Does this sentiment cause you problems, or is it something that resonates with you, because it is grounded in scripture? I am talking about a “theory of the atonement,” and how it is often conceived — as forensic, or more commonly known as penal. T. F. Torrance describes his position on the atonement that may sound at odds with the penal notion (which then may sound at odds with scripture, if you’ve read it that way). Torrance says:
But let us note that this mission of the servant-son is regarded as beingfulfilled not simply in Christ’s final passion on the cross, but in the whole course of his obedience. We may refer here simply to one very pregnant and significant passage in which Jesus speaks of the baptism with which he is being baptised, that is, the passionwhich he was undergoing in the continuous present. It was into that passion that he was born, into that passion that he was solemnly and lawfully consecreated at his baptism, into that passion that he was thrust right away in his temptions when he was tempted to evade the cross but in which he chose the way of suffering and shame for our sakes. And so, all through his obedient life until the garden of Gethsemane and the prayer wrung out of him there with strong crying and tears, ‘Not my will but thine be done’, it was finally in that passion that he fulfilled the role of the suffering servant and sealed it with his blood on the cross. (Thomas F. Torrance,”Incarnation,” 69-70)
Is the forensic understanding of the atonement nullified by what Torrance here says? To be blunt, and answer my own question, I don’t think so, necessarily. If we are speaking of ‘penal’ as framed by Federal Calvinism (so that Christ had to fulfill some predetermined payment plan for the elect [e.g. ‘Covenant of Redemption’ fulfilled in the ‘Covenant of Grace’ grounded in the ‘Covenant of Works’]), then I would say “Yes” Torrance is nullifying or undercutting that notion. If we are saying that ‘penal’ or ‘forensic’ substitution or atonement is in view by Torrance, which I think it still is, then it is in a ‘Pauline’ sense (see Romans); so that Jesus’ life (as the eternal logos enfleshed in the man from Nazareth) in the Incarnation was at-one-ment in itself — i.e. was not shaped to be what He was by a decree, but instead by a ‘personal choice’ within the intratrinitarian dynamic. I am leaving alot out here, in fact this is quite a complex issue . . . but what is the comment section for ;-)? By the way, what Torrance is referencing is an ontological view of the atonement.
You're using big words again…. ;)So I apologize in advance if my comment is terribly off-topic.Regarding general atonement: If my understanding is correct about Jesus having purchased the entire world in order to get what He wants out of it, then, would not those who continue to reject Him as rightful King remain outside of the offered means of reconciliation with Him? Christ has laid out terms of citizenship for those who would remain in His eternal kingdom. Unbelievers are currently "in" His kingdom while it overlaps the present earthly age. But they exist only as traitors to the Crown and condemned criminals who have effectively sworn allegiance to a usurping prince who will be punished when the King visibly returns. I have on my site a video clip of RC Sproul explaining "double imputation" by which not only the guilt for our sin is transferred to Christ, but His righteousness (via perfectly obedient life) is transferred to us. I actually found it to be very helpful in explaining how I could be found not only "sinless" by God but truly be counted righteous while still not being remotely perfect. I believe this explanation encompasses the "penal atonement" perspective?I guess what I'm trying to say is that it seems that there is a two-fold aspect to Christ's atonement in His life, death and resurrection. There is first the un-disputable orienting of all things to Himself due to His triumph over sin and death and then, there is personal payment of debt and application of positive balance to the accounts of those who are considered by Him to be legitimate citizens of His kingdom.Maybe I'm still not getting this….
Heather,I wouldn't disagree with what you've said. I also wouldn't want to disagree with 'penal' substitution, per se; instead, what I want to emphasize, along with TFT and scripture, is that if Christ only paid for my behavior (forensic); and didn't deal with my heart (like give me a new one II Cor 3 [ontological view], then we are in big trouble. If we only emphasize the forensic aspect of the atonement, then we are only dealing with what the Pharisees were concerned with; and that is the 'externals'. This is at the heart of my problems with forensicism; it actually froms from a particular 'doctrine of God' that views Him as a static unmoved mover (which I'll have to get to later, I allude to it in my most recent post).
Okay, I think I do actually understand, then. It's not "either-or", it's "both-and". And, like so many other Christian teachings where we have emphasized one side of a balance over another, this overinflation of "forensic" ends us up with an uneven and misleading picture. Yes?
Yes! And beyond that it's not framed right. Forensicism is typically framed is purely "legal" terms; but this does not deal with the heart where evil springs from, it only deals with the behavior. Martin Luther had this point nailed down, he followed Jesus and James; a good tree produces good fruit and a bad tree bad. We need new hearts, and forensicism has nothing to say about that (if it is alone, and it usually is).
but this does not deal with the heart where evil springs from, it only deals with the behavior. Well, I suppose that would explain why I ended up worrying over whether or not I was being "good enough" when I was toying with the TULIP framework. Oddly, my struggle was rooted in my attempts to prove to myself that I had received a new heart by trying to determine whether I was producing enough of the right kind of fruit. While I don't think it is necessarily wrong to self-examine in light of Scripture, it had become something of an obsession with me and kept me distracted from regularly turning to Jesus when it became painfully obvious that I'm not perfect.
Exactly!The problem is, is that God alone knows the heart; and no amount of good or bad works will tell us if we're His or not. Thankfully that's not the barometer or framework that scripture gives us; instead it gives us Christ and "our" salvation is grounded in HIm.
Aha! This ties in well with the comments on the Johnson/George post. It really does all go back to the sad state of the human heart (and our need for a Savior), doesn't it?Thanks for the dialogue :)I think I've got a better grasp now of what you've been saying.
Good, I wish we all could just talk in person; blogging is so cumbersome sometimes, but it's better than nothing :-).