Do you believe in penal subsitution?

akimel · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

I just had rotator cuff surgery. I’ll get back to you all when I can do more than hunt and peck with left hand.

alecforbes · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

Thanks, Fr Kimel.

Hope you’re recovery goes well…

SLJ · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

Thanks for all your input, Steve, and everyone else who has contributed. I’m working at reading through Unspoken Sermons, since I haven’t read all of it before, to try to get a fuller picture of GMac’s view of the cross. To me, it seems much deeper than just a moral example for us to follow.

But I don’t really have anything to contribute yet – just wanted to say thanks,
Sonia

NightRevan · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

It isn’t I think so much as making a choice between Jesus Life or His death, (and of course the other problem is that it is often discussed apart from the Resurrection when it is vitally connected) but rather I would see it has the whole act of His Life from Incarnation, through His ministry, to His death and Resurrection. The whole thing is the kenotic self-emptying and self-giving of Jesus, revealing the true heart and nature of God. He take on and shares our humanity completely, joining Himself to humanity completely, and through us all creation, including taking on the curse and result of our turn from HIs call of grace to humanity to become and share the likeness of God and becoming fully human, to share His immortal Life and bring that life and love fully into creation, completing, transfiguring and beautifying it, but instead turning aside become subject, enslaved and indebted to death and mortality, and it’s decaying and corrupting effects at all levels of human existence and interaction pulling us in a movement from being and existence, towards non-being, the response to love and beauty towards inward decay and dissolution, were ordinary biological passions are transformed in us into something in our pride into something far darker and evil.

But in Christ the ongoing project of humanity began in Genesis, where God no longer says ‘let it be’, but ‘let Us make humankind in Our image and likeness’, and the figure of Adam is looking forward, towards the true Adam finds it’s completion in Him, and the Gospel of John reminds us that is comes about through the One through whom all things came into existence in the first place, and towards the end Pilate presents Jesus before the crowd declaring prophetically (and John doesn’t want us to miss the point) ‘behold the man’, there in the very act of what is seen by the crowd as His humiliation, there in the fullness of His self-giving, serving, self-sacrifice, the full completion of HIs kenotic and painful self-emptying love is the glory of God revealed in the human one, the first fully human One, in Him the project is complete, and we see a true and full human being, one who is the Image of the Invisible God. And that one, in sharing our life, there in the same love that joins Himself to sharing and taking on our full life, takes on our curse and death, and bears it to it’s full, and all the forms of darkness, evil and injustice that is the infection of death at all levels that are unleashed and gather around Him, and which He draws upon Himself, the structural injustice and cruelty of the priests, the tyranny of Herod and the full viciousness and show trial justice of the full brutality that fallen human regimes are capable of in the pagan empire of Rome, all it’s horror exposed, of the human instinct to bring creativity and order turned into the monsters of Daniel’s vision, of humiliation both by invaders and His own people alike, torture and terrible death, exposed in terrible pain before all, betrayed and jeered by His own people, who utter the terrible oath of having ‘no King but Ceasar’, but betrayed by HIs own close friend, abandoned by HIs followers and denied and cursed by Peter Himself, all the forms of death that afflict and twist humanity, including at last the final end itself comes, as He shares our pain and hurt, and the affliction of death in all forms to it fullest, and ransoms us from it’s hold, annulling and cancelling the debt against us completely, the very action and ultimate power of death and of all tyranny seeing His humiliation, is instead meet by a greater power, that of God’s self-giving love, defeating and overcoming it. There Jesus becomes King, and there He cries ‘it is finished!’ as the work of humanity is completed, Hades itself broken and unable to hold Life Himself, as He triumphs over death itself and breaks it’s bounds, allowing us in Him by the Holy Spirit to be freed, restored and recreated, to respond and grow in Him to the calling of humanity to become fully human and in corporately and individually find our full being personhood in in the union with God in Christ by the Holy Spirit, becoming as He is the image and likeness of God, and sharing the nature and immortal Life of God, of sharing in HIs love, and expressing it, and through us all creation is also transfigured.

