The Retribution of God该报应的上帝
Written by Mark Van Steenwyk : April 26, 2007写的马克范steenwyk ： 2007年4月26日
Apparently, more很显然，更多的 controversy争议 is being kicked up over a recent book by Steve Chalke.正在踢了一个最近的著作是由史蒂夫查尔凯。 In his book在他的著作 The Lost Message of Jesus失去的讯息，耶稣 , Chalke rejects the traditional evangelical view of the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement–the idea that the thing we are most “saved from” on the Cross is the retributive, punitive, wrath of God. ，查尔凯拒绝传统的福音事工促进会，鉴于刑法substitutionary鉴于赎罪-的思想，这件事我们是最“节省”在十字架上是报复性，惩罚性的，愤怒的上帝。
The book is basically a popular-level retooling of NT Wright’s work.这本书基本上是一个受欢迎的高层改组的新台币赖特的工作。 Both Wright and Chalke draw the most fire, it seems, from conservative Reformed evangelicals (whose understanding of the Gospel is tied directly to the penal subsitutionary view of the Atonement).双方赖特和查尔凯提请最火，看来，从保守的改革，福音派（其了解福音，是并列，直接向刑法subsitutionary鉴于赎罪） 。 The issue for many is this:问题很多是这样的：
If Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, and the reason my sins are such a big deal is that they warrent death and wrath.如果耶稣基督的死亡在十字架上为我的捷联惯导系统，原因我是有福的这么大的处理是，他们需要的死亡和愤怒。 In the end, the Big Consequence for my sins is Hell–which is the eternal pouring out of God’s hot wrath.在年底，大的后果，为我的捷联惯导系统是地狱-这是永恒的浇注出上帝的热点愤怒。 I need the Cross to save me from God’s hot wrath.我需要两岸要救救我从上帝的热点愤怒。 Any attempt to diminish or deny this view is an assault on the very Gospel itself!任何企图削弱或否认这一点的看法是，侵犯了非常福音本身！
Want to know what I think?想知道什么，我觉得呢？ I think the penal substitutionary view of the Atonement as it currently is articulated by conservative evangelicals is a profound distortion of the Biblical telling.我认为，刑法substitutionary鉴于赎罪，因为它是目前所阐述的保守的福音派是一场深刻的歪曲圣经告诉。 Basically, evangelicals tend to have a bad habit of reading things through bad lenses.基本上，福音派，往往有一个坏习惯读的东西，通过不良镜头。 When you read the Old Testament and the Gospels through Paul, who you read through the lense of Luther or Calvin, who you read through the lense of American Evangelicalism, who you read through the lense of individualism, you’re going to see things off kilter.当您阅读旧约圣经和福音通过保罗，谁你读通过伦泽的路德或卡尔文，谁你读通过伦泽美国福音神学，谁你读通过伦泽的个人主义，您将会看到的东西，小康状态。
Is the Atonement punitive?是赎罪的惩罚呢？ Yes.是。 Is there a substitution?是否有替代？ Most certainly.最肯定。 Does Jesus receive God’s wrath on the Cross?耶稣接受上帝的愤怒在十字架上？ In a manner of speaking, but not in the way one might think.在某种意义上可以说，但不是在一的方式可能会认为。 Is this the primary or even a central way of understanding what happens on the Cross?这是小学，甚至是中央的方式了解发生什么事在十字架上？ I don’t believe so.我不相信。
For a while一 Luke M.卢克米。 has been asking me to weigh in more heavily on the Atonement.一直要求我来衡量在更严重影响赎罪。 I’m hardly a scholar on the subject.我很难学者关于这一主题的。 And I’m not sure I can give the issue the thought and time it deserves.和我不知道我可以给这个问题的思路和时间，值得。 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.但在下星期，卢克，我答应给我的简短了解什么赎罪是，随着一些阅读建议作进一步研究。
for further reading .为进一步读。 . 。 . 。
- None Found无发现
Interesting Article:有趣的文章：
http://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2007/04/25/Opinions/On.The.Hypocrisy.Of.A.Christian.President-2879431.shtml 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.期待着您的未来职位，关于这一主题的。 If we want to promote a non-violent lifestyle, how we understand the atonement seems to me a central question.如果我们要推动一个非暴力的生活方式，我们如何理解赎罪在我看来，一个核心问题。 Is God a God who needs or take pleasure in violence and blood-shedding?是上帝神谁需要或采取高兴地在暴力和流血？ (For people trained in academic theology, I recommend Denny Weavers “The Non-Violent Atonement”) （受过训练的人在学术神学，我建议丹尼•织“非暴力赎罪” ）
Mark,马克，
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 (eg the cover story in Christianity Today from a few quarters back).我认为它的重要性在这次辩论中分离出来，两种不同的意见，赎罪说，获得错综复杂到对方往往似乎（如封面故事，在基督教今天从数个季度回） 。 The Satisfaction theory of Atonement is often confused with the Penal Substitutionary view (eg, the quote you gave from Mr. Chalke’s book is actually the Satisfaction theory).满意的理论赎罪往往是混乱与刑法substitutionary查看（例如，引你给先生查尔凯的书，其实是满意的理论） 。 It says that Christ’s atonement was propitiatory, to satisfy God’s wrath.它说，基督的赎罪是propitiatory ，以满足上帝的愤怒。 The penal substitutionary theory of atonement is that Christ suffered as a substitute for all humanity the deadly penalty required by our sinfulness.刑法substitutionary理论的赎罪是基督所遭受的取代所有人类致命的罚款需要由我们的罪孽。 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.你可以看到如何刑法substitutionary的看法，并不包括需要的观念，上帝是“ wroth与我们， ”刚才的想法是有一个宇宙的罚款单。 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.是否我们都对不起我认为，当我们conflate这两个意见，因为满意的理论是什么我会考虑bathwater和刑法取代男婴。
Indeed.确实。 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.不幸的是，刑法的方式substitutionary鉴于赎罪是铰接式最常见和最常见的包括构思，满意…两个意见，几乎是不可分割的，在目前的辩论。
Nevertheless, there is still some bathwater mixed in with the penal substitution view.不过，还有一些bathwater混合在与刑法替代的看法。 I’d be more likely to go along with simply a “substitution” view with qualifiers.我要更有可能去随着只是一个“替代”的看法与预选赛。 I’m not sure about the “penal” part as it is usually described.我不知道关于“刑法”部分，因为它通常是形容。 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.方式的乡亲谈论的处罚往往是（几乎总是）在意义上的处罚是倾诉上帝的愤怒，并认为这处罚，因此满足了神。 The questions I have are:问题我已是：
1) Who is doing the punishing? 1 ）谁是做惩治？
2) Who needs to be punished and why? 2 ）谁需要受到惩罚，为什么？
3) What is the extent of this punishment? 3 ）是什么程度，这惩罚？
Unfortunately I think you’re right that the two views are almost inseparable in the current debate.不幸的是，我认为您的权利，这两个意见是分不开的，几乎在目前的辩论。 All the more reason to be precise and separate them again.都更有理由对准确和它们分开。 Wrath is not the only or even a necessary ingredient in punishment.愤怒的并非是唯一的，甚至是必要的成分，在处罚。 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.我们期望我们的法官，举例来说，惩罚罪犯的基础上，严重的犯罪所得或其他准则，而不是对的观点，即法官必须满意他自己的声誉。 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.我觉得更深的问题，这样的辩论都与我们有什么考虑正义与非正义，以及是否适合到愤怒考虑或没有。
I , too, look forward to your comments on this issue, although I think we seriously disagree.我也期待着您的意见，在这个问题上，虽然我认为我们认真地同意。 I think the cross and vicarious, penal, substitutionary atonement is the pinnacle of all of the faith, proclaimed loudly through the resurrection.我认为两岸和替代，刑法， substitutionary赎罪是顶峰，所有的信仰，大声宣布通过复活。 “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. “我来宣扬基督，和他钉在十字架上。 ”我必须承认，这是一个biggie与我，并且会爱进入会话，以确保我听你正确的。
Steve,史蒂夫，
I’m almost positive that we disagree…though I’m hoping that we don’t disagree as much as you might think.我几乎积极的，我们不同意…虽然我希望我们不同意的程度并不亚于您可能会认为。 My follow up post is coming on line tomorrow.我跟进后，是未来行的明天。 I look forward to your comments.我期待着您的意见。