4. Atonement Logic
Many have sought to explain the atonement using the familiar ground of Scripture and systematic theology, which form a natural basis for preaching. But, the diversity of biblical interpretations and theologies have led to disagreements and disunity in the church. This calls for a fresh approach. So, here I apply the discipline of critical thinking to Scripture. If this sounds too rationalistic, I hasten to add these things are done with prayer and help from the Holy Spirit. I present reasoning as a description of what God is doing, not as a proof for a theory. Critical reasoning is a tool to help us avoid logical errors. Scripture itself affirms that the wisdom from above is reasonable, or “willing to yield” (James 3:17).
This chapter explores the process for achieving atonement using logical formula, which may be too mathematical for some people. Don’t worry, the next chapter will set out the Lumen Christi model in less analytical terms. Later chapters look at how this model aligns with Scripture and how it engages with other theological concepts.
God aims to eliminate evil from creation and restore his glory in the world. The multifaceted character of creation is damaged in every part because of sin. and each part needs atonement. Six prominent facets of creation in need of repair are:
i) Human society – God repairs damaged interpersonal relationships;
ii) Religion – God restores communion with humanity;
iii) Moral order – God establishes righteousness and justice;
iv) Liberty – God frees people from slavery to sin;
v) Spirituality – God makes people holy;
vi) Cosmos – God restores peace to humanity, nature and the supernatural realm.
There are other aspects of creation damaged by sin, but an atonement model covering the above list is a good start. Lumen Christi is a multifaceted model, but not one that simply combines the traditional theories. Since Christ’s atoning work involves everything God made, we find the atonement logic for each part is interrelated. The order of the above list does not represent logical priority or historical sequence. God’s plan for atonement, however, unfolds across the historical phases of God’s covenant, which I will discuss towards the end of this chapter.
Expression (1) below brings together the above six facets of creation involved in atonement. We could add others (the “if” operator does not exclude other possibilities, but requires those listed, to be met).
This chapter applies the nomenclature of critical reasoning in a series of logic statements for each of the six elements in Expression (1) in order to establish a rigorous atonement logic.
Before proceeding, a few definitions are in order. Some theological terms have multiple meanings. Even terms found in Scripture bear different connotations depending on the context. In this chapter, the following definitions apply. The terms might be used differently elsewhere.
Communion refers to relationships marked by unity in purpose and actions and characterised by love and faith. Communion here does not refer specifically to the Eucharist.
Culpable sin refers to deliberate sinful actions of a person with free will to do otherwise.
Evil is that which would negate God.
Holy means being set apart for God. God, himself, is holy in that he is set apart from all that is not God.
Faith is a positive spiritual and social connection between persons, including between a human and Christ and between a human and God. Faith gives rise to attitudes of trust and loyalty.
Forgiveness means to waive a debt, or let go of resentment. The elements needed for forgiveness are an offence, the offender, the victim, the public, and God. It is not essential for the offender to repent, be punished, or reconcile with the victim for forgiveness to occur. The victim of an offence may include people from the immediate victim’s community.
Liberty, or freedom from sin, refers to the release from slavery to sin, which is the inability to do otherwise.
Original sin is a theological term used here for the state of people procreated by sinful parents and who, because of their sin, cannot commune with God apart from atonement.
Reconciliation refers to the restored communion of estranged parties.
Righteousness means, according to the context, the attribute of a holy God or the state of one of God’s people who is acceptable to, and in right relationship with, God.
Salvation from sin consists in receiving eternal life, freedom from sin, communion with God and the hope of righteousness, bodily resurrection and a restored world to inhabit. Salvation results from the atonement.
Sin is any action of a created being who takes part in evil. Sins are primarily against God but also disrupt human relationships.
The unforgivable sin is a culpable sin against the Holy Spirit whereby a person refuses to relate to God and chooses not to place their faith in God. As it says in 2 Tim 2:12 of Christ Jesus, “if we deny him, he will also deny us” (see also Luke 12:9). This does not mean unbelievers cannot return to faith in God and have their sins forgiven. Salvation is only available through Christ (Acts 4:12).
