- Sep 22, 2015
- 4,000
- 1,029
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Research>
1. Substitution
2. Atonement
3. Subtitutionary Atonement
1. Substitution
2. Atonement
3. Subtitutionary Atonement
Upvote
0
Research>
1. Substitution
2. Atonement
3. Subtitutionary Atonement
I have read criticisms against the penal substitution theory. To me it makes no sense but I really haven't heard any different theories that make more sense. I will have to think about the Ransom theory more..... When I was reading Milton, I was exposed to the concept of the Fortunate Fall. This gives the. Power back to God. I don't have a big problem with not understanding God's every motive; He is God, after all. But I am open to a different theological interpretation.
I think it's important to realize that the fruit wasn't some magical thing that somehow transformed Adam and Eve.
I disagree that it was a contract per se, but you can be somewhat on the right track, since we are all essentially slaves to sin in the state in which we are born - with a damaged will that is inclined to self, we will all eventually choose to sin (and generally about as soon as we are developed enough in mind to make a choice at all).
But rather than the fruit creating some magical reaction, what happened is that beings who had no concept of what it was to disobey or rebel, chose to rebel. We can experience this sometimes in a small way in our lives today. Sometimes we can do a thing and know instantly it was wrong, and feel a conviction for it.
Adam and Eve had no such frame of reference in their personal experience before they fell. To sin was a drastic action for them, since sin was not any part of the material world prior to that (angels are created beings but not part of the material order). This is why all of creation fell under a curse because of Adam's sin. It represented an entire change of kind for the entire physical world and everything in it.
The important take-away is ... we are formed by what we do. Adam and Eve were literally changed by the act of sinning ... they understood what it was to sin, and their selfish desires were given rein that had not happened before.
Again we can see this today if someone who was formerly free of a thing first gets involved with an addictive substance or activity - it begins to change our desires, which changes our actions, which changes us.
The ancestral sin was the first such thing that changed man. And sins of people since then have done the same thing.
God IS love - yes, I know that might be difficult to understand/accept in light of certain passages, but when we encounter such contradiction it is always true that our understanding is faulty and often deeper understanding can resolve the issue. But "God is agape/love" is a clear statement. Agape love is a particular type that always desires the good of the object of the love - the ultimate good - and not understanding this can confuse us sometimes too.
I'm not sure if this is off the track of your concerns with PSA - just attempting to reply to a couple of points I've seen brought up in the thread.
Research>
1. Substitution
2. Atonement
3. Subtitutionary Atonement
My point of view is to understand in the way I would understand how a machine works. It is one thing to say that the wheels are spinning and the linkages are moving back and forth. But it is quite another thing to say which wheel and pulley is linked to which shaft and lever, and to explain exactly what their affect is and the necessity of them being the way they are.
I think we desperately need to put the abstractions aside and just read the story. Stories follow rules (which are universal over time and between cultures), and stories can be easily understood. But it seems we are having trouble understanding the story for what it is. Why? Because we prefer abstractions. Abstractions make us look smart! Instead of seeing how the details of the Bible are connected, the common practice is to build a unique abstraction from each detail, and each of these abstractions is a work of fiction!
I'm looking for an explanation where the clear details point back and forth at each other. And I want to push back against the idea that details point outwards to things that we don't know anything about, but love to claim knowledge of. When everything points outward, we are free to imagine whatever we want and vehemently claim it's God's word. But claims like these are impossible to prove or disprove. How many times do people fight with Bible verses they think prove their point, and others reply with their own set of verses supporting a completely opposite claim?
If details point inward, we can observe patterns and gain a clear understanding. If we do this, we can build clear arguments that can be cross examined without relying on pre-existing abstractions unique to the one presenting the argument.
We must understand that God is complicated. God is a person. God exists apart from us, and God existed from eternity, which is a long time, and we weren't there for most of it. God does what he chooses to do.
Christians love to approach religion as a riddle to be cracked, and if they do the right things in the right way, they'll unlock the key and get to heaven. But God is sovereign, and doing everything right doesn't force God's hand. God still makes the decision.
Recall the parable of the wedding feast, where the poor people are rounded up to share the feast...and then the Lord sees one individual who isn't wearing wedding clothing, and throws him out. God reserves that right....is this an expression of "love"?
The biggest failing here is that there is no definition of "love". if you want to say that God = Love, you can do that. But when explaining, you end up saying god = love = god = love = God. It means nothing.
If you create a definition of "love" that is sufficiently deep and complicated to encompass the entire character of God, it is going to be a very different from the lazy and highly emotional definition that the whole world assumes when you say "love".
I'm not saying that this is 100% wrong; I'm saying it is 100% inadequate! The Bible says that "God is love", but it also says, "For our God is a consuming fire." A consuming fire is violent, destructive, and difficult to contain or control; it's dangerous! This is the opposite of what people think of when they talk about "love".
Actually no, the two are not the same.Huh??? (What is the phonetic spelling of Scooby Doo's vocalization when he's just seen a ghost?)
How about this: Penalty + Substitution + Atonement
"Penal Substitution" and "Substutionary Atonement" are the same concept. Maybe there is an arguement that these terms are used in different sects, and therefore carry some nuance? But they're the same general belief.
OP, in addition to this, scripture shows clearly that it is a bi-lateral substitution: Jesus gave up His life that we may keep it, and we give up our life that He may continue His work through us (eg: Ephesians 4:7-8, Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Corinthians 2:12-16).Christ IS our substitution. But we would say more than that, He is our victory over death and reconciles us to God, and more.
Atonement / Reconciliation:
Exodus chapt. 29-30
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement....Romans 5
Actually no, the two are not the same.
There are aspects of truth in simple substitutionary atonement.
Orthodoxy rejects Penal Substitution Atonement on the following grounds (and perhaps other minor ones I overlook) ...
Christ IS our substitution. But we would say more than that, He is our victory over death and reconciles us to God, and more.
- Sin is God's problem, not man's
- God is incomplete - "needs" something
- It sets the Father and Son at opposing purposes - which is impossible
- It is the pain/punishment which "satisfies" God - making Him a bloodthirsty monster!
- It subjugates God to cosmic "rules" even against His will
But the "Penal" aspect of PSA is abhorrent to us.
Okay, but I'm not Orthodox. I'm not talking about Orthodoxy!
----Nobody believes that Jesus and God have "opposing purposes"--Jesus died at the father's bidding. Jesus begged to be spared, but then he said, "Not my will, but yours be done." Jesus isn't scheming and conniving to trick God into letting us into heaven!
----If you're saying that God and Jesus being opposed is that God forced Jesus UNWILLINGLY, then it seems that God and Jesus have conflicting desires and motivations that contradict the "God is love" theory. Thus contradicting Bling's theory stated as follows:
"Starting with God, God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake."
----God declares that there are rules; Satan says God is full of BS and is trying to prove God wrong! (I know, that's my theory, but for the record...
How is "simple substitutionary atonement" any better aside from being vague?
My objection is that you still have to address the nature of sin and the mechanism by which Jesus' act of dying in our place (i.e. substitution) makes sense.
It is obvious that there is a penalty for sin--death! Or is it just a "consequence"? But God decided how this world functions, so God is still the one who decided what happens because of our sin.
The Bible does seem to confirm that we deserve a punishment for our sins with all the talk about sin being bad and sinners not going to heaven. But then Jesus dies, in our place, as a substitute for us, which "saves" us. Jesus' death "in our place" implies that we would have had to die...and that sounds like a penalty for being sinful?
Are you suggesting you believe in a different sequence of events?
I too reject the idea that God is satisfied by pain and suffering; I am saying that Satan is satisfied by Jesus' pain and suffering!
There is no debate over whether or not Jesus experienced pain and suffering; the debate is about why he had to do it. The pain and the suffering was real, and somehow necessary. Why was death necessary? A truly loving God wouldn't need to solve anything with the death of his own son.
1) "You are suggesting that Satan demanded someone must suffer torment, and Jesus suffered in order to satisfy Satan's requirement? We would reject that as well. Satan has no right to demand anything. God owes him nothing. Neither do we. Frankly, that idea (I don't know if you're suggesting it?) is an affront to the dignity of God on some levels. I'm not saying this to pick a fight - not at all (and please forgive me if it sounds so - I know of no softer way to state how we would respond to that idea). But Satan is a created being, as are human beings, and neither he nor we are in a position to demand anything of God.
I might reiterate here that God is not subject to any arbitrary cosmic laws. He is true to His own nature, not because He is constrained, but because - He Is Who He Is. And if whatever theories we might develop don't mesh with that, we must conclude that our theories are wrong. We cannot - must not - attempt to understand God though our lens"
2) Here's a question ... if Christ's death had been quick and painless, do you suppose it would have been sufficient? If not, why not?
3) And as a follow-up ... what sacrificial animals in the shadows of the OT sacrificial system were tortured and made to suffer before being killed?
God the Father did not "punish" God the Son for all the sins for all men for all time.
I would like to reduce the whole purpose of atonement...
I assume everyone knows this theory, and most agree with it. It's an idea that's been around for 1,000 years, after all.