| John's Index | Greater Emmanuel | Email John |
Seriously Flawed Mentoring
By John Gavazzoni
Early on in my walk with the Lord, the mentoring I was exposed to was of the independent, fundamental, Bible-church kind, i.e., more or less Baptistic and dispensational, much of which laid an encrustation of doctrinal corruption over my pristine experience of the saving grace of our Lord Jesus, and if I may say so, the element of His sovereignty being evident from the beginning to end of the process of Him drawing me to Himself. I must say that I was sincerely loved by the first pastor I knew coming out of Roman Catholicism, yet also, he, with other mentors, seriously misinformed me as to how God relates to sinful humanity.
That early-on mentoring had at is core the theory that the reconciliation effected by the death of Christ was a two-way street, i.e., that not only was there the need for man, sinfully alienated from God, to be reconciled to God, but also that God required of Himself that He be reconciled to man. This was taught to me as intrinsic to the very nature of the gospel, and that I should always make that clear when seeking to win a soul to Christ. Any thought to the contrary was deemed to be seriously heretical.
This view of the reconciliation effected by the death of Christ is known formally as the penal substitutionary atonement, or as it was called back in those days in those circles, vicarious substitutionary atonement. Being intimidated...and that's basically what it really amounted to....by my elders, I intellectually embraced, gave mental assent to, that doctrine. I incorporated into my early witness for Christ, in the first sermon I preached in that church at age 16, and when I later went into full-time evangelistic ministry (that is, as conventionally understood.)
As I recall, the word, "atonement" appears only once in the KJV of the New Testament, and it has validity if we take its meaning from the composition of the word: at-one-ment (restoring union between God and man.) Reconciliation is the issue, and probably a better translation where "atonement" appears. That brings us to what the theory posits, and I will explain it in layman's terms, yet I think with academic accuracy.
At its very core, the theory begins with a supposed conflict within God. God is seen as conflicted as He faces the dilemma of having to deal with fallen mankind while being both a righteous/holy God and a loving God. His righteousness demanding retribution, while His love requires of Him to be merciful. He's conflicted down to the deepest level of His nature. What to do? His holiness having been offended by our sin demands to be appeased (that's basically how they understand propitiation). Sinful man simply cannot be "let off." In contradiction to Paul, God is seen by that theory reckoning the world's sin against them.
They must pay. They cannot be "let off." Payment must be made; justice must be brought to bear. How could man ever come up with the payment price? Probably the great majority of believers have that concept in mind when they hear, or when the speak, of Jesus paying the price for our sins: Unless God could find a way out of His internal dilemma, being of such absolute holiness/righteousness, only sending sinners to everlasting torment could satisfy Him. The proponents of such a view seem never to consider that if the punishment never ends, then God is never fully satisfied.
So, we have God full of, and brimming over with, righteous anger (wrath). He's got to vent it. He's got to rid Himself of this...what is effectively...need to get even, while finding a way for mercy to enter the picture. So, He decides the only way is to pour out the entirety of His wrath upon His Son in our place. The theory rests upon the foundation of an instead-of salvation, rather than a with-us salvation. It is substitutionary/vicarious. Supposedly God could substitute His Son for us because of His Son's infinite worth to Him, worth equal to, or surpassing the worth of all mankind.
In spite of the very obvious absence in scripture of any reference to God needing to be reconciled to man, the theory posits that very thing: God must be reconciled to man, before man can be reconciled to God, and the conflict between God's righteousness and His mercy must be reconciled since our sin caused a division between the two attributes. I cannot too strongly make the point: Always, scripture presents only man's need of being reconciled to God.
It seems to be so repugnant to the carnal, religious mind, to think that God will not, does not, hold our sins against us, though certainly there is consequence. Little thought is given to the difference between consequence and penalty. A veil of darkness descends over their minds when they read, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, NOT reckoning their sins against them." The last part of the sentence is explanatory. It is by NOT reckoning our sins against us that God reconciles us to Himself....brings our consciences in line with His non-retributive justice. In a word, God is by nature...so to speak...out-the-gate conciliatory toward man. Beyond being conciliatory, He loved us, unconditionally while we were (being actively) His enemies.
The notion that the meaning of Christ dying for us/dying for our sin involved His being punished by God instead of us is the fundamental proposition in the theory. Yet, Paul explains the benefits afforded us by Jesus' death and resurrection, as accruing to us in union with Him, not as Him instead of us. From the incarnation, through His life, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, enthronement, and glorification, salvation's benefits are ours WITH Him/by our union with Him, NOT by God substituting Jesus for us.
Of possible further interest to the reader, I have three very basic articles on the subject on our web page on the Greater Emmanuel International Ministries (GEIM) site under the first year's listings (2001). They are: "The Great Misrepresentation," "My Dad, God," "and, "The Atonement".
A final, very seminal point: Imagining that there could be a conflict within God between His holiness and righteousness verses His love, mercy, and grace, has within that imagination a most fundamental theological flaw, i.e., not realizing that it is the love of God that makes God holy and righteous, thus there can be no conflict. The love that God IS, is the constitution of His rightness. God is always relationally right because He is love.
| John's Index | Greater Emmanuel | Email John |
