Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[Clare73]

continued from previous post, #280:

That said, I think a combination of theories works best:
1. Recapitulation Theory (Ireneaus): Christ became like us so that we could become like him.

Which assumes this is God's entire purpose, and thereby allows only for what the human mind sees in relation to that purpose.
Assumes God has no greater purpose, yet those things which they reject actually serve to accomplish it.

To recapitulation is to bring everything under one principle. All things are being reconciled to God through Christ. The mechanism for doing this is the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension. That is- the whole package, not just the cross.
The cross reveals the epitome of the destructive nature of evil, i.e.,
we sought to destroy our own Creator-deicide.

That's not a Biblical concept, that's a human construct.
We sought to overthrow God's new order, whereby Satan's power over man is broken.

The resurrection reveals evil's impotence in relation to the God of love and life.

Another human construct.
The resurrection reveals the victory of the second Adam over the first Adam's terrible debacle resulting in death for all.

2. Christus Victor: Christ takes the consequences of human sin and evil on himself,

So the consequences of sin is torture and bloody slaughter? Why is that?
Is there a transaction taking place?

not to repay the Father or be punished,

Ransom is not repay, ransom is redemption (Matthew 20:28).
And. . .in God's instruction manual on sacrifice (sacrificial laws) foreshadowing Christ's sacrifice,
the sacrifices were a penalty (punishment) for sin (Leviticus 5:6-7, 15, 6:6, 26:41-43).

as if God needs anything or has a wrath that must be satisfied, but to transform
death into life, despair into hope, sorrow into joy, corruption into everlastingess.

And the torture and bloody slaughter of his Son is required for that?
But no transaction is taking place?

So exactly how does this human construct devoid of "transaction" actually work?
Precisely how does bloody slaughter transform all those things?

I know the historical connection between CV and ancient ransom theories. Initially, we were being ransomed from the devil. Eventually, it shifted to us being ransomed from the powers of sin, death, and hell. That's fine as long as we acknowledge the dualistic notions the metaphor of "paying a ransom" can give rise to. We might be overpowered by sin, death, and hell; but these have absolutely no power over God. God is not paying anyone or anything.

Right, because God the Father was not the one sacrificed, God the Son was.

God is simply revealing the reality of the situation so that we can trust and go forward in faith.

Precisely how does the bloody slaughter alter the reality of that situation so that now we can go forward?
Whole lotta' abstract notions goin' on with no "transaction" to ground it in spiritual reality.

In other words, the cross reveals God's power and love (John 3:16). But the goal
of all of it is union between God and humanity, which is achieved in his own person
before one single nail is driven

Not in the sphere of time,
where it is contra-Biblical, completely ignoring the barrier of sin, which was required to be resolved
on the cross (nails and all) before such union could occur.

3. Moral influence (Abelard): The Holy Spirit uses the revelation of Christ (the whole thing, not just the cross) to transform our hearts and minds so that we become like Christ (Recapitulation).
The power is not in our belief in theories but in the Spirit working in us. transforming us.

While completely ignoring the barrier that required the cross to remove it.

Abelard was right; Anselm's theory (and Calvin's by association since he basically copied Anselm) is too anthropomorphic.

And I say one's reason for setting aside the "transactional" (Biblical) understanding of the atonement is because of one's own anthropomorphic view which diminishes the gravity of sin which required it.

God is like a feudal warlord, which was Anselm's experience and superimposed on the cross. More than that, there is no shadow of turning with God. Divine love and the divine will are not connected to a switch that is turned on and off by the cross.

Wow. . .anthropomorphism at its best!

Sin isn't really that big a barrier with God. . .the cross was not that necessary.

 

[Fervent]

I would say the focus of all four is the cross and resurrection. I don't think the shorter ending of Mark can be isolated as somehow downplaying the resurrection. The tomb is empty, enough said. However, if you read the sermons in Acts, their focus is always centered on the resurrection. There is no good news without it. I don't know that the two can be separated, or any of it, for that matter. I think one way to frame it is to see the cross as the mechanism that makes it all work. I get that and understand why that might be the claim. But you can't have the cross without the resurrection, and you can have neither of those without the incarnation. It's a package deal. Of course, I'm repeating myself now.

