Case Study 1:
Doctrine of the Attonement?
Soteriology
This is going to be a “real life” case study. You are to find a person who would be willing to sit down and talk to you for thirty minutes to an hour. This person may or may not be a Christian. This might be a family member, a co-worker, someone at the gym, or even someone from church.
With notes in hand, you are to teach what you have learned in class concerning the doctrine of the atonement.
These are the issues that need to be covered:
• First, start by asking these questions?
1. If you were to die today and God were to ask you, “Should I let you in to heaven?” what would you say?
2. If the answer is yes, then on what basis do you think that God will let you in since you have done wrong things in your life?
3. If the answer is no, ask why.
• The question being answered is this: “Did Christ have to die?” Use your notes to cover the various theories of the atonement.
• Clearly explain the vicarious substitution theory of the atonement.
• Walk the person through “The Offer” attempting to answer any questions that this might raise.
The object of this assignment is to help people to understand the necessity of the Cross. The goal here is to present the Gospel as clearly as you can; showing how important the Bible says the death of Christ was in order for people to have a relationship with God.
After you are done, write a half page to a page summary of the encounter and hand it in. Online student are to post their summary in their class forum. Grades will be based upon the completion of the assignment, not the effectiveness of the presentation. Everyone who completes this will receive credit for the case study.
Powered by FireStats
March 4th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Case Study #1 – Doctrine of Atonement
These case studies have become very significant in my life, and I thank you for your work. When I was taking Bibliology, Steve, an un-churched soldier and his family were visiting our church. He had read the DaVinci Code and in a prior visit, we wrestled through some of his confusion about the inspiration of scripture and canonization. I did the case study with him on the proofs that we have the correct Books and the accuracy of manuscripts. Less than a year later, while we were standing in the rain in front of his house, Steve prayed to receive Christ. He is now in Afghanistan and his witness is there.
Amanda and Josh came into my life around 6 years ago. Their son, Kaleb, was born without oxygen to his brain for 15 minutes before delivery. As a result, his life was an expressionless, day-to-day existence. For 6 years, his parents were up multiple times each night to suction his airway so he could breath. He never spoke or showed any signs of affection. His food came through a tube that went to his stomach. And the only sound he made was a cry. For 6 years, they held him and listened for sounds that he was still alive.
Our church became involved with them almost immediately when he came home from the hospital, carrying food into the home for months and helping them move to less expensive housing in our city. Both Amanda and Josh were unsaved. As I visited them, they expressed anger at God; they questioned why; they cried. Over those 6 years, I shared the Gospel with them multiple times and many times I would just hold Kaleb and talked to him as he sat in his chair or stroller. Kaleb died Jan. 21, 2008.
I was called to the hospital that night and spent many hours dealing with the incredible grief; the loss of the child who demanded constant care but who had been loved to such an incredible extent. Being in the home so often before his death helped me offer comfort and the process of beginning life again as a couple had began and continues to develop. We talked for hours and I answered their questions as best that I could.
Last week they led the conversation as we spent an hour and a half together. We worked on restructuring their relationship and then we again, as I had done before, talked of salvation. I wrote scriptures and even wrote how one could receive Christ as Savior and Lord. It just so happened that last week I began chapter 5, and your excellent presentation, “The Offer”.
We spent two and a half hours together last night. It seemed more like 30 minutes. We went through “The Offer” and many of their questions were answered. (The presentation is clear). It turns out that on Monday, the night before they had stayed awake until 2AM reading the verses and explanations I had left with them the night before, they had prayed together and received Christ as Savior. They then began reading through the Gospel of John as I had suggested. The way they described it; “There was an incredible peace and around 2AM we fell asleep in each other’s arms.”
Last night as we worked through “The Offer”, their understanding of what had taken place in their lives became clear and I got to rejoice with them. One of the questions we dealt with was their feeling that there was more that they must do (become better people, do some work). I shared with them a line from the old hymn “Rock of Ages, Cleft For Me”: “In my hand no price I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.”
