The following essay began as a reply to a skeptic who styled himself "D terp wiz". It has now been reoriented as a defense of the Christian doctrine of atonement, and of late (3/04) has been revised in light of our thesis relating honor and shame to the doctrine. DTW's original objections shall remain the core of our defense. To begin our discussion, let's start with some key paradigms relative to our defense of the Atonement (some of which are now changed, rendering some of DTW's replies irrelevant in context). These are assertions that I will take for granted as I proceed -- those who wish to address the doctrine of atonement will have to refute these contentions, I think in this very order:

1. God is in the position of highest authority, of the highest good, and is therefore a being of the highest personal honor.
2. All sin and evil are therefore an insult to the honor of God, a disregard of His rule and authority and an honor offense.
3. Any who commit sin/evil, therefore, are degrading God's honor and status. Because this honor rightly belongs to God, it must be restored.
4. God's proper response is to require the shaming and punishment of those who degrade His honor.
5. Jesus Christ underwent the crucifixion, a "status degradation ritual," in our place.
6. As a corollary, one who accepts the payment offered by Jesus ought, sensibly, to be aware of this price that has been paid and respond accordingly. One who does not respond accordingly, we may suggest, is not appreciative of the paid price and may not truly have accepted the gift.

This is our explanation of the need for atonement by Christ and our own response to it. Now to DTW's arguments, some of which we now look at in a different light. We shall substitute names of other AOL members he refers to with an 'X':

(X) points out one of the major flaws in "fundamentalist" Christian theology regarding the atonement, saying, "Sometimes a single figure "represents" the whole group. This was the case with Christ, who stood in place for others ... Responsibility goes from the individual to the group and vice versa" which, in fact, represents an abandonment of responsibility and remediation.

This is one of DTW's major arguments: That "fundamentalist" theology allows abandonment of responsibility. Well, I'm not sure which "fundamentalist" theologian makes such an advocation - perhaps we are thinking along Bakker/Swaggart lines - but such a supposition isn't the result of reading the NT. In line with item 6 above, the NT is chock full of ethical guidelines and admonitions to conduct one's self in a manner worthy of Christ. Never mind the "theology" of unnamed fundamentalists; can DTW back up this argument with Scripture references? (And, with anthropology as well: As we show here, thought and action was intimately related in the thinking of the Jewish background of the NT. Anyone who did not assume moral responsibility could not have been regarded, as a whole, as one who had believed.)

Does Jesus offer us the path to Salvation because he taught us the path that leads to it, or because he died for our sins in an Atonement?

It's more specifically the latter, of course - the former sounds kind of fuzzy - but the teaching of Jesus sets an example to follow which only one who recognizes Jesus' atoning sacrifice would follow, and that the Holy Spirit would move one to follow (per the link just above).

The mythology of human sacrifice -- that salvation exists because Jesus died on a cross as payment for our sins -- weakens his role. Such a belief shows a total disregard for human accountability in achieving salvation, and allows someone like Beverly Russell, stepfather to Susan Smith (who drowned her two innocent boys), to molest his daughter over a period of years -- as a teenager and as a young married mother -- and, by becoming a "born-again believer" receive complete forgiveness, without any other real change of character or behavior. No wonder he joined the Christian Coalition! Is this a great religion, or what!?

Well, at least here we're naming names. Now I personally have no knowledge of this Russell fellow, and I'm not sure what applicability the Christian Coalition has here. But let us raise this point re: "a total disregard for human accountability in achieving salvation." Once again, this is hardly the case, and we still have yet to see any cite from the NT indicating that the gift of grace from the cross in any way allows libertine behavior - indeed, the OPPOSITE is indicated everywhere that I look in the NT, and a "real change of character or behavior" is actually DEMANDED and expected of believers (again, as is appropos, per the link above)! If there is NO real change of character or behavior, we have a right to wonder if the person was indeed "born again".

We now embark onto arguments related to the Atonement directly:

First of all, the need for an Atonement seems to hinge on the concept that our "sins" must somehow be "washed away," owing to a concept that no "unclean" thing (or person) can tolerate the presence of a perfect god, and thus there is the need for a mediator to cleanse such "unclean" mortal sinners.

This is a correct view of the doctrine of atonement, and remains so even under the honor-shame paradigm. A shamed person is ritually unclean before the holy and honorable God.

