More on the AtoneMEent and Scot McKnight
Apr 15th, 2006 by admin
I write AtoneMEnt like that intentionally (obviously) because it seems that people are so focused on the ME aspect of it (which of course it has it’s place) that we also can easily forget how God should receive ultimate glory through the atonement. My friend and fellow friend in the faith pointed me to Scot McKnight’s blog where he responds to Mark Dever. Just a quick few thoughts come to mind:
1) He writes: “First, I’m thankful that Jesus died for our sins (including mine). His life, his death, his burial, his resurrection, and his sending of the Spirit are all “for usâ€?  not for himself, but all for us.” At one level I understand what He is saying. God didn’t need to atoned for, we did. However, to word it like this seems as though God does not receive anything through the atonement. All of Scripture points to the fact that in all things, the Lord is to receive glory and nothing happens apart from that (Isaiah 66; 1 Cor 10:31). Even the rocks will cry out to the glory of God.
2) What McKnight writes as the atonement is really no different than what Mark Dever believes. The issue is not whether the Bible has a Christus Victor element or whether there is a moral element to the atonement. There is. But it is the underemphasis and in many ways the rejection of the penal substitution of the atonement which Mark Dever writes his article. The reality is the ECM (Emerging Church Movement) along with others either negates this or reject this outright. And without penal substitution, there is no atonement.
- AtoneMEnt!
- Pierced for Our Transgressions and NT Wright
- Ahem…One more time
- No Hope Without It
- Forever grateful or at least thankful right now.
John, I’m not sure your comment is fair. It’s true that the recent debate has reminded some evangelicals that there is more to the cross that substitutionary atonement. It’s been good to be reminded of that. But the “war� is not against those who think that there is more than substitionary atonement. It’s against those who think that there is less.
But although there is rightly a war against teaching that denies substitutionary atonement, there is also a more friendly battle with those for whom substitutionary atonement is not central.
Dever’s article aims to show that. He’s know trying to show all that the cross means. He’s simply defending one, crucial aspect. He acknowledges, “I don’t doubt that we have more to learn from Christ’s death than simply the fact that he died as a substitute for us… when we give attention and authority to all parts of the New Testament canon, substitution becomes the center and focus of the Bible’s witness to the meaning of Christ’s death.�
Comment by Mark Barnes  April 14, 2006 @ 8:45 am
That is exactly the point that Mark Dever misses.