I don't mean to diminish the importance of the resurrection by mentioning how Mark handles the matter, as it is certainly indisposable and is the center of our hope. What I am speaking to, though, is strictly the idea of atonement rather than the fullness of the gospel. Incarnation, death, and resurrection are all indisposable and atonement theology must wrestle with all of them yet often the only aspect we have much Biblical explanation for the role is the sacrifce of the cross, though as you pointed out picturing it as a transaction is more theological innovation than Biblical where the substitution is more medical-ontological then abstract debt exchange.(I'll stop there before going on a rant about how despicable I see the vicarious imputation theories.) The offense of the gospel is that God died for the unworthy, and while it is tempting to extend God's mercies to all men as it is easy for us to sympathize with the weakness of the flesh the cross stands to allow God's justice to prevail while trampling the proud.

 

[sawdust]

From an outside perspective, it seems you two have different views over what was accomplished in the atonement itself, as you seem to be saying that the barrier between God and man created by sin was removed and Christ began drawing all men to Himself. On the other hand, the Reformed view holds that men are incapable of even responding to the drawing so Christ had to not only pay the price of sin but also move the sinner into repentance. And part of the issue is you're not debating/discussing with a couple of individuals you are contending with a dogmatic system with all kinds of checks against its inconsistencies and pretzel logic.

Different views may well be the case. He draws all men but not all men get past the first "encounter" as per Romans 1:

The fact remains, because of Christ's work on the Cross the way is clear for anyone to come to God. And to be clear, I'm not contending men do it on their own, they need the grace of God to empower them because until they believe in Christ, they remain spiritually dead and they need God's power to suppress the sin nature so they are free to decide for themselves.

In the end, we each must work out our own salvation which, means we must do our own thinking with the teaching we are given. Relying on what others believe won't cut it with Christ.

Matt.16:15
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

 

[public hermit]

The bedrock of Christianity is the cross. . .everything follows from the cross.

I would say everything follows from the incarnation. Unless he is both human and divine, it's just another unjust execution. All of the merit of Christ you want imputed to us hinges on the incarnation.

And it's not satisfaction/substitution. . .it's penal substitution

I know, but if it means that much...penal substitution.

False dichotomy. . .the two are not mutually exclusive, it's not either/or, it's both/and,
both S/S and Christus Victor

Okay. I won't begrudge you that; I just disagree. Perhaps they're all touching on something important. None of them are a perfect model.

What is the source of this dichotomy you allege?

I am not alleging a dichotomy, just pointing out how horrible those two theories are lol.

You bring God down to your level (diminishing the gravity of sin), rather than apprehending God as revealed in Scripture.
So unless you think you are in a position to improve on the Scriptures, this is what you are stuck with; i.e.,

Bible 101:
Sin cannot come into the presence of God because it defiles the purity of his presence.
God cannot tolerate sin. . .it is an affront to his holiness, and coming into his presence defiled by sin will necessarily invoke the wrath of divine justice on that sin (Exodus 19:22-24).
Sin is to God as streptococcus is to the operating room--to be destroyed.
And we are covered over with sin!

So how can sinful man come into the presence of a holy God and be received in mercy instead of wrath?
There is only one way--by the blood of sacrifice, offered by the priest, to cleanse (forgive/remove) sin.
All other ways of approaching God leave you exposed to divine justice and eternal death (John 14:6) because of your sin.

God spent over 550 years teaching these divine truths to Israel in his instruction manual on sacrifice, not because they were incidental, but because they were critical to everything! . . .including Christus Victor

I'm not diminishing sin at all. As you say, sin is what makes us unfit to dwell in the divine presence without end.

I like the surgery example. The great physician heals us and makes us fit for enduring life in God's presence. I am rejecting notions of God that are inordinately anthropomorphic.

And you just made satisfaction and substitution the same thing

No, I know the difference. I understand the satisfaction theory and the penal substitution theory. My phrasing was unhelpful in talking about satisfying God's wrath.

Your "more wise than God" is showing.

No, not "sold to the devil," which must be one of the "human constructs" in which you traffic,
but rather to redeem (ransom) them from God's just condemnation to eternal death on their sin

Hey, don't fuss at me; talk to the early church theologians.

False premise. . ."we" did not "come up with" penal substitution, it's not a "theory," it is divine fact from God's manual on sacrifice (sacrificial laws

Um, yeah, it's a theory.

