You wrote in one of your articles:

It might have actually proven helpful to us today had the apostles been forced to defend the doctrine of Christ’s work on the cross in their day, but in God’s wise providence, things happened differently.

I would agree, and perhaps this was never addressed in a ‘clear-cut formulation’ because it did not need to be, as its exact systematic nature is not of salvific import…

As Paul wrote -

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

This does not specify whether Jesus’ death was a matter of divine penal law, or a ransom, or satisfaction to the honor due Him, etc., etc. It just says that he died for our sins – with no expounding on the divine cogs and wheels under the hood to ‘make it work’. If you want to call Paul’s statement ‘penal substitutionary atonement’, then all of the major views (aside from the ‘moral view’) are PSA (which is not the case).

Interesting side note – you wrote:

Debate? Debate about what? Given all that had happened in the first fourteen chapters of Acts, we might be tempted to think that this question should have been a slam-dunk for these guys! Wouldn’t you like to know exactly what went down in that meeting? Wouldn’t you like to know exactly which of the leaders of the Jerusalem church were still a little fuzzy on the whole “faith alone” thing?

Not really.

As James demonstrates in his writing, to the Hebrew mindset, “faith” (what you believe) and “action” (how you act on that belief) are inseparable – separating the two as independent entities was a product of Hellenism. Moving the gospel from a Jewish culture to a Greek/Hellenistic culture required expressing the dividing point between something that, to a Jew, had no dividing point. It is something that churches like the Eastern Orthodox churches (for whatever faults they might have) have come much closer to understanding and putting to practice than our Evangelical/Restoration churches have.

To be very short – you’ve only proven the case that part of the significance of Jesus’ death on the cross was as a substitution. You’ve not come close to demonstrating it as a penal substitution in any way that really distinguishes it from the other viable views of atonement.

Instead, I have seen you confuse my view with the ransom theory,

I didn’t confuse it with Ransom Theory – I just noted that several of the passages you cited in support of PSA were ones that are primarily at the basis of RT. I also noted that the concept of “wrath” you put forward, in some cases, is more in line with satisfaction theory – because the Hebrew and Greek both use words which are usually translated as “indignation” and not “anger”.

and penal substitution with limited atonement.

Because in Calvinism, they’re locked at the hip in the “system”. In the broadest of senses, all of the major views of atonement are penal substitution of some forth, aside from the “moral view” (the only one you effectively deal with) – but with your reaching back to Church Fathers who no more supported the modern/Calvinist version of PSA than they did the Tooth Fairy, you’ve ventured into the realm of revisionist history. For example, the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus supports Ransom Theory just as easily as it does PSA – and the section you quote from Augustine of Hippo is describing Ransom Theory far more than he is a modernist PSA.

With all due respect, I have consistently found both your tone and your method with respect to me to be one of dismissal rather than dialogue.

My apologies – my time has been rather limited of late, and since we often have missionaries who come here to convert us from “unenlightened Christianity” to Calvinism, sometimes I’m more patient than other times, since it does get a bit old at some point.

To be short and direct – the metaphor used more frequently for Jesus’ atonement throughout the Christian Scriptures is borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures – that of the sacrificial lamb, particularly that of the Passover Lamb. This is a substitution, but it is not a penal substitution, in the sense of the modernist/Calvinist doctrine of penal substitution. It is far better understood as part of the blood-path covenant ritual, familiar to the middle-east, than to legal consequences. Isaiah 53 certainly supports substitution, even penal (in a broad sense) substitution. It does not negate any of the fore-runners to PSA (Satisfaction or Governmental Theory) nor does it negate the Ransom view, either.

[And let's not even go into the arrogance of lines like "Sadly, there were long centuries when the Gospel was not clearly understood..."]

You speak of a “need” for systematic treatment of atonement being eclipsed by other needs of the time, which demonstrates the flaw in your hypothesis before you’ve really even begun. Why is there a need to systematically encapsulate the atonement, at all? Systematic treatment is very much a Western/Greek philosophy which primarily came out of the Renaissance you seem to abhor, not a first-century or (definitely) a Hebrew one. To the Hebrews, God has given His word, and He is so deep and complex (mysterious) that it should not be surprising that His ways defy single systems, but rather may be multi-faceted.

Additionally, you’ve definitely not demonstrated why having the “right” (quotes intentional) doctrine of atonement (i.e. PSA) is of any salvific import – my original point. You’ve also not demonstrated how the penal substitution is specific to individuals (which, yes, gets into limited atonement, but is part-and-parcel to the doctrine of PSA, as well) and not to mankind.

