Возмездность бога
Написано Марк Фургоном Steenwyk: 26-ое апреля 2007
Явно, больше полемика пинает вверх над недавней книгой Стив Chalke. В его книге Lost сообщение Иесус, Chalke излучает традиционный евангелистский взгляд штрафного substitutionary взгляда идеи Atonement-the что вещь, котор мы больше всего «сохранены от» на кресте retributive, карательно, wrath бога.
Книга основно retooling популярн-уровня N.T. Работа Wright. И Wright и Chalke рисуют большинств пожар, его кажутся, от консервативных реформированных evangelicals (вникание которых Gospel связано сразу к штрафному subsitutionary взгляду Atonement). Вопрос для много это:
Если Иесус Christ умерло на кресте для моих согрешений, и причине, то моими согрешениями будут такое крупная сделка что они гарантируют смерть и wrath. В конце, большое последствие для моих согрешений находится Ад-которое вечный лить из wrath бога горячего. Мне нужно крест сохранить меня от wrath бога горячего. Любой попыткой умалить или отказать этот взгляд будет штурм сам на очень Gospel!
Те знать я думаю? Я думаю штрафной substitutionary взгляд Atonement по мере того как оно в настоящее время артикулировано консервативными evangelicals глубокомысленное искажение библейский говорить. Основно, evangelicals клонат иметь плох привычку вещей чтения через плохие объективы. Когда вы прочитали Ветхий завет и Gospels через Пол, которое вы прочитали через lense Luther или Кельвин, которое вы прочитали через lense американского Evangelicalism, которое вы читаете через lense индивидуализма, вы идете увидеть вещи с kilter.
Atonement карательно? Да. 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.