mightychurch.com

Can anyone point me to the link on the old Sydney Anglican forum where we discussed how Jesus’ death on the cross atones for our sin despite the fact that unbelievers face an eternal hell?

I don’t have a link, but their forum search still works (there’s no link to the search function though).

Thanks Luke.

The links were:

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3018/
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/3108/

Did those threads cover the “mathematical” approach of

sin requires eternal / infinite punishment = being in hell infinitely
OR = the INFINITE Jesus being punished (for however long).

The equation balances out.

But also remember, those in hell KEEP sinning, if I read the imagery in Revelation correctly. They KEEP on cursing God, and so keep deserving God’s wrath. What a frightening image… may we all flee these temptations and troubles and run into the Father’s arms.

I must confess that this is one reason why I don’t find the idea that penal substitution as the major paradigm of the atonement to be particularly compelling, notwithstanding Dave’s response. I think that as soon as you express the atonement as a series of mathematical formulae, not only do you find yourself getting a whole series of unbalanced equations, but you also find yourself missing the point. While I don’t begrudge penal substitution being some kind of peripheral reference point, I think that the atonement makes much more sense when viewed primarily through the lens of the restoration of fractured relationships and the defeat of death. Viewed from this perspective, any disparity between the finite punishment of Jesus and the infinite punishment that humans are meant to suffer for offenses of finite magnitude because somewhat irrelevant.

I think if you view the atonement primarily through reconciliation and defeat of evil you will minimise sin and the need for our sin to be dealt with.  You might not mean to, but I think that will be the effect.
 
Penal substition is unpalatable, for sure.  But it explains how Jesus’ death deals with our sin.
 
Jesus was crucified.  I don’t find it helpful to talk about it in nicer terms.  Sin is ugly.  Crucifixion is ugly.  Jesus’ unknown spiritual suffering was horrible.
 
As for mathematical models or analogies, I think they can be helpful.  Maths is built into God’s creation, so I think it can be legitimately used to help us understand God’s ways.  Justice has a ‘mathematical’ component - ‘an eye for an eye etc.’.  Some people don’t relate to maths, it’s true, and find other types of analogies more helpful.

I agree Ros.

Surely the bible speaks about Jesus death and resurrection in all the terms above, so who are we to rule one of them out because we don’t find it serves our “mathematical” models? I only mentioned the maths I did in order to illustrate that God can ultimately do what God finds just and valid, and who are we to criticise the “unfairness” of it? That very line of thinking is potentially blasphemous, as if God doesn’t know what is just or fair. However, at first the question appears to contain its own logic, so all I was doing is pointing out that IF someone wanted to reduce the penal substitution of Jesus death to a mere mathematical model that they have to add in the fact that Jesus, the INFINITELY powerful God/man, allowed Himself to absorb the punishment we deserve. So whether or not the time involved was infinite, sin receives infinite punishment. God takes the awful ugliness and seriousness of sin on Himself, and burns it with all the passion of His just wrath and anger right there, in the heart of His own being.

God truly is surprising, and even at the cynical old age of 41.5 I can still be amazed at the “basics” of the gospel message!

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:18 AM

I think if you view the atonement primarily through reconciliation and defeat of evil you will minimise sin and the need for our sin to be dealt with.  You might not mean to, but I think that will be the effect.

With all due respect, I’m not at all sure how you would come to that conclusion. In fact, this is a charge I would make against those who make Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) the centrepiece of their understanding of the atonement. I would suggest that the schema of PSA does not so much deal with sin, but with the penalty that is said to be attached to sin. It is why PSA has often been regarded as a “legal fiction”. That is, God’s wrath is subdued (for some reason, God is not allowed to forgive without exacting due recompense - apparently, it is “against his nature”), but the destructive power that sin has over people remains. Quite simply, PSA fails to answer the question concerning how sin is dealt with outside of any juridical sense.

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:18 AM

Penal substition is unpalatable, for sure.  But it explains how Jesus’ death deals with our sin.

I never said PSA was unpalatable, so don’t try to suggest that the only reason I disagree with the place PSA holds in the evangelical schema is because I don’t want it there. I said that PSA was not a compelling account of the atonement, logically speaking.

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:18 AM

 
As for mathematical models or analogies, I think they can be helpful.  Maths is built into God’s creation, so I think it can be legitimately used to help us understand God’s ways. 

A lot of things are part of God’s creation i.e. baby fur seals, but that doesn’t mean that these things will provide further clarity on the atonement.

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:18 AM

  Justice has a ‘mathematical’ component - ‘an eye for an eye etc.’.  Some people don’t relate to maths, it’s true, and find other types of analogies more helpful.

Which I think is part of the problem. Evangelicalism has not moved beyond an Old Covenant way of looking at the atonement. Surely Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” has shown us a way above and beyond “an eye for an eye” and indeed the way in which God now reaches out towards His creation.

Dave Lankshear - 17 April 2009 10:20 AM

I agree Ros.

Surely the bible speaks about Jesus death and resurrection in all the terms above, so who are we to rule one of them out because we don’t find it serves our “mathematical” models? I only mentioned the maths I did in order to illustrate that God can ultimately do what God finds just and valid, and who are we to criticise the “unfairness” of it? That very line of thinking is potentially blasphemous, as if God doesn’t know what is just or fair.

But the point is, if God’s mathematics and God’s justice is different to ours, then there is no meaningful way in which we can describe God as just. Justice wouldn’t mean anything of substance to us in this context. But if God, as evangelicals would suggest, has communicated to us clearly, would this not mean that when God refers to Himself as just, his justice actually means something that corresponds with what we understand as justice, even if we do not totally comprehend the scope of this justice?

Yes, God is just. Rebellion to Him is punished, satisfying His justice, taking it onto His own shoulders so to speak.

That is, God’s wrath is subdued (for some reason, God is not allowed to forgive without exacting due recompense - apparently, it is “against his nature”), but the destructive power that sin has over people remains. Quite simply, PSA fails to answer the question concerning how sin is dealt with outside of any juridical sense.

How is God allowing the execution of His Son “just” if there was any other way to “just forgive” us? As for how sin is dealt with in us, well, that’s sanctification V justification isn’t it? That we can be “declared” righteous while God’s Holy Spirit spends the rest of our lives tidying up the lingering effects of our rebellion.

David Castor - 17 April 2009 07:12 PM

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:18 AM

I think if you view the atonement primarily through reconciliation and defeat of evil you will minimise sin and the need for our sin to be dealt with.  You might not mean to, but I think that will be the effect.

With all due respect, I’m not at all sure how you would come to that conclusion.

If the way our sin is dealt with is central to our understanding, then the need to deal with sin will be prominent in practice.  The need for reconciliation and the problem of death is a step removed from the sin which caused the problem.  This is why I think if these were the centrepiece and PSA peripheral, sin would be minimised.  Moreover, I was in a church for a number of years where reconciliation was the tenor of the message, and in my judgment minimisation of sin and the need to deal with it was the outcome.
 

David Castor - 17 April 2009 07:12 PM

In fact, this is a charge I would make against those who make Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) the centrepiece of their understanding of the atonement. I would suggest that the schema of PSA does not so much deal with sin, but with the penalty that is said to be attached to sin. It is why PSA has often been regarded as a “legal fiction”. That is, God’s wrath is subdued (for some reason, God is not allowed to forgive without exacting due recompense - apparently, it is “against his nature”), but the destructive power that sin has over people remains. Quite simply, PSA fails to answer the question concerning how sin is dealt with outside of any juridical sense.

I think there is something missing here.  Very likely my understanding of theological terms is faulty, but my understanding of what happened on the cross included some kind of swallowing up of our sins, which has real effect, not just a legal fiction.  The cross frees us from the power of sin, cleanses us, and provides us with the righteousness of Christ. I always put this into the category of substitution.  I can’t see that it fits exactly with defeat of death or reconciliation either.

David Castor - 17 April 2009 07:12 PM

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:18 AM

Penal substition is unpalatable, for sure.  But it explains how Jesus’ death deals with our sin.

I never said PSA was unpalatable, so don’t try to suggest that the only reason I disagree with the place PSA holds in the evangelical schema is because I don’t want it there. I said that PSA was not a compelling account of the atonement, logically speaking.

My apologies.  I didn’t mean to make unsubstantiated suggestions.  Actually, I find PSA unpalatable.  I think it is a scandalous doctrine.  That’s one of the reasons why I think it must be true and important.  Otherwise I might think it blasphemous.

David Castor - 17 April 2009 07:12 PM

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:18 AM

 
As for mathematical models or analogies, I think they can be helpful.  Maths is built into God’s creation, so I think it can be legitimately used to help us understand God’s ways. 

A lot of things are part of God’s creation i.e. baby fur seals, but that doesn’t mean that these things will provide further clarity on the atonement.

No need to get facetious.  We are talking about justice, and I think ‘maths’ comes into it in part, as I have said.  So it is valid to use as an analogy. 

David Castor - 17 April 2009 07:12 PM

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:18 AM

  Justice has a ‘mathematical’ component - ‘an eye for an eye etc.’.  Some people don’t relate to maths, it’s true, and find other types of analogies more helpful.

Which I think is part of the problem. Evangelicalism has not moved beyond an Old Covenant way of looking at the atonement. Surely Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” has shown us a way above and beyond “an eye for an eye” and indeed the way in which God now reaches out towards His creation.

 
Justice needs some parity of recompense.  Hence we have the symbol of the scales of justice.
 
Yes, Jesus showed us a way to forgive, to not demand justice for ourselves, but to overcome evil with good.  I don’t see that as in any way conflicting with PSA.
 
The Old Covenant was established by God to point to the atonement.  I’m not sure what you mean by ‘move on beyond’. 
 
What problem?

Dave Lankshear - 17 April 2009 07:39 PM

Yes, God is just. Rebellion to Him is punished, satisfying His justice, taking it onto His own shoulders so to speak.

It seems a bit rich to me to argue in favour of God’s justice, but to suggest that arguments that question that justice of God according to PSA are precluded because God’s justice is beyond our understanding.

Dave Lankshear - 17 April 2009 07:39 PM

How is God allowing the execution of His Son “just” if there was any other way to “just forgive” us?

Which is precisely why I think that understanding the atonement primarily through the lens of PSA is problematic.

Dave Lankshear - 17 April 2009 07:39 PM

As for how sin is dealt with in us, well, that’s sanctification V justification isn’t it? That we can be “declared” righteous while God’s Holy Spirit spends the rest of our lives tidying up the lingering effects of our rebellion.

As I see it, this is another problem with the evangelicalism - a false dichotomy between justification and sanctification is introduced. Unless sanctification is understood within the context of the schema of salvation, any talk of forensic righteousness is smoke and mirrors.

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:41 PM

If the way our sin is dealt with is central to our understanding, then the need to deal with sin will be prominent in practice.  The need for reconciliation and the problem of death is a step removed from the sin which caused the problem.  This is why I think if these were the centrepiece and PSA peripheral, sin would be minimised.

But the problem is, you still haven’t explained why reconciliation and the defeat of sin and death are a step removed from sin.

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:41 PM

Moreover, I was in a church for a number of years where reconciliation was the tenor of the message, and in my judgment minimisation of sin and the need to deal with it was the outcome.

And when I was in a church for a number of years where PSA was the tenor of the message, I found that despite claims to the contrary, legalism choked any real understanding of grace.

In other words, what’s your point?

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:41 PM

I think there is something missing here.  Very likely my understanding of theological terms is faulty, but my understanding of what happened on the cross included some kind of swallowing up of our sins, which has real effect, not just a legal fiction. The cross frees us from the power of sin, cleanses us, and provides us with the righteousness of Christ. I always put this into the category of substitution.  I can’t see that it fits exactly with defeat of death or reconciliation either.

You can’t? I’d advise you to read Gustav Aulen then.

You’re right about the scope of the atonement, but PSA does not explain, nor make provision for these phenomena. Of course, neither does PSA specifically preclude these ideas. Which is why I would suggest that PSA is best understood at an a contributing to an understanding of the atonement, rather than being the centrepiece.

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:41 PM

My apologies.  I didn’t mean to make unsubstantiated suggestions.  Actually, I find PSA unpalatable.  I think it is a scandalous doctrine.  That’s one of the reasons why I think it must be true and important.  Otherwise I might think it blasphemous.

Well, there’s another false dichotomy. Simply because you find PSA unpalatable doesn’t make it any more or less true, important or blasphemous. Or false, unimportant or holy, as the case might be.

Ros Burgess - 17 April 2009 09:41 PM

   
Yes, Jesus showed us a way to forgive, to not demand justice for ourselves, but to overcome evil with good.  I don’t see that as in any way conflicting with PSA.

It seems very strange to me that human beings created in the image of God are exhorted to overcome evil with good and to forgive without seeking reparation, that Jesus demonstrated this behaviour in his own life, but that apparently God seems incapable of doing this himself.

Dave Lankshear - 18 April 2009 08:05 PM

Huh? PSA explains that there is this massive problem with sin that must be dealt with, and it is dealt with in Jesus death. If there was ANY other way to deal with it God should have taken that route, otherwise He murdered His own Son for nothing!

I’ve acknowledged that sin is dealt with and defeated on the cross, but your argument that the cross is a precondition of forgiveness doesn’t necessarily follow. Your conclusion only follows if you can establish that forgiveness is contingent on dealing with sin, which I would have thought is the point of contention here.

Not sure of the debate here it seems quite complicated.  Is it whether the Cross / Christ is the only way to salvation?

2c…I believe that both PSA and reconciliation are achieved through the Cross - both are biblical doctrines.  Emphasising one at the expense of the other would seem unbalanced to me.

As for people who are in hell and keeping on sinning, I would disagree based on the parable of Abraham and the rich man.  Rather, they’d be begging to get out of there (ala the rich man in the parable) but not being able to.

I’ve split out the discussion about who goes to hell here so the technical discussion about PSA etc can continue here, and the one about who goes to hell in the other thread :)