Protestant View on Atonement Dies Hard
Updated July 14, 2017
Most Facebook discussions aren’t pretty. Oh, they start out innocent enough, but they have a tendency to turn ugly in a hurry, especially when you challenge pet doctrines. It doesn’t take long for the name-calling and other ad hominem attacks to ensue. But every once in a while you encounter a group of individuals who express a modicum of politeness and respect even if you don’t manage to persuade them with your argument.
I hold out some hope for the folks involved in the following discussion. As you can see for yourself, their overall tone of civility leads me to believe that some of them just might be persuaded one day (perhaps as the lingering words of the argument echo in their minds and they have time to reflect on them and the Holy Spirit uses them to bring about conviction).
The roots of Protestant orthodoxy run deep, as the many well-documented examples here at Paul’s Passing Thoughts affirm. Therefore it doesn’t really come as any surprise that so many Christians demonstrate such a woeful misunderstanding of a doctrine such as “The Atonement” or hold on to that same misunderstanding so vehemently. Yet when so many Christians begin with the assumption that believers still sin, it only stands to reason that the obvious conclusion is that some need for perpetual “covering” of that sin is required.
Therein lies the error. Believers don’t sin because sin is ENDED. Sin is ended because they are born again. And if sin is ended, then there is no more need for a covering!
~ Andy
“So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” ~ Galatians 3:24-26
“For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” ~ Hebrews 10:26
New comments were added to this discussion this afternoon:
New comments added as of 7/13/2017
New comments added July 14, 2017
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Yes, what a change in attitude from the usual Facebook exchanges (remember the previous one?). Yes, I hope too the light goes on for these folks.
Indoctrination runs deep, and Piper is a false prophet and a co-worker of his real father, the devil. The drivel attributed to him on that white door is simply garbage; but then again, so is Calvinism.
LikeLike
Almost no one is consistent in their beliefs. Christians are some of the worst.
When truth is both true and mysterious, it really doesn’t matter what you believe. All that is left is to find an authority and sacrifice humanity to it. There can be nothing other than this except perhaps the various social incarnations of chaos and confusion–of trying to practically apply contradictions–which precede the final collapse.
As far as argumentation goes, well, as Jonathan Swift once said, “you cannot reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned into”. The best you can hope for, is what you did here: argue consistently and kindly and softly, and hope that those who are given to thought will actually think about what you said.
It’s taken me literally years and years to realize this, and I am still realizing it to this day, and trying to integrate it into my personality and my personal and interpersonal interactions. To put away rancor and anger and offense and hypersensitivity and to present the truth as consistently as possible and trust that those who want the truth, and truly love humanity, and truly despise violence, and truly laud love, will begin to think about their foundational assumptions and begin to add to the conversation. Something it is unlikely they have ever done before. It will be ugly it will be messy, but conversations like this do wonders.
LikeLike
Well stated, Argo. And the Jonathan Swift quote is spot on!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andy, that was an awesome exchange with open and honest dialogue. Yes there is hope. It is unusual when these dialogues remain charitable. Perhaps those with whom you dialogued will think about what you are saying and come to an epiphany. You did an excellent job of explaining the gospel.
I think where people get hung up is with the “sins” of a family member (the believer who has become a new creation under the new covenant of love and grace) vs. the “sins” of the criminal (the unbeliever who stands condemned under the old covenant of sin and death).
Those who have been adopted into God’s family and who have experienced the new birth can still fail and sometimes fail miserably. As you describe “law” having two purposes perhaps one could describe “sin” as having two different definitions (one under the old covenant and one under the new covenant).
“Sin” under the old covenant = death because of the law.
“Sin” under the new covenant = life because of the new birth (sin is failure to love/ weakness).
“Sin” under the old covenant = the law is strictly applied and perfect adherence is required
“Sin” under the new covenant = there is no law and there is no need for the law because love fulfills the law
“Sin” under the old covenant = the speed limit is 70 mph — anything over 70 mph means a speeding ticket
“Sin” under the new covenant = there is no speed limit — we drive with respect and with safety in mind
Maybe my examples above would help explain things better (assuming I understand myself). Where you seem to get the push back is with the language “believers can’t sin” — when what you are trying to convey is that “sin” for the believer is a “failure to love” or a “failure to act in accordance with the new birth” or “weakness”.
LikeLike
“Where you seem to get the push back is with the language ‘believers can’t sin’ — when what you are trying to convey is that ‘sin’ for the believer is a ‘failure to love’ or a ‘failure to act in accordance with the new birth’ or ‘weakness’.”
Yes, you are right, and I recognize that language presents a stumbling block for most people, and perhaps I need to reconsider rewording that. But I hesitate to do so because I believe that not only is it a dogmatic statement but it is the most rationally consistent statement. It leaves no room for equivocation. Your clarification above perfectly explains what we are getting at with regard to this issue.
