Pages

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Vicarious atonement

JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:

Pike, let's say I punch you in the mouth for being an idiot.

What would you demand from me in order to forgive me? Would you demand to hit me back before you could forgive me? If so, you're not forgiving me at all. You're punishing me. If not, then forgiveness can be offered without punishment.

Some victims will never forgive their assailants even after being punished, while other victims have forgiven their assailants even though they were never punished.

What exactly is the realationship between forgiveness and punishment?

I see none. None at all.

You see, were not talking about a fine, which anyone can pay for someone else. We're talking about why we should be physically tortured and killed in order God to forgive us.

***********************

It’s a pity that Loftus learned so little in seminary:

1.Forgiveness and punishment don’t take the same object. God isn’t forgiving and punishing the same person or set of persons. That’s’ why it’s call penal *substitution* or *vicarious* atonement, John.

There are three parties to this transaction: God the Father, God the Son Incarnate, and the elect. Jesus suffers on behalf of and in the stead of the elect.

(In systematic theology, the Holy Spirit is involved in the application of the atonement.)

Justice is exacted on Jesus for the sake of the elect so that forgiveness may be extended to the elect.

“We” are not physically tortured and killed in order for God to forgive us. Rather, the Redeemer endures the penalty of sin for the sake of the redeemed.

2.Because human beings are sinners, we often screw up. Because we often screw up, we often cut each other some slack and give each other a second chance. We forego justice because we would like the offender to do us the same favor the time around when he is the offended party and we are the offenders.

That is actually a miscarriage of justice, but it’s in our mutual, long-range self-interest much of the time. In a fallen world, we couldn’t survive if we were always punished for our sins.

3.God, by contrast, does not sacrifice one’s just deserts in the interests of forgiveness—for that would be unjust, and God is a just God. God upholds the principle of retributive justice while also forgiving sinners of his choosing through vicarious atonement or penal substitution.

That, in turn, lays the moral foundation for God to justly forgive sinners, as well as for sinners to forgive one another—consistent with the scope of special redemption.

Someone with all your seminary degrees should at least be able to accurately summarize the Biblical concept of redemption—whether or not you agree with it.

12 comments:

  1. What you said is standard fare coming from you. I cut to the heart of the problem and you claim that because I didn't spell out all of the details I don't understand it. Then you insinuate that if I only understood it I wouldn't see a problem with it.

    I do understand it, but like Dr. Nicholas Everitt and a host of others, I think it's "morally reprehensible."

    Steve: God isn’t forgiving and punishing the same person or set of persons.

    Of course not. Stating the obvious is another strategy of yours, as if what you said was something I didn't know anything about.

    Steve: Justice is exacted on Jesus.

    Here is the rub, and it concerns the relationship between the notions of justice and forgiveness, regardless of whom the object of God's wrath was and regardless of whom God was forgiving.

    Why is it that ANYONE AT ALL had to be punished in order for God to forgive? What is the relationship between punishment and forgiveness such that ANYONE AT ALL had to be punished so that God could forgive?

    Again, I see none. There is none.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A king or a judge may punish an offender with a jail or prison sentence (more humane than how your God thinks sinners need to be treated). Okay so far? That's what governments do to criminals.

    But such punishments have nothing to do with whether the king, the judge, the victims or the people in general forgive the criminal.

    Susan Smith or Charles Manson may get out of prison one day, and it might be said they "paid their debt to society" (whatever that means). But no one has to forgive them simply because they were punished. Conversely, there might be family members who suffered at their hands who have already forgiven them prior to them serving their whole prison sentence.

    What's the relationship between forgiveness and punishment (or justice)?

    I see none.

    There is none.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John W. Loftus said...

    "What is the relationship between punishment and forgiveness such that ANYONE AT ALL had to be punished so that God could forgive?"

    In a word—justice.

    And how are you going to attack the principle of retributive justice? Are you going to say it's wrong? Wrong in what sense? Morally wrong? Unjust? You must presuppose it to attack it.

    As to your follow-up, I already covered the distinction between divine justice and human forgiveness.

    Try responding to the actual argument for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "But such punishments have nothing to do with whether the king, the judge, the victims or the people in general forgive the criminal."

