This is just sort of an excursis, given the progress of my discussion with Dr. John Mark Reynolds. As I was reading today here at Evangel about this and that, the point about abortion seemed to be very well made by Dr. Beckwith in the comments — and good on him for getting it essentially right.
But here’s what I’m thinking: when we make the case regarding what to think about abortion politically, is the more-formidable case against abortion, “We deplore abortion because it is an abrogation of the liberty of the fetus?” Or is our case — the right case for the sake of the life of the child — “We deplore abortion because it is injustice against the innocent, and it is the state’s role in this life to protect those who are innocent from violence?”
It seems clear to me that the “liberty” argument is plainly the pro-choice argument, and the “flourishing” argument is the pro-choice argument. The argument for justice and for the sake of rightly dealing with those who are both innocent and helpless is the case for the life and protection of the unborn child.
This is an issue we all agree on, isn’t it?
We’ll see.
March 15th, 2010 | 3:39 pm | #1
OK, you got me with the flourishing is the pro choice argument. You know, you use the right bait. . . .
Justice is not simply rendering to each his/her due, but it is also about preserving order, harmony, and balance on societal and cosmic levels. It can also be about restoring order, harmony, and balance. Cross and resurrection are about the promotion of human flourishing (the new Adam) precisely through restorative justice that returns creation to order, harmony, and balance (of course, there is the now-not-yet aspect of all this).
On the societal level, justice preserves social order precisely by “ordering” the freedom of each person in a way that both promotes the well being (causes to flourish) the individual and the society. Stopping someone from committing an abortion is really a good for that person because it helps to order that individual’s freedom toward its proper end so that the individual can actually flourish. I assume you would agree that flourishing as a human being requires that one abstain from actions that are not only self-destructive but also destructive of others.
Now, each individual may not recognize (due to the noetic effects of sin) that “ordering” their freedom toward a particular end is actually good for them. Someone who commits an abortion may be convinced that aborting a fetus is good for her precisely because it realizes certain ends that she considers to be good.
The point of justice is to order human freedom toward its proper end in order to preserve or to restore social order, balance, harmony. Such talk of justice is ultimately grounded in the fact that human natures are designed by God with a telos, an end, and that end is to flourish. It is also grounded in that humans are designed to live in community (we are relational beings). The dignity of human nature is in its purposefulness (theologically read imago dei here), and justice seeks to preserve and restore such purposefulness in all humans.
In brief, there is no dichotomy between justice, flourishing, and freedom. It is the modern world that has torn these apart, and, for the life of me, I cannot see why you wish to keep them apart unless it is simply an apologetic strategy given modern notions of freedom.
March 15th, 2010 | 4:42 pm | #2
Dale, I am not so sure about the idea of “modified” kinds of justice, e.g. “social justice,” “restorative justice,” “rehabilitative justice,” etc.
It seems to me that it ought to be recognized that justice is opposed to flourishing due to sin, namely that it is just to punish and destroy rather than to redeem the race of adam.
In fact, the only reason it is just for God to bring flourishing to his people and to the world is because his wrath has been poured out on Christ (and not all God’s wrath was spent on Christ; there is Hell for the unrepentant) and this forgiveness and salvation in union with Christ is of grace, not justice, for we deserve eternal punishment apart from his grace.
I have not made a detailed search, but justice, it seems to me, in the Scriptures is retributive justice: giving a man what is due to him. For flourishing, harmony, and the well-ordered society, there are other language like shalom. For the sake of being clear on what we deserve and the grace that we do not deserve, I prefer not to use modifiers in front of “justice” though I understand what is meant by and “restorative justice.”
That said, what is “deserved” is certainly not a simple question, especially in the abstract. I think it can only be answered in the context of concrete circumstances of place and time, and Scripture does give guidance as to the particulars.
As to the main post, I’m not sure a either-or dichotomy is necessary, Frank :) But then again, I don’t subscribe to the libertarian understanding of freedom as license. On the contrary, as some have noted, etymologically, freedom is related to “friend” which connotes the fundamental loving nature of true freedom revealed in Christ. Which is why we’ll be the most free in the eschaton, despite not being “free” to sin.
March 15th, 2010 | 4:44 pm | #3
So you’re saying “no justice, no freedom; Know Justice, Know freedom”?