The work of recovery is not complete and there is much more I haven’t written. Please pray for Josh and Amanda and for our church as we minister to them. And, thanks for “The Offer”.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
For my first case study in Soteriology, I interviewed my friend John. John is a believer. I explained that we would be discussing the doctrine of the atonement as our topic. Before I began, John indicated that he believes that this is a ‘hot topic’ in Christianity today. He mentioned he heard of a back and forth discussion and between John Piper and another theologian over the doctrine of the atonement and that many churches are once again examining this issue in detail. This seemed to get John excited about the conversation and made it very relevant to him. I asked him the first question, what would you respond if God were to ask should you be allowed into heaven. John replied that his answer would be that no, except in Christ’s atonement for him. John felt that God should let him into heaven solely on the basis of what Christ did and that it is not about him. This made the second question a little harder as to on what basis do you think that God will let you in since you have done wrong things in your life. John replied with what he termed the ‘Sunday school answer’ of Jesus. It was Jesus who gives him the ability to get in. The third question revolved around expounded on why Jesus allows you to get in or lets you in. John indicated that Jesus granted John, His righteousness thereby allowing John to get into heaven. We moved on to the topic of did Christ have to die. I reviewed the various theories of the atonement. When I showed John the timeline of the doctrines he took exception to it from the standpoint of, the atonement has always worked in the same way, its just our articulation of it has changed over the years. He felt that the early church probably did have a similar view to the atonement as we did, only expressed in different words and these different words are what was shown in the notes. I thought that was an interesting take and led to an interesting discussion between us on the development of doctrine. I moved on to the next bullet point of explaining the vicarious substitution theory of the atonement. John was in confident agreement with this view, although some of the terms used were new to him. He also went back to address the issue of forgiveness and Christ’s punishment on the cross. John felt that all forgiveness involves some sort of sacrifice and that when God asks us to forgive it always costs us something, in some way, to forgive another person. I finally walked through the “Offer” as outlined in the notes with him. I also walked through CS Lewis’ argument that Michael used that the gates of hell are locked on the inside. John did not agree with this view. He feels like some people may believe in Christ, but not accept him and that there will ultimately be regret over this. When people are judged, they will know who Christ is and perhaps understand what has happened. This is another difficult topic, and I agree with John on many things, however, much of this study is beyond comprehension, but John and I both enjoyed the discussion.
March 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Case Study #1:
DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT
Soteriology
I determined to use this assignment as an opportunity to reach out to my son, Philip, and his (soon to be) fiancée, Erin. My wife and I have reason to question the spiritual status of both my son and his girlfriend. What better way to determine how well they understand the Gospel than with a solid presentation of the atonement?
Erin grew up with little to no exposure to church. She preferred to simply serve as a spectator and lend a listening ear. Consequently, I directed the presentation primarily toward my son. The entire interview was approximately two hours.
I made the mistake of inadvertently introducing some substitutionary concepts in my preliminary remarks to Philip and Erin. Philip picked up on these and employed them in his responses.
The questions and responses are as follows:
1. If you were to die today and God were to ask you, “Should I let you in to heaven?” what would you say?
Response: Philip indicated that Jesus died for his sins and paid the penalty and took his punishment by dying on the cross. (Note: Philip was raised in the church and so I would expect him to have a reliable answer).
2. If the answer is yes, then on what basis do you think that God will let you in since you have done wrong things in your life?
Response: Philip replied that he had asked Him for forgiveness and also asked Him to change his life by conforming him to Christ. (I hope he is telling me the truth and he really means it).
3. If the answer is no, ask why. (This question is not applicable).
With the student notebook in my hands (and close enough for Philip and Erin to view the illustrations) I discussed the first 5 theories of the atonement. I particularly emphasized those theories which possessed some merit despite their shortcomings or insufficiencies, namely the Recapitulation Theory, the Satisfaction Theory and the Moral Government Theory. The Satisfaction Theory marks a pivotal point in Church history because it emphasized God as the offended party who required satisfaction (as opposed to Satan). The Moral Government Theory is noteworthy because it clearly articulated the concept of substitution in the atonement.