Those are also great examples you have listed above as well. The one about the speed limit I have often used myself.
LikeLike
Andy,
Why don’t you use your “dogmatic statement” and then follow it with something along the lines of the examples I gave you. You are welcome to what I have written or you can make up your own. What I wrote was off the cuff and I am sure it could be improved. People do not understand what you are trying to get at — really they don’t.
What they hear is “believers cannot sin” (that is all they hear) and the screaming “you’re a heretic” begins. Seriously. Unfortunately, you are fighting against long standing cliches and slogans which have become mindless repetition in most of the Protestant world.
There is no critical thinking to see the difference between slogan and what Scripture says. And when you add a popular well-known/ regarded celebrity pastor ….. Perhaps if you explain it as I have, perhaps you will have “light bulbs go off” — and I would add the appropriate scripture references as well (I did not do that above).
Susan
LikeLike
Susan, yes, regarding your last paragraph, remember that Calvinists LOVE to brag about what lowly undeserving sinners they are; they are, indeed, all members of “Sergeant Calvin’s Lowly Worm Club Band.” Or something like that. And that’s why despicable acts/advice/counseling abound in that cult . . . all the time.
Yes, Andy did a great job. Fantastic. I really hope and trust those folks come round to the liberating truth that is in Christ; in what He accomplished. Past tense.
LikeLike
Susan, great, great advice and suggestions. I agree fully: All they hear is ‘“Believers cannot sin” (that is all they hear) and the screaming of “you’re a heretic” begins.”‘
We should always keep in mind that we’re dealing with a cult, and those are tougher nuts to crack/bigger light bulbs that need to go off. It’s 500 years of disinformation, indoctrination, one-line slogans, conferences, mystical mantras, Gnosticism, “celebrity” wolves, pride, millions of books, etc., that the truth must break through. But it is worth a try, always.
Love your comments.
LikeLike
Because “sin” according to Protestant orthadoxy is sin against the law of sin and death requiring a perpetrual reapplication of the gospel. If there is only one law and one definition of sin per Protestantism, which law has been violated and what are the ramifications?
LikeLike
This is like building a house whereby you pour the foundation and then re-pour the foundation ….. every single day you re-pour the foundation ….. but you never progress to setting up the exterior structure, the interior wall partitions, putting up the roof, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, drywall, fine finish work, and so forth. No wonder there is no spiritual depth or growth or maturity in “Christiandom”. No one is building the home to completion. I found it astonishing that every single pastor was basically preaching the exact same gospel message every single week with the same old worn out cliches and slogans. It seemed as if no one grew up but instead remained in a perpetual state of spiritual infancy. Surely that isn’t what Jesus taught or what the disciples lived.
LikeLike
What you say is so true. The writer of Hebrews put it this way:
“Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” ~ Hebrews 5:11-6:2
In other words, enough about the gospel already! Move on to maturity!!!
LikeLike
Please check the post above again. New comments were added to the discussion this afternoon. I love the part where the guy asks me if I’m Catholic! ROFL!
LikeLike
Andy, you are an incredibly patient man. Philip is having a difficult time stepping away from his presuppositions. What he has been taught and what he has internalized is standing in the way of what Scripture actually says. If you had a sense of humor you might have answered, “Yes, I am Catholic” and then explained that “Catholic” means universal and the Word of God — Jesus the Word and Holy Scripture the Word — is indeed universal (and eternal too). And you are correct, name the theology and then attack it. That is how the game is played. Do you have anything in a different format (i.e., not FB post type of stuff) that you might refer him to? As in article or book? Maybe that would help him. I pray their eyes are opened so that they can see. Susan
LikeLike
Susan,
LOL, you are right about the “catholic” thing, I wasn’t thinking along those lines. Oh well, probably good that I didn’t muddy the waters with that response.
As far as other references go, unfortunately PPT remains the only real source of this kind of questioning of ingrained orthodoxy. I’m not sure what other source I could point him to other than what Paul or any of us here at PPT have contributed.
LikeLike
Yes, that catholic comment would have muddied the waters. You may be correct about PPT being a lone voice. I have not found what you, Paul, John and Susan have explained in the many and varied articles and posts elsewhere. What your FB friends are doing is putting on glasses (from whatever school of religious thought) and then reading the Bible through those glasses. Unfortunately their glasses distort everything they see.
What I found in the churches I have attended is that as long as you have “a personal relationship with Jesus” (whatever that means, but usually it means you said the “sinner’s prayer” with sincerity) and as long as you attend church, then it is all good. Nothing else, and I do mean, nothing else matters. Beliefs and doctrines and church governance and interpretations can be at odds, contradictory even, and it is all called “Christian”.
