I grew up afraid of God’s justice.
Though my parents were well-balanced in meting out mercy and discipline (very well-balanced considering we went to a Gothardite church), I always imagined God coming down from heaven with a sword of justice in hand, ready to punish all of us for our sins. He had just enough mercy and love to spare us from His wrath.
IBLP, ATI, and Children’s Institute only strengthened my fear of making a mistake and incurring God’s punishment. At every turn, they warned me about the consequences of justice, and taught me to avoid anyone who might tell me differently. Within the absurdly sheltered, insular IBLP community, punishment came down for even the smallest infraction.
I still knew that God loved me. But I believed He was saving me from Himself.
Once at my Christian college, however, I was slowly exposed to a different belief system. God was good to give me parents who trained me to entertain new ideas, to consider without automatically believing or discarding. For that I am very grateful. In a political science class called “Faith and Politics,” we read about how Christians use their faith in making political decisions. While not the main point of the class, I learned a great deal about God’s justice.
All I had previously read about God’s justice (particularly involving the government) was Romans 12:4— “But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
But in my “Faith and Politics” course, I learned a lot more about God’s justice. There is punitive justice, which is exactly like it sounds like–punishment for wrongdoing. But that’s not the only aspect of God’s judgement. His justice also includes what Christian political scientists sometimes call “primary justice,” and it’s referenced much more often in the Bible than punitive justice.
Beautiful passages in the Psalms and prophets told of God’s call to let “justice roll down like a river,” and His heart to restore the broken, the downtrodden, the oppressed. I saw that God wanted to bring them back into community with one another and with Him. These new ideas broke through the lies I had believed. I admired God for something I had once feared.
Isaiah 1:17 exhorts repentant sinners to “Seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” This is the opposite of what IBLP taught us, under the guise of not taking up one another’s offenses. But it’s exactly what God does for us and what He wants us to do for one another.
The children, the weak, the poor, the stranger are all vulnerable and easily oppressed. When their God-given power of self-defense is taken away, they are at the mercy of power-hungry and self-centered people. This is not just some sad thing that happens sometimes. This is the system of a broken world by evil people. And God abhors it. Vast portions of the Old Testament are dedicated to showing the Israelites how to live in harmony, in justice, and in community with one another. The Psalms and Isaiah are full of cries for deliverance.
In fact, Amos 5 is God’s warning to corrupt and oppressive leaders who “turn justice into bitterness and cast righteousness to the ground,” who weigh down the poor with unnecessary taxes to build their mansions and vineyards, who take bribes and deprive the innocent of justice in court, who pretend righteousness while blocking the vulnerable from religious festivals.
In His name all oppression shall cease, goes the Christmas carol. I found myself at my church’s Christmas Eve service moved to tears by the prayer for Emanuel to come, to save us from the paths of misery and the depths of Hell. Deliverance from oppression is written through the whole Bible, portraying God as the mighty defender of the weak.
We, who were caught up in our own sin and all death and the broken world have been delivered. We have seen the great light and our Emmanuel has come.
We, who were trapped in the oppression of a religious system that glorified a man and his so-called “principles,” are now delivered. God has heard our pleas and brought us to healing in Him.
In the end, what I most feared about God was what rescued me from the legalism of IBLP: His justice.
Adrianne Karasek left the ultra-conservative religious/homeschool movement to attend college at a mainstream evangelical, liberal arts university, where she learned different ways to approach her faith and better ways to love God and people. She met her husband there, who was public-schooled and had never heard of a Gothardite church. Adrianne and her family have talked long about grace, mercy, and mistakes, and she has a wonderful relationship with them, thanks to her parents' honesty and God's goodness. She finished graduate school and decided to see the world. Currently Adrianne is backpacking through Latin America with her husband of three years.
Thank you so much for this article!
At age 23, having just left home against my parents' will and without their blessing, devastated, broken, desperate for something to change, not knowing which way was up, questioning everything, my world crumbled around my ears, failed courtship/engagement, many years of ATI/IBLP indoctrination. . . the visual of the hammer and chisel chipping away at the diamond as a very firm part of my self-image and my understanding of authority. . . I came out to the car that had been graciously given to me by my dear aunt (she also gave me her home and her heart, for which I will always be grateful!), planning to leave for my new job. The car had a flat tire. I stood there and cried-- I knew that that flat tire was the judgement of God beginning to be poured out on me because I had taken myself "out from under the umbrella of my God-given authority." Rather than just realizing that flat tires happen, I was unable to see this as a normal cause-and-effect situation in a real world. I knew only the devastation of God's justice and judgement on people who broke His "unalterable principles."
Thankfully, it was the beginning of a life-changing period of time. . . with my aunt's help and support; reading the 'Boundaries' book and 'Changes That Heal' by Henry Cloud; being brave enough to question and analyze and reject damaging teaching and ways of life; trying to read God's Word as just His Word, not thru the filter of BG or anybody else; and going back to the sweet simplicity of my childhood understanding that "Jesus loves me-- this I know, for the Bible tells me so!" Realizing that He doesn't love me because of my good character qualities, of my (at the time) head covering and length of dress, or any amount of performance. I can't make Him love me! He just loves me!! He created me, and He delights in me! As a Gaither song says, "I'm His favorite child, and that makes me smile-- I'm the center of His delight!" Simplistic, yes, but such a necessary and important message for someone who has performed constantly, in hopes of pleasing and honoring my authorities, yet always feeling that I was falling short and never good enough. Always waiting for the hammer of judgement to fall on my head, directly from God's hand, through the authority over me.
I'm still learning and growing, many years later, still weeding out the damaging teachings that I absorbed during my formative years while sitting through countless BG seminars. My relationship with my family has been wonderfully restored, I do believe in God's grace, and I serve and honor Him because I love Him-- not so that He'll love me. I know that He is a God of justice and judgement, and I also know, thankfully, that He is a God of incredible compassion and grace and love.
Rachel, thank you for sharing part of your story in response to Adrianne's thoughtful post. I am grateful for you both.
I can so identify with your story, and as I navigate this precious website, I grow more and more strengthened. I am feasting on truth, gaining godly wisdom, and experiencing pieces of healing I never would have thought possible.
This is my first post on the Recovering Grace website. To all of you, my brothers and sisters in Christ...the pilgrims and ragamuffins who gather here in Jesus' name...thank you. One day I may be brave enough to share how BG's principles nearly destroyed my life. It is no coincidence that God led me to find you here at a crossroads time in my life. As I read your stories and the subsequent responses, the tears that flow are ones of great sorrow, yes, but also tears of profound joy and HOPE. I love you all.
Praying daily for the RG team and all who come to the table to feast on the grace offered by our compassionate Savior.
Thank you, Adrienne.
Your message is reinforced for me by knowing the early Church really understood our redemption in Christ as God's deliverance of us from the oppression of sin, death and hell ("Christus Victor"), not as His punishment of a Substitute in our place to rescue us from Himself (i.e., as "eye" for an eye" style punitive "justice" in Reformed Penal Substitution seems to suggest)! God is seen to be "just" and "justifier" (as Romans 3:26 teaches) in the primary sense, not the punitive sense, in Eastern Orthodox Christianity (which closely follows the understanding of the early Church).
Certainly not all who follow the Reformers' understanding of Penal Substitution are going to become abusers, but it seems to be an ideal ideological set up for those who have that bent and the tendency toward a neurotic, unbiblical servile fear" of "God." (Here I have to use quotes because it seems to me only a false image of God can produce such servile neurotic fear.)
Here, I can't help think of the wicked servant in Christ's parable of the talents and the distorted picture of his master he had, which robbed him of his courage so that he simply feared losing what he had (Matthew 25:24-25). I can't help but contrast the craven attitude of that wicked servant with the teaching in Hebrews 13:3: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Whether we see God as a demanding taskmaster or as a rewarder of those who seek Him makes all the difference in the world.
Yes, this would include Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", where God is portrayed carrying a big stick ready to clobber you if you do the slightest thing wrong. However, real justice of God means that injustice, wrongs and bondage are done away with and those should be our goals as well in following Christ. I once had the privilege to attend a real Passover Seder with a Rabbi friend of my husband. What I saw in this meal was an emphasis for freedom from slavery and God's justice and judgement in setting the Hebrews free. Christ being our paschal lamb and sacrifice means that we are set free from slavery to sin. That is God's real justice. Making the wrongs right and setting people free.
We "canonize" some of these people of centuries past because they became well-known. But the fact is, there is absolutely NOTHING in that sermon by Jonathan Edwards that represents the Truth about God. The irony, and frankly, the hypocrisy of it all, is that Jonathan Edwards was a Calvinist as to doctrine, which means he believed that God has already ordained -- before the foundation of the world -- who would be saved and who would not be saved. Thus, why preach a fire and brimestone sermon that, in the end, won't make any difference whatsoever to those who hear it? I know how a Calvinist would answer, but it is just all a bunch of double-talk and baloney.
"Yes, this would include Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", where God is portrayed carrying a big stick ready to clobber you if you do the slightest thing wrong."
Disagree. The sermon vividly portrays the reality of hell and of God's wrath toward those who reject Christ. It is aimed to make people who feel hell isn't real because they feel fine, actually see what eternity without Christ will be for them. The idea in the sermon is that hell, for the unregenerate, is now, on earth, because they are under God's wrath. The focus is on eternity, and is an attempt to lift the illusory veil of comfort of this life to show people who reject Christ what their end will be if they continue to reject Him.
Jesus spoke of hell in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and when I think of Edwards' sermon, I think of that passage of Scripture. It was a vivid description He gave in that parable. The man screams in agony in a flame to Abraham to help, and Abraham says no, he can't. Then the man begs to have his brothers warned, and Abraham says for them to listen to Moses and the Prophets. The man says, no, let someone rise from the dead and they will believe. Abraham, said Jesus, told the man if they didn't believe Moses and the Prophets, they wouldn't be convinced if someone were to rise from the dead. Although shorter than Edwards' sermon, Edwards' sermon strikes the same note. That unbelief and it was from none other that the Lord Jesus.
Of interest, at one point there were people interrupting Edwards crying out how they could be saved. I seriously doubt Edwards left them hanging over the pit of hell, like a wretched spider. Or did he?
From what I read of the sermon, it is a vivid call to fly to Christ for salvation, not to portray God as wanting to "clobber" you if you get the least little bit out of line. I admit I have not read all the sermon, just parts, but I did scour the Wikipedia article on it and cannot find what you are suggesting in your comment.
I think I will stick with John 3:16 which says "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son and whoever believes in Him shall not parish but have eternal life". The parts I read of this sermon portrays God as very angry, ready to throw into hell everyone unless they repent. It is full of fear, hyperboly and is off base. One doesn't really repent based on motivation like this and over the top fear. I know that writing styles and emphasis change through the years and I usually try to consider that when reading material from the past and doesn't jive with modern sensibilities. Lynn we will just have to respectfully disagree because I obviously don't suscribe to reformed theology and ideas like TULIP, double predestination, and the rest.
peace
"Lynn we will just have to respectfully disagree because I obviously don't suscribe to reformed theology and ideas like TULIP, double predestination, and the rest."
You assume I subscribe to these ideas. I don't. I don't subscribe to double predestination, and not all the letters of TULIP. I don't subscribe to many Reformed views of eschatology, but I'm not Dispensational, either.
Have a great day, rob war.
"Certainly not all who follow the Reformers' understanding of Penal Substitution are going to become abusers, but it seems to be an ideal ideological set up for those who have that bent and the tendency toward a neurotic, unbiblical servile fear" of "God." (Here I have to use quotes because it seems to me only a false image of God can produce such servile neurotic fear.)"
"The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."
I think you are very badly mistaken. Christ was punished for our sins as a substitutionary sacrifice, so we wouldn't have to be punished, if we are found in Christ. That is what penal substitution is all about.
LynnCD,
Having been raised a Protestant and lived for over three decades as a faithful Evangelical, I well understand the meaning of Penal Substitutionary Atonement as it is popularly preached and understood today within Evangelicalism. I understand how the theory developed through the Reformers building on Anselm's theory of "Satisfaction", etc., because I studied at a major Evangelical college.
Both Anselm's theory of Satisfaction and the Reformers' Penal Sub. are theories that attempt to explain exactly what it means that "The Lord has laid on Him the iniquities of us all." As I mentioned in another thread, that "Christ died for our sins" is a foundational dogma of the faith that any orthodox or Orthodox Christian, by definition, must accept. That this means exactly what Penal Sub. says it means is another question altogether. For the first millennium of the Church, there was nary a peep of these Medieval theories of Western Christendom. Rather, something more like the "Ransom theory", "Christus Victor", and St. Irenaeus' "Recapitulation theory" of the early Church were the guiding metaphors for understanding the meaning and nature of Christ's death and resurrection.
I suggest a careful look from the beginning at the Church's understanding of the biblical and apostolic teaching that "Christ died for our sins" (in Athanasius' "On the Incarnation", for example) as well as the Gospel narratives themselves paint a bit of a different picture: one where Jesus looks more like the Superhero who comes to our rescue from sin, death and hell or the substitute quarterback played out on the football field leading his team to victory than like an innocent sacrificial Victim being punished to appease the anger of a Deity in place of the guilty (a practice itself forbidden in the Scriptures, see Ezekiel 18:19-20), which is a picture more akin to pagan animistic practice.
If you have been taught that Penal Sub. is THE meaning of "Christ died for our sins", though, it is incredibly difficult not to read this back into a few cherry-picked statements of the early Fathers or into some of the statements of the Scriptures themselves. I am suggesting this is eisegesis, though, rather than a true and faithful orthodox exegesis of the Scriptures. I have found the Orthodox understanding based on that of the early Church provides a much more coherent way to read and understand both the Scriptures and the early Church Fathers. It certainly does not deny Christ's death on the Cross as an Offering for sin that brings reconciliation between man and God, but it understands how this "works" somewhat differently than Reformed Penal Substitution. I have found Penal Substitution distorts our understanding of God's motivation in the Atonement and even of His nature in some rather serious ways. The earlier theories do not have these problems.
Karen,
Whether it was the sermon at Pentecost, or the Philippian jailer, people were convicted of sin, and begged to know what to do. The answer was belief in Christ. We are kind of dissecting one part of exactly what happened when Christ died, and I wasn't concerned about differing views - only your idea that penal substitution lends itself to abuse.
The "chastisement" that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed said Isaiah. There is definitely substitution going on here, and just introduce one word, "chastisement" into this substitution, and I have no problem with the concept of penal substitution.
But whatever idea one subscribes to, it is only one part of "Christ died, Christ was buried, Christ rose, Christ will come again."
I don't have a huge problem with the early Church not writing much on this, simply because of all the forensic terms used in Paul's writings. There is a position. In this life there is a progression. In heaven there will be a perfection we don't have now. The Scriptures speak to all three realms. If I were to camp out on forensic terms to the exclusion of the others, now that would be a problem of error by emphasis. The forensic terms belong to what was done and declared for us - our position. Far from potentially leading to abuse, as you suggested, I find my position in Christ, because of His paying the penalty for my sins, very comforting.
But I set a great deal by Isaiah 53 and the language it contains. I suppose I will have to look up the term "chastisement." Have a blessed day.
Karen, thanks for opening a new window for me. What if the "ransom" is the down payment or purchase price(intended from the foundation of the world) to secure in the first instance an effectual (eternal) covenant of communion with Him? (Like an engagement ring, dowry or a husband's family name and property: His Life "for" ours. Not to purchase us from the judgment, the jailer, the slavemaster or the executioner, but to purchase us FOR Himself.) This makes more sense than: "whoops, we screwed up, God has to go to plan B and 'buy us back'". I think your view helps my understanding.
Jesus did not bear the punishment of the world -- He bore the sin of the world. Jesus did not die to deliver us from God -- He died to deliver us from sin.
God gave His Son to deliver us from sin that was against Himself. We sinned against God and His response was to send Christ for us. That is love -- not anger, wrath, or punitive punishment.
All justice must be satisfied -- sin must result in death because sin is the rejection of Life Himself. But God's just judgment is NOT the same as the punitive punishment of an angry god.
"For God so LOVED thew world....," not -- "For God was so angry with the world...." "God demonstrates His LOVE for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." (Rom. 5:8) The redemption is NOT God's demonstration of wrath.
All of the Truth on this matter is wrapped up in the first few verses of I Corinthians 12 where Paul says that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever, "calls Jesus accursed." This is a reference to the pagan practice of offering an accursed object to a false god for the purpose of appeasing the displeasure of that false god. Paul says that Jesus was NEVER an appeasement of God on our behalf in that way. Rather, Jesus is Lord, that is, if we are planted into His death we are likewise planted into His resurrection -- raised to newness of life in Him as our Lord.
"I still knew that God still loved me, but I believed He was saving me from Himself" Wow. This is where I have lived so much of my life. And I still struggle with it....thank u so much....I will take the rest of it to heart.......
Love this! I had a similar experience at seminary and this deeply resonates with me. Thank you, Adrianne!
All your comments make this one of the most profound R.G. pages to date. Thank you. Makes me think rather than opine.
This is an amazing thought that I am just being exposed to here and in the book "The Shack Revisited" by C.Baxter Kruger. It puts me in direct conflict with the teachings of the evangelical churches I have attended since I came to Christ over 35 years ago. Gives me a lot to consider, since our theology profoundly affects our life.
Thanks, LynnCD,
I'm starting a new thread to try to respond to a couple of your comments.
You wrote: "The "chastisement" that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed said Isaiah. There is definitely substitution going on here, and just introduce one word, "chastisement" into this substitution, and I have no problem with the concept of penal substitution."
Let me make it clear that as far as Isaiah 53 goes (and its own meaning in its proper context), I don't have a problem with "penal substitution" either. It is the explanations for why this is the case in Reformed, Fundamentalist and Evangelical preaching (the eisegesis, which I will call "Penal Substitution") that concerns me (though, I'm not saying *everything* that is said in this regard is wrong either). I believe the "substitution" is in the sense that St. Athanasius explains in "One the Incarnation" and which is summed up in the statement: "He became what we are, so that we might become what He is."
Let me get a little more specific here and see if that helps to clarify.
Insofar as language explaining “Penal Substitution” tends to suggest:
1. God is pleased/satisfied by Christ's suffering/punishment/death/being cursed, in and of itself (rather than by Christ's perfect obedience and faith and the healing/reconciliation that was accomplished through it), and that Christ's blood/death is a payment made to *God.*
2. God is like an exacting Creditor (in His "justice") needing to be recompensed by humanity in some way before He is willing (or able? "justly") to forgive sinners.
3. Humanity's problem of sin is, *at its root,* that we have broken a legal code and offended the Lawmaker, incurred His "wrath" and obtained a legal status of guilt before God, incurring His just punishment, the curse of death. Our "salvation" is our declaration of "not guilty", effectively a legal fiction, because we are still laden with sin and, therefore, something extrinsic to our being.
Is this also how you understand Penal Substitution?
Sorry, I didn't complete part of my comment: I should have written:
"Insofar as language explaining "Penal Substitution" tends to suggest the following, I believe it distorts the gospel (and feeds the frightening picture of God Adrienne had to struggle with):"
Karen, you are giving me your impressions of what the doctrine of penal substitution "tends to suggest." As Gothard never spent any time on soteriology, I'm not too interested in providing sourced quotes and having a discussion on this forum on the various views, which is the best way to treat the matter, instead of mere perception.
Paul said explicitly those who don't believe will be punished (also translated pay the penalty) with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord. I do not believe believing in penal substitution lends itself to abuse. I do not believe understanding our position in Christ and the declaration of pardon constitutes the sole aspect of our relationship to God, and no one I know who believes this would call it a legal fiction, either, which leaves us still sinners without the indwelling Holy Spirit. I do not believe that the ransom was paid to the devil, and that is about all I have to say on this forum.
Don, thanks for your April 30 comment addressed to me.
I like the way, you are thinking. Definitely, Christ purchases us *for God.*
The ideas I present here aren't mine. They are the way the Orthodox Church (and the early Church) understood the biblical teaching about the nature of Christ's "ransom."
A key text informing our understanding for why Christ had to die is found in Hebrews 2:14-15. St. Athanasius sums up a core understanding in the early Church by explaining in "On the Incarnation" that Christ had to completely assume our humanity in order to heal it (i.e., Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection changes something in *us,* not in God). The overarching framework for understanding how salvation is accomplished is one of our deliverance (ransom) from evil (Passover) and our reunion with God--God's union with us through Christ (the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world") and our (re)union with God through Christ. It is only being connected to the Vine that we have life (John 15). Athanasius explains, "What is not assumed, is not healed." Thus, Christ also had to assume our death in order to destroy death/sin's power (Hebrews 2:14-15).
Lewis shows it in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe when Aslan pays the price demanded of the wicked Witch. She was the boy's rightful slaveholder, just as Hebrews 2:14-15 says very clearly:
"...that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery." The devil (and/or death) is the slavemaster who must be satisfied and thereby defeated and destroyed.
As for the Father, if Jesus was slain from the foundation of the earth, there has never been a basis for the Father to reject us or pour his wrath on us. He has done all to deliver us from that wrath to which we assigned ourselves. The wrath of godlessness, evil, wickedness, self-destruction and eternal separation from God. The Lake of Fire was prepared for the devil and his angels. Mankind ends up there by his choice to serve evil, not by God's direct assignment.
Whosoever will may come and has always been free to come because the Covenant has always been intact, fully secured by the sealing and confirming sacrifice of infinite worth. His Name, His Oath, His Blood. It cannot be undone. It cannot be unfulfilled.
I had the hardest time with covenant theology until I understood that we are not in "plan B", necessitated by some failure of plan A. We are in the only plan: sacrificial love, mercy, grace, freedom, faithfulness, blessing, fullness, joy and fruitfulness. All the side deals are distractions associated with lies that say God is not Good and we are not His. God may use them to teach us, the law is a teacher, but they are not his Way.
Thanks, Don. I think the Fathers would agree we are not in Plan B. Yes, on the whole what you describe seems to me compatible with an Orthodox Christian understanding. Lewis made use of the Ransom theory of the early Church in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, but actually the early Church rejected the part of the Ransom theory that said the Ransom was "rightfully" paid to anyone--especially the devil (as St. Gregory's quote in the other thread also demonstrates). They believed the devil, being a deceiver and usurper, had no genuinely "rightful" claim to the sinners he ensnared. He is like Pharaoh in the Passover story. Jesus just comes and says "Let my people go" and does what it takes to rescue us, and it is in this limited sense that His work on the Cross is a Ransom in that it frees us from slavery to sin. The devil, after all, didn't get to keep Jesus in the grave--the "deeper magic" is the full Truth of God, not the limited version of "rights" (the "eye for eye" sort of "justice") the Witch attempted to use to her advantage. Lewis also never embraced Reformed Penal Substitution as a proper explanation of the gospel.
Lewis' view in The Lion . . . is also basically how I understood salvation as a child in my Methodist Sunday school. It was not until I started hearing more Evangelical and Reformed-leaning preaching in high school and college (and singing songs like "He Paid a Debt He did not owe, I owed a debt I could not pay. . . ") that I was exposed to explanations of the meaning of Scriptures concerning Christ's death which would lend themselves (when taken to certain logical conclusions) to the perceptions I described to Lynn above, and which I have also read others from Reformed and Evangelical backgrounds describe was their impression of the meaning of the "gospel"--the explanation for why Christ had to die.
What we are talking about is not the teaching of the Scriptures per se, but rather the different hermeneutics by which various groups approach the Scriptures and which may be reflected in common preaching analogies, for example). It is just a fact that the Scriptures must be interpreted and some interpretations are better than others. My point is that there is some distortion in the Penal Substitution explanation of the Reformers and that aspects of this distortion have the potential to feed a wrong understanding of God and even be used to justify abuse where that inclination already exists (I do believe there have to be other factors present as well). Perhaps Westboro Baptist Church with their extreme Calvinistic understandings of the nature of salvation is an extreme example of how aspects of Penal Substitution theory can be used to justify abuse. The rationalization is along the lines of : "God visits punishment on sinners and so should those representing His authority when those under them sin." Authoritarian pastors and parents use the very verse LynnCD quotes in her response to me above about "everlasting punishment from the presence of the Lord" to justify harsh "correction" of those under their "authority."
He had to become one flesh with us. He had to become Ishi. Hosea 2:16.
I appreciate the author's discussion in the post, especially since I believe it exposes a problem unique to English speakers who try to wrap their heads around the Bible's teaching concerning justice. The problem, as I see it boils down to this: somewhere in the development of English—mainly during the time following the Norman invasion of Britain, which infused all kinds of Latin words into our vocabulary—we found ourselves with two word groups where both Hebrew and Greek had only one: (1) 'righteousness,' and related words, and (2) 'justice,' and related words. 'Righteousness' derives from good, ancient Anglo-Saxon stock, while 'justice' is based on the Latin root, 'ius-,' making its debut in the English language in the 1100s (12th century).
For a while the words were used interchangeably, but over time 'righteousness' began to more and more connote personal moral goodness and rectitude, while 'justice' was more and more reserved for matters of fairness and equity in the public sphere (comprehending the categories of distributive, procedural, restorative/compensatory, and retributive justice). 'Righteousness' gradually became a more personal, sometimes even congenial term, while 'justice' became a more impersonal, sometimes even fearful term.
Neither Hebrew nor Greek had this issue. The Hebrew word that is translated both 'righteousness' and 'justice' is *tsedaqah*, while the Greek word for both is *dikaiosunē*. Hearers and readers determined from the context whether the focus was primarily on the personal attribute of, or the public administration of, what is right, good, proper, fair, etc. But when people heard talk in Hebrew about *tsedaqah*, or in Greek about *dikaiosunē* (or even in Latin about *iustitiam*), if the focus was on the public administration of what we usually call justice, it still carried connotations of the personal righteousness with which justice should be administered, making it less automatically fearful than it can be in English.
Today, when we hear phrases like 'social justice,' and commands in Scripture like 'Seek justice,' our minds tend to gravitate toward the idea of using the judicial apparatus to correct societal wrongs, which in many people's minds (especially today) often involves penalizing some person or group in order to recompense some other person or group. But to ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins, those terms would have had a much broader meaning. Especially in light of the Scriptures, they would be at least equally connotative of collectively establishing a society that prevented such wrongs in the first place, and individually treating our neighbor the way we would want to be treated.
But while the concept of justice/righteousness was not uniformly or universally fearful, in the redemptive-historical narrative that we find in Scripture, at some level the violation of it always was. The concept of the curse for violating God's instruction—the basic meaning of the Hebrew word *torah*—is introduced to us as early as Genesis 3, in response to the Fall of mankind into sin. And the presentation of the curse reaches a crescendo near the end the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 27:26), which Paul expounded as follows:
'For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."' (Gal 3:10, ESV)
For Paul, the Good News of the Gospel could only be understood against the backdrop of this curse that Christ took upon Himself. This is because grace is only appreciated in light of how much its opposite is deserved. Thus:
'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"' (Gal 3:13, ESV)
From Genesis 3 all the way through Deuteronomy and beyond, curses were always expressed in the form of penalties. The curse that God declares on those who do not abide by all things in the Law is not a curse in the mere sense of a wish for misfortune to come upon someone, but rather the actual infliction of that misfortune as penalty. Thus while Christ's atoning death certainly procured our deliverance, and certainly signaled His own victory over the powers of evil arrayed against us, the central fact that made our deliverance and His victory possible was His bearing of our curse, of our penalty. That, for Paul and the entire New Testament, was the central aspect of the saving work of Christ on Calvary.
Various views of the atonement that have made other aspects of it—valid as they may be—central at the expense of His personal bearing of our curse have inevitably led to systems of self-help on treadmills of good works leading people away from the fullness of God's grace rather than toward it. In both the Eastern church and the Western church this ultimately led to forms of personal curse-bearing through self-sacrifice leading to asceticism, with the East fixating on the doctrine of *theiosis*/deification and the West on a sacramental system built on an alleged 'treasury of the merits of the saints.' The same is still happening in our post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment age, as people who were never taught that Christ bore their curse for them, or were taught to deny it, devise new systems of works-righteousness to either boost their pride or appease their consciences. It always sounds good on the surface to associate the cross with primarily winsome themes, like restoration/recapitulation, deliverance, and victory, thus relieving our minds from whatever intellectual discomfort penal substitution inflicts on our minds, but the results of such approaches have never been good, and the fruit that they have born has always been repressive.
Ron, thank you for the background about "righteousness" and "justice" in the original languages.
Having been on both sides of this coin, so to speak (Evangelical Protestant for more than 30 years, now Orthodox for eight), my observation is that classical and biblical Christian asceticism (as opposed to distortions and abuses of it, like that engaged by Martin Luther in the Middle Ages)--which is still very much alive in Eastern Christendom--far from being repressive "systems of self-help leading people away from the fullness of God's grace" are rather a particular call, voluntarily engaged, to spiritual athleticism in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 9:27 engaged precisely because God's grace has been experienced, and which have enabled countless believers throughout the ages to realize the fullness of God's grace in their lives and freedom from the bondage of carnality such that their wisdom, prayers and lives are among the most luminous testimony to the grace, love and power of God of which I have ever learned.
Many of them, such as one of the first of such "spiritual athletes" was St. Anthony of the Desert, who if contemporary witnesses of his life (such as St. Athanasius--another bishop and monk and key historic defender of genuine Christian faith) are to be believed had miracles flowing from his life he was so filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit. There are accounts that rival that of St. Anthony's life in a continuous stream throughout Christian history to the present day in the Eastern Orthodox monastic tradition. An Orthodox nun of my acquaintance summed it up best when she described her choice to confirm her monastic call after a chance to marry. It became very clear to her that nothing less than undivided devotion to Christ and to prayer would satisfy her, so great was her longing to realize the intimacy with God made possible for us in Christ. In no way was this call seen as a chance to earn some kind of greater favor with or blessing from God, nor as inherently superior (except in the freedom from worldly obligations) to godly marriage (also understood in Orthodoxy as an arena of holy "martyrdom" in which to work out our salvation in Christ and bring glory to Him). Nor are the spiritual disciplines within Orthodoxy seen as being in and of themselves the spiritual life, nor as something by which we may obligate God. Rather, like Bible study, prayer and corporate worship for the Evangelical, they are seen as means by which, engaged in the right mindset (one of humility and trust in God) we make room for the grace of the Holy Spirit to work in our hearts in the working out of our salvation in Christ. I understand better than ever as an Orthodox Christian that God is unspeakably gracious and merciful, that He is inexorably "for" us, and that I can do nothing apart from Him.
A proper understanding of Christian asceticism understands it as the engagement by God's grace with the principalities and powers (that ever seek to continue to enslave us in our old habits) in order to realize to the greatest extent possible in this life, through the cooperation of our will with the grace and power of God, the freedom from sin and the flesh for which Christ died to purchase us.
Ron, please consider the implications of your blanket condemnation of even a biblical Christian "asceticism" here in light of the fact all of the greatest Fathers in the early Church after the Apostles were monks (St. Nicholas of Myra, St. John Chrysostem, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Augustine). These are the spiritual giants upon whose shoulders we sit--the Christians without whom we would not be here discussing the meaning of the Scriptures at all. They recognized the Scriptures as such and passed them on to us along with the great Creeds and their examples of godly lives, which give us the orthodox framework in which to interpret the Scriptures' message (no hint of Reformed Penal Substitution as such in those Creeds). Their works and words, understood in their own proper context (much of which Orthodox would argue has been lost and or distorted in the wake of the Reformation--Counter-Reformation polemics of the Middle Ages) evidence the greatest joy, freedom, and love in Christ, not repression.
I've discovered through personal experience belief in Penal Substitution and the so-called "positional" righteousness of the believer is no safeguard against the fall into repressive "self-help" performance-oriented and pharisaical distortions of Christian faith as many strains of Fundamentalism and Protestantism show (including Bill Gothard's system). It may even feed it. I believe you are sadly mistaken, but I understand what you express is a common misconception especially in the Protestant West. (So tempting to compare the best in our own tradition with the worst in another Christian tradition!) And, yes, there are many nominal and poorly-educated Orthodox whose beliefs would surely validate your point. This still would not mean you are correct.
There is certainly understanding that Christ became a curse for us in Orthodoxy, but in Orthodoxy, language of "penalty" and "curse" is understood to be speaking ultimately not of any reactive *initiative* on God's part, but rather of the natural consequences of our rupturing our relationship with the God Who, by definition, is Life and the Source of every blessing, and choosing instead to seek our "life" in created things rather than the Creator. What is left for us at that point but a falling away into death and a cursed state? But it is not as if God is actively penalizing or cursing either Christ on the Cross or unrepentant sinners. Rather, in loving solidarity with us in His Son, on the Cross He enters into the depths of the suffering and depravity (the curse) to which our own sin by its very nature has carried us and, in so doing, destroys its power over us. It would be wrong to speak of this "penalty" or "curse" as if it is something extra *added* on by God to our choice to sin. It is rather just a truthful description of what the state of sin actually is and of the reality that the God Who is Truth itself is not some kind of codependent "enabler" who prematurely rescues us from the consequences of our own actions, short-circuiting any chance we might have to learn from them the true nature of our freedom and of sin--this despite the fact that in His grace He orchestrates 70 x 7 "interventions" in order to empower us, like the Prodigal Son, to come to our senses and repent. The deeper level of meaning behind this biblical language simply reflects that *sin is its own punishment,* and God wills to allow us the freedom to sin (even while through Christ, He obtains anew for us the freedom to not sin, which is now made freely available to any who *will* to come take freely of this water of life). The dying to self and turning to Christ of which classical Christian (biblical) asceticism is but the outworking and expression is just what salvation (in the broadest sense, which is always how Orthodox language is using the term) in Christ really looks like in a world where we are opposed in our attempts to draw near to God at every turn by the enemy of souls and the clamor of our flesh. God is our ever-present Help and and Comfort in this process, in Christ He will never leave us nor forsake us, and we triumph only because His grace enables our efforts. This I have learned on a deeper level than I ever knew before from reading the lives and sayings of the great Elders and Eldresses--mature and godly monks and nuns--of the Eastern Orthodox tradition.
Karen,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but I’m afraid that as someone who spent 17 years in Roman Catholicism prior to my now nearly 39 years as an evangelical believer, I have to turn down your request to withdraw what you call my ‘blanket condemnation of even a biblical Christian "asceticism."’ If it’s any consolation, please know that I totally understand your position. I have read the The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, and the writings of Timothy Kallistos Ware, Vladimir Lossky, and Peter Gillquist. I have attended Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rite churches, I have attended lectures by Eastern Orthodox believers, and I have Eastern (specifically Greek) Orthodox friends. I gave them serious consideration (especially the Desert Fathers) even though I had already been an evangelical for about 20 years. I think I understand that system pretty well, especially considering how it significantly overlaps my Roman Catholic background, but I found all that to be a spiritual dead-end.
I do want to thank you for clearly identifying yourself as a non-evangelical who is now engaged in a different ecclesiastical tradition with a different set of theological commitments. It is only natural that you should want to defend those commitments, but the fact is that they are completely and absolutely incompatible with the historic Protestant evangelical understanding of sin, grace, and salvation. I do not believe there is such a thing as ‘a biblical Christian asceticism’ (including hesychastic praxis), and neither did the Protestant Reformers, who rejected monasticism and all other ascetic practices in the strongest possible terms—and I don’t believe anyone understood it better than they did. Martin Luther, for example, had been an ascetic par excellence in his days as an Augustinian monk.
Of course you’re right when you say that holding to classic evangelical doctrines like penal substitution is no safeguard against ‘repressive "self-help" performance-oriented and pharisaical distortions of Christian faith,’ but I think that you’re about as wrong as you can get when you call penal substitution ‘an ideal ideological set up for those who have that bent and the tendency toward a neurotic, unbiblical servile fear" of "God."’ Only a distorted presentation of penal substitution will do that, and the quickest route to such distortion is to pair penal substitution with a sub-biblical concept of grace. That is the key to the repression of Gothardism, and unfortunately Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views of grace are essentially the same as Gothard’s. As you have amply demonstrated here, Eastern Orthodoxy views grace primarily in terms as a power to enable us to be and do good, rather than primarily as God’s loving predisposition toward sinners that is willing to bear our evil, and then withhold nothing good from us after that (Rom. 8:32). In my view, if you’ve exchanged Gothardism for Eastern Orthodoxy, you’ve essentially exchanged one self-improvement treadmill for another, even though it may be a more enjoyable one for you.
Gustaf Aulén’s theses that (a) Christus Victor was the dominant theme of the early church and (b) it was also Luther’s view have been vastly overstated. References to penal substitution can be found in the writings of Justin Martyr (c. AD 100-165), Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 275-399), Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300-368), Athanasius (c. 300-373), Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 330-390), Ambrose of Milan (339-397), John Chrysostom (c. 350-407), Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Cyril of Alexandria (374-444), Gelasius of Cyzicus (fl. AD 475), and Gregory the Great (c. 540-604). And Luther wrote:
‘Our Lord Jesus Christ…, because of his infinite love for the race of men, he descended from the bosom of the Father into our misery and our prison, that is, into our flesh and our most wretched life, and took upon himself the penalty for our sins so that we might be saved,’ (Luther, ‘Fourteen Consolations,’ in Luther’s Works, 42:122).
I find your attempt to explain away the curse theme of Scripture interesting, and even engaging, but I also find it very Eastern Orthodox, and hence very mystical, while the biblical teaching is very Hebrew, and very concrete. Few things were more concrete than crucifixion. It was so brutal, so agonizing, and so public, that no one could possibly mistake the curse that it both was and represented for a mere ‘state,’ or some abstract concept of a ruptured relationship. I’m sorry, but your explanation simply does not wash, and not just for logical reasons.
‘Ground Zero’ for the Protestant Reformation was the text of Scripture. It remains the same for the heirs of the Reformation, of which I count myself one. What the church fathers said after that could be helpful, and often was (I love reading Chrysostom’s commentaries, for example), but only insofar as it illuminated God’s holy word. To assert that ‘It would be wrong to speak of this "penalty" or "curse" as if it is something extra *added* on by God to our choice to sin,’ simply flies in the face of so many Scriptures, beginning with the clear case of Genesis 3. The curse is neither sin itself nor the state that sin puts us in, but it is very definitely something God lays on sinners as a penalty for their sins. And to say that Christ on the cross ‘enters into the depths of…[our] depravity’ is theologically dangerous language at best and blasphemously heretical language at worst—and yet that’s *precisely* where your logic will take you, because if Christ took upon himself our state (depravity) rather than our penalty (the curse), then Christ became an actual sinner, rather than a substitute for sinners, and that’s about as unorthodox as you can get.
Frankly, when you got yourself involved in Eastern Orthodoxy, I think you headed down a very bad path.
Ron, I do understand why you might say such a thing (given your own experience in the Roman Catholic context and looking from the outside in on Orthodoxy--which certainly has many superficial similarities with Roman Catholicism, but my experience as one who is now practicing my faith from within this tradition, having been a faithful Evangelical for over 30 years, is completely contrary to your perception, and needless to say, I'm going with my own first-hand experience (and the fullness of the biblical witness--not the Protestant Reformed take on that insofar as it differs with the fullness of that apostolic tradition).
I want to address your comment where you state: "Orthodox views of grace are essentially the same as Gothard’s. As you have amply demonstrated here, Eastern Orthodoxy views grace primarily in terms as a power to enable us to be and do good, rather than primarily as God’s loving predisposition toward sinners that is willing to bear our evil, and then withhold nothing good from us after that (Rom. 8:32)."
I understand why you might perceive this, but in the full context of Orthodox teaching, nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition there is no dichotomy between these two aspects of the reality of the nature of God's grace--they are one and the same thing. The proof is in the pudding so to speak: those who are pointed to as the most faithful examples of Orthodox faith look and speak NOTHING like those who are recognized as the most faithful adherents of Gothardism. Their inner motivations and disposition could not be more diametrically opposed. In fact, insofar as you as an Evangelical recognize, correctly, that a discovery and experience of God's grace in the "primary" sense you understand it actually motivates and empowers our sanctification, you believe precisely the same thing as Eastern Orthodox about the "power" of God's grace.
I would love to continue this conversation with you, but this is not the forum. If you are interested, we could continue this conversation by email. Do you include that contact information on any web sites you host? (I'm also fine with it if you would rather not.) Either way, thank you for engaging my comments!
With all do respect Mr. Herzel, as a so called heir of the reformation, which of the 20-40 thousand Protestant groups are the real deal, the most true to the Bible? You want to quote Martin Luther but Martin Luther is much more "Catholic" than your evangelical. He did teach infant baptism, perpetual virginity of Mary, Church authority under him, a sacramental view of communion as well as some rather violent wishes to those that disagreed with him such as the Jews. With so many different Protestant groups claiming the Bible as the final authority, then who is right? The subject of this blog, Bill Gothard certainly used and claimed the Bible as the final authority and rule of life. If evangelical is the real deal, then why did Bill Gothard, the subject here, have so much wide spread support from "Bible believing" pastors? Likewise, if evangelicalism is the real deal, why do so many like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Mark Shea, Marcus Grodi after intense study of early Church teaching leave to become Catholic? Scott Hahn was such an anti-Catholic that he ripped apart his grandmother's rosary. Why is there such confusion in Protestant evangelicalism if it is all just based on the Bible?
Karen,
Thanks for the feedback, as well as the offer to continue the discussion privately. But I think we've both made our most essential points, and the only further point I can think of adding is that I believe I understand the Eastern Orthodox concept of grace more than you give me credit for. With that I will move on to other tasks.
Thanks, again.
Rob War,
I really don't think that this thread—or even this web site—is a suitable place for anyone to attack evangelicalism and promote either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, nor for a debate on the relative merits of either of them. At least that is my understanding of the site's purpose. There are plenty of web sites and Facebook pages devoted to debates along those lines; I recommend them to you. Meanwhile, I will not participate in this comment thread in something that I think is so contrary to the express purpose of this site.
I agree with Ron that the current discussion is off-topic, which is why I bowed out of it. For those who may not be up to speed on the issues, here is an article I read this morning from CT. The article states that Christus Victor does indeed bring to light some old ideas on the atonement, but that the concept of penal substitution, based on many passages of Scripture, should not be thrown out, and in fact, his idea is that Christus Victor has to be based on penal substitution. IOW - Penal substitution is not the be all and end all of teaching on the atonement, but it is a necessary part of it. At least, that is how I understood the article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/aprilweb-only/christusvicarious.html
You all have a blessed day.
Ron, my attempts to clarify certain aspects of Church history and approach to answering the question of why Jesus had to die from an Eastern Orthodox perspective at this site is simply in case it may help those who have been injured by Gothard's authoritarianism and legalism to recognize that there is a witness to genuine freedom in Christ (and against an authoritarian interpretations of "authority" in the Church throughout Church history), and in case certain aspects of Reformed/Evangelical "Penal Substitution" (as opposed to biblical penal substitution) or its explanation in popular preaching has distorted the understanding of God for some reading here the way I know it has for many (of which I was one).
I would say anyone who believes or perceives the "Orthodox" understanding of grace is the same as Bill Gothard's should indeed run away from "Orthodoxy" as they understand it as fast as they can. I am just here to stand as a witness that these are not the same thing. This is made all the more difficult to communicate by the fact that classical Christian language used in Orthodoxy has been distorted by how it has been taken up into and used in Medieval Catholicism and in Western theological systems in general. The result is that Orthodox and Catholics (or Protestants) can use identical wording and, when all is said and done, be meaning something quite radically different (in full context of their diverging frameworks for understanding such language). I see many misperceptions in your initial comment to me most of which I cannot address here, so I'm a little sad you don't have an interest in continuing the conversation, but I certainly also respect and accept that decision.
I hope readers who have faith to believe God has been working not just since the Reformation, but throughout Christian history will be willing to consider perspectives on these issues from outside an exclusively Evangelical lens (such as is found in Christianity Today, much as I also appreciate and like to read that publication).
Karen, I appreciate your perspectives. I assume you engage in Christian unity and faithfulness, but if your purpose were pure proselytizing, your graciousness is winsome and kind. This medium is too limited to fully explore all differences and agreements, but as issues arise I far prefer theological and biblical reflection over ad hominem attacks, speculation and hyperbole.
God is Just and Merciful and clearly calls on all to do justice and love mercy. I spent over 30 years of my life loving justice and neglecting mercy. I think our dialogue is merciful.
Thank you, Don. Inasmuch as I expect God to be at work in believers outside the Orthodox Church and that I believe there is significant overlap in common beliefs and interests among sincere believers in all Christian churches, my objective is not to negate that or put an obstacle in another's way to belief in the gospel. I'm not here to proselytize, and it is certainly my intention to be merciful as God is. On the other hand, if I see Orthodox faith being misrepresented, I will attempt to challenge that. Being Roman Catholic for 20 years and Protestant for 38, reading three Orthodox books (2 by the same author), and visiting a few Eastern rite services does not provide a reliable framework for properly understanding Eastern Orthodox tradition and spirituality in its own context--in fact, a lot of that experience is more likely to obscure the true nature of Orthodox faith, especially if one's dogmatic commitments are presently deep rooted in Reformation distinctives. That said, I will be frank that Orthodox ecclesiology will be a hurdle and stumbling block to many raised in Evangelical traditions. I could not take communion outside the Eastern Orthodox Church, even if I wanted to, and remain a faithful member of the Orthodox Church. Indeed, that was largely true of even the Protestant confessions up until a few short decades ago. (It was still largely true when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s.)
But, I am not here to serve as the canon or conscience for any other believers--especially those attempting to escape and recover from authoritarian abuse and legalistic applications and interpretations of the Scriptures. I would like to make it clear I am under NO legalistic constraint to remain Eastern Orthodox, but remain so because of the clear vision of God in His love and mercy which is afforded me here, and of my sincere conviction that what Orthodox dogmatically teach is the truth of the meaning and implication of the Scriptures. It is my conviction one should join and remain a member of any Christian church for no other reasons.
To the extent my comments are not helpful to someone, I hope they will be challenged and/or ignored! I'm not interested in playing god in anyone else's life! :-)
Karen,
There are enough people active on this blog that readily admit to not attending any Church or even not able to read the Bible. Those are the people Ron should be concerned about not the token Catholic or Orthodox that are active in their respective faith communities, read the Bible and participate in their faith. Christianity is bigger than a small evangelical corner most paint themselves into with the idea that Christianity started in the 1500's with Martin Luther.
Rob, I don't begrudge anyone their religious convictions--not even Ron. I just prefer we recognize those from within a particular tradition will be its most faithful and accurate explicators.
It might sound funny (likely, many here will understand though) that I think leaving a group such as Gothard's and remaining outside of any church (at least for a while) can be a step in the right direction toward spiritual healing for many. Sometimes we have to become a bit agnostic about who God is in order to release false understandings that are the result of false teaching and abuse. I'm pretty optimistic about God's creativity in reaching people where they are--He certainly cares about them more than we do.
My prayer, of course, is that all become capable of beholding Christ in His glory as the One full of grace and truth (John 1:14) and that we all attain to the unity of the faith and to , , , the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13).
Rob,
You wrote:
'There are enough people active on this blog that readily admit to not attending any Church or even not able to read the Bible.'
I am not here enough to know whether or not this statement is true, but apparently you are, so I'll take your word for it.
You wrote:
'Those are the people Ron should be concerned about not the token Catholic or Orthodox that are active in their respective faith communities, read the Bible and participate in their faith.'
Well, now that I know about them I am concerned about them! But I'm also concerned that the so-called 'token Catholic or Orthodox' here are trying to proselytize them. I don't want to see under-educated and misinformed Christians (as I believe describes everyone who comes out of Gothardism) talked into exchanging one form of legalism for another.
You wrote:
'Christianity is bigger than a small evangelical corner most paint themselves into with the idea that Christianity started in the 1500's with Martin Luther.'
I don't know of anyone who actually believes in this straw man that you've erected. On the other hand, it seems foolish to believe that institutional Christianity did not undergo any corruption during those 1500 years. That is, in fact, the precise charge that both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have historically aimed *at each other*!
Karen,
You wrote:
'...not even Ron.'
'Nuff said.
Ron,
The last thing I have done here is prostelyze anyone. I've asked questions and some of them are hard questions in looking for the reasons behind the rise and fall of Bill Gothard. There is more to it than claiming that it was due to social upheaval. Asking why so many Pastors went along and supported him is pretty legitimate and why so few questioned him in the beginning but a hand full of seminar professors is legitimate. If one doesn't reexamine those questions, then the next Bill Gothard will come along and sweep others away. Telling Karen that she is making a mistake in being an Orthodox Christian and that is the wrong road to travel down in your opinion is rather condescending. Would take same comment be made to someone that left the Christian faith altogether. There are enough blogs out there by ex-fundies and evangelicals who are now atheists that have connect to Bill Gothard. Shouldn't they be your concern?
rob war - if anyone makes assertions on this website, they may be challenged - and disagreed with, and discussed, until the moderators shut down the conversation for whatever reasons they have. Ron has been at this business of researching Bill Gothard for many years, and yes, I did say one of his reasons was the social upheaval of the 60s, for helping Bill's popularity to soar. But that is not the only thing Ron has said about the subject.
You say you have questions about what happened. May I recommend this page to you, from 1999: http://ronhenzel.tripod.com/GothardZone/08-BG2BG/#PreviousPage/NextPage
rob war,
You wrote:
‘The last thing I have done here is prostelyze anyone.’
I’m sorry to have to write this, but either you are not being entirely honest with yourself and us, or you have a completely different definition of ‘proselytize’ than Merriam-Webster, which defines the word as, ‘to try to persuade people to join a religion, cause, or group.’ You have done that here.