The scenario goes something like this: "I need to be pure or of perfect goodness in order to enter the kingdom of god. But I am blemished with sin, a stain that I am incapable of washing out myself. My lack of goodness constitutes a debt, but lacking the requisite goodness, I am not able to pay this debt myself." Therefore, I need someone perfect (of enough pure goodness) who has the capacity, or richness, or affordability to pay the debt on my behalf." Thus, the need of a savior or mediator.

This remains so, with minor adjustments under the honor-shame paradigm: We are incapable of repaying the honor debt, caused by sin, which is a breach of interpersonal relations (see here), and so we need someone of divine honor to repay the debt on our behalf.

It seems to me that this presents a very wimpy view of what is supposed to be an omnipotent, all-powerful deity. Either he/she is incapable of withstanding the presence of one "tainted" with "sin" (is this weak or what?), or is incapable on creating the right times and situations where one so tainted might be able to approach his/her divine presence. Both are limitations on the "power" of the "all"-mighty.

This is where our skeptic goes awry. DTW is confusing categories: Power (omnipotence) has nothing to do with the nature of God per se. Not even God can overcome the laws of logic: I.e., He cannot be God, and also not be God; he cannot make 2 + 2 = 5; He cannot create something, and also not create it. No amount of power changes such things; we cannot apply infinite amounts of electricity to 2 + 2 and make it equal anything but 4, although that same electricity applied to our person might convince us (a la Winston Smith) that it is so! Similarly, God cannot change His nature so that sin can remain in His presence, and this has nothing to do with power or lack thereof.

DTW also has the problem reversed - it is not that God is incapable, it is that WE are incapable; as for creating times and situations: That's what the Atonement is all about! In Christ, God HAS created a situation that allows us to enter His presence!

And even if the whole ludicrous concept made any sense at all, we still wouldn't need a Messiah. If a perfect being needed to "take upon himself" the sins of others, why couldn't god just do it himself? If Jesus, assuming the debt, has the right to forgive it, why doesn't the original debtholder? Why not just be efficient and cut out the middleman (which is, literally, what the "mediator" is)?Why can this omnipotent deity forgive AFTER being crucified but not BEFORE? How does Jesus' torture give an omnipotent God more power to forgive than he already had?

This is a rather confused mess, but let's see what we can do with it:

1. Jesus *IS* God, as in God the Son, the person of God's Word; hence Jesus is the debtholder AND the mediator, and God *did* take on the burden Himself. By way of explanation/continuation:
2. Re Jesus as God's Word: As I have noted in other contexts, if the things that I say and do were personified, that is, made into a person, then that person would in every sense be me; yet that person would also have a separate identity of their own. In the same way Jesus is God, yet is not as great as the Father, for he is God the Son. (See here.)
3. And of course, we have yet again, a confused category: Power vs. nature.

If Jesus "paid" a "ransom" for our sins, WHO DID HE PAY IT TO? Is it to the Devil, who owns our souls because we are imprisoned in sin (Satan has "kidnapped" our souls) -- would God pay off a ransom to a criminal? Or does Jesus pay this "ransom" to God -- the supreme judge of the eternal court? Does God extort the payment of ransoms like a common kidnapper? If Jesus is God, is he paying the ransom to himself?

Wrong on Satan, of course: While some early theologians (and even a few weirdos now!) believed this, it is more commonly recognized that Satan has no "rights" in this arena.

Yes, the price is paid to God, but the issue is not "extortion" - who does DTW think was extorted here? HOW was this an extortion? Is someone who collects an owed and rightful debt "extorting" the person who owes the debt? A more clear explanation would be helpful. As for the last question, the key is that Jesus is God the Son, the Word, not God the Father. The difference is persons of the Trinity makes all the difference in the Atonement. But then again, what is wrong even if God is paying the ransom to Himself in any sense?

Secondly, DID HE PAY the ransom? The Bible says "The wages of sin is death" [Romans 6:23]. The consequence of sin is HELL [Matt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; Mk 9:43, 47; Rev 20:14-15 and many more]. Did Jesus die? Well, he was killed on the cross. But, in that sense, ALL humans die -- so, if that is what pays the price of sin, we ALL pay for our sins, so why do we need a surrogate to pay it for us? Did he die in some other sense? Is he dead? No! The Christians tell us that HE LIVES! He is NOT DEAD, and he is NOT IN HELL -- he is at the RIGHT HAND OF GOD! He did NOT pay the price that we would have had to pay without his supposed sacrifice.

