cited
'1. Who Is God?
First, we must get right who God is as our triune Creator-Covenant Lord. Mark it well: debates over the nature of the atonement are first and foremost doctrine of God debates. If our view of God is sub-biblical, we will never get the cross right. From the opening verses of Scripture, God is presented as eternal, a se (life from himself), holy love, righteous, and good — the triune God who is complete in himself and who needs nothing from us (Genesis 1–2; Psalm 50:12–14; Isaiah 6:1–3; Acts 17:24–25; Revelation 4:8–11).
One crucial implication of this description is that God, in his very nature, is the moral standard of the universe. This is why we must not think of God’s law as something external to him that he may relax at will. Instead, the triune God of Scripture is the law; his will and nature determine what is right and wrong.'
End citation
Nature of God
Biblical theology in regards to the nature of atonement connects to biblical theology in regards to the nature of God. God's infinite, eternal, holy, perfectly moral, nature, requires any and all finite entities that would ever have everlasting life to ontologically (in regards to nature) possess a finite form of holiness and moral perfection. Genesis 3 from the Hebrew Bible, records the fall of humanity and the New Testament (Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, as examples) explains that the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ is the divine remedy for that human fall.
I note the fall because Augustine describes a literal fall. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255), and the corruption of humanity that led to the literal problem (s) of evil. Augustine (426)(1958: 254-255). For many secular and Biblical scholars from mainline denominations, the Biblical story of the fall is likely fiction. Jackson (1941)(2006: 1). Fretheim (1994: 152). To Feinberg, human freedom and all human attributes had been tainted by the corruption of humanity in the fall. Feinberg (1994: 126-127). I discuss Genesis and the fall in Chapter Two of my PhD thesis and I am not convinced that all of the creation account must be taken plain literally in order to stay true to Scripture. Figurative literal approaches are possible at some points.
Within my biblical, Reformed theology, I certainly view, based on Romans 5, as a key example, Jesus Christ, the God-man, as the last Adam, and therefore fully accept an actual, non-fictional, historical Adam and Eve. However, Genesis 1-3 allows for interpretations that can be figurative literal while rejecting mythology. In other words, a literal, historical Adam and Eve could be explained with both prose and poetry.
William Sanford La Sor, David Allan Hubbard, and Fredric William Bush (1987) from what I deduced was a moderate conservative, evangelical position, reason the author of Genesis is writing as an artist and storyteller who uses literary device. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72). They point out it is imperative to distinguish which literary device is being used within the text of Genesis. La Sor, Hubbard, and Bush (1987: 72).
Romans 5 (New American Standard Bible)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for [h]until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [i]type of Him who was to come.
h. Romans 5:13 Or until law
i. Romans 5:14 Or foreshadowing
---
I further agree with Dr. Wellum that God is the moral standard of the universe, his infinite, eternal, holy and perfect nature, makes it so. God's law and moral law especially, is a reflection of his divine nature, and therefore to live everlastingly within the future culminated Kingdom of God, atonement (and resurrection) is required for humanity corrupted within this present, temporary (Revelation 21-22) realm.
The Resurrection
1 Corinthians 15 (New American Standard Bible)
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown [l]a perishable body, it is raised [m]an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, [n]earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, [o]we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
l. 1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in corruption
m. 1 Corinthians 15:42 Lit in incorruption
n. 1 Corinthians 15:47 Lit made of dust
o. 1 Corinthians 15:49 Two early mss read let us also
50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [p]the perishable inherit [q]the imperishable. p. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Lit corruption
q. 1 Corinthians 15:50 Lit incorruption
Even with the use of philosophy of religion (examining religion philosophically), the first cause, the primary cause, that exists as necessary in any possible world, as of necessity would be, by ontological default, what is good and holy. Finite, contingent human beings, soiled and engulfed by moral imperfection and problems of evil would not be by nature fit for everlasting life in the presence of such an entity. Reasonably within a type of theistic philosophy of religion, there is a fracture between humanity and God. Divine atonement through God the Son, as infinite, perfect God, and finite, perfect, incarnate man, is the fix. This makes reasonable sense to me as truth, primarily theologically (from the bible) and secondarily through theistic, philosophy of religion.
---
AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992)
Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.
AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
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.
COAD, F. ROY (1986) ‘Galatians’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.
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.
DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.
ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Genesis’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1985)(2005) ‘The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective’, in Theology Today, Volume 1, Number 1, Bookreview17. Princeton, Princeton Theological Seminary. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1985/v42-1-bookreview17.htm
FRETHEIM, TERENCE E. (1994) ‘Is Genesis 3 a Fall Story?’, in Word and World, Luther Seminary, pp. 144-153. Saint Paul, Luther Seminary.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
JACKSON, JOHN G. (1941)(2006) Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, New York, Truth Seeker Co. http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/JGJackson/ChristMyth/ChristMythPart1.html
MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
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.
