The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Do you believe in penal subsitution?

I look forward to that, Steve.

I think GMac would say that the LIFE of Jesus was as important as his death. That does not diminish the cross (unless one interprets the cross in a PSA manner), but does give a bit different perspective.

Thinking about the cross as an ‘example’ for us - if we think of it as an example of how far and deep the love of Christ and His Father actually goes; if it is an example of what His followers can expect if they follow in his footsteps; if the example is a display of sorts of how some elements of the world react to their maker; well, I think GMac might very well agree that the cross is powerful and meaningful apart from the PSA theory we might read into it.

Just spitballin’ here. I’m sure Steve can really get us going in the right direction.

I voted that I do not believe in penal substitution. This is due to my understanding of it from a Reformed perspective - 1) God is angry, 2) we are sinners, 3) Jesus is holy, 4) Jesus dies for us…

Allow me to explain why this is a misinterpretation of what the scriptures teach:

  1. The law was given to Israel at Sinai, through Moses. Although there were converted Gentiles present, the Law was not given to the Gentiles. Of course, God was/is holy, and did not like gentilic cultures who lived in ways contrary to love (Nineveh, Sodom, Gomorrah). However, the Law, as the “strength of sin” was given ONLY to Israel. This was due to Israel’s insistence that God not come to them or draw them to himself. Israel told Moses that God should simply tell them what to do, and they would do it…but to NEVER allow God to speak to them. So, the Law came on tablets of stone (I won’t go into the whole God writing, Moses writing thing…although the implications of that are significant).

  2. Throughout Prophetic history, Israel continually violated God’s law, and the result was death - death of a culture. In Ezekiel, it is described as “a valley of dry bones.” Throughout the prophets, Israel is portrayed as a whore who “lifts her skirts for other gods.” God goes so far as to insist Hosea marry a whore to demonstrate God’s relationship with Israel. Israel was “dead in her trespasses and sins” and God was going to judge her. And yet, each and every prophet eventually prophesied of Israel’s restoration, “the restoration of all things,” when God would restore Israel to her rightful place as a “kingdom of priests unto (her) god.” This was what the question the apostles asked meant…“when will the kingdom be restored to Israel?” Or, “when will this resurrection of the dry bones take place?” Jesus commences to tell them what must occur first before resurrection can occur…and this was the final and utter destruction of the Old Covenant…the Seed (Jesus/Isaac) falling to the ground and dying but being raised incorruptible.

  3. So when Jesus died on the Cross, he did not die for sins…he died for the SIN of the whole covenant world of Israel, so that Israel could be “born again.” This was the context of Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, and his amazement that Nicodemus had no understanding of being born again while being a “teacher of Israel.”

  4. Jesus, the one who was without sin in spite of being “born under the Law,” experienced death for ALL Israel. What Israel deserved as Lawbreaker, Jesus experienced as Lawkeeper. When Jesus rose from the dead, he conquered death, and all who believed in him and were baptized were “raised to newness of life” (i.e., resurrection). They died to the Law, and were made alive to Christ…they put on Christ…they were transferred from darkness to light, death to life, old to new. Those who were dying “in the Lord…would rest from their works” (i.e., the works of the Law, dead works). But “the rest of the dead (Israel) did not live until the thousand years were over” (which would occur at the destruction of Jerusalem).

  5. Once the restoration of all things came to pass, the old covenant passed away, and this meant LIFE for the world. ALL now experience Life due to the restoration of Israel’s kingdom. This restoration occurred through the death, burial, resurrection and parousia of Jesus Christ.

No penal substitution, simply the fulfillment of all that was written.

Well, I’ve read enough, I think, to comment on Sonia’s friend’s point regarding George MacDonald atonement, and the cross. :wink: (The portion regarding atonement and the cross is early in the book.)
Sonia’s friend said:

In the book I’m reading by Yamaguchi, she does a very nice job of presenting MacDonald’s views as presented in his works–and interestingly, at least in the area of what he** does **believe about the atonement, they are most completely expressed in his fiction. She does find some excellent examples in his “spoken sermons.” Which are not currently in the public domain-- or at least are not on the internet. After reading some of her quotes from these sermons (which I don’t currently have) I had to order, George Macdonald in the Pulpit: Compilation of Spoken Sermons from 1871-1901. In any event, having read so much of MacDonald, I think her conclusions regarding MacDonald, the cross and atonement are spot on. Where these beliefs of GMac came from is not as clear. His views were very similar to those of FD Maurice, but I’m not convinced that they came from him directly. I suspect his earliest exposure to these views was through Erskine or another of the Scots Universalists with both Erskine et al and Maurice being greatly influenced by William Law. That’s a subject for another thread, however. :wink:

So here’s Yamaguchi on MacDonald:

Here is Yamaguchi’s conclusion in this section:

I think that’s a pretty accurate and concise summary of GMac’s views on the Cross and Atonement. :smiley:

Thank you very much for taking the time to enlighten us.
I found it very interesting reading!

Hi dbrabble, :smiley:

I’m glad that was helpful! :wink: I find some parallels between MacDonald’s views and Girard’s (though of course, MacDoanld really wasn’t aware at all of “mimetic rivalry” and the anthropologic facets of Girard’s theory.) I actually feel MacDonald’s thoughts regarding Christ, the Atonement and the Cross are more comprehensive and explain more than Girard’s theory alone. I do agree with Girard, I just think his theory expands MacDonald’s and adds to it rather than replacing it. I would love for a real scholar to examine this in detail…

I’m curious about what people think of GMac’s theory of the atonement as presented by Miho Yamaguchi above. :smiley: Is it incomplete?-- as Sonia’s friend thinks—though that is based on the work he/she has read and not on Yamaguchi’s work. The work of “The Cross” is certainly pretty mystical in the NT outside of the gospels, perhaps, and yet there doesn’t seem to be anything especially mystical about GMac’s ideas on this–and he is often described as a "mystic’, of course. Is there “deep magic” involved here such as CS Lewis describes regarding the death of Aslan? I’m curious to know what people think. :smiley:

Steve,

I for one think Yamaguchi’s summary of GMac’s atonement thoughts was fabulous. That book is going on my book list, as is that compilation of spoken sermons. What GMac wrote really resonates with me.

Caleb

Caleb Fogg said:

Well, I have to agree, Caleb. :smiley:

I think she understands GMac very well and does a wonderful job in her book finding appropriate quotes to illustrate her point—and many are from his “spoken” sermons. I’m pleased to see the work of these new MacDonald scholars who are sympathetic to MacDonald’s views and theology and aren’t trying to analyze his work simply from a Freudian, Jungian or feminist perspective, but actually have a feel for where MacDonald is coming from and largely agree with his aims.

Yamaguchi is interesting as she is Japanese and has compared his works at times to the novels of Shusaku Endo, a Japanese Roman Catholic novelist that I haven’t read but am intrigued by after reading her book and essays, and she mentions pertinent stories/fables from the far East in her discussion. There are a couple of essays of hers online discussing GMac that are interesting, including this one,“Nothing Can Come between God and You: Uncle Tom’s Cabin, George MacDonald, and Shusaku Endo” library.taylor.edu/dotAsset/fe71c17b-817d-4c80-9bf1-157740fb4aba.pdf and this one,"Poor Doubting Christian: An Exploration of Salvation, Love, and Eternity in MacDonald’s Wingfold Trilogy"snc.edu/northwind/documents/By_contributor/Yamaguchi,_Miho/Poor_Doubting_Christian=_An_Exploration_of_Salvation,_Love,_and_Eternity_in_MacDonald’s_Wingfold_Trilogy.pdf

Thanks for additional links, Steve, on Yamaguchi.

Hi all, :smiley:

I’ve been doing a little reading regarding GMac, Girard and atonement and thought it was worth presenting here as I think there’s much to discuss.

There were a couple things GMac said that Girard later says in almost exactly the same way regarding atonement that clued me in to the similarities in their views. Here’s MacDonald in “Justice” from Unspoken Sermons:

Now look at this from Girard in an interview in The Girard Reader with James Williams:

Though Girard is certainly more difficult to pin down here, it appears that both GMac and Girard are on the same page (see the high-lighted bits above) and actually, Sonia’s friend not far off** in a highly simplified way,** when he/she says, “A quick glance through “Unspoken sermons” shows that he only mentions the cross as an example for us to follow–Jesus obeying the Father to the limit.”

Both GMac and Girard’s theory of the atonement would fit (largely) into the “Moral Influence” also known as the “Moral Exemplar” theory of atonement. Certainly there are variations of this theory, but I think it’s safe to say that this is the rather large “pigeon-hole” where we can fit these two remarkable Christians theory of atonement into. There are some that see a role for the “Christus Victor” theory in Girard and, to tell the truth, the only benefit in trying to “pigeon-hole” their theories** is to show the pedigree of these views **( which were held be many in the early Church) and to show that they are not simply new inventions with no connection to historical Christianity.

The most complete presentation of the “moral” theory was by Peter Abelard who is too often remembered for other reasons, unfortunately. :frowning: Perhaps the most interesting thing for me is that this theory (in various forms) was THE dominant theory starting in the second century and continuing until Augustine. Even then, for Augustine,(surprisingly) the “moral” theory was dominant and PSA a minor point until the reformation when PSA took over in Protestant Christianity. [tag]JasonPratt[/tag] may have something to add to this with his extensive knowledge and perhaps Professor Ramelli may have mentioned something of this in her work. My understanding is that the “moral influence” theory of atonement has remained the dominant theory in the Eastern Orthodox Church but perhaps [tag]akimel[/tag] can correct me or expand on this.

In any event, this general theory is one prominent to a large degree in Christian Universalism— with various writers and theologians adding (I think) to the richness and fullness of what** initially** appears to be a simplistic and (perhaps) unsatisfactory theory of "at-one-ment."

Edit: Oh, I forgot to add this quote:

from this article: patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2012/03/14/a-better-atonement-moral-exemplar/

I just had rotator cuff surgery. I’ll get back to you all when I can do more than hunt and peck with left hand.

Thanks, Fr Kimel. :slight_smile:

Hope you’re recovery goes well…

Thanks for all your input, Steve, and everyone else who has contributed. I’m working at reading through Unspoken Sermons, since I haven’t read all of it before, to try to get a fuller picture of GMac’s view of the cross. To me, it seems much deeper than just a moral example for us to follow.

But I don’t really have anything to contribute yet – just wanted to say thanks,
Sonia

It isn’t I think so much as making a choice between Jesus Life or His death, (and of course the other problem is that it is often discussed apart from the Resurrection when it is vitally connected) but rather I would see it has the whole act of His Life from Incarnation, through His ministry, to His death and Resurrection. The whole thing is the kenotic self-emptying and self-giving of Jesus, revealing the true heart and nature of God. He take on and shares our humanity completely, joining Himself to humanity completely, and through us all creation, including taking on the curse and result of our turn from HIs call of grace to humanity to become and share the likeness of God and becoming fully human, to share His immortal Life and bring that life and love fully into creation, completing, transfiguring and beautifying it, but instead turning aside become subject, enslaved and indebted to death and mortality, and it’s decaying and corrupting effects at all levels of human existence and interaction pulling us in a movement from being and existence, towards non-being, the response to love and beauty towards inward decay and dissolution, were ordinary biological passions are transformed in us into something in our pride into something far darker and evil.

But in Christ the ongoing project of humanity began in Genesis, where God no longer says ‘let it be’, but ‘let Us make humankind in Our image and likeness’, and the figure of Adam is looking forward, towards the true Adam finds it’s completion in Him, and the Gospel of John reminds us that is comes about through the One through whom all things came into existence in the first place, and towards the end Pilate presents Jesus before the crowd declaring prophetically (and John doesn’t want us to miss the point) ‘behold the man’, there in the very act of what is seen by the crowd as His humiliation, there in the fullness of His self-giving, serving, self-sacrifice, the full completion of HIs kenotic and painful self-emptying love is the glory of God revealed in the human one, the first fully human One, in Him the project is complete, and we see a true and full human being, one who is the Image of the Invisible God. And that one, in sharing our life, there in the same love that joins Himself to sharing and taking on our full life, takes on our curse and death, and bears it to it’s full, and all the forms of darkness, evil and injustice that is the infection of death at all levels that are unleashed and gather around Him, and which He draws upon Himself, the structural injustice and cruelty of the priests, the tyranny of Herod and the full viciousness and show trial justice of the full brutality that fallen human regimes are capable of in the pagan empire of Rome, all it’s horror exposed, of the human instinct to bring creativity and order turned into the monsters of Daniel’s vision, of humiliation both by invaders and His own people alike, torture and terrible death, exposed in terrible pain before all, betrayed and jeered by His own people, who utter the terrible oath of having ‘no King but Ceasar’, but betrayed by HIs own close friend, abandoned by HIs followers and denied and cursed by Peter Himself, all the forms of death that afflict and twist humanity, including at last the final end itself comes, as He shares our pain and hurt, and the affliction of death in all forms to it fullest, and ransoms us from it’s hold, annulling and cancelling the debt against us completely, the very action and ultimate power of death and of all tyranny seeing His humiliation, is instead meet by a greater power, that of God’s self-giving love, defeating and overcoming it. There Jesus becomes King, and there He cries ‘it is finished!’ as the work of humanity is completed, Hades itself broken and unable to hold Life Himself, as He triumphs over death itself and breaks it’s bounds, allowing us in Him by the Holy Spirit to be freed, restored and recreated, to respond and grow in Him to the calling of humanity to become fully human and in corporately and individually find our full being personhood in in the union with God in Christ by the Holy Spirit, becoming as He is the image and likeness of God, and sharing the nature and immortal Life of God, of sharing in HIs love, and expressing it, and through us all creation is also transfigured.

Jesus takes on our humanity, including it’s fallen and death inflicted aspects, sharing it and giving Himself in full Kenotic love, so we care share His Own Life, the very LIfe and nature of God, and so become full human beings, and the whole aspect, Incarnation, HIs acts and teaching, His death, Resurrection, Ascension and current rule of the world, what He is doing right now, and our raising with Him in His appearing, is part of our salvation and rescue, and that of the whole world.

Hi Grant, :smiley:

That’s really wonderful and very Orthodox (big “O”). I like it very much! I think GMac has a very “Orthodox” approach to things as well but with the priesthood, incense and liturgy stripped away. I don’t mean to criticize those things, but what he does, I think, is bring back at least some of that theology in a protestant format that can be approached by those that are suspicious or at least uninterested in the liturgy and tradition of the Eastern Church. I personally, think that aspect of the Orthodox church is largely a matter of tastes and disposition. I’m not one that is deeply moved by those aspects—or, if I am, I’m suspicious of how it’s working on me. :confused: The theology on the other hand is far closer to what I’ve come to believe and has real merit to one skeptical of liturgical matters. I apologize if I’m being insensitive, but I’ve thought deeply about whether to join an Orthodox church and I think there are too many (perhaps) psychological barriers.

I also think that as I intimated in a previous quote, this view of the atonement does not require the belief in Evil Demonic Beings or spiritual warfare in the traditional sense. (I’m agnostic and frankly doubtful about the existence of demons per se, and do not believe that “higher” evil spiritual beings rule this world or had any role in natural evil etc.)

I do think there is so much more to the “Moral Examplar” view of atonement than just having Jesus as a “moral example”. Your post outlining the whole of his life, death and resurrection and the importance of all aspects of that is a nice rebuttal. :smiley: In Yamaguchi’s summary of GMac’s view of the cross and atonement, she said at the end:

What she failed to mention is that MacDonald see’s the Spirit helping in this process once one begins to obey what they see as God’s will. I think the influence of the Spirit in this process of “Theosis” is critical in GMac’s view and interestingly, he sees this beginning with obedience and not faith, or at least not an intellectual agreement with Christ. My own suspicion is that obedience is, in fact, " faith" in GMac’s view. In 19th century Britain, faith had come to mean intellectual agreement, but GMac realized that acting on this was the crucial point. If you really have “faith” you will “obey”–act on that belief and follow the one you have faith in. I thought I’d quote this passage from GMac regarding the Spirit which is in his unspoken sermon “The Higher Faith”…(which is a quite wonderful sermon and right up there with “Justice”):

This is a nice overview of GMac’s view of the Spirit (and several other important areas) which some have called “underdeveloped”.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Grant I really appreciate it! :smiley:

Steve

Alec, I think it would be more accurate to say that in Orthodoxy the moral influence model has been integrated into the theosis model of atonement: we are made one with God by the eternal Word’s assumption and deification of human nature in Jesus Christ, in which we participate by faith and baptism. For Orthodoxy salvation is nothing less than participation in the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the maximal degree possible for creatures.

Hmmm… this is very close to what I see GMac saying….in fact, I can’t see significant differences between this and GMac’s thoughts especially if “obedience” (which GMac emphasizes) is, in fact, equivalent to or the proof of “faith”. I guess my question to you, Akimel, would be “Do **you **see a substantive difference between Gmac’s and the Orthodox view of atonement?” Is there something in his view of atonement that he emphasizes that the Orthodox don’t or something that the Orthodox do that he neglects? I think that if “theosis” is considered a model of atonement, this is really MacDonald’s primary focus in the theology presented in all his works.

P.S. (Glad you have a few more fingers to work with now after your surgery. :wink: )

Alec, I’m afraid do know know enough about George MacDonald to offer an opinion. But it’s important to remember that the Orthodox understanding of theosis is grounded in our experience of God in the Divine Liturgy and the mystical life of the Church. The Orthodox really do believe that the baptized participate in the divine life of the Trinity. In every Eucharist the assembly is united to the eschatological banquet, where we feed on the Body and Blood of the incarnate Son. Hence we emphatically affirm the famous dictum of St Athanasius: “God became Man so that we might become God.” St Maximus the Confessor boldly declares that we become “uncreated by grace.” Can you imagine any Reformed or evangelical Christian talking like this? Yet it comes very naturally to Orthodox Christians because of our experience of God in the Divine Liturgy–not because we are world-class mystics or holier than non-Orthodox Christians but because we believe and know that God gives God with and under the consecrated bread and wine. We are sinners like everyone else, but our hope and faith is quite specifically shaped by the sacramental promise of theosis. Consider this wonderful passage from the Triads of St Gregory Palamas:

So while I have not read enough of George MacDonald to have an opinion about what he thought about deification, I would be surprised if his views on the subject did not differ dramatically from the Orthodox understanding.

Yes, I can certainly see a difference–primarily in the emphasis on baptism and the Eucharist in the Orthodox view–and yet there is still much similarity in the Orthodox view of theosis and deification. Here is MacDonald from “The Mirrors of the Lord” in his Unspoken Sermons:

To add a little from an interested outsider to Orthodoxy, is also a matter of orientation, for Orthodoxy and the patristic Fathers theology is founded in and comes out of the Eucharist and worship, of the concept of apostolic tradition mediated in Eucharist, liturgy, Scripture, and episcopal apostolic succession (in which the locus of succession is in the community with the named bishop as the central identifying and authorized member, marking that apostolic succession, the deposit of truth being handed on, entrusted and embodied in the Church) as a whole single Holy Tradition.

So theology arises from this, not the other way around as tends to be the practice in many different types of Western Christianity since Scholasticism of the High Middle Ages which brought the idea of systematic, rationalistic theological systems as the first point, from which the practice of the Church as understood and flows from that theological understanding. Whereas in the East the Eucharist, the liturgy, the worship and tradition, apostolic succession and conciliar unity on the understanding this was guided by the Holy Spirit is first from which theological reflection flowed. Jesus Christ, His Incarnation, Life and Resurrection was the hypotheses, the first unquestioned point in thought, particularly as meet in the Eucharist (drawing on the ancient philosopher’s perspective that an initial starting point, a hypothesis that had to be taken by faith was required in order know anything about anything, and only if that became unviable did you go back to the hypothesis), for the early Fathers that was Jesus Christ, rather then a philosophical system or rationalistic or systematic principle or Scriptural principle through which Jesus was then approached, and central to that was the Eucharist.

As Irenaeus of Lyons said in his confrontation with the Gnostics of his day and their novel use of Scripture and claims to secret oral traditions:
‘But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.’

So theology for the Orthodox is inseparable for Holy Tradition, from Eucharist, the liturgy, apostolic succession and Scripture as understood and mediated within that, and it cannot be separated from who it is embodied in the Church. Of course this might not be agreed with, and many way well think that you can take the theology apart from the Church, but then that would be in itself a Western approach that was taking some of the theological reflections into itself rather than taking in the Orthodox perspective itself, so there still be a distinction however slight it might seen (or not depending on your perspective :slight_smile: ).

Anyway, I’m not sure if I’m totally on the money here, so I hope Father Kimel will correct where I’m wrong, but that would be my understanding of the Orthodox perspective on this at the moment.