K
KjetilK
Guest
Exactly. Aut poena, aut satisfactio.
- Status
B
benjohnson
Guest
Stupid question: At the two theories wholly incompatible, or do they both point to the same reality: That our God is vengeful, yet Christ is fully human and fully divine.
I
Indifferently
Guest
This is an excellent article on the subject, “False Choices on the Atonement”:
anglicancontinuum.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/false-choices-on-atonement.html
B
benjohnson
Guest
Thanks for that!
S
Seraphim73
Guest
That’s what you think it says. God did not treat Jesus like a sinner. That’s ridiculous. Jesus voluntarily took the burden of our sins upon Himself, not some divine punishment.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Who says God needed to be repaid? And if I pay off your car note who is punishing me and for what crime?
I
Indifferently
Guest
The fact that the Son volunteered for his Passion does not overthrow the doctrine that I am giving you - in fact, it is one of the central tenets of the doctrine. The Father willed that the Son become man and bear the wrath and curse due to men’s sins. The Son, in his great love of the Father and of his creation, willingly undertook to do his Father’s will.
B
benjohnson
Guest
“Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
For me it is well to remember that God has a bifurcated future for us - some will live with Him, and others He will cast down. Again, for myself, if it a hazard to discount God’s wrath.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
This is all true. But none of that equates to God punishing God to appease God.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
If you want to live with God He will give you mercy. If you want His wrath He’ll give it to you. What I reject is the idea that God is bound by some necessity to torture us and that He decided to torture His Son instead.
B
benjohnson
Guest
The holy Trinity is much more lively now that it’s a grudge-match! (kidding!)
I think some theologians get into trouble when project explanations what happened at Calvary that aren’t reveled to us - that in measure, Calvary is also a Mystery of faith.
I will however say, that it’s my opinion that the imagry of God atoning for our sins has been a good starting point for the faithful to come closer to God.
B
benjohnson
Guest
Let me ask a really two stupid questions. The reason I ask, is that I like certain aspects of (what I think are) Othrodox explanations, but to my simple mind they sometimes come across as requiring followup questions:
Was Calvary just an elaborate demonstration of God’s love for us? And, was it necessary that Christ die?
A
Aslan10
Guest
Seraphim, do you mind stating your position on the theory of atonement? I notice your denial of penal substitution, but cannot figure out exactly how you view Christ’s atoning work. I don’t mean to interject in your discussion, but I am curious.
A
Aslan10
Guest
Hellluva article (pun may or may not have been intended)
K
KjetilK
Guest
Allow me to point out yet again that Anselm himself does NOT equate satisfaction with punishment. He actually does the exact opposite.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
You are right. That would come later. Still, Anselm’s theory of satisfaction necessarily excludes the possibility that God can overlook sins by His compassion alone. It’s really a neat philosophical God that Anselm constructed, but Anselm’s God sure seems to have little to do with the God of the Old Testamemt.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I agree that it’s important to understand that ultimately it’s a mystery. But framing the question the wrong way is a great starting point for believing God is a monster that it would be better if He didn’t exist at all.
The holy Trinity is much more lively now that it’s a grudge-match! (kidding!)
I think some theologians get into trouble when project explanations what happened at Calvary that aren’t reveled to us - that in measure, Calvary is also a Mystery of faith.
I will however say, that it’s my opinion that the imagry of God atoning for our sins has been a good starting point for the faithful to come closer to God.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
No, Christ’s death was the fulfillment of all righteousness and the final destruction of death.
B
benjohnson
Guest
But why death specifically?
Some of our Jewish forbearers were expecting a Messiah in glory and triumph - so I’m still puzzled.
If we entirely remove the satisfaction elements, it seems to me that we’re left with a lot more questions. That’s fine, but it’s not easy.
I
icamhif
Guest
Thanks for the link. I read it, though I’m a little disappointed that it didn’t say much about the Christus-Victor and Recapitulation theory.
So the Catholic perspective on this issue is that the Recapitualtion and Christus-Victor theories of atonement are incomplete, and that they are not mutually exclusive with the Satisfaction Theory?
- Status