:-)
After the last thread series, Dale, I think we’re having this problem: you think people seeking freedom today are seeking that justice will be done for all, and I think that this is simply not the case — and to talk as if the idea of “freedom” in play is the Medieval meaning of the word is to both confuse the issue and capitulate to modernist notions of freedom.
That’s not a slam, really: it’s a plea to see your argument and your own perspective from the place where the normal English-speaking person would see it. “Freedom” today means “libertarian freedom” and not “the will to live under the forms of common authority”. This is the root problem I am confronting.
March 15th, 2010 | 4:58 pm | #4
Killing an unborn and innocent child is unjust.
It is also wrong because it destroys the potential for liberty on the part of the unborn child.
The failure of justice seems the more immediate problem, but I make both arguments in arguing for the pro-life cause.
Liberty is not (of course) the same as an absolute freedom of choice (only God has this). . . and I don’t see how keeping someone from doing evil (killing) is an assault on liberty.
March 15th, 2010 | 5:07 pm | #5
I should add that I have little more to say about Frank’s posts, because I don’t see that he has:
1. plausibly argued that there is a coherent civil government form present in Scripture.
2. plausibly argued that Scripture is sufficient in forming a modern political theory. It is not.
We all agree that when the Bible speaks to politics, it is true, but we don’t agree on how much it says.
March 15th, 2010 | 5:57 pm | #6
All I know is I want to sing the phrase “modern man” to the tune of “Southern Man” by Neil Young. Heck, I could imagine singing it to his tune “Old Man”: “Modern man take a look at my life, I’m a lot like you…”
March 15th, 2010 | 7:02 pm | #7
Well, well, I must say that I had an LOL moment when I read “normal English-speaking person.” So, what are you saying Frank. . . ? :-).
I was not trying to make any comment about what people in modern American society are or are not doing. I was just trying to describe how liberty and justice can go together by using medieval theologians as a backdrop. I agree with JMR that keeping someone from doing evil is not an assault on their freedom. There is a “perceived” assault precisely because sin blinds, and I would say the same thing about those who perform abortions. Justice must enter and “order” human freedom in ways that attempt to balance the flourishing of the individual with the flourishing of society. The U.S. govt. does this all the time when it legislates against certain forms of activity that are immoral like murder, theft, etc. In my own way, I am bucking up against the idea that freedom involves the proliferation of choice as though the more choices one has the more free one is. So, I think I agree that more choices (what you mean by libertarian) are not necessarily good.
The saints in heaven are flourishing and they do not have all the choices that those on earth possess precisely because they can no longer sin. God cannot sin, but does this imply that divine freedom is somehow less free than human freedom? No, because freedom does not entail more choices, but living in light of the truth–and this truth relates to divine purpose, which is communicated first in human nature and then in scripture with Christ as the pattern of true humanity and the Spirit as the power of true humanity (how do you like those p’s).
As to Albert’s points, I guess maybe the place to begin is just to say “in plain speech” as TUAD likes, that I don’t operate within a penal substitutionary model of the atonement, which you clearly do. The point of the atonement for me is not the absorption of divine wrath to pay the penalty for sins. For that reason, justice is not opposed to flourishing. On the one hand, God did not have to become flesh, but on the other hand, as Athanasius and Anselm (and others have said) the very nature of God compels him to bring to completion what he began in creating the world. God restores order to the chaos that sin introduces, and, you didn’t read another post I made, this is what shalom is all about. I would add that righteousness is simply “righting” or restoring internal order within humans, which is why the regenerating and sanctifying activity of the Spirit is at work. We cry out with all of creation in Romans 8 for the completion of this restoration. Sometimes we (not you necessarily) become so concerned with forensic justification and its declaring us righteous that we fail to realize the ultimate point is to “right us” within. We share Christ’s uprightness, rectitude, justice, righteousness (call it what you may) both intrinsically through sanctification and declaratively in justification because the Spirit unites us to Christ.
I take your point about different species of justice. I should clarify by talking about justice reflective in different modes (on a personal level, a societal level, etc.).
And, finally, if the main beef between Frank and John Mark Reynolds concerns whether a form of govt. can be found in the Bible, then I’ll have to just let you both have at it. That does not really matter to me because the Bible must be read “with the church,” and the history of Christianity does have something to say about political life. I do think the seeds of a political philosophy are there like the seeds to the Trinity and the seeds of many other doctrines.