In several places I see where you have taken pot-shots at Protestantism:
-- You have claimed that ‘sola Scripture is… not taught in scripture,’ (Dec. 13, 2014 comment to ‘The Package: The All Sufficiency of Jesus Christ’);
-- You have distorted the proper definition of sola Scriptura by writing, ‘Sola Scriptura at it's heart is that people can read the Bible on their own and come up with what the Bible means or is saying,’ (Dec. 9, 2014 comment on the same article);
-- You have quoted Cardinal John Newman, "to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant" (April 3, 2015 comment on ‘In Search of Peace’);
-- You have questioned the legitimacy of evangelicalism in this very comment thread by writing, ‘if evangelicalism is the real deal, why do so many like Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Mark Shea, Marcus Grodi after intense study of early Church teaching leave to become Catholic,’ (May 6, 2015).
-- But perhaps the most egregious instance of you proselytizing on behalf of Roman Catholicism (or potentially Eastern Orthodoxy, since it also denies sola Scriptura) appeared in your comment posted on the article, ‘In Search of Peace,’ that you made on April 2, 2015, where you wrote:
‘You ask some good and honest questions and some of us have found that the search and answer is to start looking and reading the earliest Church fathers and looking at either the Catholic or Orthodox Church. When you start looking at real and early Christian history and the works like St. Augustine, St. Ireneas etc, then you realize that the bill of good you have been sold is not at all taught by the ealiest Christians, then your spirit and mind can untangle itself from false teaching. Read the Didicade one of the earliest pieces of Christian writings. There is nothing that even closely resembles IBLP. A good book that summarizes early Church teaching and figures is by Jimmy Aken "Fathers Know Best" which covers the first 800 years. I just finished the book "Girl at the End of the World" by Elizabeth Ester who came out of a fundamentalist cult. She pieced her faith back together by being willing to look at Christianity outside of Protestantism. If you want to free yourself from Sola Scriptura,which is what is at the bottom of all of this, you need to be willing to go to the Churches that don't teach it.’
By constantly trying to knock down Protestantism while building up Catholicism, and other anti-Protestant communions, you have been, in fact, trying to persuade people here to join a religion that is more like yours. In this extended quote, you even promoted the well-known anti-Protestant Roman Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin (and I’ve seen you refer to at least one other RC apologist elsewhere). How is all of this that you have been doing for months here not proselytizing?
You wrote:
‘I've asked questions and some of them are hard questions in looking for the reasons behind the rise and fall of Bill Gothard. There is more to it than claiming that it was due to social upheaval. Asking why so many Pastors went along and supported him is pretty legitimate and why so few questioned him in the beginning but a hand full of seminar professors is legitimate. If one doesn't reexamine those questions, then the next Bill Gothard will come along and sweep others away.’
No one ever said that the sole reason for the rise of Bill Gothard was a reaction to social upheaval. Various points of weakness in the evangelical church, where Gothard flourished, could be pointed out. We had so much material to cover on Gothard in our book, A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard & the Christian Life, that there was not much room for a critique of the church—although Don, Joy, and I did spend some time discussing the sort of legalism that was already common in evangelicalism (as it is in all human nature) before Gothard emerged, and which played a role in setting people up to be seduced by his teachings.
But this gets back to my point about exchanging one form of legalism for another. I know that you are familiar with our book, and since you are then you know that our diagnosis of the primary problem in Gothardism was the cancer of its legalism. Thus, contrary to you, the question that needs to be examined is not why evangelicals are so committed to sola Scriptura, but rather why in their failure to discern the dangers of Gothardism were they not committed *enough* to it? Why did evangelical pastors so easily accept ‘the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship?’ (Westminster Confession of Faith 20.2; cf. London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 21.2) Evangelical Christians are not to submit to extra-biblical rules and regulations. *That* is the practical corollary to sola Scriptura, the true definition of which holds ‘Scripture alone as the primary and absolute norm of doctrine,’ (Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 284). As Augustine wrote to Jerome, ‘For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error,’ (Letter 82). And Augustine’s words were cited with approval by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. The Protestant Reformation did not invent but rather recovered the teaching of sola Scriptura, and those evangelicals who caved in to Gothard’s teachings on ‘umbrellas of authority,’ diet, music, courtship, marital sex, circumcision, and so on were selling their birthright for a mess of pottage.
You wrote:
‘Telling Karen that she is making a mistake in being an Orthodox Christian and that is the wrong road to travel down in your opinion is rather condescending.’
I’m sorry, but I don’t see anything condescending in it at all. If it is condescending to tell someone that they have made the wrong spiritual choice, then maybe I should just keep my mouth shut the next time one of my friends (as has happened in the past) wants to join an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi organization, or when one of my other friends (as has also happened) considers joining the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The word ‘condescension’ means ‘an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain,’ which means you’re essentially accusing me of having an improper attitude, something I think can be hard to properly discern from blog comment boxes, and is utterly unwarranted by anything I’ve written, yet frankly, while I may be wrong, I’m sensing a lot of that alleged attitude coming from you right now when you call me ‘condescending!’ How ironic! So let’s just not go there…
You wrote:
‘Would take same comment be made to someone that left the Christian faith altogether.’
I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying here, but if it’s a question, the answer is: yes, I would be equally forthright with someone who is considering leaving the faith. On the other hand, if it’s some kind of statement about me equating Karen with an apostate, I think that’s a gross exaggeration of what I wrote.
You wrote:
‘There are enough blogs out there by ex-fundies and evangelicals who are now atheists that have connect to Bill Gothard. Shouldn't they be your concern?’
So, me giving my honest opinion to Karen about her choice of Eastern Orthodoxy is ‘condescending,’ but you telling me how I should or shouldn’t be spending my time is not?
rob war, quite some time back, I believe when I disagreed w/your quote from Newman that Protestants cut themselves off from the early Church Fathers, you suggested to me it would not do for me to be critical of other people's choices. Ron just gave you the long answer to your remarks that are like this. My thought at the time, although not articulated was, "I am free to express agreement or disagreement with any proposition stated."
And you have the same freedom. I don't know, but it sounds as though you are feeling very defensive. As an example, when Karen said the doctrine of substitutionary punishment lent itself to abuse, I, being schooled only in basic theological concepts, first went to Scripture, then some basic writings in theology, where two things became clear to me, 1) that penal substitution is indeed taught or very clearly implied from many texts, and 2) there are many other truths to learn about this matter, but number 1 is foundational to these other truths. Both of us felt free to share our points.
Ron is equally adept at turning his criticism on evangelicals. Here is another article he wrote on Bill Gothard and evangelical goofiness. I present it here because you keep asking questions that have been addressed elsewhere. It strikes me as very ironic that you are expressing such sentiments against Ron when he has answered your question in spades in at least several places: http://midwestoutreach.org/2014/06/19/leveraging-lunacy-how-bill-gothard-rode-a-wave-of-evangelical-goofiness/
Btw, if you want an example of Ron interacting with someone in the transgendered community, just read the comment section of the link I quoted.
I feel convinced that regardless of whether one is Calvinist or Armenian, Catholic, Orthodox (Russian, Greek, or other), Protestant, Evangelical, or even on the outer edge of Christianity looking in, there is something powerful and beautiful about the point of the original post regarding the justice of God.
At times I have wanted to write an article and title it, "Do you really want justice?" The implied answer for many of us growing up was no. But that is a tragic oversimplification and misunderstanding of a critical part of God's nature, and the goodness of his interactions with his creation.
Matthew, I agree to seek justice for those oppressed is much of what God's prophets told Israel they were NOT doing. God hates cheating and lying. The Law said to allow a poor man to receive back the pledge of his cloak each night so he could keep warm. But when it comes to salvation and God's justice, the Bible speaks of humans who are punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God. These are the unsaved. The wrath of God remains on them, as Scripture clearly says elsewhere. At the end of the age, anyone whose name is not found in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire.
These thoughts are unpleasant, but I got to thinking, these verses mean I'm saved from God's wrath. Because of Christ's sacrifice upon which I set my hope for pardon, I am an object of God's favor. Not His wrath. There remains, therefore, some very serious truth in the proposition that God saves me from Himself.
Now, I believe the love of God runs deeper to who God is because we read "God is love" or "God is light" not "God is wrath." God expresses wrath in eternal banishment of unbelievers from His presence, though. That much is clearly stated in the Bible.
I think the best way to state the matter is, "I am saved from the wrath of God, because I am an object of His grace."
Or, "God saves me from Himself, so He can have me close to Him for all eternity."
True and painful thoughts (though I am not entirely comfortable with "God saves me from himself"). This is a big subject that touches both eternity as well as here and now.
My experience was that I would see people who were suffering injustice, say from abusive spouses, and they would be cautioned by others that if you pray to God for justice, God might start with you. Meaning, punish you for your sins. Implication, the one salient result from God's justice is you being punished for your sins. Therefore, don't ask God to intervene and bring justice. There is a sense that God's mercy to you for your sins precludes any calls to God or others for justice.
But that really misses the whole justice-righteousness thing spoken about in both OT and NT. God calls for right dealing and fair play. Scripture does not warn us off of justice (it does warn us off of vengeance). We should work towards it, not cower from it. And it is a good thing - it is not simply a vengeance against our sins.
True that Gothard messed over a proper view of justice by making people feel like sinners if they seek relief for themselves from abuse! Those who feel this way need to read and re read the words of Jesus when He spoke of the widow going to the unjust judge day after day for justice for herself against her opponent.
This was NOT taught by Jesus to teach us to not seek help for our own needs. It was taught to show that God is not like that judge, and no matter how it feels, He will execute justice speedily, and we need to have faith in Him.
Gothard's teachings silence victims and often blame victims.
I used to read: "do justice and love mercy" as "love justice (and mercy)" (The parenthetical there indicates that I downplayed the mercy part!)
I "loved justice" in that I wanted wrongdoers punished and victims restored. I had no mercy for wrongdoers (even myself) and little for victims. What I sought instead was VINDICATION OF THE RIGHT!! (Kind of like Job in his despair.)
Today, however, I have more confidence that God can and will vindicate Himself how and when He wishes. I consider myself more called to extend mercy to all, even wrongdoers. I focus my attentiveness to justice on my own conduct, hoping, by Grace, to do less evil than I might otherwise do.
But sometimes, I cringe at social efforts to enforce "justice" as another kind of legalism, self-righteous endeavors to right wrongs. Or worse, attempts to fix what God has unfairly allowed to be broken. I do believe we have a calling to alleviate the suffering of those unjustly used or abused and to bear one another's burdens. But I do not call that doing justice or even "social justice". When I indulge the notion that I can right the wrongs, I get pretty unbearable. But that is just me.
When I think of the OT verse "do justly and love mercy" my application is to do what is right and to treat others as I would want to be treated. The word mercy there is chesed, which is seen by many to be a covenant term in the OT - an expression of the disposition of God to Israel.
A long time ago I read a paper, which I don't have the acumen to understand entirely, but it did teach me some things: http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1856 --
Interestingly, charis (grace) is the covenant term, so many say, in the NT. The reason this is interesting is the paper referenced above said the Hebrew word chesed was translated by the LXX by the word, used later in the NT, as the word we get "mercy" from.
And instead of seeing that Greek word "mercy" as the covenant term in the NT, theologians prefer the word charis, or grace. And theologians also tie the Greek charis to the Hebrew chesed, although the LXX translators usually chose a different word when translating chesed to Greek. IOW - I don't believe chesed is translated by charis when translating to Greek, even though they are seen as the key terms of the covenant God makes with His people. So I understood the paper to be saying. I might have missed something.
It kind of makes sense to me, the preference for charis, because mercy - aid to us miserably afflicted creatures - both in giving us what we don't deserve to help us, and in not giving us what we do deserve, is done with God's grace as a more foundational disposition to us, or so I see it.
I like that charis is preferred over the word translated for mercy. Because the word mercy will always remind me of bad things, and charis makes me forget all the bad things and put them in the past and leave them there.
Just musing. The word chesed is also translated "lovingkindness," "kindness" as well as "mercy." Word choices in translations are a fascinating thing.
Those thoughts, and when I think of do justly and love mercy I also think of "Les Miserables," where "mercy triumphs over judgment" or grace over the law, also another verse, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." One term is much more foundational, as we see.
The Apostle Paul wrote:
"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." (Rom. 5:9, ESV)
We might not be comfortable with this, but to say anything less is to fail to convey the true content of the Gospel.
Agreed.
And also, to say anything less than is communicated by these 300+ verses is also to shortchange the message we have from God https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?search=justice+righteousness+&version=NIV&searchtype=any&resultspp=500 (remember that the gap between "justice" and "righteousness" seems larger in English than in the original Hebrew).
I feel like there can be an instinct sometimes to effectively make Hell (and being saved from it) the primary issue when the subject of God's justice comes up. To essentially equate God's wrath with God's justice. Children who are raised on an unbalanced diet of that tend to have a malnourished view of God's character, it seems to me.
MatthewS,
I'm glad you agree. And I also agree that it does not do justice (pun intended) to the subject of God's righteousness to equate it with His wrath. The subject is much broader than that, as a survey of the biblical data shows.
On the other hand, when we consider the subject of God's justice/righteousness (both terms being expressed by a single word group in both Hebrew and Greek) strictly in the context of salvation (which is the context I was responding in), because we are specifically talking about salvation from sin, the concept of punishment cannot be detached from the discussion. And, in fact, it is central to it.
This is because the central problem of salvation was how God 'might be just [δίκαιος, dikaios] and the justifier [δικαιόω, dikaioō] of the one who has faith in Jesus,' (Rom 3:26), and the answer to that problem was that Jesus was the One 'whom God put forward as a propitiation [ἱλαστήριον, hilasterion],' i.e., a wrath-appeasing sacrifice, '...to demonstrate His righteousness/justice [δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosunē],' (Rom 3:25). Thus, if Jesus did not bear God's wrath on account of our sin in our place, God would not have been just/righteous to save us.
True, God's wrath should not be the primary issue when the subject of God's justice/righteousness comes up in the abstract. Nor should it be the primary issue when it comes up in the practical context of God's law. As I pointed out in an earlier comment here, that kind of divine justice/righteousness spans the categories of distributive, procedural, restorative/compensatory, and retributive justice, and only the last of these is related to wrath. But when it comes up in the practical context of redemptive history, the need for retributive justice is exactly what must be met, and thus it is profoundly biblical to say, "God saves me from himself."
Or, to flesh it out in more precisely biblical redemptive-historical terms: God's grace (Rom. 3:24), which is a function of His love (Ps. 13:5; 40:10; 85:7; 98:3; Rom. 5:8) saved me from the wrath He had toward me on account of my sin (Rom. 3:25), thus preserving both His own righteousness/justice (Rom. 3:26) and His love toward me (Ps. 40:10; 89:14; 103:17; 1 Jn 4:10).
In one of the clearest psalms concerning the need for salvation from sin, the psalmist prophesied of the accomplishment that Paul wrote about in Rom. 3:21-26: 'Steadfast love and faithfulness [or truth] meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other,' (Psa 85:10, ESV).
Ron, I have read the Greek NT word transliterated "hilasterion" actually is the LXX translation of the Hebrew word which means "mercy seat", i.e., the place of atonement/reconciliation in the Holy of Holies. It has been more commonly understood as the place where reconciliation takes place because it is expiatory. At the very least on the literal level in the OT one brought a sacrifice for "sin" because one was repenting of that sin, thus the sacrifice signified one's repentance, and sin offerings were eaten by the offerers and priests together after being sacrificed signifying the worshipper's renewed communion/felllowship with God. This also makes sense in light of Christ's teaching in John 6 that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood "or we have no life within us."
"Propitiation" is a translation choice, and it is just a fact that most English translations have been done by Protestants. There is no question that one's theological presuppositions inform one's translation choices. This "mercy seat" can just as easily be thought of as the place where reconciliation takes place because of the change effected in sinners by it--i.e., as "expiation." On the literal level this really makes more sense.
From a literal perspective of who really needed to be changed by Christ's blood and sacrifice--it is *us*, humankind, because we were dead in our sins and "the life is in the blood." God is perfect love--He is completely righteous and holy and in Him there is "no shadow of change" James says. God's wrath abides where sin abides, because perfect love will never be reconciled with sin's destruction of the beloved. As an Orthodox I understand God's "wrath" to be His implacable opposition to my sin. Thus, even God's "wrath" has one purpose only--and that is my salvation.
I am sensing echoes of the freewill/election debate: God created all. He IS responsible for all. Any wrath toward sin is His Creation or Character or Accommodation. You all may be quibbling over whether or not God is wrathful. I came down on the side against freewill when I recognized that I could not get God off the hook as author of all, whether I was assigned to Hell by my will or His.
I appreciate the light that Karen has brought to the subject, and I appreciate the nuance that His Love compelled Him to save me FROM the consequences of my rebellion, possibly even more than to save me from His punishment, I see Ron's position as very sensible.
