What I believe about the Atonement

[John Caldwell]

Posting personally identifiable information is not permitted under the rules, even if it was given by @David Taylor himself via his profile. So I removed the personal information and links thereto.

OK. Thanks for removing it for me. I did not think about it since it was made available via his profile.

 

[Steve Owen]

Just to let you know that I shall not be on the board for at least a couple of days.
One of my oldest and closest friends has died today. It's not sad for him because his many sins are forgiven him and he is with his Lord and Saviour. But it's sad for me that I shall not see him again after almost 60 years of friendship.

 

[John Caldwell]

Just to let you know that I shall not be on the board for at least a couple of days.
One of my oldest and closest friends has died today. It's not sad for him because his many sins are forgiven him and he is with his Lord and Saviour. But it's sad for me that I shall not see him again after almost 60 years of friendship.

Sorry for your loss

 

[John Caldwell]

No, they fail to ADEQUATELY explain why Christ had to die. There is a difference.

How does this compare to Ontological Substitution (and what are your objections)?

I ask as this seems to be the landing pad for several Calvinists trying to reform the Reformed and bring their atonement theory closer to Scripture.

What about T. F. Torrance's "Total Substitution"?

What do you see as the differences and flaws?

 

[John Caldwell]

You sure you don't subscribe to Christus Victor? Because that is what you describe, not Ransom Theory.

LOL...."Christus Victor" is Gustaf Aulén's interpretation of Ransom Theory (the "classic view").

What do you think of scholars (Daniel Waldow and Eugene TeSelle are probably the two you are familiar with from your time in seminary) who points out that Origen uses ransom imagery to explain the saving death of Christ in the Epistle of Romans and was purposed to be interpreted metaphorically rather than in a literal fashion ("Satan" representing the powers of sin that held the "human family" in bondage)?

What do you make of their observation that the patristic writers were not as naive as some seem to imply?

What do you make of the fact that in the 4th century Gregory Nazianzen actually debunked the idea that they were teaching a payment was made to Satan or to God?

What are your criticism of the majority of scholars who have debunked the idea that the early church taught that God paid Satan in favor of the idea that "Satan" was symbolic of the darkness, the evil, and the sin that held mankind slave?

 

[John Caldwell]

So what? John just said he doesn't believe the part of "Ransom Theory" that it is to SATAN, only that it is like a ransom paid that freed us from sin. (I don't agree, but you can't force the whole Origen theory on to John, just because he uses "Ransom."

I'm not a fan of Origen at all, and am only thinking about what you guys are talking about on this point, but there is one thing that does have to do with Satan. But it isn't likened to kidnapping us and paying a ransom to Satan, as if Satan was correct that the death of Jesus was payment to him; in fact, it doesn't have to do with us at all in the mind of Satan, except as subjects, only Jesus. Satan owned us, and wasn't about to give us up, so there was no negotiating of ransom. (bad theology of Origen) As far as Satan knew, it only had to do with the murder of Jesus, so Satan could continue ruling and exact death on his subjects. Satan was clueless. He signed his own death warrant. He wasn't privy to the mystery in the mind of God.

@John Caldwell. If you believe in some kind of ransom, but that it is not paid to Satan, then who? God? That is not true either. Any thought of "ransom" is not accurate, except maybe in the sense that the death of Jesus killed the kidnapper, which would free us I guess. Is that what you mean? Still the kidnapper didn't receiving any ransom. Just thinking off the cuff.

Most contemporary scholars point out that Origen (and the early church) typically used "satan" to refer to the principles of sin and death. Gregory Nazianzen (4th century) pointed out that this was a ransom but not a payment made to an entity (not to Satan and not to God).

@David Taylor is playing off a characterization scholarship has rejected for decades. To be fair, David is a Calvinist and is often the victim of such characterizations (it makes man robots, God evil, etc.). I guess he wants to be on the giving end. That's OK. I can take it.