March 15th, 2010 | 7:40 pm | #8
It seems to me that Dr. Reynolds hasn’t really read my posts.
His point — that the primary goal of Government ought to be the maximizing of Liberty — is simply not a Scriptural statement. He justified that by saying, ‘well, since it also does not forbid elections or tell us how to brush our teeth, then the demand to see if there is a priority for liberty or justice is a futile endeavor. Let’s read Locke instead …’
I’ve responded to that in detail and in fact. If he doesn’t want to talk about the problems with misdirection and the primary objectives of government rather than laws against firm-bristled tooth brushes, I say that’s a shame.
March 15th, 2010 | 8:24 pm | #9
In fact, if I said it was “the primary” goal for Government to maximize liberty, then I was careless. I should have said that it was “a primary goal.” I think I have mostly said it that way.
The statement: “A primary goal for civil government is to maximize liberty.” is not in Scripture.
It is not incompatible with Scripture or other goals found in Scripture (justice) and I have shown that not all reasonable demands or things we need to know are in Scripture. I have shown that Scripture leaves me meaningful choice . . . and am utterly unpersuaded by the claim that Scripture presents a consistent picture of government. Scripture presents several forms of civil government: the one from Moses (which may never have actually been used after the life of Moses), the government at the time of the judges, the Davidic monarchy, the rule of the Persian governors in the prophets, and the Roman Imperial system.
The notion that liberty is incompatible with justice or righteousness is unpersuasive. I have seen no argument showing a definition of justice incompatible with it.
Of the many forms of government found in Scripture, each forms was very different and the Bible gives us advice in dealing with all of them. I see a consistent pattern to this advice and agree that we can learn some important ideas about government from the Bible. Turk has tried to show that there is “more there,” but I am unpersuaded. Readers should compare courtship procedures in Scripture with what would work today. Does Scripture give us a courtship procedure? Or are there (as I think) “merely” timeless truths embedded in the story?
These timeless truths are not so hard to find, but they do require good textual skills!
I see no reason to think the government formed for a nomadic people chosen by God has more than general lessons for me today.
I think it an abuse of a text to fail to contextualize the history of a particular book.
I am saying something like this:
As a man-
1. I am in rebellion to God.
a. this rebellion began with Adam’s misuse of liberty
b. misuse of liberty led to slavery to sin
c. Adam’s misuse of liberty suggests God gave mankind liberty from the beginning.
2. God desires to transform me from rebel to a son.
3. God transforms me from a rebel to a son by the all sufficient work of Jesus.
4. Having become God’s slave, God by His grace proclaims me His son.
5. One part of being a son is the ability to choose between certain goods. (eg. eat or not eat)
6. This was always God’s intention: He always desired to make humanity like Himself.
7. Being like God, His sons and daughters have a liberty contingent on His nature and will.
As a result:
This side of the rule of King Jesus, civil government should have as an end allowing humankind the freedom to practice their liberty as part of the “school of souls” that is this life.
I think all these notions defensible for an evangelical . . .
March 15th, 2010 | 8:26 pm | #10
Dale,
I agree with your last point.
John Mark
March 16th, 2010 | 6:44 am | #11
JMR said Of the many forms of government found in Scripture, each forms was very different and the Bible gives us advice in dealing with all of them. I see a consistent pattern to this advice and agree that we can learn some important ideas about government from the Bible. Turk has tried to show that there is “more there,” but I am unpersuaded.
Exactly. Of course I disagree with some of your observations on those patterns…….
March 16th, 2010 | 7:47 am | #12
JMR grows more persuasive. That classical education stuff does have some benefits.
Mr. Turk continues on his unpersuasive (and unscriptural) way. The lack of Scriptural engagement is nothing if not stunning (for Mr. Turk, who has been known to fling verses when he perceives they are “on his side”). In all the posts on liberty, he has not once (though he’s been invited to a number of times) dealt with the following:
Ro. 13:3-5
1 Pet. 2:13,14
1 Tim. 2:1-4
Ex. 20:15,17
1 Tim. 2:1-3
1 Thess. 4:11,12
If you put these together properly (this is called interpretation; it’s also callled work) the picture is clear, and it does not resemble anything Mr. Turk has posted these last weeks.
