The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[ihsan]

LOL

I quoted wikipedia, please clarify what "I made up"

Because the very Wikipedia article you quoted states:

There are a number of readings of the Patristic literature, some arguing that the Early Church held to penal substitution, and others to the contrary.

To take patristic examples from among the Latin Fathers, St. Augustine writes that "by His [Jesus'] death, the one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf, He purged abolished and extinguished ... whatever guilt we had." This is one of several strands of thought: he expounds the mediating work of Christ, his act of ransoming humankind and also the exemplary aspect of Christ's work. As with his predecessors, such as Justin Martyr c.100-165 and Gregory of Nazianzus the imagery of sacrifice, ransom, expiation, and reconciliation all appear in his writings -- all of these, however, are themes embraced by other atonement models and are not necessarily indicative of penal substitutionary atonement.[10]

As is obvious, there are differing views as to the origination of the doctrine, meaning your claims are false. The reality is that there were various strands of "penal substitution theory", under different names.

The primary reason for these differences is that the Church Fathers were trying to reconcile the ideas of Jesus' atoning for another's sins as going against the very principle of justice. Some Church Fathers did not want to conceive of it as "payment to God", bot "ransom". For example, Athanasius argued, per the article, that death and corruption are a necessary result of sin, and the sacrifice was the 'necessary' condition to remove these effects.

In this case, one is essentially denying the principle of 'forgiveness' altogether, as well as destroying justice, which is the very basis for the claim that the sacrifice must occur in the first place. One may ask, what is the origin of this alleged 'necessity'? If God is, then the implication is that God is DICTATED to have to allow corruption and death as a result of sin, and cannot forgive the sin, so one has rendered the concept of forgiveness absurd. Further, the ransom is that God places the burden of the sin on Jesus, not man, meaning justice is not preserved at all, for somebody else bears the burden of a sin of another.

[Yahya Sulaiman]

Here we might say that anyone who is as beastly as the one forgiven in your story is hardly your friend...

We've all been beastly to our friends. Only a true friend would come to them in such a heartfelt way about it and be forgiven so quickly.

Secondly, there should be some token of repentance and here there is none, repentance alone would never be enough to be let off...

So would you demand of your own friend that he wax your car for a few years in penance or something? In that case you wouldn't be forgiving him.

thirdly, if this punch analogy makes any sense it happens BEFORE the person did anything wrong not after or on each occasion.

But then there wouldn't be anything to come forward with, would there? The atonement is supposed to have happened because of sin, not before it.

[Algebra]

There are a number of readings of the Patristic literature, some arguing that the Early Church held to penal substitution, and others to the contrary.

"readings" means interpretations. And yes to gain legitimacy people who subscribe to penal substitution seek to reinterpret the ECF's writings. The reality is that the early church did not teach penal substitution for 3 reasons.

1) The early church was far too understanding of its jewish roots to misunderstand korbanot so grossly.

2) There are absolutely no writings which teach penal substitution explicitly.

3) The RCC and EO (both ancient organizations) have always rejected the idea of penal substitution.

Now lets look at what Augustine has written ""by His [Jesus'] death, the one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf, He purged abolished and extinguished ... whatever guilt we had."

How on earth do you interpret that as Jesus was punished in our place? except if you have already concluded that prima facie?

Simply put there is almost no support and the academics agree on this for penal substitution in the writings of the ECFs.

As is obvious, there are differing views as to the origination of the doctrine, meaning your claims are false. The reality is that there were various strands of "penal substitution theory", under different names.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to the doctrine originating in the reformation movement. The reason for this is that penal substitution is absolutely unknown in the Churches of the East.

The primary reason for these differences is that the Church Fathers were trying to reconcile the ideas of Jesus' atoning for another's sins as going against the very principle of justice.

The ECFs were not trying to reconcile any such thing, as I have proved (uknown in the east, RCC always rejecting it) the theory starts with the reformation.

Some Church Fathers did not want to conceive of it as "payment to God", bot "ransom". For example, Athanasius argued, per the article, that death and corruption are a necessary result of sin, and the sacrifice was the 'necessary' condition to remove these effects.

LOL
This idea is not penal substitution however. Penal substitution as so well explained in the OP, is the idea of an innocent being punished in the place of the guilty. The vast majority of christianity, like Yahya think that the idea is ludicrous.