Jesus takes on our humanity, including it’s fallen and death inflicted aspects, sharing it and giving Himself in full Kenotic love, so we care share His Own Life, the very LIfe and nature of God, and so become full human beings, and the whole aspect, Incarnation, HIs acts and teaching, His death, Resurrection, Ascension and current rule of the world, what He is doing right now, and our raising with Him in His appearing, is part of our salvation and rescue, and that of the whole world.

alecforbes · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

Hi Grant,

That’s really wonderful and very Orthodox (big “O”). I like it very much! I think GMac has a very “Orthodox” approach to things as well but with the priesthood, incense and liturgy stripped away. I don’t mean to criticize those things, but what he does, I think, is bring back at least some of that theology in a protestant format that can be approached by those that are suspicious or at least uninterested in the liturgy and tradition of the Eastern Church. I personally, think that aspect of the Orthodox church is largely a matter of tastes and disposition. I’m not one that is deeply moved by those aspects—or, if I am, I’m suspicious of how it’s working on me. The theology on the other hand is far closer to what I’ve come to believe and has real merit to one skeptical of liturgical matters. I apologize if I’m being insensitive, but I’ve thought deeply about whether to join an Orthodox church and I think there are too many (perhaps) psychological barriers.

I also think that as I intimated in a previous quote, this view of the atonement does not require the belief in Evil Demonic Beings or spiritual warfare in the traditional sense. (I’m agnostic and frankly doubtful about the existence of demons per se, and do not believe that “higher” evil spiritual beings rule this world or had any role in natural evil etc.)

I do think there is so much more to the “Moral Examplar” view of atonement than just having Jesus as a “moral example”. Your post outlining the whole of his life, death and resurrection and the importance of all aspects of that is a nice rebuttal. In Yamaguchi’s summary of GMac’s view of the cross and atonement, she said at the end:

What she failed to mention is that MacDonald see’s the Spirit helping in this process once one begins to obey what they see as God’s will. I think the influence of the Spirit in this process of “Theosis” is critical in GMac’s view and interestingly, he sees this beginning with obedience and not faith, or at least not an intellectual agreement with Christ. My own suspicion is that obedience is, in fact, " faith" in GMac’s view. In 19th century Britain, faith had come to mean intellectual agreement, but GMac realized that acting on this was the crucial point. If you really have “faith” you will “obey”–act on that belief and follow the one you have faith in. I thought I’d quote this passage from GMac regarding the Spirit which is in his unspoken sermon “The Higher Faith”…(which is a quite wonderful sermon and right up there with “Justice”):

Didymus answers, “No doubt, what we know not now, we shall know hereafter.” Certainly there may be things which the mere passing into another stage of existence will illuminate; but the questions that come here, must be inquired into here, and if not answered here, then there too until they be answered. There is more hid in Christ than we shall ever learn, here or there either; but they that begin first to inquire will soonest be gladdened with revelation; and with them he will be best pleased, for the slowness of his disciples troubled him of old. To say that we must wait for the other world, to know the mind of him who came to this world to give himself to us, seems to me the foolishness of a worldly and lazy spirit. The Son of God is the Teacher of men, giving to them of his Spirit—that Spirit which manifests the deep things of God, being to a man the mind of Christ. The great heresy of the Church of the present day is unbelief in this Spirit. The mass of the Church does not believe that the Spirit has a revelation for every man individually—a revelation as different from the revelation of the Bible, as the food in the moment of passing into living brain and nerve differs from the bread and meat. If we were once filled with the mind of Christ, we should know that the Bible had done its work, was fulfilled, and had for us passed away, that thereby the Word of our God might abide for ever. The one use of the Bible is to make us look at Jesus, that through him we might know his Father and our Father, his God and our God. Till we thus know Him, let us hold the Bible dear as the moon of our darkness, by which we travel towards the east; not dear as the sun whence her light cometh, and towards which we haste, that, walking in the sun himself, we may no more need the mirror that reflected his absent brightness.

This is a nice overview of GMac’s view of the Spirit (and several other important areas) which some have called “underdeveloped”.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Grant I really appreciate it!