I do not deny PSA – I just acknowledge that it is not the only viable, biblical explanation for Jesus’ atonement (and probably not even the best one for the purposes of evangelism today). I’m also a bit more honest about where it came from and how it was developed, rather than trying to revise history to bolster its credibility as the “correct” view.

You concluded one article with –

In our place—”In my place, condemned he stood,” as I would later learn to sing. Suddenly I knew why Jesus had to die on the cross: He was my substitute. He took my punishment.

This can be said of pretty much any of the major theories of atonement…

With all due respect, I have consistently found both your tone and your method with respect to me to be one of dismissal rather than dialogue. I have not seen you actually interact with any of the arguments, biblical texts, or patristic references that I have provided in my blog posts. Instead, I have seen you confuse my view with the ransom theory, and penal substitution with limited atonement. I hope this explains why it’s hard for me to take your conclusions about my views seriously at this point.

Still, I’d follow MacLuhen, Postman & Hipps’ observations (among many others) that it was more technology that drove the changes in the culture – primarily the improvement in printing technology and the advent of chronometer technology. Both of these fueled the systematization of multiple facets of life, including religion.

You’ve not demonstrated that PSA, particularly as an individual-based, systematic soteriology, is any more superior than the alternatives. There is still a perfectly valid (and much more sound) contention that atonement, as the multi-faceted, non-systematic, Eastern/Hebrew concept that it was in the first century is superior to any “improvements” made upon by PSA, etc. Nor have you really demonstrated that PSA, as it is taught today in Reformed theology, existed prior to the Reformation.

You’re just exercising in revisionist history and wishful thinking on this point.

I have been a little too busy to comment here as I’ve been working on my latest installment on the atonement for the Crux blog. It’s called “The Lamb Before Its Shearers,” and I hope its OK to mention that it is now up at http://midwestoutreach.org/blogs/the-lamb-before-its-shearers.

Thanks!

I agree. Guilty until proven otherwise is the MO of the ADM… and too often “guilt” is equated with “Not like me.” Speaking for myself only, I started out ignorant of, and therefore neutral when it comes to Rollins. My recent post was designed to interact with some of his thoughts.

Ah. Sarcasm. Not very helpful.

I think I’ve made a fair point. Why need any concept of “wisdom” when obedience will do? Doesn’t that muddle things? Having two concepts that really mean the same thing?

I agree, by the way, that obedience is often wise. Of course it is!

Which leads me to say that I think that you’re mixing the virtue with its specific instantiations. Wisdom is an ability to see and discern. An action can reflect wisdom, just as it can reflect a host of other virtues (such as courage, justice, kindness, humility).

But just as we would say that there is a difference between a kind act, and the character trait of “kindness,” we should distinguish between a “wise” act, and the character trait of wisdom.

So, yes, obedience is itself often times an *instantiation* of wisdom. But it is not, in itself, the character trait of wisdom.

They are two separate things. But I think we’ve lost that because obedience is the perhaps the only virtue that Christians hold on to anymore. Which isn’t all that surprising, because Christians, by and large (I don’t want you accusing me of hyperbole!), don’t care about what we do (i.e. how we display the virtues) but instead by what we don’t do (namely, sin).

Phil, the difference between asking these questions and a good ol’ heretic hunt can be nuanced.

If someone is asking questions they should be willing to accept the answers – I hope Rick would.

Others do not care for answers, their mind is made up and as the ‘ol joke goes – fact only get in the way.

I would accept that to some extent. Although, I guess the thing that gets me is that I feel as if we’re approaching this from the perspective of “guilty until proven innocent”. Shouldn’t we give those who call themselves Christian the benefit of the doubt until we are presented with evidence to the contrary? So far I’ve not seen any evidence convincing me that Rollins is heretical, so I refuse to treat him as such.

I guess I just don’t like going down the path of demanding more and more evidence to prove a negative assertion – i.e., to prove that Rollins isn’t a heretic.

Wisdom is itself a virtue, namely, the ability to (I hate to use this word) discern not only between good and evil (important as that is) but also between good, better, and best.

OK, I agree… and of course, choosing good not evil, choosing the best not just the good is both wise and obedient.

And I would vigorously disagree with any attempt to conflate obedience and wisdom. They are not the same thing at all. (And you’re proving my point that our culture doesn’t appreciate wisdom anymore.)

I see, disagreeing with you means I do not appreciate wisdom… that said, I believe obedience is wise.