What Athanasius of Alexandria is talking about is that death and corruption (physical death) result from sin, and that Jesus brings about or allows for a bodily resurrection.
Of course it is all a bunch of nonsense, no doubt.

But it sure as hell is not "penal substitution" that he is talking about.

In this case, one is essentially denying the principle of 'forgiveness' altogether, as well as destroying justice, which is the very basis for the claim that the sacrifice must occur in the first place. One may ask, what is the origin of this alleged 'necessity'? If God is, then the implication is that God is DICTATED to have to allow corruption and death as a result of sin, and cannot forgive the sin, so one has rendered the concept of forgiveness absurd. Further, the ransom is that God places the burden of the sin on Jesus, not man, meaning justice is not preserved at all, for somebody else bears the burden of a sin of another.

Im not sure what your point is here, because its a jumble of many ideas.

[Algebra]

You argued that the majority of the Christian world rejects the "penal substitution theory" and gave the Wikipedia link as your support. The majority of the Christian world is NOT the Early Christian Church. .

The first sentence makes the post very very clear.

Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory)[1][2] is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, especially associated with the Reformed tradition.

which would mean not the EO and RCC and its close affiliates the lutherans, anglicans and presbyterians.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

From the horses mouth, so to speak.

In their general conception on the atonement the Reformers and their followers happily preserved the Catholic doctrine, at least in its main lines. And in their explanation of the merit of Christ's sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.
The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.
The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

[ihsan]

"readings" means interpretations. And yes to gain legitimacy people who subscribe to penal substitution seek to reinterpret the ECF's writings. The reality is that the early church did not teach penal substitution for 3 reasons.

Yes, I am quite aware of the fact that "readings" merans interpretation. And once again, your making things up.

There are a number of readings of the Patristic literature, some arguing that the Early Church held to penal substitution, and others to the contrary.

Your argument fundamentally assumes that "penal substitution" was not an Early Church doctrine, and any attempts at justifying it is a "re-reading" of the doctrine, when nothing is established from the article you provided that it was not an Early CHurch doctrine. The article argues that the traces of the doctrine are in dispute, which has little relevance to your contention that the majority of Christians don't believe it and reject it. You still have not established any proof whatsoever that this is the case.

Now lets look at what Augustine has written ""by His [Jesus'] death, the one most true sacrifice offered on our behalf, He purged abolished and extinguished ... whatever guilt we had."

How on earth do you interpret that as Jesus was punished in our place? except if you have already concluded that prima facie?

Again, to quote the very article you provided, states in the very next sentence:

As with his predecessors, such as Justin Martyr c.100-165 and Gregory of Nazianzus the imagery of sacrifice, ransom, expiation, and reconciliation all appear in his writings -- all of these, however, are themes embraced by other atonement models and are not necessarily indicative of penal substitutionary atonement.[10]

To even quote those that reject the doctrine as having origins in the Early Church:

Scholar J. S. Romanides[8] disagrees with Kelly's position that the early Church saw Christ as "shouldering the penalty which justice required them to pay." Instead, he argues that they, like the Eastern Orthodox Church of today, understood humankind as separating themselves from God and placing themselves under the power of sin and death. The work of Christ is viewed, he says, not as a satisfaction of God's wrath or the satisfaction of justice which God was bound to by necessity, but as the work of rescuing us from death and its power. He argues that the notion of penal substitution was never contemplated until Augustine, and was never accepted in any form in the East.

Even Romanides argues that penal substitution began during the time of St. AUgstine, which is way before the time you argue that it occured. The statement of St. AUgustine neither establishes the penal substituion model nor rejects it, nor do the statements of any of the Early Church Fathers, meaning it is vague. These statements can be used by both parties for their respective atonement models The article then goes on to say:

It was not until St. Anselm's famous work Cur Deus Homo (1098) that attention was focused on the theology of redemption with the aim of providing more exact definitions[15] (though there is disagreement as to how influential penal conceptions were in the first five centuries).

As one can tell, the origination of the atonement models was not clearly delineated in the early centuries, meaning to argue for or against it, is absurd. The reality is, there was disputes which caused the Chruch to seek various refinements of the model that Jesus died for something MAN DID, not HE. Whether one calls it punishment or painful suffering, it is all meant to appeal to man's GUILT, no matter what semantic gibberish is used to try and divest it from it's absurdity.

This idea is not penal substitution however. Penal substitution as so well explained in the OP, is the idea of an innocent being punished in the place of the guilty. The vast majority of christianity, like Yahya think that the idea is ludicrous.

What Athanasius of Alexandria is talking about is that death and corruption (physical death) result from sin, and that Jesus brings about or allows for a bodily resurrection.
Of course it is all a bunch of nonsense, no doubt.

But it sure as hell is not "penal substitution" that he is talking about.

I never said it was, but I'm sure you knew that, considering you cut off the beginning sentence of the statement:

The primary reason for these differences is that the Church Fathers were trying to reconcile the ideas of Jesus' atoning for another's sins as going against the very principle of justice.

No matter which way one spins it, Jesus is supposedly bearing the sins of another, meaning justice is essentially rejected. All the forms of the atonement model are ludicrous...

[Algebra]

No matter which way one spins it, Jesus is supposedly bearing the sins of another, meaning justice is essentially rejected. All the forms of the atonement model are ludicrous...

Actually not, jesus does not "bear" the sins of another man, anymore than a goat or cow bore the sins of a sacrificing jew in the temple.

[Asif Hasan]

The important thing is that God does not and should not need anyone to suffer and die so that anyone else can be forgiven. That’s not how forgiveness works.

Your biggest problem is shared by many other intellectual Muslims ...

You want to actually tell Almighty GOD how He should think, etc.
You want to actually insist that Almighty GOD do things your way, etc.

But, He has warned us ...

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways”, says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways,
and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”
(Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25)

These verses line up nicely with passages such as 1 Corinthians Chapter 1.
One of the verses is ...
"... it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."

And to make to even more bizarre, He gets to orchestrate who believes.

I advise you to forget all of your intellectual stuff ... it's a waste of time.
Instead, cry out to Him that you're DESPERATE to know the Truth and to know Him.
There are many verses which say that God looks upon the one who has a humble and contrite heart.

[ihsan]

Actually not, jesus does not "bear" the sins of another man, anymore than a goat or cow bore the sins of a sacrificing jew in the temple.

1.

Atonement in Judaism is not the same as Atonement in Christian theology.

2.

That is semantic word-play, as is evidenced by the word bear in quotation marks. Call it "bearing the sins" or "bearing the necessary consequences of the sins of man" is irerelvant. Jesus bore the necessary consequences of the sins of man, meaning the evil effects, meaning, whether one calls the necessary evil the "punishment of God" or "under the power of sin and death", men are supposedly bound to these consequences, unless a "price was paid". This rules out forgiveness in toto for God and further rejects the pricniple of justice. Whether one claims it doesn't, is really irrelevant for the nevcessary implications of the logic of the criticisms are sound. Jesus was, no matter the theology within Christianity, put on the cross to suffer for what another creature did.

And, once again, Yahya is right in criticizing the theory from these grounds. Call the theories whatever one wants for them, all the criticisms are essentially applicable.

[Algebra]

But lets be clear Asif that the idea that Jesus was "punished" in the place of sinners is a false teaching even within christianity.

[ihsan]

But lets be clear Asif that the idea that Jesus was "punished" in the place of sinners is a false teaching even within christianity.

For a person suffering the pains of crucifixion, I'm quite sure whether one calls it punishment or the necessary consequences of sin and death doesn't matter... If one did not sin, the fact that he has to bear the consequences of the sin, is unjust, plain and simple.

As Jesus would say to the effect, men are lost by words, and saved by meaning.

[Algebra]

1.
Atonement in Judaism is not the same as Atonement in Christian theology.

A great many jews would agree with you. However, that is not really as true as they and you would like us to believe.

In reality the essential components of atonement are pretty much the same in judaism, christianity and islam.

2.

That is semantic word-play, as is evidenced by the word bear in quotation marks. Call it "bearing the sins" or "bearing the necessary consequences of the sins of man" is irerelvant. Jesus bore the necessary consequences of the sins of man, meaning the evil effects, meaning, whether one calls the necessary evil the "punishment of God" or "under the power of sin and death", men are supposedly bound to these consequences, unless a "price was paid". This rules out forgiveness in toto for God and further rejects the pricniple of justice. Whether one claims it doesn't, is really irrelevant for the nevcessary implications of the logic of the criticisms are sound. Jesus was, no matter the theology within Christianity, put on the cross to suffer for what another creature did.

And, once again, Yahya is right in criticizing the theory from these grounds. Call the theories whatever one wants for them, all the criticisms are essentially applicable.

Jesus according to christianity offered himself as a sacrifice for the appeasement of his father. This much is easily discerned by the rantings of Jesus recorded in the gospels.

At no point is he lamenting that he is being punished for the sins of many. His words are Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and vto give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

I think by this time, Jesus was a raving lunatic, but his message is very clear - I must be the ultimate sin offering.

With these words Jesus is immediately connecting himself with the Torah teaching "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life" (Lev. 17:11).

At no point however is there any mention of punishment, the real crux is appeasement and appeal to the mercy of God.

Both you and I agree that christianity is a bunch of hocus pocus, and Jesus was probably insane (if he said the things he said, which BTW I accept that he did). But I am not about to lie about what his real teachings were.

[Algebra]

For a person suffering the pains of crucifixion, I'm quite sure whether one calls it punishment or the necessary consequences of sin and death doesn't matter... If one did not sin, the fact that he has to bear the consequences of the sin, is unjust, plain and simple.

As Jesus would say to the effect, men are lost by words, and saved by meaning.

But Jesus DID NOT have to bear the consequences of sin. Dont you get it?

The consequences of sin was not simply physical death, it was and continues to be in judaism an eternal separation from God.
There in lies the concept of "sheol".

Jesus claims to have ended that separation with his offering.

[ihsan]

But Jesus DID NOT have to bear the consequences of sin. Dont you get it?

The consequences of sin was not simply physical death, it was and continues to be in judaism an eternal separation from God.
There in lies the concept of "sheol".

Yes, Jesus did have to bear the consequences of sin in Christian theology for man to overcome death and separation from God. This death and separation, they say, was a necessary corollary to sin, in all strands of Hellensitic Christianity and since God bore the burden of man's sins, man is now able to overcome death and this separation.

Atonment is an absolute. In Judaism, separation from God is not absolute, irrespective of the sins of man. God can and does forgive without any pre-conditions.

Jesus according to christianity offered himself as a sacrifice for the appeasement of his father. This much is easily discerned by the rantings of Jesus recorded in the gospels.

Your now contradicting yourself and arguing for penal substitution. The act was meant, per your words, to appease the Father, i.e. avoid his wrath.

[Algebra]

Atonment is an absolute. In Judaism, separation from God is not absolute, irrespective of the sins of man. God can and does forgive without any pre-conditions.

This is a complicated answer. Judaism teaches of the abode of the dead, sheol, the resting place of the souls, waiting to be united with God. So Judaism does teach of separation from God.

Sheol is defined as "a place of darkness to which all dead go regardless of lifestyle and where they are 'removed from the light of God'

I am sated with misfortune; I am at the brink of Sheol.
I am numbered with those who go down to the Pit;
I am a helpless man
abandoned among the dead,
like bodies lying in the grave
of whom You are mindful no more,
and who are cut off from Your care.
You have put me at the bottom of the Pit,
in the darkest places, in the depths.
(Psalm 88:4-7)

Judaism also teaches that God forgives, and Gods forgiveness is unconditional, but that is not the point of the sacrifice anyway. Forgiveness comes from repentance of the human not the sacrifice.

Your now contradicting yourself and arguing for penal substitution. The act was meant, per your words, to appease the Father, i.e. avoid his wrath.

Not at all, according to Jesus his own death hearkens back to the sacrifices in the Temple. The purpose of the sacrifice is an acknowledgement of the forgiveness of God. God has already forgiven, because I have repented.

Now I sacrifice in gratitude for this gift of forgiveness.

However the process is complete with the sacrifice and not before the sacrifice has happened.

[ihsan]

Now, your moving on to Judaism. I'm not going to get into a debate about Judaism, when we were talking about Christianity. My point about Judaism was to clarify Christian thought, which is, as stated:

Yes, Jesus did have to bear the consequences of sin in Christian theology for man to overcome death and separation from God. This death and separation, they say, was a necessary corollary to sin, in all strands of Hellensitic Christianity and since God bore the burden of man's sins, man is now able to overcome death and this separation.

Jesus HAD to bear the consequences of man's sin, whether one calls it punishment or something else. That is the reality of it, and it contradicts the basic principles of justice no matter which semantical spin one puts on it.