There is a pressing need to repair human relationships damaged by sin. Consider two people whose relationship has broken down because one party offended the other. For the pair to reconcile three things must occur:
Expression (2) below restates these actions for restoring estranged relationships in the nomenclature of logical reasoning.
In a real-life situation, both parties might be offenders and victims in different ways.
Expression (2) has scriptural support. Jesus commanded people to forgive those who trespass against them (Matt 6:14-15; Mark 11:25). In a sinful world, reconciliation may not be advisable in every case. Sometimes the victim has no desire for reconciliation (Dv), for instance, in a case of rape by a stranger or in ongoing domestic violence. Proverbs 19:19 advises, “A violent tempered person will pay the penalty; if you effect a rescue, you will only have to do it again.” Although Jesus commanded his disciples to forgive their offenders (Matt 18:21-22) reconciliation is desirable (Matt 18:15) but not essential.
Proverbs 19:11 says “Those with good sense are slow to anger, and it is their glory to overlook an offence.” But agreeing to forgive-and-forget is not the same as restoring friendship. Forgiveness by the offended party does not overlook or diminish the offence. For reconciliation to occur the offender must acknowledge and repent of the wrongdoing, having compassion for their humanity (To). As Desmond and Mpho Tutu (2014, p. 173) in their book on forgiveness observed, “There can be no reconciliation without responsibility.” Reconciliation does not entail the setting aside of the penalty for the offence under the law. And repentance may involve the offender in making restitution to the victim.
The desire for our own inner peace and harmony with other people are strong motives for forgiveness. Apart from the aforementioned special cases, forgiveness and repentance imply a desire for peaceful reconciliation (D). Scripture encourages this. Psalm 34:14 says, “Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.” and Hebrews 12:14a, “Pursue peace with everyone.”
The moral influence theory looks to the example of Christ to encourage believers to emulate Christ’s forgiveness of sinners but the Lumen Christi model affords more than mere influence in that the indwelling Holy Spirit empowers transformation in believers’ lives. The complete repair of interpersonal relationships will be available in heaven where there are no sinful inclinations to withhold forgiveness, no self-condemnation by the guilty party, and love is the dominant concern of everyone.
Expression (2) does not apply to humanity’s relationship with God because the Almighty sustains creation and cannot uphold evil (1 Cor 8:6). Nor is God a victim of human wrongdoing as people are victims. People cannot harm God who is maintaining their existence. Instead, humans become victims of their own sins when they separate themselves from God.
The Old Testament teaches that God forgives because he is merciful (Dan 9:9) but this does not mean God is reconciled with sinners. Neither did Christ’s forgiving of people’s sin amount to God saving them. God cannot ignore sin.
The logic statement for human communion with God needs to give due respect for God’s holiness by adding “righteousness” (R) into the expression. God judges sin righteously and individuals must be righteous to enjoy friendship with a holy God. Expression (2) is modified for communion with God as follows.
Expression (3) makes clear that CB is not forthcoming because humanity is not righteous. There is no RB because of human sin. God must deal with humanity’s sin before people can have communion with God.
Regarding forgiveness, Anne C. Minas (1975. p. 138) contended, “Only a human being can forgive - a divine being cannot.” She reasoned from a philosophical point of view that it would be logically absurd for God to forgive sin (p. 150). Minas argued that humans might forgive a morally wrong action because they reassess their estimation of the action or gain further facts or apply mitigating circumstances or condone an offence. But God would never need to do such things (pp. 139-141). In a human judicial system, a higher authority can offer clemency for an offence without changing the judgement or can overturn a lower court’s decision. But this would not apply to God. Besides, clemency is not an application of mercy, but reassessing the appropriateness of the punishment (p. 141). For God to forgive some and not others would be unjust. As for repentance, God could foresee this. If the purpose of judgement is to get the offender to change his actions, this cannot apply to the final judgement (p. 143).
Anthony Bash thought Minas wrong to apply human forgiveness to God. Bash (2011, p. 139) wrote, “Minas therefore makes a serious methodological and semantic error. She uses the word ‘forgiveness’ as denoted in the OED (as I said, this refers to person-to-person forgiveness) with reference to God and fails to recognise that the word would be differently denoted if it were properly describing God’s forgiveness.”
