Apologies for the poor audio on my part. Once again, I failed to check to see if the right microphone was selected. Fortunately, Dr. Joy does most of the talking : )
Just started a Master's in Philosophy program, and I'm learning that the readings make so much more sense, and I find them so much more compelling, when I read them in Gaven Kerr's voice lol
Just wanted to pause and comment on Dr. Joy's remarks around 40:00. This is the mark of a good theologian and of theology well done. Penal substitution does leave you with either limited or universal atonement. But I gladly accept the latter. The unstated implication is that universal atonement entails universal salvation, but I don't think that can be maintained. The assumption to buttress that implication is that eternal hell is the wage of sin, but I reject that for both philosophical and theological reasons. In Rev 20, for example, we're told that people are cast into the Lake of Fire for not being in the Book of Life. Paul says that sin, via the Law, killed him. So without going into details on a YT comment, I hold that we are alive to God until we sin, whereafter we die (spiritually). That's the wages of sin. If we die physically in that dead state, not being in the Book of Life, we will be cast into the LoF, which is the Second Death. Those who have eternal life *are* in the Book of Life (so that's where the language of "born again" is so important). That means that the atonement can be universal and scope and application -- it totally removes the sin barrier between man and God in terms of our fellowship with Him. But our salvation still hinges on whether or not we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
I'm glad to see Dr Joy still talking about this. I had some good discussions on it with him several years ago. I have always prioritized the Scriptural exegetical aspect rather than the philosophical aspect, because even if a philosophy is coherent doesn't make a theological claim necessarily true. I have posts on Nick's Catholic Blog that show why Psub is false from the Biblical evidence, particularly the Hebrew word for "atonement" being used over 100 times in the Bible and yet never does it refer to transferring punishment onto an innocent substitute. If that's the case, then Psub is false by definition, because Psub isn't even within the lexical range of the Hebrew word atonement. Sadly, this has hardly gotten the attention it deserves.
@Nick-rb1dc Your work on the atonement is outstanding. For all those who want to dive deeper into the discussion of the atonement should check out your blog.
I really enjoyed the interview and this is a subject of great interest to me. My thoughts are somewhat sloppy and cover too much territory to expect a reply, but I'll go ahead and share them anyway. Playing devil's advocate, from my layman's understanding the Reformers speak of God's wrath rather than God's anger per se, which may seem like a distinction without a difference but is an important point, as the Reformers actually saw themselves as preserving God's impassability. Divine wrath was seen not as an emotion but as the unavoidable coming around of God's inherent attribute of justice, as experienced by unrepentant, sinful mankind. Still, with that said I've always been puzzled and left unsatisfied by the penal substitutionary view of atonement, because the system seems self-contradictory. Is not the penal substitionary notion of the necessity of God's strict legal justice contradicted by the penal substitutionary notion that Christ could be punished vicariously "for us" - that justice could somehow be satisfied by the innocent bearing the punishment of the guilty? I find the penance versus punishment discussion in this video really nuanced and deep. I agree that God isn't after punishment but rather after restoration of each human person, all made in the image of God. Therefore penance is a way for us to act on a desire for reunion with God and to be restored and reconciled through our repentance and sincere desire for God. And yet Hell being a part of Biblical theology, it would seem that justice still plays a role in God's actions towards mankind, as Hell indicates that eventually there comes a time when God will pronounce judgement, calling Good "good" and Evil "evil," and the time for repentence will be over. Even if you believe, as I do, that hell does not entail physical suffering but rather profound spiritual privation and meaninglessness resulting from seperation from God, the finality aspect of Hell seems to be in the vein of punishment, as it seems odd that God would want restored relationship with individual human beings only up to a certain threshold in human history and then to close the door on that possibility. If we believe that Hell is locked from the inside rather than the outside and that God would save even those in Hell if they would be willing to be saved, then perhaps we can leave the punishment element of Hell behind. Then those in Hell can be understood as those who eternally refuse to give penance for their sins - penance being understood as concretely acting upon a desire for restored relationship with God, and not a self-interested ploy to save one's own skin. I've struggled with how to understand the Apostle Paul's use of court room language in some of his epistles, but recently realized that Paul could be speaking of civil court instead of criminal court. The goal of civil law suits are restitution - to make whole. Understood as the just civil court judge, God's judgments are made to restore the created order to the way it was before the fall, not to punish the sinner. I believe that restoration was historically the high aspiration of criminal courts punishment as well - intended not to exact vengeance, but rather to restore the right order of things. But can "an eye for an eye" type punishment ever truly be restorative given that blinding the perpetrator's eye will never actually restore vision to the eye of the victim? Ironically, a punishment can only become a penance, as Joyce and Aquinas speak of penance, through the willing participation of the convicted wrongdoer in assenting to the justice of his punishment.
Apologies for the poor audio on my part. Once again, I failed to check to see if the right microphone was selected.
Fortunately, Dr. Joy does most of the talking : )
This is exactly the episode I've been waiting for! Still listening and will comment further later.
Cool!