Thanks be to God, we are delivered from the power of sin, death and the law, whether we comprehend all the nuances clearly or not. (Somehow, I think we will be comprehending more and better every day forever, when we see Him as He is.)
And please forgive the simplicity of my understanding (and ignorance) of the topic that you all have so comprehensively covered!
Ron, I think you probably understand as well as I do there are different ways to interpret a verse like this--some are better than others. Not even all Bible-believing Evangelicals think the Reformers got it all right in their interpretation of the Apostle Paul's teaching on justification either--witness the New Perspective studies on Paul. Quite clearly, the context of Paul's teaching in Romans wasn't the Medieval Roman Catholic teaching on the place of works as earning "merit" in the life of the believer, but rather Old vs. New Covenent and the means by which we now become members of God's Covenant people. I will also take this chance to reiterate I have no problem with the Bible's statements ("biblical penal substitution") in their own context. I have problems with where some of the Reformers and modern Evangelicals have taken that, which I have labeled "Penal Substitution" (with caps)--the distinction is important.
Conversations like this remind me of the time when as an Evangelical I was confronted by a zealous member of the "Boston Movement" (cult-like group rooted in Campbellite Church of Christ tradition). He asked me what I thought of Ephesians 4:4-6, which reads, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Fittingly, he placed much emphasis in his reading on the word "one" repeated in these verses. I knew he intended to use it to challenge Protestant denominationalism, doubtless, with the intent of making a case the "Restored" Churches of Christ were the "one true church." He didn't quite know what to do with me when I answered simply, "I believe it!" :-)
As an Orthodox Christian, I certainly believe "having been justified by [Christ's] blood . . . we shall be saved by him from the wrath of God." The question is, what exactly does this mean? I don't think anyone is really helped by "proof-texting." I reiterate my appreciation for your filling us in earlier on the whole history of the translation of the biblical term variously translated "justice" and "righteousness" (which I had also read before from other Orthodox--especially those who read the Greek Bible). I find that sort of thing more helpful.
Karen,
You wrote:
‘I have read the Greek NT word transliterated "hilasterion" actually is the LXX translation of the Hebrew word which means "mercy seat", i.e., the place of atonement/reconciliation in the Holy of Holies. It has been more commonly understood as the place where reconciliation takes place because it is expiatory.’
Yes, ἱλαστήριον/hilastērion is the same word that the LXX translators used for the Hebrew word כַּפֹּרֶת/kapporeth, which is commonly translated ‘mercy seat.’ And mercy, of course, is “compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender” (Merriam-Webster)—in other words: the withholding of deserved punishment. And, biblically speaking, punishment is connected directly to both wrath and atonement. In Leviticus we read:
'“But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments, if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant, I, in turn, will do this to you: …I will set My face against you so that you will be struck down before your enemies; and those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee when no one is pursuing you. If also after these things you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.… Yet if in spite of this you do not obey Me, but act with hostility against Me, then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins.’”
[Lev 26:14-18, 27-28, NASB]
So mercy is the withholding of punishment, and punishment is the result of wrath. Furthermore, atonement removes wrath, as we read in Numbers:
‘Moses said to Aaron, "Take your censer and put in it fire from the altar, and lay incense on it; then bring it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague has begun!"’
[Num 16:46, NASB]
It is worth noting that in the Roman Catholic New American Bible (NAB), the Hebrew word כַּפֹּרֶת/kapporeth is translated according to the definition supplied by the classic Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon: ‘propitiatory,’ which means the place where wrath is appeased. This is ironic since the NAB also translates the NT’s ἱλαστήριον/ἱλάσκομαι/ἱλασμός (hilastērion/hilaskomai/hilasmos) word group with “expiation” rather than “propitiation.” So what it gets right in the OT it gets wrong in the NT.
But there is little doubt that the NAB’s poor choice in the NT was due to the ascendancy of liberalism among its mid-to-late-20th century biblical scholars. All one need do is read the book introductions and notes in the NAB to demonstrate the work’s theological liberalism.
And the simple fact is that in the entire history of Greek lexicography, no one suggested that the ἱλαστήριον/ἱλάσκομαι/ἱλασμός word group might refer to “expiation” (the removal of sin) instead of “propitiation” (the appeasement of wrath) until the liberal theologian C.H. Dodd (1884-1973) came along and threw a hissy fit over the whole idea of God even having wrath, declaring it a pagan notion, and promoted his own view, which then became influential. So much for ‘holy tradition!’ As Mark Dever has pointed out, this put Dodd squarely in the radical tradition of Abélard, Socinus, and Schleiermacher, and it is easy to see how this line of thinking infected Roman Catholicism as well, which became quite open to such ideas even before Vatican II.
Unfortunately, the Jerusalem/New Jerusalem Bible translations also jumped on this bandwagon. Although the original JB (1966) was accused of being more a translation of its French predecessor than the Greek original, it ignored the French La Bible de Jérusalem’s use of ‘propitiation’ in Rom. 3:25, 1 Jn. 2:2 and 4:10, which had shown that Dodd’s influence had not yet extended outside of English-speaking circles, and under the editorship of the liberal Henry Wansbrough (who called 2 Peter a ‘forgery’ in the NJB’s introduction to it), the NJB made the switch official to ‘expiation’ in 1985. (It also jumped on another liberal bandwagon by translating עַלְמָה [almah] as ‘young woman’ instead of ‘virgin’ in Isa. 7:14.)
In any event, scholars like Leon Morris had already responded, completely demolishing Dodd’s arguments, and the only artifacts of the trend that Dodd attempted to start are the renderings of the RSV, NAB and NJB. Some translations have tried to avoid the controversy altogether by choosing a more ambiguous rendering (hence the NIV’s and NRSV’s ‘atoning sacrifice’), and the BAGD lexicon splits the difference by glossing both ‘expiation’ and ‘propitiation’ in its entries. But the idea that the NT writers were using these words to refer merely to expiation has been thoroughly discredited, and thus abandoned by recent translators.
You wrote:
‘At the very least on the literal level in the OT one brought a sacrifice for "sin" because one was repenting of that sin, thus the sacrifice signified one's repentance, and sin offerings were eaten by the offerers and priests together after being sacrificed signifying the worshipper's renewed communion/felllowship with God. This also makes sense in light of Christ's teaching in John 6 that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood "or we have no life within us."’
Yes, repentance and worship were involved in the Mosaic sacrifices; but no, their significance was not exhausted by that theme. Over and over the offerers were commanded to lay their hands on the heads of the sacrificial victims (Lev. 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 24, 29, 33; 14:18, 29; 16:21; Num. 8:12), and there was a reason for that. Laying hands on another signified the transference of something, whether a blessing (Gen. 48:17-18) or a commission to service (1 Tim. 5:22), or in this case, sin (Num. 8:12). The sins of the individual or the people were symbolically transferred to the innocent sacrifice, which would pay the penalty for them with its life, in anticipation of Christ, Whom ‘For our sake he [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,’ (2 Cor 5:21, ESV).
And no, the sin offerings were not eaten by the offerers! Only the peace offerings (Lev. 3; 22:18-30), which signified fellowship, were shared with the offerers. The meal offering (Lev. 2), the sin offering (Lev. 4), and the guilt offering (Lev. 5-6:7) were eaten only by the priest, and the burnt offering (Lev. 1) was eaten by no one. Nor is any mention made of anyone eating the sacrificed goat in the scapegoat offering—and, of course, the live goat released into the wilderness was certainly not eaten (Lev. 16). The offerings for sin and guilt in particular foreshadowed what Christ did for us, not what He did in us, and thus sinners did not partake of them.
You wrote:
‘"Propitiation" is a translation choice, and it is just a fact that most English translations have been done by Protestants. There is no question that one's theological presuppositions inform one's translation choices.’
No, this is not a Protestant vs. Catholic and Orthodox issue. The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translation followed the Vulgate by using “propitiation” everywhere that the ἱλαστήριον/ἱλάσκομαι/ἱλασμός occurs in the NT, and the recent Eastern Orthodox Study Bible, by St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, chose the NKJV as its NT translation, which uses ‘propitiation’ in all the relevant places. Rather it is a conservative vs. liberal issue. The theologically-liberal seeds that Peter Abélard that sowed in the Middle Ages have grown into the weeds of your view.
You wrote:
‘From a literal perspective of who really needed to be changed by Christ's blood and sacrifice--it is *us*, humankind, because we were dead in our sins and "the life is in the blood." God is perfect love--He is completely righteous and holy and in Him there is "no shadow of change" James says.’
Propitiation is not about ‘changing God.’ Since propitiation is something that God had planned from all eternity, and since God is immutable, it cannot mean that God has literally changed His attitude, even though it may sometimes appear that way from our limited, finite perspective. While it is true that He had genuine wrath toward us as sinners, it is equally true that because of His love for us He had already decided to remove that wrath through the sacrifice of Christ.
You wrote:
‘God's wrath abides where sin abides, because perfect love will never be reconciled with sin's destruction of the beloved. As an Orthodox I understand God's "wrath" to be His implacable opposition to my sin.’
Unfortunately, your definition of wrath does not seem to go far enough to be biblical. It is abundantly clear from Scripture that God’s wrath is not merely against sin (Rom. 1:18), but against sinners (Rom. 2:5; cf. Rom. 1:32; Isa. 13:9; 1 Sam. 28:18; Neh. 13:18). God is not merely angry about sin because what it does to us (‘sin’s destruction of the beloved,’ as you put it), but He is angry about sin because of what sinners do to Him when they break His laws. ‘Whoever has sinned against me,’ the Lord said to Moses, ‘I will blot out of my book,’ (Ex. 32:33, ESV). And Paul wrote:
‘For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.’
[Eph. 5:5-6, ESV. Cf. 2 Ki. 22:17; Job 42:7]
It seems to me that, based on what Paul says here in Ephesians, he would classify your attempts to make the atonement primarily therapeutic, in keeping with the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on *theiosis*, as ‘empty words.’ Not that the results of Christ’s work are not spiritually therapeutic in ways that go beyond removing God’s wrath and our guilt. Obviously they are! But the work itself centers on propitiation.
You wrote:
‘Thus, even God's "wrath" has one purpose only--and that is my salvation.’
Again, this falls far short of doing justice to the biblical data, which presents God’s wrath as something that must be appeased and removed before He can grant salvation. And, in the case of those for whom it is not removed, they become ‘vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,’ (Rom 9:22).
You wrote:
‘This "mercy seat" can just as easily be thought of as the place where reconciliation takes place because of the change effected in sinners by it--i.e., as "expiation." On the literal level this really makes more sense.’
Well that sounds nice and everything, but you seem to be forgetting that reconciliation is not an escape hatch from wrath, but in Scripture it takes you right back to it. It common parlance it involves the removal of alienation, frequently expressed as wrath. When we speak of two people putting aside their anger and hostility toward each other, we call that ‘reconciliation.’ In Scripture, while it is true that we were at enmity with God (Rom. 8:7), the primary alienation that needed to be removed was that which we had incurred from God by breaking His law: ‘For the law brings wrath,’ (Rom 4:15a). God was not alienated from us because of some disagreement, but because of our offenses, which resulted in His wrath. Hence, perhaps borrowing imagery from the Jewish temple (although it’s not certain Gentiles would have grasped it), Paul tells us that the ‘dividing wall of hostility’ (Eph. 2:13) that kept us as Gentiles away from God (Eph. 2:12) was the Law itself (Eph. 2:15) which required the cross to remove the hostility that was not merely between Jew and Gentile, but on the part of God toward Jew and Gentile on account of their sin (Eph. 2:16; cf. Rom. 3:19-31). So, if you really want to stay ‘on the literal level,’ then you have to acknowledge that the Bible literally teaches that we were reconciled through the removal of God’s wrath toward us as lawbreakers.
You wrote:
‘Ron, I think you probably understand as well as I do there are different ways to interpret a verse like this--some are better than others. Not even all Bible-believing Evangelicals think the Reformers got it all right in their interpretation of the Apostle Paul's teaching on justification either--witness the New Perspective studies on Paul.’
I hesitate to call the adherents of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) ‘evangelicals.’ I believe they are more accurately termed ‘quasi-Romanists.’ The NPP assumes a nearly semi-Pelagian definition of grace (especially in the work of E.P. Sanders), and their view depends on completely redefining the Greek terms for ‘justification.’ This utter novelty—again, springing from the soil of theological liberalism—has produced dubious scholarly results. D.A. Carson wrote:
‘A few years ago I found myself in prolonged conversation with a retired classicist and expert on the Septuagint. He had heard, vaguely, of the new perspective, and wanted me to explain it to him. I took a half-hour or so to give him a potted history of some of the stances that fall within that rubric, including the view that "justification," for some, has come to mean something like "God's declaration that certain people truly belong to the covenant community." He asked a simple question: "Do those who hold this view know any Greek at all?" As far as this Greek expert was concerned, all the δικ- words—δικαιοσύνη, δίκαιος, ἀδικία, δίκος, δικαιόω, and so forth—have to do with justice, with righteousness. He was, of course, perfectly aware that one cannot assume that etymology necessarily provides any word's true meaning. But from his own reading and re-reading of Greek texts from Homer through to the Byzantine period, he found it frankly incredible that anyone could think that the δικ- words could be fairly understood in categories that left out justice/righteouness.’
[D.A. Carson, "The Vindication of Imputation: On Fields of Discourse and Semantic Fields," in Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Trier, eds., Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates, (Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 50-51.]
What makes the NPP so congenial to Romanism is not necessarily its definition of the Greek words for justification as much as the fact that it bases final justification before God, on the judgment day, on works. Thus it smuggles works back into justification, which is hardly evangelical! They make it sound nice by occasionally speaking of it as ‘vindication’ based on the transformed life of the person who was justified, but no matter how you slice it, the NPP makes our works part of the basis of our salvation.
You wrote:
‘Quite clearly, the context of Paul's teaching in Romans wasn't the Medieval Roman Catholic teaching on the place of works as earning "merit" in the life of the believer, but rather Old vs. New Covenent and the means by which we now become members of God's Covenant people.’
Actually, the latter part of your sentence is the very thesis that the NPP has failed to prove, and which has generated a virtual cottage industry of published rebuttals against it. And the former part of your sentence is ironic, since NPP is a road back to merit!
If the central point of Paul’s doctrine of justification was the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s covenant people (which was certainly not absent from Paul’s teaching), it is exceedingly difficult to explain Paul’s argument in Rom. 1-5, although N.T. Wright gives it the old college try. And where does he end up? Right back at that medieval Roman Catholic teaching that was epitomized by the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent! The NPP puts merit right back into justification by making it a factor in what they call ‘final justification!’
You wrote:
‘I will also take this chance to reiterate I have no problem with the Bible's statements ("biblical penal substitution") in their own context. I have problems with where some of the Reformers and modern Evangelicals have taken that, which I have labeled "Penal Substitution" (with caps)--the distinction is important.’
Well, in true NPP fashion you seek to drive some a wedge between what the Bible teaches about penal substitution (and you acknowledge that in some sense it does) and what the Protestant Reformers taught about it. And while you claim the distinction is important, you do not specify exactly what it is, but leave us to conclude that it is something akin to what the NPP teaches, which not only jettisons the doctrine of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) but also salvation sola fide (by faith alone), and hence salvation sola gratia (by grace alone).
You wrote:
‘Conversations like this remind me of the time when as an Evangelical I was confronted by a zealous member of the "Boston Movement" (cult-like group rooted in Campbellite Church of Christ tradition). He asked me what I thought of Ephesians 4:4-6, which reads, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Fittingly, he placed much emphasis in his reading on the word "one" repeated in these verses. I knew he intended to use it to challenge Protestant denominationalism, doubtless, with the intent of making a case the "Restored" Churches of Christ were the "one true church." He didn't quite know what to do with me when I answered simply, "I believe it!" :-)’
I guess that no matter which church they promote, all ‘one true church’ elitists are birds of a feather after all, then, aren’t they?
You wrote:
‘As an Orthodox Christian, I certainly believe "having been justified by [Christ's] blood . . . we shall be saved by him from the wrath of God." The question is, what exactly does this mean? I don't think anyone is really helped by "proof-texting." I reiterate my appreciation for your filling us in earlier on the whole history of the translation of the biblical term variously translated "justice" and "righteousness" (which I had also read before from other Orthodox--especially those who read the Greek Bible). I find that sort of thing more helpful.’
Well, then, take it from the Septuagint expert I referred to earlier: ‘justification’ cannot be apart from God’s justice, which required that sin be paid for.
