Progressive Disenchantment Atonement

[MWinther]

Your thesis rests on a key assumption that is quite false, namely, that once Christianity rejects the divinization of nature, the material world is left “ontologically empty” or "disenchanted". That does not follow. Understanding the truth does not lead inexorably to errors such as "nihilism, moral dissolution, hedonistic self‑absorption, and political idolatry." Such things are not a result of accepting the Christian (i.e. the biblical) worldview, but of rejecting it.

Nietzsche claimed that Christianity is nihilism, and he was half right. The Christian movement of alienation and disenchantment divides into two paths: nihilism and heavenly participation. It is clear from Jesus' message that he opens the way to both heaven and hell.

There is a clear distinction between saying that the world is not divine and saying that the world is devoid of meaning. Christianity affirms the former but definitely does not affirm the latter.

I have never claimed that the world is devoid of meaning. My argument is meant to counter both nihilism and hedonism. We are called to participate in the heavenly kingdom.

Reframing the problem as unmet participatory longing shifts the discussion away from objective reality and toward the management of subjective experience.

You adopt the modern, worldly perspective, but from a narrative or mythopoetic standpoint this inevitably flattens the Christian cosmos. It marks a radical departure from historic Christianity.

Heaven has been all but forgotten today. The notion that heavenly daimones and angeloi function as intermediaries in the Neoplatonic sense is integral to Christianity; it is already present in Paul. In modernity, however, and especially with the Reformers, the angelic hierarchy was effectively collapsed. God came to be understood as relating to creation directly, without mediating beings, and in a more causal‑mechanical fashion. This stands in tension with ancient Christianity's emphasis on participation, providence, and a graded order of mediation. Both Testaments assume a cosmos structured by angelic mediators.

Nicaea still allows for participatory, angelic mediation, while Christ alone embodies ontological mediation. Over time, however, the participatory dimension faded from view, and Christians came to rely almost exclusively on ontological mediation in the Eucharist, where mediation functions chiefly in a therapeutic register.

The proposed solution, especially the appeal to sacramental life as a structured and “non-idolatrous” form of participation effectively reestablishes a mediated system through which access to the divine is regulated and experienced.

On the contrary, I argue that the sacramental life plays no direct role in salvation. It does, however, have a therapeutic function and protects against the devil's worldly allurements.

Further, the distinction between “horizontal” and “vertical” participation attempts to avoid paganism, yet it still operates within the same basic category, namely, that the human goal is participation in the sacred as an experiential or ontological state.

What you dismiss is precisely the position of the Church Fathers, including Paul, who employ participatory language to emphasize the heavenly hierarchy.

Finally, the claim that Christ’s redemptive work constitutes a “cosmic disenchantment” mischaracterizes the nature of redemption itself. Redemption does not strip the world of false sacrality only to leave it empty while pointing elsewhere for meaning.

Central to Christ's message is the kingdom of God, a reality that is not of this world.

 

[MWinther]

So God is stuck inside the toilet, eh? Sounds a lot like Calvinistic gobbledygook to me..

According to Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, and Pseudo‑Dionysius divine presence is veiled to allow creatures to exist as creatures. Aquinas and Bonaventure both teach that Creation requires a kind of divine reticence. In Luther's theology God's hiddenness is necessary for faith and for the world's continued existence.

According to Jürgen Moltmann, Creation is possible only through divine self‑limitation. God "contracts" himself to make room for Creation, and history unfolds within God's self‑withdrawn space. The New Testament already contains a proto‑withdrawal concept. According to Paul, Christ "emptied himself" in the act of Incarnation. Kenosis is interpreted by many theologians as a form of divine self‑limitation.

 

[Right Divider]

Nietzsche claimed that Christianity is nihilism, and he was half right.

Nietzsche was anti-Christian... so he was 100% wrong.

Central to Christ's message is the kingdom of God, a reality that is not of this world.

