Search This Blog

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Another Failed Attempt to Defend the Penal Sub. Theory of the Atonement

I just came across another article attempting to defend the PST of the atonement. Its entitled: PENAL SUBSTITUTION IN PERSPECTIVE:RE-EVALUATING THE ARTICULATION AND APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE by Patrick Franklin (McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry, vol. 10 (2008–2009), pp. 22–52). Its a very interesting article which actually addresses some of the real problems involved with the PST.

On the matter of the innocent suffering in the place of the guilty, Franklin says this:

One ethical objection commonly raised is that sin and guilt are personal and non-transferable. It is both inappropriate and un-fair for God to satisfy justice by punishing an innocent person (Christ) in place of guilty offenders. Erickson and Grudem respond by emphasizing the fact that Christ’s suffering was voluntarily (sic), that Christ willingly offered his life on behalf of sinners. This response is partially helpful in that it presents Christ as a willing participant, but it does not show how punishing an innocent person serves the cause of justice itself. How is it just to add evil to evil? Does not the death of Christ create a further injustice? Grudem is not very helpful when he responds: "God himself (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is the ultimate standard of what is just and fair in the universe, and he decreed that the atonement would take place in this way, and that it did in fact satisfy the demands of his own righteousness and justice.[Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 574].

Apparently for Grudem, justice is served because God says so (apparently in good nominalist fashion). God determines what is just and may therefore turn evil into good simply by declaring it to be so. But if this is the case, why cannot God simply declare all sin to be forgiven?
(pp. 31-32).

So Franklin recognizes that to say that (1)Christ died voluntarily or that (2)whatever God does must be just are really not satisfactory answers to the question of how can God accept the punishment of the innocent in place of the guilty. I give him credit for seeing the real problem here. Very few evangelicals seem to see it.

So, what is the solution to the problem, according to Franklin? He says:

Perhaps a better response to this charge is that justice is served because Christ is, in some sense, actually guilty. Not that Christ ever committed sin, but in the Incarnation and atonement he united himself to sinful human beings and thus, in a mysterious yet real way, he became “guilty” for us in order to make us righteous. He identified with us, in order to incorporate us into union with himself and thus into deep fellowship with the triune God. As Paul writes, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21). (p. 32).

Okay, this is a much better answer than most theologians give. However, it is not without problems.

1. While the Scriptures teach that Christ did take upon himself a complete human nature; it also teaches that the humanity he took was minus the corruption of the Adamic sin nature. So, while he did share in man's nature, he does not share in man's sin nature. So how can he be found guilty of man's sin?

2. To say that Christ actually became guilty of sin creates another problem. How can the God-man be guilty of sin without destroying the holiness of God?

3. 2 Cor. 5:21 can also be rendered: “God made him who had no sin to be a sin offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”.. Thus, the verse does not prove Franklin's point.

I give Franklin credit for recognizing one of the real problems with the PST and for attempting to answer it. As I said earlier, most evangelical theologians never even address this issue. However, I don't find his answer to be satisfying. It creates more problems than it solves in actually compromising the purity and holiness of Christ.

17 comments:

  1. Hi Ken,

    The issues seems to be how can it be moral for the judge (God - Father) place the guilt on innocent Jesus (God - Son) for humanity. However this problem dissolves rather quickly when the trinity is brought into play, i.e. one God, mono-theology. 'One God' demands justice and 'One God' delivers redemption through sacrifice. It is trendy to separate Jesus and God the Father but there is only one God in Christian theology. Consequently the ethic is no longer a problem as guilt is not placed on the external it is absorbed internally by the one very God requesting judgement.

    The judge who sentences the criminal a $50 dollar fine then pays it is not morally bankrupt, but rather loving.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rev,

    Ken is actually arguing for a two prong objection.

    1. How could God place guilt on an innocent Jesus
    2. How could guilty humanities sins be covered by the blood of a innocent person.

    Romans actually answers this by arguing that all were in Adam who were judged in the same way that all who are in Christ will be saved.

    Ken using his thought process could also argue that no one could be responsible for the sin of Adam. How could I be guilty for the act of some other man?

