tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post822674196230984557..comments2024-01-24T04:02:06.466-05:00Comments on Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity: More on Aquinas' View of the Atonement (Eleonore Stump)Ken Pulliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-72312860872671632852014-03-04T19:23:29.771-05:002014-03-04T19:23:29.771-05:00It also occurs to me that some of your worries aga...It also occurs to me that some of your worries against Stump's account of the Atonement indeed are about making satisfaction for wrong (which is of course penance). In that case, I bring this for you. <br /><br />For Stump, the separation of humans from God is in two parts: (1) the damage done to God's creation (we see this in the example of Nathan trampling his mother's Garden), and (2) the lack of care or Love for God and the things that God loves (if Nathan loved his mother and the things she cares about, namely the garden, he would have done what he could not to trample the garden). Stump focuses the majority of her writing on (2) because she sees this as being the deeper reason for the separation. I think that perhaps Stump does not address (1) as well as could be desired, but you address (2) in the first of three building scenarios involving Nathan and his mother Anna. You say "His mother may forgive him on the basis of his attempt to restore what he has done wrong but more importantly on the basis of his remorse and repentance. If that is true, then the atonement can be accomplished by the sinner himself." I would say rather that, in the case of Nathan and his mother, if restoration of a will to love and further an actual love of Nathan for his mother and for the things she loves is the goal, and Nathan comes to realize his wrong, then his remorse and repentence and effort at making satisfaction can be satisfactory for the mother. But, for Stump, this is not her whole account of atonement. She is here, merely trying to make a point, that were one to be able to make satisfaction, then that is sufficient for restoration of relationship. She however develops her account. In short, as I understand it, Stump proposes that in the context of the restoration of relationship between God and human, satisfaction made by humans is not possible (due to the separation sin causes and the 'stain of sin' effected on the human soul). Human's best efforts at making satisfaction would still come up short. (Perhaps this here seems unfair, that might be a place to discuss). So, on her view, the only one who can restore the relationship between God and humans, if humans cannot make satisfaction, is God through the person of Jesus. <br /><br />Please, I would love to discuss this further with you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01683648556034248326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-75096798126757477012014-03-04T19:22:54.725-05:002014-03-04T19:22:54.725-05:00Ken,
On my reading of what I shall call Stump'...Ken,<br /><br />On my reading of what I shall call Stump's account of the Atonement influenced by Aquinas, I did not see her as depicting the atonement in terms of justice. She touched on that topic lightly but she primarily depicted the Atonement in terms of a restoration of relationship. In her view, Humans were separated from God by their sin, which she defines generally as a person preferring one's own immediate power or pleasure over greater goods, namely, God given goods (what these are exactly are not particularly important for the purposes here). Since sin is necessarily contrary to the nature of God, if we assume, as I am sure Stump assumes, that God is the measure of perfect goodness whereby we may evaluate sin, then sin necessarily separates humans from God. On Stump's view, sin is not seen as a debt that needs to be paid for, or even as something deserving justice per se. Certainly it would disrupt God's creation and God's plan for humanity, but it seems more like a tragedy for humans than a crime against God. (I am not arguing whether there is or is not a crime against God that occurs on the occasion of the sin of a human. Certainly, if we view God's creation as his, say, property, and sin as some sort of marring of this property, then we might conceive of a crime against God needing justice.) So, Stump views Jesus's life, and death on the Cross as the best way to restore relationship between humans and God. Nothing need be said about punishing an innocent person, or even about punishment in the retributive sense. (Stump even compares Godly punishment as that done by a parent to a child. She distinguishes punishment, in light of the parent/child dynamic, as between the just response to wrong--ending undesirable behavior (retributive punishment) and the aim of the goodness and love of the child--the emergence of desirable behavior (restorative punishment)).<br /><br />Now, if you find dispute with this view, of atonement as restoring relationship (assuming my understanding of Stump's writing is on track) I think a workable discussion could result. But, as it stands, I see a misinterpretation of what Stump is trying to convey. <br /><br />Perhaps you find fault with the general idea of penitential substitution. That is fine. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01683648556034248326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-36927969812807705192010-07-27T13:01:55.010-04:002010-07-27T13:01:55.010-04:00The crossing of the Red Sea has been found. Mt. S...The crossing of the Red Sea has been found. Mt. Sinai has been found with the spot where water came forth from the rock and the erosion from its path. The alter of hewn rock where the molten calf was made is at the base of the mountain.<br /><br />I have seen miracles. I pray that you will see miracles from God also, and that your faith will be restored. Questioning is a very good thing to do. Remember the Bible does talk about false miracles also, so discernment is extremely important. God does ask us to love him with our mind. I think that you are on the right path to finding out the truth.Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04981853933753422607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-14579266311429992732010-07-27T10:13:30.534-04:002010-07-27T10:13:30.534-04:00Boyd,
You assume that the Israelites really did s...Boyd,<br /><br />You assume that the Israelites really did see the miracles mentioned during the Exodus. I don't think there were actual miracles. As a matter of fact, I doubt there was even anything close to an Exodus as archeologists have never been able to turn up even the slightest proof of hundreds of thousands of people in the Sinai peninsula during that time. As for myself, I never saw any miracles. I believed what I was taught without seriously questioning anything. Later as I actually allowed myself to question, I realized I had been deluded.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-57093932400739377812010-07-27T03:12:31.513-04:002010-07-27T03:12:31.513-04:00Steve,
"In John 10:31-39, Jesus goes all out...Steve,<br /><br />"In John 10:31-39, Jesus goes all out to repudiate the claim that he was making himself God. (I can't believe so many evangelicals skim right over that text without blinking.) Luke 18:19 is another plain denial from Jesus that he is God. And in John 17:3, Jesus even calls the Father "the only true God."'<br /><br />Please put the scriptures in your posts so that it is easier t show where each of your assumptions is false.Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04981853933753422607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-62205104977936718202010-07-27T03:07:16.742-04:002010-07-27T03:07:16.742-04:00Hi Ken,
"If the disciples had known that Jes...Hi Ken,<br /><br />"If the disciples had known that Jesus was going to die and if they had known he was going to be raised (which is also in the gospels), why would they have all scattered and forsaken him at his death?"<br /><br />In Exodus the Israelites created the golden calf to worship when Moses did not come back fast enough for them. They had seen incredible miracles that you know of from studying the Bible and yet they turned away. Moses allowed those who were for the Lord to follow him and about 3,000 men were slain by the sword that day. People are fickle and stiff-necked and turn their backs on all kinds of things for no good reason. I realize that this blog is on Christianity and to refute Exodus you might change the title, but you have argued against the Old Testament before.<br /><br />Even you by your own account believed in Jesus as God and left the faith. Were you ever filled by the Holy Spirit? By your own testimony you would fall into the category of scattering and forsaking, but it doesn't make an good argument that what you were taught was embellished and added later.<br /><br />"We know this happened because there are other gospels which did not make it into the canon which are obviously embellished with all kinds of wonder working feats performed by Jesus."<br /><br />Who knows?!! "obviously embellished"-very poor reasoning. I have come to expect more from you than unsubstantiated statements.Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04981853933753422607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-77257269601587968702010-07-21T07:44:55.768-04:002010-07-21T07:44:55.768-04:00John,
I think the references you refer to were no...John,<br /><br />I think the references you refer to were not spoken by Jesus but added as the tradition grew after his death and years later wound up written down in the gospels. If the discisples had known that Jesus was going to die and if they had known he was going to be raised (which is also in the gospels), why would they have all scattered and forsaken him at his death? Why wouldn't they have been standing around the tomb waiting for him to come back? If all the miracles recorded in the gospels really happened, then the disciples should not have doubted at all. I believe that the tradition about Jesus grew and was embellished between the time of his death and the time the gospels were actually written down. We know this happened because there are other gospels which did not make it into the canon which are obviously embellished with all kinds of wonder working feats performed by Jesus.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-42012920483390405782010-07-20T22:18:06.346-04:002010-07-20T22:18:06.346-04:00Jesus' forgiveness of people's sins does n...Jesus' forgiveness of people's sins does not prove his divinity. In John 20:23, he authorizes the apostles to forgive sins. The gospels writers obviously saw this as a delegated authority, not a proof of deity.<br /><br />In John 10:31-39, Jesus goes all out to repudiate the claim that he was making himself God. (I can't believe so many evangelicals skim right over that text without blinking.) Luke 18:19 is another plain denial from Jesus that he is God. And in John 17:3, Jesus even calls the Father "the only true God." <br /> <br />If Jesus really wanted us all to believe in his divinity, don't you think he would have stated it plainly instead of giving all these hints?<br /> <br />Honestly, there are far, FAR more biblical texts that contradict the deity of Jesus than establish it. But ... majority opinion will always win out.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-55443925308172209852010-07-20T21:51:03.334-04:002010-07-20T21:51:03.334-04:00Exploring,
Thanks for the good points.
To me, wh...Exploring,<br /><br />Thanks for the good points.<br /><br />To me, when I read the gospels, I find them quite harmonious. They each have their own little details but they also have a lot of overlap. As far as that specific statement, you are right it is only in John. But there are many other passages that point to Jesus' divinity in the other gospels. As one example, we see that Jesus regularly fogave sins for people. This agrees with His claims to divinity. I also think that it was to the point where they were pretty used to it, so that they didn't have to repeat it in the exact same way. They heard him say it so many times (as we see in their other passages).John Sfiferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00875271904363363020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-82086400624989470032010-07-20T20:43:19.914-04:002010-07-20T20:43:19.914-04:00---
John Stifer,
I have one question for you. Y...---<br /><br />John Stifer,<br /><br />I have one question for you. You say that "Jesus proclaimed He is God during his life." In the Gospel of John, Jesus makes two very unambiguous claims to his divinity. He states, "I and the Father are one" and "Before Abraham was born, I am." If those two statements were made by Jesus of Nazareth, and they are true, then I don't think you'd argue that they are among the, if not the most important words ever uttered on the face of the Earth. With that in mind, how is it possible that Mark, Matthew and Luke didn't find these words important enough to include in their Gospels. <br /><br />Luke starts his gospel by claiming, "Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you...so that you may know the certainty of things you had been taught."<br /><br />Now, if some of the "things [they] had been taught" included the fact of Jesus's divinity, what could possibly have made them more certain of this reality than these words from the very lips of Jesus?<br /><br />It all seems rather odd to me...Exploring the Unknowablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267687022642518868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-12237181777942086492010-07-20T19:58:08.156-04:002010-07-20T19:58:08.156-04:00Ken,
1. Jesus predicted his death before He died...Ken,<br /><br />1. Jesus predicted his death before He died (they couldn't have been shocked, or shouldn't)<br /><br />2. Jesus proclaimed He is God during his life. Thus this should have given disciples an idea of who He is, certainly not martyr.John Sfiferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00875271904363363020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-14789805977044168142010-07-20T15:53:20.162-04:002010-07-20T15:53:20.162-04:00Ah, Priestley the dissenter? Did this help him ea...Ah, Priestley the dissenter? Did this help him earn <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestley_riots" rel="nofollow">a riot?</a><br /><br />And thanks for the links!Zachary Vochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06226360994749986604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-57303447076229246082010-07-20T14:14:23.099-04:002010-07-20T14:14:23.099-04:00Steve,
Yes, I have been impressed with his writin...Steve,<br /><br />Yes, I have been impressed with his writings. He has a lucid style too which is unusual for the older guys.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-22980836359859481702010-07-20T12:53:49.614-04:002010-07-20T12:53:49.614-04:00Priestly sure had brainpower. He's also the on...Priestly sure had brainpower. He's also the one credited with the discovery of oxygen.SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-26337257748637599462010-07-20T09:28:03.920-04:002010-07-20T09:28:03.920-04:00Zachary,
Yes there is a history of the atonement ...Zachary,<br /><br />Yes there is a history of the atonement doctrine. A quick summary can be found <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>. And yes I do believe the doctrine came about post facto as an attempt to understand why their Messiah had been executed. The death of the Messiah at the hands of the enemy was totally unexpected and actually disproved his Messiahship to most Jews. I believe that initially the disciples saw his death as that of a martyr but later on Paul especially seemed to theologize on the point and that is where the satisfaction theories find their root. Another interesting article on the history of the atonement can be found <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=E5IPAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+History+Of+The+Corruptions+Of+Christianity&hl=en&ei=cZJETIHIO5Ldngew8q3rDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">here</a>, pp. 51-92. It is written by Joseph Priestly an 18th century Unitarian.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-87163940633610191882010-07-20T08:36:25.403-04:002010-07-20T08:36:25.403-04:00Scapegoating =/= problem solved.
Ken, is there a ...Scapegoating =/= problem solved.<br /><br />Ken, is there a solid historical record concerning the predecessors of the doctrine of atonement, say, as developed in a manner similar to eschatology, or did Christians always seem to believe that Christ's death was a redemption?<br /><br />And for an opinion question, do you think that this belief was likely post facto doctrine to explain how a God or prophet could die in such a common way? I think that the stories of the contemporaneous miracles, like the timing of the eclipse (possible, so far as I know), earthquakes, the inexplicable tearing of the Temple Veil, and the dead walking Jerusalem (not so much) are indicative of this.Zachary Vochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06226360994749986604noreply@blogger.com