Continuous Atonement

Words matter - I recently listened to an interesting interpretation of the biblical word “atonement”, not atonement in the sense of someone being declared righteous through the finished work of the cross, but atonement as unfinished business, the unlimited filtering of our words and actions, before they are sent to God. Words matter, they communicate ideas and ideologies that directly affect how we perceive and interpret scripture, they convey authority, and those who teach, influence the minds of those who get lost in the weeds. The degree of latitude taken in this instance, questions the basis of Christological doctrine and redefines the Biblical account.

Atonement – is defined as reparations for a wrong or injury, and according to the Biblical account, Jesus paid reparations for our sins on the cross and restored our relationship with God through his resurrection. Restoring this relationship with God is the purpose of Jesus Christ, so, does Jesus continue to atone for the sins of believers today, or is the atoning work of the cross finished?

Emotional attachment – If we want to encourage empathy with a specific message within a topic, we generally convey one or two stories that highlight the topic. This is not a bad practice unless the stories lead us in the wrong direction, and the devil dances with the truth. In this case, we have the example of a Woman, strongly emphasised as a "Christian lady", at the outset. In conversation, she asks, "How do I know I have enough faith to be saved"? The foremost issues for this Woman arise in her words, “enough faith” and “to be saved”. However, the response suggested she doesn't have to worry about having enough faith, because everything she does after being saved, is filtered and made right through Jesus. Now if this Woman is indeed saved, her salvation was paid for 2000 years ago, so the question of having enough faith to be saved is irrelevant, if she’s saved. However, the response suggests the cross was incomplete.

Justified – Being set apart and declared holy (right with God), is the basis of salvation doctrine. My concern is the implication that after we are saved (born-again) we are still not worthy enough to speak directly to God. As such, everything we say, do, pray and sing to God, must be filtered through Jesus. Atonement, and something being filtered, are two separate theological conversations, in this instance, they were used in the same vein by suggesting that Jesus edits everything we say and do before he passes them on to God.

Are we saying Jesus continues to die – By saying that after salvation Jesus still has to filter our unworthy actions also implies that Jesus continues to die. In this context, there was no distinction in the use of filter or atone and the use of either suggests that salvation is incomplete and Christians remain unworthy to commune directly with God. The use of either also challenges the entire biblical account of escatology. However, according to the scriptures Jesus died ONCE and rose ONCE for all mankind, 2000 years ago. In this one act, he became the way, the truth, and the life and in terms of salvation doctrine, his atonement is finished. He does not continue to die daily, why because he’s not on the cross. Born-again believers are saved by believing that what he did then, still applies today. We accept that we have been justified (Made holy), and thus speak directly to God. This is the heart of Christological doctrine. Justification is because of atonement (Jesus died and rose), and sanctification is the path walked, for those who are justified.

The story around Christological doctrine - is embedded within the entire biblical corpus. Much of the confusion lies in our application of the words "in me", "in Jesus's name" and "through me" which are often taken out of the past tense context, and placed within a present tense continuum where it’s used to suggest that Christ continues to filter our words and actions to make them worthy before God. However, the cross was about salvation alone not the ongoing process of sanctification unto judgement. There is no biblical evidence to support continuous atonement, and it’s like saying we are less worthy now than when we were justified, thus requiring Jesus to die over and over, even if this was not the intention of the commentator. It also makes God out to be a liar. At this juncture, I want to clarify where I believe the confusion begins, and how these words are misappropriated. Jesus Christ paid for the sins of humanity 2000 years ago. It is correct for believers to say “We were saved through Jesus” even though they were not alive 2000 years ago, why? Because Christ paid atonement once, for all mankind. It is correct to say “we are saved” because we have believed in the person of that atonement, and justification follows our faith. It’s also correct to say “We are being saved” because sanctification requires we mature and become more Christlike. However, the process of being sanctified is not unfinished atonement or unfinished salvation.

The flippant manner in which the meaning of some biblical words is used can be seen in the use of “In Jesus's name" as an adage to almost every prayer we hear today. And, to be clear, I’m not attempting to denigrate or overstate the somewhat cliche nature of the practice, but repetition can become little more than a habit or worse. Can we pray without using the phrase, this might be a challenge for many. Most Christians will find prayer difficult without using this phrase, which exposes the entrenched nature of religious rhetoric. However, from the moment we are justified, and sealed as believers, we pray directly to God, not Jesus, or through Jesus as a filter. The “through Jesus” rhetoric applies to salvation doctrine alone (as the way, truth, and life) not as an ongoing filter, because we are now in God’s kingdom, and Jesus is God. The Lord’s prayer exists in plain sight. Jesus did not include "In Jesus's name" at the end. Why because Jesus said we pray to “Our Father who art in heaven”, the “Father, who is unseen” (Matt 6:6). The "in Jesus’s name" gave us that right but this right was fulfilled 2000 years ago, past tense. Use of the phrase after every prayer may be inconsequential in most cases, but, it’s also theologically adolescent if used as an ongoing mantra to validate our prayer. The use of this phrase is widespread and seems to suggest, that for most, “in Jesus's name” is little more than clique but never questioned. All three phrases "in me", "in Jesus's name" and "through me" should be interpreted through a past tense context, and we should be careful of one-text theologies.

Through him - In Eph2:18-19 the Apostle Paul is speaking about the restoration of the Gentiles and God’s people, through Jesus Christ. “For through him, we both have access to the Father by one Spirit”. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers but fellow citizens with God's people (Israel) and also members of his household”. Who’s household, Gods. The term "through him" is about what Jesus did, NOT conveyed as an ongoing justification of our singing, talking, prayer, or any other reason for communication with God. We speak directly to God, because of Jesus (past tense), not through Jesus (as in present tense).

Imperfect prayer - It was claimed that our prayer and actions “remain imperfect, but when filtered through Jesus everything becomes purified”. The example cited for this was our inability to sing in tune but Jesus becomes our audio mixer (my words) and makes our singing sound perfect before God. In this, we are “adjoined to the worship of Jesus”. Really? Who is Jesus worshipping today? This raises questions about where Jesus is seated and his position within the Godhead. Does Jesus worship God now - or is he God? Rev 3:21 “To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne”. The language here speaks of one throne, not two. The podcast stated, “Our attempts are pitiful and not acceptable until filtered through Jesus, but it’s not our raw prayers God receives, thank goodness”. Again, the rawness of our prayer is irrelevant to God, he looks at our hearts, not our inadequacies. Many questions arise from this, including our worthiness and the meaning of salvation.

Set us free - Clearly, each statement builds on the previous statement to create a new narrative. It was stated, "Jesus didn't come to let us off the hook by simply forgiving our sins, he came to put us back on the hook (I thought he came to set us free) by taking on our humanity, healing it from the inside out, joining it to himself, and doing it all for us". The language used is highly nuanced, with seams of truth running throughout, but ultimately it misrepresents what Jesus said and does. If we say "Christ is doing it all for us" what do we do with sanctification? And, if everything we say, and do after we’re saved, is filtered and perfected by Jesus, what point is there in the judgment seat of Christ? These are serious interlinked questions. Salvation and sanctification are completely different theologically, and histologically, and Jesus is not working out our salvation (sanctification), that's on us. To suggest that everything must be filtered through Jesus after we’re saved undermines the entire point of sanctification and raises more questions than answers.