Look forward to your coming posts on the subject. If we want to promote a non-violent lifestyle, how we understand the atonement seems to me a central question. Is God a God who needs or take pleasure in violence and blood-shedding? (For people trained in academic theology, I recommend Denny Weavers "The Non-Violent Atonement")
Jonas Lundström
· 2 years ago
Look forward to your coming posts on the subject. If we want to promote a non-violent lifestyle, how we understand the atonement seems to me a central question. Is God a God who needs or take pleasure in violence and blood-shedding? (For people trained in academic theology, I recommend Denny Weavers "The Non-Violent Atonement")
Chris
· 2 years ago
Mark,
I think it's important in this debate to separate out two different views of the Atonement that get convoluted into each other quite often it seems (e.g. the cover story in Christianity Today from a few quarters back). The Satisfaction theory of Atonement is often confused with the Penal Substitutionary view (e.g., the quote you gave from Mr. Chalke's book is actually the Satisfaction theory). It says that Christ's atonement was propitiatory, to satisfy God's wrath. The penal substitutionary theory of atonement is that Christ suffered as a substitute for all humanity the deadly penalty required by our sinfulness. You can see how the penal substitutionary view need not include the idea that God is "wroth with us," just the idea that there is a cosmic penalty for sin. It does us all a disservice I think when we conflate these two views, because the Satisfaction theory is what I would consider the bathwater and Penal Substitution the baby.
Chris
· 2 years ago
Mark,
I think it's important in this debate to separate out two different views of the Atonement that get convoluted into each other quite often it seems (e.g. the cover story in Christianity Today from a few quarters back). The Satisfaction theory of Atonement is often confused with the Penal Substitutionary view (e.g., the quote you gave from Mr. Chalke's book is actually the Satisfaction theory). It says that Christ's atonement was propitiatory, to satisfy God's wrath. The penal substitutionary theory of atonement is that Christ suffered as a substitute for all humanity the deadly penalty required by our sinfulness. You can see how the penal substitutionary view need not include the idea that God is "wroth with us," just the idea that there is a cosmic penalty for sin. It does us all a disservice I think when we conflate these two views, because the Satisfaction theory is what I would consider the bathwater and Penal Substitution the baby.
markvans
· 2 years ago
Indeed. Unfortunately, the way the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is articulated most commonly and most often includes the idea of satisfaction...the two views are almost inseparable in the current debate.
Nevertheless, there is still some bathwater mixed in with the penal substitution view. I'd be more likely to go along with simply a "substitution" view with qualifiers. I'm not sure about the "penal" part as it is usually described. The way folks talk about punishment is often (and almost always) in the sense that the punishment is the pour out of God's wrath and that this punishment therefore satisfies God. The questions I have are:
1) Who is doing the punishing? 2) Who needs to be punished and why? 3) What is the extent of this punishment?
markvans
· 2 years ago
Indeed. Unfortunately, the way the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is articulated most commonly and most often includes the idea of satisfaction...the two views are almost inseparable in the current debate.
Nevertheless, there is still some bathwater mixed in with the penal substitution view. I'd be more likely to go along with simply a "substitution" view with qualifiers. I'm not sure about the "penal" part as it is usually described. The way folks talk about punishment is often (and almost always) in the sense that the punishment is the pour out of God's wrath and that this punishment therefore satisfies God. The questions I have are:
1) Who is doing the punishing? 2) Who needs to be punished and why? 3) What is the extent of this punishment?
Chris
· 2 years ago
Unfortunately I think you're right that the two views are almost inseparable in the current debate. All the more reason to be precise and separate them again. Wrath is not the only or even a necessary ingredient in punishment. We expect our judges, for example, to punish criminals based on the severity of the crime or on other criteria, but not on the idea that the judge requires satisfaction of his own reputation. I think the deeper questions in such a debate have to do with what we consider just and unjust, and whether wrath fits into that consideration or not.
Chris
· 2 years ago
Unfortunately I think you're right that the two views are almost inseparable in the current debate. All the more reason to be precise and separate them again. Wrath is not the only or even a necessary ingredient in punishment. We expect our judges, for example, to punish criminals based on the severity of the crime or on other criteria, but not on the idea that the judge requires satisfaction of his own reputation. I think the deeper questions in such a debate have to do with what we consider just and unjust, and whether wrath fits into that consideration or not.