    What is the nature of this forgiveness you mention? If the forgiveness referred to here is a pardoning of their crime--such that they no longer receive the punishment due their crime--then justice has been perverted. If this forgiveness is merely a "personal" forgiveness, ie, "I don't resent you for what you did, but you still have to receive the punishment," then it's a pretty empty forgiveness for the one forgiven.

    "But no one has to forgive them simply because they were punished. Conversely, there might be family members who suffered at their hands who have already forgiven them prior to them serving their whole prison sentence."

    So clearly you refer to the latter notion of forgiveness, which is merely an "I don't hold it against you personally" rather than a "I won't punish you as you deserve" forgiveness. Yet, this "divorced" idea of forgiveness exists only because in human society, generally, the one wronged and the one who metes out justice are different. Were it the family members of the victim who mete out justice, forgiveness would consist in not punishing the criminal; but then justice would not be done.

    If God forgave in the way that you describe, then it would be an empty forgiveness: Justice is done, you are condemned, but I "forgive" you.

    It seems to me that the only real argument here for the atheist is with the idea of substitionary atonement. Punishment versus forgiveness (assuming it means a no kidding forgiveness, ie "to give up resentment or claim to requital on account of an offense or wrong") should be pretty straightforward. Forgiveness without punishment is unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    Why is justice necessary? Why can't God simply forgive everyone? If I were God I would (well, except maybe for Manata for making me look so bad). Since the Bible doesn't reveal that God would do what I would do, that proves there really is no God at all. As far as "actual arguments" are concerned, I don't like those. So I'll just restate my assertion.

    What's the relationship between forgiveness and punishment (or justice)?

    I see none.

    There is none.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    I don't agree with "penal substitution" because God would simply not punish His Son for the sins of others. Christ was given up to evil men and the devil to suffer on the cross and to die to appease God's offended holiness, but He was not punished for the actual sins of the people. That post-Anselm view of the atonement is hogwash. You need to study harder...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since the other combox has turned into the T-Stone Misrepresentation of Paul combox, I'll respond to Loftus here.

    Loftus said:
    ---
    Pike, let's say I punch you in the mouth for being an idiot.
    ---

    Well, while we're talking about things that will never happen, let's suppose I punch you in the mouth for not being an idiot...

    Loftus said:
    ---
    What would you demand from me in order to forgive me?
    ---

    I suppose in your secular little world forgiveness is a quid pro quo thing. But the more you talk, the less I think you were ever actually a pastor anywhere. You don't understand Original Sin, the atonement, imputation, and now obviously you don't grasp forgiveness either.

    What exactly were you teaching in your pulipt, Loftus? Crochet?

    Loftus said:
    ---
    Would you demand to hit me back before you could forgive me? If so, you're not forgiving me at all. You're punishing me.
    ---

    No, that would be called retalliation, not punishment. And even if it "felt good" to punch you in the face, it's not a just action on my part.

    Punishment is when a duly enstated authority punches you in the mouth, not when I do so (except insofar as I am in authority over someone). Punishment is when parents discipline their children (or, by analogy, when the state punishes criminals)--it's not when individuals take matters into their own hands.

    Loftus said:
    ---
    Some victims will never forgive their assailants even after being punished, while other victims have forgiven their assailants even though they were never punished.
    ---

    Yes, and some tuna gets captured in nets and other tunas don't. The relevance? Who knows. I'm still trying to trace how we got to this point from your original claim that Calvinists only believed in Calvinism since they were raised that way. You've been all over the place in this discussion, Loftus, and nothing you've said has thus far had any relevance to anything you've said previously.

    If I may, can we talk about hockey next. At least you'll keep my interest in your random, chaotic thinking if you did so.

    Loftus said:
    ---
    What exactly is the realationship between forgiveness and punishment?

    I see none. None at all.
    ---

    Oh yes, the old argument from ignorance again...but when you're ignorant like Loftus, what else can you argue from?