Steve

akimel · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

Alec, I think it would be more accurate to say that in Orthodoxy the moral influence model has been integrated into the theosis model of atonement: we are made one with God by the eternal Word’s assumption and deification of human nature in Jesus Christ, in which we participate by faith and baptism. For Orthodoxy salvation is nothing less than participation in the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the maximal degree possible for creatures.

alecforbes · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

Hmmm… this is very close to what I see GMac saying….in fact, I can’t see significant differences between this and GMac’s thoughts especially if “obedience” (which GMac emphasizes) is, in fact, equivalent to or the proof of “faith”. I guess my question to you, Akimel, would be “Do **you **see a substantive difference between Gmac’s and the Orthodox view of atonement?” Is there something in his view of atonement that he emphasizes that the Orthodox don’t or something that the Orthodox do that he neglects? I think that if “theosis” is considered a model of atonement, this is really MacDonald’s primary focus in the theology presented in all his works.

P.S. (Glad you have a few more fingers to work with now after your surgery. )

akimel · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

alecforbes:

Akimel said

: Alec, I think it would be more accurate to say that in Orthodoxy the moral influence model has been integrated into the theosis model of atonement: we are made one with God by the eternal Word’s assumption and deification of human nature in Jesus Christ, in which we participate by faith and baptism. For Orthodoxy salvation is nothing less than participation in the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the maximal degree possible for creatures. Hmmm… this is very close to what I see GMac saying….in fact, I can’t see significant differences between this and GMac’s thoughts especially if “obedience” (which GMac emphasizes) is, in fact equivalent to or the proof of “faith”. I guess my question to you, Akimel, would be “Do you see a substantive difference between Gmac’s and the Orthodox view of atonement?” Is there something in his view of atonement that he emphasizes that the Orthodox don’t or something that the Orthodox do that he neglects? I think that if “theosis” is considered a model of atonement, this is really MacDonald’s primary focus in the theology presented in all his works.

P.S. (Glad you have a few more fingers to work with now after your surgery. )

Alec, I’m afraid do know know enough about George MacDonald to offer an opinion. But it’s important to remember that the Orthodox understanding of theosis is grounded in our experience of God in the Divine Liturgy and the mystical life of the Church. The Orthodox really do believe that the baptized participate in the divine life of the Trinity. In every Eucharist the assembly is united to the eschatological banquet, where we feed on the Body and Blood of the incarnate Son. Hence we emphatically affirm the famous dictum of St Athanasius: “God became Man so that we might become God.” St Maximus the Confessor boldly declares that we become “uncreated by grace.” Can you imagine any Reformed or evangelical Christian talking like this? Yet it comes very naturally to Orthodox Christians because of our experience of God in the Divine Liturgy–not because we are world-class mystics or holier than non-Orthodox Christians but because we believe and know that God gives God with and under the consecrated bread and wine. We are sinners like everyone else, but our hope and faith is quite specifically shaped by the sacramental promise of theosis. Consider this wonderful passage from the Triads of St Gregory Palamas:

Since the Son of God, in His ineffable love for mankind, has not only united His divine hypostasis to our nature, and taking a body with a rational soul, has appeared on earth and lived among men; but, more, than this—Oh how splendid a miracle!—He unites Himself to the human hypostases themselves, and mingling Himself with every believer by the communion of His holy Body, becomes one body with us and makes us into a temple of the whole Godhead; for the fullness of the Godhead dwells corporeally in Him; how then should He not enlighten the souls of those who partake worthily, surrounding them with light through the divine splendour of His Body which is in us, just as His light shone on the bodies of the disciples on Thabor? It is true that then the body that possessed the source of the light of grace was not yet mingled with our bodies; it enlightened from outside those who approached worthily and caused the light to enter their souls through the sight of their eyes. But to-day it is mingled with us, it dwells in us and, naturally, it enlightens our souls from within. … One alone can see God; that is, Christ. We must be united with Christ—and how close a union it is—in order to see God.’

