William Lane Craig on the Penal Theory of the Atonement: "Any Takers?"
I've been waiting for Dr. Craig to offer up some thoughts on the atonement. He finally did so but I'm disappointed in them. I think he avoids doing so because the Penal Theory cannot be defended.
Dr. Craig thinks the concept of "imputation" solves the problem of atonement. But he doesn't think this has been adequately worked out in the philosophical literature. He wrote:
Since Craig thinks "a full-orbed doctrine of the atonement...must include the penal aspects," and since such a view cannot be reasonably defended, then Christianity fails. It's that simple. The reason is because there are many beliefs essential for one to be a Christian such that if any one of them is shown false the whole belief system falls to the ground.
You see, we're not talking about an insurance claim here. We're talking about torturing and killing an innocent person because someone else did wrong. When insurance companies make the rules they can make any rules they want. These rules are arbitrary. They do not have to be consistent nor do the companies have to morally justify their rules. They only have to be legal. That's why insurance companies cover some claims but not others. That's why different insurance companies treat the same claims differently according to their respective policies. These policies are also agreed upon by the people who buy these policies (at least tacitly).
A reasonable defense of the Penal Theory of the atonement should start by morally justifying the rules. But that cannot be done. None of these insurance aspects are analogous or applicable to the Penal Theory. So the insurance analogy of imputation fails. Q.E.D.
But that's just the start. One of the biggest problems for the theory is to explain the relationship of punishment to forgiveness. Think about this. Why must someone--anyone--be punished before that person can be forgiven? We all have heard of victims who forgave their attackers even though they have not been punished. We also have heard of victims who will not forgive their attackers even after having been punished.
I'd like just one person to explain this. Any takers?
Dr. Craig thinks the concept of "imputation" solves the problem of atonement. But he doesn't think this has been adequately worked out in the philosophical literature. He wrote:
The doctrine of the atonement is one of those areas of Christian theology which is most in need of careful philosophical analysis. In fact, if any of you readers are contemplating graduate work in philosophy, here is a great dissertation topic! You can be almost guaranteed publication of your work, given how central and philosophically underdeveloped a doctrine the substitutionary atonement is....What I’d like to see some Christian philosopher do, then, is to really tackle this concept of imputation, explore how it functions in legal affairs, and make a moral and theological application. Any takers? LinkThere are so many things wrong with his suggested explanation I don't know where to begin. In the first place, anyone who thinks this is an underdeveloped doctrine is just fooling himself. It has been around for oh, say, 4 1/2 centuries, beginning with the Reformers. The problem with this theory is that it just cannot be defended.
Since Craig thinks "a full-orbed doctrine of the atonement...must include the penal aspects," and since such a view cannot be reasonably defended, then Christianity fails. It's that simple. The reason is because there are many beliefs essential for one to be a Christian such that if any one of them is shown false the whole belief system falls to the ground.
You see, we're not talking about an insurance claim here. We're talking about torturing and killing an innocent person because someone else did wrong. When insurance companies make the rules they can make any rules they want. These rules are arbitrary. They do not have to be consistent nor do the companies have to morally justify their rules. They only have to be legal. That's why insurance companies cover some claims but not others. That's why different insurance companies treat the same claims differently according to their respective policies. These policies are also agreed upon by the people who buy these policies (at least tacitly).
A reasonable defense of the Penal Theory of the atonement should start by morally justifying the rules. But that cannot be done. None of these insurance aspects are analogous or applicable to the Penal Theory. So the insurance analogy of imputation fails. Q.E.D.
But that's just the start. One of the biggest problems for the theory is to explain the relationship of punishment to forgiveness. Think about this. Why must someone--anyone--be punished before that person can be forgiven? We all have heard of victims who forgave their attackers even though they have not been punished. We also have heard of victims who will not forgive their attackers even after having been punished.
I'd like just one person to explain this. Any takers?
61 comments:
Just so I understand, is this meant to justify the death/sacrifice of Jesus or does it also apply to Original Sin, punishing children for the sins of the parents, the Egyptian plagues and the other instances where innocent people are harmed or killed in order to punish a third party?
The problem of how God could punish an innocent person for someone elses sin was solved in a book called "Pierced For Our Transgressions." The authors state it like this:
It is correct to assert that the willingness of Christ suffering is not a satisfactory explanation by itself. The reason is obvious. If an innocent person suffers the punishment for a crime for which he bears no guilt, then it makes no difference whether or not he does so willingly. It is a miscarriage of justice, pure and simple. The Bible condemns such a thing when it comes to human courts, and it would seem strange if Christ did not adhere to the same standard Himself.
To see why penal substitution is not a travesty of justice of exactly this kind, we need to recall the doctrine of union with Christ. The believer is not separate from Christ. He is in us, and we are in Him, indwelt by His Spirit. It is easy to understate the significance of our union with Christ, for it is not visible but spiritual-it exists by faith. But this is not at all to imply that it is not real. The spiritual in spiritual union means it is God's Holy Spirit who creates the union between Christ and believers; it does not imply that this union has no real consequences. Our justification, our adoption as God's children, and our present reigning with Christ in heavenly places are all real although spiritual and invisible, being perceived in the present only by faith.
The doctrine of penal substitution thus does not propose a transfer of guilt between unrelated persons. It asserts that guilt is transferred to Christ from those united with Him. In fact transfer may not even be the best term, since it could imply a separation between distinct persons. It may be better to say our sins were imputed to Christ while His righteousness was imputed to us. That Christ bore our sins willingly furthers the point: He was not forced or coerced into this union with us, but entered into it voluntarily.
Union with Christ eplains how the innocent could be justly punished-He is judged for others sins, which by virtue of their union with him, become His. Conversely, it explains also how the guilty can be justly aquitted-believers are one with innocent Lord Jesus Christ, and so His life of perfect righteousness is rightly imputed to us.
God made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Sometimes people use the terminology of Christ dying as our representative in an attempt to give a coherent account of the atonement that incorporates the truth of faith union. Whatever Christ did as our representative, we also did by virtue of being in Him. Thus, in this sense, we died on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:14)
John Owen:
God might punish the elect either in their own persons, or in their surety standing in their room and stead(as their substitute); and when He is punished, they also are punished (in their representative): for in this point of view the federal head and those represented by Him are not considered as distinct, but as one; for although they are not one in respect of personal unity, they are, however, one-that is, one body in mystical union, yea, one mystical Christ-namely, the surety is the head, those represented by Him the members; and when the head is punished, the members also are punished.
We are now in a position to answer the objection that penal substitution entails unjustly punishing an innocent person. This rests on the claim that our sins cannot be imputed to Christ, which in turn is grounded on the assumption that we are entirely separate and distinct from Him. But the reality is that believers are united to Christ by His spirit. The imputation of our guilt to Christ does not violate justice, because He willingly consents to real, spiritual identification with His people.
In short, this objection to penal substitution arises from a failure to understand the significance of union with Christ.
Not only that but the authors also think that the punishment fits the crime. Since God is infinite in value and worth and I have sinned against Him then I deserve infinite punishment and suffering. Christ being infinite in value and worth endured infinite punishment and suffering.
The dignity of an infinite God swallows up all the infinities of punishment due to me.
Not only that but the authors also think that the punishment fits the crime. Since God is infinite in value and worth and I have sinned against Him then I deserve infinite punishment and suffering.
The second statement isn't about the crime fitting the punishment, it's about the victim of the crime determining the punishment.
Where do we apply this in other courts? Does stealing $1 from Bill Gates deserve 36 billion times more punishment than stealing the last dollar from a pauper?