Scripture teaches that God can forgive sins. Psalm 32:5 says, “Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ and you forgave the guilt of my sin.”
Minas has created this apparent logical conflict by using “forgiveness” to include or imply “reconciliation.” The problem for God is not forgiveness, for he is merciful, but his being reconciled with sinners. The trinitarian and gracious God acted through the incarnated Son of God to do what was otherwise impossible. Minas did not envision God as a Trinity determined to save his people and the Son of God as being prepared to take on human form. As J. B. Phillips would say, “Your God is too small.”
Even with repentance from sin (TB) and desire for a right relationship with God (DB) expressed by faith in God, no-one can reconcile with God by the logic of Expression (3). But because God is merciful and forgiving (FG), has covenanted with his people (DG), and is holy (RG), God has found another way of attaining communion with believers (CB). God “desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4).
The mediatorial role of Christ needs to be explored. Christ’s communion in the Trinity applied to Expression (3) gives Expression (4).
Christ could acknowledge human sin (TΧ) on our behalf because of his humanity. The writer of Hebrews said of Christ, “Consequently he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (Heb 7:25) which implies Jesus’ prayer for the Father’s forgiveness of humanity continues to be his prayer to this day.
The Son of God did not break communion with God by his incarnation into a sinful world or because of the offence to God of Christ’s crucifixion. Even though Expression (3) fails for sinners, Expression (4) succeeds for Christ who never sinned (RX).
Peter said of Jesus, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Pet 2:24). The penal substitution theory interprets this to mean that God imputed the guilt and punishment for humanity’s sins, to Christ on the cross. But Peter here said no more than Jesus endured human sin against him for their salvation.
Scripture verifies all the terms in Expression (4) are valid.
FG (Ps 32:5)
RG (Rom 3:21-22)
TΧ (Luke 23:34)
DΧ (Luke 23:46; Rom 5:10)
RΧ (2 Pet 1:1)
So, CT is valid ………………. (i)
This means that the offence against God of human sin did not disrupt communion between Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Conclusion (i) accords with Jesus’ teaching that, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30) and “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.” (John 15:26).
Now applying Expression (2) for communion to the reconciled relationship between Christ and repentant people gives Expression (5).
Christ could, and did, forgive sins (FX). Jesus said, “. . . the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . .” (Matt 9:6). Desmond and Mpho Tutu (2014, p. 3) proposed two truths based on people’s shared humanity: “there is nothing that cannot be forgiven, and there is no one undeserving of forgiveness.” This was Jesus’ attitude even when confronted with crucifixion. Jesus did not have a victim mentality but overcame the sin done against him. Note, the “unforgivable sin” of Matt 12:31-32 is where TB and DB are absent due to an unbeliever’s rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus, instead of responding to the penitent in vengeance, responds in mercy. As James put it, “mercy triumphs over judgement” (Jas 2:13b). Jesus welcomes believers into communion with him (DΧ). Both the Holy Spirit and Christ invite everyone to eternal life. “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift” (Rev 22:17).
Christ gave the Eucharist as an ongoing reminder that he gave his life for his disciples (1 Cor 11:26). Christians can have communion with Christ because of their shared humanity. Expression (5) describes a believer’s successful communion with Christ, where Expression (3) failed to depict any viable reconciliation with God. The Creator-creature relationship operates on a different plane to that between humans. But Christ bridges this gap and overcomes the problem of sin.
Jesus replied to wrongdoing, not in kind, but in mercy. Peter learned from Jesus that “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet 4:8b).
From Expression (5):
TB • DB (the Christian response)
So, CΧ ………..…… (ii)
Conclusion (ii) accords with Jesus’ reason to sacrifice himself for his friends: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (John 15:13).
The church’s communion with Christ (CΧ) and Christ’s communion in the Godhead (CT) makes possible human communion with the Godhead (CB) in Christ. This is supported by such Scriptures as John 14:6 & 9; 17:21-22; Rom 5:1-2, & 11. Expression (6) depicts this in logical terms.
