Different Reformation thinkers had different nuances on the matter, but their nuances came from the view that scripture (newly widely available due to the printing press) held the key to answering the question, not the teaching body of the Roman Catholic Church- that the bible was the authority.

Luther had training as a lawyer and was very focused on the legal aspects of the transaction between man and God, and his views were very widely promoted- again, through the use of the “new medium”, the printing press. His spin is basically SA, as I see it (or PSA, if you want to refine it further and call it penal).

It is this combination of:
1) focus on the individual which was characteristic of the Renaissance/Enlightenment;
2) concern about the Law, also an Enlightenment ideal (Locke, other philosophs);
3) repudiation of the teaching authority of the church in favor of now widely available bibles, with insistence on the ability of each *individual* Christian to interpret the bible;
4) dissemination through printing presses (not unlike our internet) of the thoughts of those who made good arguments (Luther and his followers were very good at this- both the dissemination and the arguments)
that led to SA being widely accepted then and is basically THE protestant view on it now.

The reason that some people are so torqued about its losing pride of place among “atonement theories” is that they think this is the clear, main, plain teaching of the bible, and if you reject this teaching then you reject the bible, and if you reject the bible you can’t know God, have answers, be saved, have hope… the world very much comes to an end for those people. I understand this; I used to be one of them.

The problem goes further back, though. When people ceased reading the New Testament with 1st century Jewish lenses (due to passage of time, anti-semitism, change in custom) it became more difficult to find Christus Victor, let alone have that view of atonement be the one that orients all the others, which was the case through the patristic period, as I understand it.

That is why NT Wright and others who have emphasized the C1Jewish understandings, as much as we can know them, have made such an impression on serious students of theology. I have infinitely more hope and trust in God’s goodness, love and mercy, having moved to a Christus Victor view as the result of Wright, R. Webber and -yes!- Dallas Willard (he’s not explicit about this, his concerns lie elsewhere, but his explanation of “heaven” and “kingdom of God” in “The Divine Conspiracy” pried open the locks of my mind) than I EVER experienced with SA/PSA as the controlling atonment “motif”. I am so much more tuned into the Incarnation. I am so much more about worshiping Jesus. The ramifications are indeed cosmic.

Thanks for raising the question. I think more understanding is needed on both “sides”.

I don’t say that to try to refute what you’re saying, but just to help clarify where I’m coming from. But I think you’re also right that the emergent guys perhaps are forced to be defensive in a way that established reformed guys aren’t.

Thanks for responding, it’s good to see things from another perspective. It’s sometimes difficult for me to relate to that b/c of where I am now but I also kinda know where you’re coming from b/c I grew up in a fundamentalist church where anyone who is not like C.I. Scofield dispensational is suspect at best, and oftentimes thought to be a heretic. (Needless to say, if you think Scofield was crazy, like I do, you don’t really fit in. So I do relate to feeling very vulnerable because of theological positions.)

~jake

Brian, you and I will obviously differ on our understanding of Scripture’s role. I am more than a little concerned that you say that Scripture never talks about itself since that’s a basic Lutheran hermeneutic (Scripture interprets Scripture). It does seem to cross reference itself all over the place, and we tend to see it as a whole partially because of that fact

That’s actually not what I meant to say, I agree with that principle of interpreting scripture in full. What I was saying is that scripture never mentions the original documents or anything of the sort.

Just to clarify!

Brian, you and I will obviously differ on our understanding of Scripture’s role. I am more than a little concerned that you say that Scripture never talks about itself since that’s a basic Lutheran hermeneutic (Scripture interprets Scripture). It does seem to cross reference itself all over the place, and we tend to see it as a whole partially because of that fact. As to “inerrancy”, I think that is just as equally misunderstood by those who want promote it and those who want to bash it to pieces. The idea is that the Word (Logos) stands behind Scripture and that these words inspired by the Spirit are inerrant because they were written by people being used as tools by the Spirit. He continues to provide for us those words in a variety of languages and translations – and He continues to stand behind them.

As to substitutionary atonement – this has been the classic way of understanding what Christ has done for us since Anselm. It’s baggage that we have been carrying since then. I think it’s good to look for other metaphors for what Christ has done for us, but if we destroy substitionary atonement as a metaphor we are doing ourselves as much injustice as if we threw out all of Paul’s writing (or reinterpreted them in such a way that they were no longer Pauline – such as what E.P. Sanders might do).

Gustav Aulen has a very good book on the different metaphors called Christus Victor and my implication of Anselm comes from agreeing with what he had to say.

The point of departure that I have, as a fairly conservative theologian, with the more “EmergENT” types such as Pagitt and McLaren is not so much disagreement with them that we need new metaphors or at least attention to metaphors we’ve left behind. It’s that their metaphors are generally crafted poorly and do little else than construct a fictional justification much worse than what my man Luther was ever accused of.

Good to be wrestling with these questions though. I’ll put my prayers with you this week as you struggle with this.

In Christ,
jW

I was led to believe in my readings about the emerging/emergent movement that doctrinal debates such as these are not the norm. I thought that there was more openness to diverse views, and that the conservative/liberal disputes taking place in the “established church” were something the movement wanted to steer clear of.

If that is not the case, and doctrinal debates rage within the movement, then I think I can address Jake’s comments about the supposed maturity of “the reformed camp” versus the supposed defensiveness of “the emergent guys”. And I think I can do it without knowing most of the names he mentioned.

Simply put, most conservatives don’t have to worry about losing their jobs because of their theological views. Liberals, however, often times do, unless they are in protected “zones” like progressive presbyteries or financially indepedent liberal churches. Unprotected liberals are often put on the defensive, or else they learn to keep their mouths closed in order to keep their jobs and continue feeding their families.

Call me cynical, but as an unprotected liberal, that’s how I view things.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

As to substitutionary atonement- I like the way Tim Keller explained it at Mark Driscoll’s Reform and Resurgence conference last May. He said he has no problem with a gospel that places the center on kingdom-building, he thinks there is a lot of good to come from that. And if that’s your primary understanding of the gospel, obviously you’ll emphasize other aspects of the atonement.

However, as Keller pointed out, if you don’t have a keen understanding of the substitutionary nature of the atonement, will you be as profoundly grateful to God? Will you be humbled before him as you ought to be? Will you be able to write lines like, “Oh to grace how great a debtor, daily I’m constrained to be!” I can’t help but compare the leadership in the two camps- there is a maturity and wisdom I see in guys like Piper, Harris, Mahaney, Keller, and Taylor that I simply do not see in most emergent leaders. Many emergents seem very defensive and sometimes outright angry. Sure there are reformed guys who sometimes demonstrate that attitude as well (Driscoll, MacArthur, Phil Johnson, etc.) and emergent guys who do not (Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo if you want to call him emergent) but generally I see a greater individual maturity in the reformed camp.

Put shortly, substitutionary atonement doesn’t do a lot to direct my life on a day-to-day basis (and if it’s your only understanding of the atonement I think it does lead to an escapist thinking). However, substitutionary atonement gives me the motivation I need to then allow other theories of the atonement to inform how I live practically on a day-to-day basis. If it weren’t for substitutionary atonement, I wouldn’t understand my desperate need for God and debt owed to him.

Does that make sense? For anyone who is interested, I’d strongly encourage you to check out the Resurgence featured audio podcast and get Tim Keller’s talk on Preaching the Gospel.