tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post3159392461285650005..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: The Logic of the AtonementRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-46198846700799022962011-06-20T19:44:13.307-04:002011-06-20T19:44:13.307-04:00Hey J! Yes, what you say is true in the letter but...Hey J! Yes, what you say is true in the letter but not the spirit! LOL. But seriously, I suppose it is rather a grouping of syllogisms plural (since material conditionals are also allowed). I just prefer a bit of mixing and matching in an overall argument. :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-43246518952126857752011-06-20T11:17:33.066-04:002011-06-20T11:17:33.066-04:00Hi, I liked the post! Just being picky but I would...Hi, I liked the post! Just being picky but I would note that a syllogism is a three point argument with a major premise, minor premise and a conclusion. So the 8 points you listed wouldn't be a syllogism.Jacob A. Alleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11185348703977371705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-8494197657891631152011-06-19T14:51:44.669-04:002011-06-19T14:51:44.669-04:00Hi Ryan. Agreed about (7). Although I explained it...Hi Ryan. Agreed about (7). Although I <i>explained</i> it as moral perfection, I unfortunately did not <i>state</i> it as such. Later on tonight or perhaps tomorrow I will amend the relevant premises I said I would. I would think that Christ's full humanity would be enough for him to act as our head. However, this is a side issue with respect to the atonement's being logical. What I mean is that while we may disagree about the extent of the atonement or whatnot, we nonetheless agree the atonement is reasonable. For instance, one may change Jesus' dying for the class or category of human sin to the class or category of sins of the elect, and the underlying logic holds. It's in the details where we differ, but for this direct purpose that is not a concern for me! :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-53565166550492826212011-06-19T14:26:47.766-04:002011-06-19T14:26:47.766-04:00(7) should be changed to "Jesus was a righteo...(7) should be changed to "Jesus was a righteous man." If I didn't realize this wasn't meant to be a comprehensive article, I would also probably add a bit about the covenant of works.<br /><br />As for whether or not sin is a legal or natural issue, I don't see why it can't be both. In fact, it must be both. <br /><br />God cannot justly forever forbear punishing sin, which is why Christ needed to die for believers (Romans 3:25-26). He must be just as well as justifier, and Paul continues with this legal motif throughout Romans.<br /><br />On the other hand, it is our union with Christ in regeneration - in which we, having been imbued with a new nature, begin to be conformed to Christ's image - that allows Christ to function as our federal head in the same way the first Adam was the federal head of humanity. Thus, union must precede imputed righteousness/sin and justification.<br /><br />- RyanRyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-20257954991215632332011-06-18T20:36:46.527-04:002011-06-18T20:36:46.527-04:00I find that Collins' view presents a much more...I find that Collins' view presents a much more holistic solution to the problem of sin. It's just a 25 page paper, but to help you wet your appetite, here's a brief snapshot of the view vs. PSA. <br /><br />Rather than seeing sin as a legal debt that needs to be paid in order to secure forgiveness, (Anselm, Reformers) God can forgive us without such legal requirements if he so chooses, but it is Christ's atonement delivers us from the bondage of sin within. That is to say, the punishment we suffer for sin is something that results from the nature of sin itself. Our state of alienation isn't so much of a legal problem as it is an human nature problem. The solution of the atonement is that we get grafted into Christ, God's ideal person. We now get to tap into his subjectivity, so to speak, and face sin as he did on the earth. In Christ we tap into his faith, courage, love, etc and this is how we are saved from sin. God's wrath is satisfied because he sees us in Christ, our nature has been changed.erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230791113318147255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-77859125608723062582011-06-18T20:17:36.144-04:002011-06-18T20:17:36.144-04:00Erik, thanks for posting! I have not examined this...Erik, thanks for posting! I have not examined this paper. I'll need to do that over the coming week (though I'll be quite busy). My belief is that the only true plausibility problems for those within Christianity might be (8), as Max pointed out. From without Christianity, the only objections are not to the logic of the atonement to the denial of Christianity, but from the denial of Christianity to a denial of such a view of the atonement. But I am more than happy to check out his article!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-28718311544954965952011-06-18T20:09:36.696-04:002011-06-18T20:09:36.696-04:00Max, right you are! I need to explain a little mor...Max, right you are! I need to explain a little more. First, I would need to differentiate between moral perfection and moral innocence. Moral innocence is what man has, whereas I would argue moral perfection is something only God can have. Therefore resulting in the need for (8) to include a God-man conjunction, as you say. So as far as I understand you I agree and need to clean this up a bit.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-80346403380892346772011-06-18T20:08:43.118-04:002011-06-18T20:08:43.118-04:00Good overview of the Penal Substitution Atonement,...Good overview of the Penal Substitution Atonement, Randy. I was wondering if you have looked into Robin Collins' Incarnational theory of the atonement. It's basically a further development of the greek orthodox view that doesn't run into the plausibility difficulties you describe here, and in his paper he does offer some critiques of the PSA. <br /><br />http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Atone.htm<br /><br />Personally I'm a big fan of the Christus Victor view; but really I think all three (PSA, CV, Incarnational) can probably be reconciled.erikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230791113318147255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-70127412701661881962011-06-18T20:05:55.081-04:002011-06-18T20:05:55.081-04:00I think I would have to disagree with 8. There wo...I think I would have to disagree with 8. There would have to be a conjunct of divinity. I think we can base that from Hebrews. WIth the God-man conjunction that can be categorically efficient to atone for all humanity; whereas I only see a righteous man [without sin] as being null of sin and can only atone for himself. Since he is without sin it seems it would be moot anyways. Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com