 

[reformed1689]

LOL...."Christus Victor" is Gustaf Aulén's interpretation of Ransom Theory (the "classic view").

Now who isn't "studied up" Christus Victor and Ransom Theory are SIMILAR but different.

 

[John Caldwell]

Now who isn't "studied up" Christus Victor and Ransom Theory are SIMILAR but different.

Yes, I said it was Aulén's interpretation of Ransom Theory.

As neither Aulén or Gregory Nazianzen held that a price was paid to Satan or God, what to you see as the distinction between Aulén's Christus Victor position and Gregory Nazianzen's Ransom Theory?

 

[John Caldwell]

The reason I ask for the distinction is that Gregory Nazianzen (329 AD -390 AD) and Cyril of Jerusalem (313 AD – 386 AD) held to Ransom Theory. But Gregory Nazianzen also held that there was not an actual payment received or made to an entity (not to the “Evil One” and not to “the Father”). Cyril of Jerusalem held that this was a ransom paid to the Father.

Early Christian writers seemed often to personify the powers of sin and death as Satan while not necessarily meaning Satan as an entity. While this calls into question Origen’s use, it is not definitive either way. We know that the laity (especially by the 10th century) often viewed God as paying a price to Satan literally. But we also know that there were actual writers who held to the Ransom Theory while strongly rejecting that notion.

I simply do not know that it is fair to characterize an entire line of thought based simply on the writings of one person, especially when scholars doubt the characterization actually fits this one person's writing.

This is why I prefer the term "classic view". It can be viewed as incorporating a broader understanding (just like the "Latin view" incorporates Satisfaction and Penal Substitution Theory). I believe that when dealing with these theories we can often start on the broader category and work our way in.

 

[reformed1689]

Yes, I said it was Aulén's interpretation of Ransom Theory.

As neither Aulén or Gregory Nazianzen held that a price was paid to Satan or God, what to you see as the distinction between Aulén's Christus Victor position and Gregory Nazianzen's Ransom Theory?

That IS the distinction. One is paying the ransom to sin and death, the other paying ransom to Satan.

 

[reformed1689]

This is why I prefer the term "classic view". It can be viewed as incorporating a broader understanding (just like the "Latin view" incorporates Satisfaction and Penal Substitution Theory). I believe that when dealing with these theories we can often start on the broader category and work our way in.

The problem is you specifically stated you held to the Ransom Theory.

 

[John Caldwell]

That IS the distinction. One is paying the ransom to sin and death, the other paying ransom to Satan.

So there is no distinction between Gregory Nazianzen's view of Ransom Theory and Aulén's Christus Victor Theory since Gregory Nazianzen believed the ransom was paid but not in the context of a payment to Satan or God?

 

[reformed1689]

I'm talking about the distinction between Christus Victor and Ransom Theory

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm talking about the distinction between Christus Victor and Ransom Theory

Yes, labels can often cause these issues.

How do you classify Gregory Nazianzen and Cyril of Jerusalem Theory of atonement?

What are the reasons you reject the conclusions of contemporary scholarship (like Waldow and TeSelle) that the Ransom Theory often used "Satan" to symbolize sin and death as a power or principle rather than literally Satan as person?

 

[John Caldwell]

@David Taylor ,

I am not suggesting that you are wrong, just asking for clarification. Others (like Aulén and N.T. Wright) have observed the same thing as you point out and offer Christus Victor as the the primary view of the early church as it does not have the distinction of a payment being made (to God, Satan, or anyone).

So to clarify, are you saying that the ECF's who held a theory like the Ransom Theory but without the distinction of payment being made to Satan held the "Christus Victor" theory?

I'm OK with whatever we want to call the view. What it means is more important, I think, than what we call it.

 

[John Caldwell]

I'm talking about the distinction between Christus Victor and Ransom Theory

Let me reword my question.