Steve Treichler
· 2 years ago
I , too, look forward to your comments on this issue, although I think we seriously disagree. I think the cross and vicarious, penal, substitutionary atonement is the pinnacle of all of the faith, proclaimed loudly through the resurrection. "I came preaching Christ, and him crucified." I must confess, this is a biggie with me, and would love to enter the conversation to make sure I am hearing you correctly.
Steve Treichler
· 2 years ago
I , too, look forward to your comments on this issue, although I think we seriously disagree. I think the cross and vicarious, penal, substitutionary atonement is the pinnacle of all of the faith, proclaimed loudly through the resurrection. "I came preaching Christ, and him crucified." I must confess, this is a biggie with me, and would love to enter the conversation to make sure I am hearing you correctly.
markvans
· 2 years ago
Steve,
I'm almost positive that we disagree...though I'm hoping that we don't disagree as much as you might think. My follow up post is coming on line tomorrow. I look forward to your comments.
markvans
· 2 years ago
Steve,
I'm almost positive that we disagree...though I'm hoping that we don't disagree as much as you might think. My follow up post is coming on line tomorrow. I look forward to your comments.
All Comments
http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/...
http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/...
I think it's important in this debate to separate out two different views of the Atonement that get convoluted into each other quite often it seems (e.g. the cover story in Christianity Today from a few quarters back). The Satisfaction theory of Atonement is often confused with the Penal Substitutionary view (e.g., the quote you gave from Mr. Chalke's book is actually the Satisfaction theory). It says that Christ's atonement was propitiatory, to satisfy God's wrath. The penal substitutionary theory of atonement is that Christ suffered as a substitute for all humanity the deadly penalty required by our sinfulness. You can see how the penal substitutionary view need not include the idea that God is "wroth with us," just the idea that there is a cosmic penalty for sin. It does us all a disservice I think when we conflate these two views, because the Satisfaction theory is what I would consider the bathwater and Penal Substitution the baby.
I think it's important in this debate to separate out two different views of the Atonement that get convoluted into each other quite often it seems (e.g. the cover story in Christianity Today from a few quarters back). The Satisfaction theory of Atonement is often confused with the Penal Substitutionary view (e.g., the quote you gave from Mr. Chalke's book is actually the Satisfaction theory). It says that Christ's atonement was propitiatory, to satisfy God's wrath. The penal substitutionary theory of atonement is that Christ suffered as a substitute for all humanity the deadly penalty required by our sinfulness. You can see how the penal substitutionary view need not include the idea that God is "wroth with us," just the idea that there is a cosmic penalty for sin. It does us all a disservice I think when we conflate these two views, because the Satisfaction theory is what I would consider the bathwater and Penal Substitution the baby.
Nevertheless, there is still some bathwater mixed in with the penal substitution view. I'd be more likely to go along with simply a "substitution" view with qualifiers. I'm not sure about the "penal" part as it is usually described. The way folks talk about punishment is often (and almost always) in the sense that the punishment is the pour out of God's wrath and that this punishment therefore satisfies God. The questions I have are:
1) Who is doing the punishing?
2) Who needs to be punished and why?
3) What is the extent of this punishment?
Nevertheless, there is still some bathwater mixed in with the penal substitution view. I'd be more likely to go along with simply a "substitution" view with qualifiers. I'm not sure about the "penal" part as it is usually described. The way folks talk about punishment is often (and almost always) in the sense that the punishment is the pour out of God's wrath and that this punishment therefore satisfies God. The questions I have are:
1) Who is doing the punishing?
2) Who needs to be punished and why?
3) What is the extent of this punishment?
I'm almost positive that we disagree...though I'm hoping that we don't disagree as much as you might think. My follow up post is coming on line tomorrow. I look forward to your comments.
I'm almost positive that we disagree...though I'm hoping that we don't disagree as much as you might think. My follow up post is coming on line tomorrow. I look forward to your comments.