Penal Substitution is a theory of atonement with Christian theology. It argues that Christ was published in the place of sinners, forcing him to satisfy with the demand of justice of God so He could be forgiven of his sins. Penal Substitution examines Jesus’ death as it is understood to be substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment. As we view Penal Substantial, there are two views that are considered, the view from Weaver and the view from Jennings. Weaver believes that our fate is not controlled by our actions, what happened to us is only a natural cause. Jennings believes that it all links together and our actions lead to our fate. The thesis I will …show more content…
Denny Weaver reading of, “Forgiveness and Nonviolence: The Atonement Connections” supports the idea that we have no control over our fate. He believes that what happened to us is not caused by how deserving of our faith as we are supporting the idea that we have right to respond with violence. To begin, Weaver discusses divine violence and how we need to forgive when we are in the wrong. He states, “My discussion with these men challenges their thinking where forgiveness of sins depends on divine violence” (Weaver 3). When challenges occur in our lives, we need to find a way to forgive God for them. As this is present, Weaver takes the side of violence, which means God allows us to act on our anger with violence, once we have fought back, we will be even with God and forgiven. As the article continues Weaver connects our fate to how we experience pain. When we sin, we are punished for our mistakes, he understands that when we are in the wrong, God will make us suffer for our actions. The article states, “This system depends on the how violet the situation may be. Punishment consists of pain along with violence. The most violent choice of all is the penalty of death. All punishments are administered, which cause some level of pain of the offender (Weaver 4). This presents the idea that when we are angry, God allows us the chance to fight for what we believe in. He gives us the chance to act with violence to show how we feel. Weaver takes the side that God has no control …show more content…
J. Denny Weaver takes the side that we cannot control our own fate. He has the belief that everything that happens to us is natural and without God’s control. Being a Catholic, I agree with Weaver and understand that God has no control over our lives. He does know where we will be in the future, but he does not know how will we get to that point in our lives. Weaver makes several interesting points that make my beliefs in God stronger, as well as increase my level of understanding that God cannot control our actions. When reading Weaver’s article on how we should understand God and his control over us, he caught my attention when he stated, “By releasing our anger and hatred, the victims then is removed from our lives. We can then regain control of ourselves again once we release that barrier that was in our way” (Weaver 8). As I read this, I realized how relatable this statement is to the world today. God is not going to stand in our way, trying to help us repair every broken relationship we have experienced. What he will do is stand by us as we attempted to repair the relationship, and will be by our side to support us. This relates to God, not having control because if he did have control over the world, then He would be there for us and would stand in the way of everything in our lives. As I continued reading I found a section of Wever’s article that spoke of
Believers of the Old and New Testaments claim that violence is a sin and can only lead to more brutality and death; poet Tony Barnstone firmly agrees. In his poem “Parable in Praise of Violence” Barnstone lambastes the American obsession with violence-- that it is often triggered by inevitable events which could be handled in different manners. The speaker in “Parable in Praise of Violence” reflects on all parts of his “sinful” culture and comes to the realization that people often use violence as a way to deal with emotions of grief and anger caused by events and concepts they cannot explain.
“You must pay for everything in this world one way and another. There is nothing free except the Grace of God. You can’t earn that or deserve it” (Portis 40.) Everything you do, good or bad, carries some sort of judgment from the Lord. You might slip through the cracks from this world judgments and law, but you will be judged according to your doings, in this world by God. You can’t earn nor deserve the Grace of the Lord, because it was already given to us in the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Romans 4:25.) This gave us Grace to be forgiven after our sin if we repent from further sinning’s. This means you can’t go and commit a crime of revenge, knowing God’s words
The most popular understanding of the atonement today is the theory of “penal substitution.” The concept and idea of a wrathful God who can only have his anger at wicked sinners only appeased through bringing about the violent death of his Son on the cross – forms the basis of much Evangelical thinking, although it was not a view held by the early church. Penal substitution first emerged with Anselm in the 11th century. It was substantially shaped by John Calvin in the Reformation Era but was ultimately finalized by Charles Hodge who lived in the 19th century in the United States; he taught at Princeton Seminary for fifty years. Charles Hodge explains to us how penal substitution provides deliverance from the power of sin and Satan, something more directly associated with Christus Victor model of atonement. (p. 144). Jesus took the punishment because the law was broken and somebody has the pay the crime. Historically the word “satisfaction” does not mean grafication as in common usage, but rather “to make restitution”: mending what has been broken, paying back what was taken and can be connected with the legal concept of balancing out an injustice according to Anselm. From the legal aspect the purpose of satisfaction is not heal us or restore us inwardly, but is rather to satisfy society.