Well, at least we're finally quoting some Scripture! Let's see here:

1. A clarification that seems to be needed: Romans 6:23 goes on to say that the gift of God is eternal life - ergo, the "death" spoken of is eternal also, which means HELL!
2. Yes, Jesus lives, and that is yet another reason why only Jesus could pay the price for our sin - it is his identity as the Son of God that allowed him to be the first to be raised from the dead. He has overcome that death because he was able. That he now lives does not in any way cancel the fact that he died earlier.
3. This will further lead into a strange idea that DTW has re: the amount of time Jesus was on the cross being insufficient to atone for all sin. As that is a similar concept to what is noted above, we will treat it when we get to it later on. (For more, though, see Glenn Miller's article, If Jesus Was Resurrected, Was His Death Really a Sacrifice? and now our own take in the article linked far above, in which honor and shame makes the objection irrelevant.)

What, then, IS the role of Jesus in salvation? A loving but omnipotent god would have the ability to condescend to the level of imperfect sinners and make them feel comfortable in his presence. In our modern world, highly educated medical professional go into emergency rooms to care for those covered with blood and dirt or risk their lives ("greater love hath no man") in the presence of those with deadly incurable communicable diseases; counselors work with those who are poor, in jail, or abused to help them find a better way; and teachers condescend to the level of those who are uneducated to lead them out of ignorance.

The confused category again! Take that ER doctor - if there were an unalterable part of his nature that destroyed anyone covered in dirt and blood, no amount of power will change that!

2,000 years ago, Jesus (reputed by his followers to have been perfect and a representative of the Godhead) made those who were dirty, poor and reviled to feel comfortable in his presence. He touched lepers, forgave sinners, blessed the poor and consorted with (yuck!) tax collectors. It was the central message from Jesus: his first teaching, his last teaching and the foundation of his teaching in between.

Actually, the central message of Jesus' ministry was, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand." What was "first" and "last" makes no difference, of course, and the message of the Kingdom was the actual foundation. Does DTW provide any backup for this departure from the consensus? He does write:

In Jesus FIRST public teaching, he taught us to love our enemies. When asked by a lawyer what is the "greatest commandment" in the law, the rabbi quoted from the Old Testament law to love god [Deut 6:5] and love your neighbor as yourself [Lev 19:18], then used the parable of the Good Samaritan to define neighbor so broadly as to include Samaritans, the lowest of the outcasts (Luke 10:25-37 & Matt 22:36-40), and he said in his LAST public teaching that salvation would be based on our love for god in how we treat those whom he called "the least of these" (Matt 25:31-46).

Again, what came "first" or "last" means nothing (not to mention that it completely disregards the principles of literary and redaction criticism), and this is a really minimalist selection to base his conclusions on. Now more importantly, DTW tries to show that this is against the Atonement:

Yet some would assert this ridiculous doctrine that god is incapable of adhering to this doctrine, because either he/she cannot withstand the presence of these least ones, or is incapable of making them feel comfortable in his/her presence. What kind of eternal parent is incapable of embracing his/her weak, imperfect children, even when they are dirty or hurting and need that presence the most?

Once again, it's that same old confused category and the "incapability" placed on the wrong foot! As a dog returns to its vomit...indeed, there is a second confused category implicit: Those who sin are not necessarily equal to those who are dirty, hurting, etc.; and "sinful" is a much different category than "weak" or "imperfect".

But, even if such a scenario were correct -- that we must have all "stains" removed before we can be in the presence of god -- (only for the sake of argument, since I do NOT agree, as noted previously), the process of using a "mediator" to eliminate the stain of those sins by "paying off a debt" is terribly simplistic and flawed. It does not address the real nature of sin. It treats good and evil as physical commodities -- something tangible, like a baseball or a frisbee that you can chase and catch.

Now we'll pause and leave this mostly unanswered, because DTW is here setting the stage for a basically different definition of sin. We'll get to this in a couple of paragraphs.

Aside from the problem with why we cannot simply cleanse the stain ourselves with a good washing (learning correct principles and values to offset the wrong ones), or go out and productively EARN enough "goodness currency" to pay the debt off ourselves, it does not address the nature of sin and of how to overcome it.

It was never intended to - that's why there's a lot more to the NT than just the Atonement! Furthermore, DTW demonstrates here a very naive view in this expression re: "goodness currency" - it doesn't work that way because EACH sin, even the smallest, is an honor offense against the divine that no amount of "goodness currency" in the form of human works can cover!

Even so, re the latter: There's plenty of ethical teaching from the NT writers - but again, this is dependent in part upon DTW's definition of "sin", which we now get to:

Sin is NOT a tangible object. The nature of it is that of consciousness, of thought, of motive, of spirit -- in some way that intangible energy of life force in its negative expression. It is not an object that can be bought, sold, lent, owed, or the object of indebtedness. If I am burdened by sin, there is no physical action that another person can take to remove it. The only thing another person can do is reach me at the applicable level of consciousness, of thought, of motive, or spirit involved -- by condescending to my sinful level, if necessary and teaching me what is right, or developing in me right values, attitudes, feelings and motives that will lead to changed feelings and a new life.

What hey? Where's this definition of "sin" from, Webster's New Age Dictionary? DTW may want to argue with it, but "sin" according to the Greek words used in the NT is defined thusly by the Strong-man:

266. hamartia, ham-ar'-tee'-ah; from G264; sin (prop. abstr.):--offence, sin (-ful).

4624. skandalizo, skan-dal-id'-zo ("scandalize"); from G4625; to entrap, i.e. trip up (fig. stumble [trans.] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure):--(make to) offend.

3900. paraptoma, par-ap'-to-mah; from G3895; a side-slip (lapse or deviation), i.e. (unintentional) error or (wilful) transgression:--fall, fault, offence, sin, trespass.

Do any of these sound like they are "in some way that intangible energy of life force in its negative expression"? If DTW wants to do a thorough word study, that's one thing, but just shoving his own personal definition into the works is not exactly kosher!

"Sin is NOT a tangible object." No, I suppose not; it is not something measurable, but it IS something that shows in what we do, an action. Likewise love is not tangible, but it is expressed by action. "The nature of it is that of consciousness, of thought, of motive, of spirit -- in some way that intangible energy of life force in its negative expression." Combing through the New Age thicket here, we'll pass to the next sentence: "It is not an object that can be bought, sold, lent, owed, or the object of indebtedness." No, but it can be EXPRESSED (as love can be) and lead to actions that have measurable/observable results. "If I am burdened by sin, there is no physical action that another person can take to remove it." A bit of a mixed error here: Another person can perform the intangible action of forgiveness; and the "sinner" can pay the price of offense by some physical action: That can range from simply asking for forgiveness to buying flowers and candy; each person has their own "price" of satisfaction when offended! In some cases that "price" is ludicrous, but justice demands that some sort of equitable restitution be made, and as our outline above shows, equitable payment has been determined, required, and offered. "The only thing another person can do is reach me at the applicable level of consciousness, of thought, of motive, or spirit involved -- by condescending to my sinful level, if necessary and teaching me what is right, or developing in me right values, attitudes, feelings and motives that will lead to changed feelings and a new life." Jesus did this too, of course, but this serves in no way to offer restitution for sinful actions - or "sin incarnate" if you will. DTW is once again confusing categories. (And also does not know anything about the Biblical understanding of forgiveness; see link above.)

Punishment or payment are not part of the equation, except insofar as they may help in an instructive manner. And especially there is no logical need for punishing an innocent man for the sins of others. What a miscarriage of justice!

What a miscarriage of defined terms! First things first - punishment and payment are not part of the equation, except for instruction? What does this mean? The argument here is far from complete, but I'm going to call upon my criminal justice background to intercede for us, as the groundwork will become necessary later on. Generally speaking, when someone is convicted of a crime in our modern justice system, there are three purposes seen to exacting justice as we count it:

1. Punishment/restitution. This can mean a fine, a return of property, or even a prison sentence, the latter being conceived as a way of "paying" society for the crime committed.
2. Rehabilitation. I.e., taking steps to ensure that the person does not do the crime again.
3. Protection of the innocent. Until #2 above is done, this is the way to keep people from being victimized further.

Now in actual practice - and without diving too far into a tangent - our justice system is doing mostly #1 and #3 and severely neglecting #2 for the most part. But keep this outline also in mind as we proceed:

Even if Jesus' sacrifice were voluntary, or a noble gesture of love on his part, it would be a manifestation of HIS goodness; it would do nothing for OUR salvation.

