Bonhoffer, Barth, Lewis....should Christians consider the words of "non-traditional" thinkers?

[JonC]

God the Father was NOT punishing Jesus due to what Jesus had done, nay, he was punishing Jesus for the sale of what WE had done!
And Wright does state that Reformed theology totally misunderstood the Pauline Justification, and that he finally has the light on what paul rerally meant, but He claims that ONLY because he hates the idea of the Pst viewpoint!

Who has claimed that the Father was punishing Jesus due to what Jesus had done?

Is this a "strawman"? If so, good job at knocking it down (for what its worth).

Actually, Wright believes he holds to Penal Substitution Theory. And, to be fair, he does insofar as it has been defined here (using the definition from Pierced for Our Transgressions). C.S. Lewis strait out rejected the notion.

Here's some irony for you, @Yeshua1 .

The Gospel Coalition website affirms that N.T. Wright holds to Penal Substitution Theory while questioning his view of Justification.

But the same site urges caution for any Christian wanting to read Lewis' Mere Christianity because it rejects Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[Yeshua1]

Who has claimed that the Father was punishing Jesus due to what Jesus had done?

Is this a "strawman"? If so, good job at knocking it down (for what its worth).

Actually, Wright believes he holds to Penal Substitution Theory. And, to be fair, he does insofar as it has been defined here (using the definition from Pierced for Our Transgressions). C.S. Lewis strait out rejected the notion.

Here's some irony for you, @Yeshua1 .

The Gospel Coalition website affirms that N.T. Wright holds to Penal Substitution Theory while questioning his view of Justification.

But the same site urges caution for any Christian wanting to read Lewis' Mere Christianity because it rejects Penal Substitution Theory.

Wright might use the Jargon, but he rejects Reformed Pst, due to him not accepting that God poured out his wrath of His righteous Son to atone and pay for our sins!

 

[JonC]

Wright might use the Jargon, but he rejects Reformed Pst, due to him not accepting that God poured out his wrath of His righteous Son to atone and pay for our sins!

I agree. But on the other thread about Penal Substitution Theory we had pretty much excluded that expression from the definition. Wright has explained that he does believe Christ was our substitute and suffered the consequences of sin on our behalf as a propitiation for our sins. He believes this is not the primary view of the Atonement Scripture provides, but his definition meets the definition that has been offered for Penal Substitution Theory.

C.S. Lewis simply denies the possibility. Yet you've read Mere Christianity several times. I take it you find value in the rest of Lewis' ideas. Why not just pass over where you and N.T. Wright disagree and take from his other works (he is much closer to your view than is Lewis).

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. But on the other thread about Penal Substitution Theory we had pretty much excluded that expression from the definition. Wright has explained that he does believe Christ was our substitute and suffered the consequences of sin on our behalf as a propitiation for our sins. He believes this is not the primary view of the Atonement Scripture provides, but his definition meets the definition that has been offered for Penal Substitution Theory.

C.S. Lewis simply denies the possibility. Yet you've read Mere Christianity several times. I take it you find value in the rest of Lewis' ideas. Why not just pass over where you and N.T. Wright disagree and take from his other works (he is much closer to your view than is Lewis).

I did not read any type of view on the atonement in Mere Christianity, but Wright seems to want to rewrite Pauline Justification, as he now knows it better than Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the rest of the gang!

 

[JonC]

I did not read any type of view on the atonement in Mere Christianity, but Wright seems to want to rewrite Pauline Justification, as he now knows it better than Luther, Calvin, Beza, and the rest of the gang!

But you have read Mere Christianity several times? Did you read:

According to that theory [the theory that Lewis had believed a part of Christianity when he was an atheist] God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor an other is Christianity. The central belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. (pg. 57-58)

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before [Penal Substitution Theory]–the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. (pg. 59)

But you are right that both Lewis and Wright depart from the Reformers. So do many. Even during the Reformation you had Anabaptists who opposed the Reformed view. And they identified the same type of issue as Lewis, Wright, Weaver, Barth, etc. have observed.

So the question comes full circle - since even C.S. Lewis, who was not a theologian, found Penal Substitution Theory a stumbling block to his own salvation AND Christian scholars for centuries have questioned its accuracy, should we not at least re-examine the presuppositions it holds as true?

 

[rsr]

I first encountered Lewis through God in the Dock when I was a teenager. I credit that book — and other Lewis works — with keeping me within conservative Christianity instead of wandering into full-blown liberalism or even agnosticism or something else.

I recognized that Lewis was an Anglican and believed many things I did not. He also made suppositions that he freely admitted were his own beliefs and not related to orthodoxy (take, for example, musings about the place of animals in the new creation). What I took from Lewis was not his specific theology but his defense of the reasonableness of orthodox Christianity.

If Lewis wants to adopt Recapitulationism as his theory of the atonement, I cannot say that he is wrong, but perhaps only that his theory may be incomplete, just as I think most man-made theories are incomplete. It may be that some are led astray by his works, but it seems to me that is the result of being improperly catechized, to use a technical term.

I read the sermons of both Spurgeon and Wesley with edification. Wesley was Arminian and Whitefield a Calvinist, and Wesley preached Whitefield's funeral oration.

Should I not read the ECFs, none of whom are Baptistic? Should I not read Luther or Calvin?

Wright is a special case. He is incredibly brilliant — and he knows it. One the problems with Wright is that his writing can be so dense; that is, you think you know what he's talking about and then realize you don't. Wright has many insights worth sharing, but sometimes it seems that he's going out of his way to alienate evangelicals with whom he mostly agrees while mainstream Anglicans just ignore him as a relic of outmoded controversies. Some mainstream Anglicans, alas, don't really care if the Resurrection is fact; Wright does. It's a shame he has set himself in opposition to the people most interested in upholding orthodoxy.

 

[JonC]

I first encountered Lewis through God in the Dock when I was a teenager. I credit that book — and other Lewis works — with keeping me within conservative Christianity instead of wandering into full-blown liberalism or even agnosticism or something else.

I recognized that Lewis was an Anglican and believed many things I did not. He also made suppositions that he freely admitted were his own beliefs and not related to orthodoxy (take, for example, musings about the place of animals in the new creation). What I took from Lewis was not his specific theology but his defense of the reasonableness of orthodox Christianity.

If Lewis wants to adopt Recapitulationism as his theory of the atonement, I cannot say that he is wrong, but perhaps only that his theory may be incomplete, just as I think most man-made theories are incomplete. It may be that some are led astray by his works, but it seems to me that is the result of being improperly catechized, to use a technical term.

I read the sermons of both Spurgeon and Wesley with edification. Wesley was Arminian and Whitefield a Calvinist, and Wesley preached Whitefield's funeral oration.

Should I not read the ECFs, none of whom are Baptistic? Should I not read Luther or Calvin?

Wright is a special case. He is incredibly brilliant — and he knows it. One the problems with Wright is that his writing can be so dense; that is, you think you know what he's talking about and then realize you don't. Wright has many insights worth sharing, but sometimes it seems that he's going out of his way to alienate evangelicals with whom he mostly agrees while mainstream Anglicans just ignore him as a relic of outmoded controversies. Some mainstream Anglicans, alas, don't really care if the Resurrection is fact; Wright does. It's a shame he was set himself in opposition to the people most interested in upholding orthodoxy.

Lewis is one of my favorites. I think the first I read was Surprised by Hope. But I think you almost have to reject Lewis' Atonement ideas because he directly rejects Penal Substitution (but he does leave room for a more general substitution).

I do not advocate adopting any of these guys views. That said, do you believe the "problems" they saw worth considering?

I ask because N.T. Wright has several times said that his view of Justification is probably flawed. He lamented that so few were open to even consider the possibility the Reformers had made an error in understanding the first century worldview.

 

[rsr]

As I said, I don't have to reject Lewis' ideas about atonement because I do not believe any theory exhausts the explanation of the atonement. They are human, if helpful (or not) constructs. Our feeble understanding of God does not exhaust the possibilities of his majesty and purposes.

And I think I got that from Lewis.

Wright has a point, because he's smarter than any of us. His views are worth considering. Reconstructing the first century world view is a mammoth undertaking, and I'm not sure even Wright is up to it.

 

[JonC]

As I said, I don't have to reject Lewis' ideas about atonement because I do not believe any theory exhausts the explanation of the atonement. They are human, if helpful (or not) constructs. Our feeble understanding of God does not exhaust the possibilities of his majesty and purposes.

And I think I got that from Lewis.

Wright has a point, because he's smarter than any of us. His views are worth considering. Reconstructing the first century world view is a mammoth undertaking, and I'm not sure even Wright is up to it.

I don't know that we have to (or really can with any degree of certainty) reconstruct the first century worldview. But I do believe we can revisit our own views and ask ourselves why this philosophy or that worldview best suits the biblical narrative.

 

[church mouse guy]

Lewis is one of my favorites. I think the first I read was Surprised by Hope. But I think you almost have to reject Lewis' Atonement ideas because he directly rejects Penal Substitution (but he does leave room for a more general substitution).

I do not advocate adopting any of these guys views. That said, do you believe the "problems" they saw worth considering?

I ask because N.T. Wright has several times said that his view of Justification is probably flawed. He lamented that so few were open to even consider the possibility the Reformers had made an error in understanding the first century worldview.

Surprised by Joy

 

[JonC]

Surprised by Joy

Oh....yea... thanks.

Surprised by Hope is N.T. Wright.

I'm getting old. Next stop....nursing home .

 

[Yeshua1]

But you have read Mere Christianity several times? Did you read:

According to that theory [the theory that Lewis had believed a part of Christianity when he was an atheist] God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor an other is Christianity. The central belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. (pg. 57-58)

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before [Penal Substitution Theory]–the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. (pg. 59)

But you are right that both Lewis and Wright depart from the Reformers. So do many. Even during the Reformation you had Anabaptists who opposed the Reformed view. And they identified the same type of issue as Lewis, Wright, Weaver, Barth, etc. have observed.

So the question comes full circle - since even C.S. Lewis, who was not a theologian, found Penal Substitution Theory a stumbling block to his own salvation AND Christian scholars for centuries have questioned its accuracy, should we not at least re-examine the presuppositions it holds as true?

The question is to which view does

But you have read Mere Christianity several times? Did you read:

According to that theory [the theory that Lewis had believed a part of Christianity when he was an atheist] God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor an other is Christianity. The central belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. (pg. 57-58)

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before [Penal Substitution Theory]–the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. (pg. 59)

But you are right that both Lewis and Wright depart from the Reformers. So do many. Even during the Reformation you had Anabaptists who opposed the Reformed view. And they identified the same type of issue as Lewis, Wright, Weaver, Barth, etc. have observed.

So the question comes full circle - since even C.S. Lewis, who was not a theologian, found Penal Substitution Theory a stumbling block to his own salvation AND Christian scholars for centuries have questioned its accuracy, should we not at least re-examine the presuppositions it holds as true?

Yes, but the Pst viewpoint is the one that seems to best describe what happened to Jesus while upon His Cross, and God was not able to still be Holy and justify a lost sinner at same time!

 

[Yeshua1]

I first encountered Lewis through God in the Dock when I was a teenager. I credit that book — and other Lewis works — with keeping me within conservative Christianity instead of wandering into full-blown liberalism or even agnosticism or something else.

I recognized that Lewis was an Anglican and believed many things I did not. He also made suppositions that he freely admitted were his own beliefs and not related to orthodoxy (take, for example, musings about the place of animals in the new creation). What I took from Lewis was not his specific theology but his defense of the reasonableness of orthodox Christianity.

If Lewis wants to adopt Recapitulationism as his theory of the atonement, I cannot say that he is wrong, but perhaps only that his theory may be incomplete, just as I think most man-made theories are incomplete. It may be that some are led astray by his works, but it seems to me that is the result of being improperly catechized, to use a technical term.

I read the sermons of both Spurgeon and Wesley with edification. Wesley was Arminian and Whitefield a Calvinist, and Wesley preached Whitefield's funeral oration.

Should I not read the ECFs, none of whom are Baptistic? Should I not read Luther or Calvin?

Wright is a special case. He is incredibly brilliant — and he knows it. One the problems with Wright is that his writing can be so dense; that is, you think you know what he's talking about and then realize you don't. Wright has many insights worth sharing, but sometimes it seems that he's going out of his way to alienate evangelicals with whom he mostly agrees while mainstream Anglicans just ignore him as a relic of outmoded controversies. Some mainstream Anglicans, alas, don't really care if the Resurrection is fact; Wright does. It's a shame he has set himself in opposition to the people most interested in upholding orthodoxy.

Wright has very good on resurrection, but not so much on the infallibility of the scriptures and Pauline Justification!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know that we have to (or really can with any degree of certainty) reconstruct the first century worldview. But I do believe we can revisit our own views and ask ourselves why this philosophy or that worldview best suits the biblical narrative.

The first century viewpoint is what was recorded down to us in the scriptures! Its not the first century view, its the any century view!

 

[Yeshua1]

Lewis is one of my favorites. I think the first I read was Surprised by Hope. But I think you almost have to reject Lewis' Atonement ideas because he directly rejects Penal Substitution (but he does leave room for a more general substitution).

I do not advocate adopting any of these guys views. That said, do you believe the "problems" they saw worth considering?

I ask because N.T. Wright has several times said that his view of Justification is probably flawed. He lamented that so few were open to even consider the possibility the Reformers had made an error in understanding the first century worldview.

The main problem of Wright is that he sees way too much in the First Temple situation, and also He fails to see that Judaism at time of Christ was indeed a salvation by keeping the laq of God enough to merit salvation!