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?