In fact, many countries make specific provisions to allow for more mockery and abuse of public figures because they have more power. Surely God, being infinite, should be the least bothered by any attack and the least deserving of any protection. Far better to abuse God than any living person.
The more complex theological discussions become the more they sound like Trekkies arguing over which captain was the more deserving of the Enterprise Helm, Picard or Kirk?
J.E.R. your meditation on nuanced imaginings with no possibility of verification seems like an enormous waste of time.
How does anything you propose help a person respect or love another human being?
It seems like a lot of mental gymnastics and rhetorical gamesmanship with no practical application.
Tyro,
We're talking about a difference in the type of being.
Shooting a tree isn't as bad as shooting a cat. Shooting a cat isn't as bad as shooting a human.
Different types of being have different value. God is infinite in value and worth so sinning against Him carries alot more weight.
JER,
But shooting God does no damage to him. In your metaphor shooting God is less destructive than shooting a tree.
Therefore, by your own logic, there should be almost no punishment for attempting (and failing) to harm an unharmable being.
Evan,
God is grieved when we sin against Him. Sinning against God carries infinite consequences because He is infinite in value and worth. The point in the analogy was to show that different types of being have different value. Sin against God is infinitely henious because He is infinite in value and worth.
Also,
Ultimately, as David says, all sin is essentially against God ("against you and you alone have I sinned"). We are violating His laws which stem from who He is, so that even though we violate our neighbors, we must first and foremost violate God's character to do so. I think the reasonableness of the sentence relates to the fact that we are violating the perfect character of God.
JER wrote: God is grieved when we sin against Him.
An infinitely wise and all knowing God feels distress? Really? Is this the same God would be no less great and would be lacking nothing had he not created us? The same God who can destroy us like a potter breaking the pots he made?
Would the potter feel distressed breaking the pots he made? Would God feel distress for not having created us? Then why would he feel distressed if we disobey his rules?
Also, why is it that God's infinite nature never results in God being infinitely tolerant and resilient or infinitely understanding? Despite being a contradiction, theists always point to God's infinite nature as if it supports their particular claims. But, in reality, it supports every possible claim, in which it ultimately supports nothing.
JER wrote: Sinning against God carries infinite consequences because He is infinite in value and worth.
Again, you're suggesting that God's infinite nature supports your position when it clearly does no such thing.
First, it's not clear what the statement "[God] is infinite in value and worth" means. Could God only be insured by Lloyd's of London for an infinite amount? Can he be lost? Can he be diminished?
Second, if God is of infinite value then by what reference point are you referring to? To us? To the universe? To himself?
Third, if, for the sake of argument, we assume that disobeying one of God's rules causes a infinitely negative balance, then what is the result if obeying one of God's rules? An infinite positive balance? Clearly, even as a non-theist, I follow more of "God's rules" than I break, which would make my balance infinitely positive.
Also, why didn't the act of killing Jesus, who is infinitely valuable, not cause a infinite negative balance instead of a infinitely positive balance? Or why didn't it ultimately have no effect as both the positive and negative aspects would have canceled each other out?
Of course, this doesn't even begin to explain why shedding blood negates sin or how it can negate the sins of others.
Did God decide that blood is the antidote for sin or did he discover it had special powers after he created it? Or was this some kind of cosmic rule that God utilized for his own means?
The Penal Theory is rejected by the Orthodox Church.
I believe you are right to question its reasonableness.
JER
Instead of talking about infinite this and infinite that, give me the principles you are using. Are you seriously saying that the seriousness of a crime depends on the merits of the victim? And why aren't you considering the harm caused?
Isn’t curious that Dr. Craig acknowledges that there are significant deficiencies in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and yet instead of using reason to come to a conclusion on this matter he already ‘knows’ his conclusion and is just looking for a path to get there. Gee, how much you want to bet that he finds it?
The penal theory is the idea that Jesus suffers as a substitute for us. The morality of using a substitute or scapegoat, has no moral basis whatsoever!
This is the equivalent of a murder being committed and the judge saying "well someone's gotta die for this crime so I choose you!" Hardly justice. The idea that the victim of the judge's decision agrees to be his victim is irrelevant. It is still unjust.
To declare, as JER does, that Jesus is united with us is also irrelevant. Husbands & wives are also decklared to be united. Yet if a husband commits a crime the wife is not punished for his actions.
By the way JER. To declare that something is 'spiritual' does NOT add any information to a claim. Allow me to demonstrate. I declare that 2 + 2 = 5. "That's not true" you reply "it equals 4". "Ah"I respond "but 2 + 2 = spiritual 5". Have I added anything at all to the discussion by adding the word 'spiritual'? No! Then perhaps you shouldn't add it to your replies. Just sayin.
I should clarify that the Penal Theory in the extreme form that it has taken in the West since Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1100 A.D.) and as formulated by Jonathan Edwards is rejected by the Orthodox Church.
It should also be noted that "Great is the mystery of the faith"! The apostles and later bishops up to the present day are "stewards of the mysteries of God", as Scripture says. Thus one should not be surprised that there are many inadequate and even errant notions out there about the faith.
The controversy within the Orthodox Church over Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev's views as expressed in "The Dogma of Redemption" illustrates this fact http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf , but let's turn to Anselm of Canterbury, since his Penal theory of the atonement has been most influential in forming Western ideas of the atonement.
"According to Anselm, God in His essence is love and justice. The sin which Adam committed, as well as every sin of man is an offense against God's justice. God's justice is offended by the committing of sin and, consequently, the demand for punishment is a necessity of the divine nature. From the way this is put, it seems that God is subject to some laws of necessity. Therefore He requires the satisfaction and propitiation of His justice.... Thus the purpose of the incarnation of the Word and His sacrifice on the Cross was the propitiation of divine justice, which was offended by man's sin.
[Also, this whole idea of God's infinite value being offended by the slightest sin and therefore necessitating an infinite sacrifice by God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, seems to put God under some sort of necessity.]
"This view is not valid from the Orthodox point of view and can be characterized as heretical....
"God's justice and love are not His essence, but His energies....
"God 'is free of any necessity and any self-interest'."
[St. Gregory Palamas: "The pre-eternal, uncircumscribed and almighty Word and omnipotent Son of God could clearly have saved man from mortality and servitude to the devil without Himself becoming man...." (St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 1,2,21; in Christopher, op. cit., pp. 179-180, 194.)]
[It is impious to consider that the nature or essence of God is subject to any kind of necessity. God's essence is completely unknowable; it is only through His energies that He makes Himself known. St Gregory the Theologian: "It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words is an impossibility.... But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him.... For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is." (Second Theological Oration) http://www.synaxis.org/cf/volume30/ECF00010.htm ]
"It is sinful to ascribe to God the characteristic features of fallen man, such that God is angry and vengeful and therefore He must be propitiated and appeased. Such an attitude wants to make it appear that it is God who needs curing and not man...."
"St Gregory [the Theologian] asks: 'On what principle did the Blood of His Only Begotten Son delight the Father, who would not even receive Isaac, who was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?' It is blasphemous for us to maintain that God the Father would be pleased to have the Blood of His only begotten Son. What is unthinkable even on the human level is much more unthinkable for God. And then St Gregory says that the Father neither asked nor needed the blood of His only begotten Son. But Christ offered it in order to cure man and to sanctify him."
- Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos, "The Mind of the Orthodox Church", pp. 169-170.
