the singularity of being and nothingness
42 Theses Contra Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory
1. PSA theory asserts that sin incurs a "penalty."
2. This penalty is based upon God's decision concerning sin.
3. God's decision in this matter is free and in accordance with God's will, as there is no force which compels God to choose or act in one way or the other.
4. God has determined that the penalty incurred from sin terminates in the death of the sinner.
5. God has determined that this penalty cannot be mitigated unless satisfactory payment is rendered.
6. God has determined the terms of the penalty;
7. It is also God to whom satisfaction must be rendered.
8. All humanity has sinned and incurred the penalty of death.
9. Satisfaction for this sin can only be accomplished by full satisfaction of the penalty–the death of every sinner.
10. God has determined that satisfaction of penalty must be rendered by those to whom it applies.
11. Christ has experienced death, and mysteriously unites the universal sin of humanity within a singular death.
12. And God has accepted Christ's death in the place of multitudes of sinners, counting his singular death efficacious for remitting the universal penalty due for innumerable sinners.
13. As already stated, no necessity determines the free and willful decisions of God.
14. If God decrees one thing, God is perfectly free to recall said decree, for God is not bound by any force located outside the divine nature and will.
15. God has determined that the penalty for sin is death;
16. However, it logically follows God is similarly free to decree that the penalty for sin is absolved, without the need for satisfaction to be made.
17. Therefore, if God demands satisfaction for sin, it is because this is part of God's good and perfect will, not the result of any external necessity.
18. PSA theory asserts that Christ has come to humanity precisely to provide satisfaction for sin.
19. Moreover, it is claimed that this has been determined from all of eternity.
20. If the satisfaction of the penalty for sin is the impetus for Christ's death, then Christ's will and that of the Godhead are opposed.
21. This is necessary, for in the Cross Christ reveals a desire and will to remove the penalty which exists according to humanity's sin.
22. Apart from the cross, however, the Godhead expresses a desire to maintain the power of penalty over humanity.
23. Again, this is a necessary conclusion because God's decision to withhold the remission of penalty without satisfaction is based upon God's choice, not upon any necessity.
24. Therefore, Christ exhibits a will in the cross that is not consonant with the divine will apart from the cross.
25. Naturally, then, it is concluded that Christ does that in the cross which God was not willing to do apart from it.
26. As God was not willing to remit sin without satisfaction apart from the cross even though no necessity prevented God from doing such;
27. It must be concluded that Christ, in the cross, compels God to do that which God does not desire to do.
28. This is so because, as shown, God was not willing to remit the penalty of sin without satisfaction outside of the cross.
29. Moreover, Christ changes God's mind toward humanity in the cross.
30. This is necessary for apart from the cross, God was not willing to do that which Christ accomplishes in the cross, even though no necessity prevented such action.
31. Such contradiction of wills creates a division in the Godhead;
32. For, in the cross, God in Christ accomplishes that which is naturally against the will of God outside of the cross.
33. Furthermore, even if Christ's will and that of the Godhead are seen to be united in the cross, it must be concluded that God is masochistic and sadistic.
34. God is sadistic in that God desires the death of Christ to satisfy the penalty for human sin;
35. Which penalty could have been absolved without the necessity of the cross.
36. Therefore, it must be said that for God to desire the satisfaction of the penalty of sin is to also desire the death of the Son.
37. Furthermore, God must be concluded to be masochistic.
38. As shown, the union of will of Christ and the Godhead in the cross reveals that God desires the satisfaction of the penalty of sin and the death of the Son.
39. However, the Son is one in divinity with the Godhead.
40. Therefore, for Christ and the Godhead to desire the death of the Son is for the Son himself to desire his own death.
41. In this way, the Godhead itself desires non-existence;
42. Which conclusion is absurd.
Print article | This entry was posted by existdissolve on February 26, 2006 at 12:00 pm, and is filed under Theology. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 10 years ago
The chain of reasoning falls apart between points 40 & 41. In order for these links to hold together it is necessary to posit that death=non-existence.
