At-one-ment

[oworm]

Anyone have any information on the source of this phrase? I'm not looking for information on the word "ATONEMENT"

I have heard the word used in classes where someone is teaching on the doctrine of the atonement. It kind of rubs me the wrong way when I hear that Christs atonement means that you are AT-ONE-MENT with God.

I will be teaching Matthew 26 through 28 over the next two weeks and one of the "AT-ONE-MENT proponents will be in my class. I want to address it sensitively but firmly. I am coming at it from the perspective of how a Holy and righteous God can approach sinful humans rather than from how sinful humans can approach God.

I know that the origin of the word itself is 16c coined by William Tyndale so I will be(I believe correctly) using the word propitiation in its stead. I'm really just trying to track down where this quirky use of the word came from as I have heard it a few times from different people.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[JennyG]

I can't help but I'd like to know the answer too!
I've also heard it (and thought it sounded far-fetched, not to say gimmicky)

 

[oworm]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/meaning-word-atonement-46307/

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Relating the English word atonement to the idea of at-one-ment is not far fetched. See here for example:
Online Etymology Dictionary - atonement
Online Etymology Dictionary - atone

 

[Jack K]

Yes, it sounds gimmicky. But in fact the English word "atonement" does come from "at one." Imagine that.

This does not necessarily mean that explaining the root ("at one") of the English translation is a good way to understand the biblical Greek concept of reconciliation with God. Lots of bad exegesis happens when people do that sort of thing. But the basic premise that this is where our English word comes from happens to be correct.

 

[py3ak]

Wouldn't the fundamental objection be that it reduces the full doctrine of atonement to simply reconciliation, which tends to sideline things like propitiation and expiation?

 

[oworm]

Wouldn't the fundamental objection be that it reduces the full doctrine of atonement to simply reconciliation, which tends to sideline things like propitiation and expiation?

My thoughts exactly

 

[JennyG]

Wouldn't the fundamental objection be that it reduces the full doctrine of atonement to simply reconciliation, which tends to sideline things like propitiation and expiation?

My thoughts exactly

and mine. I'm fascinated to learn that it is really the case. My problem with it too was always that it sounded a convoluted way of ending up with a skewed meaning.
Now, I know it's an actual bona fide way of ending up with a skewed meaning!

 

[Augusta]

If indeed the term has an "at one" etymology it may stem from the "once for all" language from the scriptures. You may be able to explain it from that angle.

 

[toddpedlar]

I actually don't have a problem with the language at all, so long as it is further explained what it means and requires for God and man to be "at one". You cannot have "at-one-ment" without the blood of Christ being shed for the individual - you can't have it without God's wrath being turned aside - you can't have it without the full payment for the person's sins - you can't have it without the person's being accounted as having the full righteousness of Christ. At-one-ment is very much a shorthand, and as long as the causes for and reasons for and work required for the atonement are not neglected, using this little mnemonic (and historically correct one at that) to remember what atonement means, I think it's just fine.