[See also St. Gregory of Nyssa: "That it is impious to consider that the nature
of God is subject to any passion of pleasure or mercy or wrath will
be denied by none of those who are even a little attentive to the
knowledge of the truth...." (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, book II)]
[See also St. John Chrysostom: “When you hear the words ‘wrath’ and ‘anger’
in relation to God, do not understand anything human by them: this is a word of condescension. The Divinity is foreign to everything of the sort; but it is said like this in order to bring the matter closer to the understanding of people of the cruder sort." (St. John Chrysostom, Works, Russian edition, vol. V, p. 49. Cf. vol. V, pp. 80-81.) http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf]
Nevertheless, a certain form of Penal understanding as a METAPHOR (necessarily incomplete) is found in Orthodox Church fathers.
"Turning now to the other charges against the juridical theory, it is
necessary to understand, first of all, that all attempts to describe the mystery of our redemption in human terms are necessarily metaphorical. As such, they cannot be taken to their logical conclusion without absurdity....
"For, as Vladimir Lossky writes: 'The immensity of this work of Christ, a
work incomprehensible to the angels, as St. Paul tells us, cannot be enclosed
in a single explanation nor in a single metaphor....'
"St. Gregory Palamas: "The pre-eternal, uncircumscribed and
almighty Word and omnipotent Son of God could clearly have saved man
from mortality and servitude to the devil without Himself becoming man.... But the incarnation of the Word of God was the method of deliverance most in keeping with our nature and weakness, and most appropriate for Him Who carried it out, for this method had justice on its side, and God does not act without justice." (St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 1,2,21; in Christopher, op. cit., pp. 179-180, 194.)
"St. Photius the Great: “Let us comprehend the depths of the Master’s clemency. He gave death as a punishment, but through His own death He transformed it as a gate to immortality. It was a resolution of anger and
displeasure, but it announces the consummate goodness of the Judge...." (St. Photius, Letter 3, to Eusebia, nun and monastic superior, on the death of her sister; translated by Despina Stratoudaki White.)
St Gregory Palamas: "Since He gave His Blood, which was sinless and therefore guiltless, as a
ransom for us who were liable to punishment because of our sins, He
redeemed us from our guilt. He forgave us our sins, tore up the record of them on the Cross and delivered us from the devil’s tyranny. The devil was caught by the bait.... So we were rescued from his slavery and transformed into the kingdom of the Son of God. Before we had been vessels of wrath, but we were made vessels of mercy by Him Who bound the one who was strong compared to us, and seized his goods.” (St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 21, 24, 31; in Christopher Veniamin (ed.), The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, South Canaan, PA: Saint Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002, pp. 193, 195,
201.)
St John Chrysostom: "It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another condemned to death, and so rescuing him from
punishment." (St. John Chrysostom, P.G. 61:700, cols. 652, 653.)
"’By means of priestly acts He in an ineffable manner unseen by men
offers an offering and sacrifice for us, being at the same time the Priest and the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world’." (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Word on Holy Pascha; Works, Russian edition, vol. VIII, p. 38.)
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf
This particular issue was one of the most important issues leading to my deconversion. Not the only issue but certainly one of the most important ones.
Frankly, most Christian theologians and philosophers don't even touch this issue as Craig acknowledges. Isn't that strange since it is the heart and soul of evangelical theology?
In addition to the problems already raised, I would like to add the following:
1. Why is it that only the Father needs to propitiated? I thought the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all co-equals?
2. How can Jesus, if he is God, have sin imputed to him? He then becomes a sinful God, which by definition is not the evangelical God.
3. Why did the penal theory only come to prominence 400 years ago, if it is what the Bible really teaches? Were all the folks who lived and died before that time not really saved?
The problems just keep growing.
Tyro,
The principle I'm using doesn't say that the weight of the offence depends on the greatness of the PERSON offended but on the greatness of the TYPE OF BEING offended.
JER,
So it's the victim and the victim's character which are important and not the harm suffered. Sounds like a pretty horrific moral code, one that's at odds with the bible not to mention all social norms. What make you select something so totalitarian?
Do you really apply this anywhere else? Should attempting to kill someone warrant the same response as shoving or insulting that person?
As for this harming God's "perfect character", again you're lapsing into this infinite blather. What are you trying to say? It looks again like you're re-iterating that the quality of the target is the sole criteria and again you say God is "perfect", tacitly agreeing that no harm was done and no harm is possible.
Please tell me why you think it's moral to punish someone for actions which cause no harm, couldn't possibly cause harm, but were a crime solely because they were directed at a superior. I'm at a loss trying to guess what could make you say the things you do, the only thing comes to mind is that by peppering your speech with "perfect" and "infinite", you are trying to trick us (or yourself).
So, now to address in specific some of your very legitimate questions:
"One of the biggest problems for the theory is to explain the relationship of punishment to forgiveness. Think about this. Why must someone--anyone--be punished before that person can be forgiven?"
In many respects, I think I as an Orthodox Christian have more in common with you, a person who wants to "debunk Christianity", than I have with my evangelical friends regarding issues like this.
It is not in fact necessary for anyone to be punished for that person to be forgiven. Nowhere in Scripture does it say this. In fact, in the Gospels, Jesus forgave many people their sins before He died.
St Gregory Palamas writes, "The pre-eternal, uncircumscribed and almighty Word and omnipotent Son of God could clearly have saved man from mortality and servitude to the devil without Himself becoming man.... But the incarnation of the Word of God was the method of deliverance most in keeping with our nature and weakness, and most appropriate for Him Who carried it out, for this method had justice on its side, and God does not act without justice." (St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 1,2,21)
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf
For us, it is the Holy Fathers and the entire Tradition (including Scripture) of the Orthodox Church that is normative for Christianity.
Thus, when someone like St Gregory Palamas speaks, reflecting the mind of the Orthodox Church and consistent with all the saints and holy Fathers who came before him, we consider that normative.
It must be noted that man needs more than just forgiveness; he also needs to be saved from mortality and from servitude to the devil, he needs to be cured of his sinful passions not just forgiven them, and he needs to be enabled to attain the purpose for which he was created, namely, to become deified through participation in the life of God.
Tyro,
It does apply everywhere else. Harming a tree isn't as bad as harming a cat. And harming a cat isn't as bad as harming a human.
Since all sin is against God and He is infinitely great then the punishment for the crime will be greater. This is why people in the Bible recieved the death penalty for their sins.
The Bible clearly teaches that God is greived when we sin against Him.
JER,
I notice that you use the word "harm". Does this mean that harm is a factor? If so, how is God harmed?
I'm not clear on this value thing yet. Since obedience seems to be a key factor in sin, do you think it is immoral for someone to disobey my commands - surely as a human, my commands must carry some weight. I'm not infinite, so perhaps a 5 year prison sentence for eating salmon on a Tuesday when I have expressly forbidden it.
I'm still fuzzy on what moral principles you're using to support these claims of yours but believe me, I'm looking to be convinced. Call it motivated self interest.
The believer and Christ are not the same person, so I would still think that penal substitutionary theory fails, because the issue is purely one of the being who did the crime also being the same as the being who is doing the time. Christ and the Christian are not the same being, they cannot be the same being, the closest thing is that the Christian is part of the church, the bride of Christ. Because of that, Christ cannot atone for the Christian.
The only way to salvage this idea is to posit special kinds of relationships, and doing things like that can salvage any theory.
As for the matter of states of being, well, that carries assumptions. Like, killing animals generally has not been considered wrong through history, so why are we to now consider cats higher than trees? Where do we find the rankings of moral value for creatures? (I am not going to say that such a thing is inarguable, but "kinds of being" seem rather questionable without further argument)
Additionally, how can an immutable and timeless God feel grief? Such a being would have to change states and enter time to perform any action, including feeling something.