If death=separation (i.e. physical death is separation of mind and spirit from the body and spiritual death is separation of the creature from his Creator) then the chain breaks at this point. Nowhere in Scripture is death spoken of unequivocally as non-existence, but separation appears to be more what is in view.
I expect that there are other faulty links in the chain, but I have not studied it that closely.
about 10 years ago
Even if one were to grant your objection, the conclusion is hardly affected. Whether one thinks of death as non-existence (which seems to be a logical conclusion, given that it is the natural result of division from the life of God) or as “separation” (however defined), it is equally absurd to conclude that God would desire the same to be extracted from Godself in order to satisfy God’s own arbitrary demands.
Ah, well, it’s a shame that your great intellect cannot be bothered to ferret them out.
about 10 years ago
Of course the conclusion is affected. You are clearly making the case that death is equivalent to non-existence. If death is interchangeable with cessation of existence, then clearly there is no resurrection, not for Christ and not for us.
However, if death is not the same thing as cessation of existence, then it is entirely reasonable that Christ would willingly lay aside His prerogatives as God, endure the cross, and achieve our salvation. He values His fallen creatures far more than disdained the humiliation of the cross.
If you can give a concise, coherent explanation of how the concept of cessation of existence can be squared with the doctrine of the resurrection, I would be very interested to read that. Otherwise I Corinthians 15:19 would seem to summarize your views quite nicely.
As to your last quip, while I make no claims for the greatness of my intellect, I also do not intend to devote unlimited quantities of the three score and ten years or so that I have to sorting through an eight year old blog post that obviously no else has been able to wade through and comment on. I’ll cry uncle when it comes to your ability to bury me with sophistry!
about 10 years ago
To the contrary, I would argue that understanding death as the cessation of existence is the *only* paradigm in which the resurrection has any meaningful import. If death is merely the separation of the supposed dualistic aspects of a person, then its value is significantly diminished. That is, if the human “soul” persists on its own automatically apart from the life of God, then resurrection is unnecessary. While it might have some “additive” benefit, it is not–in your definition–utterly essential for the persistence of the individual.
In the biblical and theological sense, however, resurrection is integral to the persistence of existence, the only hope for existing beyond the unbecoming of death. This is why resurrection is one of the most central aspects of atonement, for it illuminates how God, in Christ, overcomes the annihilating power of sin and death and ushers into human existence a way of persisting beyond mortality by being united to Christ through death and resurrection. But without understanding the true nature of death (such as in your case), it is impossible to come to terms with Paul’s teachings on why there is no hope apart from it. In your theology of death, resurrection is entirely unnecessary for continuing to exist beyond death, so one must wonder why you would discuss it whatsoever. But if resurrection is literally the only option for existence beyond death, one can begin to see why it is such a critical aspect of Christian belief.
See above. It is not just a “squaring” of concepts. The two are literally inseparable. A concept of resurrection apart from the definition of death which I have articulated is theologically pointless.
You say you make no claims, but the obvious condescension of your original “parting shot” proves you a liar. If you truly do not make such claims, then perhaps you should restrain yourself from making such vacuous assumptions about things you have no intention of investigating.
about 10 years ago
Ooooh! I must be dangerous! There was no moderation when I posted the first comment, but when I replied back I went into the moderation queue. Surely you couldn’t suspect that I was going to come back with a string of profanity, so it must be the ideas themselves that are so offfensive.
about 10 years ago
Actually, there was moderation on the first comment…since you’re paying so much attention to an “eight-year old post”, surely you recognized that it took 14 minutes to show up!
I moderate all comments, simply to prevent spam from getting through. I just happened to see your first comment a few minutes after you made it, while the others occurred after I had gone to sleep.
As long as they are not clearly spam, I always have and always will approve any comment, regardless of whether I agree with the content.