The Effect of Sin

In the narrative of David and Bathsheba, David commits adultery and murder, among other sins.
For these crimes, God brings judgment upon David.
David repents and we see in 2nd Samuel 12:13-14 how God forgives him.
Though the punishment of sin is forgiven, the effect of sin remains and David's son dies.

At first, it can seem a bit confusing on how the effect of sin is different from the fair punishment that David deserves.
That is, how is David's son dying not a judgment against David?
Does it suggest that David was only partially forgiven?

I find that it can be helpful to clarify terms and think of a few illustrations.

• Sin: A missing the mark, namely anything which deviates from God's perfect order (For 1st Corinthians 14:33 teaches that our God is a God of perfect order).
• Law: A requirement given (in our case, given by God to help us make known God's perfect order).

Imagine a store where neither the store owner nor a potential robber know of God's Law.
And in this case, God's Law consists of the requirement "Thou shalt not steal."
At night, a robber breaks the store window and steals merchandise from the store.

The sin, in this case, is the deviating from God's perfect order of "never steal."
The effect of sin is the broken glass, the merchandise taken, emotional distress on the store owner, costs to the insurance company to pay for the repair, etc.
The imputation of sin is the recognizing the robber as the thief and declaring him guilty.
The punishment of sin is putting the robber into prison.

As any fan of Star Trek: Deep Space 9 will tell you, there indeed is a difference between order and justice.
Any authority can establish their own conception of order (and Romans 13:1-7 teaches that God's order often works through even evil secular authorities).
Not every ordering is a just ordering. And so, how can we know which orderings are just?
C.S. Lewis' book, "Mere Christianity", highlights our intuition of a Universal Morality.
However, Alasdair MacIntyre has shown in his book, "Whose Justice, Which Rationality", how secular attempts (a.k.a. Natural Law) to identify the Universal Justice (which we all implicitly have an intuition of) are merely their own traditions.
Though we have an intuition of Universal Law (i.e. a law on our hearts), true and Ultimate Justice is revealed by God in the Bible.
Meditate upon the Law! Joshua 1:8 is the answer.

Now, that's very nice, but the example given above does not seem similar to the David and Bathsheba situation.
Never fear, this indeed can happen where the effect of sin seems like a punishment.

Imagine a child in their parent's house. The parent's perfect order is that no-one plays around with the stove fire.
The parent gives a law to the child explaining this perfect order.
If the child violates the law, the effect of sin is that their finger is burned.
The imputation of sin is the parent's recognizing and declaring of the child as guilty lawbreaker.
The punishment of sin is the parent's discipline to the child, whether it be spanking, a timeout, or a stern rebuke.

The problem with David's sin, and with all of our sins, is that sin has a cascading effect.
Our sins bring harm not only to ourselves, but to others, and can start a continuing pattern of negative effect.
This can be seen in the example of Achan's sin in Joshua 7. Achan was one person who violated God's perfect order in the attack upon the city of Ai.
His sin brought negative consequences, not only upon himself, but upon all of Israel. This highlights a corporate aspect of sin which we often do not think of today.

The prophet Isaiah, in Isaiah 6:5, pleads before God as both an unclean person and as a member of unclean people. There is both an individual and corporate aspect to sin and its consequences.

In fact, the most prominent example of the cascading effect of sin can be seen in Adam's in in Genesis 3. The apostle Paul elucidates the full implication of this cascading effect in Romans 5:12-21. The Law makes sin increase just as a magnifying glass makes things that are hard to see more clearly visible.

The cascading effect of sin brings an infinite offense against our infinite God, resulting in a just infinite punishment.

Martin Luther on Christ's Atonement

MARTIN LUTHER  ON CHRIST'S ATONEMENT

“We were not ashamed to proclaim our doctrine before the emperor, the pope, yes, at all diets and publicly before all our enemies.” –Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, p. 412

“Daher kann und will ich nichts widerrufen, weil wider das Gewissen etwas zu tun weder sicher noch heilsam ist. Gott helfe mir, Amen!” –Martin Luther (source: http://www.luther.de/leben/worms.html  )

Building Concensus

On June 1st, 1538 A.D., Luther gives sermon where he elaborates a detailed account of the work of salvation, as it pertains to atonement. The Turk tries to achieve atonement by living morally.  On the other hand, the pope followed Bonaventure’s theory of atonement (which is later modified further by Thomas Aquinas).  Bonaventure’s theory of the atonement was a modification of Anselm’s theory in that Christ’s death on the cross only covered original sin and sinful acts committed by a person needed additional atonement.  Luther rejects both the Turk's and the pope's approaches as salvation by works. (Bertram 1575, 333)

