Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor (pt 2)
This entry will address the section entitled "Satisfaction-Doctrine" in part 1 of Flood's essay. (click here)
In this section Flood begins to describe PS in more detail. He makes a bad start. He states, "Satisfaction-Doctrine, also known as 'Penal Substitution' or 'Substitutionary Atonement', is usually credited to St Anselm of Canterbury..."
In fact, Anselm's Satisfaction theory is related to but distinct from the Penal Substitution theory, which reached it's final articulation with the Reformers. In the Satisfaction theory, man is indebted to God because he fails to render God His due honour. By dying a sinless death, Christ merits accumulates a large amount of "excess honour", which he then imputes to man.
The reformers certainly built on Anselm's ideas when articulating PS (in the same way that Anselm built on the Ransom theory), however PS is clearly quite different. Given that one of Flood's main aims is to debunk PS, it is very surprising that he is so sloppy with his terminology. As a critic, it leaves me in a slightly difficult position - when he criticises PS is he talking about Anselm's theory or the Reformer's theory? There is much opportunity for confusion.
Flood wants to make much of the fact that Satisfaction theory was not articulated until about 1000AD - he describes it as, "primarily a theory developed in the Middle Ages - a thousand years after the Apostles." Well, I don't see that as an issue. However, if it is an issue for Satisfaction or PS, then it is doubly an issue for CV, which only reached it's current form in modern times - nearly 2,000 years after the apostles!
I need to jump ahead of myself a little. Later on, Flood will argue that CV was held by the early church, and David has said much the same thing. This is quite untrue. The prevalent theory of the atonement in the early church was the Ransom theory. This has some ideas in common with CV, but there are also many differences - differences which Flood and David would both reject.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the ancient Ransom theory has far more in common with PS than it does with CV. Anselm certainly built his ideas upon the Ransom theory - just as the Reformers built their ideas upon Anselm. But more of that later.
Things now get even more confusing. Flood writes, "I have made an effort to refer to this teaching as Satisfaction-Doctrine rather then the more popular term 'Vicarious Atonement' because Vicarious Atonement is a legitimate biblical concept where a parallel is drawn from the temple sacrifices to Christ's death for us on the cross."
He is right that 'vicarious atonement' is a legitimate biblical concept, but it is extraordinary that he believes he can sever it from PS. Dictionary.com gives the following definition of "vicarious" - "performed, exercised, received, or suffered in place of another." It's example phrase is "vicarious punishment"! So even Flood is admitting that Christ's death is "substitutionary" in one sense or another. This is a large part of the battle won for my camp.
Flood then goes on to give a theory of how Anselm's Satisfaction doctrine came to prominence. He writes -
Furthermore, he does a massive injustice to both Anselm and the Reformers when he suggests that their understanding of the atonement lacks reference to the ideas of love and sacrifice. All of these men were very much "caught up" in the drama of God's saving work. I doubt very much that Flood has read any Luther, or he couldn't possibly complain about a lack of passion.
I'm actually reading some stuff from the puritans at the moment - these men absolutely sweated passion over these very doctrines. Imagine characterizing Jonathan Edwards or John Owen as holding to a cold, emotionless doctrine of the atonement! I cannot believe that Flood is familiar with any of the seminal writing on PS - if he were, he could not make such obviously flawed assessments.
Flood then begins to criticise the adherents of PS for being overly-rational. He says, "...if we think we can express the full depths of the human condition solely though rational thinking, let alone fathom the depths of God's saving work through our tiny little theorems, we are seriously kidding ourselves."
What a huge strawman! Which proponent of PS ever suggest that "rational thinking" could "fathom the depths of God's saving work" ? Certainly not Luther, who called reason "the devil's whore" and spent much time debating the rationalistic humanism of his day. Certainly not Calvin, who spent whole chapters of the Institutes discussing the limitations of human beings, and the corruption of every part of us, including the intellect.
Flood then spends some time critiquing the enlightenment. I have no interest in defending the enlightenment, so I have very little to say here. He returns to his criticism of PS near the end of the section. He writes -
"I want to strongly emphasize as you read through this paper that the main goal is not to par one rational theology of the cross against another, but to switch from understanding the cross in the terms of a rational systemized transaction, and instead encounter it in terms of passion and depth - a theology of the heart."
Once more, Flood has provided no evidence that adherents of PS believe the atonement is a "rational systemized transaction." This is merely a value judgment on Flood's part. I have read deeply of the men that Flood is labelling, and I do not recognise them in his description. Listen to what Jonathan Edwards, one of histories most famous Calvinists, said about the heart -
There is little in this section for me to commend. Flood has shown himself to be somewhat confused about the history of PS, which does not auger well for the rest of the essay. He has then attacked PS for being "rationalistic" and lacking in "love", "passion" and "drama". Clearly these are subjective assessments, but Flood has provided not even a shred of evidence to support his judgment. As I demonstrated, it is a very flawed judgment, and could only be made by someone ignorant of the writings of the Reformers.