March 16th, 2010 | 8:08 am | #13
I’ve written my thoughts on what a biblical theory of justice might look like. It is both retributive and distributive.
http://ochuk.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/towards-a-biblical-understanding-of-justice/
March 16th, 2010 | 9:51 am | #14
Dale:
Dale, apart from whether penal substitution is at least a part of what’s going on in the crucifixion (I think it is), I’m with you. I think ambiguity as to what level is in view here accounts for our apparent differences over grace/justice in that in a sense even the created order of justice, to me, is an overarching grace of God even as grace in a more narrow sense (or at a “different level”) operates to forgive and restore and, in the future, glorify sinners who are otherwise justly condemned.
So I agree with Athanasius and Anselm that God is in a sense compelled by his own nature to bring his restorative plans to completion. But I do think wrath and Hell are true (and that it should be understood as more, though not less, than a legal penalty), and that as St. Paul says it is actually and really of justice for God to destroy the wicked rather than to save them and that therefore justice is best understood as retributive.
I’m not entirely sure whether Athanasius and Anselm would agree or disagree with the attempt to keep both aspects of God’s overarching grace, that of restoring creation and of justly punishing the wicked as retribution, but from what I’ve heard the early Church fathers were open to a multi-dimensional view of what was going on the crucifixion, and I’m not sure they would have thought it appropriate to place retributive justice in opposition to God’s overarching plans of redeeming and glorifying the world.
But if your intention is to promote the recognition of the restoration and glorification of the created order beginning with the Church in actual time, rather than “Christianity as theology club” that has little redemptive power in practice, I’m in your boat.
March 16th, 2010 | 10:46 am | #15
Albert,
Many thanks for these helpful clarifications. Here is where I fall:
1. On the matter of judgment, I tend to go with the interpretation of Paul that says divine judgment is a “turning over” or “giving up” to destruction (see Rom. 1 and 2 here). Thus it is a form of justice in the sense that God has woven justice in the fabric of the created order so that when humans engage in sinful behavior it destroys them internally. God’s judgment is just to let these destructive forces (sin, death, etc.) work by giving humans up to them. Yes, God is actively turning people over the the “powers.”
2. This allows me to say that God will have order, harmony, balance (shalom) in the universe, and God’s justice is a manifestation of that order. Thus I can talk about justice in the cross and resurrection as a manifestation of God restoring order, harmony, and balance. This is how I think Anselm talks about it, and what I take him to mean by satisfaction. It is not about paying a “penalty;” rather, the “payment” (which is a metaphor for Anselm) is about doing what is necessary to restore order. Humans should restore order but they cannot given human finitude, God can restore order is not under a moral obligation from the viewpoint of the creature, and so a God-man is necessary. This is how God’s honor is “restored” (again a metaphor for Anselm).
3. There are other issues I have with the conservative Reformed systems like the unnecessary division of grace into two distinct spheres (common and special), which is grounded in a doctrine of election, etc. However, my understanding of justice with respect to atonement is really a modified Christus victor in light of Anselm. To describe sin and death as “powers” that humans are in the grip of (which is one way to read Paul) is to be in a Christus victor framework, and this is the world that Athansius inhabited it seems to me, which is why he says that repentance is not enough. Forgiveness does not destroy death as an enslaving power gripping human existence.
I’ll stop because this is getting too long, but it has me thinking about future blog topics.
March 16th, 2010 | 11:11 am | #16
City of God Book IV Ch. 3
If the true God is worshipped, and if He is served with genuine rites, and true virtue, it is advantageous that good men should long reign both far and wide. Nor is this advantageous so much to themselves, as to those over whom they reign. For, so far as concerns themselves, their piety and probity, which are great gifts of God, suffice to give them true felicity, enabling them to live well the life that now is, and afterwards to receive that which is eternal. In this world, therefore, the dominion of good men is profitable, not so much for themselves as for human affairs. But the dominion of bad men is hurtful chiefly to themselves who rule, for they destroy their own souls by greater license in wickedness; while those who are put under them in service are not hurt except by their own iniquity. For to the just all evils imposed om them by unjust rulers are not a punishment of crime, but the test of virtue.
