Reasonable Faith Forums

General Discussion => Community Debates Forum => Topic started by: 4teatwo on April 04, 2017, 09:41:43 pm

Title: question of the week april-2 2017 atonement
Post by: 4teatwo on April 04, 2017, 09:41:43 pm
supporting the notion of Micah that the interpretation of atonement as penal substitution is logically incoherent unless you are a bright.
First of all it would imply that God would demand a punishment for sin. Considering God to be omnipotent and omniscient. If he would demand punishment for Adam and Eva's sin he would have to punish himself as it was his own creation that went wrong so it was his fault. If you belief in a stupid God be my guest.

It appears that Dr Craig does not understand the problem of the fall, e.g. the fact that God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat from the tree of self realisation the will certainly die as a logic explanation of what will happen when you reject being in the authority of God, e.g. part of the eternal God by becoming an "self" which automatically sets you in conflict with any other self.  He does not say that if you eat from that tree I will kill you but states a logical consequence like we tell our kids that they will die when they touch that high voltage cable.  As such Jesus cannot take on a punishment that we deserve as there is no punishment outstanding, but an offer of love to become one with God again. And Jesus showed us how to do so by submitting to God, even if the path leads to your physical death. No penal substitution but demonstration to us how we can suddenly find ourselves in Jesus and in other peoples hearts when being part of God again.

Just because the person dismissing Anselm is your Doktorvater does not make his thinking infallible nor make it true. Guess it is a bit of fear to object to your superiors opinion, but as Luther said:
"Here I stand and can't do otherwise"
as after all we only need to justify ourselves before God e.g. the logic that resembles the truth of the universe.