If I understand you correctly you suggest that the distinction between Christus Victor and Ransom Theory is that Ransom Theory holds that God paid a ransom to Satan.

Contemporary scholarship leans towards the idea that Origen used “Satan” as the personification of the “principles of sin and death” that held mankind captive with God redeeming mankind from those powers rather than God literally purchasing us from Satan.

If they are correct then would you evaluate Origen as holding Christus Victor rather than Ransom Theory, or would Ransom Theory be what was perceived rather than actually taught by the ECF’s?

 

[John Caldwell]

"Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, the authors of the recent book Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution, claim that penal substitutionary theory stretches back to the earliest fathers of the church....But scholarly opinion weighs against these authors. Most theologians and historians of the early church believe that the early church was united in upholding the broad Christus Victor theory for over a millennium. The varied language of Jesus as a healer, ransom, deliverer, and conqueror was used to denote Jesus being victorious over human sinfulness, death, and the devil. Substitution, but not penal substitution, was clearly taught, for Jesus was victorious on our behalf and for our salvation." (Mako A. Nagasawa)

Others (like N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, Marianne Thompson, Gustav Aulén) have come to the same conclusion regarding the idea of Christus Victor as an overarching "theory". And here you have come to the exact same conclusion - Ransom Theory without a ransom being paid to Satan IS Christus Victor theory. If contemporary scholarship is correct then this "classic view" was the view held by the early church as it would include Ransom Theory (wither the ransom was paid to Satan, God, the powers of death, or to no one).

To clarify, what matters is the position, not the labels we would assign.

 

[Waiting on him]

So how do you believe the 'sheep' are saved? On what basis are they called the 'righteous'? Is it by works?

In my opinion what is being seen in this parable is not grouping of people’s, but rather a separation that is happening to an individual. Consider not letting the left know what the right is doing? The right days when did we do these things?

Regardless of how this is viewed..... the goats continue to gnash, have been for a couple thousand years.

 

[Waiting on him]

In my opinion what is being seen in this parable is not grouping of people’s, but rather a separation that is happening to an individual. Consider not letting the left know what the right is doing? The right days when did we do these things?

Regardless of how this is viewed..... the goats continue to gnash, have been for a couple thousand years.

The goats are the price of the field.

 

[John Caldwell]

"One day a student called Harold Estes came into my rooms in the Dormitory to discuss an essay he had written on the atonement. He was a very gentle kindly person. It is he had spoke of the death of Christ simply as a demonstration of the love of God. He had been expounding something like what was known as a ‘moral influence theory’ of the atonement favoured by liberal thinkers but theological quite inadequate, as H. R. Mackintosh had shown us in Edinburgh. To help Harold I showed him a reproduction which I had of Grünewald’s famous painting of the Crucifixion, at Colmar, which is incredibly starkly vivid. I also showed him some of the enlargements of the painting, reproduced in a book I had with me, which focused on the fearfully lacerated flesh of Jesus which he suffered from the flagellation with thorns inflicted on him by the soldiers, deep wounds now blackened by the sun. Harold shrank back in horror at what he saw. I said to him: ‘Harold, you have written about that as a picture of the love of God. It is certainly a picture of the fearful sin and hatred of mankind, but if you can tell me WHY Jesus was crucified, WHY he endured such unbelievable pain and anguish, then you will be able to say something of the real meaning of the atonement, and about why the crucifixion of Jesus was and is indeed a revelation of the love of God – Christ was crucified like that FOR our sakes, to save us from sin and judgment. The meaning of the atoning death of Christ is expressed in that word FOR – Jesus died for you and for me, and for all people. It is only in the light of that FOR that the death of Jesus is a picture of the love of God. And what a wonderful picture it is of the infinite love of God who so loved us that ‘he did not spare his only Son but freely delivered him up for us all, that we might be saved.’"

Cited in Alister E. McGrath, T. F. Torrance: An Intellectual Biography, T&T Clark, 1999, 54-55.