Two takes on penal substitution

January 15, 2009 at 8:00 pm (theology)

Kim Fabricius has written a thoughtful and provocative post, hosted by Ben Myers, Ten propositions on penal substitution. He states his thesis in proposition 1:

The doctrine of penal substitution is one model [of the atonement], but it is not the only model. Indeed, without radical recalibration, it is a theologically repugnant model with potentially vicious and disastrous social and political implications. (emphasis in original)

Did I mention that the post is provocative?

In addition to providing rich food for thought, Kim’s post gives me an opportunity to say a few words in appreciation of Leon Morris, a scholar who was known for his spirited defence of the very doctrine that Kim is criticizing.

Leon Morris died, at 92 years of age, on July 24, 2006. According to Anglican Media Melbourne:

Leon Morris in academic gownLeon Lamb Morris was perhaps Australia’s most prolific biblical and theological author. He wrote over fifty books of theology and biblical commentary which have sold nearly two million copies worldwide and been translated into many languages. …Extraordinarily, Morris received no formal theological education, apart from two years of supervision for his doctorate in Cambridge.

I would describe Morris as a staunchly conservative expositor of scripture. Among other things, he is known for defending the word propitiation1 as an appropriate description of the death of Jesus, and thus the right translation of hilaskomai in Romans 3:25 (cf. RSV with ESV) and 1Jn. 2:2 (RSV; ESV).

Morris would certainly reject Kim Fabricius’s position on penal substitution. But there is one point at which the two writers are in agreement — and a very important point it is. The point is, Jesus did not die “to secure a change in God’s attitude” (Kim’s words).

Kim appeals to the doctrine of the Trinity and asks, “how can the Spirit-anointed Jesus of Nazareth, who rejected the way of violence and vengeance, have a violent and vengeful Father?” Morris makes the same point in a different way:

God provides the way [of reconciliation]. … It must never be forgotten that God says of atoning blood, “I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Lv. 17:11). […] All [theologians] are agreed that the atonement proceeds from the love of God. It is not something wrung from a stern and unwilling Father, perfectly just, but perfectly inflexible, by a loving Son. The atonement shows us the love of the Father just as it does the love of the Son.2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1Notably in the book-length treatment of redemption, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Morris championed propitiation in response to C.H. Dodd, who had earlier championed expiation: see John Stott, The Cross of Christ, pp. 170-71.

2New Bible Dictionary, second edition, “atonement”.

Leave a Comment

Eternal torment: theological considerations, pt. 2

January 7, 2009 at 9:11 pm (annihilationism, theology)

Fourth post in a series on annihilationism.

To recap what I said in the previous post:  Jesus bore the penalty for our sins in his own body. And the penalty was, he was put to death. That is exactly what we would expect, based on the apostle Paul’s clear statement: “The wages of sin is death …” (Ro. 6:23).

Jesus merely died for our sins; he did not suffer eternal torment. This fact was recognized as a theological problem in the Middle Ages. Anselm and Aquinas both tackled the problem. They argued that Jesus suffered relatively briefly because he is divine. To paraphrase them, Christ’s finite but divine suffering is adequate to offset the infinite but merely human suffering which would otherwise be our punishment.

In my opinion, the argument is both unbiblical and illogical. It is illogical because a finite amount of suffering cannot be equivalent to infinite suffering, even if the sufferer is God.

(If anything, I would expect the proportions to be reversed. The argument is akin to saying that if a rich man pays a small fine, that’s equivalent to a poor man paying a large fine. That can’t be right. But the fundamental difficulty is, the infinite cannot possibly be equivalent to the finite.)

The rationale is unbiblical because the Bible affirms that Jesus suffered as a human being:

… who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Php. 2:6-8)

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death …. (Heb. 2:14)

God cannot die. Jesus had to become a human being in order to experience death. Thus the speculative explanation of Anselm and Aquinas is both illogical and unbiblical.

How did the Church start down this errant path? The answer is this:  the Church Fathers imbibed the dominant view of their culture. According to the ancient Greeks, the human soul is immortal and indestructible. Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

The incomprehensible, indispensable Trinity

December 23, 2008 at 7:36 pm (theology)

Two views on the trinity. Barton Stone argues that the doctrine is “both above and contrary to reason”. Brian McLaren explains why the Trinity is a deeply meaningful concept in shaping his Christian faith.

First, Barton Stone:

It is commonly stated, that there are three persons in one God, of one substance, power and eternity.

To me it is evident that they, who maintain this proposition, do not — cannot believe, that these three persons are three distinct spirits, beings or Gods, each possessed of the personal properties of intelligence, will and power; for this would not only contradict the scriptures, but also those sections of their creeds just quoted, which declare that there is but one only living and true God, without parts. They must understand the term persons in God, not in the proper and common sense of the word person; but in such a qualified sense as to exclude the notion of three distinct spirits or beings.

What this qualified sense should be, has long puzzled divines; and in no proposition are they more divided. The cause of this perplexity is obvious, because no idea of it is to be found in revelation, nor reason. Revelation no where declares that there are three persons of the same substance in the one only God. …

If a doctrine be revealed, however mysterious it may be, I will humbly receive it. My reason shall ever bow to revelation; but it shall never be prostrated to human contradictions and inventions. …

That the Son of God was very and eternal God, and yet eternally begotten, is a doctrine to which I cannot subscribe. …

According to the before cited articles, the Father and Son are one eternal substance. The voice of reason is, that the same individual substance cannot beget itself, nor be begotten by itself. …

If language conveys ideas, it is plain that the act of begetting implies a previous agent; and that the agent and the act must precede the thing begotten; therefore the Son could not be eternally begotten.

(from An Address To the Christian Churches, 1821)

Second, Brian McLaren

The experience of God in Jesus was so powerful that it forever transformed what followers of Jesus meant when they said the word God. […]

Eventually, after a few centuries of reflecting on God as revealed and experienced through Jesus (in the context of some major controversies with varied forms of Greek philosophy), the church began to describe God as Father-Son-Spirit in Tri-unity or the Trinity. For them, God could no longer be conceived of merely as “God A,” a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind, or Will, but as “God B,” a unified, eternal, mysterious relational community/family/society/entity of saving Love.

Think of the kind of universe you would expect if God A created it:  a universe of dominance, control, limitation, submission, uniformity, coercion. Think of the kind of universe you would expect if God B created it:  a universe of interdependence, relationship, possibility, responsibility, becoming, novelty, mutuality, freedom.

I’m not sure which comes first — the kind of universe you see or the kind of God you believe in, but as a Christian who believes in Jesus as the Son of God, I find myself in universe B, getting to know God B.

[A Generous Orthodoxy, chapter 2, "Jesus and God B"]

Stone’s argument strikes me as logically unassailable. On the other hand, McLaren points out that the doctrine of the Trinity has practical utility (who’d have thought it!).

The doctrine has implications for our worldview. McLaren’s argument is much more appealing than the sort of abstract, bloodless reasoning that Stone was reacting against.

In sum, the doctrine of the Trinity is both incomprehensible and indispensable.

Leave a Comment

Eternal torment: theological considerations, pt. 1

November 30, 2008 at 9:57 pm (annihilationism, theology)

Third post in a series on annihilationism. In my previous post, I introduced the doctrine and discussed some New Testament texts that address the narrow question, How will sinners be punished after death?

In this post (divided into two parts), I want to widen the scope of our inquiry and examine several relevant theological concepts:

  1. God’s justice;
  2. Christ’s atoning sacrifice; and
  3. The consummation of God’s saving activity.

Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment

John Stott: Two “riders” on inerrancy

November 17, 2008 at 7:54 pm (scripture, theology)

One of my favourite theology books is Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue. It was written by David Edwards (the liberal) and John Stott (the evangelical).

Edwards, who is a Church historian, read Stott’s books and identified a half dozen key differences between liberals and evangelicals. Topic by topic, Edwards sets forth a liberal critique of evangelicalism. Each Edwards segment is followed by a Stott segment on the same topic, in which Stott defends his evangelical convictions. (Stott’s segment is always shorter, since he had already expressed his position at length in his other books.)

The format puts Stott on the defensive, but I think the co-authors provide a pretty good airing of several foundational issues.

Chapter 2 concerns the authority of scripture. Edwards lists a bunch of problem passages:  e.g., the reference to “Abiathar the high priest” in Mark 2:26 (a factual error which I have discussed here).

In his reply, Dr. Stott shares some interesting thoughts on the topic of inerrancy. Here’s an excerpt:

In your judgement, the presence of (alleged) errors in the Bible makes the assertion of inerrancy untenable. Evangelicals are, of course, as familiar with these problems as anyone else. They have been discussed at least since Jerome and Augustine. We don’t read the Bible with our eyes shut or our minds inert! …

The evangelists selected and shaped (though did not invent) their material to suit their theological purpose, perhaps making more editorial changes than we have sometimes thought. The resulting discrepancies certainly pose problems, as do apparent “slips” or “mistakes” (like one of those you mention, namely the identity of “Zecharaiah the son of Berakiah”).1 …

Supposing, as is indeed the case, that some discrepancies remain which cannot with integrity be reconciled or harmonised, how should we handle this situation? That is what our domestic Evangelical debate over inerrancy is about. Two main possibilities have been proposed.

Some Evangelicals conclude that they must recognize in the Bible a few, largely trivial, factual mistakes. But they add that these belong to the spheres of history, literature and science, so that in the spheres of religion and ethics, and especially in teaching about God, Christ and salvation, the Bible remains inerrant. … Now to concede a few factual errors will emphatically not cause the whole Evangelical edifice to collapse like a pack of cards. …

Other Evangelicals do not feel the necessity to make this concession, however, but continue to affirm the Bible’s inerrancy in every area in which it speaks. At the same time we are concerned to add two riders (more clarifications than qualifications), namely that Scripture is without error (1) as originally given, and (2) as correctly interpreted. These additions are not evasions, but commonsense explanations of what we mean by inerrancy. …

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

« Older entries