BALONEY!!!

Clare, you are so salty. I love it!

"Human construct" is just a human construct to justify denial of Biblical teaching due to favor of human construct.

(con't. in next post, #281)

Denying it's a human construct is just a human construct used to deny human constructs.

I have a meeting and will read #281 later, Lord willing and the creeks don't rise.

 

[Clare73]

I bolded the part where you are confusing the issue. I have never said "unbelievers are forgiven". I have said their forgiveness is in Christ. Just like saying there is water in the bucket for you to drink, doesn't mean you have automatically slated your thirst. If you want to receive that forgiveness then you will need to repent and believe. Christ died for sin, not for salvation. Christ's victory on the Cross doesn't automatically save everyone but it does remove the sin barrier and bondage to death for everyone so that "whosoever" may now come to Christ.

Let me see if I am getting this straight. Rejecting Christ is not sin? Can you
show from Scripture including James 1:14-15, how this particular evil is not sin?

2 Tim.2:13
if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.

Convenient omission of the entire text which states just the opposite:

"If we disown him, he will disown us.

if we are faithless, he will remain faithful (to his threat of disownment, above)
for he cannot disown himself (by being faithless to his threat of disownment).

If Christ can't reject Himself (and He can't), then He can't die for it. And if He died for all sin (and He did), then rejecting Christ is the ultimate evil from which all sin springs. Sin is wrongdoing, that can be corrected by the truth. What can't be corrected is what causes the wrongdoing in the first place because the underlying evil is the rejection of truth and replacing it with a lie. That can't be changed, it can only be abandoned and left behind (repentance). Reject truth often enough and long enough and you become the evil you desire. That is where your view of reality is so distorted that you think good is evil and evil good. That's the point where Christ said there is no forgiveness and it's not because God has stopped being merciful or forgiving, but because the person is beyond reasoning. If God forced them to repent against their will? It would be a violation of the very likeness He originally created them in.

The Lord has to keep His word right, otherwise how could we trust Him? If He says the wages of sin is death and then lets some people out of death without any basis, He is hardly just. Christ dying for their sin is the basis for their release.
The Lord Jesus Christ holds the keys to death and hades, so I don't know who else you think unlocked those doors.
Not 100% sure I know what you are getting at re White Throne judgement. Everyone is still to be judged on their works and the work the Lord requires is to believe in Him. Those whose names were not found in the book of life (ie. unbelievers) go into the fire.

John 6:29
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”



Sounds like we are on the same page here.

 

[Saint Steven]

Withholding forgiveness? You are looking at it backwards again. This is not about us, but about Christ. ALL have sinned and fallen short. ALL are under the condemnation. But he had mercy on those to whom he chose for his own. Forgiveness is not withheld; it was never theirs. They get what they bargained for.

Your statements are contradictory, unless I misunderstand.
See bold below.

"Withholding forgiveness? You are looking at it backwards again. This is not about us, but about Christ. ALL have sinned and fallen short. ALL are under the condemnation. But he had mercy on those to whom he chose for his own. Forgiveness is not withheld; it was never theirs. They get what they bargained for." - Mark Quayle

If forgiveness is not for everyone, then it was certainly withheld from someone.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But that's not answering my question

The fact you don't see how it answers your question doesn't mean it doesn't answer it.
(snerk)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your statements are contradictory, unless I misunderstand.
See bold below.

"Withholding forgiveness? You are looking at it backwards again. This is not about us, but about Christ. ALL have sinned and fallen short. ALL are under the condemnation. But he had mercy on those to whom he chose for his own. Forgiveness is not withheld; it was never theirs. They get what they bargained for." - Mark Quayle

If forgiveness is not for everyone, then it was certainly withheld from someone.

No. You may as well say wings were withheld from flightless animals.

 

[Fervent]

I would say everything follows from the incarnation. Unless he is both human and divine, it's just another unjust execution. All of the merit of Christ you want imputed to us hinges on the incarnation.



I know, but if it means that much...penal substitution.



Okay. I won't begrudge you that; I just disagree. Perhaps they're all touching on something important. None of them are a perfect model.



I am not alleging a dichotomy, just pointing out how horrible those two theories are lol.



I'm not diminishing sin at all. As you say, sin is what makes us unfit to dwell in the divine presence without end.