Also, how can an infinite being be harmed? If God is infinite and we are finite, then shouldn't our harms be finite? After all, Bill Gates is almost not harmed at all by the loss of a dollar. How should God be harmed if he has infinite value?
Finally, the matter of forgiveness and necessity were already pointed out by John Loftus J.E.R. How is God harming Himself conducive to forgiveness? I mean, if a person is forgiven there is generally no harm ever needed. But in God's case, He is so constrained as to need to hurt himself and pay an infinite price? That seems absurd.
JER wrote: The principle I'm using doesn't say that the weight of the offence depends on the greatness of the PERSON offended but on the greatness of the TYPE OF BEING offended.
JER,
It's not clear what you mean by the "kind of being."
Again, you seem to be implying that a being with infinite nature must be result in a being with an infinitely great (good) character. This doesn't necessarily follow.
Why doesn't an infinite nature result in an infinitely evil character with infinite ability to wreak havoc? Should I rebel against such a being would I deserve infinite punishment as well?
in other words, it's not clear what you mean by "type of being" and it's "greatness."
JER wrote: It does apply everywhere else. Harming a tree isn't as bad as harming a cat. And harming a cat isn't as bad as harming a human.
Would Satan, who was once God's greatest angel, be "greater" than a human being on the scale you just mentioned? Would disobeying Satan be worse than harming a human being?
I will now attempt to address your objection to Christianity here:
"since such a view [the Penal Theory] cannot be reasonably defended, then Christianity fails. It's that simple."
First, by whose authority did the Penal Theory (as formulated in the West by Anselm of Canterbury and as articulated by many others such as Jonathan Edwards) become normative for Christianity?
The whole idea is quite foreign to the tradition and ethos of the Orthodox Church, as noted above - even though some penal language has been used as a metaphor by certain Church Fathers.
Again, the idea that the demand for punishment is a necessity of the divine nature is, to quote Bishop Hierotheos, "not valid from the Orthodox point of view and can be characterized as heretical...."
- Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos, "The Mind of the Orthodox Church", pp. 169-170.
What matters is not someone's opinion or theory, but what does the Church say, that is, what meets the standard of catholicity as expressed by St Vincent of Lerins - that which has been believed everywhere and by all in the Church.
A theory that only dates from Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1100) and popularized by certain Protestants since around 1500 A.D. does not fall under that criteria.
Since the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth", as Scripture states, a doctrine that is foreign to the Church cannot be set up as some norm for Christianity.
I'll refer you to Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God."
Everyone who forgives absorbs the pain of the offence in question. Those who for give do so to a greater degree than those who don't. The Attonement is God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, absorbing the pain caused by our offenses.
Keller does a wonderful job of explaining this line of thought. I'll leave that to him.
I'd also like to comment that sin is against a law as much as it is against a person or against God. God, who defines the moral code in His nature, also determines the penalties attached to the offense.
God is perfectly innocent. We do regard crimes against the innocent as more offensive than crimes against the guilty. Most people see a baby as more innocent than an adult, and crimes against an infant are punished more severily.
God is not harmed in the commision of a sin, but His innocence is offended. Also, almost all sins are commited against someone who is in fact harmed (murdered, stolen from, rapped, etc.). Even the other sins are harmful to the person doing the sinning (addiction, etc.). Most would consider harming yourself to be morally blameworthy.
Also, many Christians do not regard all sins as equally harmful or as deserving of equal punishment. There are differing degrees of torment in hell. The thing of it is, the one who makes the rules determines that eternal punisent is due.
The atonement is a very simple doctrine. You see, our Lord is very peevish, and He gets a bee is His bonnet whenever He sees people fornicating or otherwise doing things that rub Him the wrong way. He gets mad, so He has to hit something! Then He feels better, and He's then ready to forgive.
Eventually, He got tired and bored of killing people with floods and locusts and diseases whenever they did something that annoyed Him, so He sent Jesus. He punched Jesus so hard He went to Hell for a time, but that's so people who sin in the FUTURE wouldn't have to bear the brunt of our Lord's righteous anger.
JK Jones,
We do regard crimes against the innocent as more offensive than crimes against the guilty. Most people see a baby as more innocent than an adult, and crimes against an infant are punished more severily.
Wow, what a load of crap. Do you believe any of this or are you just saying whatever you think will win this argument - not a good way to come to the truth!
If a food contaminant kills five people, do we first try to decide the level of guilt before punishment? No, of course not. If a drunk crashes his car and kills a pedestrian who happens to be a suspected pedophile, is the drunk exonerated? No, of course not. That's because "innocence" is NOT a factor in the crime.
But what about the children, won't someone please think of the children!
Children sometimes have different protections because they're viewed as less able to help themselves. (And in the case of injury, they have their entire working life ahead so the financial damage is greater, but that's another story.)
And because you were fixated on justifying why we are morally obligated to torture beggars and burglars to death - sorry, why God is morally justified in torturing us for eternity for thoughtcrimes - you forgot to talk about harm. Crimes against infants are only crimes if there was injury, and the punishment is proportional to that injury.
Would you care to tell us how a perfect, omnipotent being is harmed by us, and why proportion must be abandoned in favour of infinite punishment? Say you will!
Tyro,
The point in the analogy was to show that different types of being have different worth attatched to them.
How about the word scorn?
When we scorn the infinite worth of God's glory by sinning against Him, the punishment is alot more severe than if it was just against other people.
JER,
Different creatures have different worth, and this affects punishment, gotcha. Is that why it's legal to rape slutty chicks or beat gays to death, because they are worth less and had it coming to them?
When we scorn the infinite worth of God's glory by sinning against Him, the punishment is alot more severe than if it was just against other people.
Awww, is widdle little Goddy hurt by our nasty scorn? Do tell me how he's hurt.
And while you aren't as worthy as God, you still have some worth, so just what punishment do I deserve for scorning you?
JER,
Perhaps I'm missing some of your points because I'm not as immersed in the bible as you. When you say that it's better to scorn or mistreat people of lesser worth, and that punishment doesn't depend on the harm but on the value of the victim, my shock and amusement comes from my modern morality.
Can you please share the bible quotes which support any of your moral claims?
Yes, surely the Atonement doctrine a complex and deeply philosophical one such that, I believe, only God knows why He prescribed this form of justice, but make no mistake; God is a Holy One and his justice, a Holy, Absolute Justice!
But the good thing about Christianity is that with all its deeply philosophical doctrines and sophisticated practicalities, they were all foretold as prophecy and gradually revealed with time to fulfillment. As such, no one will accuse Christians about the doctrine say, of Atonement, as one of those later fabrications by early Christians. In fact, far from suggesting a nonsensical ritualistic endeavor by medieval Jews of the Old Testament times, it should insinuate (of course in a mind of sane, disciplined thinking individual), a sense of calculated and purposeful value especially when it culminates with Jesus crucifixion.
Now, the question of the philosophical implication of the rite of atonement is a good one because answering this gives us a sense of, and this is very important, understanding the mind of God when innocent animals were slaughtered or Jesus was tormented to death, both of these scenarios intended to be substitutions for our wrong doings.
To understand this we need to go back to history and see the first instance when the innocent blood was was shed, and surprisingly, it is in Genesis 3:21 whereby God slaughtered an animal to make skin coats to cover shameful first couple of their nudity. This is very simple on the surface, but it is deeply philosophical when you dig a little bit deeper. The couple was gravely shameful of their nudity but fig leaves they sew could not make a good apron to cover them and they lacked technological capacity to make good modern clothes we wear today. Responsibly, God had to intervene.