    Loftus said:
    ---
    You see, were not talking about a fine, which anyone can pay for someone else. We're talking about why we should be physically tortured and killed in order God to forgive us.
    ---

    Steve answered this very well already. But I should point out: a fine is still punishment. If one punishment is "okay" to be paid by another, why can't a different punishment also be okay? You've yet to demonstrate any irrationality in Christianity here; you merely perpetuate your own.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul Owen said:
    Steve,

    I don't agree with "penal substitution" because God would simply not punish His Son for the sins of others. Christ was given up to evil men and the devil to suffer on the cross and to die to appease God's offended holiness, but He was not punished for the actual sins of the people. That post-Anselm view of the atonement is hogwash. You need to study harder...

    ***********************

    Making common cause with the militant atheists, are we? Well, you know the old saying about water finding its own level.

    I'm not surprised that Paul Owen would ditch penal substitution. It's part of his transition to Anglo-Catholicism, which has always favored something like the "mystical" theories of the atonement.

    I don't need to reinvent the wheel. There's an extensive body of exegetical literature defending the forensic aspect of the atonement generally, and penal substitution in particular. Owen needs to study harder.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What is point 1 meant to show? It starts off talking about a disconnect between the object of forgiveness and punishment, as if to deny the link, but then you end up with a position that solidifies that link.

    Jesus suffers on behalf of and in the stead of the elect.
    Justice is exacted on Jesus for the sake of the elect so that forgiveness may be extended to the elect.


    It follows directly from the above statements that suffering (physical torture apparently) is required for forgiveness and justice. Furthermore, without Jesus the the object would be the same and it would seem to undermine the point of vicarious atonement if Jesus' sacrifice altered the essential basis of the relationship between punishment, justice and forgiveness. Since Loftus is asking why there needs to be that link, your argument doesn't seem to go anywhere.

    We forego justice because we would like the offender to do us the same favor the time around when he is the offended party and we are the offenders.

    I think that's a cynical perspective, instead I'd imagine most people simply don't consider minor or unintentional screw-ups to be deserving of punishment. And that's the real issue with point 2: why justice requires punishment. Why is retribution required at all?

    If we weren't to cut each other slack, and instead required punishment each other for every little infraction caused against us, then by your reasoning we would be being more just. There's a glaring issue here, which I'd like to know how you resolve. We'd be being more god-like, better, etc., by being more just. But Jesus preached forgiveness (w/o the requirement of punishment) ie. turning the other cheek. Is it a sin to be more just?

    God, by contrast, does not sacrifice one's just deserts in the interests of forgiveness--for that would be unjust, and God is a just God. God upholds the principle of retributive justice while also forgiving sinners of his choosing through vicarious atonement or penal substitution.

    So... personal failings (sins) require punishment. But it's perfectly just for the person who actually messed up to not receive that punishment. What then is the role of punishment in the fulfillment of justice? Is there one? Or are you just stating a priori that there's a supernatural justice accounting ledger where failings must be balanced against pain?

    There are plenty of reasons in our societies to seek punishment for serious crimes: their effects cannot be undone (by us), deterrence, keeping offenders off the streets, community feelings. But these reasons would not apply to the afterlife. And the punishment is not to compensate others either.

    Even if justice does simply require that we make good on the evil we've done (by being punished), the notion of substitution subverts that very purpose: we are not the ones paying the price, ergo justice has not been served.

    Also, what is your resolution to the "Jesus didn't suffer much" issue?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Deuc said:
    ---
    It follows directly from the above statements that suffering (physical torture apparently) is required for forgiveness and justice.
    ---

    A) No, only justice. Forgiveness isn't affected by this.

    B) It isn't "torture." It's punishment. Nobody likes punishment, so the person being punished will always say, "This is torture." But we recognize in a just society that criminals need to be punished. Punishment isn't supposed to be enjoyable, that's why it's punishment. In any case, instead of poisoning the well, you could at least use the accurate term.

    You said:
    ---
    Furthermore, without Jesus the the object would be the same and it would seem to undermine the point of vicarious atonement if Jesus' sacrifice altered the essential basis of the relationship between punishment, justice and forgiveness.
    ---

    This is a bare assertion. How would this "alter" the relationship in such a way to undermine vicarious atonement? It's hard to respond to this "argument" when there's nothing to respond to.

    You said:
    ---
    I think that's a cynical perspective, instead I'd imagine most people simply don't consider minor or unintentional screw-ups to be deserving of punishment. And that's the real issue with point 2: why justice requires punishment. Why is retribution required at all?
    ---

    A) Retribution isn't the same thing as punishment.

