Revisiting the Somatic Death Objection to Penal Substitution: Original Sin and the Nature of Consequences

In an essay titled ‘The Logic of Reparative Substitution: Contemporary Restitution Models of Atonement, Divine Justice, and Somatic Death,’ Joshua Farris and S. Mark Hamilton articulate a largely ignored objection to the penal substitutionary atonement theory: the Somatic Death Objection. In this essay I respond to Farris and Hamilton’s Somatic Death Objection by appealing to the doctrine of original sin and the distinction between, what I call, mere consequences and penal consequences. I begin by defining the model in question: Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I then examine the Somatic Death Objection as Farris and Hamilton articulate it. Having done this, I provide two eschatologically based responses to the objection but argue that these responses are found wanting for various reasons. Finally, I turn to the doctrine of original sin and the distinction between mere consequences and penal consequences to argue that the Somatic Death Objection need not undermine penal substitution.

Czy dopuszczamy karę w zastępstwie za winowajcę?

Przekład na podstawie: „Do We Believe in Penal Substitution?”, Philosophical Papers 26 (1997): 203-209. Przekład za zgodą Wydawcy Artykuł D. Lewisa rozważa dopuszczalność poniesienia kary w zastępstwie za winowajcę w odniesieniu do aktualnie obowiązującego systemu prawa karnego, w którym kara nie pełni funkcji rekompensaty, i do chrześcijańskiej interpretacji śmierci Chrystusa w kategoriach Odkupienia. Może wydawać się, że obecnie kara zastępcza nie jest akceptowana, okazuje się jednak, że de facto akceptowana jest wybiórczo. Przynajmniej niektórzy chrześcijanie rozumieją śmierć Chrystusa w kategoriach spłacenia długu win grzeszników, ale jednocześnie nie dopuszczają możliwości, by przyjaciel mordercy poniósł za niego karę więzienia. Większość z nas uznaje możliwość kary zastępczej w odniesieniu do kar pieniężnych, ale nie w odniesieniu do dowolnej innej kary. W obu wypadkach w przekonaniach na temat dopuszczalności kary zastępczej wyraźnie brakuje spójności. Skoro jednak wybiórcze dopuszczenie kary zastępczej jest tak powszechne, być może nie jest pozbawione sensu.

Abandoning Penal Substitution: A Patristic Inspiration for Contemporary Protestant Understanding of the Atonement

In recent decades, there has been a resurgent interest among Protestant theologians in the so-called Christus Victor theory of the atonement. Firmly grounded in patristic thought (esp. Irenaeus of Lyons), this understanding of the work of Christ was first studied and formulated by a Swedish Lutheran, Gustaf Aulén, in 1931. Recent works by Darby Kathleen Ray, J. Denny Weaver, Thomas Finger, Gregory Boyd, and others develop Aulén’s endeavor and present new versions of the Christus Victor model. These scholars directly or indirectly demonstrate that the main framework of the patristic understanding of atonement was more faithful to Scripture and less problematic in terms of dogma and ethics than the traditional Protestant penal substitution theory. A short analysis of contemporary versions of the Christus Victor motif shows that this model of atonement proves to be more relevant in responding to the challenges of today’s world by providing substantial background for Christian spiritual life and ethics.

Craig on Penal Substitution: A Critique

Summary The recent atonement literature reveals a growing trend accepting the thesis that the Reformer’s doctrine just is the biblical doctrine of penal substitution. This is the claim of William Lane Craig in his recent works on the atonement. In the present article, we challenge these set of claims in Craig’s recent works and advance an alternative theory of the atonement that has some significant footing in the Reformed theological tradition, most notably reflected in the theologian, William Ames. Finally, we lay out several reasons why Craig’s doctrine of the atonement fails to capture the biblical data on the atonement and fails to avoid the legal fiction problem parasitic on most, if not all, accounts of penal substitution.