Hopefully Flood's essay will improve as we move forward...
In this section Flood begins to describe PS in more detail. He makes a bad start. He states, "Satisfaction-Doctrine, also known as 'Penal Substitution' or 'Substitutionary Atonement', is usually credited to St Anselm of Canterbury..."
In fact, Anselm's Satisfaction theory is related to but distinct from the Penal Substitution theory, which reached it's final articulation with the Reformers. In the Satisfaction theory, man is indebted to God because he fails to render God His due honour. By dying a sinless death, Christ merits accumulates a large amount of "excess honour", which he then imputes to man.
The reformers certainly built on Anselm's ideas when articulating PS (in the same way that Anselm built on the Ransom theory), however PS is clearly quite different. Given that one of Flood's main aims is to debunk PS, it is very surprising that he is so sloppy with his terminology. As a critic, it leaves me in a slightly difficult position - when he criticises PS is he talking about Anselm's theory or the Reformer's theory? There is much opportunity for confusion.
Flood wants to make much of the fact that Satisfaction theory was not articulated until about 1000AD - he describes it as, "primarily a theory developed in the Middle Ages - a thousand years after the Apostles." Well, I don't see that as an issue. However, if it is an issue for Satisfaction or PS, then it is doubly an issue for CV, which only reached it's current form in modern times - nearly 2,000 years after the apostles!
I need to jump ahead of myself a little. Later on, Flood will argue that CV was held by the early church, and David has said much the same thing. This is quite untrue. The prevalent theory of the atonement in the early church was the Ransom theory. This has some ideas in common with CV, but there are also many differences - differences which Flood and David would both reject.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the ancient Ransom theory has far more in common with PS than it does with CV. Anselm certainly built his ideas upon the Ransom theory - just as the Reformers built their ideas upon Anselm. But more of that later.
Things now get even more confusing. Flood writes, "I have made an effort to refer to this teaching as Satisfaction-Doctrine rather then the more popular term 'Vicarious Atonement' because Vicarious Atonement is a legitimate biblical concept where a parallel is drawn from the temple sacrifices to Christ's death for us on the cross."
He is right that 'vicarious atonement' is a legitimate biblical concept, but it is extraordinary that he believes he can sever it from PS. Dictionary.com gives the following definition of "vicarious" - "performed, exercised, received, or suffered in place of another." It's example phrase is "vicarious punishment"! So even Flood is admitting that Christ's death is "substitutionary" in one sense or another. This is a large part of the battle won for my camp.
Flood then goes on to give a theory of how Anselm's Satisfaction doctrine came to prominence. He writes -
Back in the Middle Ages rationalistic theories and judicial systems were considered the highest way of thinking, whereas relational issues like love, passion, and sacrifice were considered "weak" because they were connected with what was considered feminine qualities. Thus the early church's understanding of the cross as illustrating the drama of God's passionate love struggling to liberate us from the power of sin and death was considered too "emotive" and thus "inferior" and was replaced with their legal model.He provides not the slightest bit of evidence for these assertions. Not even a single footnote. He puts words like "emotive" and "inferior" in quotes - but he is not quoting anyone! I do not want to give these empty words credibility by arguing too much with them. I will point out that it is clear that he has not read Anselm's Cur Deus Homos. If he had, he would know precisely what grounds Anselm critiques the Ransom theory on - and it is not on the grounds of it being feminine!
Furthermore, he does a massive injustice to both Anselm and the Reformers when he suggests that their understanding of the atonement lacks reference to the ideas of love and sacrifice. All of these men were very much "caught up" in the drama of God's saving work. I doubt very much that Flood has read any Luther, or he couldn't possibly complain about a lack of passion.
I'm actually reading some stuff from the puritans at the moment - these men absolutely sweated passion over these very doctrines. Imagine characterizing Jonathan Edwards or John Owen as holding to a cold, emotionless doctrine of the atonement! I cannot believe that Flood is familiar with any of the seminal writing on PS - if he were, he could not make such obviously flawed assessments.
Flood then begins to criticise the adherents of PS for being overly-rational. He says, "...if we think we can express the full depths of the human condition solely though rational thinking, let alone fathom the depths of God's saving work through our tiny little theorems, we are seriously kidding ourselves."
What a huge strawman! Which proponent of PS ever suggest that "rational thinking" could "fathom the depths of God's saving work" ? Certainly not Luther, who called reason "the devil's whore" and spent much time debating the rationalistic humanism of his day. Certainly not Calvin, who spent whole chapters of the Institutes discussing the limitations of human beings, and the corruption of every part of us, including the intellect.
Flood then spends some time critiquing the enlightenment. I have no interest in defending the enlightenment, so I have very little to say here. He returns to his criticism of PS near the end of the section. He writes -
"I want to strongly emphasize as you read through this paper that the main goal is not to par one rational theology of the cross against another, but to switch from understanding the cross in the terms of a rational systemized transaction, and instead encounter it in terms of passion and depth - a theology of the heart."
Once more, Flood has provided no evidence that adherents of PS believe the atonement is a "rational systemized transaction." This is merely a value judgment on Flood's part. I have read deeply of the men that Flood is labelling, and I do not recognise them in his description. Listen to what Jonathan Edwards, one of histories most famous Calvinists, said about the heart -
"Is anything more inspiring, more exciting, more loveable and desirable in heaven or earth than the gospel of Jesus Christ? Not only is it worthy of our emotion, but it is shown to us in a way that should affect us emotionally. In the same way, the Glory and Beauty of Jehovah is worthy in itself to be the object of our admiration and love, but it is demonstrated in a way that should shake our hearts, for it shines with the lustre of an incarnate, infinitely loving, gentle compassionate, dying Redeemer.How far removed is this from Flood's caricature? How much drama, love, passion and emotion do you perceive in Edward's writing? And this is just the smallest taste!
All the virtues of the Lamb of God, His humility, patience, gentleness, submission, obedience, love and compassion are exhibited in the gospel so that our emotions should be deeply moved. Christ should move us more than any other thing, for he is the source of our hearts' life, and our hearts' feelings were designed to perceive him."
There is little in this section for me to commend. Flood has shown himself to be somewhat confused about the history of PS, which does not auger well for the rest of the essay. He has then attacked PS for being "rationalistic" and lacking in "love", "passion" and "drama". Clearly these are subjective assessments, but Flood has provided not even a shred of evidence to support his judgment. As I demonstrated, it is a very flawed judgment, and could only be made by someone ignorant of the writings of the Reformers.
Hopefully Flood's essay will improve as we move forward...
29 comments:
Thanks Craig for taking the time to write a thorough response outlining your thoughts about Flood's essay. Because I don't have the time tonight and would like to give you a response deserving of your efforts, I won't disect your arguments tonight. However, in the meanwhile, I'd just like to suggest that Flood does indeed understand the differences between Anselmian Satisfaction Theory and Penal Substition. Indeed he outlines his understanding of the differences at http://sharktacos.com/God/2006/09/anselm-vs-penal-substitution.html. I'd speculate that the admittedly confusing interchange of terms might be because he rightly sees PS as a further development and extrapolation of Satisfaction Theory - perhaps a "mutation" if you will. It's also worth mentioning that Flood later seems to indicate some kind of sympathy for a modified version of Penal Substitution at http://sharktacos.com/God/2006/11/incarnational-penal-substitution.html, albeit not a version that would be accepted by the majority of those who advocate PS.
One thing I am noticing as I read though your critique is that this is a paper I wrote several years ago. So I'm not sure I would agree with me on everything since I have developed the ideas quite a bit since then. Also I have been working to improve the structure as well.
So here is an idea: if you like I can send you a chapter from the manuscript I am working on and you can critique that. I think this would be much more productive all around since many of the criticisms you raise are things I agree with you on and have addressed there.
you say
"However, if it is an issue for Satisfaction or PS, then it is doubly an issue for CV, which only reached it's current form in modern times - nearly 2,000 years after the apostles!"
Not sure where you are getting this from. CV has its origins with the early church fathers. It re-emerged with Aulen in 1930 but one can no more say that Aulen invented CV than we can say that Luther invented grace. They both rediscovered something much older.
"The prevalent theory of the atonement in the early church was the Ransom theory."
I'm getting the impression that you have not read Gustav Aulen... he argues that the classic theory of the church fathers was in fact if read in depth what has been come to be known as "Christus Victor". It is a very convincing argument and before you reject it, you really should read the book.
"So even Flood is admitting that Christ's death is 'substitutionary'"
Yes absolutely I am.
"I doubt very much that Flood has read any Luther, or he couldn't possibly complain about a lack of passion."
I actually have read quite a bit. I think Luther combines the themes of Christus Victor and vicarious sacrifice together with his "theology of the cross" which is about God being revealed in shame. I love Luther.
Admitting that the paper could be better (which has been what I have been working on over the last few years) it seems to me that you are getting sidetracked from the substantive arguments by things that you find bothersome, (such as what you see as inexact definitions, or things that you find insulting like implying a lack of emotion).
I will say that from a writers standpoint it is helpful feedback, and makes me glad that I made an effort to improve such things in the current version. However I think that when reading something you disagree with to some degree you will always have a certain amount of "offense" no mater what, and I would hope that you would not get so distracted by the "thistles" that you miss the larger arguments that you very well may find you agree with.