    B) It is self-evident as to why punishment is required. It is unjust to not punish a criminal, no matter how "petty" the offense is. That people enact mercy from time to time doesn't make it just that they do so.

    You said:
    ---
    If we weren't to cut each other slack, and instead required punishment each other for every little infraction caused against us, then by your reasoning we would be being more just. There's a glaring issue here, which I'd like to know how you resolve. We'd be being more god-like, better, etc., by being more just. But Jesus preached forgiveness (w/o the requirement of punishment) ie. turning the other cheek. Is it a sin to be more just?
    ---

    A) Forgiveness is not opposite of justice. You can forgive someone who is justly punished. Therefore, this is a false dichotomy. Again, your underlying problem is that you err in thinking that punishment = forgivenss. It doesn't. It simply means justice.

    B) God is both just and merciful. He justly punishes the infraction of His law, and He mercifully forgives the one who committed the infraction. Once again, the analogy is simple. If I pay your court fine, the law is satisfied (the fine has been paid) and you have been granted mercy. There is nothing illogical or irrational with this.

    You said:
    ---
    So... personal failings (sins) require punishment. But it's perfectly just for the person who actually messed up to not receive that punishment. What then is the role of punishment in the fulfillment of justice? Is there one? Or are you just stating a priori that there's a supernatural justice accounting ledger where failings must be balanced against pain?
    ---

    A) Again you are using loaded terms (in this case, "pain"). Punishment is not enjoyable, but it is not the same thing as needless pain.

    B) I've already explained this above. Yes, justice can be served (if by justice we refer to the fulfillment of the requirements of the law) without the punishment of the offender if someone steps in on the offender's behalf. The demands of the law are met, the offended party (in this case, God) is satisfied by the resolution, and the offender got mercy. Where's the problem?

    You said:
    ---
    There are plenty of reasons in our societies to seek punishment for serious crimes: their effects cannot be undone (by us), deterrence, keeping offenders off the streets, community feelings.
    ---

    And all of these are irrelevant to the main purpose: justice must be served. Punishment isn't about deterrance, etc. It is about enacting justice. (As an aside, this is one of the classic problems with the liberal notions of our prison system, and is also the main reason why we have 2 million people in jails instead of justice being served.)

    You said:
    ---
    Even if justice does simply require that we make good on the evil we've done (by being punished), the notion of substitution subverts that very purpose: we are not the ones paying the price, ergo justice has not been served.
    ---

    This has been answered above.

    You said:
    ---
    Also, what is your resolution to the "Jesus didn't suffer much" issue?
    ---

    Give more information please.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A) No, only justice. Forgiveness isn't affected by this.
    And Justice is enacted on Jesus "so that forgiveness may be extended to the elect." Justice requires punishment, forgiveness requires justice, hence forgiveness requires punishment.

    In any case, instead of poisoning the well, you could at least use the accurate term.
    "Torture" was a reference to Jesus' suffering, and the common belief that hell is eternal torture. Obviously not all people take the same view of those two things, which is why I included the word "apparently".


    [Deuc] said:
    ---
    Furthermore, without Jesus the the object would be the same and it would seem to undermine the point of vicarious atonement if Jesus' sacrifice altered the essential basis of the relationship between punishment, justice and forgiveness.
    ---

    This is a bare assertion. How would this "alter" the relationship in such a way to undermine vicarious atonement? It's hard to respond to this "argument" when there's nothing to respond to.

    Sorry, my statement was unclear. Everything past the word "and" was meant to hedge off what I saw as a potential response. Clearly the first part: that without Jesus the object would be the same, is more than a bare assertion. If the point of that Jesus' sacrifice is that we would not have to be punished, then without that sacrifice we would be the objects of punishment. The second part of the quoted sentence only matters if you were to claim Jesus' sacrifice changes (in addition to fulfilling) the relationship between punishment, justice etc. The main thing is that I'm still not clear what Steve was trying to get at in his first point.


    A) Retribution isn't the same thing as punishment.
    True it can encompass reward or compensation as well, but unless it is relevant here in some way other than as punishment, I think you'll need to define what you intend it to include.

    It is self-evident as to why punishment is required.
    Well no, that's one of the issues.


    A) Forgiveness is not opposite of justice. You can forgive someone who is justly punished. Therefore, this is a false dichotomy. Again, your underlying problem is that you err in thinking that punishment = forgivenss. It doesn't. It simply means justice.

    I'm not setting them up as being contrary to each other. I don't personally think punishment requires forgiveness or vice versa, although I do think the way that the atonement is being described implies that. But leaving that aside and assuming otherwise, are you saying that you agree that humans requiring retribution for every infraction would make us more just?

    And that "turning the other cheek", contains a message beyond simply forgiveness, that one should not always seek to punish others for wrongs committed against you?


    If I pay your court fine, the law is satisfied (the fine has been paid) and you have been granted mercy. There is nothing illogical or irrational with this.
    You cannot say that mercy has been granted in this analogy. The court certainly hasn't granted mercy and there are any number of motivations for why someone else might pay the fine that do not constitute mercy. Eg. someone who thinks your criminal act was a good thing, and wishes to help you. But that is not the main flaw with your analogy.

    You cannot serve out someone else's prison sentence. Where it still exists, you cannot take the place of someone sentenced with capital punishment. You cannot delegate court ordered community service. Fines are typically given when other, personal punishments, are excessive or similarly inappropriate, but personal punishments are preferred. In fact, if a court knew you were not going to suffer any loss through the fine, then the court would probably consider a different punishment. The legal systems in our world, except where corrupted for revenue-raising, don't fine people just so that fines can be paid. They're goal is to punish the specific offender, which per my previous post is a purposeful goal for a variety of reasons. Here on Earth, it would be against those purposes, illogical and irrational to use your terms, if punishment is not imposed on the wrongdoer. Now you can certainly say that those reasons are irrelevant to the afterlife, but what are your alternative reasons for the punishment? "Justice requires it" wouldn't/doesn't answer this on its own. If you say that punishment for crimes is simply an essential aspect of justice, then the question turns to why this conception of justice is a positive thing.


    A) Again you are using loaded terms (in this case, "pain"). Punishment is not enjoyable, but it is not the same thing as needless pain.
    I didn't say it was needless. Pain=suffering/distress/etc. Again, this was based on the frequent Christian belief in eternal torment. Without that however, the term "pain" is still accurate.

    B) I've already explained this above. Yes, justice can be served (if by justice we refer to the fulfillment of the requirements of the law) without the punishment of the offender if someone steps in on the offender's behalf. The demands of the law are met, the offended party (in this case, God) is satisfied by the resolution, and the offender got mercy. Where's the problem?

    Why bother requiring punishment at all? Nothing goes anywhere if you say justice requires it and by justice you mean fulfillment of the law, why does the law demand it?

    Say we have sets of circumstances A & B.
    Set A: God requires punishment for sins. Jesus is crucified. For those who fulfill certain requirements (belief in him, etc.) Jesus takes on their punishment. Those who don't fulfill those requirements suffer the punishment for their own sins.

    Is set A a reasonably accurate statement of your views? Alternatively you might say that Jesus doesn't impose those requirements and that people simply reject his offering. Either way, my concern is with the final outcome, which I presume is the same.

    Set B: God requires only those who do not fulfill certain requirements (belief in him, etc.) to be punished for their sins.

    Set A is the just & merciful God. What, if any, difference in outcome is there for the sinners? As far as I can see there is none. To me, set B is better, because Jesus didn't have to be crucified. What positive role does this conception of justice play?


    (As an aside, this is one of the classic problems with the liberal notions of our prison system, and is also the main reason why we have 2 million people in jails instead of justice being served.)
    Since I'm curious, are you meaning that this number would be reduced via capital punishment, or are you saying that the prison population would be reduced in some other manner?

    Give more information please.
    I think it would probably side track things too much if we were to look at it and may not be relevant if you do not believe in hell as eternal torment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It always surprises me when people who one would thing would know (they've been through a seminary education or whatever) can't grasp the basics of biblical doctrine.

    Jesus died for OUR sins, not his own. And he did it willingly. God the Father made a covenant with him, but Jesus could have pulled out. He didn't.

    ReplyDelete