PSA and the Impact of Christian Fiction

[JonC]

On another thread I’m trying to discuss a topic that I know will not fly (it will be hijacked by a few adherents of a tradition in question). So I am going to try to examine it in parts, starting here.

Evangelical Protestantism has traditionally held to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as it’s view (to varying degrees). But in popular Christian fiction this is often not the case. I realize that fiction is fiction, but with Christian fiction I think it reasonable that the audience at least suspects it conveys some types of truth along with or within the fiction.

Many of the authors who are popular among those who hold the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement also, at least in their fiction, present ideas opposed to the Theory.

I think the more popular example is C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia which presents the “classic view” of the Atonement over the “Latin view”.

Ted Dekker’s books often present the idea of Penal Substitution as a delusion that have blinded those who are religious but who are not “in Christ”.

Other examples include Frank Peretti, Rachelle Dekker, and Tosca Lee. (An example unrelated to this topic is eschatological views and the Left Behind series).


Do you believe that these types of works influence the theology of younger generations?

 

[MartyF]

Yes.

But nothing has had a more damaging effect than the "Left Behind" series.

The sad thing is - I once picked up a "left behind" book in a Wal-Mart. After reading about 10 pages, I came to the conclusion that the writing truly sucked. I could never understand why people actually liked reading books which were so poorly written.

Why didn't the publishers hire a shadow writer to help with the writing?

 

[Van]

A better question is why would those that believe Christ died for all people, embrace a doctrine that says Christ did not die for all people.

Often times young people uncritically accept the views in vogue at the time they come of age. I know I did.

 

[Ziggy]

Why didn't the publishers hire a shadow writer to help with the writing?

Actually they (or LaHaye) did by hiring Jenkins.

You didn't think LaHaye himself could write that well, did you? (sarcasm switch on )

 

[Deacon]

... I once picked up a "left behind" book in a Wal-Mart. After reading about 10 pages, I came to the conclusion that the writing truly sucked. I could never understand why people actually liked reading books which were so poorly written.

My favorite genre to read is sci-fi
I enjoy subtlety and an evolving plot... IMO Christian sci-fi is simplistic and disappointingly predictable.

I don't really greatly care if I agree or disagree with the theology of a science fiction book - the books present ideas and provoke thought. If the book's theology pleases me I'd be more likely to enjoy it.

I speed read the first half of the first LB book during a church picnic many years ago and though it was terrible.... the writing is juvenile, the plot is boring.

Rob

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think the more popular example is C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia which presents the “classic view” of the Atonement over the “Latin view”.

Would I be right in thinking that the view of the Atonement which you have decided to term "classic" is the one with which you happen to agree, and the "Latin view" the one with which you disagree?

 

[JonC]

Would I be right in thinking that the view of the Atonement which you have decided to term "classic" is the one with which you happen to agree, and the "Latin view" the one with which you disagree?

No, you would not be correct at all. Not even remotely close. I did not choose those names (I am referencing what the views are actually called).

The "Classic View" is the position that the Orthodox Church took. Typically it is the Ransom Theory but later on it became associated with a combination of the Ransom Theory and Moral Influence Theory ("subjective view" or" exemplarist theory") to varying degrees.

The "Latin View" is also called "Objective Theory". This view is more forensic than the Classic view and includes the Satisfaction Theory and Penal Substitution Theory.



FYI - personally, I would not have chosen any of those names. For my position I would have chosen "Biblical view" because it is several passages of Scripture that I believe explain the Atonement without the need for embellishment. For the "Classic view" I'd have chosen the "antiquated view that should be narrowed" and for the "Latin view" I'd have chosen "Christian Fiction view".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, you would not be correct at all. Not even remotely close. I did not choose those names (I am referencing what the views are actually called).

The "Classic View" is the position that the Orthodox Church took. Typically it is the Ransom Theory but later on it became associated with a combination of the Ransom Theory and Moral Influence Theory ("subjective view" or" exemplarist theory") to varying degrees.

The "Latin View" is also called "Objective Theory". This view is more forensic than the Classic view and includes the Satisfaction Theory and Penal Substitution Theory.

I am not entirely unread on these matters, and I have never heard of Penal Substitution being called 'Latin.' Biblical, yes; Latin, no. To call one's preferred view 'classic' seems to me to be tendentious at best, and having delusions of grandeur at worst.

FYI - personally, I would not have chosen any of those names. For my position I would have chosen "Biblical view" because it is several passages of Scripture that I believe explain the Atonement without the need for embellishment. For the "Classic view" I'd have chosen the "antiquated view that should be narrowed" and for the "Latin view" I'd have chosen "Christian Fiction view".

I'm sure you would.

 

[JonC]

I am not entirely unread on these matters, and I have never heard of Penal Substitution being called 'Latin.' Biblical, yes; Latin, no. To call one's preferred view 'classic' seems to me to be tendentious at best, and having delusions of grandeur at worst.

I'm sure you would.

You are not well read enough as you misunderstand.

The Penal Substitution Theory is not THE "Latin view".

Origen's Ransom Theory is not THE "classic view".

The terms are historical and apply to a division in how the Atonement is understood. I have seen three views presented (Latin, Classic, and exemplarist or subjective) and I have seen some that include the exemplarist or subjective into the Classic.

You are implying some type of attempt at superiority based on the lables theologians have historically used to speak of groupings. That is foolish.

God gave you two ears, two eyes, and one mouth. Use what you have in abundance first. Research the topic and you will not make such foolish charges of arrogance.

Those who hold the Classic view did not "coin" the term to apply to their position and the label has nothing to do with claims of correctness or superiority. You are far too subjective in your understanding.

 

[JonC]

The problem is not one of being arrogant, @Martin Marprelate .

Do you remember when I used the term "retributive justice" and you made the mistake of combating me as if I were speaking of retribution? An administrator (and former seminary professor) pm'd me and explained that I was using terms above the popular level and my choice of terms confused the issue. Personally, I think people need to research what they may not understand before forming an opinion and opening their mouth. That is how we learn (that is how I learned).

It is the same with the use of the "classic view" vs the "Latin view". We only have so many terms from which to choose.

If you prefer, you can call the "Latin view" the "Objective view".

It is not quite correct, but you can also call the "Classic view" the "Subjective view". While the latter is wrong (it typically refers to exemplarist theory), it would be a step in the right direction as the "Classic view" incorporates Moral Influence Theory (the Orthodox churches position has elements of the Ransom Theory and Moral Influence Theory).

I'm sure you are aware of this - just posting it so that other members will not make the mistake of believing the labels for these traditions are some type of claim of superiority.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van,

A better question is why would those that believe Christ died for all people, embrace a doctrine that says Christ did not die for all people.

What happens is that many begin to study their Bibles more diligently, and they begin to understand the Covenant nature of God's redemption. In some cases, they get saved.
They see the electing love of God IN Christ and embrace the truth by a God-given faith.