DTW unfortunately is not well-informed when it comes to ancient thinking on this point. Voluntary substitution was a perfectly acceptable practice to the ancients; the Jewish sacrifices, and the Greek pharmakos, and Roman soldiers dying for others as a payment for offense against the gods, are just three examples of voluntary substitution from this period.

There is simply NO LOGICAL CONNECTION between an innocent man hanging painfully on an old wooden cross, and the eradication of evil thoughts, motives, or behavior from those who can only do so through a change of heart and attitude through the experience of kindness, love and compassionate joy.

That's not the connection we make, of course: The logical connection is that sin must be paid for, although the payment would cause an OBLIGATION to the one who paid - as is said in the NT, we are slaves of Christ and bound to him! Now this will get into another area:

Even the analogy of "paying the debt" is inappropriate. It would be more applicable to a civil debt, where as the commission of sin is more akin to a criminal violation. While we might appreciate that one person can pay the debt of another, we would not tolerate innocent people being punished for guilty ones. If a convicted serial murder/rapist plead guilty to multiple counts of murder and rape, would we allow his law-abiding mother to volunteer to step in and serve his prison time (or be executed) in his stead? Following that "satisfaction of justice," would we then tolerate allowing the murder/rapist to be turned back onto the streets?

Here's where we get into the issue I alluded to earlier re the purpose of criminal justice. Let's go over these one at a time, using the case provided above.

1. Punishment. The criminal above would get a prison sentence, but prison sentences don't often do a lot in this regard. A number of justice experts feel that restitution would be a better way, and indeed, that is the basic principle laid down in the OT law. In this case, restitution might well equal death!

   Now of course any person could pay the debt if restitution were all there was to the matter! Even at the lower tier of justice, things like speeding tickets can be paid for by a benefactor; where, we ask DTW, is the "satisfaction" in that? But in fact there is satisfaction: For if someone paid restitution for you and you could not afford it, then you would be indebted to that person - which leads to the notion of Christian ethical behavior as an obligation of the believer. But to #2 -

2. Rehab. We assert that God effects rehab through the indwelling of the Spirit (i.e., sanctification); but let's concentrate on our rape case. Because of the way our justice system is structured, we MIGHT have the rapist go through counseling, therapy, etc. - which is one reason why the substitute of the mother would indeed be ludicrous for US. We tie punishment in with rehab to such an extent that letting the mother volunteer to pay the price does not make sense.

   However, IF the payment of the mother assured that rehab would occur, THEN we could argue that her substitution is acceptable. This is indeed the problem with our totally-human analogy: Our judges (even the most politically "liberal" among them with the greatest faith in human nature!) cannot guarantee that the payment of the price of guilt thereafter results in rehabilitation; but God can, and promises "ultimate" rehabilitation with the gift of the resurrection body (1 Cor. 15) for which the Holy Spirit is a deposit. In the meantime, if we truly accept God's gift of grace, we ought to act like we do!

3. Protection. Much the same here as with #2 above. The point is that DTW needs to address the multi-fold nature of the issue; he is not even paying attention to it and applying an analogy that is only marginally relevant!

The irony here is that Jesus, in what he taught throughout his ministry -- not in an "atonement," but in a consistent message of universal compassion -- provided the means for overcoming sin.

DTW is going to have to do better than simple assertion to prove this. Where are the specific quotes from Jesus stating this, especially re "overcoming sin" specifically? We will wait until such quotes are provided before we address the specific charge further.

Yet he is remembered and worshipped as a savior for his suffering and death on the cross, and supposed resurrection which became an "atonement" for sin. In cruel irony, this off-centered emphasis, along with a preoccupation on rituals, ceremonies and unrelated lesser teachings, distract most of Jesus' nominal followers from primary attention on the core of what he actually taught.

Again we are laden here with vague generalizations, but the jist here seems to be that Jesus did not teach atonement. Oh, no? Perhaps DTW needs to have a look at the Gospel records of the Last Supper; he also needs to poke into some of the parables of Jesus, as well as the OT background of the issue. I'll leave the matter at that - no sense in giving our skeptic too many hints; let him do the work if he thinks he has a case! - with this notation.