Meanwhile, every time someone complains about ‘proof-texting,’ I want to ask what they would replace it with. If our final court of appeal is not the text of Scripture, what is it? The mythical ‘unanimous consensus of the fathers?’ The ecumenical councils and/or creeds? The latest liberal fad, like exchanging ‘propitiation’ for ‘expiation,’ or the NPP? If you’re here to promote anything other than the Bible alone as our final authority for faith and practice, then you’ve come to an evangelical web site dedicated to ministering to those who have been wounded by a rogue evangelical in order to take advantage of people in their woundedness for the purpose of proselytizing them.
I have a problem with that.
Ron wrote: "Not that the results of Christ’s work are not spiritually therapeutic in ways that go beyond removing God’s wrath and our guilt. Obviously they are! But the work itself centers on propitiation."
Over the last several weeks, I have been trying to catch up, or reacquaint myself, with these issues on a cursory level. One of the things I've been sort of yelling to myself, but not writing out, on SOME occasions, when penal substitution or the word propitiation and the like were brought up - wanting to yell - don't you see it's both/and not either/or?
Ron wrote: "I guess that no matter which church they promote, all ‘one true church’ elitists are birds of a feather after all, then, aren’t they?"
Nice riposte.
Ron wrote: "Meanwhile, every time someone complains about ‘proof-texting,’ I want to ask what they would replace it with. If our final court of appeal is not the text of Scripture, what is it? The mythical ‘unanimous consensus of the fathers?’"
Getting back to Gothard - who trashed the use of the mind, critical thinking, and logical argumentation - the proof texts have to make logical sense. Their meaning cannot be twisted. They should not be taken out of context to be given a whole new meaning.
Gothard proof-texted all the time, but it was, as someone said years ago, Scotch-taping Bible verses on Gothard's own weird points to make them seem credible.
Scripture verses, understood in context can be studied alongside Scriptures from other places where a common theme is being studied. In this case we have to be very careful to not conflate word meanings (words have a root and range of meaning) of similar words in different passages, but if we avoid that trap, and a few others) we can then learn the whole counsel of Scripture on various issues, such as who God is, how He operates, humankind, sin, salvation, and much more.
In this I disagree with rob war, who seems to be making a case that the problem with IBLP arose because of Sola Scriptura. rob war defined Sola Scriptura as each person reading the Bible for themselves and coming to an understanding on what the Bible means, which is a TOTALLY FALSE defnintion. This particular point of the "5 onlys" of the Reformation refers to the source of our authority, not the authority of the individual reader in determining the meaning of the Scriptures. I respectfully disagree with rob war's point, and agree with Ron, that Gothard's problems arose because he promoted unbibilical authority of men (the kind Jesus warned about in the Gospels), and he became more and more unaccountable to anybody. He became what the Apostle John warned about - a Diotrephes.
But yes, we can proof-text. We should - but we should not do it as Gothard did it. Reading the Bible over and over again has been helpful in this regard - to keep getting the bird's eye-view of matters. A lot of theology can be intuitively grasped this way, but I think the bird's eye-view is important.
Thanks for this discussion. It has caused me to think a lot about what Jesus did and what I am saved from. It's very hard to think about God being a God of wrath, but again, that's not the end of the story for believers, who are forever and ever an object of His eternal affection and love.
I need to make one clarifying point, for the sake of accuracy and comprehension. The first time we encounter the verb ἱλάσκομαι/hilaskomai in the NT is in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, where we read in Luke 18:13:
'But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!"'
[ESV]
The verbal phrase, 'be merciful to me' is ἱλάσθητί μοι (hilasthēti moi), and it can be translated 'be propitious to me,' as it was in the 19th century Young's Literal Translation.
Mercy assumes the withholding of something negative, which, in the case of the mercy shown to a sinner, like the tax collector, means the withholding of punishment. And the punishment for being a sinner is uniformly described in Scripture as God's wrath.
Ron, may I ask you a question? Do you have a substantive disagreement with the original post or in the main do you find agreement with it?
Matthew, if you look at Ron's first comment in this comment thread, it related to the main entry; you will see he thinks there is a confusion over word meanings, and the discussion has ensued from there.
MatthewS,
I have no problem with the original post. As I read it, in fact, it is excellent!
I joined this comment thread not in reaction to the post, but in reaction to some of the comments. Early on, Karen took the post's account of Gothardism's distortion of divine punishment and used it as a springboard for a denial of penal substitutionary atonement. I find that to be an illegitimate inference from the content of the post, and yet another example of the kind of anti-evangelical proselytizing that Karen and rob war have been engaging on this site.
Gothardism is wrong not because it sprouted from the same pot as the teaching that Christ paid the penalty for our sins as our substitute, but rather it is wrong because it failed to teach that truth in all its fullness. If penal substitution is true, there is no more punishment for us as sinners. God is not angry with us. His wrath was completely spent on Christ, leaving only love.
Thus, ironically, the denial of penal substitution ultimately robs us of the God of the Bible Who is both perfectly just, and will thus one day set every wrong ever done against His children to right, and also never does anything to His children out of anger or hostility.
LynnCD,
I don't know if this is what you were saying in your previous comment, but I'm sorry if my first comment gave the impression that it was meant to serve as any kind of critique of the original post. I will blame my own ambiguity on any such conclusion and try to rectify it here.
When I wrote that it 'exposes a problem unique to English speakers who try to wrap their heads around the Bible's teaching concerning justice,' I did not intend to convey the impression that the author was part of the problem.
Toward the beginning of my first comment I introduced the traditional categories of justice—distributive, procedural, restorative/compensatory, and retributive justice—not to correct the author's use of the political science-inspired category of 'primary justice,' but only to provide another perspective. Then I tried to affirm her emphasis that biblical justice is not always a fear-inspiring topic, and then I moved to the issue of the connection between punishment and the atonement, which was a topic her article did not mention.
So my sole purpose was to deal with what some people were making of her article in order to promote non-evangelical views regarding salvation.
Thanks, Ron. Do you agree with the author when she implied she had a problem with God saving her from Himself? Because you said elsewhere God does save us from Himself, and so did I.
I hasten to add, for a child of God to continually think that by rule keeping we can keep the hammer from coming down on us, that is wrong, and if that is what the author meant by God saving us from Himself, then I agree with her intent. Her wording, though, could be construed to mean what the modernists are trying to do away with - the biblical teaching on being delivered from God's wrath.
Which is why I entered this conversation in the first place. God does save us from Himself in that we are saved from His wrath.
LynnCD,
I think you nailed it when you identified her 'I believed He was saving me from Himself' comment with the notion 'that by rule keeping we can keep the hammer from coming down on us.' I read the 'saving me from Himself' remark against the background of the sentence in her previous paragraph: 'I always imagined God coming down from heaven with a sword of justice in hand, ready to punish all of us for our sins.' That is a very different sense of 'saving me from Himself' than the one that actually happened in the atonement on Calvary.
To me, when it is expressed with a participle, as an ongoing thing, that God always has to be about the business of 'saving' me from His own wrath, it is essentially a denial of the once-for-all nature of both Christ's wrath-bearing sacrifice and our own experience of justification by faith. Christ completely did away with wrath for His people, and we do not have to be 're-justified by faith' every time we sin in order to avoid God's wrath.
"To me, when it is expressed with a participle, as an ongoing thing, that God always has to be about the business of 'saving' me from His own wrath, it is essentially a denial of the once-for-all nature of both Christ's wrath-bearing sacrifice and our own experience of justification by faith. Christ completely did away with wrath for His people, and we do not have to be 're-justified by faith' every time we sin in order to avoid God's wrath."
Yes, very well said. Sorry for creating some confusion - I should not have answered for you to Matthew, but I would have asked your opinion about "saving me from Himeself," anyway, given your answer to Matthew, so thanks for the response.
Ron, I will concede propitiatory language is present in Scripture and it is as Lynn says "both/and". What I heard about the meaning of Christ's death/sacrifice as our "salvation" in Evangelical circles was virtually exclusively propitiation. Would it make any sense to see Scripture's "propitiatory" language as a sort of anthropomorphism and a concession to the subjective human point of view related to how we experience God relative to our sin and repentance? You seem to at least concede in all the assertions about (bleeding heart?) liberals and scholars having "hissy fits" (condescend much?) that "expiation" is a Scriptural way to construe the effect of Christ's sacrifice as well. I will be content with that for now. You have also affirmed elsewhere God's willingness to forgive and extend mercy is not dependent upon our offering of sacrifice, since He planned the Incarnation "from the foundation of the world."
Thank you for getting the crux of my concern with Medieval Catholic and Reformed and modern Evangelical treatments of this language in the Scriptures where you wrote:
". . . take it from the Septuagint expert I referred to earlier: 'justification’ cannot be apart from God’s justice, *which required that sin be paid for.*"
and ""God is not merely angry about sin because what it does to us (‘sin’s destruction of the beloved,’ as you put it), but He is angry about sin *because of what sinners do to Him* when they break his laws."
Ron, would you explain how it is Christ's death "pays for" sin? To whom is the debt paid? What does that payment purchase?
I know what human anger is: what is the nature of God's "anger" against sin?
Can you explain precisely what it is our sin "does to" God? What is the metaphysic you posit here?
Would the moderators like to clarify whether this site is intended to be limited to comments from Christians subscribing to the four "solas" of the Reformation?
Thanks, also, Ron for the correction and clarification about the different OT sacrifices. It's been some time since I reviewed that in detail. Perhaps not all sin offerings were even eaten by the priest, since in my review of Leviticus 4 it seems the blood was sprinkled and the rest of the animal was utterly consumed in the fire (the fat on the altar and the rest outside the camp). Both the sprinkling of the blood and the burning of the sacrifice are images of cleansing and removal of our sin (which, as you also note, were symbolically placed on the animal through the laying on of hands). The scapegoat also depicts the removal of our sin--reminds me of that verse "as far as the East is from the West." Sacrifice as the means of "cleansing" and removal of sin sure supports an expiatory reading of OT sacrifice to me as well. I have read so far of at least two former Orthodox Jews become Christians who claim the Jewish understanding of the OT sacrifices is expiatory. Have they been influenced by modern liberalism or is this also in earlier Jewish commentary? That I don't know. I do know the Passover Lamb, like the peace offering, is eaten, and Passover, being the actual time at which Christ was crucified and also where He instituted the Eucharist is where I remembered this connection. This is what I mistakenly conflated with the "sin offering."
The Passover event and sacrifice is arguably the predominant sacrificial OT type and image teaching about the nature of Christ's work of salvation (and it certainly easily and naturally supports the "Christus Victor" understanding of our "salvation" as our rescue from the power of Satan/hell, sin and death). Could this be a biblical argument to see "justification" as a sub theme with the larger picture of our "salvation" in Christ as our rescue from the principalities and power of death and hell? (Not from God, except perhaps in the most highly nuanced sense.)
I do know St. Isaac of Syrian of the 8th century had some very interesting things to say about the nature of God's "wrath" and His "justice" in his homilies (English translations are online for those interested), and he certainly had no modern liberal influence. By his lifestyle, he would probably be defined as a "legalist" practicing "natural religion" in your book, but he sure doesn't sound like that in his homilies to me.
Karen,
Thank you for your gracious concession. As I tried to make clear earlier, propitiation is not the exclusive characteristic of the atonement. I wrote:
‘Not that the results of Christ’s work are not spiritually therapeutic in ways that go beyond removing God’s wrath and our guilt. Obviously they are! But the work itself centers on propitiation.’
In addition to those spiritually therapeutic results, I would, of course, list expiation, (‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’ Jn. 1:29), redemption (or deliverance from guilt; Eph. 1:7), and reconciliation (Rom. 5:11). But to remove propitiation is to remove the means by which all those other benefits were provided.
You wrote:
‘Would it make any sense to see Scripture's "propitiatory" language as a sort of anthropomorphism and a concession to the subjective human point of view related to how we experience God relative to our sin and repentance?’
Only in the sense that all language related to our salvation is at some level ‘anthropomorphic,’ or figurative. We were not literally ‘purchased’ from some vendor when Christ redeemed (or ransomed) us, but that is the language that is used because it signifies that our salvation came at a cost and resulted in release from bondage. The important thing is to maintain the central reason for why the term is employed, and the central reason for the need for propitiation was God’s wrath.
You wrote:
‘You seem to at least concede in all the assertions about (bleeding heart?) liberals and scholars having "hissy fits" (condescend much?) that "expiation" is a Scriptural way to construe the effect of Christ's sacrifice as well. I will be content with that for now.’
Theological liberals should not be confused with political liberals, who are sometimes derogated as ‘bleeding hearts.’ This has nothing to do with those issues. And it is not at all that they set forth expiation as ‘a Scriptural way to construe the effects of Christ’s sacrifice as well,’ but rather that they completely denied that propitiation was Scriptural, which was a monumental error and detrimental to a proper biblical understanding of salvation.
You wrote:
‘You have also affirmed elsewhere God's willingness to forgive and extend mercy is not dependent upon our offering of sacrifice, since He planned the Incarnation "from the foundation of the world."’
Yes I have. That is part of Historic Evangelical Protestantism 101. :-)
You asked:
‘Ron, would you explain how it is Christ's death "pays for" sin? To whom is the debt paid? What does that payment purchase?’
Christ paid for sin by enduring its penalty. Thus we are talking about a legal debt rather than a commercial one, and the payment was judicial rather than pecuniary, even though it is expressed in terms borrowed from the marketplace (or, in the case of the word ‘ransom,’ from a more sinister realm).
So, when we are talking about legal debts paid as judicial penalties, the question, ‘To whom was the debt paid?’ should not be thought of in terms in any way similar to a monetary transaction. Our debt due to sin (the breaking of God’s law) was paid by God the Son to God the Father in order to satisfy the requirements of His holy, just, and perfect moral law. Anselm was on the right track when he spoke of the atonement as a ‘satisfaction.’ But it was not, as he thought, akin to the satisfaction merely of the honor of a medieval lord. That idea has been rightly critiqued for making God sound rather thin-skinned. Rather it was the satisfaction of the righteousness of God.
As for what Christ’s redemption actually purchases: it purchases those who are called ‘the redeemed.’
‘Behold, the Lord has proclaimed to the end of the earth: Say to the daughter of Zion, "Behold, your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him." And they shall be called The Holy People, The Redeemed of the Lord; and you shall be called Sought Out, A City Not Forsaken.’
[Isa 62:11-12, ESV. Cf. Ps. 107:2; Isa. 35:9; 51:10.]
Believers are the ones who are effectively ‘purchased.’ This is something on which all evangelicals (and probably most non-evangelicals) agree: Christ’s redemption was sufficient for all mankind, but efficient only for believers. To go any further than that will take me into discussions on topics where evangelicals differ, and I’m not here to promote my own view but those of evangelicals in general.
You wrote:
‘I know what human anger is: what is the nature of God's "anger" against sin?’
As an elder in the PCA denomination, I am oath-bound to affirm that, ‘There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal…’ etc. (Westminster Confession of Faith 2.1). When we confess that He is ‘without passions,’ we are saying that He does not experience emotion the way His creatures do. His anger is not a heated, ‘animal passion’ the way ours is. Unlike the ancient, capricious, pagan deities, the God of the Bible never wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and then explode in anger when He doesn’t get His way.
On the other hand, when the righteous consequences of sin are inflicted on sinners (instead of on His Son) they are frequently described in such fearsome terms that, when read out of the context of the rest of Scripture, many have misunderstood the descriptions.
‘Behold, the name of the Lord comes from afar, burning with his anger, and in thick rising smoke; his lips are full of fury, and his tongue is like a devouring fire; his breath is like an overflowing stream that reaches up to the neck; to sift the nations with the sieve of destruction, and to place on the jaws of the peoples a bridle that leads astray.’
[Isa 30:27-28, ESV]
But it is not as though God is out-of-control, or forgotten His love in the heat of passion. The context of these verses is God’s loving invitation for His people to repent and be forgiven, and the very next verse reads:
‘You shall have a song as in the night when a holy feast is kept, and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel.’
[Isa 30:29, ESV]
You wrote:
‘Can you explain precisely what it is our sin "does to" God? What is the metaphysic you posit here?’
I’m sure you will agree that the real question is: what is the metaphysic that Scripture posits?
Sin, by its very nature, is an attempt on the part of the creature to usurp the place of God (Gen. 3:5; 1 Tim. 3:6), the failure to honor God as God or render Him gratitude (Rom. 1:21), to have pure hostility toward Him, resenting His claims, rebelling against His rule, and pursuing one's independence in defiance of the Creator (Rom. 8:7).From this nature, acts of sin, blasphemy, and inhumanity toward one’s neighbor inevitably follow (Rom. 1:22-32; 3:9-18).
You wrote:
‘Would the moderators like to clarify whether this site is intended to be limited to comments from Christians subscribing to the four "solas" of the Reformation?’
Karen, I think that if you go back and re-read my actual complaint, you will understand that I never complained that non-evangelicals, or non-Protestants should not be commenting here. My complaint was specifically about proselytizing: i.e., trying to persuade people to leave evangelicalism on a web site devoted to helping evangelicals understand the true nature of their faith, as opposed to the Gothardite distortion of it.