In conclusion, the author points out that God’s grace is available to anyone and it is never too late to ask for forgiveness. O’Connor shows that even the battle between good and evil could be misleading because there is always good in people even those who mislead the way can always ask for clarity from God.
Conflict is constant. It is everywhere. It exists within one’s own mind, different desires fighting for dominance. It exists outside in nature, different animals fighting for the limited resources available, and it exists in human society, in the courts. It can occur subtly, making small changes that do not register consciously, and it can occur directly and violently, the use of pure strength, whether physical, social, economic, or academic, to assert dominance and achieve one’s goals; this is the use of force. Yet, with the use of force, the user of force is destined to be one day felled by it. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.”
John Wesley once said, “Nothing in the Christian system is of greater consequence than the doctrine of the atonement” (9). Thus, it is no surprise that the doctrine of the atonement has created debate among theologians seeking to identify the most suitable theory in understanding the heart of the saving work of Christ. The atonement means, “reconciliation, in this case between God and humans. It comes from a Middle English word, at-one-ment, which means “harmony”- literally, the state of one thing being “at one” with another” (Beilby 9). When thinking about the various theories of atonement, one may ask: Is the cross more for reconciling God’s wrath to humanity or for reconciling enslaved humanity to God? When comparing and contrasting the details of the Christus Victor and the Penal Substitution theories of the atonement, a major difference at the heart of the debate is whether or not Christ needed to die primarily to be an expiation, the Christus Victor model, or a propitiation, the Penal Substitution model. In other words, the two theological groups disagree on the
...o realize hypocrisy and cruelty of the reactionary force and puerility and weakness of the progressive force1And therefore he advises humankind to keep the clear - headed mind , to try to overcome their own weakness , to endeavor to struggle against the reactionary class and the reactive force within their own class , and to strive for their happy life. So this great piece owns historical and realistic significance.
In different circumstances using violence on behalf of religion has aided a reformation, or the spreading of the gospel. Other times, millions of people have died due to resistance. Some situations call for violence and others do not. However, there is a failsafe way of determining whether violence should be used on behalf of religion, or not.
In Professor Brian Finney’s essay “Briony’s Stand Against Oblivion: Ian McEwan’s Atonement,” he suggests that any attempt at atonement is “bound to fail,” and so the most one can do to repent their mistakes is to “imagine the feelings of others.” In many cases, visualizing oneself in the position of another can play a large role when seeking forgiveness. However, in Briony’s case, her attempt to use corrective fiction to make amends for the mistakes of her childhood is not enough for her to achieve full atonement.
Forgiveness and justice are very similar than we believe them to be. We believe that justice is
When most think of violence, they think of wars and killing, but there are more types of violence than just this. Mythology by Edith Hamilton is one of the main resources used for this paper. Theological means of or pertaining to supreme deities (gods and goddesses). This book is a collection of Greek and Roman myths. It goes through many major tales like the Trojan War, the story of Agamemnon, and the Judgment of Paris. There are many kinds of violence in all these myths, the three I have chosen to focus on are physical violence, theological violence (violence between the Gods), and emotional violence.
Ian McEwan’s novel Atonement depicts a story told from the perspectives of three of the main characters: Briony Tallis, Robbie Turner, and Cecelia Tallis. Briony is the ultimate focus of the novel because her mission is atonement. She almost single handedly convicted Robbie for the rape of her cousin, Lola Quincey. She is seeking atonement for this horrible crime she committed against Robbie. However, Briony is never able to achieve atonement. Regardless of the efforts Briony makes, she cannot truly achieve atonement. Through Briony’s inability to achieve atonement, McEwan illustrates that atonement can only be sought after, never achieved.
Man is guilty, yet God. Man’s sin condemns him, yet God. God’s mercy is the attribute of Himself exercised in connection with guilt (23).
Whatever sins man commits in his lifetime, he is punished for them. If only he repents for his sins, can he be forgiven and at least he can die in peace. God forgives them only when they repent for their sins. The story also presents another example of the Christian belief in sin and punishment, which is based on the strict principles of repentance and forgiveness. In the story, Karen is a poor but beautiful girl.
Forgiveness is the act of releasing an offender of any wrong or hurt they may have caused you whether they deserve it or not. It is a decision to let go of resentment or vengeance toward a person or group of people. When we choose to forgive, we’re wiping the slate clean, cancelling a debt, or as I love to say, “Letting it go.” In the Bible, the Greek word for forgiveness literally means to “let it go.” This concept, “forgiveness,” is easier said than done. Majority of people find it very difficult to let go of offenses and hurts caused by others. I really do believe that most people desire to let it go, but we lack the knowledge of how to do it. As believers, we are instructed by God maintain an attitude of forgiveness.