Yes it was the responsibility of God to provide a good cloth for them, partly because Adam and Eve, despite their disobedience and lack of impunity still owed God their very existence. Adam did not choose to be created. Out of love, it was God who chose to create Adam. Consequently, it was God’s responsibility for what will happen to Adam and his children. Of course it is another debate if Adam and Eve had chosen to reject the coat that God made for them, but anyway, it cannot be doubted about God’s love for the people He has created.
This brings me to Jesus Atonement. When someone asks me about the intention of God to send Jesus as a sacrifice for my sins my primary response is that it is God’s duty to do this for me. I do not think I’m disrespecting God for this reply for I was not born in this world out of my will, so why should I be punished for what happened 6,000 years ago?
But when I realize I’m spiritually nude, gravely ill, shamefully depraved and that I need spiritual clothing, eternal health and abundant life, all of these packages obtained by recognizing and accepting Jesus sacrifice, my pride becomes obsolete, my ego shattered and humbly remove my cowboy hat off to honor and revere God who has provided and is willing to ever more provide me of these eternal and divine blessings – all free in Jesus - believe me guys , I no longer take this as “cheap grace” but rather something to rejoice in with trembling! And this is my take on this.
Finally, as far as "imputation" goes, or relating this to insurance claims or whatnot, I do not feel that I have enough to go on from what was given in your post to address, so I cannot address these.
But let me conclude by speaking about your comment: "We're talking about torturing and killing an innocent person because someone else did wrong."
We would rather put it like this: "It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another condemned to death, and so rescuing him from punishment." (St John Chrysostom) And we do so as an analogy, an incomplete one, and do not take it to its full "logical conclusion". Taking such a mystery as the Cross to its "logical conclusion" is what could be considered a foray into sophistry, which is not appropriate when dealing with divine mysteries.
As I wrote above, God's nature is under no necessity whatsoever and God could have forgiven us without any death on the Cross.
It was not God the Father who tortured His Son on the Cross, but it was the Jews and the Romans who tortured and killed God the Son. (In saying this I am just stating a fact, and this is not in any way meant to be anti-semitic.)
Although they killed God, God could not in any way be bound by death. Instead, He vanquished death and freed all men from Hades.
It was not a necessity in God's nature that the Son be tortured in order to "appease" some divine justice and "placate" the Father. You might be interested in the fact that the man C.S. Lewis admired most was George MacDonald, who wrote most strongly against the whole notion of penal substitution as commonly understood. And C.S. Lewis is a hero to evangelicals!
Nevertheless, the fact remains that this -- Christ's incarnation, His death on the Cross, burial, and resurrection, and His continued life in us in the Body of Christ -- is the way God has chosen to bring about our redemption from death and mortality and our sinful passions and to open the way up for us to be deified through participation in the life of God.
He did all this to make us sons of God.
Even angels are mystified by these things and long to look into these divine mysteries.
After His death on the Cross, Christ went down into Hades to free Adam and all men from Hades.
It is quite appropriate that the Author and Finisher of our salvation became in all respects like us men so that we may become like God. As St Athanasius put it, "God became man so that man might become god."
Man needed much more than just forgiveness. Man needed to be freed from death and mortality, and he needed to be cured of his sinful passions so that he might become deified through participation in the life of God, which was the original purpose for which he was created. In short, man needed an ontological change.
By taking on human flesh, the Logos deified human flesh and made it possible for our own human nature to be deified.
This occurs through the Most Holy Mysteries of the Church which is the very Body of Christ, first of all through being born again through Holy Baptism and thereby being united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, through purifying our hearts through continual repentance (without purification it is impossible to see God--"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"), through the Holy Eucharist where we partake of the very body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 6), through obeying the commandments of Christ, and following all the teachings of the Holy Church.
Edson wrote: Yes, surely the Atonement doctrine a complex and deeply philosophical one such that, I believe, only God knows why He prescribed this form of justice, but make no mistake; God is a Holy One and his justice, a Holy, Absolute Justice!
So, since you believe God is holy and just, we should ignore the fact that Atonement doesn't make sense?
This is like saying we should presume someone "innocent" until proven "guilty", but then always ignore anything that might make them look "guilty" on the grounds that you initially presumed they were "innocent."
But the good thing about Christianity is that with all its deeply philosophical doctrines and sophisticated practicalities, they were all foretold as prophecy and gradually revealed with time to fulfillment.
The sacrifice of food, animals and even human beings was practiced long before Christianity. We can see these practices evolve through polytheism, monolatry and even monotheism.
it is in Genesis 3:21 whereby God slaughtered an animal to make skin coats to cover shameful first couple of their nudity. This is very simple on the surface, but it is deeply philosophical when you dig a little bit deeper.
Or it might just be that God gave them fur coats because they are warmer than coats made of plants.
Since God supposedly created mammals, did God choose to accept blood as the antidote for sin or did he discover that blood negated sin after he created it?
In other words, it's not clear if blood was an arbitrary choice by God or he found it caused some kind if cosmic reaction that he decided to use for his own plan.
"Everyone who forgives absorbs the pain of the offence in question. Those who for give do so to a greater degree than those who don't. The Attonement is God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, absorbing the pain caused by our offenses."
God sacrificing Himself and a mere absorption of pain are DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. Absorbing pain is just writing things off. Killing yourself is very dissimilar from that. Most people can see that. I mean, I have not committed suicide in my time here (which makes sense as I can post things on the internet), and I don't know many people who feel obligated to do this because they want to forgive somebody.
"God, who defines the moral code in His nature, also determines the penalties attached to the offense."
Are you expressing Divine Command theory? If so, doesn't this mean a lack of objective moral standards? Additionally, doesn't this lack undercut one of our more basic principles of ethics, that an objective ethic would be non-arbitrary? This does not mean that objective ethics exist, but bizarre ethical doctrines certainly bring up a tremendous question for any affirming doctrine.
"His innocence is offended."
God knows all crimes that have happened, will happen, or even all of the crimes that could happen. Additionally, the nature of a sin is based upon His decree, and He has also declared some of the most monstrous acts we can conceive of to be the correct actions. What do you mean by "innocence"? Additionally, if He can stop all acts or change their nature then why must His innocence ever be harmed in the first place? If He defines guilt, then innocence is just an arbitrary mood. If He knows all things, then he knows all evils, so an actual evil is only different by its physical instantiation, but not any matter of knowledge as it is with human beings and our own perception of innocence. Additionally, God isn't helpless, so it is not as if He could not defend Himself, or even prevent all evils from ever coming to pass.
"As such, no one will accuse Christians about the doctrine say, of Atonement, as one of those later fabrications by early Christians."
Well, instead, we accuse the later Christians as fabricating the doctrine, as the Penal Theory is not a theory of the early church, but rather associated with Anselm, about a millenia after the death of Jesus.
I do agree with the Orthodox folks that the flaws with the Penal Substitution theory do not mean that Christianity must be rejected. It can be taken to mean that most Western Christianity is wrong though, which gets us somewhere.
Former_Fundy,
I have something in answer to your first question, where you wrote:
"In addition to the problems already raised, I would like to add the following:
1. Why is it that only the Father needs to propitiated? I thought the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all co-equals?"
It is good that you have raised this question.
Actually, the Orthodox Church teaches that the sacrifice on the Cross was offered as propitiation not to the Father alone, but to the Holy Trinity.
The Church has actually anathematized those who say it was offered only to the Father.
In the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which is authoritative and indeed of the utmost authority in the Orthodox Church, it says: "To those who say that at the season of the world-saving Passion of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, when He offered the sacrifice of His precious body and blood for our salvation and fulfilled in His human nature the ministry of High Priest for us (since He is at the same time God and Sacrificer and Victim, according to St. Gregory the Theologian), He did offer the sacrifice to God the Father, yet He, the Only-begotten, in company with the Holy Spirit, did not accept the sacrifice as God together with the Father; to those who by such teachings estrange from the divine equality of honour and dignity both God the Word and
the Comforter Spirit, Who is of one essence and of one glory with Him: Anathema (3)"
In the liturgical prayer, which is recited secretly by the priest at every Divine Liturgy during the Cherubic Hymn, it is said of Christ the Saviour, "Thou art He that offereth and is offered, that accepteth and is distributed".
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf
For more about this, you can read the following:
"This is what the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church teach about the mystery of the sacrifice of the Saviour on Golgotha for the sins of the human race.... formally confirmed by a whole
local council of the Church of Constantinople in 1156. This council was convened because of different understandings of the well-known words in the
liturgical prayer, where it is said of Christ the Saviour: ‘Thou art He that offereth and is offered, that accepteth and is distributed’. The initial reasons
for this difference, according to the account of a contemporary historian, Kinnamas, was the following circumstance. A certain Deacon Basil during Divine service in the Church of St. John the Theologian declared while giving
a sermon on the daily Gospel reading that ‘the one Son of God Himself became a sacrifice and accepted the sacrifice together with the Father’. Two deacons of the Great Church who were present at this found in the words of
Basil an incorrect thought, as if two hypostases were thereby admitted in Jesus Christ, of which one was offered in sacrifice and the other accepted the sacrifice. Together with the others who thought like them they spread the idea that the Saviour’s sacrifice for us was offered only to God the Father. In order to obtain a more exact explanation and definition of the Orthodox teaching, the conciliar sessions took place, at the will of the Emperor Manuel
Comnenus, on January 26 and May 12, 1156. The first conciliar session took place in the hall attached to the Great Church as a result of the inquiry of the
just-appointed Metropolitan Constantine of Russia, who was hastening to leave: was it truly necessary to understand the words of the prayer as he understood them, that the sacrifice was offered and is offered to the whole of the Holy Trinity?
The council, under the presidency of the Patriarch of Constantinople Constantine Kliarenos, confirmed the teaching expressed of old by the Fathers and Teachers of the Church, whose works were read at the council, that both at the beginning, during the Master’s sufferings, the lifecreating
flesh and blood of Christ was offered, not to the Father only, but also to the whole of the Holy Trinity, and now, during the daily performed rites of the Eucharist, the bloodless sacrifice is offered to the Trihypostatic Trinity”, and laid an anathema on the defenders of the error, whoever they might be, if they still adhered to their heresy and did not repent. ”
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf
(Archbishop Theophan, On the Redemption, pp. 29-32. In 1157 another council was convened
at Blachernae in Constantinople which condemned the teachings of the Deacons Basilakes and Soterichus. The condemnation was incorporated into the Synodikon of Orthodoxy as follows:
AGAINST THE ERRORS OF BASILAKES, SOTERICHUS AND OTHERS
To those who say that at the season of the world-saving Passion of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, when He offered the sacrifice of His precious body and blood for our salvation and fulfilled in His human nature the ministry of High Priest for us (since He is at the same time God and Sacrificer and Victim, according to St. Gregory the Theologian), He did offer the sacrifice to God the Father, yet He, the Only-begotten, in company with the Holy Spirit, did not accept the sacrifice as God together with the Father; to those who by such teachings estrange from the divine equality of honour and dignity both God the Word and
the Comforter Spirit, Who is of one essence and of one glory with Him: Anathema (3)
To those who do not accept that the sacrifice offered daily by those who have received from Christ the priestly service of the divine Mysteries is in fact offered to the Holy Trinity,
and who thereby contradict the sacred and divine Fathers, Basil and Chrysostom, with whom the other God-bearing Fathers also agree in both their words and their writings: Anathema (3)
(The True Vine, issues 27 and 28, Spring, 2000, pp. 53-55))
“From this historical note it is evident that the council of 1156 considered it indisputable that the death of Christ the Saviour on Golgotha is a propitiatory
sacrifice for the human race. It was occupied only with the question to which this sacrifice was offered and decided it in the sense that the sacrifice was
offered by Christ the Saviour to the All-Holy Trinity. Moreover, Christ the Saviour Himself was at the same time both the sacrifice and High Priest offering the sacrifice in accordance with His human nature, and God receiving the sacrifice, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
According to the resolution of the council, the eucharistic sacrifice is the same sacrifice, by its link with the sacrifice on Golgotha. Those who thought otherwise were subjected by the council to anathema.” (Archbishop Theophan, On the Redemption)
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf
Also,
For those that don't know the Orthodox church doesn't use the term propitiation to refer to Christ appeasing the wrath of an angry Father on the cross.
Propitiate means "to cover" or "to conciliate." For the Orthodox propitiation refers to the mercy seat in the tabernacle where God was enthroned among His people. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the blood of the sacrifice was liturgically sprinkled on the mercy seat in the holy of holies. This prefigured the covering of our sins and our reconciliation to God that was to come in Christ. Heaven holds the true mercy seat, and Christ's blood was taken to heaven through His passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, thus reconciling us to God once and for all.
From Wikipedia:
Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism have a substantively different soteriology; this is sometimes cited as the core difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. Salvation is not seen as legal release, but transformation of the human nature itself in the Son taking on human nature. In contrast to other forms of Christianity, the Orthodox tend to use the word "expiation" with regard to what is accomplished in the sacrificial act. In Orthodox theology, expiation is an act of offering that seeks to change the one making the offering. The Greek word that is translated both into propitiation and expiation is "hilasmos" which means "to make acceptable and enable one to draw close to God". Thus the Orthodox emphasis would be that Christ died, not to appease an angry and vindictive Father, or to avert the wrath of God, but to change people so that they may become more like God (see Theosis).
"So, since you believe God is holy and just, we should ignore the fact that Atonement doesn't make sense?"
Scott, thanks for the question. It is a good one. No we should not ignore it at all. In fact, that is what my earlier comment was all about: To understand the wisdom behind the Atonement doctrine.
The magic button to press on in order to understand this wisdom behind this doctrine is self-realization of oneself.
I've come to realize in my entire stay in Christianity that the most devout Christians are those who were, prior to conversion, hopeless, heavy sinners, sad people, socially and materially disadvantaged and tired of living.
If you were/are not a sinner (in a literal sense of the word) during your daily private life certainly the atonement does not make sense whatsoever. To tell you the truth, I personally have had difficult time with this doctrine for I'm naturally not a heavy sinner! ;)
And for this I did not understand why God could send me or someone of my nature (I realized there are so many decent people elsewhere who are not Christians) to hell for not acknowledging Jesus Christ and crucifixion. In short, I did not understand the wisdom behind crucifixion of Jesus, especially when it is associated with atonement of the sins of the world.
But Scott, the whole thing changed when I self realized myself that I was not good enough. As I grew older and college rolled around I started loving girls. I got my first girlfriend and kicked her out for no reasons other than that she was not prettier enough (and this hurt her very much as you may understand) and got another one a bit prettier or so I thought and kicked her out when I realized she is not prettier as I thought. Just to satisfy my hedonistic desires.