Therefore, the good man, although he is a slave, is free; but the bad man, even if he reigns, is a slave, and that not of one man, but what is far more grievous, of many masters as he has vices…
(See also Book XIX Ch. 15 which illustrates the freedom proper to the nature of man and instructs that a wicked man is a slave even if he is free so far as regards other men.)
March 16th, 2010 | 1:43 pm | #17
I suggets that Johnny D. cannot summarize my position in 2 sentences, but since his charge is what it is. Here’s my response:
1. I have, in fact, referenced pertinent verses through my engagement with Dr. Reynolds. Please review the posts and the comments for details.
2. A list of Bible verses is not an argument.
3. Given this list, I’d say this regarding the topic at-hand:
Ro. 13:3-5
I’d actually cite this as Rom 13:1-7 to get the full flavor of what Paul is talking about, which I would summarize briefly as: God is the source of all civil authority (v. 1) which is why resisting civil authority brings one under judgment (v. 2); in fact, rulers are set up to bring terror to the bad ones (v. 3a) so those who do good should have no fear of them (v. 3b-4); the believer is “in subjection” both for sake of conscience and to obey God (v. 5); therefore, we should pay taxes as one example of obeying the authority established by God (v. 6); and the principle in general is to pay what is owed to whom it is owed (v. 7).
There is absolutely nothing there whihc contradicts what I have said — it is in fact the cornerstone for my view that the primary objective of government is justice.
1 Pet. 2:13,14
This reiterates in short form the same view Paul communicates to us: be subject to givernement becuase it is set up to do justice (punish the evil; praise the good)
1 Tim. 2:1-4
Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to pray for those in “high positions” is interesting because it conforms to the Rom 13 view of political power: that the rulers may rule in such a way that there is peace — that, as it is said in Rom 13, the evildoer fears doing evil.
Ex. 20:15,17
Again, it’s odd what Johnny has truncated. Ex 20 is the enumeration of the 10 commandments — and I have no problem with the exhortations against stealing or against coverting.
The problem for Johnny is that he wants to leverage this into a political theory where the government has no right to the property of its citizens, and no redistributive authority economically — but in vv.8-11 the LORD requires that the 7th day should be a Sabbath, yes? And who will enforce this use of goods and services? In one sense: the Lord; but in the very enumeration of the Law, it is clear that the Government of Israel — through Judges and then Kings — will enforce this use of property.
Does that mean that government has unlimited rights to the property of the citizens? Who said that? How is that a function of justice? But in order to enforce law at all, Government has some rights over private property. And Johnny would do well to compare his (implied) interpretation of Ex 20 with the explicit statement of Rom 13:6-7 to see if his view passes muster or is passing gas.
1 Tim. 2:1-3
Repeat. See above.
1 Thess. 4:11,12
Again, it is interesting what is omitted to cite these two verses — as Paul is speaking about how Christians should live together as a witness to outsiders and not as a principle for all men to live under civil government. But be that as it may, what is Johnny’s point here, I wonder? is it that people should work? I agree — I like 2 Thes 3:10 better on that account. That doesn’t have anything to do with “liberty”. That has to do with justice — that a man who is able must do what he is able.
Is there another point for 1 Thes 4? Perhaps that we have a right to live quietly? Who has argued against such a thing? My point would be that if this is, in fact, an objective which Government is tasked with, it is still the matter of justice being served. That is, as in Rom 13, that the evil and the lawless are punished or set at bey through the use of the sword, and that the lawful are commended.
I would ask Johnny to therefore underscore how any of these points have ben contradicted or otherwise mishandled anywhere in this engagement on this issue. Except for his limited citation of Rom 13, I’d agree with all of these Scriptures — but I would add others as well, such as Christ’s admonition to give Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s — with the implication that there is normally no conflict in this demand (Mt 22); or Paul’s pleading with Felix in Acts 24 as a sign of Paul’s confidence that Felix will act in justice when confronted by fact — rather than Paul pleading for liberty because he is oppressed.
I hope that helps, Johnny. Thanks for being specific this time.
March 16th, 2010 | 2:34 pm | #18
Finally! At least an engagement with Scripture! It was a long wait, and not an entirely fruitless one. So yes, that truly helps. (And just a note, I was specific several times in earlier comments and kept hoping you’d return the favor).
A proper harmonization of these texts points to the clear and unassailable conclusion that the role of government is justice, with said justice defined for us in Scriptural terms–one of those terms being the right to property. Which is, guess what? A liberty interest! Which is, perforce, good.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Thanks for playing.
March 16th, 2010 | 2:49 pm | #19
Does anybody else crack up when they see the phrase “Thanks for playing”?
I invariably translate it to “I win, you lose.”
Which isn’t per se a bad thing; it just makes me chuckle.
March 16th, 2010 | 2:51 pm | #20
Yes, I crack up, too.
March 16th, 2010 | 4:35 pm | #21
No engagement then with the wider understanding of Ex 20 then?
I guess you are just passing gas.
March 16th, 2010 | 5:20 pm | #22
Passing gas is funny, too, unless it’s during a state dinner.
Of course, you are no stranger to antisocial exhalations. And if you had bothered to read my earlier comments and, more, actually thought about them, the point out of my citation of Exodus 20 would have become clear. But when pettifoggery is your game, clarity is not a goal.
March 16th, 2010 | 5:38 pm | #23
It seems to me that Dr. Reynolds hasn’t really read my posts.
This is also funny.
March 16th, 2010 | 6:14 pm | #24
The problem for Johnny is that he wants to leverage this into a political theory where the government has no right to the property of its citizens, and no redistributive authority economically
Never argued that. This is the strawman strategy. Burning straw also produces gas (I think it’s time we Beano that metaphor).
The point is that liberty is a good. The contrary position you staked out at the beginning is demonstrably false and it seems you have wasted many hours and words trying to obscure that simple point.
March 16th, 2010 | 9:31 pm | #25
Modern Man [2.5]
Who knew that a series of threads about liberty and justice could be so funny?
Thanks for the laughs, guys.
March 17th, 2010 | 10:48 am | #26
Dale (Coulter), I see where you’re coming from, though I wonder whether it is necessary to hold Christus victor in opposition to penal atonement. John Stott, at least, in his The Cross of Christ, seemed to have found that both strains of thought were manifest in the early Church fathers and moreover didn’t think they were irreconcilable. Christ is victorious over the powers of sin and death; even the Truly Reformed (of which I am not) acknowledge that grace is not just forgiveness but resurrection power for sanctification–although I hear there are some hyper-Reformed/Lutheran with such a strong law/grace dichotomy that there is no progress in sanctification in practice this side of the eschaton.
But then I’m not a theologian or historian, so I could very well be being too generous to the Reformed.
I think I understand what you mean by punishment/penalty/wrath being a giving over of creatures to the destructive powers inherent in the disorder of creation. While this runs the risk, I think, of running into a false division of natural/supernatural similar to the common/special grace division you object to, I agree that that a giving over to destructive creational powers is certainly there; but I also think direct, supernatural, retributive wrath from God is evident in the Scriptures above and beyond what is latent within creation. It seems to me, from the examples of pagan nations in the OT to Ananias and Sapphira in the NT, that God does smite, kill and destroy the wicked himself (or at least through his angels–is that distinction important to you?).
So, I’m not sure that wrath can be divided into “outworking of creational (dis)order” on the one hand and “direct retributive acts of God” on the other. I’d rather keep them both, just as I’d rather keep Christus victor and penal substitution and not divide them.
Maybe there are good reasons to do so that I am unaware of. If so, I’d be open to hearing them, perhaps in your future blog posts. Thanks for a fine discussion in a comments thread :) Rare, and always appreciated.
March 17th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #27
Christopher, yes, I think that way as well. But Drs. Coulter and Hart are very smart people and so I tend to wonder whether there are reasons to actually exclude penal substitution, or whether it is simply a matter of emphasis with roots in their respective traditions (zeal for which I can appreciate!).
Dr. Coulter seemed to indicate he’d be outlining some posts relating to these matters, and so I look forward to it, if he manages to carve out some time.
March 17th, 2010 | 3:44 pm | #28
Maybe a quick response would just be to say that satisfaction and Christus victor go together. But penal substitution is a Reformation intensification of Anselm’s idea of satisfaction. They belong in the same family but are not the same. I might note that Hart likes Anselm and has defended Anselm against other anti-western Orthodox interpretations.
This is not necessarily to say that one cannot make them go together.
I suppose part of my concern, in a not-so-short answer, as a Pentecostal, is that Pentecostals have claimed for some time that physical healing is in the atonement. From the stand point of penal substitution this does not fit, and I cannot tell you the number of times I was beaten over the head in seminary on this very point. Spiritual healing yes, physical healing no. The more I studied, the more it began to dawn on me (I’m slow here) that Pentecostals were uncritically appropriating an atonement model that stacked the deck against them, and that Christus victor did allow for such a theological claim. If death is the enemy defeated, then one could claim that physical healing is part of the atoning work in which Christ conquered all the powers. One could add, a la Anselm, that this was in fact part of the “satisfying” work insofar as Christ was restoring order to a cosmos ruptured by sin.
The other issue is that the name it, claim it folks within the Pentecostal-Charismatic world still operate within a penal substitutionary paradigm with a forensic notion attached. Thus if salvation is by faith alone, and healing is in the atonement, then healing is by faith alone. Either you claim it by faith and get it if your faith is strong enough, or you don’t and thus you have weak faith. I do not like such an approach obviously.
Again, I think there are specific weaknesses to penal substitutionary atonement that, to my mind, can restrict the atonement in ways that Christus victor does not. This is why it does not always fit nicely with Christus victor in my view. You must either modify one or the other.
March 18th, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #29
Dale C., your clarifications continue to be helpful. I almost wish I could go back in time and beat your seminary teachers over the head for that nonsense because it seems to me that an essential part of the Gospel story is the healing of our bodies giving foretaste to the resurrection of our bodies. At my most generous to them, I will say that God’s salvation is from the “inside-out,” or, as some have said, Adam was illumined from the outside in, but in Christ we are illumined by the Spirit from the inside-out.
But if, as it should be for the Reformed, the penalty for sin (paid by Christ which allowed him to triumph over death justly rather than dishonorably pretending that disobedience is not a big deal by restoring creation without paying the penalty; an idea I think is biblical) is not just “spiritual” death but bodily death, that is, a wholly human death, I don’t see how penal atonement does not entail bodily healing. The problem is not with penal atonement; the problem is with an over-spiritualized if not Gnostic understanding of sin and, consequently, atonement and probably mission as well.
If the question is more about miraculous healing happening today, I think that is a different question involving the cessation of gifts theory; ignorance of present-day healings; misunderstandings about body-soul; and/or a false division, characteristic of modernity, between God as Creator and God as Redeemer which understands, for example, medicine as a purely “secular” enterprise, etc. But I think your seminary professors were fundamentally wrong about holding physical healing apart from penal atonement.
I’ll lay out my cards on the table as well and admit that much of my thinking, especially regarding the cultural disorders of late modernity that inconspicuously distort our theology in turn, has been influenced by high church Anglicans and not necessarily by the Reformed because they’re generally not interested except a few like Peter Leithart. I should also mention that I grew up in the Assemblies of God (my parents still are), and so I have a soft spot for these concerns.
Christopher, my understanding of atonement has mostly come through, in chronological order, my Assemblies of God background, the Bible, John Piper, Presbyterian pastors, and conversations with Anglicans and Catholics. I haven’t read any book focused on the question itself, though I’ve read excerpts from John Stott’s The Cross of Christ. I’ll keep an eye out for Michael Horton’s book; have you reviewed it by any chance? :)
March 18th, 2010 | 8:10 pm | #30
Albert and Christopher,
Well, I need to make it clear, for the record, that I had wonderful seminary profs at Reformed Theological Seminary. I was really not referring to them, but more to the myriad debates with my fellow seminarians. When you’re one of the few Pentecostals amidst PCAs, OPCs, Reformed Baptists, etc., you get into many debates. And, I was never Reformed or Presbyterian. I grew up Pentecostal and remain so now, although I have great respect for Reformed theology.
I have not read a lot of contemporary accounts of the atonement by which I mean in the last 10-15 years. My focus has mainly been pouring through primary texts in the history of Christianity.
We could keep going at this, but I am afraid we may take up too much space. If I can give one more short answer, I see penal substitution as operating in an almost exclusively legal framework that is most at home with forensic justification and positional righteousness. Operating within this framework has all kinds of implications for other doctrines, not least of which is social justice. Thanks for the stimulating questions and comments.
March 19th, 2010 | 11:59 am | #31
Ah, pardon my mistaken assumption. Thanks for your time, Dale.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact