Retribution van God
Geschreven door Mark Van Steenwyk: 26 april, 2007
Blijkbaar, meer controverse wordt geschopt omhoog over een recent boek door Steve Chalke. In zijn boek Het verloren Bericht van Jesus, Verwerpt Chalke de traditionele evangelische mening van de straf substitutionary mening van het atonement-idee dat het ding wij „van“ op het Kruis het meest gered zijn de retributive, bestraffende, toorn van God is.
Het boek is fundamenteel hetvlakke nieuw uitrusten van N.T. Het werk van Wright. Zowel trekken Wright als Chalke de meeste brand, schijnt het, van conservatieve Opnieuw gevormde evangelicals (het waarvan begrip van het Evangelie aan de straf subsitutionary mening van Atonement rechtstreeks gebonden is). De kwestie voor velen is dit:
Als Jesus-Christus op het kruis voor mijn zonden, en de reden stierf zijn mijn zonden zulk een grote overeenkomst is dat zij dood en toorn rechtvaardigen. Uiteindelijk, is het Grote Gevolg voor mijn zonden hel-welke het eeuwige uitgieten van de hete toorn van de God is. Ik heb het Kruis nodig om me van de hete toorn van de God te redden. Om het even welke poging om deze mening te verminderen of te ontkennen is een aanval op het eigenlijke Evangelie zelf!
Wil wat ik weten denk? Ik denk de straf substitutionary mening van Atonement aangezien het momenteel door conservatieve evangelicals wordt gearticuleerd een diepgaande vervorming van het Bijbelse vertellen is. Fundamenteel, neigen evangelicals om een slechte gewoonte van lezingsdingen door slechte lenzen te hebben. Wanneer u het Oude Testament leest en de Evangelies door Paul, die u door lense van Luther of Calvin leest, die u door lense van Amerikaanse Evangelicalism leest, die u door lense van individualisme leest, gaat u dingen van kilter zien.
Is Atonement bestraffend? Ja. Is there a substitution? Most certainly. Does Jesus receive God’s wrath on the Cross? In a manner of speaking, but not in the way one might think. Is this the primary or even a central way of understanding what happens on the Cross? I don’t believe so.
For a while Luke M. has been asking me to weigh in more heavily on the Atonement. I’m hardly a scholar on the subject. And I’m not sure I can give the issue the thought and time it deserves. But within the next week, Luke, I promise to give my brief understanding of what the Atonement is about, along with some reading suggestions for further study.
for further reading . . .
- None Found
Interesting Article:
http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2007/04/25/Opinions/On.The.Hypocrisy.Of.A.Christian.President-2879431.shtml
Look forward to your coming posts on the subject. If we want to promote a non-violent lifestyle, how we understand the atonement seems to me a central question. Is God a God who needs or take pleasure in violence and blood-shedding? (For people trained in academic theology, I recommend Denny Weavers “The Non-Violent Atonement”)
Mark,
I think it’s important in this debate to separate out two different views of the Atonement that get convoluted into each other quite often it seems (e.g. the cover story in Christianity Today from a few quarters back). The Satisfaction theory of Atonement is often confused with the Penal Substitutionary view (e.g., the quote you gave from Mr. Chalke’s book is actually the Satisfaction theory). It says that Christ’s atonement was propitiatory, to satisfy God’s wrath. The penal substitutionary theory of atonement is that Christ suffered as a substitute for all humanity the deadly penalty required by our sinfulness. You can see how the penal substitutionary view need not include the idea that God is “wroth with us,” just the idea that there is a cosmic penalty for sin. It does us all a disservice I think when we conflate these two views, because the Satisfaction theory is what I would consider the bathwater and Penal Substitution the baby.
Indeed. Unfortunately, the way the penal substitutionary view of the atonement is articulated most commonly and most often includes the idea of satisfaction…the two views are almost inseparable in the current debate.
Nevertheless, there is still some bathwater mixed in with the penal substitution view. I’d be more likely to go along with simply a “substitution” view with qualifiers. I’m not sure about the “penal” part as it is usually described. The way folks talk about punishment is often (and almost always) in the sense that the punishment is the pour out of God’s wrath and that this punishment therefore satisfies God. The questions I have are:
1) Who is doing the punishing?
2) Who needs to be punished and why?
3) What is the extent of this punishment?
Unfortunately I think you’re right that the two views are almost inseparable in the current debate. All the more reason to be precise and separate them again. Wrath is not the only or even a necessary ingredient in punishment. We expect our judges, for example, to punish criminals based on the severity of the crime or on other criteria, but not on the idea that the judge requires satisfaction of his own reputation. I think the deeper questions in such a debate have to do with what we consider just and unjust, and whether wrath fits into that consideration or not.
I , too, look forward to your comments on this issue, although I think we seriously disagree. I think the cross and vicarious, penal, substitutionary atonement is the pinnacle of all of the faith, proclaimed loudly through the resurrection. “I came preaching Christ, and him crucified.” I must confess, this is a biggie with me, and would love to enter the conversation to make sure I am hearing you correctly.
Steve,
I’m almost positive that we disagree…though I’m hoping that we don’t disagree as much as you might think. My follow up post is coming on line tomorrow. I look forward to your comments.