As far as my claim that PS theories are rationalistic and lose the drama of the cross lacking any footnotes I offer you a quote by JI Packer:
"much of the more formative and influential discussing of penal substitution was done in the seventeenth century, at a time when Protestant exegesis of Scripture was coloured by an uncriticized and indeed unrecognized natural theology of law... a natural theology of divine government, drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought. Thus, in their zeal to show themselves rational, they became rationalistic. Here as elsewhere, methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large-scale withering of its theological flower...
"...Gustaf Aulén characterized the ‘Christus victor’ motif (he would not call it a theory) as a dramatic idea of the atonement rather than a rationale of its mechanics, and contrasted it in this respect with the ‘Latin’ view, of which penal substitution is one form; but should not penal substitution equally be understood as a dramatic idea, declaring the fact of the atonement kergymatically, i.e. as gospel (good news), just as Aulén’s conquest-motif is concerned to do?"
(http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html)
I think Packer is spot on here, and one of my main focuses in my book is to present a way of understanding vicarious sacrifice and substitutionary Atonement as a dramatic idea - kergymatically.
Much good stuff here... actually, I think Anselm himself is badly caricatured by Flood as far as you quote him. He wasn't such a bad geezer after all.
oh, sorry, mr flood, didn't read your comment first.
Hi Derek, thanks for your comments. I think some context of this discussion might be helpful.
One of my regular readers, David, has long been an advocate of CV. I don't think he would object to being labelled as a "liberal" Christian.
I asked David to explain CV, and he pointed me to your essays. In one sense I've been critiquing your writings, but I am also debating David simultaneously. There is some cross-over.
I admit I used strong rhetoric in this entry. I felt that was justified in view of the strong language you had used "bloodthirsty tyrant", and also David's use of the pedophile metaphor for PS adherents.
You are right that I haven't read Aulen's book. I may be better off critiquing that, given that you are reworking your essay.
I would be delighted to offer constructive criticism of any chapters of your book.
I am a great fan of Luther, and I'm pleased to discover you are too. Your suggestion that he combined CV in with his understanding of the atonement shows the problem I alluded to in my first essay - namely, that those who believe in satisfaction/PS have always believed in many elements of CV as well.
Even Anselm re-iterates that the cross was a victory over sin, the flesh and the devil. What Anselm rejected in the Ransom theory was the idea that God had to make a bargain with the devil, and that He essentially tricked the devil into releasing human souls. I suspect Aulen rejects these ideas as well - yet they were a fairly integral part of Ransom theory.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Hi David,
I sent you an email.
"What Anselm rejected in the Ransom theory was the idea that God had to make a bargain with the devil, and that He essentially tricked the devil into releasing human souls"
This criticism was not a new idea with Anselm. The Church Fathers had argued extensively about the best way to formulate this, and had made similar criticisms themselves. What is of monumental significance is that with Anselm, a major shift occurred where salvation was no longer understood in the deep terms of humanity being enslaved to sin and our need to be liberated from that bondage, but instead viewed sin in the legal terms of transgression, understanding salvation as paying a penalty to “satisfy” the demands of law. When the central understanding of atonement shifted from ransom from slavery to satisfaction of justice, the paradigm for sin shifted with it from the relational idea of bondage (who we belong to) to the legal idea of transgression (what we do).
With that, the deep reaching impact of the Christus Victor soterology was last and "Christus Victor" became in the minds of many Evangelicals today an insignificant appendix (for example with both John Stott and Derek Tidball). It is this "tacking on" of Christus Victor that I find problematic. I think it actually has some really profound implications that need to be explored. Two people who have pioneered this in different areas are Jürgen Moltmann and Walter Wink.
sorry I mixed up your names...Craig
Thanks mate, got it. I'll send you some feedback soon.
Welcome to the discussion Derek. I always hate the feeling that I may not be giving the best defence of an individual's position or worse still, grossly misrepresenting this position. If this occurs, please let me know. And Michael, it's great to see you here too. It's great to get your input. I'd be surprised if this discussion wasn't already "old hat" for you already.
Returning to Craig's critique, I see four distinct criticisms made:
(1) There is a confusion of terms between Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and Calvin's Penal Substitution.
(2) The relatively recent date of Anselmian Satisfaction and Calvin's Penal Substitution is of little relevance and even if it is, Christus Victor is newer still.
(3) Flood's admission of Vicarious Atonement is a "large part of battle won for my camp".
(4) Flood wrongly portrays the Reformers as overly rationalistic and lacking drama, love, passion and emotion.
In response to (1), the interchange of terms is admittedly a little confusing. Despite the differences between the two theories (which as further reading demonstrates, is acknowledged by Flood), I think it perfectly appropriate for Flood to criticise these two theories side by side because his main contention is that a legal conception of the Cross is an inappropriate means by which to understanding the atonement - a criticism which may equally apply to both models.