Teologi Kebangkitan: Mengkaji Kembali Pemikiran Wolfhart Panenberg Tentang Kebangkitan

This article examines the theology of resurrection: rethinking the thought of Wolfhart Pannenberg about resurrection. Resurrection is the centre of Pannenberg theology. In his views, the bible should be approached in a historical approach and the resurrection is the climax of incarnation since the incarnation was progressive. The method is a qualitative method with a literature approach. The author will describe Pannenberg’s thought, after that the author will evaluate his thought, and last the author will give argumentations. As the result, histories were written in the bible because of revelation, the resurrection was not the climax of the incarnation. Bible did not agree with the progressive incarnation, and the death of Jesus was not a catastrophe. The conclusion, Bible should be approached in a revelation approach, Jesus as fully God from eternity to eternity. Bible does not have internal testimony that incarnation was progressive. The death of Jesus is penal substitution. Artikel ini membahas tentang Teologi Kebangkitan: Mengkaji ulang pemikiran Wolfhart Pannenberg tentang kebangkitan. Kebangkitan merupakan sentral dari teologi Pannenberg. Dalam pandangan Pannenberg, Alkitab harus dipelajari dengan pendekatan historis dan kebangkitan merupakan klimaks dari inkarnasi. Metode yang digunakan metode kualiatas dengan pendekatan studi Pustaka. Pertama penulis akan deskripsikan pemikiran Pannenberg, selanjutanya penulis akan mengkaji ulang pemikirannya dan terakhir penulis akan memberikan argumentasi. Hasilnya, sejarah ditulis dalam Alkitab karena pewahyuan, kebangkitan bukan klimaks inkarnasi, Alkitab tidak menyetujui inkaranis progresif dan kematian Yesus Kristus bukan sebuah catastrophe. Kesimpulannya, mempelajari Alkitab harus menggunakan pendekatan wahyu, Yesus Kristus adalah Allah dari kekekalan sampai kekekalan, Alkitab tidak memiliki kesaksian internal mengenai inkarnasi progresif, dan kematian Yesus adalah penal substitusi.

Craig’s Anti–Platonism, Lowe’s Universals, and Christ’s Penal Substitutionary Atonement

William Lane Craig has defended nominalism as a kind of “anti–Platonism.” To him, Platonism is inimical to God’s aseity. More recently, he also has defended the penal substitution of Christ. However, he has not brought the two subjects into dialogue with each other. In this essay, I will attempt to do that by exploring the implications of two major types of nominalism, austere nominalism and trope theory, for the penal substitution. I will argue that nominalism will undermine the penal substitution of Christ. Instead, to try to preserve both his anti–Platonism and the penal substitution, a better alternative for Craig is to embrace E. J. Lowe’s immanent universals.

Divine Love, Divine Holiness, and the Atonement

The chapter contrasts what we should expect and require from a theory of Atonement if we take divine action to be governed by the holiness framework and if we do not. The primary foil is Eleonore Stump’s unqualifiedly and exclusively love framework account of the Atonement. Stump’s way of categorizing theories of the Atonement based on whether the obstacle to union with God is in us or in God is inadequate; rather, the appropriate distinction is between views that take the obstacle to be psychological (as Stump’s own view does) or normative (as satisfaction and penal substitution views do). By Stump’s own lights, the way in which past sin is an obstacle to union with God requires a normative treatment, and the holiness framework provides a plausible explanation of this: so long as such past sin is not dealt with, it normatively precludes the fuller unity with God that is constitutive of our good.

Atonement and Martyrdom in the Gospel of John

Does the Gospel of John portray Jesus’ death as an atoning sacrifice? This paper offers a new approach to the revelation vs. sacrifice impasse in scholarship, arguing that Jesus’ atoning death in John should be understood with reference to the non-cultic atoning deaths of the Jewish martyrdom traditions. After critically engaging scholarship, I contextualize John within post-biblical debates regarding sacrificial martyrdom, focusing on the competing reconfigurations of non-cultic atonement in the Maccabean literature. I subsequently show how Jesus’ atoning martyrdom reveals his anti-violent way of the cross as the true martyrdom and atoning sacrifice accepted by God, thereby resolving key tensions within Johannine scholarship. I then demonstrate how this vision of atonement addresses John’s understanding of sin as ignorance and addresses an audience itself facing threats of martyrdom (John 16:2). I conclude with some reflections on how John’s vision of atonement critically differs from later theological theories, particularly penal substitution.