Suffering & Substitution
Posted By Brett on June 29, 2010
There are two streams of attacks against Christianity that seem to be in conflict with one another. On the one hand we have the problem of pain. This has been described as the most difficult problem that Christianity faces. Example after example of horrendous evils are marshaled forth as evidence against God’s existence.
On the other side of the coin there are attacks against the doctrine of Christ’s penal-substitutionary atonement. People describe this blood atonement as “barbaric” or “child abuse” or as Kant stated “morally debilitating.” Princeton Seminary’s George Hunsinger rightly observes that “The blood of Christ is repugnant to the Gentile mind, whether ancient or modern. This mind would prevail were it not continually disrupted by grace.”
Thus one stream of criticism faults God for not doing enough to solve the problem of pain while the other attacks God for going too far in the atonement. One stream attacks God for not taking sin seriously enough and the other faults him for taking it too seriously. These two streams collide together, canceling the force of one another creating a beautiful, calm lake.
Hey, give me a break! Contrary to the impression you leave, I do not side with those who find substitutionary atonement to be barbaric.
Here is the full quote of what I wrote: “”The blood of Christ is repugnant to the Gentile mind, whether ancient or modern. This mind would prevail were it not continually disrupted by grace.” If it isn’t disruptive, it isn’t grace. In contemporary discourse on the atonement and justification, Hunsinger judges, “The social or horizontal aspect of reconciliation…eclipses its vertical aspect.”
George, thanks for commenting. You were quite right. I have corrected the post with a more complete quotation. The italics represents the change.