This leads on to (2) which suggests that the age of Satisfaction and PS is irrelevant. Flood's suggestion that it is inappropriate to attach a humanly constructed legal system onto God is a worthwhile insight. However, I believe a more telling criticism is that not PS relies upon a conceptual and legal framework rooted in Scholasticism, rather than the Early Church. For proponents of PS who wish to maintain that such a construction can be derived directly from Paul's writings rather that imposed upon the text, this situation is rather hard to get around.
A secondary criticism made by Craig is that CV is less than a hundred years ago. I feel that Flood has dealt well with this criticism by suggesting that as a modification of the Ransom model rather than a completely new innovation. As Craig rightly asserts, CV doesn't really have a vigorous understanding of a personified Satan. However, even if Aulen has taken this element of the Ransom Model out of the equation, we don't fall victim to the problems faced by PS because Aulen subtracts rather than adds to the model.
(3) Onto (3) and I would suggest that this is no more a battle won for Craig's "camp" than to say that my acknowledgement of Jesus is a battle won for the doctrine of inerrancy. The vicarious nature of the atonement was not in dispute for Flood. The real battleground concerns whether a legal construction of the atonement is an accurate representation of Christ's salvific work.
Regarding (4), I'd suggest that there ought to be a distinction made between the Reformers themselves and the intrinsic nature of PS. It's possible to say that Martin Luther recognised the pitfalls of rationalism and Jonathan Edwards had a great desire for a religion of passion and emotion while still saying that PS is intrinsically rationalistic and lacking heart.
Hi David,
I think you make a lot of very good points. There was only one part that I would disagree with really
"As Craig rightly asserts, CV doesn't really have a vigorous understanding of a personified Satan"
This statement surprised me. Did Craig say this? At any rate, I would disagree and say that CV is in fact rooted in a deep understanding of the devil, and that PS is lacking in it. PS effectively makes the only players God and man. Man (player 2)transgresses so God (player 1) is angry and must be satisfied, so man must appease God's wrath but cant so God becomes man. One can completely leave the devil out of the formulation. CV on the other hand is rooted in the idea of Christ overcoming "sin, death, and the devil". It expands the idea of sin beyond "transgression" to "bondage" showing the deep reaching consequences of evil in the human heart. CV is essentially about a change of identity from bondage to adoption, the theme of "redemption from slavery". The devil is crucial to this understanding, and in CV we have "3 players".
What Gustav Aulen has removed from the ransom theory is not the devil, but its heavy legal focus and replaced it with a dramatic focus. Quite a number of major Evangelical theologians including JI Packer and James Denney have sharply criticized the legal focus in PS as well, and Packer has suggested that PS should also be seen (following Aulen) with a dramatic rather than legal focus (which he Packer sharply criticizes).
So what is so bad about a legal focus? I am not really arguing that it is "cold". I think one can me emotional and cold as well. In fact as an aside, I find Jonathan Edwards a pretty bad example of positive emotion since he was pretty nasty. I would instead suggest Spurgeon who was a PS advocating Calvinist with a huge heart for the lost. He is an excellent example of "positive emotion". The problem I have with a legal theory of the cross is twofold (there are other reasons, but I will limit myself for brevity sake):
1) A legal focus does not express the focus of Scripture which is clearly on the supremacy of love (Love is the "greatest commandment", the "sum of the law and the profits", if I "have not love I am nothing", "God is love", etc) over the law which the NT (both Jesus and Paul) are quite critical of. Biblically focus of the Atonement needs to be relational not legal. It was an expression of God's amazing love for us.
2) A legal focus trivializes sin. Sin is not simply an infraction, it is a cancer. It is bondage. It is about identity (who we belong to and who we are). It is a deep rooted problem that needs to be deeply addressed. Punishment does not heal the wounds of the sinner nor those who have been sinned against. It is superficial. What people need is a profound inner transformation, a change in identity, healing for their cancer. These are all aspects of God's work that a legal theory simply cannot capture.
So why don't we then have, as Packer suggests, a dramatic relational understanding of PS? Good idea. This is I think how most Evangelicals understand the cross: they see the great cost, they are humbled that this was "for them", they are moved by dramatic depictions like the movie "The Passion". The problem here is that while we can and should have a dramatic understanding of substitutionary atonement and vicarious sacrifice (as Luther did) there is a fundamental flaw specifically in PS's explanation of that vicarious sacrifice:
The idea of "satisfaction" does not mean "to gratify" as it does in English today but "to make restitution". With Anselm the idea of satisfaction/restitution was a way to avoid punishment. We make restitution and thus avoid punishment (pay the fine avoid a whipping). Specifically with the cross, Jesus make restitution by restoring God's honor (by giving his life so nobly for us Jesus gave God extra honor beyond what was due God in the sinless life of Jesus making up for the honor God had lost because of our dishonoring sin). Since restitution/satisfaction had been made there was no reason for the punishment. Now of course this whole system of honor is an artificial man-made concept of feudal times, but within Anselm's framework it does all make sense. I think there is in fact (if we could pull it out of its feudal legal framework a bit) some deep things about Anselm's theory. PT Forsyth does a good job of exploring this.