I call it “madness” to think that “all truth is truth.” I left a connect group (for good!) asking myself, “What is truth? Is there truth? Can truth be known?” with the next thought as “If all truth is truth! then there is no truth!” What it is is atheism under the guise of modernism, pluralism, relativism and religious indifference. “Deeds not creeds” will be the motto of the soon to emerge One World Church and all of these folks will blindly and merrily fall for it.
LikeLike
I think books by Andy, in whatever form, kindle or hard/soft cover or PDF, are long overdue. They don’t have to be 1349 pages long. If the cult can do it, so can we who are in no pigeonhole at all. Why? Because we are free.
LikeLike
We cannot have any righteousness that belongs to us! That is totally and completely unacceptable in Protestant theology. Any good work that we do cannot mean anything and cannot count towards our growing in maturity and holiness. It is all Christ ALONE and Faith ALONE and ALONE means ALONE. Totally outside ourselves. They just can’t see. Saying you agree about more than what you disagree about completely misses the point.
What do they do with Matthew 25: 31-46? Of course, we are not saved by our “good works” — but our “good works” have virtue and count for something and are rewarded by the Lord. What do they do with the statement that we are “co-labors with Christ” and with the exhortation to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”? What do they do with James 2: 14-26 — “faith without works is dead”?
Sabbath rest? Is that what the apostles and the early Christians did? They rested? No! No! No! They were eager to run the race that was before them and to put aside anything that hindered them. These men and women were known for their love and for lives that shined in the darkness around them. They were on fire with zeal and love. They were seeking to follow/ obey the leading of the Holy Spirit in every single thing they did.
Where your FB friends are going wrong is thinking that what happens in justification is the same thing as what happens in sanctification. Justification: Repent and be baptized. Confess with your mouth and believe in your heart. The entrance into God’s family/ adoption as sons and daughters is the new birth (new creations in Christ Jesus). Then comes sanctification: faith working in love, obedience, cooperation and spiritual growth/ maturity.
Why does Jesus say, “If you love me, keep my Commandments”? That doesn’t sound like “Sabbath rest” to me.
LikeLike
“Why does Jesus say, ‘If you love me, keep my Commandments’? That doesn’t sound like ‘Sabbath rest’ to me.”
Right, they have totally bought into John Calvin heresy without even realizing it.
“Where your FB friends are going wrong is thinking that what happens in justification is the same thing as what happens in sanctification.”
Yes, it is so clear from their own comments that they keep talking about sanctification in a justification way. And what boggles my mind is how they keep going back to the law being the standard for righteousness!
Look it comes down to this as far as I am concerned. The issue with the law is the primary assumption. Everything else hinges upon that. They get justification wrong because they get the law wrong. They get sabbath rest wrong because they get justification wrong. There is no point in me trying to explain his proof texts because he begins from a different premise where his understanding of the law is flawed, so it’s ALWAYS going to lead him to a wrong conclusion about everything else.
LikeLike
Andy, your FB friends are consistent with just about the entirety of the Protestant world view; they consider themselves the “normal” ones. They don’t know what to do with what you are writing to them. And I see what you mean about proof texts. It doesn’t work to use them; you banter back and forth on Scripture verses and spin the wheels in the mud with no 4WD to get the vehicle out of the quagmire. Hopelessly stuck without the Holy Spirit. I give you a lot of credit because I don’t know if I would have the patience for the discussion/ dialogue.
Yes, one error leads to another error leads to another error. The mistakes build upon each other. And because nearly everyone in Protestantville is parroting the exact same thing as your FB friends, YOU are the one who is the “heretic”. (Well you aren’t a heretic, but that’s what they think you are. I’m a heretic too, by the way.) They cannot possibly be wrong because everyone agrees with them. One could ask, “How important is it?” but the answer to that question is, “Absolutely critical, life or death difference.” At least the conversation is civil. Susan
LikeLike
Thanks for the encouragement, Susan. I think I understand what it must have been like for the apostle Paul when he went into the synagogues and disputed with the religious leaders and devout adherents of his time. They rejected him because what he taught defied their authoritative orthodoxy. There was no reasoning with them because they could not imagine that they could possibly be wrong because they viewed their position as the “authoritative” one. But it was the GENTILES who got it because they were more open to the exchange of ideas and you see them coming to Christ is huge numbers. There is a parallel to this today. The institutional churches and their members are those stuck in orthodoxy, while it is more likely that unsaved unchurched people will be the ones who “get it.”
I am just going to keep hammering away on this law issue until the lightbulb goes on for someone, because the law is the key!
LikeLike
Words have ceased to have meaning, Andy. And 180 degree conflicting statements stand together as if there is no disagreement. The sky is green = the sky is blue = both statements are entirely true. Perhaps I shouldn’t give that example because I remember a tornado once where the sky/ clouds really were green, but you get the idea. It is as if these folks aren’t reading the same Bible as you are reading. I’m glad you called Denise out on saying that she agreed with you when she was making disparate arguments/ statements.
Maybe asking questions might help: Are you righteous? What does it mean to be born again? What does it mean to be a new creation? Can anything that is not holy enter heaven? What is the purpose of the law? Is that the only purpose? Why did Christ die? What purpose did Christ’s death serve? How can you be unrighteous and still be a new creation? Can God lie? If God can’t lie then how can God declare you righteous as a legal declaration when that is not true? What is the difference between someone who is saved or not?
You may be right that it would be easier to reach someone who does not attend church as compared to those who are caught within the institutional church and have literally been brainwashed.
LikeLike
This whole conversation is certainly surreal. Last year I wrote an article about the movie The Truman Show, and I seriously feel like I’m trying to tell people that a stage light fell from the sky and they keep insisting it was debris from an airplane.
LikeLike
Perhaps part of the problem is that there is little understanding from Old Testament to New Testament. An OT covenant was different than a contract (a legal agreement for goods and services). The marriage covenant for example: it was an exchange of families and an exchange of persons, it was sworn in God’s name (what God has joined together) and it was a permanent family bond (I am yours and you are mine). And this is how Christ describes his bride, his church and adoption into the family of God. Paul talks to us about Christ as a husband loving his wife (Christ loving his bride/ the church) — it is a marriage. Your FB friends are describing a legal contract, an exchange of goods and services and I hate to be crass, but if you put it in context, what they are describing is “prostitution”. Adoption, family and covenant are NOT some sort of cold court room legal decree.
The other thing that is missing is the OT Passover and what that meant to the Jewish people and what that became in the New Testament. There is rich meaning and symbolism with the Upper Room, the examination before Pilate at the same time the Jews would be inspecting the lamb for blemishes (Jesus as the Passover lamb), the cups of wine at the Passover meal and the bitter wine offered on a hyssop branch at the cross, Christ’s loud cry “It is finished” and the renting/ tearing of the veil in the holy of holies. I think I am safe to say that your FB friends do not understand what it meant in the OT (i.e., law, covenant, sacrifice) and how Jesus as the Son of God, by his death and resurrection, completed and fulfilled and replaced that OT system.
A couple of years ago, I had the awesome opportunity to hear a man from Jews for Jesus — he lived in Russia and came to the United States — he became a Christian and he is active in Jews for Jesus. He explained the Passover in context of Christ as the Passover lamb; he explained contract and covenants and the fulfillment of the OT Covenant. (He was truly Christian and not someone spouting slogans and cliches from John Piper and company; and he understood with the eyes of having been Jewish and now as a Christian.) Maybe if there were an understanding of what happened in Jewish faith concerning the law/ the Old Covenant and animal sacrifices ….. maybe that would help explain what the New Covenant and the ending of the law now means to Christians.
Maybe those connections and comparisons could help the light bulb go off? Yes, your conversations are surreal and you are living the Truman Show. Very deep sigh.
LikeLike
With the exception of the church being the bride (it isn’t, but that’s another subject altogether) your examples of contracts makes perfect sense and it’s a great parallel. One of the reasons (among many) why they don’t get the connection between the OT and NT is because of they way they interpret scripture. It is all supposed to be a redemptive narrative interpreted in its proper “gospel context” (historical-redemptive hermeneutic). Given this view of scripture any connection between the two testaments will be lost on them. I won’t even mention the notion that the Law was a will ratified with Abraham and Israel, and that that like a will, the promises of the will can’t be executed until the death of the testator. In this case the promise was salvation through the new brith brought about by Christ who had to die so that the promise could be executed. Really exciting stuff when you think about it, and it puts all the OT and NT stuff together perfectly just like you said!
LikeLike
Okay, not to go off on a tangent or anything ….. Andy, the church as the bride of Christ — that other subject altogether — how is my understanding a wrong understanding? I am drawing this understanding from Matthew 25 (The Parable of the Ten Virgins), Ephesians 5 (the comparison of Christ and His Church to a husband and wife relationship) and the references to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. I could be totally and completely in error, and I would love to know your understanding and interpretation. Seriously. And I assure you that chatting with me will not be anything like chatting with your Protestant FB friends. (But you already know that.) Susan
LikeLike
Not a problem, Susan. 😀
https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2014/11/17/the-lambs-wife-part-1-by-andy-young/
LikeLike
I would just mention for what it is worth that the ten virgins weren’t the bride…they were part of the wedding party.
LikeLike