It would be correct to say that Jesus does not expound upon the notion of atonement to any explicit extent in the records of his ministry. His central message, though, is that the Kingdom of God is at hand. We may relate this to the post-resurrection message of Paul, and the account of the Last Supper, by means of a simple before-after dichotomy.

Let us ask this question: If Jesus had been recognized as the Messiah, in the way that he desired - if the Triumphal Entry had resulted in his being recognized as King of Israel, rather than rejection - how would things have been different? We would suggest that the Kingdom of God would have indeed begun on earth at that time (not just in the hearts of men): And hence, though knowing he would be rejected, Jesus prepared the way for his acceptance as Messiah during his ministry.

The crucifixion, and the resurrection, were then in a sense a "Plan B" for the Kingdom of God, to use a rather crude term. We see even in Jesus' ministry, of course, hints that the "failure" of Plan A is imminent (viz. his predictions that he will be killed) - but Plan A is nevertheless put forward to the people as an option they can take if they are willing. They did not: Hence "Plan B" - and hence the most clear statement of its taking effect at the Last Supper, when betrayal and execution was imminent. And this is why Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God coming in his teaching and healing ministry, whereas Paul saw it as evidenced by the Crucifixion and Resurrection. (Note that in this I am NOT adopting a "neotheist" position whereby God did not know "Plan A" would fail -- I am saying that He left the door open with "Plan A" as a matter of justice and righteousness, though He knew we would reject it.)

We have only touched upon a few points here, and very simply. We now close with DTW's replies to some comments directed towards him by other members of the discussion on AOL and a few side questions that he has asked. I will refrain from commenting extensively here because I have only been given one side of the conversation, so to speak: I do not have the words of the other AOL members, only those of DTW.

(X) continues to cite scriptures which are off the mark, as none of them explains 1] how the intangible experiential nature of sin can be transferred to an innocent man by killing him; 2] why a "mediator" is necessary if Jesus is god (such that the mediator is mediating a debt to himself) or if Jesus is separate from god why Jesus gains the power to forgive sins if, for some reason, the omnipotent god was unable to do so; 3] how Jesus paid the wages of sin if his death was only very brief and now HE LIVES -- if such a short duration of "death" pays the price for all sins of all humankind for all time, then why could not each person's death (for just a few minutes) pay their small share of that total volume of sins that Jesus 3-day death paid for?

Much of this appears to relate to issues we have already covered.

For material on James vs. Paul, see here.

Here is another quote worth looking at:

(X) does make an excellent point about Hebrews. I do tend to take the traditional view that Paul is the author, but Tim is correct that the authorship is currently in dispute and most scholars now make no claim as to identity of the author. And perhaps this skepticism over Paul's authorship is, indeed, justified for, while Hebrews does present a very Pauline view of sin transference, as cited by Tim from Heb 9:24-28 (described, but no explanation of how or why it should work), it goes on in the very next chapter to, like John and the synoptic gospels, suggest that (unlike Paul) some degree of behavior is also required to validate the acceptance of Jesus' atonement (see Heb 10:24-26).

However, Paul is quite consistent in demanding validating behavior - or in some cases, delineating "invalidating" behavior, which simply approaches the point from another angle! Consider these words:

Gal. 5:19-21 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Cor. 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

2 Cor. 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

Eph. 2:10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

1 Thess. 5:23 May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thess. 1:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

This sounds a lot like "validation" to me! One wonders whether DTW has even read Paul's letters carefully - much less any commentaries or scholarly expositions on the subject! We also wonder here whether DTW is "okay" with Atonement as long as there is validation! Can we have a clarification on that point?

A question from DTW:

Why can God forgive after being crucified but not before?

Actually, it is held that those chronologically before the Crucifixion, like Abraham, could "look forward in faith" to the time of the Crucifixion. (See for example Job 19:25.) But this is another topic.

Now here DTW gets a little more detailed in his "time objection":

DTW continues:

And on some more rational basis than merely a condition of belief (which, by the way clearly contradicts statements by JESUS about the requirement of ACTIONS as a condition for salvation [Matt 25:31-46] and the blasphemy of salvation by profession of acceptance [Matt 7:21] -- but then, of course, those are merely the words of JESUS, not the almighty Paul -- how about changing the name of the religion to PAULIANITY?).

