Normally I wouldn't bother commenting on this:
"Progressive Christians" like Brian Zahnd are a dime a dozen. However, SEA has been promoting Zahnd of late, so this tells you something about contemporary trends in Arminian theology.
By way of one preliminary observation, I'd note that this is a variation on an old debate. 60 years ago we had the same debate over propitiation. C. H. Dodd thought propitiation was a heathen concept, unworthy of God. It assumed a God of wrath (horrors!) who had to be placated by sacrifice (horrors!).
Roger Nicole and Leon Morris responded by first correcting Dodd's caricatures, then documenting from Scripture that, in fact, divine wrath is a Biblical concept, in response to which God commands or even provides (in the case of Jesus) propitiatory sacrifices.
Back to Zahnd:
Particularly abhorrent are those theories that portray the Father of Jesus as a pagan deity who can only be placated by the barbarism of child sacrifice. The god who is mollified by throwing a virgin into a volcano or by nailing his son to a tree is not the Abba of Jesus!
i) When I see Arminians attack penal substitution as "child sacrifice," or "cosmic child abuse," or compare the vicarious atonement of Christ to human sacrifice in general, I have to wonder: what kind of being do they think Jesus is?
"Child" has connotations of a human being between infancy and puberty. A creature who's the offspring of a mother and father. A vulnerable human being.
"Child abuse" has connotations of physical or emotional harm inflicted on an underage son or daughter by a parent with power over their child.
ii) For the moment, let's bracket the Incarnation and just consider the Son qua Son.
As a divine being, the Son is invulnerable to physical or psychological harm. The Father couldn't harm the Son even if he wanted to. The Father doesn't have that kind of power over the Son. It's not as if the Father is more omnipotent than the Son. Likewise, the Son is not a contingent being. God is a se. There's nothing to hurt. How do you hurt a timeless, spaceless being? There's no chink in the armor.
Even if (ad impossibile), the Father could harm the Son, he could only do so by harming himself, given the unity of the Godhead.
Even if (ad impossibile), the Father could harm the Son, he could only do so by harming himself, given the unity of the Godhead.
Do Arminians like Zahnd think the Father can make the Son suffer by withholding affection? Injuring his self-esteem?
Ironically, it's Arminians like Zahnd who operate with a "pagan" paradigm, as if the Trinitarian Father/Son relationship is equivalent to Odin and Thor.
iii) Now, there's no doubt that the Son qua Incarnate can suffer. The humanity of Christ is vulnerable to physical and psychological harm. Indeed, he can die.
Keep in mind that God often requires his people to suffer. God's prophets are called upon to suffer for the cause. Take Jeremiah.
But the Incarnation doesn't mean the deity of the Son becomes liable to harm. That's why radical theologians redefine the divine nature to provide for a suffering God. A God whose emotional equilibrium is contingent on human behavior. They know that the Incarnation by itself won't do the trick.
Neither is the death of Jesus a kind of quid pro quo by which God gains the necessary capital to forgive sinners.
Sure about that?
25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Rom 3:25-26).
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13).
that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised…21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:14-15,21).
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed (1 Pet 2:24).
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God (1 Pet 3:18).
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way;and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief;when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors;yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.(Isa 53:5-6,10-12).
Back to Zahnd:
An “economic model” of the cross just won’t work. It’s not as if God is saying, “Look, I’d love to forgive you, but I’ve got to pay off Justice first, and, you know how she is, she’s a tough goddess, she requires due payment.” This understanding of the cross begs the question of who exactly is in charge — the Father of Jesus or some abstract ideal called “Justice”?But it was not a sacrifice to appease a wrathful deity or to provide payment for a penultimate god subordinate to Justice.
Justice is a divine attribute. Zahnd might as well say Arminian theism represents a penultimate god subordinate to love.
Are you squirming yet?
Can't say I am. Sorry to let you down.
“This Jesus…you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” –Acts 2:23
“You killed the author of life, whom God raised from the dead.” –Acts 3:15
“God raised up Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.” –Acts 5:30
“The Righteous One you have now betrayed and murdered.” –Acts 7:52
The Bible is clear, God did not kill Jesus.
Except that Zahnd makes his case with half quotes. But according to Acts:
This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and prior choice of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men (Acts 2:23).
27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place (Acts 4:27-28).
Back to Zahnd:
When Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them,” he was not asking God to act contrary to his nature.
i) To begin with, the textual authenticity of that verse is contested:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2012/04/05/from-the-lips-of-jesus-or-a-scribal-hand-father-forgive-them-for-they-do-not-know-what-they-are-doing/
ii) Moreover, Zahnd is burning a straw man. Of course forgiveness isn't contrary to God's nature. But God is just. Divine forgiveness doesn't come at the expense of divine justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment