Vertical produces Horizontal - It’s all gone topsy turvy!
I have been hung up lately on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Everything I come across lately seems to indicate that there is a different understanding of the Blood Atonement - a rather large schism if you like - between the more conservative bunch and the more liberal bunch who delve into Higher Criticism.
The politically correct atonement that is being discussed lately is the not so violent or barbaric with a not so in your face kinda God who, on one hand really loves, while on the other hand requires the death of His only son and blood shed to show us His loving Grace etcetera.
How to reconcile this is the question that many are asking!
My hope is that they search the scriptures (all of them, not just the NT) to find out how this seemingly paradoxical conundrum can be understood within its whole context. Not our cultural context but within biblical context, there is a very real difference. Remember, taking a verse a word or even a concept out of its context is always a pretext. Historical Grammatical interpretation is what’s needed here.
The three posts I have previously written on this topic are…
You can get a background of where I am coming from with those posts.
One post in particular, led me to do some research and I came across this little gem that summed up the problem nicely…
In recent times some have thought that reconciliation ought to be seen in what we may term a horizontal rather than a vertical direction. Sin is thought of as something that erects barriers between a man and his neighbour, rather than between a man and his God. Reconciliation then becomes a way of enabling men to live together in meaningful community. there is , of course, something in this, for the man who has felt the healing touch of Christ upon his life is concerned with breaking down barriers which divide men.
But there must be a right order here. First comes reconciliation of the sinner with God, then reconciliation with man follows. Ephesians 2 is instructive in this connection. There, in connection with the great division of men into Jews and Gentiles, it is pointed out that Gentiles were separated from Christ as well as from one another. But the blood of Christ that brought them near to God brought them also near to one another. Peace was made between man and man, but it was the consequence of peace between man and God. (J. Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation 191
Did you notice that it said that it was in recent times that this horizontal view of atonement was being considered. As recent as 1918 it seems. ( hmmm, not so long ago is it really?)
What we are hearing today is nothing new at all, the McClarens, the Pagitts, the Bells and all others of like-minded people are just rehashing something that has been around for longer than they care to realise. Wanting to stay culturally relevant and hip means espousing the so called new concepts and new ideas. Certainly there is a new generation that is hearing this concept for the first time.
But is it anything really new, or is it just something that the Church has had to contend with throughout her history in various different forms? I have a strong feeling that this concept, and others like it that lead people away from the offence of the cross have been around for a lot longer than people realise.
Gnosticism and mysticism have plagued the Church since her birth. Paul wrote about sound doctrine no longer being endured! Satan really doesn’t want people to understand nor accept what Christ did for us on that old rugged cross. Of course he is trying to get people to practice the ‘fig leaf atonement!‘ It suits him. That is his agenda!
I think that the following quote written by Dr. Gary Gilley sums up my thoughts pretty well…
It does not seem to be an option to the emergent church that both social injustices and eternal redemption can be and have been attended to by God’s people. But, despite opinions to the contrary, the priority of Scripture is on man’s relationship to God. It is because men are alienated from God that they mistreat one another. The spiritually redeemed and transformed person should and will care about social sins.
But, again, the gospel is about man’s alienation from God and what He has done through Christ to reconcile us to Himself (Romans 5:6-11), not about the ozone layer and elimination of poverty. Neither Jesus nor the apostles made these latter things the focus of their ministries; it was the reconciliation of souls to God that was at the heart of their message. Once we begin to draw our gospel from the culture, no matter what culture that might be, we have altered the true gospel. Emergent leaders are not wrong to be concerned about the environment and social injustice; they are wrong to confuse it with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr Gary Gilley