Now rob war has been more overt about this than you have, but suppose there was a renegade Orthodox priest who abused his flock. And suppose there was a web site devoted to helping Eastern Orthodox believers who suffered under that man overcome their experiences. Would you think that the site is fair game for evangelicals to post comments, saying things like, ‘Well, the real problem is not the priest, but the entire belief system of Eastern Orthodoxy’?
You asked:
‘The Passover event and sacrifice is arguably the predominant sacrificial OT type and image teaching about the nature of Christ's work of salvation (and it certainly easily and naturally supports the "Christus Victor" understanding of our "salvation" as our rescue from the power of Satan/hell, sin and death). Could this be a biblical argument to see "justification" as a sub theme with the larger picture of our "salvation" in Christ as our rescue from the principalities and power of death and hell? (Not from God, except perhaps in the most highly nuanced sense.)’
To my knowledge, the fact that Christus Victor is one of the themes employed by NT writers concerning the atonement has never been disputed by anyone in the Protestant tradition. But to ‘connect the dots,’ as it were, from Christus Victor back to the Passover (which I don’t see the Christus Victor theme doing), and then to conclude from that that somehow we were not saved from God (or His wrath) ‘except perhaps in the most highly nuanced sense,’ runs head-on into the simple fact that it was God Himself Who killed the firstborn sons of Egypt on the original Passover (Ex. 11:4-6; 12:12; 12:29). So, by following God’s instructions, they saved their firstborn sons from God Himself! I don’t see how this adds nuance. Rather, it highlights the concrete aspect of propitiation.
You wrote:
‘I do know St. Isaac of Syrian of the 8th century had some very interesting things to say about the nature of God's "wrath" and His "justice" in his homilies (English translations are online for those interested), and he certainly had no modern liberal influence.’
In my study of historical theology, I have learned that there really is nothing new under the sun. And, upon reflection, it should come as no surprise that modern liberals have been more influenced by ancients of like mind than the other way around.
You wrote:
‘By his lifestyle, he would probably be defined as a "legalist" practicing "natural religion" in your book, but he sure doesn't sound like that in his homilies to me.’
Not all legalists are as legalistic as they can be. Even the sons of the Pharisees who bequeathed the Talmud mentioned God’s חֶסֶד (chesed)—his lovingkindness—occasionally.
I've been told, Ron, that by the time someone draws an analogy that mentions the Nazis even if in the most tangential fashion associating with this evil (however loosely and subtly) the views and position of his interlocutor, the capacity for any real, honest two-way conversation is really long gone if, indeed, it ever existed in the first place. I just noticed this part of your long comment to me. I see your insistence that I am here to proselytize as pure projection, as you are clearly a very accomplished and studied apologist for the most unnuanced Reformed emphases on the nature of our salvation in Christ, which should not surprise anyone, coming as it is from an elder in the Presbyterian Church.
It's not my business, and I really am not so foolish after all my varied church experience in which I found God faithful to meet me in a variety of Protestant Christian traditions in various ways, as to believe formal membership, or not, in the Orthodox Church (or any particular church or lack of church) is the deciding factor in whether or not people manage to effectively convert to Christ and begin to work our their salvation in Christ. As I said before, I am rather optimistic about the creativity of God in finding ways to meet and recover his lost sheep wherever they may be. As Blessed Augustine has said in his day of the Church and those in schism from her, "How many sheep without (outside the Church). How many wolves within (inside the Church)." Orthodox bishop, Met. Kallistos (Timothy Ware), has echoed this (I am paraphrasing), "We know where the Church is. We can't always say where it isn't." When an Eastern Orthodox Christian (who understands the true Orthodox nature of this teaching) states his confidence that the Eastern Orthodox communion of churches in her essential constitution and teaching is the "one, true Church", he isn't drawing anything like the kind of inferences about the spiritual state or destiny of those outside formal membership in the Orthodox Church that a "Boston Movement" would-be proselytizer is when he says the same thing about his church. I should know, I had a close relative whom I love deeply spend over a decade in that cult. As a result of the spiritual confusion that resulted from their indoctrination, even after decades out of the group, he has never managed to bring himself to join any Christian church again, though I think he still holds to an orthodox Christian understanding of the Person of Jesus Christ. If you believe sincerely your Presbyterian church's distinctives, when clearly taught and truly lived, offer the best and most reliable way for people to come to a correct understanding of the gospel and effectively work out their salvation in Christ (and I certainly hope this is what you believe if you are an elder in your church!), you don't believe anything different about your church, than I do about mine.
Lynn, I wanted to respond a little to your comment about the roots of the word, "mercy" in the NT. You are right than in many places this word in the NT comes from the LXX translation of "chesed" and signifies God's "tenderlovingkindness" (a word the NASB translators coined if I recall correctly), His covenant grace. This is probably the word most often used as "mercy" in the NT. An example is when the blind man cries for "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" There is another word used in an almost identical English phrasing, but different context in Christ's parable of the publican and pharisee, as Ron pointed out, which means it in the sense of a plea to withhold the punishment his sins deserve. It is the former sense of covenant grace that the frequent congregational response, "Lord, have mercy" are made in the historic liturgies of the EO church (which makes sense in light of the petitions that precede them). I misunderstood this as an Evangelical mistakenly believing whenever this prayer was uttered in the ancient liturgies it was a groveling for forgiveness because of the lack of assurance of salvation because of a salvation by works theology. This is untrue however.
I also learned that the GK term for mercy in the sense of grace is very close to the term for olive oil and anointing which is a play on words. Anointing with olive oil, of course, symbolizes the grace of the Holy Spirit poured out for healing and other purposes related to God's covenant in the Bible.
Karen,
From your very first comment on this thread you have been denigrating the classic, evangelical doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement while promoting your own Eastern Orthodox view. You even went so far as to connect it to the spiritual abuse of Gothardism, and then threw in the following half-hearted, left-handed disclaimer:
'Certainly not all who follow the Reformers' understanding of Penal Substitution are going to become abusers, but it seems to be an ideal ideological set up for those who have that bent and the tendency toward a neurotic, unbiblical servile fear" of "God.'
You even associated penal substitution (or perhaps the Reformers who taught it) with the wicked servant in Christ's parable in Matthew 25:24-25. Attacking an opposing viewpoint and recommending your own in place of it is a hallmark of proselytization. You were clearly trying to proselytize people to your theology, if not your actual church. If someone actually came over to your view with real conviction, it is doubtful that that person would remain in an evangelical congregation.
So, frankly, I have no idea why you think you have room to complain for me calling you on it.
Ron, I won't argue with you on certain things--no one can truly and perfectly perceive another's heart or motives. You are right that I have suggested certain configurations of Scripture's language of penalty and propitiation have been preached and construed in ways that seem to me to confuse our understanding of God's motives in sending Christ to die for our sins. That was my experience, and I have read it over and over from many others. I found a resonance between that and the author's experience. Only she can say whether this may have been true for her.
You explain: "Christ paid for sin by enduring its penalty. Thus we are talking about a legal debt rather than a commercial one, and the payment was judicial rather than pecuniary, even though it is expressed in terms borrowed from the marketplace (or, in the case of the word ‘ransom,’ from a more sinister realm)."
Perhaps a better way to get at the nuances of how this can be misconstrued is to ask how does *God* benefit by having Christ pay the penalty for sin? I find both Anselms and the Reformers reasoning in this regard problematic. (It's pretty clear to me how we benefit.) You talk about "God's righteousness being satisfied". If you mean in the "eye for eye" sense of God's righteous " justice" in the sense this seems to be mixed in with Anselm's and the Reformers thinking, I will have to admit I think this leads to an incoherent understanding of the nature of God and of how the whole economy of Christ's death works. I'm not uncomfortable critiquing this aspect of Evangelical theology, no. Not after I've seen the double bind in terms of being able to put the full weight of one's trust in the unadulterated grace of God it puts one. If you take "righteousness" in the fuller sense that the author and Matthew talk about in this thread -- fulfilling God's perfect goodness in all its aspects, then I have no problem with the statement that God's "righteousness" is satisfied by Christ's work on the Cross, and this understanding also more naturally connects it to the whole economy of the Incarnation, including Christ's life and resurrection as all parts of a seamless whole.
Speaking only for myself, I have benefitted from reading everyone's comments, including rob's, Karen's and Ron's. All three have been seeking God for multiple decades. I have learned from all.
I am one of the people who does not go to church. Most days, I am astonished any of us believe in God, let alone go to church. I come to this site because I see people healing and seeking God despite past trauma.
_________________
Ron, I appreciate your research on BG. You feel protective of the people on this site, and I appreciate that. You said you don't want people to take advantage of those who have been wounded by a rogue evangelical. When you become passionate about preventing folks from going down a wrong path, I recognize it is because you care about them and want what's best for them. I liked your explanation of righteousness and justice.
From reading her comments on this site, I would venture to say that rob war is one of the people who has been wounded by a rogue evangelical, actually several rogue evangelicals, different ones at different times. She is on a path of spiritual healing.
I have a few nagging questions that keep me coming back to this site. In another thread, I said my main question revolves around understanding my parents' mindset and motivations when I was growing up. I think rob war also has specific, nagging questions. One of them is "Why didn't evangelicalism do a better job of stopping BG?" Actually, I would like to know that, too. I don't know that rob has discovered the answer to her satisfaction, but I have benefitted from listening to her piece it together.
_________________
rob war, I have learned a lot from you. For example, I read a lot about the Shepherding movement after you and David Pigg mentioned it. I hope you will continue to post. You encourage me because you are strong in your faith. I relate to your frustration with evangelicalism.
_________________
Karen, You also encourage me because you are strong in your faith. Either I do not remember or have not read what brought you to this site. I like that you have a slightly different take on many familiar Bible stories. For example, I liked when you commented about the adulteress being stoned. I had never heard your version of the story.
I think I understand what you are trying to say about penal substitution. Growing up, I always thought it was strange how much I was pummeled with my worthlessness as a sinner. Kind of like, "You are the scum of the earth as sinners! You'd better make sure you are right with God before you kick the bucket! Otherwise, you will face the wrath of God!" This seemed "off" to me,especially because some people are not exactly "wretches." Actually, they are pretty good people. Not perfect like God, of course, but is it good to berate people all the time about how inadequate they are? It felt like the sword of Damocles was hanging over our heads. We were fortunate in our position as God's children, but that sword hung over us all the same.
I grew up around mostly Protestants. However, I have an honest question. Why do you think so many people who grew up in Catholicism complain about "Catholic guilt." It seems to be a serious impediment to people's psychological and spiritual lives. It also seems to be related to this topic.
As in the previous discussion regarding Watchman Nee, people might say this debate is not appropriate for this site. I have no idea how such matters should be policed.
However, for myself, I like hearing everyone's perspectives. The only irksome people are the ones who condemn the whole site as a forum for whiny babies who want to run away from God's clearly stated principles. And of those, only one person managed to truly disturb me.
"One of them is "Why didn't evangelicalism do a better job of stopping BG?" Actually, I would like to know that, too."
Hi, Lindsey,
Part of the answer is, it isn't anybody's job to stop Bill Gothard. It's a free country. Women brave enough to finally speak out have stopped him on account of his sinful behavior.
Another part of the answer is, and I don't have the exact stats, but it's not as if IBLP has the number of seminar attendees that it once had. I used to check several years ago, and judging from the number of seminars, and their locations, it was in decline then. Since Don and Joy Veinot's and Ron Henzel's book came out in 2002, surely there was a wake up call then that contributed to the decline. There definitely isn't the demand for the seminars as there once was. But even then, Midwest Christian Outreach was stymied in what they could say about the abuse, too, so that needs to be factored in.
And this site is continuing to sound the alarm. So given that this is a free country, and Bill has every right to promote whatever crazy ideas he wants to promote and teach, and that no one has the right to come in and shut IBLP down per force, I believe evangelicals have done a very good job teaching and warning others. It appears many have heeded the warnings.
Now I feel like asking why hasn't Roman Catholicism done a better job at shutting down Mormonism, or Jehovah's witnesses? Or Protestantism in general? JW representatives (at least, the ones who come to my door) tend to speak against Roman Catholicism. I don't need the answers to these questions. They quite frankly never came to my mind until you repeated rob war's question. So I don't see the need to blame "evangelicalism" as a whole. It appears there will always be people susceptible to strong leaders to tell them what to do and how to think. And people who love having followers.
Bottom line it's not our job to stop people, unless we have to report them to the police for any reason. We can only persuade.
Linsey,
Thank you for your perspective and the kindness and respect your words convey! I have extended family wounded by Gothard's teaching (continued under a narcissist they met at one of his seminars who was trying to improve on Gothard and start his own "correct everyone else and save the church which has been infiltrated by paganism" group). I attended one seminar as a teen with my Mom. It never stuck for either of us--thank God! One of my siblings got sucked into "The Boston Movement" in college and spent over a decade in that group. In a spiritually dry time (after a stint on the mission field short term), I explored what they were about. It precipitated a crisis of faith where I made a decisive analysis of the interior spiritual dynamics of legalism in my own heart after Galatians 5:1 strengthened me in my conviction to never get sucked into a group founded on legalist dynamics. My experiences in many Christian circles have cemented my conviction this perversion can be found in any church or organization potentially. Anywhere truth is found, it can be perverted.
I suspect Catholics who grew up in the Church complain about "Catholic guilt" for the same reason many conservative Protestants and especially Fundamentalists (at least those in recovery) complain about the same sort of thing. (There are some pretty serious cases of clerical abuse and the like in the Orthodox Church, too, but I'm not aware of child abuse statistics in Orthodox families compared to Catholics or Protestants.) I was never Catholic, but I have heard from those who did that sacramental Confession for Catholics can take a very scrupulous legalistic form--I suspect that kind of pressure doesn't help. Orthodox Confession takes a decidedly therapeutic approach rather than legal consistent with how the whole economy of our salvation in Christ is understood. My Orthodox priest displays his scarred knuckles from being sent to Catholic schools in the 50s (the public schools where he grew up were not good and there were no Orthodox alternatives) and getting regularly struck on the knuckles with a ruler by the nuns. I also once attended a Christian home school seminar on "biblical training and discipline" in my state. The speakers are popular in conservative Christian/Fundamentalist home school circles. What I heard about the place of corporeal punishment in that seminar and how Scripture was interpreted in this regard to support it literally made me nauseous, and I have since read testimonies of children reared in such families with seriously abusive parents where the brutal emotional, sexual, and physical abuse they endured was blood boiling and gut wrenching to read about. That's just some of what fuels my compassion for people in recovery from spiritual abuse and my interest here.
All the best to you, Lindsey!
Yes, Karen, re: the corporal punishment. Gary Ezzo, whose literature Gothard sold, taught a twisted, demented version of corporal punishment, and letting even small babies "cry it out" between feedings (his old version, at least). I agree, you see it all the time (or used to) at homeschooling conventions. The Pearls also come to mind in this regard. I still cringe when I hear the term "blanket training," which many in IBLP practiced, as I recall from the discussion groups.
This preys on the fears of young parents, who want to do everything right and not raise children who are going to be delinquent. I know I had some of those fears. It's easy to get sucked in.
There are people who think they know a little Scripture and somehow makes them experts in child psychology and it's sad how easily people fall for it.
*not* going to be delinquent.
Thanks, Lynn. Yes, I've read about the Ezzo's and Pearls, too. The guy I listened to was a little more small potatoes than that I think, but very much part of the home school circle of respected authorities. What kills me is the strong Fundamentalist need to read, "Spare the rod, spoil the child" with excruciating literalism! I got sick in the Q & A session at the end just after the corporal punishment section (which I was taking with abundant grains of salt) a lot of the stuff on instruction/training was not bad--a lot of the kind of thing you could hear on Focus on the Family. The biblical literalism of the philosophy behind the corp. punishment was not something I bought into from the get-go, though I don't swing in the direction that corp. punishment is always "child abuse" either. I got sick when the question was asked how much is too much (striking with the rod--he was very specific about what kind of rod was best, too). The teacher, in a very emotionally flat casual, detached manner, responded that if you strike on the face or cause an actual injury that was not acceptable (and he had some verse of Scripture as his rationale here--as if our natural God-given human capacity for empathy shouldn't be enough to tell us this even for our own children!), but "if you don't leave a weal, you're not doing the job right." Corporeal punishment was to be reserved for a child's "defiance". I wondered if these people realize that behaviors which could be read as basic willful and overt defiance are part of the developmental stages of three year olds and teens especially. (My college background is Psychology and Christian Ed, so a lot of developmental psychology and its Christian application. . .)