So while I have not read enough of George MacDonald to have an opinion about what he thought about deification, I would be surprised if his views on the subject did not differ dramatically from the Orthodox understanding.

alecforbes · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

Yes, I can certainly see a difference–primarily in the emphasis on baptism and the Eucharist in the Orthodox view–and yet there is still much similarity in the Orthodox view of theosis and deification. Here is MacDonald from “The Mirrors of the Lord” in his Unspoken Sermons:

It seems, then, to me, that the true simple word to represent the Greek, and the most literal as well by which to translate it, is the verb mirror—when the sentence, so far, would run thus: ‘But we all, with unveiled face, mirroring the glory of the Lord,—.’

I must now go on to unfold the idea at work in the heart of the apostle. For the mere correctness of a translation is nothing, except it bring us something deeper, or at least some fresher insight: with him who cares for the words apart from what the writer meant them to convey, I have nothing to do: he must cease to ‘pass for a man’ and begin to be a man indeed, on the way to be a live soul, before I can desire his intercourse. The prophet-apostle seems to me, then, to say, ‘We all, with clear vision of the Lord, mirroring in our hearts his glory, even as a mirror would take into itself his face, are thereby changed into his likeness, his glory working our glory, by the present power, in our inmost being, of the Lord, the spirit.’ Our mirroring of Christ, then, is one with the presence of his spirit in us. The idea, you see, is not the reflection, the radiating of the light of Christ on others, though that were a figure lawful enough; but the taking into, and having in us, him working to the changing of us.

That the thing signified transcends the sign, outreaches the figure, is no discovery; the thing figured always belongs to a higher stratum, to which the simile serves but as a ladder; when the climber has reached it, ‘he then unto the ladder turns his back.’ It is but according to the law of symbol, that the thing symbolized by the mirror should have properties far beyond those of leaded glass or polished metal, seeing it is a live soul understanding that which it takes into its deeps—holding it, and conscious of what it holds. It mirrors by its will to hold in its mirror. Unlike its symbol, it can hold not merely the outward visual resemblance, but the inward likeness of the person revealed by it; it is open to the influences of that which it embraces, and is capable of active co-operation with them: the mirror and the thing mirrored are of one origin and nature, and in closest relation to each other.** Paul’s idea is, that when we take into our understanding, our heart, our conscience, our being, the glory of God, namely Jesus Christ as he shows himself to our eyes, our hearts, our consciences, he works upon us, and will keep working, till we are changed to the very likeness we have thus mirrored in us; for with his likeness he comes himself, and dwells in us. He will work until the same likeness is wrought out and perfected in us, the image, namely, of the humanity of God, in which image we were made at first, but which could never be developed in us except by the indwelling of the perfect likeness. By the power of Christ thus received and at home in us, we are changed—the glory in him becoming glory in us, his glory changing us to glory.**

But we must beware of receiving this or any symbol after the flesh, beware of interpreting it in any fashion that partakes of the character of the mere physical, psychical, or spirituo-mechanical. The symbol deals with things far beyond the deepest region whence symbols can be drawn. The indwelling of Jesus in the soul of man, who shall declare! But let us note this, that the dwelling of Jesus in us is the power of the spirit of God upon us; for ‘the Lord is that spirit,’ and that Lord dwelling in us, we are changed ‘even as from the Lord the spirit.’ When we think Christ, Christ comes; when we receive his image into our spiritual mirror, he enters with it. Our thought is not cut off from his. Our open receiving thought is his door to come in. When our hearts turn to him, that is opening the door to him, that is holding up our mirror to him; then he comes in, not by our thought only, not in our idea only, but he comes himself, and of his own will—comes in as we could not take him, but as he can come and we receive him—enabled to receive by his very coming the one welcome guest of the whole universe. Thus the Lord, the spirit, becomes the soul of our souls, becomes spiritually what he always was creatively; and as our spirit informs, gives shape to our bodies, in like manner his soul informs, gives shape to our souls. In this there is nothing unnatural, nothing at conflict with our being. It is but that the deeper soul that willed and wills our souls, rises up, the infinite Life, into the Self we call I and me, but which lives immediately from him, and is his very own property and nature—unspeakably more his than ours: this deeper creative soul, working on and with his creation upon higher levels, makes the* I *and me more and more his, and himself more and more ours; until at length the glory of our existence flashes upon us, we face full to the sun that enlightens what it sent forth, and know ourselves alive with an infinite life, even the life of the Father; know that our existence is not the moonlight of a mere consciousness of being, but the sun-glory of a life justified by having become one with its origin, thinking and feeling with the primal Sun of life, from whom it was dropped away that it might know and bethink itself, and return to circle for ever in exultant harmony around him. Then indeed we are; then indeed we have life; the life of Jesus has, through light, become life in us; the glory of God in the face of Jesus, mirrored in our hearts, has made us alive; we are one with God for ever and ever. (my emphasis)

NightRevan · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

To add a little from an interested outsider to Orthodoxy, is also a matter of orientation, for Orthodoxy and the patristic Fathers theology is founded in and comes out of the Eucharist and worship, of the concept of apostolic tradition mediated in Eucharist, liturgy, Scripture, and episcopal apostolic succession (in which the locus of succession is in the community with the named bishop as the central identifying and authorized member, marking that apostolic succession, the deposit of truth being handed on, entrusted and embodied in the Church) as a whole single Holy Tradition.

So theology arises from this, not the other way around as tends to be the practice in many different types of Western Christianity since Scholasticism of the High Middle Ages which brought the idea of systematic, rationalistic theological systems as the first point, from which the practice of the Church as understood and flows from that theological understanding. Whereas in the East the Eucharist, the liturgy, the worship and tradition, apostolic succession and conciliar unity on the understanding this was guided by the Holy Spirit is first from which theological reflection flowed. Jesus Christ, His Incarnation, Life and Resurrection was the hypotheses, the first unquestioned point in thought, particularly as meet in the Eucharist (drawing on the ancient philosopher’s perspective that an initial starting point, a hypothesis that had to be taken by faith was required in order know anything about anything, and only if that became unviable did you go back to the hypothesis), for the early Fathers that was Jesus Christ, rather then a philosophical system or rationalistic or systematic principle or Scriptural principle through which Jesus was then approached, and central to that was the Eucharist.

As Irenaeus of Lyons said in his confrontation with the Gnostics of his day and their novel use of Scripture and claims to secret oral traditions:
‘But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion.’

So theology for the Orthodox is inseparable for Holy Tradition, from Eucharist, the liturgy, apostolic succession and Scripture as understood and mediated within that, and it cannot be separated from who it is embodied in the Church. Of course this might not be agreed with, and many way well think that you can take the theology apart from the Church, but then that would be in itself a Western approach that was taking some of the theological reflections into itself rather than taking in the Orthodox perspective itself, so there still be a distinction however slight it might seen (or not depending on your perspective ).

Anyway, I’m not sure if I’m totally on the money here, so I hope Father Kimel will correct where I’m wrong, but that would be my understanding of the Orthodox perspective on this at the moment.

akimel · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

Alec, I just read “Mirrors.” What a wonderful homily! Thank you for sharing it with me.

The homily reminded me of the famous conversation with St Seraphim of Sarov and one of his disciples. St Seraphim was instructing him on how to acquire and grow in the Holy Spirit:

“Nevertheless,” I replied, “I do not understand how I can be certain that I am in the Spirit of God. How can I discern for myself His true manifestation in me?”

Father Seraphim replied: “I have already told you, your Godliness, that it is very simple and I have related in detail how people come to be in the Spirit of God and how we can recognize His presence in us. So what do you want, my son?”

“I want to understand it well,” I said.

Then Father Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: “We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. Why don’t you look at me?”

I replied: “I cannot look, Father, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes ache with pain.”

Father Seraphim said: “Don’t be alarmed, your Godliness! Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am.”