    Ken uses an atomic view of reality where everything is separate; however, the Bible views the Creation as one thing. When Adam sinned, the whole Creation was cursed! When the Son of God died, he died for the sins of the whole world who became sin for us (having been in Adam). As a result, Christ could die; however, he also was able to raise from the dead because he was the perfect sinless Son of God. The Bible actually provides a brilliant view of salvation.

    Ken's basic problem (which is not a problem except in his mind) is atomism which he is superimposing on Scripture itself. Atheists who are materialists all follow the same type of thinking believing that everything is separate.

    As a result, the problem only arises within an atheistic worldview; however, Ken really should judge Christianity from the perspective of a Theistic worldview which would resolve all the difficulties for him. Atheists do this ALOT and most are blind to what they are doing because of their indoctrination.

    I have noticed that most of them fail to see that they are superimposing their worldview in order to reach their conclusions. Clearly this is an unjustified method. We have no reason to believe that Ken's purely atomistic view of reality is the correct one. We are unable to see into the invisible world that forms the foundation for the reality that we see. He simply uses that worldview to raise an objection against a Theistic worldview which is disingenious or done in ignorance.

    God Bless...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think Ken is necessarily superimposing his worldview, ZDenny. Granted, we in the West are more individualistic than were people in ancient times, but there is an individualistic current in Scripture: Ezekiel 18 says each person must be punished for his own sin; Deuteronomy 24:16 (in contrast to some of the Code of Hammurapi) has the same principle in terms of the justice of the community; when Moses offers to die for the sins of Israel, God says that whoever has sinned against him will be blotted out of his book (Exodus 32:33).

    But, granted, you also see a collective mindset in Scripture: groups dying for the sin of an individual, transgenerational punishment, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Reverend Brown,

    **It is trendy to separate Jesus and God the Father but there is only one God in Christian theology. Consequently the ethic is no longer a problem as guilt is not placed on the external it is absorbed internally by the one very God requesting judgement.**

    The problem I have here is that the separation is pretty much built into the language of the atonement theory: Jesus died to satisfy the wrath of God. And the "God" meant here is the wrath of the Father. Never do I see the language say "Jesus died to satisfy his own wrath." It's always paying off the penalty that's owed to the Father. It's always Jesus who suffered the penalty from God. Never does someone say the Father suffered the penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zdenny,

    You still do not get what I am saying. I am saying--how can God justly punish one person in the place of another. The person who commits the crime must do the time, not some substitute. It doesn't matter if the substitute is willing. To punish an innocent in place of the guilty is a miscarriage of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rev. Brown,

    You say its trendy to separate the Father and the Son. No, its exactly what the NT does. Your position seems to border on unitarianism.

    In addition, how can God punish God?

    The NT certainly presents Jesus as the one who dies to satisfy the wrath of God (presumably) the Father.

    This also raises another question. Why is it that only the Father needs to be propitiated? Isn't the Son and the Holy Spirit God? Why don't they need to be propitiated?

    I have addressed this issue in detail in previous posts.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rene Girard, Margaret Barker and James Alison have done some amazing work re Atonement, Violence,Christian symbolism, etc. I think one can say the Girard has definitively proven that there is no "violence" in God, that the wrath needs to be satiated is not with God but with sinful humanity. Jesus was the Lord, thus meaning that Jesus was Yahweh. Yahweh was the Son of God. Yahweh was the Lord, thus Jesus was Yahweh (Margaret Barker has shown this). PST is a reversion to ancient human sacrifice religions by locating violence with God. Christianity locates the violence/wrath with a sinful humanity. Girard/Barker/Alison quite amazingly refute PST. See Alison's article here.
    http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng11.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Buck,

    Thanks for the comments. The point is that the overwhelming majority of evangelical theologians see PST as being a core doctrine of Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes conservative evangelical theologians don't understand much, or in the alternative, misunderstand a lot. I remember in a college course the conservative could admit the idea that human beings could destroy the world all by themselves. They vehemently expressed the idea that if the world was every destroyed in a nuclear apocalypse that it would be the God's doing. They seem so worship arbitrary violence rather than a loving, supreme creator. They refuse to acknowledge their own violence. This is why PST is so important to them, they worship not God, but violence triumphant. This is why Girard is so good and so important for Christian theology. The pagan/non-christian world has always seen violence as the Creator, this is why PST is not a Christian doctrine, I don't even think you can find it in the Bible without severely twisting the Gospels, and I've read all the bible verses they continually sight as somehow supporting PST.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ken,

    Why do you think the authors of the gospel traced Jesus lineage back to Adam? The fact is that Jesus was also the Son of God!

    If you look at Luke, you will find that Jesus geneology is traced all the way back to the Son of God.

    Romans clearly addresses the issues and there is no contradiction.

    The Scripture is very clear that Jesus became sin for us since his geneaology can be traced to Adam; however, the point is that Jesus is the Son of God and you will notice in Luke that he traces his geneology back to (not Adam) but the Son of God.

    It wasn't the Son of God who sinned; rather, it was Adam whose geneology Jesus was born into. However, he was the sinless perfect Son of God as recognized in Luke's geneaology.

    I still don't have any idea where you are coming from unless you are approaching the problem from a atomistic viewpoint.

    When I look at it, it is brilliant. I cannot imagine the primitive minds of the uneducated disciples coming up with this stuff on their own. It's origin would have to be divine. I couldn't even dream this stuff up since it lays outside our experience completely.

    God Bless..

    ReplyDelete
  11. "however, the point is that Jesus is the Son of God and you will notice in Luke that he traces his geneology back to (not Adam) but the Son of God."


    Actually, Luke 3:38 says Adam was the son of God, ZDenny.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ZDenny,

    1. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are hopelessly contradictory. I know the "pat answer" given by evangelicals for this--Luke traces lineage through Mary and Matthew through Joseph but I don't think this solves the problem. Not only that, there is absolutely no way to verify the accuracy of either one.

    2. I am arguing that the PST of the atonement is really inconsistent with the rest of evangelical theology, i.e., to punish the innocent in place of the guilty runs contrary to the sense of justice instilled in man via his being made in the image of God. Evangelicals need to explain that contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sin was not placed on Jesus by God the Father, sin was placed on Jesus by humanity. This is how the ancient Jews understood the Atonement. Sin was collected from the people and placed on the scapegoat. Humanity has always placed their sins on scapegoats. Rene Girard has totally obliterated the idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The Christian God is the antithesis of vengeance and violence.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is a good post on the genealogies of Jesus. I wrote one on the topic, but this one's much clearer:

    http://fullerunderstanding.blogspot.com/2009/10/syn006.html

    Heck, I'll also link to my post on the topic, since it has some additional info:

    http://jamesbradfordpate.blogspot.com/2009/09/jesus-conflicting-genealogies.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Adam was a High Priest and the 1st Temple was the Garden of Eden.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ken,

    I saw it was too much for you to read closely so I will simplify

    The Scripture is very clear that Jesus became sin for us since his geneaology can be traced to Adam; however, the point is that Jesus is the Son of God and you will notice in Luke that he traces his geneology back to (not Adam) but the Son of God.

    It wasn't the Son of God who sinned; rather, it was Adam whose geneology Jesus was born into. However, he was the sinless perfect Son of God as recognized in Luke's geneaology which recognizes the Son of God as being first in the geneology.

    The wrath of God was poured out on the God-man. Jesus was the Son of God; however, he was also shared in our humanity since he stood in the line of Adam. As a result, man in his humanity was under the curse (became sin for us); however, death could not hold him in the grave because he was the perfect sinless Son of God.

    Your rejection of Christianity was clearly not rational. It was moral. It had to be. You are just coming up with stuff like most godless folk that doesn't make much sense when examined closely.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ZDENNY wrote:
    > The Scripture is very clear that Jesus became sin for us
    Which is a miscarriage of justice -- an innocent being punished for the guilty.

    > The wrath of God was poured out on the God-man.
    So God requires pain, suffering and death to appease his violent tendencies. There is no forgiveness of sins only appeasement through blood sacrifice.

    > Your rejection of Christianity was clearly not rational. It was moral. It had to be.

    Sounds more to me as though his rejection of christianity was a rational response to the immorality of the christian doctrine of blood sacrifice and punishing the innocent in place of the guilty.

    ReplyDelete