Fear is at the root of everything in Fundamentalist/legalist misreadings of the Scripture and of basic human needs and psychology--behind every abuse perpetrated and every abuse submitted to. Perverted forms of faith are driven by fear. It has to be driven out by trust in the grace of God to cover and guide us out of even our worst mistakes.
Hi Lindsey and thank-you for your kind comments. I will try to answer a couple of your questions. If you google "Catholic guilt", you will come across a Wiki article and in that article a couple of studies on Catholics concerning this have been done and those studies do not support the view that there is more guilt with Catholics. In fact, one of the studies showed that practicing Catholics actually have less "guilt" than lapse Catholics or even non-Catholics. In other words, the phrase is an "urban" legend. Having excessive guilt is usually called scrupulosity and this borders on OCD than having anything to do with religion whether it be Catholic or even fundamentalist. Those that struggle with OCD can often gravitate to religions that enhance the problem, not alleviate it.
I also would like to address or help you understand maybe why your parents might have gotten caught up with Gothard and raised you in it. The seminars in the 1970's was oriented to teenagers and young adults, those that do not have excessive experience with either Biblical understanding or just plain old fashioned life experience. I also would guess that your parents went to a Church that support seminar attendance and promoted it. Unless your parents had other Christian background elsewhere, the above combination would be very insular and lead them down the path they took. I am grateful after reading comments on articles here that my more liberal Methodist raising probably gave me more fortitude and questions which helped me not travel the road too many took.
I think the saddest comments and articles on this blog are from people like your parents, that deeply regret going down this road of ATI. The road to forgiveness of themselves seems to be the most challenging of all. I hope that those parents that have these regrets do find healing , peace and forgiveness.
I am considering not participating here much longer. Your kind comments are greatly appreciated and a real gift. My purpose was to look for information and understanding. I hope that I have helped others in the journey to healing, wholeness and forgiveness. That would be my wish and prayer for all involved here.
Don, I would like to clarify my quibbling over God's "wrath" is not *whether* God has "wrath" or not, but what exactly this anthropomorphism in the Scripture means to communicate. Obviously, it communicates God's displeasure (not in any capricious or passionate sense as Ron has explained from the Westminster Confession, which is also the Orthodox teaching) with sin. I believe this displeasure or wrath must be parallel to and correspond with Ezekiel's affirmation that "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked," but rather wills his repentance and the Apostle Peter's affirmation God is not willing any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. This is completely parallel to saying God is "wroth" when we persist in our sin. There is nothing objectionable to me about that. It is yet another facet or expression of God's opposition to sin (and let us concede also sinners insofar and inasmuch as they persist in their sin as long as we understand that this does not cancel out his love for sinners and yearning for their repentance just as it would not any good parent's for a prodigal child). Does this help?
I have to say a big difference between my Methodist background and Presbyeterian/Reformed is the perspective on the freedom of the human will. I'm not sure if it is accurate, but I have heard Pelagianism described as human monergism (I'm not sure if Arminianism can be described quite this way--don't remember enough specifics), and Calvinist "predestination" described as divine monergism, but the classical Christian patristic understanding is synergism--a cooperation between man's will and God's (where God's is the infinitely more significant, but man's free assent no less necessary). The Fathers considered human freedom to be the most defining characteristic of our having been made in the image of God. There's no question this freedom was severely crippled in the Fall of Adam and apart from Christ's uniting Himself with our humanity and healing it through the whole economy of His Incarnation (including his death and resurrection), we could not choose to follow Him. Now, we can once again and we must freely choose or our "love" for Christ can have no real meaning.
Ron, would you please forgive my intemperate language in reacting to your comments about theological liberalism, etc.? This does not truly reflect my attitude toward you, but rather the fact that certain of your words reminded me of the attitudes I held toward Catholics (I hardly knew the EO existed when I was Protestant!) and that penetrated to a tender place in me at a moment when I was very tired. That's not an excuse. It's an explanation. I really like what Lindsey said about you, and I wanted to say I am deeply appreciative of your and Don Venoit's work in the book you co-wrote about Bill Gothard's teaching. It was very helpful to me and my husband.
Ron, if you would allow me, I would also like to clarify what I see are a couple of misunderstandings on your part:
You said of EO and your exploration of it:
"I think I understand that system pretty well, especially considering how it significantly overlaps my Roman Catholic background, but I found all that to be a spiritual dead-end."
I can certainly understand why you would consider EO a spiritual dead end if your perception of it was that it is a "system". That is a very Catholic and Protestant way to approach theological statements (i.e., to try to organize them into a logical system), but if there's anything I have learned it is that Orthodoxy is not a system (any more than the narratives and words of the Scriptures present us with a system--they are ultimately meant to connect us meaningfully with a Person, Jesus Christ), and the minute you turn it into one, it indeed becomes a false religion. It has to be said, Orthodox teachings become a pretty confusing, contradictory, and unwieldy mess when you try to turn them into a system. My understanding is this is one of the biggest complaints Catholics have about Orthodoxy. It doesn't tie things up neat for us in terms of airtight humanly logical legal systems. Neither do they have a single, neatly ordered, centrally-located hierarchical administration and locus of teaching authority.
You said: "Meanwhile, every time someone complains about ‘proof-texting,’ I want to ask what they would replace it with. If our final court of appeal is not the text of Scripture, what is it? The mythical ‘unanimous consensus of the fathers?’ The ecumenical councils and/or creeds?"
The "unanimous" consensus of the Fathers is indeed "mythical". It is a straw man. What I understand Orthodoxy to teach is that there is a consensus of the Fathers (reflected in the rulings of the Ecumenical Councils considered in their own contexts)--that is, *a core of central understandings about the nature of the Trinity, the nature of Jesus Christ ion His Incarnation, and the essential constitution of the Church* (in the nature of her hierarchy and the Eucharist, for example), continuous throughout those who are considered the Fathers of the Church (early and, for the Orthodox, continuing throughout her history. In the EO communion only those who are also Saints are considered "Fathers" in the sense, too. So, Origen and Tertullian, though important thinkers in the early Church don't qualify for us). That said, one can't "proof text" with the Fathers either (even where they are considered to be theologically correct in their own context, and they weren't infallible), and I'm sure many of us Orthodox (especially those of us with Catholic or Protestant theological backgrounds) may do that.
A legitimate use of "proof text" would be to take a verse or passage of Scripture as one's starting point and then explain by relating it to many other passages of Scripture, starting with its own immediate context, how it relates to the whole of the teaching of the Scriptures (and not just to other verses that use the same wordings or seem to contain the exact same idea, etc., to bolster one's own view of what that verse intends to teach--this is an illegitimate way to "proof text"--it's the way all the cults do it, too.) Does this help?
This has gone totally off topic from the original article. Ron, no matter what your concerns are here, you do have your very own web site and blog to espouse your views are what is wrong with Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholic Church or any other group you disagree with. One can't accuse one person of going off topic and then turn around and continue. Reformed theology isn't the only view even in evangelicalism. Just looking at Patheos Evangelical channel turns up a number of different theological view points. The stated rules on this blog do state that different views are welcomed and encouraged. The article is about being afraid of God and "justice" because the author grew up with a view of God that is expressed by the recent rant by Jessie Seawald Duggar which is an angry God ready pounce on you if you sin. The conversation is better served focusing in this than going off about differences between reformed theology and Orthodoxy in their views of penal substitution. Jessie Duggar's rant is already being discussed by atheist blogs, it would be better served if discussed here as part of the conversation. I found her rant a deeply disturbing view of God, it is harsh and troubling. Viewing God's justice as only a form of punishment is actually a disservice to God's real justice which includes the view that justice just isn't about punishment but about setting things right.
Karen,
Your most recent comment directed toward me seems to assume that here on an evangelical web site, the evangelical doctrine of Christ paying the penalty for our sin as our substitute is somehow in need of defense. In doing this, you maintain your posture of trying to persuade others that evangelicalism is wrong and other understandings, such as yours are correct, and yet somehow I am judging your 'heart or motives' by pointing this out. I think that the average perceptive reader will quickly see the fallacy in this.
You seem to keep on hiding behind words like 'nuance,' but the whole time you are on your apparent quest for whatever subtlety or shade of meaning you hope will help you avoid the Christ who bore your penalty, the Scriptures are shining a bright spotlight on the raw fact of what He actually accomplished:
'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. 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.'
[Isa 53:5-6 ESV]
Since your question, 'how does *God* benefit by having Christ pay the penalty for sin?' is tantamount to asking, 'What's in it for God?' comes off as so crass I wonder how you can ask it without experiencing deep shame. All of what He did in Christ was not for His own benefit, but for ours, including Christ's act of bearing our penalty. It held a two-fold benefit for us. By offering Himself as a propitiation on our behalf, Christ (1) demonstrated God's love for us, and (2) demonstrated his justice (or righteousness—same word in both Hebrew and Greek). And it was not simply to demonstrate the righteousness of God saving us sinners that is included in the demonstration of His justice, but the fact that God even allowed the human race to continue after the Fall. This is why Paul wrote that Christ was the One
'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.'
[Rom 3:25 ESV]
Thus, through Christ's propitiation, God also maintained His righteousness despite the fact that He did not destroy all of humanity the moment it fell into sin by carrying out the terms of the original covenant with Adam: '"in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die,"' (Gen 2:17 ESV).
So no, the '"eye for eye" sense of God's righteous "justice"' does not lead to 'an incoherent understanding of the nature of God and of how the whole economy of Christ's death works.' What an utterly unbiblical thing to say! Did God put the principles of retributive justice into His word just so someone like you could come along and call them inconsistent, irrelevant, or unintelligible (the basic meanings of the word 'incoherent')? The thing you so denigrate actually provides the necessary backdrop for understanding what Christ did for us. Thus if you deny the fact of God's retributive justice, and you deny that Christ was bearing it on our behalf, you understand neither His love for us sinners, nor the salvation He offers us.
Ron, this most recent comment as well as many others of yours addressed to me on this particular issue on this thread shows me we have been largely talking past one another. I am willing to bear the complete weight of responsibility for that. I would be glad to address your perceptions and concerns, but I think Recovering Grace has indulged this discussion long enough. If I were to send email to Midwest Outreach addressed to you, could I use that venue? You can reply or not as you choose.
Karen,
I agree. Feel free to reach me through Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc.'s web site.
Karen,
You wrote:
'Ron, would you please forgive my intemperate language in reacting to your comments about theological liberalism, etc.?'
As you might be able to tell, I'm playing catch-up here, scrolling through the activity in this thread over the past couple of days during which I've been busy with other things.
I'm not entire sure what you're referring to by 'intemperate language.' Perhaps it was the parenthetical 'bleeding heart?' and 'condescend much?' remarks. If so, not to worry: all is forgiven. And if it was something else, that is forgiven, too.
Yes, that was it. Thank you so much, Ron.
No problem! Let's just forget it ever happened.
rob war,
I have attempted to clearly state my case. Karen has agreed to take our discussion to a private forum, and I invite you to do the same.
Meanwhile, because you were not the only one to raise this point, I will limit my response to your following statement and then retire from this discussion:
'Viewing God's justice as only a form of punishment is actually a disservice to God's real justice which includes the view that justice just isn't about punishment but about setting things right.'
First, I do not limit God's justice to the realm of punishment. I thought I made that clear earlier, but for everyone's benefit, apparently I was not as clear as I'd hoped and I need to reiterate it here. God's justice/righteousness is much, much wider than punishment. However...
Second, when we are focusing on the specific topic of what Christ suffered for on our behalf on the cross, the full breadth of all the aspects of justice are not specifically in view. So while they are relevant to the Christian life, and thus extremely important they are not relevant to this particular discussion of the atonement. Here's why...
According to Scripture, the cross was not about those other aspects of justice that I covered earlier. For example, it was not about distributive justice, which relates to the just distribution of goods in society. Jesus did not die to ensure we all got our share of goods. Those of us who trust in what Christ did for us on the cross should care about distributive justice, but that is obviously not the kind of justice He endured by His sufferings. So it's not about that.
Nor does it have to do with procedural justice, which relates to the establishment and maintenance of fair processes for resolving disputes between people and distributing goods. Again, this is something Christians should care about, but through His suffering and death for us Jesus did not provide legal resolution to human quarrels or distributive inequities, nor did He 'endure' procedural justice on our behalf.
Nor does it have to do with compensatory justice, which relates to restoring unjust losses. We Christians should actively seek to compensate anyone we have sinned against, and pursue it to whatever extent we can in our society, but, before God, no sinner actually deserves compensation for any loss, since they receive everything God gives them in spite of their sins, and through their sins they have actually robbed God of the obedience He deserves. So Jesus did not suffer compensatory justice for us on the cross.
So that only leaves one kind of justice that relates to the cross of Christ: retributive justice. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God,' (1 Peter 3:18a ESV). None of the other aspects of justice relate to the central work Jesus performed for us on the cross by suffering for us the way retributive justice does. Jesus took our punishment, plain and simple. '...He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace...the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all,' (Isaiah 53:5-6 ESV).
Feel free to have the last word here, if you choose. And if you want to pursue this via email or on Facebook, I'll do my best to make time for it as I am able.
Thanks!
So, basically, Ron and Rob,
Ron has clarified: Reformed Penal Substitution (RPS) reads the whole economy of our salvation (as justification) as retributive justice, not as restorative justice on a cosmological scale *in which the "eye for eye" justice required by the Mosaic Law is fulfilled BY BEING SUPERSEDED AND RENDERED OBSOLETE* (I write here in caps, not to digitally "yell", but because I don't know how to boldface in this medium! :-)). RPS connects justification to God's restoration of all things in Christ in a contingent manner whereby the latter (restoration) is contingent on the first (justification).
The difficulty here comes in when we look at this from the perspective of God's plan, God's ordering of the universe--the nature and motivation of God in His dealings with human beings, both in their God-given purpose and end ("telos") in Creation and in the Fall of Adam. This is as opposed to looking at it from the perspective of our human need and helplessness in the face of sin. No argument from me that we owe God obedience and that we cannot provide this apart from the regeneration of our human nature in Christ. Can we see that from this RPS understanding, though, some can come to the logical conclusion that what is at the very core of God's motivation and concern in our justification on the Cross is His own compensation, and that the punishment Jesus underwent was sort of an end in itself in this regard, which pleased God because it compensated Him for our "robbery" of Him? This, it seems to me, is how the Reformers' language can be understood (or misunderstood perhaps?). IOW, this can be seen as a one-up on Anselm's "thin-skinned" God needing to restore His own "honor." Now, we have a God who is not merely "thin skinned", but an iron-hearted, iron-fisted inherently Self-contradictory Enigma (Who seemingly cannot "forgive/justify" without a blood sacrifice human Victim to punish), who then magically transforms into the exact opposite when seen through the lens of Jesus' statement, "He Who has seen Me has seen the Father"? The kind of language to explain RPS Ron uses can lead some to infer a view where God can be seen as a tyrannical Despot glorying in the punishment of the unrepentant sinner (an especially egregious image when viewed through the extreme "Double Predestinarianism" of some wherein sinners never had the opportunity to repent in the first place), yet Who in complete partiality deals in exactly the opposite manner with those who will simply acknowledge this is His "right" (i.e., the "elect")? It is this kind of logical extension of thinking from what Ron has described that is so spiritually hideous to me and which can cause parents and pastors to think the answer to their children's or flocks' sins is more intense punishment or more intense threat of punishment (such as Lindsey experienced).
I hope this is helpful clarification.
We appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for this discussion. Thank you for being an active and important part of this community. The main focus of this site is specifically about IBLP teachings and practices and directly related issues. In order to be most effective toward this goal, issues such as Calvinism versus Arminianism or Catholic and Orthordox versus Protestant need not be the dividing lines. At this time, we are asking everyone to move on from this discussion regarding Catholic and Orthodox versus Protestant issues.
I think some very beneficial points were raised in the discussion. The author of the article implied she wrongly believed God was saving her from Himself. This is to mean we wrongly think God stands ready to smack us if we get the least little bit out of line, as believers. We wrongly think we have to walk a tightrope of sorts, in order to live the Christian life, when the reality is we are sheep in a broad, green pasture with fresh water to drink, and we are under the watch care of a loving Shepherd. I think Ron brilliantly clarified the two truths that God saves us once for all eternity from His wrath, and He is also no longer saving us from His punishment for sins, but wants us to love our neighbor as ourselves, which includes other concepts of justice which are every bit as biblical as punitive justice.
Well said LynnCD
Thanks. For those who wish to see more of Ron's thoughts, and objections to his thoughts from others, on this matter - I totally forgot about this conversation, started by a post Ron made back in 2009. I completely forgot about all the remarks I made in the thread as well. This subject as a controversy has been ruled off topic here - but if you want to continue discussing it - I'm sure this thread could be resurrected from quiescence: http://midwestoutreach.org/2009/05/28/the-lamb-that-was-slain/