Pure mythology. We all notice that you frequently make claims about what the Bible says without using the Bible. Your opinions about what the Bible says don't move us. We need quotes and solid arguments.

 

[MWinther]

Thanks for the non-answer.

You have some weird mythological timeline of the world. There is no such thing as "pagan times".

Again... DEFINE what it means that "The divine is now absent from the world" and WHEN that occurred.

Hint: It's not true and never happened.

Here are some more hints for you:

• Christianity did not begin on the day of Pentecost.
• Paul was the first member of the body of Christ, i.e., God's church for today.
• Christianity as we know it today is a Pauline construct created by Jesus Christ.
• Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written about Christianity, but about the fulfillment of prophecy related to the nation of Israel and their covenant relationship with God.
• All believers since Paul have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit (God).
• We are the temple of the Holy Spirit (God).

I am not denying the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That indwelling is vertical participation, the ascent of the creature towards the transcendent God, and it is central to my argument. Nothing in my position contradicts Paul's teaching that the Spirit dwells in the believer. The question at stake is not whether God is present to the person, but whether the world is experienced as saturated with divine presence.

When I say that "the divine is now absent from the world," I am not making a metaphysical claim about God's non‑existence or withdrawal in a literal, spatial sense. I am describing a shift in the human mode of perception, a transformation in how the world is experienced and interpreted. In antiquity (pagan, Jewish, and early Christian alike) the cosmos was perceived as alive with spiritual forces, angelic mediators, daimones, powers, and principalities. This is not controversial; it is the worldview assumed throughout Scripture.

But modernity has undergone a profound cognitive and cultural disenchantment. We no longer project divine agency onto the world. We no longer interpret storms, plagues, fertility, or political events as the work of gods or angels. We inhabit a scientific worldview in which nature is governed by impersonal laws, not by spiritual intermediaries. This is not a theological judgment; it is a sociological and phenomenological fact.

My interlocutors in the thread respond as though I were claiming that God has literally vacated creation, or that the Spirit no longer indwells believers. But my claim concerns the structure of experience, not the metaphysical status of God. The world has become transparent to natural causality and opaque to divine presence. That is what "disenchantment" means.

This shift is not merely cultural; it is theological. Christianity itself, especially in its monotheistic, anti‑idolatrous impulse, abolished the pagan intuition of a world filled with gods. It relocated the divine from the immanent cosmos to the transcendent realm. As I noted earlier, Christianity "marks the abolition of that worldview and the turn towards a transcendent perspective." However, the Reformers undermined also the transcendent perspective by flattening the angelic hierarchy and rejecting mediating beings, leaving only the direct relation between God and the believer.

Thus, when I say "the divine is now absent from the world," I mean: We no longer perceive the world as enchanted. This is not atheism. It is the metaphysical prerequisite for creaturely independence. The world is disenchanted because God is transcendent. And God is transcendent so that creatures may exist as creatures.

Vertical participation remains. Horizontal participation, finding God in nature, matter, or events, has been abolished.

 

[MWinther]

Nietzsche was anti-Christian... so he was 100% wrong.

Pure mythology. We all notice that you frequently make claims about what the Bible says without using the Bible. Your opinions about what the Bible says don't move us. We need quotes and solid arguments.

When questioned by Pilate, Jesus declares: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). Christ's kingdom is not embedded in the immanent order. It is a transcendent reality, accessed through vertical participation.

This is precisely why the modern, disenchanted worldview, where nature is understood through impersonal laws rather than divine intermediaries, does not contradict Christianity. Christ himself relocates divine presence away from the world's immanent structures and into the heavenly realm. The kingdom is not "here" in the sense of being woven into the fabric of nature; it is "here" only insofar as the Spirit indwells believers and draws them upwards into participation with the transcendent God.

Thus, when I say that "the divine is now absent from the world," I am simply taking Jesus at his word. The kingdom is not of this world. Divine presence is not projected onto nature. It is encountered vertically, through the Spirit, prayer, and the life of the Church.

 

[Right Divider]

I am not denying the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That indwelling is vertical participation, the ascent of the creature towards the transcendent God, and it is central to my argument. Nothing in my position contradicts Paul's teaching that the Spirit dwells in the believer. The question at stake is not whether God is present to the person, but whether the world is experienced as saturated with divine presence.

What is "the world"?

When I say that "the divine is now absent from the world," I am not making a metaphysical claim about God's non‑existence or withdrawal in a literal, spatial sense. I am describing a shift in the human mode of perception, a transformation in how the world is experienced and interpreted. In antiquity (pagan, Jewish, and early Christian alike) the cosmos was perceived as alive with spiritual forces, angelic mediators, daimones, powers, and principalities. This is not controversial; it is the worldview assumed throughout Scripture.

I'm not sure what you even mean by "the worldview assumed throughout Scripture"... assumed by whom?

But modernity has undergone a profound cognitive and cultural disenchantment.

Again, you sound like a new-ager.

We no longer project divine agency onto the world. We no longer interpret storms, plagues, fertility, or political events as the work of gods or angels.

Those that believed God throughout Biblical history never believed any of those things.

We inhabit a scientific worldview

Nonsensical language.

You're going to have to do better.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am not denying the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That indwelling is vertical participation, the ascent of the creature towards the transcendent God, and it is central to my argument. Nothing in my position contradicts Paul's teaching that the Spirit dwells in the believer. The question at stake is not whether God is present to the person, but whether the world is experienced as saturated with divine presence.

When I say that "the divine is now absent from the world," I am not making a metaphysical claim about God's non‑existence or withdrawal in a literal, spatial sense. I am describing a shift in the human mode of perception, a transformation in how the world is experienced and interpreted. In antiquity (pagan, Jewish, and early Christian alike) the cosmos was perceived as alive with spiritual forces, angelic mediators, daimones, powers, and principalities. This is not controversial; it is the worldview assumed throughout Scripture.

But modernity has undergone a profound cognitive and cultural disenchantment. We no longer project divine agency onto the world. We no longer interpret storms, plagues, fertility, or political events as the work of gods or angels. We inhabit a scientific worldview in which nature is governed by impersonal laws, not by spiritual intermediaries. This is not a theological judgment; it is a sociological and phenomenological fact.

My interlocutors in the thread respond as though I were claiming that God has literally vacated creation, or that the Spirit no longer indwells believers. But my claim concerns the structure of experience, not the metaphysical status of God. The world has become transparent to natural causality and opaque to divine presence. That is what "disenchantment" means.

This shift is not merely cultural; it is theological. Christianity itself, especially in its monotheistic, anti‑idolatrous impulse, abolished the pagan intuition of a world filled with gods. It relocated the divine from the immanent cosmos to the transcendent realm. As I noted earlier, Christianity "marks the abolition of that worldview and the turn towards a transcendent perspective." However, the Reformers undermined also the transcendent perspective by flattening the angelic hierarchy and rejecting mediating beings, leaving only the direct relation between God and the believer.

Thus, when I say "the divine is now absent from the world," I mean: We no longer perceive the world as enchanted. This is not atheism. It is the metaphysical prerequisite for creaturely independence. The world is disenchanted because God is transcendent. And God is transcendent so that creatures may exist as creatures.

Vertical participation remains. Horizontal participation, finding God in nature, matter, or events, has been abolished.

You’re equivocating between pagan enchantment and biblical providence. Christianity does abolish the idea that nature is full of gods. It does not abolish the truth that creation is full of God’s glory, governed by His providence, upheld by His power, and interpreted rightly only in relation to Him. Calling that “horizontal participation” and declaring it abolished is not biblical theology; it is modern disenchantment baptized in theological jargon.

 

[Right Divider]

When questioned by Pilate, Jesus declares: "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36).

You need to read a little more carefully. I know that many people make this bogus claim (that the "kingdom" is "just a spiritual kingdom").

John 18:36 (AKJV/PCE)​

(18:36) Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.​

Notice the TIME ELEMENT there? But NOW ...

After Jesus gave the disciples a FORTY DAY training course on "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God"... what did they ask?

Acts 1:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? ​

They were not stupid... they had just been trained by the Lord Jesus Christ (for FORTY DAYS).

Christ's kingdom is not embedded in the immanent order. It is a transcendent reality, accessed through vertical participation.

Apparently, you've not read much of the Bible. God promised Israel a kingdom on the earth and Jesus will be the King of that kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom was a statement of the fact that this kingdom was about to be established for Israel... i.e., the kingdom of priests, the holy nation.

This is precisely why the modern, disenchanted worldview, where nature is understood through impersonal laws rather than divine intermediaries, does not contradict Christianity.

The laws of the universe are not really "impersonal". A person created them... three persons actually.

Christ himself relocates divine presence away from the world's immanent structures and into the heavenly realm.

"Relocates"... nonsense.

The kingdom is not "here" in the sense of being woven into the fabric of nature; it is "here" only insofar as the Spirit indwells believers and draws them upwards into participation with the transcendent God.

The gospel of the kingdom is about a kingdom on the earth.

Matt 6:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.​

Thus, when I say that "the divine is now absent from the world," I am simply taking Jesus at his word.

No, you are not. You are expressing a myth that you've fallen for hook, line and sinker.

The kingdom is not of this world.

NOW (at that time) it was "not of this world"... but when it is actually established... it will be on earth (as it is in heaven).

Divine presence is not projected onto nature. It is encountered vertically, through the Spirit, prayer, and the life of the Church.

 

[MWinther]

You need to read a little more carefully. I know that many people make this bogus claim (that the "kingdom" is "just a spiritual kingdom").

John 18:36 (AKJV/PCE)​

(18:36) Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.​

Notice the TIME ELEMENT there? But NOW ...

After Jesus gave the disciples a FORTY DAY training course on "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God"... what did they ask?

Acts 1:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? ​

They were not stupid... they had just been trained by the Lord Jesus Christ (for FORTY DAYS).


Apparently, you've not read much of the Bible. God promised Israel a kingdom on the earth and Jesus will be the King of that kingdom. The gospel of the kingdom was a statement of the fact that this kingdom was about to be established for Israel... i.e., the kingdom of priests, the holy nation.

The laws of the universe are not really "impersonal". A person created them... three persons actually.

"Relocates"... nonsense.

The gospel of the kingdom is about a kingdom on the earth.

Matt 6:10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven.​

No, you are not. You are expressing a myth that you've fallen for hook, line and sinker.

NOW (at that time) it was "not of this world"... but when it is actually established... it will be on earth (as it is in heaven).

Indeed, the kingdom of God is eschatological. It will become our new homeland at the end of the age, but for now it exists as a heavenly realm.

 

[MWinther]

You’re equivocating between pagan enchantment and biblical providence. Christianity does abolish the idea that nature is full of gods. It does not abolish the truth that creation is full of God’s glory, governed by His providence, upheld by His power, and interpreted rightly only in relation to Him. Calling that “horizontal participation” and declaring it abolished is not biblical theology; it is modern disenchantment baptized in theological jargon.

These are mere words, serving a therapeutic purpose at best. Or will you argue, with radical Reformed theologians, that God's glorious governance finds expression in the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the mass starvations under Mao, and the world wars with their millions of victims?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Indeed, the kingdom of God is eschatological. It will become our new homeland at the end of the age,

No.

The Kingdom preached by Christ and His disciples will be the new homeland of Israel.

We, the Body of Christ, have our residence in heaven.

but for now it exists as a heavenly realm.

 

[JudgeRightly]

These are mere words, serving a therapeutic purpose at best. Or will you argue, with radical Reformed theologians, that God's glorious governance finds expression in the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the mass starvations under Mao, and the world wars with their millions of victims?

You’re confusing providence with approval. God governing history does not mean every evil act is morally endorsed by God. Joseph’s brothers meant evil; God meant good. Judas sinned; God ordained the crucifixion. Your objection only works if biblical providence is flattened into “whatever happens is automatically glorious in itself.” That is not my view, and it is not Scripture’s view.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

According to Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, and Pseudo‑Dionysius...Luther...Jürgen Moltmann...

Ok well these people aren't here right now, I'm asking you. Is God inside the toilet when I go to the bathroom, yes or no?

If you're having trouble answering such a rudimentary question clearly (the answer is "No", btw) you might want to reconsider whatever it is you think qualifies you to know that a new "atonement model" is needed for Christianity.

I argue that the sacramental life plays no direct role in salvation. It does, however, have a therapeutic function and protects against the devil's worldly allurements.

I'm trying to find some common ground here. It would help if you could just speak plainly. Would you consider the celebration of Christmas a part of "sacramental life"? Because there are extra-biblical traditions held by Christian cultures that I think are good for us to have. For example Muslims go to "church" at night, because they worship Satan but Christians typically go to worship in the morning. This seems to me as it should be. And I think it's good for us to celebrate Christmas, even though the Bible doesn't tell us that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. And yes I would even go as far as to say that Christmas serves a therapeutic function. I'm happy and singing all day, every Christmas. Who doesn't love Christmas?

I remember a time when it seemed most Christian families would have a cross on the wall, in view of their dinner table. I sorta wish we still did this. I guess the sign of the early Church was a fish, or sometimes two fish. I think that was pretty cool too. But these aren't things that should be mandated. Who of us would even have the authority to do so? Likewise we certainly do not have the authority to require new sacraments or "atonement models" or celestial hierarchies of mediation or any such nonsense. You are going way overboard. We don't need to know what Nazianzen or Nietzsche said. We need to know what the Bible says.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

You’re equivocating between pagan enchantment and biblical providence.

Something tells me that he is never going to stop doing this.

 

[Right Divider]

Indeed, the kingdom of God is eschatological.

Because of the vague way that you talk about things, I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

It will become our new homeland at the end of the age, but for now it exists as a heavenly realm.

You need to learn to rightly divide the Word of truth.

That earthly kingdom is the kingdom of Israel. There will be other kingdoms of the gentiles that will come to Israel to pay respects and learn from Israel and be blessed by Israel. The body of Christ is neither of those things.

 

[MWinther]

No.

The Kingdom preached by Christ and His disciples will be the new homeland of Israel.

We, the Body of Christ, have our residence in heaven.

Nonsense. The Church Fathers never taught that the Church has a different destiny from Israel. They saw one people of God, not two.

Paul never says that Israel gets the earth and the Church gets heaven. There aren't two different homelands; there's only one olive tree (Romans 11).

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Nonsense. The Church Fathers never taught that the Church has a different destiny from Israel. They saw one people of God, not two.

Paul never says that Israel gets the earth and the Church gets heaven. There aren't two different homelands; there's only one olive tree (Romans 11).

The olive tree is Israel, namely the natural branches. The gentiles are wild branches that were grafted in. Romans 11 is referring to 2 different people.

 

[Clete]

The 16th‑century Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria offered a brilliant theological response to a classic paradox: How can an infinite, omnipresent God create a finite world without ceasing to be infinite? If God fills all reality, then there is no "space" (conceptual or otherwise) for anything that is not God to exist. If God creates a world, where could it possibly be placed?

Such a paradox does not belong to the biblical worldview but to Aristotle's.

The biblical God is not Omni-whatever in the Classical sense of those terms.

God's attributes....

Classical	Biblical
God knows everything, without exception or qualification.	God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. God predictably changes His mind.
God is everywhere, without exception.	God is everywhere He wants to be at once but is not anywhere He doesn't want to be. He will not be present in the Lake of Fire, for example.
God is capable of doing anything whatsoever.	God cannot be evil, irrational, or in some other way act in a manner that is contrary to His nature.
God controls everything, without exception.	God is routinely disappointed and sometimes does not get what He wants or even what He expects.

Luria's doctrine of Tzimtzum addresses this. Because God is non‑spatial, the "withdrawal" cannot be understood as a physical movement in which God vacates a literal location.

Self-contradictory, question begging nonsense.

"Space" is just where things are. It is not a thing, it is an abstraction, an idea. The concept of space is a convention of language used to communicate information related to the location of something relative to something else. Whether that thing is a rock or God Himself, is beside the point.

Instead, it must be conceived as a concealment of divine manifestation. What contracts is not God's being but the Infinite Light, the overwhelming self‑revelation of God. By veiling this infinite manifestation, God creates a conceptual "void" (chalal) in which finite, autonomous beings can exist without being immediately dissolved by His boundless presence.

Literal mumbo-jumbo. A concept is either self-contradictory or is isn't. Playing such mind games is entirely unnecessary if all you do is simply dismiss as false, all that which is irrational.

 

[Right Divider]

Nonsense. The Church Fathers never taught that the Church has a different destiny from Israel. They saw one people of God, not two.

The "Church Fathers" (whatever you mean by that) are not the measure of Biblical truth.

You are making a fallacious argument. Take your pick:

• Appeal to authority
• Appeal to tradition
• Genetic fallacy

Paul never says that Israel gets the earth and the Church gets heaven.

Yes, he does. He wrote it in the Bible.

Israel is a kingdom on the earth.
The body of Christ is a spiritual organism.

The distinction between Israel’s earthly promises and the Body of Christ’s heavenly position is most clearly exemplified in the contrast between the Old Testament/Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, specifically the book of Ephesians.

Israel: The Earthly Inheritance​

Throughout the Old Testament and the Gospels, God’s dealings with Israel focus on a physical kingdom, a specific land, and earthly blessings. The "hope of Israel" is the restoration of the Davidic throne in Jerusalem.

• Genesis 13:15: "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever."
• Psalm 37:11: "But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace."
• Matthew 6:10: "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."

In these passages, the focus is the "restitution of all things" on the earth. Israel's blessings are contingent upon their presence in the land and their physical obedience to the law.

---

The Body of Christ: The Heavenly Position​

The book of Ephesians introduces a distinct program where the believer’s identity and inheritance are located "in heavenly places." This is a "mystery" (a secret) that was not revealed to the Old Testament prophets.

• Ephesians 1:3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ."
• Ephesians 2:6: "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
• Philippians 3:20: "For our conversation [citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."

While Israel looks for the King to return to earth to establish a throne, the Body of Christ is described as already being seated "positionally" in heaven with Christ.

---

Key Differences in Perspective​

The dichotomy is best observed by comparing the physical requirements of Israel with the spiritual position of the Body:

Feature	Israel (Prophecy)	Body of Christ (Mystery)
Domain	The Earth / The Land	The Heavenly Places
Blessings	Physical (Rain, Crops, Health)	Spiritual (Grace, Peace, Acceptance)
Headship	Christ as King	Christ as Head of the Body
Identity	A Nation among nations	A new creature (neither Jew nor Gentile)
Primary Text	Genesis – Acts 8	Romans – Philemon

​

There aren't two different homelands; there's only one olive tree (Romans 11).

Paul was explaining things about Israel's past and future in that passage. Romans 11 is not talking about the body of Christ at all.

 

[Right Divider]

The olive tree is Israel, namely the natural branches. The gentiles are wild branches that were grafted in. Romans 11 is referring to 2 different people.

I beg to differ. The wild branches in Romans 11 are not the body of Christ, nor are they gentiles in general. They are the prophetic remnant of Israel.

Note that the wild branches can be cut off again.