Then, bending his head towards me, he whispered softly in my ear: “Thank the Lord God for His unutterable mercy to us! You saw that I did not even cross myself; and only in my heart I prayed mentally to the Lord God and said within myself: ‘Lord, grant him to see clearly with his bodily eyes that descent of Thy Spirit which Thou grantest to Thy servants when Thou art pleased to appear in the light of Thy magnificent glory.’ And you see, my son, the Lord instantly fulfilled the humble prayer of poor Seraphim. How then shall we not thank Him for this unspeakable gift to us both? Even to the greatest hermits, my son, the Lord God does not always show His mercy in this way. This grace of God, like a loving mother, has been pleased to comfort your contrite heart at the intercession of the Mother of God herself. But why, my son, do you not look me in the eyes? Just look, and don’t be afraid! The Lord is with us!”

alecforbes · March 9, 2018, 3:00am

Fr Kimel said:

Thanks for posting that. I wasn’t familiar with it and it’s just glorious! (And I’m glad you enjoyed “Mirrors”)

Jonny95 · March 9, 2018, 3:01am

Invents a system that makes God appear tyrannical and unjust.
Has to explain that.
Reminds everyone that God is holy.
Thinks that resolves the issue.

It doesn’t.

anon47460357 · March 9, 2018, 3:01am

I recommend The Dogma of Redemption by the Orthodox Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, written in the early 20th century. Remember George MacDonald refusing in his sermon “Justice” to expound his own theory of Christ’s atonement? When I first read this book by Khrapovitsky, I was immediately struck by the thought that this was quite possibly the same as MacDonald’s unshared theory.

It is only 40 or 50 pages long. It at least used to be available for free online. If that’s not the case anymore, I can send a pdf to anyone interested. Just send me a PM.

Jonny95 · March 9, 2018, 3:01am

Is there any chance we could have a discussion on some of the passages that people use to point to the traditional notion behind penal substitution? Passages like the start of Romans 8, Galatians 3:13

Cindy_Skillman · March 9, 2018, 3:01am

Jony,

That would be great. If you like, go ahead and start one – or if you’d rather someone else did it, let me know and I’ll put one up.

Jonny95 · March 9, 2018, 3:01am

Depends what passages people would like to discuss. It would be better to start off a thread on an individual passage than start a general one.

Does anyone have any particular verses or passages that they personally think would be good to go through and discuss?

chasinghope · March 9, 2018, 3:01am

Romans 3:25-26

NightRevan · March 9, 2018, 3:01am

Well I’m pretty convinced of some aspects of what are term the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul, explained in brief summary here:

thepaulpage.com/the-shape-of-justification/

And in light of that this is how God’s deals with the problem and His faithfulness to His covenant and His people in light of the affliction of death (where dikaiosuné often translated righteousness has a wide meaning of covenant-faithfulness, mercy and loving-kindness, justice and so on, and has the faithfulness of God in particular view) by the faithfulness of the Messiah who represents and is Israel (after His resurrection He opened the Scriptures and explained to the disciples everything through the OT that referred to Him, or as the ancient creed Paul sites put it’s ‘Christ died according to the Scriptures’ the whole Scriptures not just some prophecies, it is all about Him) fulfills the call to faithfulness and to complete to renewed call of Adam to in Abraham to become fully human (with Christ taking and sharing our humanity Christ takes on our humanity and completes through our brokenness the call and project of humanity to become the image and likeness of God, so Pilate announces ‘behold the man’) and as the just one is the one who sharking our death to ransoms us from the power of death and brings through the cross and resurrection the promised forgiveness of sins and release from death and return from exile and into life (and resurrection to come). And our faith and faithfulness into the Messiah and to Him (and the marks of baptism and the eucharist for Paul as a regular practice at least) is what justifies us, that is marks us out as being in Christ, and one of God’s covenant people rather than the works of Torah (circumcision, food-laws, certain feasts etc), those markers that had marked Jew from Gentile (to both pagans and Jews) did not really make someone out as a true covenant member of Abraham’s family, but only faith into and faithfulness to the Messiah and the grace of God and the ransom from death found in Him.

chasinghope · March 9, 2018, 3:01am

Hi Nightrevan, haven’t finished reading the article, but wanted to say thank you for sharing