With Thomas Aquinas the idea of satisfaction/restitution changed. Unlike Anselm who said one made restitution to avoid punishment (pay the fine or go to jail) Aquinas said that it was the punishment that made the restitution (By seeing someone hurt you felt better). On a carnal level we can see how making someone hurt who hurt us would be "satisfying" (that is, gratifying). Its the basic desire for revenge, for payback. Whether it "makes things right" (restitution) is debatable. But there's another level here: What if instead of whipping and executing the guilty man we instead take someone who is innocent and good and beat and execute them instead and then let the guilty one go free? Does that sound like a fulfillment of justice? No, it sounds terrible. This is the elephant in the room of PS, it is as a (legal) theory profoundly unjust.
Compare that with the idea of someone giving their life for another, a firefighter who dies rescuing others from the flames, a body guard who takes a bullet for someone. this is heroic and deeply moving. We often see in movies the hero say to the terrorists who are going to kill someone (usually female) "No take me!". I think anyone with kids who are sick and suffering can relate to the wish that we could suffer instead of them. "I'd give anything to take their place" we say. But what is the theme here? It is Christus Victor. The bullet, the burning building, the ravaging disease, the terrorists, are not pictures of "justice being satisfied" they are bad things. Pictures of the Accuser, of Satan.
In short the vicarious sacrifice "in our place" is a moving and dramatic idea that is all over the NT. But explaining it in legal terms gives completely the wrong impression because in a legal sense it would be profoundly unjust. Understood in a relational sense however, as a ransom, as a redemption, it makes perfect sense.
What if instead of whipping and executing the guilty man we instead take someone who is innocent and good and beat and execute them instead and then let the guilty one go free? Does that sound like a fulfillment of justice? No, it sounds terrible. This is the elephant in the room of PS, it is as a (legal) theory profoundly unjust.
Stott answers this criticism very ably. As he points out, the Incarnation removes any "injustice" as God is not inflicting the punishment on another party, but actually taking it on himself.
I find myself agreeing with much that you say Derek - I fully acknowledge that the Bible provides several metaphors that explain the atonement - but with PS at the heart.
Oh, and I am a great fan of Spurgeon. I'd be interested to hear what you don't like about Edwards.
"I'd be interested to hear what you don't like about Edwards"
Basically the same beef I have with Luther. Both believed in preaching hellfire, threat, and fear. I somehow really like the rude temperamental Luther. There is something very "punk rock" about him, but I think he was wrong to preach fear. One should not intentionally wound someone's soul in order to bring them to salvation. That can and often does completely backfire driving people into the arms of the devil producing fear and resentment rather than trust. I think instead that people should be drawn to repentance by grace. That's my 2 cents on Edwards.
"I fully acknowledge that the Bible provides several metaphors that explain the atonement - but with PS at the heart"
If you has said "with vicarious sacrifice or substitutionary atonement at the heart" I would have agreed with you. I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where PS as an explanation differentiated from vicarious sacrifice is stated ever. This is a difference that Packer calls the "meaning" vs the "mechanics". PS is about the mechanics, and those mechanics (that justice is satisfied through punishment) are not in the Bible. The meaning (God gave his life and suffered for my sins and through his death we can have redemption and forgiveness) certainly is.
"Stott answers this criticism very ably. As he points out, the Incarnation removes any "injustice" as God is not inflicting the punishment on another party, but actually taking it on himself"
I agree with Stott that the cross needs to be seen in Incarnational terms as effectively "God giving his life for sinners" however I think there is still a problem legally. Now we have:
Instead of whipping and executing the guilty man the innocent and good judge is beaten and executed and the guilty one is set free.
True, it is no longer the authority unjustly inflicting punishment on another, but it is still deeply unjust even if the judge offers to do it to himself. No court on earth would allow a judge to do this because it does not make sense legally. That is why I think a legal paradigm of "fulfilling the demands of justice" is the wrong way to interpret the cross, because justice would never demand this.
I would instead say that God (in Christ) submits himself to a terrible injustice, and through this injustice brings about justice (justification). Because of his amazing love for us his enemies, God allows himself to be wronged and through that makes us right. So the cross - a terrible symbol of Roman oppression - becomes the symbol of hope and triumph over sin and evil. There is an element here of "contradiction" in the cross - justice through injustice, glory through shame, losing to win - that needs to be there for an accurate understanding of the cross. The cross is not a "proper fulfilling of legal requirements" it is a scandal.
Edward's preached judgment certainly - but I hope you will read more of him than "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". If you do, you will meet someone with a passionate heart.
You think "preaching hellfire" is wrong - but Jesus did exactly that on a number of occasions. How do you reconcile this?
Out of interest Derek, are you a universalist?
Also Derek, I'll have to give some more thought to the difference you are positing between PS and "vicarious sacrifice".
Out of interest DavidC, do you believe the cross is a vicarious sacrifice? Also, do I understand correctly that your version of CV does not involve a personal satan?
True, it is no longer the authority unjustly inflicting punishment on another, but it is still deeply unjust even if the judge offers to do it to himself. No court on earth would allow a judge to do this because it does not make sense legally. That is why I think a legal paradigm of "fulfilling the demands of justice" is the wrong way to interpret the cross, because justice would never demand this.
Just some very elementary consideration drawn from my ongoing legal background. Western jurisprudence recognises two categories of law - criminal and civil, under which a multitude of sub-categories abound. Perhaps the two greatest difference between criminal and civil law are the locus of harm and the object of punishment in each discrete body. Concerning the locus of harm, criminal law intends to prevent harm towards society and the individuals in this society, while civil law aims to protect more localised, individual harm. Regarding the objective of punishment, civil law is primarily compensatory, aiming to place the offended party back in the position they were in before the offence - "restitutio in integrum". Criminal law, on the other hand is much more multi-faceted, aiming to act as a deterrent, to rehabilitate, to quarrantine and to serve as a retributive measure.
It would seem to me that Anselm's Satisfaction Model operate on a civil level. God is deprived of his honour, Christ restores it through the cross - everyone is happy. There isn't any real conception of a punishment here, so to speak.
Now, if we look at Penal Substitution, we see that, almost by definition, it is meant to operate as criminal law. So the rhetoric goes, we stuff up, we deserve punishment, Christ takes this punishment for us, God forgives us. However, this seems raise a number of problematic issues:
(1) If we've already been punished (albeit vicariously), God has no moral ground upon which to forgive us, because the punishment has already been inflicted.
(2) While a debt can be vicarious paid (since the objective of civil law is to restore the offended party to his or her previous position), no just criminal system would accept the offer of another to serve an offender's sentence because it simply doesn't fulfill the objectives of criminal law. Indeed, in trying to explain this situation, I've usually heard evangelicals try to use the "judge paying the fine metaphor" which is more appropriate for an Anselmian understanding of the atonement.
(3) Criminal law involves the concept of "doli incapax" - age of capacity. However, if we are all born sinful, as Reformed theology teaches, the principle of "doli incapax" is eroded and we are condemned before an age where we can be said to have true accountability.
(4) Not necessarily true of Penal Substitution, but of the excluvist manifestation of it - that those who do not accept Christ go to Hell for eternity - is the charge of "double jeopardy". That is, if Christ dies for humanity vicarious, but an individual doesn't repent and is subsequently sent to Hell, then punishment is actually taking place twice - a severe miscarriage of justice. In this respective those who hold to PS should really be holding to a universalist position.
Out of interest DavidC, do you believe the cross is a vicarious sacrifice?
Well yes, there's certainly an element of vicarious sacrifice there. Humanity is sick and dying, Jesus takes on our infirmities and frailties (that is, vicariously) and eventually gives himself up (that is, sacrifices) to the cross so that we can be healed.
Also, do I understand correctly that your version of CV does not involve a personal satan?
Well I haven't stated as such, but this would be more or less accurate. That said, I'm not entirely sure what would change with or without a personified Satan.
David, do you reject the idea of a personal Satan? How do you read those references to Satan in the Scripture?
No court on earth would allow a judge to do this because it does not make sense legally. etc
Derek, I don't understand how you can reject the category of law, but still wish to uphold the concept of justice. Law is justice implemented and applied.
In your system, does God punish anyone for their sin?
Craig, you know all too well that I don't hold to an evangelical understanding of Bibliology - I see Scripture as a witness to revelation, rather than necessarily revelation itself. One must read Scripture in light of the context it was written.
There is no explicit reference to a personified Satan in the Old Testament. The snake in Genesis is never referred to a Satan, although the Early Church Fathers decided to make this connection. Even apart from the consideration that Job is written as a parable rather than as a historical narrative, there is no real reason for the title "Satan" to be capitalised in English translations as opposed to the more generic and impersonal "accuser". Further to this, it is clear that the strong monotheism of ancient Jewish culture didn't really allow for the possibility of a demigod like Satan to exist.
Satan as a personified force of darkness came to prominence in inter-testamental apocalyptic literature, greatly influenced by the dualistic nature of Socratic philosophy.
Anyway, this isn't what the conversation what all about, so hopefully we can back to the question of atonement.
Law is justice implemented and applied.