To me, this was a life changing experience. I really knew deep down my heart that I have sinned (at least I had a background of intense indoctrination by my parents about Christianity in my childhood, for this I will always be grateful to them). It pained me so much that I realized I was not good enough. The words of Jesus “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Luke 5: 31)” began to sound afresh in my heart. I cried, and repented first to God and went back to my first girlfriend and repented to her and resumed relationship (who is now my fiancé and we plan to get married next year).
In conclusion, Scott, the atonement makes much more sense to me now after I have self realized that I was and am not perfect. It seems like God intended to instill in our minds that sin, albeit small it is, is sufficient to cause deadly consequences to such an extent that it can bring someone innocent as Jesus to a horrible death. Remember that what killed Jesus were Pharisees envy, Romans pride and Judas Iscariot’s greed. Envy, Pride and Greed!
__________,
(Interesting way to get around a block on anonymous comments.)
God's moral commands are an expression of His eternal, unchanging nature. Thus they are both objective and consistent. The old “divine command theory” and its inherent problems have rarely, if ever, been a part of Christian theological formulas.
God cannot experience pain in His divine nature. He had to take on human nature to do that. He had to suffer all of the wrath due to all of His people, so His penal , substitutionary attainment was necessary.
By the way see this link for quotes from the early church on penal, substitutionary atonement:
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/category/5/15/52/
JK
I could well follow Craig's challenge and "take it". Actually I'm currently working on a book that covers and solves this subject among other things.
-a helmet
"God cannot experience pain in His divine nature. "
That would negate her "all knowing" nature, she wouldnt KNOW what it's like to suffer.
BTW how does an infinite' all powerfull god value anything? Inorder to value something you must be run the risk of loosing that which you value. By definition god can't loose anything she's god.
Edson wrote: I got my first girlfriend and kicked her out for no reasons other than that she was not prettier enough (and this hurt her very much as you may understand) and got another one a bit prettier or so I thought and kicked her out when I realized she is not prettier as I thought. Just to satisfy my hedonistic desires.
But YOU did these things, not Jesus.
It seems like God intended to instill in our minds that sin, albeit small it is, is sufficient to cause deadly consequences to such an extent that it can bring someone innocent as Jesus to a horrible death.
Here's where things stop making sense. Why death? The punishment doesn't appear to fit the crime. If you add up everyone's transgressions, then was Jesus' punishment enough? While no one should have to go through what Jesus experienced, it's reasonable to assume that others have suffered far worse for longer periods of time.
Nor does it explain how God could punish Jesus for things YOU did.
If you were punished for all of the crimes in your city, would this not be a sin? Is killing an innocent man not a sin?
Yet, for some reason unknown to me, you think that the result of killing Jesus, who supposedly did not sin as a man and was perfect as God, would erase sin instead of merely causing more sin!
Given that offending God is what supposedly causes sin in the first place, how does killing him as a man improve the situation rather than make it worse? Why does this not offend God even further and dig us further into "debt?"
Instead, you seem to think God is just a more powerful version of us. Therefore, he get's angry about sin and has to vent on someone, and that someone was himself as a man?
Surely, if God knew what could happen, knew the reasons why it might happen and knows that he must allow it to happen for us to have free will, then why would he be angered by sin? It's not like God would be blindsided or surprised because we - out of the blue - chose to sin?
To use your analogy, if we are born as "sick" as you say we are, it would be like a doctor getting angry at someone who has developed cancer.
Mysterium Tremendum said...
From Wikipedia:
"Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism have a substantively different soteriology....
Salvation is not seen as legal release...."
MT,
Wikipedia is correct in noting a difference in soteriology. However, I would not go as far as
to say what Wikipedia says about legal release--I believe Wikipedia is quite incorrect to say
"Salvation is not seen as legal release" in Eastern Orthodoxy.
Actually, Orthodox do see salvation as legal release also--but in the context of all of the
Orthodox teachings on salvation and the Trinity and not with all of the implications and
understandings of the Penal Theory as often understood and formulated outside the Orthodox Church. Legal release is just one of many analogies or metaphors - like looking at one aspect of a diamond.
"The Scripture itself clearly speaks of a debt, a payment, the requirement of blood (without
which there is no remission of sins)...."
"Bp. Kallistos rightly points out that Orthodoxy never reduced salvation to one formula or
metaphor, but retained the extremely diverse ways of speaking of salvation, and how that
salvation was and is accomplished...."
"prayer of the Sixth Hour:
....Through His cross He cancelled the debt of our sins and triumphed over the powers and masters of darkness."
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8002.0.html
"Vladimir Lossky, for example, states that "The very idea of redemption assumes a plainly
legal aspect: it is the atonement of the slave, the debt paid for those who remained in prison
because they could not discharge it. Legal also is the theme of the mediator who reunited man to God through the cross" http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx
"And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the
corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the
Father-doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held
to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power
was fully spent in the Lord's body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers),
and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward
incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire."
From On the Incarnation of the Word of God, by St. Athanasius the Great
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15630.0.html
"for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and
rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account." Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-390), The Fourth Theological Oration
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/view/85/52/
"If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his
well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the
guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both
save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation...." John Chrysostom
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/view/88/52/
"yet being without offence took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal." Gregory the Great
http://piercedforourtransgressions.com/content/view/89/52/
But Orthodox do see problems with how legal release is often understood outside the Orthodox
Church.
Just one of the problems, as noted above, is expressed as follows:
"I would like to RE-emphasize what Fr. Romanides points out regarding the Western jurudical view - that it places necessity in the essence of God - He MUST regard human sin in holy righteous anger and MUST judge it - either by hell's fire or the death of the Son of God. By
locating this juridical code in the divine essence God is "forced" to act this way.
Fr. Romanides rightly points out that in Scripture and in the early Fathers God is NOT seen as acting from necessity...."
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8002.0.html
Necessity is not a part of God's essence; rather, justice is one of the energies of God.
There is a clear distinction in Orthodoxy between the Essence and the Energies of God; this distinction is lacking outside the Orthodox Church.
Another problem is the dichotomy between Father and Son, "with "God the Father" Who at best would like to forgive men, but cannot without having the offence done to His honour repaired, and a "God the Son" Who repairs His Father's honour by taking the good thrashing we all so richly deserve." http://perennialrambler.blogspot.com/2006/01/wading-into-controversy.html
Perhaps related to this is the filioque, the idea that, "The Father and the Son represent
opposite poles of attraction, drawn to each other by this very contrast.... Binding the two
together is the Holy Spirit.... He proceeds equally from both...."
http://98.131.162.170/tynbul/library/TynBull_1983_34_04_Bray_FilioqueInHistory.pdf
The filioque posits a sort of thesis/antithesis/synthesis in the Trinity. Anselm of Canterbury, who came up with the penal satisfaction theory, also was one of the first of the Scholastics to come up with a major defense of the filioque.