Just started a Master's in Philosophy program, and I'm learning that the readings make so much more sense, and I find them so much more compelling, when I read them in Gaven Kerr's voice lol
Ha!
Where is Gaven? He hasn't been on in a while.@@PhilosophyforthePeople
Very useful, thank you
Just wanted to pause and comment on Dr. Joy's remarks around 40:00. This is the mark of a good theologian and of theology well done. Penal substitution does leave you with either limited or universal atonement. But I gladly accept the latter. The unstated implication is that universal atonement entails universal salvation, but I don't think that can be maintained. The assumption to buttress that implication is that eternal hell is the wage of sin, but I reject that for both philosophical and theological reasons. In Rev 20, for example, we're told that people are cast into the Lake of Fire for not being in the Book of Life. Paul says that sin, via the Law, killed him. So without going into details on a YT comment, I hold that we are alive to God until we sin, whereafter we die (spiritually). That's the wages of sin. If we die physically in that dead state, not being in the Book of Life, we will be cast into the LoF, which is the Second Death. Those who have eternal life *are* in the Book of Life (so that's where the language of "born again" is so important). That means that the atonement can be universal and scope and application -- it totally removes the sin barrier between man and God in terms of our fellowship with Him. But our salvation still hinges on whether or not we believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
I'm glad to see Dr Joy still talking about this. I had some good discussions on it with him several years ago. I have always prioritized the Scriptural exegetical aspect rather than the philosophical aspect, because even if a philosophy is coherent doesn't make a theological claim necessarily true. I have posts on Nick's Catholic Blog that show why Psub is false from the Biblical evidence, particularly the Hebrew word for "atonement" being used over 100 times in the Bible and yet never does it refer to transferring punishment onto an innocent substitute. If that's the case, then Psub is false by definition, because Psub isn't even within the lexical range of the Hebrew word atonement. Sadly, this has hardly gotten the attention it deserves.
@Nick-rb1dc Your work on the atonement is outstanding. For all those who want to dive deeper into the discussion of the atonement should check out your blog.
“The penal substitutionary account is clean. It is convenient. It is neat. And it is wrong.” Greatness!
I really enjoyed the interview and this is a subject of great interest to me. My thoughts are somewhat sloppy and cover too much territory to expect a reply, but I'll go ahead and share them anyway.
Playing devil's advocate, from my layman's understanding the Reformers speak of God's wrath rather than God's anger per se, which may seem like a distinction without a difference but is an important point, as the Reformers actually saw themselves as preserving God's impassability. Divine wrath was seen not as an emotion but as the unavoidable coming around of God's inherent attribute of justice, as experienced by unrepentant, sinful mankind.
Still, with that said I've always been puzzled and left unsatisfied by the penal substitutionary view of atonement, because the system seems self-contradictory. Is not the penal substitionary notion of the necessity of God's strict legal justice contradicted by the penal substitutionary notion that Christ could be punished vicariously "for us" - that justice could somehow be satisfied by the innocent bearing the punishment of the guilty?
I find the penance versus punishment discussion in this video really nuanced and deep. I agree that God isn't after punishment but rather after restoration of each human person, all made in the image of God. Therefore penance is a way for us to act on a desire for reunion with God and to be restored and reconciled through our repentance and sincere desire for God.
And yet Hell being a part of Biblical theology, it would seem that justice still plays a role in God's actions towards mankind, as Hell indicates that eventually there comes a time when God will pronounce judgement, calling Good "good" and Evil "evil," and the time for repentence will be over. Even if you believe, as I do, that hell does not entail physical suffering but rather profound spiritual privation and meaninglessness resulting from seperation from God, the finality aspect of Hell seems to be in the vein of punishment, as it seems odd that God would want restored relationship with individual human beings only up to a certain threshold in human history and then to close the door on that possibility. If we believe that Hell is locked from the inside rather than the outside and that God would save even those in Hell if they would be willing to be saved, then perhaps we can leave the punishment element of Hell behind. Then those in Hell can be understood as those who eternally refuse to give penance for their sins - penance being understood as concretely acting upon a desire for restored relationship with God, and not a self-interested ploy to save one's own skin.
I've struggled with how to understand the Apostle Paul's use of court room language in some of his epistles, but recently realized that Paul could be speaking of civil court instead of criminal court. The goal of civil law suits are restitution - to make whole. Understood as the just civil court judge, God's judgments are made to restore the created order to the way it was before the fall, not to punish the sinner. I believe that restoration was historically the high aspiration of criminal courts punishment as well - intended not to exact vengeance, but rather to restore the right order of things. But can "an eye for an eye" type punishment ever truly be restorative given that blinding the perpetrator's eye will never actually restore vision to the eye of the victim? Ironically, a punishment can only become a penance, as Joyce and Aquinas speak of penance, through the willing participation of the convicted wrongdoer in assenting to the justice of his punishment.
Comment for traction. Grateful for Jesus
Aquinas theology on the atonement seems similar to the Eastern Orthodox?
I had that thought as well.
Does the catholic notion of atonement require the activity of flagellation?
Could we say, "sin offering"?@45:44
There's just so much wrong with this.