Craig, I think the problem is that you pigeon-hole justice into a legal framework. One can implement and apply justice outside of a legal context - just read the prophets and the teachings of Jesus.
Just a side question for Derek - I was wondering whether you had any time for Liberation Theology, considering the paradigms of healing and release seem to be as prominent to you as they are to me.
"Out of interest Derek, are you a universalist?"
Wrote a blog on:
http://sharktacos.com/God/2006/09/why-i-am-not-universalist_15.html
short answer is "no"
fixing my link...
Why I am not a universalist
Craig,
"Derek, I don't understand how you can reject the category of law, but still wish to uphold the concept of justice. Law is justice implemented and applied."
I would differentiate between human laws which are an outwardly imposed artificial human construct, and God's moral law which is simply the way the universe works. Sin is not punished by some extra action of God, sin "leads to death" just like hitting the ground is the consequence of gravity. God "gives us over to wrath" Paul says. God's moral laws are written into the fabric of who we are. Their consequences are inevitable flowing from the nature of how life works, again like gravity. Biblically this is not "justice", it is wrath, the curse, death. "Justice" biblically speaking is about "making things right". This was Luther's major discovery. Justice was not about consequence for sin as the Scholastics taught, it was about God making thing right.
What do you think of this picture:
A child falls from a window ledge and plummets to the ground bellow. The father dives after his child catching and cradling it in his arms in midair. He slams against the concrete sidewalk bellow, sheltering his child and absorbing the blow with his own body. He has taken upon himself the "punishment", the inevitable consequence of the child's folly, paid the price of pain, and saved his child.
David,
"Satan as a personified force of darkness came to prominence in inter-testamental apocalyptic literature, greatly influenced by the dualistic nature of Socratic philosophy"
Have you read either Walter Wink's "Engaging the Powers" or Greg Boyd's "God at War"? You really must if you haven't. Especially Wink.
"Just a side question for Derek - I was wondering whether you had any time for Liberation Theology"
Yes, liberation theology is very connected to Christus Victor as it is applied today. I've read Boff, Gutierrez, and Sobrino, but am mostly indebted to the writings of Moltmann.
Hmm. The problem I can see with Derek's Christus Victor scheme is dualism... which is to say: God is not in any sense here the agent of our judgment/punishment. It is all Satan's doing. In trying to absolve God of any sense in which he directly excludes or punishes, I think God's sovereignty has been compromised. This is the problem with the Father catching the child analogy: becuase the Father is responsible for gravity and the ground also!
Also, I would agree with you against abstractly legal depictions of the atonement and so on. But PSA must be understood trinitarianly: the Son is not an innocent bystander cruelly crushed by an abusive Father: he is the willingly obedient Son offering sacrifice to the loving Father in the power of the Spirit.
Michael,
"The problem I can see with Derek's Christus Victor scheme is dualism... which is to say: God is not in any sense here the agent of our judgment/punishment."
I don't see this to be the case. I wonder if you have read the entire article on my website rather than merely the posts here? Biblically we have all three expressions:
1)God being the one who brings judgment,
2) judgment coming as a process ("the wrath" and "the curse" in Paul) and
3) judgment being executed by the devil.
So there is a pretty complex picture in Scripture. In Christus Victor the image is of the devil as the "accuser" (which is what "Satan" means) but it is also understood that he has "rights" because we have indeed sinned. This picture is not of God and Satan as co-equal (dualism) but of Satan as a fallen angel.
That means that the law for example is made to be good, made to point to God (not to be equal with God) but can through sin become something that instead leads to death (fallen). So God who desires life seeks a way to redeem both fallen humanity as well as to redeem the fallen law through grace. It is a more complex view than PS to incorporate the idea of fallenness and the devil, but I think it is also truer to both the complexity of the Biblical witness and to life. I go into all this in more detail in part 4 of my essay.
You are correct that ultimately God is the author of wrath (and of gravity). Gustav Aulen calls this the "double-sidedness" of the Atonement: God saves us from his own wrath. The Divine Love overcomes the Divine Wrath.
So in the cross, God saves us from His wrath?
Derek, you continue to affirm so much that is present in PS that I simply cannot understand your objection to it.
CV, as you present it, seems complex and subtle. I can't see it gaining popularity unless it can be more simply expressed.
"CV, as you present it, seems complex and subtle"
One could say the same to John Stott.
"I can't see it gaining popularity unless it can be more simply expressed"
Well of course it could be abbreviated, and it is in fact gaining quite a bit of popularity... you do realize though that ANY Atonement theory, (whether PS or CV or another), is NOT the same thing as the Gospel right? The Gospel is about "what must I do to be saved?" while Atonement theories are about what God did in order to make grace available. One need not understand the Atonement at all in order to get saved, just like you can get a ride in a car without knowing how the engine works.
Post a Comment