Atonement Symposium Part 3: Paulien’s Conclusions
by Adventist Today News Team
The same weekend that the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) convened a symposium on “the atonement” in Loma Linda, California, Dr. Jon Paulien, dean of the school of religion at Loma Linda University, preached on the topic at the University Church. Spectrum, the journal of the largest organization of Adventist academics, focused on his use of “golf clubs” as a metaphor to explain the variety of different Scripture concepts on the theme.
Paulien referred the congregation to his blog where he said that he made available a more detailed paper on the subject. He was evidently referring to the manuscript of a chapter he has prepared for a yet-to-be-published book being put together by a number of Adventist theologians and Bible scholars. The chapter is entitled, “Atonement—Accomplished at the Cross.” It states that the book will be entitled Salvation: Contours of Adventist Soteriology and edited by Martin Hanna, John Reeve and Darius Jankiewicz, all faculty members at Andrews University who played key roles in a 2010 symposium on the Arminian tradition and its contribution to Adventist faith.
The manuscript is 37 pages and heavily footnoted with all of Paulien’s sources and word study clearly detailed. It provides an important perspective on this controversial subject. At the end of the manuscript, Paulien summarizes his conclusions in eight points.
“(1) The English word for atonement is most closely related to the concept of reconciliation. Atonement provides the means and the incentive for human beings to become reconciled to God.
“(2) In the New Testament atonement is clearly focused on the cross, but in Hebrews the principle of the atonement continues in the heavenly work of Jesus Christ.
“(3) The human race is in great need of atonement, being unable to save itself. …
“(4) Although sin is a barrier between God and the human race, God does not require sacrifice in order to desire reconciliation with the human race, instead He Himself lovingly provides the sacrifice … needed to reconcile all to Himself.
“(5) Human beings are called to respond to God’s reconciling action with an action of their own.
“(6) Although God has given humans over to the consequences of their own sinful actions, He continually desires fellowship with sinful humans. His love provides all that they cannot perform in order for atonement to take place.
“(7) The atonement at the cross is not limited to some humans or even all humans, but in some sense affects the entire universe.
“(8) The New Testament offers a variety of models to explain the atonement. There was no attempt to set one view as normative over against the others and various models could be mingled in a single sentence or paragraph.”
Adventist Today could not obtain any information about the plans for publication of the book for which this manuscript was prepared. One source told Adventist Today that it will most likely be published by Andrews University Press.
It is refreshing to see the subject addressed with the focus being on what God is doing to reconcile us to Him. It is time we finally got away from the traditional SDA image of God as a judge who must be satisfied in the smallest details and who is willing to condemn any who fall short of that standard.
'The New Testament offers a variety of models to explain the atonement. There was no attempt to set one view as normative over against the others and various models could be mingled in a single sentence or paragraph.'
A key point and I wholly agree with much enthusiasm. There is a certain level of doctrinal truth that is clear and unambiguous in the Bible. However, there is a deeper level, which whilst interesting, is somewhat convoluted and less than clear in scripture.
The deeper convoluted level is something we should all strive to understand. However, we should always be very careful of making that level of understanding dogmatic creedal tests of faith.
That is demonstrated well in the issue of atonement theory. The Bible is pretty clear that Christ died so we could be reconciled with God and have eternal life. This is where the creedal fundamental belief should rest.
The Bible is less than clear who Christ actually brings about that reconcilliation. Whether we personally think the Christ Victor, ransom, mouse trap, penal substitution, moral influence or governmental is the best explanation, we shouldn't be dogmatic about something the Bible itself is unclear on.
Stephen,
Some realities of God are so great that endless analysis only subtracts from their beauty and power. Thus far all of my attempts to understand God have failed. Just when I think I have Him figured out, He surprises me with something new. I've learned He is so much greater than I am that the beauty of who and what He is only gets obscured by trying to figure out how He does what He does.
William,
Your address reminds me of circular logic put out by Aquainas. He also describes god in glowing praises. Just when you have him figured out? Aquainas said god is so great that human understanding fails to comprehend. Then he makes his famous statement "we must comprehend the incomprehensible." So on the one hand you discover something new about god but then you turn around and say we can't figure god out. Hmm. This whole soteriology is nothing but a man made construct. How do we really know that Paulienes arguments say anything about god that is "real" or "correct"? I am amazed that people actually have a "career" in theology and get paid to write such nonsense. The arguments presented may be reasonable and logical but may also be utterly wrong.
There would be no need for reconciliation had not the OT writers so often portrayed him as they did:
Wrathful, arbitrary, capricious, and killing without even a warning, at times. Such a picture, surely
led the people to fear him, which is expressed often in the Hebrew Scriptures.
That has, and will always be a dilemma for Christians in adopting the Trinitarian concept that God is represented in Jesus and they are essentially the same. That does not compute in the rational mind then, and not even today, for many, as we see that theodicy has never been adequately and suffiently presented.
Good luck in convincing everyone. After 2,000 years, the theologians continue trying, but the man in the street is still unconvinced and the recommendations to study the Bible more, adds more questions than answers. As a Harvard OT professor confessed: "I do not allow my children to read the Bible until they are older (oldest was 11 at that time), for these very reasons. Children cannot comprehend such cognitive dissonance, but we expect adults to be better with these contradiction?
Elaine,
I like #7 “The atonement at the cross is not limited to some humans or even all humans, but in some sense affects the entire universe." What? How does he know that? Are there other life forms out there that need "atonement"? Reading the post leaves me laughing and shaking my head.
"THE BIBLE IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT CHRIST DIED SO WE COULD BE RECONCILED TO GOD AND HAVE ETERNAL LIFE". Yes. Did God not annihilate all but eight souls??? Unless God provided the atonement for man, in the fact that the innocent Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, in His perfect love for His children, was willing to sacrifice Himself, so none who hear His voice would be lost. If not, the God of the OT would have to complete the anihilation. The first covenant condemns & kills. The New Covenant of LOVE SAVES. Praise God.
RE (Mr Calahan): "The first covenant condemns & kills."
————
I'm not sure about this! Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord [Gen 6:8]. Adam and Eve were forgiven and saved in terms of the promise [Gen 3:15, 21]. Cain was dealt with rather generously with God being merciful to him after he murdered his brother [Gen 4:15]. These are just a few from Genesis alone. In fact the OT has more stories and experiences showing God's grace than even the NT. Just because the New Covenant was ushered in with Messiah doesn't in any way undermine the power of the Messianic Promise which by faith Adam, Abraham and the Children of Israel had in the Promise of Messiah on which the old covenant was based on.
Hab 2:4 – the just shall live by faith
Zech 13:1 – a fountain shall be opened for cleansing from sin
Heb 11:4 – by faith Abel was righteous
Heb 11:5 – by faith Enoch was translated
Heb 11:7 – by faith Noah became an heir to righteousness
Heb 11:8-10 – by faith Abraham, Isaac and Jacob became heirs of the same promise
Heb 11:11 – by faith Sara was blessed with a child
(Heb 11:13 [UKJV])
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them far off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
The Old covenant, although just a shadow of the Newer, which was abrogated when Messiah came, nonetheless showed in type, God's Love, Grace, and Mercy. I see this throughout the OT without a shadow of doubt. David, Samson and even the likes of Manasseh certainly experienced God's grace big-time. Besides, there's so much of joy and thanksgiving in the OT which certainly wouldn't be so if it was such a death camp experience.
RE (Mrs Nelson): "As a Harvard OT professor confessed: "I do not allow my children to read the Bible until they are older (oldest was 11 at that time), for these very reasons."
———-
No need to go that far. For a number of years I have been involved in the Sabbath School where I have noticed many young parents unwilling to study the Bible Lessons with their children. Come to think of it, they don't either. Won't even get the lesson book which costs even less than a standard McDonalds' meal. I find this more prevalent among those who are more affluent. I guess that is part of the price one pays toward progressive (regressive?) Christianity. Shame on the Prof.
That observation adds to the mountain of evidence about the Sabbath School lessons having become irrelevant, which is a symptom of the lack of the presence and power of God in the church. Further evidence of this is the amount of energy people put into proving their views about scripture are correct. Such people ignore basic soul winning which, quite naturally, fails because the power of God among the debaters has either a distant memory or mere theory.
Come on, folks! Its time to quit arguing and start actually working for God!
There should be no need for explaining why reading about the raping, killing, torture and murders, plus incest and polygamy should be kept from children, no less than pornography and violence, which is what such stories in the Bible contain.
Children can be told selected stories by an adult, rather than picking up the Bible and reading anything to be found there. You want your children reading the Song of Solomon? Or the Psalms writing of dashing babies' heads against the wall? No thanks.
Elaines post is causes me to reflect on why I stopped reading the bible a long time ago. Rape, slaghter of children and women on "gods" command is just reprehensible and indefensible. I do not think god was the ogre described. If he is, then I want nothing to do with such a god. Let me sleep the eternal sleep.
Agree Doc. I have a little saying……. the coming of Grace is the realisation that God is not an ogre. But one will not learn this in the OT. So just leave it alone. ALL you need to know the TRUE GOD is revealed by Jesus is the NT. As He said, referring to Moses (and by extension all the OT), 'behold, One greater than Moses is here.' I couldn't deprive my soul of the glory of the NT. But neither do I disturb it by reading the old, well, not much, anyway. Elaine is quite correct in her reasoning why this is so.
The Christian religion will always be a "tough sell" as it tries to combine God in the OT and Jesus in the NT and then say they are really only one. Theodicy is the stumbling block reflected in answers given of why people cannot accept Christianity.
It has never been satisfactorily answered despite the thousands of books, sermons, and teachers who have tried to make sense of the claims made. The OT writers describe a God full of wrath, killing people with no explanation; commanding genocide, and causing natural disasters to punish those who disobey.
This is why children are always taught about baby Jesus, to pray to Jesus, and sing "Jesus Loves Me." When later they discover that God is not the all-loving Father they've been taught and begin reading the OT, they find two distinct personalities that does not compute. All the claims cannot deny the OT God is a fierce warrior who takes revenge.
22. Yes, "the justified shall live by faith". it appears those dying in the flood were those that even God could not tolerate.
Earl,
Really? By the behavior of some humans over that last few thousand years god seems to be awfully tolerant. Maybe he nees to initiate another real flood. The one you speak of is a myth.
Elaine Nelson suggests that "children can be told selected stories… rather than picking up the Bible and reading anything to be found there." I think that far better to keep the kids "safe" – is to read them stories of Winnie the Pooh and other fairytales, and maybe Elaine should also give out lollipops while telling those stories.
Fairytales like the Grinch or Hanseld and Gretl or Red Riding Hood?
Golf clubs, atonement, circular logic, God's wrath, and children's stories reconciled, all for institutional salary security?
Doctorf. i agree with you. See my submission ten items above. Tongue in cheek expression.
Why the Old Testament Needs to Be There
In the second century, there was a huge battle between the Marcionites (who wanted only 10 of the Pauline epistles plus a proto-Luke) and the proto-orthodox (those who would become orthodox because they won the war against the Marcionites) as to whether or not to include the Hebrew Scriptures in the Christian Scriptures.
Marcion argued exactly as the OT critics here are arguing, saying the OT should be tossed into the theological trash can, because that hideous God was irreconcilable with the God of Paul. But the proto-orthodox felt that without the antiquity of the Hebrew scriptures, Christianity would have no credibility (gravitas) with the Greeks who revered antiquity. So both versions of the Christian scriptures competed side by side, and Marcionite Christianity lost decisively.
Bart Ehrman describes this historical contest between the two Christian scriptures in Lost Christianities..., p. 112, and asserts that the appeal to antiquity (and inclusion of the Hebrew scriptures) was decisive. I don’t always agree with Ehrman, but I think he was right about this.
Marcion was also a proto-Gnostic. That has a lot to do with it as well.