Dr Paul Allen

The ESV’s Old Testament has 103 mentions of ‘atone’ or ‘atonement.’ But the ESV’s New Testament doesn’t contain any mention of ‘atone’ or ‘atonement.’ Is that because the Hebrew word ‘kaphar’ means ‘to cover’ and Christ’s death and resurrection actually erases or forgives our sins rather than merely covering our sins?” The English word atonement originally meant at-one-ment (spelled the same) and referred to any reconciliation of estranged parties. It wasn’t originally just a theological or biblical word. For example, when Thomas More said in 1535 (Oxford English Dictionary), “having more regard to their old variance than their new at-one-ment,” or atonement — that is unity, reconciliation, oneness. But as time passed, the English word atonement became almost entirely a theological word, referring very generally to the way the broken relationship between God and man could be made right. So, the Oxford English Dictionary says, “As applied to the redemptive work of Ch

The doctrine of penal substitution is under attack today—and that’s an understatement. From voices outside of evangelical theology to those within, the historic Reformation view of the cross is claimed to be a “modern” invention from the cultural West. Others criticize the doctrine as sanctioning violence, privileging divine retributive justice over God’s love, condoning a form of divine child abuse, reducing Scripture’s polychrome presentation of the cross to a lifeless monochrome, being too “legal” in orientation, and so on. All of these charges are not new. All of them have been argued since the end of the 16th century, and all of them are false. Yet such charges reflect the corrosive effects of false ideas on theology and a failure to account for how the Bible, on its own terms, interprets the cross. Given the limitations of this article, I cannot fully respond to these charges. Instead, I will briefly state four truths that unpack the biblical-theological rationale of penal

When Christians think of the atonement, their attention is riveted on Jesus Christ, the crucified one. And rightly so. But as proper as this focus is, the Son wasn’t the only member of the Trinity engaged in that act of sacrifice for human sin. Indeed, we may think of the Father’s action in the death of his Son. After all, Jesus’s haunting cry of dereliction from the cross was, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” ( Mark 15:35 , echoing  Ps. 22:1 ). Then, with his last breath, Jesus called out loudly, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” ( Luke 23:46 ). These gasping words of Jesus underscore the Father’s role in the atonement. Less transparent is the role of the Holy Spirit. This is true in general, as theology is working to remedy the rather meager consideration it has often given to the Spirit and his work in creation, salvation, and consummation. Perhaps the work of the Holy Spirit that has been most neglected being his role in the atonement. And this b

In an age wherein the ground of theology has been saturated by the torrential downpour of existential thinking, it seems almost suicidal, like facing the open floodgates riding a raft made of balsa wood, to appeal to a seventeenth-century theologian to address a pressing theological issue. Nothing evokes more snorts from the snouts of anti-rational zealots than appeals to sages from the era of Protestant Scholasticism. “Scholasticism” is the pejorative term applied by so-called “ Neo-Orthodox ” (better spelled without the “e” in Neo), or “progressive” Reformed thinkers who embrace the “Spirit” of the Reformation while eschewing its “letter” to the seventeenth-century Reformed thinkers who codified the insights of their sixteenth-century magisterial forebears.  To the scoffers of this present age, Protestant Scholasticism is seen as a reification or calcification of the dynamic and liquid forms of earlier Reformed insight. It is viewed as a deformation from the lively, san

VARIOUS ATONEMENT THEORIES OF CHRIST - SOME ODD! SEVERAL prominent theories have been presented, as to the atoning work of Christ , and the method by which God pardons sin. 1. The lowest of these is the Socinian . This proceeds on the principle that God is pure benevolence, that vindictive justice is incompatible with his character, and that upon mere repentance, God can and will forgive the sinner. The work of Christ , therefore, is regarded as one in which he simply reveals or makes known pardon to man. Nothing that he has done secures it, because he had nothing to do to this end. It was already prepared in the benevolence of God’s nature, and is simply now made known. [Symington on the Atonement, pp. 2 and 3.] The advocates of this theory explain away all that the Scriptures say on the subject of Christ’s death for us, by maintaining that his life and death were mere examples to us of the manner in which we should live and submit to God. In their view, therefore, Christ i

Symbol of the major religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) What are the characteristics of the Christian God that differentiate him from other gods? Perhaps the most unique characteristic of the Christian God is that he exists. The other ones don’t.  Of course, that is a matter of profound debate, as we all know. I would say the chief and most critical differences have to do, ultimately, with the Christian God’s character of holiness. You’re going to get an argument on this from other people who will say that their gods are holy , too. What is unique about Christianity among all the world religions is its central doctrine of a once-for-all atonement that is offered to people to grant them salvation.  Old Testament Judaism had a provision for the atonement of sin, but most religions have no provision for an atonement, basically because they do not consider it to be a prerequisite for redemption. 

English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Matthew 27:45–50 “About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabacthani?’ that is, ‘My God , my God, why have you forsaken me?’” ( v. 46 ). Because the process of crucifixion is foreign to our experience, it is easy to overlook just how terribly painful this method of death was. It could take days for the crucified person to die from a combination of asphyxiation and exposure. People were hung on a cross in a position that forced them to use their arms to lift their body weight in order to draw a breath, causing the nails driven through their wrists and feet to tear at their flesh. If Rome wanted to prolong suffering, rope was used instead of nails to attach the person to the cross. God’s condemnation of our sin in the flesh of Jesus ( Rom. 8:3 ) was signified by the physical pain our Lord endured on the cross. At the same time the Romans were nailing Jesus to the cross, the Father w