I like the surgery example. The great physician heals us and makes us fit for enduring life in God's presence. I am rejecting notions of God that are inordinately anthropomorphic.



No, I know the difference. I understand the satisfaction theory and the penal substitution theory. My phrasing was unhelpful in talking about satisfying God's wrath.



Hey, don't fuss at me; talk to the early church theologians.



Um, yeah, it's a theory.



Clare, you are so salty. I love it!



Denying it's a human construct is just a human construct used to deny human constructs.

I have a meeting and will read #281 later, Lord willing and the creeks don't rise.

Technically, penal substitution is a satisfaction theory but as with much of reformed doctrine it is never sold at face value.

One thing I would say if you're really interested in atonement theology is to do a study on the OT sacrifices and what they mean in an OT context. If you have access to the NICOT series commentary on the book of Leviticus by Wenham it's an excellent examination of the theology of Leviticus. The notion that the animals are substitutions is entirely foreign to the book of Leviticus except in one place, and the animal that is said to be a substitute is sent off to the wilderness not necessarily killed. In fact, the Calvinistic view of substitution is contrary to the Levitical system since the offerings to God had to be without stain or blemish so if the sin of the offerer would have been placed upon them it would have left the meat tainted and the priests who had to stay away from all corruption would not be able to eat it. In fact, the payment of the sacrifices is to the priest who made the atonement not the sacrifices themselves. Where wrath is involved the portion has to be burnt up and the smoke produces a "soothing aroma" in that the corruption is being destroyed in flame.

Unfortunately some people are so caught up on human dogma that they read it into the OT sacrifices when it is completely foreign to the text.

 

[Saint Steven]

No. You may as well say wings were withheld from flightless animals.

What do you make of this?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[sawdust]

Convenient omission of the entire text which states just the opposite:

Which meaning is the opposite of what you say:

"If we disown him, he will disown us.

if we are faithless, he will remain faithful (to his threat of disownment, above)
for he cannot disown himself (by being faithless to his threat of disownment).

How you can so misconstrue what I said is utterly baffling to me. I showed a verse that reveals Christ cannot be untrue to His own word which means He can't reject Himself (He is the Word) and you think I said the opposite and then proceed to say how Christ can't be untrue to His word.

I say it and it is wrong. You say it and it is right. Strewth!

<walking further away and laughing while shaking my head>

 

[RickReads]

What do you make of this?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

It means the provision has been made for whosoeverwill.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What do you make of this?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

The usual —the Jew/Gentile thing, and like it, "do you know anyone whose sins are taken care of some other way?"

 

[Clare73]

The bedrock of Christianity is the cross. . .everything follows from the cross.

I would say everything follows from the incarnation. Unless he is both human and divine, it's just another unjust execution. All of the merit of Christ you want imputed to us hinges on the incarnation.

Nope. . .the cross is the bedrock of Christianity, everything follows from the cross--forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation with God.
You can't separate the incarnation from the cross in redemption.

He had to be human (incarnation) to actually atone for humans.

I know, but if it means that much...penal substitution.

Okay. I won't begrudge you that; I just disagree. Perhaps they're all touching on something important. None of them are a perfect model.

There is not one scintilla of imperfection in penal substitutionary atonement.

Nor am I dealing with a model, I am dealing with Biblical fact from the word of God.

I am not alleging a dichotomy, just pointing out how horrible those two theories are lol.

One more time for your dismissive "theory". . .substitutionary atonement is not a theory, it is Biblical teaching from God.

I'm not diminishing sin at all. As you say, sin is what makes us unfit to dwell in the divine presence without end.

Perfect diminishment. . ."unfit" dramatically diminishes God's view of and wrathful response to sin (Romans 5:9; John 3:36). . .anthropomorphism at work.

I like the surgery example. The great physician heals us and makes us fit for enduring life in God's presence. I am rejecting notions of God that are inordinately anthropomorphic.

And that would include Biblical revelation of penal substitutionary atonement, which you consider as anthropomorphic.
Rejection is a strong and dangerous word when it comes to Biblical revelation.

No, I know the difference. I understand the satisfaction theory and the penal substitution theory. My phrasing was unhelpful in talking about satisfying God's wrath.

Hey, don't fuss at me; talk to the early church theologians.

The early church theologians don't stand over the Scriptures,
they sit under the Scriptures like everyone else.
They put their pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else.

And their teaching is subject to Biblical examination just like everyone else.
And more than one of them got it wrong back then.

Um, yeah, it's a theory.

God's teaching is not a theory.

Clare, you are so salty. I love it!

There's plenty more where that came from.

"If the salt of the earth lose its saltiness, it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

Denying it's a human construct is just a human construct used to deny human constructs

Which no Biblical teaching is.

I have a meeting and will read #281 later, Lord willing and the creeks don't rise.

Good for you.

 

[Clare73]

Different views may well be the case. He draws all men but not all men get past the first "encounter" as per Romans 1:

The fact remains, because of Christ's work on the Cross the way is clear for anyone to come to God. And to be clear, I'm not contending men do it on their own, they need the grace of God to empower them because until they believe in Christ, they remain spiritually dead and they need God's power to suppress the sin nature so they are free to decide for themselves.

In the end, we each must work out our own salvation

for it is God who works in you to will and to do according to his good purposes.
(Philippians 2:12-13)

which, means we must do our own thinking with the teaching we are given. Relying on what others believe won't cut it with Christ.

Matt.16:15
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

 

[sawdust]

for it is God who works in you to will and to do according to his good purposes.
(Philippians 2:12-13)

Darn! Here's me studying, comparing teachings, meditating on the word when all I had to do was sit back and let God do His thing.

I could be watching cartoons instead and having a good laugh. Oh wait ....

 

[zippy2006]

For Aquinas, punishment settles a debt or functions as a remedy. I think there is this idea that punishment can be cathartic, but obviously that's not the case for those punished eternally.

"Now it is evident that in all actual sins, when the act of sin has ceased, the guilt remains; because the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice; so that, according to the order of Divine justice, he who has been too indulgent to his will, by transgressing God's commandments, suffers, either willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish. This restoration of the equality of justice by penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done to one's fellow men."

-ST I-II.87.6.c

Aquinas has that lame argument that sin against God is infinite and deserves infinite punishment. Obviously, God can't handle it and must take it out on God's own creation. Strange.

Still dependent on strawmen, I see. For the strawman of your first sentence, see ST I-II.87.4 and 87.5. I don't find the strawman of your second sentence worthy of response.

 

[Clare73]

Darn! Here's me studying, comparing teachings, meditating on the word when all I had to do was sit back and let God do His thing.

I could be watching cartoons instead and having a good laugh. Oh wait ....

Surely you aren't making fun of or denying God's word written. . .

 

[Clare73]

How you can so misconstrue what I said is utterly baffling to me. I showed a verse that reveals Christ cannot be untrue to His own word which means He can't reject Himself (He is the Word) and you think I said the opposite and then proceed to say how Christ can't be untrue to His word.

I say it and it is wrong. You say it and it is right. Strewth!

<walking further away and laughing while shaking my head>

How does 2 Timothy 2:12-13 answer the question:

Can you show from Scripture including James 1:14-15, how this particular evil (rejecting Christ)
is not sin?

.

 

[zippy2006]

I am curious of any doctrines about divine punishment, specifically as related to the afterlife, but in general, too.

It is worth noticing that you probably do not understand punishment at all, divine or otherwise.

Good point. I think there are two general ideas.
1. Punishment is cathartic; it heals.
2. Punishment is retributive; pays back a debt.

We might add 3. Punishment deters evil. But that function has nothing much to do with the one actually being punished.

(1) is simply misleading. Punishment and healing are two different things. When we punish someone we are not healing them and when we heal someone we are not punishing them. The "paying of the debt" is precisely what is cathartic, not some separate act of healing, but the catharsis comes through satisfaction, not simple retribution. Thus the catharsis is a byproduct of freely accepting and undergoing deserved punishment. Paradoxically, if the malefactor is only seeking the relief of catharsis and is not making satisfaction, they will not even receive catharsis.

Regarding (3), deterrence does of course affect the one being punished, and probably more than anyone else. Nevertheless, deterrence without desert and retribution begs the question of why the sin was wrong in the first place. It would be circular to say that we deter because the sin is evil, and we know the sin is evil because of deterrence.

I've been handing this out often of late, but it looks like you should read it too: C.S. Lewis' "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment."