While Swinburne is correct that the Church has never formally expounded a single view or "theory" of the atonement (partly because there is such a variety of metaphoric language employed in Scripture to describe the salvific work of Christ), I'm surprised to hear him giving an account of atonement much more in-line with reformed thinking than with Orthodox teaching. I am persuaded, as an Orthodox Christian, that in addition to representing the fullness of Christian truth, the Church's teaching on the atonement and our salvation generally is a truly beautiful teaching that gives full meaning to the Christian affirmation that "God is love."
@bayreuth79
8 жыл бұрын
+Steven Hunter Swinburne may have become Orthodox but for me his theology is not Orthodox at all. The Church has always favoured apophaticism, whereas Swinburne thinks that we can really know things about God. He also embraces theistic personalism which I think anthropomorphicizes God and is certainly not in line with Orthodoxy.
@Liminalplace1
10 жыл бұрын
I am surprised that Swinburne doesn't expound the Orthodox doctrine, but more a reformed view
@EragonAnimator
4 жыл бұрын
His view is actually Anselmian, so its western pre reformation
@vampireducks1622
5 жыл бұрын
I mean no disrespect to Christians, but this is really astonishing - that anyone could be persuaded by such an analogy, if it is really meant to persuade, is simply amazing... [Edit: I'm glad that at least the Orthodox don't believe in this arrant nonsense (then again, AFAIK Swinburne is Orthodox).]
@lizardking1979
Жыл бұрын
love that voice
@ElasticGiraffe
7 жыл бұрын
I think Swinburne presents a view which is more Anselmian than Calvinist-Reformed, the idea that Christ paid our honor debt to God rather than received divine punishment for the sins of guilty humanity or the predestined elect in particular. But this theory's connection to the Epistle to the Hebrews is tenuous at best and has basically no adherents among the Church Fathers, although they occasionally employed substitutionary language and imagery. Taking one (historically and culturally decontextualized) aspect of the Israelite sacrificial system and forcing it to give a full philosophical account of divine justice and the mechanism of salvation is very misguided. There are many other problems with satisfaction theory, such as that it diminishes Christ's human nature (even if Anselm himself was cautious to avoid that), turns the Resurrection into a nonsalvific afterthought, anthropomorphizes God as suffering loss through our sin, and doesn't really take seriously the redemption of Old Covenant saints. I believe Swinburne favors St Iraeneus' "soul-making" theodicy, so it makes little sense to me why he should ignore the latter's recapitulation view of atonement. The Orthodox metanarrative has brilliant explanatory power and scope, and Swinburne is a well read Orthodox Christian philosopher, although he always seems to bypass his own ancient Tradition in formulating his thought, drawing instead from the convoluted rationalism of high medieval Latin Scholastics.
@bayreuth79
9 жыл бұрын
I would argue that Swinburne's theory is hopelessly inadequate. Forgiveness does not involve the payment of a debt, especially a vicarious payment. To put it succinctly: the payment of a debt is the payment of a debt and nothing more. It is useless to add on the word "forgiveness" to this. If I owe you $1000 but cannot pay it so that someone else has to pay it on my behalf then I have not been forgiven for the debt at all: I have simply repayed it. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa, says that since God is all-powerful and all-good he can forgive us directly once we return to him (as the prodigal son story makes clear). This substitution theory is immoral and absurd.
@Thomasrice07
7 жыл бұрын
I agree with your statement completely. The Atonement is a gift from God that results in our regeneration. The Orthodox concept and description of Theosis IS the atonement of God.
@vampireducks1622
5 жыл бұрын
@Michael. Very well put.
@blessedamerican3541
5 жыл бұрын
The problem with man’s view of the atonement is placing Jesus on the same power level as GOD. GOD sent His Son as an atonement for our sins. At times, GOD suffered with His Son and at times it was Jesus living amongst us. I agree with Swinburne’s explanation except for this point of GOD offering Himself as a sacrifice. In the suzerain vassal covenant, in order to cut the contract, GOD offers a blood sacrifice of which He walks between the two halves of the sacrificial animal thereby sealing the covenant. If GOD is in the act of walking, then it would be logically impossible for Him to be the cut animal as well. GOD wants more of the praise and glory. Attempts to deify man and to dethrone GOD result in Jesus receiving more and more power than He even attributed to Himself. There is none good save GOD, as Jesus stated. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are only a small part of God. The breath of GOD in Genesis, breathing life into humankind or blowing across the waters is not the Holy Spirit. It is the breath of creating coming from GOD’s “nostrils” if you will allow a personification of the deity. If we were to stand before GOD without repentance and an atonement for our sins GOD would not and could not forgive us. Also, Jesus defends us from the wrath of GOD. Perhaps, as Kallistos Ware states, salvation is an ongoing process throughout one’s life. We are forgiven but must continue on in the life of a Christian working to perfection. Where, the Evangelist’s view is a sudden and instant redemption. I do thoroughly enjoy Swinburne’s lectures.
@ComradeAgopian
11 жыл бұрын
That makes two of us....I have no idea what you're trying to say .
@mattbohlman6219
4 жыл бұрын
I wrote a book that presents a new model and middle ground perspective between the Penal view and Christus Victor. I call it Perfectus Liberatio. In short the wrath of God is not directed AT Christ, but operates THROUGH Christ. God’s wrath is his moral perfection being revealed against all that is contrary to moral perfection. Christ is the sinless Lamb. Thus God can transfer all sin upon his sinless Lamb and condemn it as being in the wrong-in the sinless perfection of the Son. For sin was unable to accuse, condemn or to lay a charge against the Son for any wrongdoing. Like trying to stick the barbs of Velcro onto a smooth mirror, sin cannot attach itself to the Son- for the Son offers no “hooks” for sin to grab hold of. Therefore because sin cannot justify its presence in the Son, the Father’s wrath is able to condemn sin as being “in the wrong” IN THE SINLESS perfection of the Son. Like pouring a vile of deadly bacteria into a bucket of pure bleach, the bacteria does NOT infect the bleach. Rather the bleach destroys the bacteria. In the cross the sinfulness of sin is undone by the sin-less nature of the Son. The wrath of God is the basis by which sin is condemned THROUGH the Son. But the Son is NOT being condemned (Rom. 8:3). There is more to say. Feel free to buy my short, 100 page book that begins with a parable story to prepare you for the later commentary on the atonement. Go to Amazon and type either my name or “The Fall and Redemption of Shadowmere.” Peace
@meganburns4027
11 жыл бұрын
Everytime I hear about penance I think about how our righteousnesses are as filthy rags in the nostrils of God. Synergistic Soteriology is despicable.
Пікірлер: 16