As I explained the shortcomings of the various preliminary views I interspersed my commentary with hints which I hoped would later confirm the correctness of the substitutionary view in the minds of Philip and Erin.
I think it was during my explanation of the Moral Example Theory that my son said to me it would be “going against God’s nature not to require a sacrifice.” He further stated that Christ’s death “buys us and puts to death our sin.”
Time was quickly slipping away as I began my discussion of the final view - the Vicarious Substitutionary View. For the first portion of Lesson 5 I did not strictly follow the notebook but rather skipped to the section concerning “The Offer.” I do believe, however, that I laid a good framework for the substitutionary view through pertinent comments I interspersed throughout the entire interview.
I finally concluded our interview with “The Offer” and stuck closely with the script of the student notebook. However, I would sometimes pause and elaborate in my own words on some of the points stressed in the notebook. For example, I used bookkeeping terminology to stress the doctrine of imputation.
As I concluded the presentation of “The Offer” I looked intently at my future daughter-in-law and inquired whether I could ask her a personal question. Surprised, and perhaps a bit worried about the nature of my query, she appeared tentative in her affirmative response. I hope she could sense my genuine concern for her as I asked her if there was ever a time in her life when she had repented of her sin and embraced Christ by faith - just as we had been discussing in “The Offer.” She replied that she had done that – that she had indeed trusted Christ. I expressed to her my concern that she be a Christ-follower. I truly hope that her commitment is genuine…
_____________________
Greg Eby
March 4th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Case Study Numero Uno – The Doctrine of Atonement
I picked my friend Mark from the gym again to do my case study. I do enjoy doing these little studies as I try to pick people who aren’t within my “circle of influence” as most folks know I’m a Christian for various reaons (ex. Pray Bayonne Annual T-Shirt @ the gym!).
1. Mark believes if there is a heaven he’ll get in cause he’s changed and is a better person now. He believes in God but doesn’t define him in any notable way.
2. The basis is that I’m basically a good person who really led a destructive life but now it is better and that is how life works: you learn from your mistakes and change or you die from them.
Mark believes in Christ and understands the basic tenets of Christianity (Cross, Sins, Blood Atoning) but he doesn’t know much about the Scriptures or God’s plan of salvation. He does understand that Jesus died in our place (his words) but he doesn’t seem (my words) to connect the dots that Jesus is God in the Flesh.
Ok, now we only discussed Atonement and didn’t pull any books out or anything since that would have probably turned him off and I wanted to keep it simple with him. As we went over some things he liked the word “substitution” a lot and that sort of made some sense to him. Mark basically feels he atones for his past life-style (he was actively gay & a drug user) by not getting involved in it anymore and his life is better. It seemd to me that in his eyes his atonement is simply changing and asking a “god he doesnt’ define” for forgiveness and strength.
Mark and I shook hands again and hopefully he just got a little more of a glimpse of Jesus and His “Offer” from our conversation (smile).
March 7th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Case Study #1: Doctrine of the Atonement
I conducted my case study around the kitchen table with my son Stephen who is 14 years old. Stephen accepted Christ at a summer camp a couple years ago and has been steadily growing in his faith since then. Stephen is active in the student ministry at our church (Presbyterian Church in America), and is currently enrolled in the confirmation class.
We started with the questions in the workbook:
1. If you were to die today and God were to ask you, “Should I let you in to heaven?” what would you say?
The question caught Stephen somewhat by surprise. Having heard the Gospel, Stephen knows that Christ has assured those who trust Him they will be with Him in heaven, but he is also keenly aware of his own sin nature. With a knowledge that God is perfectly good, just and must punish sin, Stephen was quickly caught in the dilemma described in the workbook: Can God let a few sins slide by because He loves us so much? After pondering this for a moment Stephen said God would probably let him into heaven. His answer to the first question was: yes.
2. If the answer is “yes”, then on what basis do you think God will let you in since you have done wrong things in your life?
Stephen’s initial response here was that God would probably see the good in his life out-weighing the bad. I followed this up with a discussion on whether God could remain God while letting a few sins slide by without punishment. Stephen agreed that God could not let sin slide by and remain perfectly righteous and just. As I encouraged Stephen to think about ways that God could deal with this dilemma, the fullness of the Gospel resurfaced in Stephen’s mind. Without elaborating or connecting thoughts, he blurted out, “Jesus”. I told him he was on the right track and encouraged him to think about what Jesus did for us. At this point Stephen said, “Jesus died for our sins.” We talked about what is required of us in order to receive the gift of salvation and Stephen was able to remember that we need to simply place our trust in Jesus in order to receive God’s offer of eternal life in heaven. These first two questions, and Stephen’s response, highlighted for me the ease with which even believers can forget how amazing is the grace God offers us! We reach a level of trust and understanding of the Gospel but find ourselves questioning whether God could really love a sinner like us. This was a reminder that we can never hear the Gospel message too much.
We went over “The Offer” as an example of Vicarious Substitution and this made a lot of sense to Stephen. While discussing this, however, questions came up regarding the extent of the atonement. My 18 year old son, Michael, and my wife, Laurie, were also in the vicinity of our discussion and they both started to wonder out loud whether the atonement was limited or unlimited. I went over the Scripture references defending both sides of this question and this only left all three (Stephen, Michael and Laurie) with more tension and uncertainty. When I described a few of the logical arguments supporting a Vicarious Substitution, such as:
- If Christ died for all people, then all people stand blameless before God and will be saved, and this is universalism and contrary to the Bible.
- How can we believe that people are in hell paying for sins that Christ already paid for?
These arguments were the best way to help Stephen, Michael and Laurie understand the idea of Limited Atonement. Even with these logical arguments, however, the “Compromise” proposed in the workbook made the most sense to my family: “Christ died for all people potentially, but actually only paid for the sins of the elect.”
Overall a good dinner-time discussion and a chance to further solidify Stephen’s understanding that his salvation is by grace through faith. In addition, Michael and Laurie were both lured into giving some thought to their theology when it comes to the atonement.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Case Study 1 - Soteriology
This meeting was with a long time friend of mine named Jason. Since he has been a Christian for most of his life he already knew the answer to the first question. Or did he?
We started off with prayer and then moved on to the questions. 1. If you died today and stood before God and he asked “Should I let you in to heaven?”. Jason immediately chimed in with not only the YES answer but then started to point to Jesus as the way. I stopped him and had him listen to the question again. He then realized that he only needed a yes or no answer, to which he replied yes.
I proceeded on to the next point. Since we all do things that are wrong, but you say that you should be allowed into heaven, then on what basis do you hold to for that stance?
He took some time to think this through, since he knows that I will question any idea that he brings up that would not be logically sound with Scripture.
He stated that he’s trusting in Christ’s death and resurrection and believing that because Christ stated that whoever believes will be saved.
We both agreed that those some good points. Then I asked him why Christ had to Die for him to be saved?
You could hear the brakes of his mind screech to a halt. For a moment he actually wanted to say no. He looked at me somewhat puzzeld and said that he knew God required sacrifice for atonement [I was surprised he actually used that word] but he was anable to fully answer why.
I took this as the opportunity to review all of the various theories of the atonement with him and he began to see how the understanding grew. He even mentioned the same thing Michael Patton did in that 100 years from now they may have even more understanding to see our current Vicarious Substitution Theory as somewhat heretical.
We ended the session with a review of the offer, which he was glad to see in print because he’s always had a challenge to explain that at times.
He’d love to eb able to attend classes and grow himself. I may take him to Intro next semester.
We closed in prayer.