Atonement & Creation – Notes on Matthew Levering’s LATC15 Presentation

Here are some notes on the first plenary session of the Los Angeles Theology Conference….

Satisfaction theories can only be understood in the context of the doctrine of creation.

Nicholas Wolterstorff’s Critique of Satisfaction

  • In the sermon on the mount Jesus rejected the reciprocity code of justice – i.e. he rejects a retributive model of Justice
    • If someone does you a favor you owe them a favor
    • If someone does you evil you owe them “evil” in return
  • Jesus teaches us to return evil with good.
  • Wolterstorff argues that Anselm’s satisfaction theory reverts back to a reciprocity code of justice – Anselm assumes that the justice of God requires satisfaction.
  • How could Jesus teach against retributive justice yet participate in retributive justice on the cross?
  • Question for Wolterstorf – Where does the code of reciprocity come?
    • Levering – The reason for the enduring nature of the reciprocity code is that it is inscribed or grounded in the creative order.

Atonement & Creation & The Contribution of Thomas Aquinas

  • Aquinas makes a distinction b/w commutative justice & distributive justice. Commutative justice cannot apply to God. Distributive justice remains – this is what we are called to.
  • Can it really be said that God owes anything to humans? (i.e. distributive justice) Surely God has no obligations to us.
    • How can there be distributive justice in the creator?
    • Aquinas – God does owe creatures what is necessary for their flourishing.
    • Aquinas – the primary debt God owes is to himself…
      • In giving creatures what he owes for their flourishing God is essentially giving himself what he owes as a good and wise creator.
    • Creation is profoundly imbued with structures of justice – this is a gift of God.
      • Gift and Justice cannot be separated

Creaturely Justice & Retributive Punishment

  • Just as the creator owes a “debt” to his creatures – his creatures become debtors to one another but also to God. God holds first place for God is supremely excellent
    • This is both a debt of justice and a debt of love.
  • When humans turn away from divine love and fail to fulfill the debt of justice, we fail to live up to what we are created to. It is a rebellion against the order of justice between the rational creature and God.
  • Humans were created for a graced union with God – rebellion attacks this order. Thus we fall into disorder and slavery to Sin.
  • The order of creation is such that when we rebel against this order we lose the justice we were created for.
  • Sin carries its own punishment b/c of the disorder it brings.
    • The sinner can accept this punishment and make it satisfactory
      • He/she must accept this punishment freely
      • This brings healing and reconciliation
      • This is an acceptance of the order of justice – i.e. the created order of justice
    • Aquinas is not separating the stain or the guilt from punishment – the act of sin makes man him deserve punishment.
      • In justice the rational creature owes God a debt of love and service.
      • To restore justice in this situation means to restore justice within the creature and to heal the disorder
        • The punishment – heals the disorder…
      • If this is the case then there is nothing retributive about punishment…

Jesus Death as Satisfaction for Sin

  • In the case of atonement no satisfactory sacrifice was strictly necessary, God could have forgiven without satisfaction.
    • God didn’t have to fulfill the reciproticy code?
  • But why then does God send the son to die for sin?
    • God does so because it sets us free from the slavery of sin – and God shows more copious mercy than if he had forgiven sin without satisfaction.
      • It shows us how much he loves us and dignifies us.
    • How does Jesus death count for us?
      • Vicarious suffering & vicarious humanity – because Christ and his body are one mystic person.
      • His death was far more than was necessary to cover the sins of the whole human race.

Conclusion

  • Jesus came to bear our sin and restore order. It is because Jesus has fulfilled retributive justice that his followers no longer need to pursue it.
    • We don’t need to exercise the code of reciprocity here on earth.
  • Wolterstorff’s argument that retributive justice does not apply to God ignores scriptural data.
  • Although creation is pure gift – it can be said that God does owe his creature something
    • Gift and justice are related
    • Creatures must offer love, worship, and service to God
    • When we turn away from the creator the result is existential disorder and death
  • In self-giving love the Father sends the son to go through this retributive justice on our behalf – not because of a thirst for revenge – but as an act of pure love.

Redemption & Limited Atonement

Redemption is a comprehensive term regarding our salvation through justification, expatiation, and reconciliation in Christ. It is eschatological and teleological. It is the consummation of Gods’ redeeming purposes in the new creation. It tells us that glorification is an essential part of our salvation.

In Atonement Torrance runs through the uses of the words for redemption in the scriptures. He shows that Lutron implies a price of Atonement - TF Torrancerelease or emancipation. Luo means to destroy, to release, or to loosen. Lutrosis, implies a deliverance out of oppression and from guilt and punishment and it also carries eschatological connotations. As we look at these three ways of speaking about redemption it becomes clear that “redemption is the mighty act of God’s grace delivering us out of the power of darkness into the glorious liberty of the sons and daughters of God.”[2] Humanity is redeemed from the power of darkness, the law, and the bondage to sin. This act of redemption is completed and actualized by the pouring out of the Spirit to the church so that the church can participate in the atonement that Christ has undertaken on its behalf. It is through the Spirit that we are incorporated into him; it is through the incarnation that God is incorporated into us. Thus at Pentecost, double incorporation occurs, meaning that redemption has been completed.

For Torrance humanity is justified before God in the person and work of Christ (by the hypostatic union), also humanity has been reconciled to God for eternity in the person and work of Christ (by the hypostatic union). It would also seem to follow that humanity is redeemed because of Christ’s atoning person and work. But we should stop and ask, who did Christ die for? In other words, is the atonement limited? Torrance wants to say that it is not. First we must admit that if incarnation and atonement cannot be separated then Christ represents in his death all whom he represents in his incarnation.[3] Thus taking on human nature, Christ represents all men and women without exception in his atoning work. So if Christ represents all humanity in his atoning death, we might want to make a distinction between the sufficiency and the efficacy of his death. In other words Christ death was sufficient for all but efficacious only for the elect. This view is the logical conclusion of the doctrine of absolute predestination. However to take this view is to deny that Christ represents all in the incarnation. By separating Christ’s atoning representation into terms like efficaciousness and sufficiency we separate Christ’s person from his work. However by denying that God can freely elect some and choose not to elect others is to deny God freedom. We also end up denying God freedom by asserting that God must necessarily save all. Torrance concludes that pitting hypothetical universalism against limited atonement is an instance of “man’s proud reason” subjecting the “great mystery of atonement” to the “rationalism of human thought.” He concludes that we must think of atonement as a sufficient and efficacious reality for every human being.[4] However it is the baptism of the Spirit, that effects our incorporation into Christ. Thus objectively atonement is universal but subjectively atonement is actualized through the Spirit.

At least that is what Torrance seems to say….

——————————————————————————–

[1] Torrance, Atonement: the Person and Work of Christ, 172.

[2] Torrance, Atonement: the Person and Work of Christ, 177.

[3] Torrance, Atonement: the Person and Work of Christ, 182.

[4] Torrance, Atonement: the Person and Work of Christ, 189.

Penal Substitution? Two Objections and Responses

Penal substitution takes a lot of flack these days. Many of the objections that come up against PSA have focused on this theories assumptions about what justice is.  However, many of these objections are based upon what we tend to think justice is. But as Donald Macleod has said,

It would be certainly perilous to judge the cross by the wisdome of a prevailing culture. From the standpoint of divine revelation the logic must go in the exact opposite direction, allowing the cross to be itself the judge of the culture. This is what Luther meant when he declared, cruz probat omnia (the cross is the test of everything)…

Some object that PSA portrays God as bound to some abstract notion of justice. As if he were ruled by some universal law of justice…

But this gets God and justice all mixed up. God’s righteousness, his justice is not external to who he is. It is not something that exists outside of God. Righteousness is what God is. To say that God acts justly or that God requires penal subsitution (or satsifaction) is to say that God is simply acting out his nature. God acts justly, not because he is required to, God acts justly simply because God just is just….

Some object that PSA operates outside of a biblical understanding of justice. The classical idea of justice is that people get what they deserve – reward if they are good, punishment if they are bad. Biblical justice is about protection, salvation, and solidarity – its about God’s covenental commitment to his people’s well-being.

Again this is simply wrong. This objection is grounded in a modern aversion to justice as retribution (justice certainly is much bigger in scope than mere retribution, but retribution can certainly be a part of what justice is). This objection also splits God’s covenental commitment into two categories that are non-existent in scripture. God’s covenental commitment to his people is not only about God overseeing the well-being of his people  its also about his own righteousness. These two things cannot be separated. Because of God’s righteousness God is justified in punishing when the covenant with him is broken. There is no split between God’s righteousness and his covenant.

Now Penal Substitution has been objected for various reasons, justice only being one of them. As we can see, these two simple objections miss the mark when it comes to atonement and justice.

Mystery & Atonement

The concept of “mystery” plays an important role in T.F. Torrance’s atonement theology. In chapter one of Atonement he outlines his approach to the doctrine of atonement. He begins by describing the liturgy of the day of atonement in the Old Testament. As he describes what happens, he says that the most important part of the deed of atonement is done within the veil, beyond human sight.[1] He says that “The inner mystery God ordained to be completely veiled from human eyes.”[2] This is important because it leads Torrance to believe that “the innermost mystery of atonement and intercession remains mystery: it cannot be spelled out, and it cannot be spied out.” The mystery of the act of atonement leads TorrTF Torranceance to believe that we cannot have “any mere theory of the atonement.”[3] He explains that there is no logical relation between the death of Jesus and the forgiveness of sins. For him one cannot reason, a priori, to the fact of atonement in the death of Christ. One can merely “follow Christ, and think only a posteriori,” understanding that the atoning deed on the cross is a mystery.

———————————————————————————-

[1] Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement: the Person and Work of Christ, ed. Robert T. Walker (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 2.

[2] Torrance, Atonement: the Person and Work of Christ, 2.

[3] Torrance, Atonement: the Person and Work of Christ, 4.

Atonement Week – The Crucified King – Kindle Deal

Its tonement week and boy do I have a deal for you! Right now you can get Jeremy Treat’s excellent treatment of this doctrine, The Crucified King: Atonement in Biblical and Systematic Theology for your Kindle for only $1.99! What a steal!

This book won the “Award of Merit” for Theology/Ethic in Christianity Today’s 2015 Book Awards.

“The great, central doctrine of Christianity, the Atonement, has suffered rough treatment in this century from friend and foe alike. It has been pulled apart by false dichotomies, knocked off balance by reactionary overemphasis, displaced, overworked, and buried out of sight. Treat’s calm and sagacious book exorcises a legion of interpretive errors in one smooth argument: Christ brings the kingdom through the Cross.” —Fred Sanders, professor, Torrey Honors Institute of Biola University

Don’t miss out on this deal!

T.F. Torrance’s Mechanism of Atonement

It has often been said that T.F. Torrance’s “mechanism” (the means by which atonement is accomplished) of atonement is the vicarious humanity of Christ. However I’m starting to think that the vicarious humanity of Christ is just a part of a larger mechanism of atonement – which is actually union.

I recently came across a passage in Space, Time, and Resurrection where Torrance talks about the “mechanism” of atonement (although he doesn’t use that particular language. This passage is filled with vicarious humanity language – yet read a certain way, it seems as though even more foundational than vicarious humanity (this is actually what makes vicarious humanity possible) is actually the union between God and man. Here is how Torrance puts it:

By living the life which Jesus Christ lived in our midst, the life of compete obedience to the Father and of perfect communion with him, the life of absolute holiness in the midst of our sin and corruption, and by living through the whole course of our human existence from birth to death (this is vicarious humanity language) he achieved within our creaturely being the very union between God and man that constitutes the heart of atonement (this is union language) effecting man’s salvation and restoration to communion with God the Father.

Naturally we understand the fact that Christ can live our lives vicariously because human nature and the divine nature are hypostatically united in Jesus Christ – but it seems to me that Torrance is placing the emphasis not on the vicarious nature of Christ’s life on our behalf – but rather on the fact that union occurs (and persists) as the thing which constitutes atonement.

Reformed and catholic!?!?

It seems like a simple question, which doesn’t have a very simple answer:

Can Christians and churches be catholic and Reformed? Can they commit themselves not only to the ultimate authority of apostolic Scripture but also to receiving this Bible within the context of the apostolic Church?

Allen and Swain believe that the answer to that question is a simple “yes!” In fact they say that “to be Reformed means to go deeper into true catholicity, not to move away from catholicity.” (4) Allen and Swain take the next 160 or so pages to unpack the complexity of this seemingly simple answer.Reformed Catholicity

Joining the rather popular, and encouraging trend, of theological retrieval (which we see in Radical Orthodoxy, Evangelical Ressourcement, and Resourcement Thomism) Allen and Swain provide us with a Sola Scriptura based logic for pursuing a Reformed retrieval program. They argue that one can take the distinctive features of Reformation theology and ecclesiology in order develop a truly catholic theology – that is a theology which embraces the Great Tradition of the Church.

Overview

They begin their argument, or manifesto, for Reformed Catholicity, by sketching the logic behind the claim that the catholic church is the context for doing theology. They base their argument upon the notion that the church is the “School of Christ.” This first chapter dips into ecclesiology and pneumatology and shows that the Spirit, who is the teacher, abides in the church and ensures that its apostolic teaching is guarded through the reading of Scripture. This establishes the basis for saying that “the church is the school of Christ, taught by the Spirit of Christ; the church is the seedbed of theology that flourishes by the anointing of Christ.” (46)

Their argument then turns the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In chapter two they seek to defend this doctrine from recent criticisms. Most of these criticisms are based upon seeing this doctrine from a modernist perspective rather than seeing the doctrine as it truly is meant to be understood – in a reformed catholic context. In chapter three they argue that the more one is committed to the authority of scripture the more one is compelled to honor and respect the teachings of those in the church that came before us. They show that Scripture and tradition are not mutually exclusive. Scripture generates tradition, and tradition serves scripture by helping us read it.

Chapter four attempts to provide an argument for a “ruled reading” of Scripture on the basis of Reformed theological and ecclesiological principles. (96) This chapter provides a solid foundation for reading scripture in light of one’s doctrinal commitments. To most theologians this seems quite obvious – we always bring our theological baggage (I wish there were a more positive word for this) to our reading of Scripture. And this is Okay! However, many biblical scholars argue that we should try not to do this – we should try to read scripture solely based upon historical criteria. Those scholars need to read this chapter.

Their last chapter is a defense of the practice of proof texting in theology. They show that “a proof text signals a symbolic relationship between commentarial specificity and dogmatic synthesis as well as exegetical precision and cognizance.” Thus most critiques against proof-texting (done well) actually misunderstand the practice.

This last chapter is followed up by an afterword written by J. Todd Billings. He sums up the vision of Reformed Catholicity by applying it to the life of congregations on the ground. Pastor theologians will find this chapter incredibly interesting since it compares and contrasts the catholic reformed vision of the church and ministry with a consumeristic – moralistic therapeutic deism so prevalent in the church.

Thoughts…

I really appreciated this book; probably because I was already on board with the overall project of reformed catholicity. So instead of focusing on critiquing Allen and Swain’s work I want to highlight several further lines of research that come out of this book.

  1. The Goal of the Spirit’s Pedagogical Role & Papal Infalibility – There is an interesting footnote in chapter 3 which waves this topic. Given the Spirit’s role abiding within the church and teaching the church, the fact that the church’s understanding of its apostolic foundation and and must grow, and the fact that the Spirit’s goal is to lead the church into the eschatological future of fully knowing God we might want to rethink Papal infallibility as not completely wrongheaded – we might want to consider it to be more akin to an over-realized eschatology.
  2. The Role of the Pastor-Theologian – Allen and Swain argue that theology and exegesis work hand in hand. They says that more theologians should commit to an ongoing practice of doing exegetical work in lectures, conferences addresses, and their personal writing plans. I want to make a suggestion that they overlook – theologians should preach more in their churches. Some of the greatest theologians were pastors at one point or another in their life: Calvin, Barth, Bonhoeffer. The discipline of theology would be better served if theologians had to regularly preach in their home churches.
  3. Christian Education – In order to become better readers of scripture – and thus hopefully better “doers of the word” – we need to learn how to read scripture well. We learn to read scripture well when we have a strong theological foundation – In other words we need to learn how to read scripture with the great catholic tradition in mind. This will involve “pre-loading” Christians with doctrine before they approach the text. What is the best way to do this? Is it catechetical classes? Sunday School? More doctrinal preaching? Really I don’t know. But it’s a vital question for the health of our churches.

In my opinion Reformed Catholicity paints a picture of being a catholic protestant that is far bigger than simply including Reformed believers. Most of what Allen and Swain say could be appropriated by anybody within the Reformation tradition. As somebody who doesn’t subscribe to a Reformed ecclesiology (I’m “Baptistic” & Reformed), I appreciated the fact that their “Reformed theological and eccelsiological principles” where broad enough that someone with Reformed sensibilities but a free-church ecclesiology could embrace.

Reformed Catholicity is a fantastic book. If you are a pastor or theologian who cares about the fact that the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic then you need to read Allen and Swain’s manifesto for being Reformed (protestant) and catholic.

Atonement – Los Angeles Theology Conference 2015

The 2015 Los Angeles Theology Conference will be held this upcoming Thursday and Friday at Biola University. The theme of LATC will be the doctrine of atonement. Here is how the organizers describe the conference:

We are inviting theologians who can situate the doctrine of the atonement in its larger systematic theological context, show its connections and implications with other doctrines, and thus throw light on where atonement takes place.

Los Angeles Theology Conference - LATC

The five plenary speakers will be:

    • Michael Horton, Westminster Seminary California
      Atonement and Ascension
    • Matthew Levering, Mundelein Seminary
      Atonement and Creation
    • Bruce McCormack, Princeton Theological Seminar
      Atonement and Human Suffering
    • Ben Myers, Charles Sturt University
      Atonement and the Image of God
    • Eleonore Stump, St. Louis University
      Atonement and Eucharist

In light of the upcoming conference, I will be focusing my blog on the doctrine of atonement next week. Expect to see a lot of T.F. Torrance!

Here is a short video on the doctrine of atonement to hold you off in the meantime:

Regulators! Mount Up! (Or the Regulative Principle of Worship)

Back in 2007 I went to Uganda for the first time. It was a life-changing, vocation shaping trip. On that trip I formed friendships (with my team and with Africans) that have persisted even to this day. It was on that trip that I think I realized for the first time the truly universal nature of the church. The church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Now, I get that more than ever, but on that trip, the weight of that truth struck me for the first time. Worship was quite an experience! It was intense, hands up, people jumping, people dancing, people shouting for joy. I had never seen anything like that (and I grew up in Hispanic churches!) The word was preached differently too – not in the sense that it was unrecognizable, but I had never hear so much feedback and response during a sermon, I had never seen the preacher so fired up. (And I grew up in Hispanic churches!) It all felt so different, yet somehow I felt like I was at my own church. It felt new, but the same. It felt exotic, but somehow familiar.

Trip Lee has recently written something similar on his experiences of worshipping in churches around the world .

He says that,

In many ways, it was different from what I was used to, but it was also strikingly similar. And I suspect it’s similar to your own church services as well. The fact that churches on different sides of the globe are so similar yet so different is what we should expect when the gospel is proclaimed in diverse places. There is a glorious, diverse sameness. And we should be satisfied with nothing less.

He then points us to the “regulative principle.” He reminds us that “The regulative principle is the conviction that everything we do in corporate worship must have warrant in Scripture, either by direct command or implication. As the examples above show us, when we anchor ourselves in God’s revealed truth, there will be a certain sameness to our church gatherings—even when the church is on the other side of the world.”

But doesn’t this principle limit the indigenous nature of the church and the contextual nature of worship? Shouldn’t every church service look the same if this principle is true? By no means!

I recently came across an interesting footnote in Michael Allen & Scott Swain’s Reformed Catholicity regarding the regulative principle. In it they give us the Reformational basis for the regulative principle and the ongoing diversity in the church’s expression of worship despite this principle….

Invariably this principle has always involved the necessity of distinguishing between elements and forms (and sometimes even between forms and circumstances). For instance, while the Bible mandates the element of Scripture readings in worship, it does not mandate the form of that reading (whether one verse or four chapters, from Deuteronomy or from the Gospel according to Matthew, etc.). The “regulative principle” refers to elements, which necessarily take form in various circumstances according to pastoral prudence and Christian wisdom. Hence “biblical worship” in the Reformed tradition is not a homogeneous ideal but a common commitment to worship via Word, Sacrament, and Prayer that can take carious contextual forms as appropriately discerned by ecclesial authorities. (69)

What this means, quite simply, is that “Church” must contain certain elements – like the Word proclaimed (readings, sermons, devotionals, homilies, etc.) & Prayer (corporate prayer, private prayer, prayer through musical worship) – but how those elements are expressed is up to the discernment of the church’s leaders. The leaders must determine what is biblically appropriate for that specific context.

So to all you regulators out there, who are gonna hate on my steez – don’t hate us cuz you aint us! Just kidding. To all you regulators out there, mount up and make sure you are regulating the right things…

The O.G. Regultors - Warren G and Nate Dogg (RIP).
The O.G. Regultors – Warren G and Nate Dogg (RIP).

One Year Anniversary

Exactly one year ago I got married to my best friend and constant companion. It has been a year full of sweet moments, exciting moments, and crazy moments. I get to spend every day with the woman who gives me encouragement, comfort, and strength. Given our involvement in ministry we both need that encouragement, comfort, and strength. People tend to speak as if God simply rained down those things upon us, at times he does, but most often he uses other believers who are close to us to grant us those things. I am thankful I have her by my side…

Wedding Decoration 5

My wife is compassionate and determined. Gentle and strong. Unwavering and passionate. Most of all she is loving. She loves Jesus and she also (thankfully!) loves me. She desires to follow Jesus passionately, which is so cool. This often leads us into crazy adventures. And this is only year one…. I look forward to the many more adventures that the Lord has in store for us as we live out this mission he has given to us to take back ground for the Kingdom.