Through faith in Christ, people can enjoy the communion with God that was unavailable through Expression (3).
From Expression (6):
CT (from Conclusion (i))
CΧ (from Conclusion (ii))
So, CB …….……… (iii)
Figure 1 illustrates how the horizontal relationship of faith in Christ makes no contribution to the vertical relationship between Christ and God the Father. God does not save people because of anything they do, whether holding to an orthodox belief system or their repenting of sin. People are saved because of Jesus' sacrifice for them.
Ian McFarland said there should be “careful distinction between the ‘horizontal’ relationships among creatures and the ‘vertical’ relationship between creatures and God … God and human beings always operate on separate planes.” (McFarland, 2001, p. 84). Figure 1 conforms to McFarland’s contention that “a theologically plausible account of the atonement needs to preserve the distinction between Creator and creature” (McFarland, 2001, p. 85). Human righteousness understood as a right relationship with God does not contribute to human salvation. On the other hand, Christ’s righteousness is essential for both his, and human, communion with God.
Christ imparts eternal life to the people of faith in communion with him. As Paul wrote, “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” (Rom 5:10-11).
The logic for communion and justice operate in different, though related, dimensions of sin. The reasoning above focuses on how God restores communion between himself and Christ’s followers and the next section discusses justice. These aspects of the atonement apply to the present age, under the new covenant. Michael Gorman (2011, p. 42) said, “Although the word ‘covenant’ does not appear in John 13–17, it is clear that Jesus is assembling a community of committed and loyal friends (John 15:13–15) who will be the core group of a new covenant community that embodies his divine mission after his death. He is saying to them, in effect, ‘We (Father, Son, and Spirit) will be your God, and you will be our people’.”
The purpose of justice is to restore the moral balance or equilibrium in creation. God's desire for peace and order for his creatures impels justice. The measure of justice is not seen on the scales that weigh in the balance good and evil because evil has no substantive reality of its own. Evil is but a denial of a good God. Darkness is merely an absence of light. As John Cowburn (1979, p. 13) put it, “Light and dark may at first appear to be two opposing forces, but in truth light is energy and darkness is nothing. Similarly, good and evil may seem to be two opposite forces, locked in an eternal conflict, as the Manicheans believed; but goodness is being and evil is the lack of being.”
Of course, evil beings wield power, albeit stolen power. The forces of evil (Satan, demons, evil spirits, and sinful human nature) continue to oppose God during the present age. The world applies a system of punitive justice expressed as follows.
Expression (7) does not accomplish justice for God because punishment does not wipe out sin. Charles Hefling (2013, p. 27) commented on the difference between punitive and restorative justice: “The distinction, roughly stated, is that punitive justice is concerned with what may be done to evildoers and restorative justice with what can be done about evil. Taken in this latter sense, justice as a divine attribute has its supreme embodiment in Christ’s acceptance of the cross. So and not otherwise is good brought out of evil—not even by God.” Just as the light of Christ displaces the darkness of evil, the darkness (offence) of sin is countered by an act of goodness. Expression (7) needs modification to show how God brings about restorative justice in response to human sin.
However, Expression (8) does not bring about justice either because sin taints everything people do. So, any good deeds people do to justify themselves are not effective in negating the bad deeds.
Offences against God do not harm the Almighty. God’s sovereignty, glory, honour and holiness remain intact. This does not imply God is unconcerned at humanity’s rebellion. When people sin against God, they harm other people and themselves. God’s compassion for humanity’s helplessness motivates him to establish justice. God sent his Son and applied the principle of Expression (8) to Christ as shown in Expression (9).
The crucifixion of Christ was mankind’s worst sin. Yet Christ sided with humanity in allowing the offence of the cross (OX) to occur in preference to calling on God to rescue him. Jesus said to Peter who wanted to fight those who came to arrest Jesus, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt 26:53). Presumably, the army of angels would have come to bring judgement on humanity. But instead, Jesus followed the Father’s way of dealing with evil. As Paul said, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). Overcoming evil with good is not a principle introduced by the New Testament (e.g. 1 Pet 3:9). The