One Orthodox person lists 20 reasons in answer to the question "Why Orthodox do not believe in the
penal satisfaction theory":
"Because it is reminiscent of ancient pagan deities whose bloodthirsty wrath could only be
assuaged by the blood of virgins
Because it disfigures God into some cruel and ruthless being who can only be satisfied by blood
Because the selfless act of salvation and redemption is turned on its head and becomes a selfish act to satisfy God's own self and honour
Because it diminishes the love of God
Because it makes literal what are merely metaphors and analogies
Because the crucifixion becomes an act of divine necessity rather than one of voluntary divine love
Because it causes a separation within the Triune God, the Son appeasing the Father rather than
making man one with the Triune God as He prays to His Father for
Because it is void of the ontological deification of man
Because it is void of man's sacramental participation in God through Christ
Because it is void of man's spiritual struggle in Christ
Because it makes God our active enemy and the Devil an innocent bystander with salvation and
redemption taking place to overcome God's wrath rather than the Devil, death and sin
Because it is the foundation of the Protestant understanding of salvation and how the church
and her mysteries are not necessary for salvation
Because it diminishes man's role in the process of salvation
Because it was even rejected by Catholic scholars and saints and is not a dogma of the Catholic church
Because it diminishes the wonder, beauty and majesty of the act of salvation
Because salvation is simply reduced to a moment in time
Because it creates division and contradiction with the divine attributes (as though there is
some struggle between divine mercy and justice and both require satisfaction)
Because it is not explicitly contained either within the scriptural, patristic or liturgical testimony
Because it has been explicitly crticised and refuted by many prominent Orthodox theologians
Because it dismisses the entire act of salvation throughout the life of Christ and reduces it
simply to the crucifixion"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=11389.315
Hey John,
Thanks for the correction on the Wikipedia reference. I've just started studying Orthodoxy and I wasn't absolutely certain on the Wikipedia reference.
I do know that the first post that I posted with the information on propitiation is correct though.
Thanks also for the list on why the Orthodox reject penal substitution. I will be looking more into the Orthodox.
The question of how Jesus could have paid for the sins of the whole human race for infinite time by only experiencing a few hours of suffering can be answered because, being God, He is an extradimensional Deity in more than one dimension of time.
The penalty for one person's sin would require that individual's existence (after physical death on earth) on at least one infinitely long time line. If some twenty billion people incur sin's penalty, twenty billion infinite time lines would represent the
cumulative total of sins penalty.
With a second time dimension, God could move along, that is, experience, these twenty billion lines. He would possess a plane of time that could encompass all of them. Thus while Jesus suffered on the cross for six hours on our time line, He could have experienced the suffering of twenty billion infinite timelines in two other dimensions of time.
Robin, your solution to penal substitution is to invent additional timelines? That does not seem very simple. However, I am not sure that any solution will make sense either. After all, if we say that Christ is God, then why couldn't his sacrifice just be a drop of blood? If God's suffering is infinitely valuable than any sign of it should carry infinite weight. If Christ is regarded as a man, then how could he have paid the price at all?
I don't think there are good solutions.
Robin wrote: Thus while Jesus suffered on the cross for six hours on our time line, He could have experienced the suffering of twenty billion infinite timelines in two other dimensions of time
Robin, you seem to imply that when Jesus suffers he exists in multiple timelines. But why would such an existence be limited to only times of suffering?
Furthermore, if Jesus existed in multiple timelines because he was one with the father, then does God exist in multiple timelines as well? Do our sins offend God in all of these timelines?
In other words, it's unclear why Jesus' suffering and death here in our timeline causes infinite suffering in multiple timelines, but sinning in our timeline only offends God in a single timeline.
This doesn't seem very consistent.
Scott,
God is in more than one dimension of time. Jesus human nature was in our time while His Divine nature was in at least two.
Maybe the timelines in two dimensions of time were finite. After all, we only sin a finite number of times while here on earth not an infinite number.
So, the solution would be modified as such:
The penalty for one person's sin would require that individual's existence on at least one finite long time line. If some twenty billion people incur sin's penalty, twenty billion finite time lines would represent the
cumulative total of sins penalty.
With a second time dimension, God could move along, that is, experience, these twenty billion lines. He would possess a plane of time that could encompass all of them. Thus while Jesus suffered on the cross for six hours on our time line, He could have experienced the suffering of twenty billion finite timelines in two other dimensions of time.
Robin,
I'm not clear as to how this improves the situation.
You seem to imply that God's nature is such that when he experiences suffering in our timeline his suffering is multiplied and that this multiplication is due to his existence in multiple timelines.
But if this is the case, then why isn't God's nature such that when he is offended when we sin in our timeline that his offense is not multiplied?
For example, it's commonly said that God's commands cannot be evil because his very nature is the definition of Goodness. But if God exists in multiple timelines because, by his very nature, he exists outside of time, then it would seem that God's nature is such that he cannot decide to exist in fewer dimensions in some situations but not others anymore than he could decide to do evil in some situations, but not others.
Scott,
I never said that when we sin God is hurt by our sin. That doesn't show up in my solution at all. We only sin a finite number of times while here on earth.
Also Scott,
God can create timelines at will. His existing in at least two dimensions of time allow him to experience other timelines. Two-dimensional time is a plane of time. A plane of time would encompass all of these other timelines.
Robin,
I'm not suggesting that God is harmed when we sin. I'm asking why harm the only thing that is multiplied since God supposedly exists in multiple timelines.
Again, if God by his very nature exists outside of time, then God cannot decide to exist in fewer timelines or decide that only the experience of harm would be multiplied due to his nature.
Instead, it seems you think that God's existence in multiple timelines only has implications when it is convenient for your theory.
Hi Edson you said..."Out of love, it was God who chose to create Adam. Consequently, it was God’s responsibility for what will happen to Adam and his children. Of course it is another debate if Adam and Eve had chosen to reject the coat that God made for them, but anyway, it cannot be doubted about God’s love for the people He has created."
Glad you do agree "it was Gods responsibility for what will happen to Adam and his Children"
Which is why so many of us cant see any real logic in that he created humans with free will.Thus knowing very well they might sin or do things wrong,yet still decides humans should suffer punishments.
You admit its Gods responsibility,yet still cant bring yourself to suggest he might have been a little wrong.
You are prepared to say.."Yes it was the responsibility of God to provide a good cloth for them"
Im picking maybe only because you happen to see it somewhere in the bible?, written by mere men of old.
But maybe because its written nowhere in this bible that God should be thought to ever be responsible if he creates us with free will and so being able to sin.
Hes the man .So never ever could be thought to be wrong!,so the same logic you previously used that means hes responsible to provide clothing.In this case no longer applies??.
Edson personally i cant help feeling the strength of your belief often seems to revolve a lot around your fear to dare to question and to ever think outside the square.
This type of quote of yours seems to suggest it .."it cannot be doubted about God’s love for the people He has created"
Doubting is thought to bad right?
I cant help thinking if it was actually written in this (book) that God was responsible for creating people who could sin,that once again going entirely only by what you saw was (written) you`d be here instead telling us he was responsible for these things.
Of course those folk of old that wrote this book were not so silly.They even back then knew very well what was needed to keep followers interested and they had learned how to try spinning a great yarn.So they soon realized they needed to have it written also that God supposedly wasnt responsible for certain things,otherwise without it the elaborate story would soon fall flat on its face.So they tried to cover all bases as best they knew how to.
"It is not those who obey the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."Rom. 2:13
What law? The law of God had a word added to it AFTER Jesus' was crucified. So who are you gonna get to die in your place to cover you arse when you disobey this law?
"The law was added so that the trespass miht increase.'
Also note Heb. 7:12b
Didn't have time to read all the comments, but just in vase it wasn't mentioned, there are other views of the atonement that buttressed the church for the first 16 centuries. Christus Victor and Theosis being my two particular choices which I find most biblical. Hence, if the penal substitutionary atonement is debunked (which I believe it is ridiculous - you are right, there is no theological, philosophical, logical or moral reason to adhere to it, IMHO), Christianity may still stand. Or perhaps Christianity will crumble but Jesus' words will yet prevail, IMHO. Thanks for the post!
Post a Comment