Hi Bob
It occurs to me that in this discussion – as well as in a host of similar biblical discussions (including the validity of this site itself; Universal Reconciliation) – what we are really dealing with is the law of non-contradiction. What it is and how well we recognize and manage it. In it’s essence, It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.
If one takes the time to do a quick search of “bible contradictions” a great many supposed contradictions are quickly found. And most of these searches involve folks trying to
A) thereby demonstrate the falseness/untrustworthiness of the entire bible - or -
B) defend the faith and scripture by explaining why the claimed contradiction is actually not.
So we can read that God both causes (Is 45:7), and does NOT cause (Jer 29:11) calamity. Few would try to defend the notion that God, in the same sense and same context does both. (Just as it would be non-sensical to claim that this chair is made out of wood and is NOT made out of wood…) We recognize then that we must very carefully describe the context in which it would be proper and accurate to say God causes calamity (one might say for example that since God is cause of everything ie “original cause”, that must include this particular calamity) and it would also be necessary to describe in what sense one can accurately claim that He does not cause calamity. (One might claim that since He has given us free will, He has empowered us to act against His wishes/desires and we simply reap the natural consequences.)
In this case then (ie the case of Penal Substitution) it seems my protest against it is that too many of it’s advocates have not bothered to address (or perhaps even fail to see) the contradictory nature of their claims. So to say “God is Love” and “God demands Punitive punishment” are – and clearly to me – mutually exclusive; they are contradictory. The fact that a great many hold these two ideas and don’t see tension here at all simply means – again, to me – that they have simply ignored, or not seen, the law of non contradiction. To say that God is love negates the notion that he ordains punitive punishment (eg ECT); to say He ordains punitive punishment negates the claim He is love.
Is it possible to say then that the Atonement is BOTH substitutionary (penal) and NOT substitutionary? Well sure; just as it’s possible to say (reasonably and rationally and logically) that God both does and does not cause calamity. However it also seems pretty obvious that the only ones trying to make these subtle context distinctions upon which so much hinges are those who see the contradictions in the first place. (ie those who have serious issues with most Penal Substitution explanations…)
I suppose what I’m saying is that it’d be nice if those who have no problem embracing the Penal Substitution model would feel less need to defend it to us (or worse, question our sincerity or faith because of our theology – no one really does that here thank God!) and simply recognize that, having detected a contradiction, we feel obligated (a holy obligation even) to resolve it. My observation is that ones theology stops at the point where the most possible questions are answered for that person.
And of course that’s the very same respect I’d like as one who finds inherent contradictions in saying that God loves all, that God wills the Salvation of all, that God is able to accomplish His will, and that some will be permanently lost. So perhaps Christians need to give each other a bit more space and honor each others need to resolve the contradictions we see in our theology…
To my mind then contradictions abound in a literal rendering of the Penal Substitution model obligating me to seek resolution for them.
EG
–Unity of the God in Trinity is fractured;
–Notion of salvation/forgiveness being a “free gift” – even though extracted at such an horrific “cost” in PS;
–Idea of sin as an object which can be passed around (ie to Jesus in PS);
–the apparent need for God to be cajoled/appeased/dissuaded in PS
–And of course the idea in IS 53 (our topic here) that God is the active agent in orchestrating the violence against His own Son
Might the wanderings of our fellow Christians theologic development seem less threatening and conflict inducing (think of all the theological fights you’ve witnessed over the years) if seen simply as their attempts to resolve perceived contradictions?
I think so.
Bobx3
I dearly wish we could set up a discussion with him on the forum, but we haven’t been able to arrange it yet.