Matt. 25:31-46 is the "sheep and goats" parable, and it is not clear here whether DTW is asserting that it is teaching that actions are the SOLE condition for salvation, or simply some part of it, whether as condition or evidence. That being the case, I will reserve comment, other than to say that certainly one who had faith in Jesus would be the most likely to do things on his behalf!

As to Matt. 7:21, let's quote it:

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

How is this read as meaning that "salvation by profession of acceptance" is a blasphemy??? Indeed, it fits in with the idea that profession must be followed by evidence to be validated: Not EVERYONE...which means that there are those who WILL profess, but only those who have backed it up with evidence of good works (to wit: those who have truly believed!) will enter the kingdom of heaven!

Finally, let us add here that the evidence indicates that Paul was not the originator of the idea of Jesus dying for sins. Paul makes statements in this regard that are clearly formulaic in nature and therefore obviously derived from his predecessors at the Jerusalem church (1 Cor. 15:3, Gal. 1:4, Rom. 4:25, etc.). Furthermore, in agreement with Jesus, Paul cites love as the controlling principle in ethics (see 1 Cor. 8 and 13; 1 Thess. 4:9).

Now validation, as we have shown, is also found in Paul; but does DTW know this? Hardly: Indeed, just look at this ludicrous and laughable pose he sets for Paul:

(X) says that "Christ's blood, death, and resurrection on our behalf, justified us in God's sight". The mere recitation of a laundry list of scriptures (particularly from Paul, who was a persecutor of Christians and finally found a way to undermine the movement, by infiltrating it and teaching a ridiculous doctrine that reversed all Jesus' teachings about universal compassionate action and substituted it with a bloody myth of human sacrifice), without identifying the relevant point from each (if there is any) is worthless to the dialogue.

Well, this is the grandaddy of the conspiracy theories! Paul UNDERMINED Christianity by infiltrating it with false doctrine?!? I suppose Paul also interpolated the passages in the Gospels re the Last Supper's establishment of the new covenant; I suppose John, Peter, and the Hebrews writer were in on the conspiracy too, as was every church writer thereafter; maybe some from the other side interpolated those "validation" passages in Paul...and isn't it funny that Marcion declared that practically the OPPOSITE was true? Such nonsense as this deserves hardly any credence whatsoever.

As a closing note, we have this:

...(X) cites from Christ's lengthy soliloquy on salvation by FAITH from John chapter 3. I previously noted that, of the gospels, John in particular talks extensively about salvation by faith, but that it is ALWAYS accompanied by behavioral requirements (or works).

We quite agree: And we also say that Paul has behavioral requirements as well. But is DTW "okay" with the premises stated in John 3? Let's look at some further comments:

In this particular passage, note John 3:19-20, which is not only part of the same soliloquy, but the same paragraph as the famous John 3:16.

Let us start by looking at John 3:18-20 -

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

So we have belief (faith!) - we have an indication that those who refuse to harbor this faith/belief prefer darkness/evil. Again, is DTW "okay" with this? Because this is what is taught consistently by Paul!

Even the line from John the Baptist which (X) cited (John 3:36) reflects this, depending on which version is used. The KJV refers to those who do not "believe" in Jesus; the RSV and Today's English Version refer to those who do not "obey" Jesus. The NIV takes a more cautious route and refers to those who "reject" Jesus, which I suppose could refer to either disbelief or disobedience.

Once again, to quote from the NIV:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.

Never mind the English versions: The Greek here for "believes" is pisteuo, which has the same root as pistis, faith - while "rejects" is apeitheo - "to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely):--not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving." So this clearly indicates faith in the Son as the requirement for eternal life, and indicates lack of faith in the Son as something that will leave God's wrath on the non-believer - which sounds a great deal like Paul's idea of salvation by faith! So - what's the view on John now, DTW?

Addendum: A certain skeptic objected to the above thusly: "You make the startling claim that 99.999% sinlessness is somehow an 'infinite distance' on some moral dimension from 100% sinlessness. Unfortunately, you give no justification for this curious claim that on the spectrum of sinfulness, one endpoint is somehow 'infinitely' far from every other possible point." In reply: it is no more possible to be "99.999% sinless" than it is to be "99.999% pregnant." It is a state that you either are or are not.

For a response to Vincent Sapone, see here.

• Letham, Robert. The Work of Christ. IVP: 1993.
• McDonald, H. D. The Atonement of the Death of Christ. Baker: 1985.