Because Christ was one person with two natures, we can see that all of the attributes from each nature were in one person.  (Bertram 1575, 361) Because Christ suffered during crucifixion, and all attributes from each nature were in one person, it can be said that both God and man suffered on the cross.   Support for God as one who suffers can furthermore be found in Hebrews 6:6 and 1 Corinthians 2:8.  (Bertram 1575, 362)

The Apostles ’ Creed affirms a God who suffers, though the papists don’t understand this. If they had understood it, they would not have added works. Seeking God apart from Christ leads to hell, but faith in Christ saves. (Bertram 1575, 366)

Engaging the Argument

Is it possible that evidence of two atonement theories, Anselm and Christus Victor, in Luther shows more of a progression of thought rather than holding to both ideas together simultaneously?

Apart from the Anselm/Christus-Victor debate, there is also debate concerning theosis. Tuomo Mannermaa
 argued that Luther held to theosis, which is divination or participating in God’s divine nature. Based upon Luther’s Galatians commentary from 1531, Mannermaa focuses on Christ as the “form” of faith.  Thus, Mannerma argues that instead of a forensic declaration of righteousness, it is the uniting of the believer with Christ through faith which saves.  However, Timo Laato responds by arguing that the 1531 Galatians commentary provides more support for a forensic justification rather than an indwelling Christ who deifies.
(Mattes 2014, 267-268)  This evidence is pretty clear against Mannermaa and so there is not much debate here.

Yet, on the Anselm/Christus Victor issue, when we look at the entire corpus of Luther’s works, there is some debate.  

Satisfaction can be seen in Luther’s writings in several places.  In the commentary on Romans, written in 1515-1516, Luther writes, “God does not grant grace freely in the sense that He demanded no satisfaction, but He offered up Christ, that He should render satisfaction for us, in order now to give grace freely to those who had rendered satisfaction through another.” (Spitz 175)  As well, Luther’s 1519 Meditation on Christ’s Passion strongly suggests substitutionary atonement in its reference to Isaiah 53.

However, one can also find Christus Victor in Luther’s writings.  Michael Plathow finds Christus Victor themes in Luther’s illustration of the baited-Leviathan.   He gives an example from Easter Monday, on April 2nd, 1526 where Luther preached in Wittenberg.  He also cites an example from Luther’s Galatians commentary written from 1531-35. (Plathow 2003, 128)  In the 30^th Sermon of the Gospel of John series from 1538, we saw the baited-Leviathan theme come out as well. (Bertram  1575, 355)  

Johann Christian Konran von Hofman argued that Anselm’s teaching could not be found in any of Luther’s writings.   Theodosius Harnack argued that Anselm’s ideas can be found in Luther’s emphasis on the wrath of God. Albrecht Ritschl argued that Luther did not hold to Anselm’s theory of the atonement.  Rather, Luther emphasized the Christus Victor ideas of victory over evil.  However, according to Ritschl, Luther held this only as left-over medeival theology which was ultimately irreconcilable with Luther’s reformation theology. Paul Althus agreed with Harnack that Anselm was Luther’s primary atonement theology while holding to Christus Victor as a secondary atonement emphasis in Luther. (Arnold 274-275)

Yet, it is not inappropriate to talk about a progression of thought in Luther’s life. 

Progression of thought can be seen in some other areas of Luther’s theology.  In the 27^th Sermon, the footnote mentions that in this sermon Luther took up the position of each new soul being separately created. This is in contrast to his former writings where Luther held that the soul was passed from parent to child. (Bertram 1575. 327)

In 1525, Luther married, endured a large peasant revolt, parted ways with Erasmus over the bondage of the will, and was well on his way to creating an institutional Lutheranism. (Mullet 159)  This marked a point where Luther was more careful on his doctrinal teachings.  Where previously, he affirmed Augustine’s teaching of Christ as both example and sacrament, Luther later clarified that Christ is first a sacrament and only afterward becomes an example.  (Arnold 277)

In his interpretation of Galatians 3:13 and Philippians 2:9, Luther advocated an Anselmian atonement conception.  After 1518, Luther rarely quotes Anselm.  Lienhard writes that Anselm held to Christ’s work made effective on the basis of His human nature, while Luther held to Christ’s work made effective on the basis of both human and divine nature.  Luther’s Large Catechism explicitly states, “he has obtained satisfaction for me and paid what I owed.”  Uwe Rieske-Braun showed that Luther sometimes alternated between Christus Victor and satisfaction, while other times combined the two together.  However, Luther never considered the two approaches to be opposed to each other. (Arnold 284) 

Implications

Millard Erickson highlights some important implications for atonement theology:

The substitutionary theory of the atoning death of Christ, when grasped in all its complexity, is a rich and meaningful truth. It carries several major implications for our understanding of salvation:

1. The penal-substitution theory confirms the biblical teaching of the total depravity of all humans. God would not have gone so far as to put his precious Son to death had it not been absolutely necessary. Humans are totally unable to meet their own need.

2. God’s nature is not one-sided, nor is there any tension between its different aspects. He is not merely righteous and demanding, nor merely loving and giving. He is righteous, so much so that sacrifice for sin had to be provided. He is loving, so much so that he provided that sacrifice himself.

3. There is no other way of salvation but by grace, and specifically, the death of Christ. It has an infinite value and thus covers the sins of all humankind for all time. A finite sacrifice, by contrast, cannot even fully cover the sins of the individual offering it.

4. There is security for the believer in his or her relationship to God. For the basis of the relationship, Christ’s sacrificial death, is complete and permanent. Although our feelings might change, the ground of our relationship to God remains unshaken.

5. We must never take lightly the salvation we have. Although it is free, it is also costly, for it cost God the ultimate sacrifice. We must therefore always be grateful for what he has done; we must love him in return and emulate his giving character. (Erickson 840)

“whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;” (Romans 3:25 NRSV)

ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων 

(Romans 3:25 NA28)

Arnold, Matthieu. “Luther on Christ’s Person and Work.” Pages 274–93 in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology. Edited by Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka. First. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Bertram, Martin H. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John Chapters 1-4. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan. Vol. 22. 82 vols. Luther’s Works. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1957.

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 840.

Luther, Martin. “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion.” Pages 1–8 in Devotional Writings I. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Martin O. Dietrich. Vol. 42. 55 vols. Digital Edition. Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. http://www.lutheranmissiology.org/Luther%20Meditate%20Passion%20of%20Christ.pdf.

———. “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion.” Pages 7–14 in Devotional Writings I. Edited by Helmut T. Lehmann and Martin O. Dietrich. Vol. 42. 55 vols. Luther’s Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.

Mattes, Mark. “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka, First. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 267-268

Mullet, Michael A. Martin Luther. Routledge Historical Biographies. London ; New York: Routledge, 2004.

Plathow, Michael. “‘Der Geköderte Leviathan’: Martin Luthers Kreuzestheologische Metapher in Der Römisch-Katholischen Theologie Und Ihre Konfessionskundlich-Ökumenische Bedeutung.” Lutherjahrbuch 70 (2003): 127–47.

Spitz, Lewis William. “Luther’s Concept of the Atonement before 1517.” Concordia Theol. Mon. 21.3 (1950): 165–80.

Who is Abraham?

The Bible cites Abraham as the father of the faith who was chosen by God and responded in a faith which Christians, Jews, and Muslims strive to emulate.  But, who is this man?  Is he mere legend, a patchwork of exaggeration and mythological projection across the Jahwehists, Elohimists, Priests, and Deuteronomists?  Or, is there tangible historical evidence in favor of his existence?

On historical method, there is much to be said.  Roland Deines lists three different standards which Christians choose among when doing historical study.(Deines 9–20)  They are:

1. Ontological Naturalistic History – Founded by Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923)
2. Methodological Naturalistic History – Founded by Martin Hengel (1926-2009)
3. Critical Theistic History – Founded by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI (1927 – present)

The first assumes an atheist/non-supernatural universe, defined by secular naturalism.  It would take every miracle claim as historically false or misinterpreted.  Here, faith and history are divorced. As this method is frequently taught in universities, some Christians might choose this approach. The second uses secular methodology, recognizing the theoretical possibility of miracles, allowing it only in cases where there is no better historical explanation available. As for the third, it is both critical and theistic.  For Ratzinger, history is not divorced from faith, but is the foundation upon which faith rests.  He distinguishes between the merely hypothetical certainty that the secular method can provide and the faith-based certainty that faith in the Bible can provide.  Rather than merely being inductively open to the possibility of the transempirical like Hengel, Ratzinger includes faith-based certainty as a kind of historical knowledge. He starts with the assumption that God exists and is acting in history.

There is the debate over the documentary-hypothesis.  That is, did Moses really write the first five books of the Bible? Or were there four separate sources (JEPD) which were only assembled together around 400 B.C.? John Sailhamer rejects the documentary-hypothesis (Sailhamer 22–25). As well, Bruce Waltke considers that Moses skillfully used multiple sources.(Waltke and Fredricks 24–27).  Walter Kaiser rejects the documentary-hypothesis.(Ankerberg 1). As does the Egyptologist, Kenneth Kitchen who writes:

Where do J, E, D, P now belong, if the old order is only a chimera? Or, in fact, do they belong at all?

Here we will be concise, open, and fairly staccato. First, the basic fact is that there is no objective, independent evidence for any of these four compositions (or for any variant of them) anywhere outside the pages of our existing Hebrew Bible. If the criterion of “no outside evidence” damns the existence of such as Abraham, Moses, or Solomon and company, then it equally damns the existence of these (so far) imaginary works.(Kitchen 492)

Also, there is discussion about biblical-maximalism vs. biblical-minimalism.  The position of maximalism is that the Bible is to be taken as a historical source unless proven otherwise, and furthermore that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In minimalism, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs mere legendary eponyms to describe later historical realities.(“Historicity of the Bible” 1)

Though external evidence for Abraham has not yet been discovered, there is internal evidence for Abraham.

From the viewpoint of modern historiography, internal evidence within the Pentateuch supports the narrator’s inferred claim to represent what really happened. The religious practices of the patriarchs both remarkably agree and at the same time considerably disagree with the religious practices Moses commands. For example, … contrary to the Mosaic law and without the narrator’s censure, Jacob erects a stone pillar (maṣṣēḇâ, Gen. 28:18–22), Abraham marries his half-sister (Gen. 20:12), and Jacob simultaneously marries sisters (Gen. 29:15–30; cf. Deut. 16:21–22; Lev. 18:9, 18, respectively). Were the stories faked, one would expect the author of the Pentateuch to ground his law in the created order or in ancient traditions and, at the least, not cite data that could possibly undermine his teaching. These religious traditions are ancient, having been neither tampered with nor contrived.(Waltke and Fredricks 29–30)

Combining known external societal practices with the internal Bible data, Kitchen considers Abraham to have lived sometime between 1900 B.C. and 1600 B.C.(Kitchen 359).  Kaiser considers Abraham to be living around 2000 B.C. (Kaiser, Jr 96).   Provan, Long, and Longman aptly write:

“The claim to be a critical thinker is easy to make; the reality that lurks beneath it has all too often proved to be only a mixture of blind faith in relation to the writer’s own intellectual tradition and arbitrary, selective skepticism in relation to everything else.”(Provan, Long, and Longman III 50)

 WORKS CITED

Ankerberg, John. “Exploding the J.E.D.P. Theory - The Documentary Hypothesis.” John Ankerberg Show. N.p., 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.

Deines, Roland. Acts of God in History - Studies Towards Recovering a Theological Historiography. Ed. Christoph Ochs and Peter Watts. Tubingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Print.

“Historicity of the Bible.” Wikipedia 1 Mar. 2017. Wikipedia. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.

Kaiser, Jr, Walter C. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? 2001st ed. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2001. Print.

Kitchen, K. A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. annotated edition edition. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006. Print.

Provan, Iain, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Print.

Sailhamer, John H. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009. Print.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. 1st edition. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. Print.

On the Souls of Animals and Man

Do all dogs go to heaven? This is a common question that I come across in my interaction with others. In particular, this can bear serious discussion when one's favorite family pet comes near to death.

With mankind, the Bible's answer is clear. Though our current body is temporary, our soul will survive the body's destruction. (2 Cor. 4:16-18; Matthew 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15) All mankind fairly deserves punishment and, as fair punishment, is to suffer this punishment eternally. However, out of God's love for us, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to suffer the punishment we deserve. If we believe Him, turn from our evil ways, and follow Him, our sins are no longer counted against us and we are forgiven, to live an eternity with God. (John 3:16; Rom. 3:23; 6:23; 5:8)

On this understanding, the best explanation for the nature of the human soul seems to be one of substance dualism. It need not be a Cartesian substance dualism. However, it seems most likely an interaction dualism. This means that the soul exists separate from the body and influences the body. As well, the body exists separate from the soul and influences the soul.

I used to hold to a Lockean, stream-of-consciousness, view of the human soul. However, with discoveries of the existence of subconsciousness and further reflection of the state of our soul during dreaming, coma, and other cases, I now lean more toward a view similar to Boethius. Boethius believed that the soul was a substance that existed. With current levels of research, it seems most likely that the interaction between the body and soul is occurring somewhere at the point of firing and inhibition of each neuron in the human brain. Because I think the soul is a substance, it seems to me that it most likely is composed of particles that we have not yet discovered.

Now, with animals, the story is a bit different. Mankind is distinct from animals because we were created in God's image, have moral responsibilities before God, and since the first sin, have continually violated God's command. (Genesis 2:15-17) I am not convinced that the current level of scientific discovery necessitates an evolutionary understanding of mankind. However, even if someone were to hold to the theory of evolution, there are those, like Alvin Plantiga, who can affirm the above theology while still affirming a God-guided evolution.

What is noticeable here is that God does not count animals guilty of sin. Animals are not created in God's image. So, there is no reason why an animal would suffer an eternal punishment. At the same time, there is no evidence in the Bible that animals will have an eternity of relationship with God in heaven. Rather, it seems most likely that animals do not have an eternal soul.

This is not to say that animals do not have an experience of morality. Mankind clearly has an experience of morality, and it transcends culture. The particular morality that a person experiences begins at youth and seems a combination of projection of self upon family, community, nation, all humans, and all creation (as a divine design built into mankind, as well as through God's active interaction with the person's soul both as Uniform Divine Action and Objectively Special Divine Action). As well, it is clear that humans form morals also upon their upbringing. Parents, peers, and society teach morals to children who internalize and adopt them. Here, it is most clear the role of tradition in human moral formation (regardless whether the tradition is Christian, Muslim, or an Enlightenment tradition). For animals, there seems to be a similar moral formation through projection (perhaps also as a divine design into animals). While the social Darwinistic law of the survival of the fittest is clearly demonstrable in animal behavior, we also see examples of animal moral experiences. For example, when a mother cub carefully guards her young. This would seem to be a kind of animal moral experience of the suggestion that harming one's cubs is wrong. So, though God does not count animals guilty of sin, animals do seem to have experiences of morality.

But, what is the animal soul? One aspect of it would be that it is the very substance of life, the breath of life given by God. A clear example of animal soul would be the existence of consciousness. So, non-human conscious creatures would seem to have a soul that is not eternal. If the animal's soul is not eternal, is it the same substance as a human soul? Does the animal's soul have the same relation to its body as the human soul has to its body? It seems to me that, with animal souls, substance dualism is definitely an option. However, non-reductive physicalism and an emergent physicalism both seems to be possible options for the animal soul. Demonstrated behavioral similarities between animal consciousness and human consciousness would argue for both having souls of the same type. On the other hand, the theological difference would argue for both having souls of a different type.

For a human soul, conscious experience begins at a particular point (whether at conception or at some later moment before physical birth). Does the substance of our soul exist before conception? I know of no guaranteed answer for this. Only that God acts to bring life in the world at the moment of conception, through an act of Uniform Divine Action (and perhaps sometimes through an act of Objectively Special Divine Action). The Bible's description of God's work in the bringing of life seems to preclude the possibility that humans have experience prior to conception which is later forgotten. Such a possibility would also go against the teaching of Hebrews 9:27 which teaches that a soul only has one life before eternity.

An interesting situation concerns the souls of identical twins. For identical twins begin with a single zygote, but becomes two embryos. So, prior to the formation of the two embryos, is the zygote considered one soul or two? In discussion with Dr. Kilner at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, he suggests that it depends upon whether you believe that the soul is passed on from the father, or whether it comes from the mother. This response would be consistent with the view called Traducianism. Traducianism emphasizes that the soul comes from the parents rather than explicitly created by God. There is some biblical support for this (Gen. 2:2-3; 2:7; 5:3). However, there is also biblical support for the idea that God is the one that creates the soul (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9). However, it seems to me that these two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some combination of the two could be in play. It seems unlikely to me, given the absence of biblical support, that there is a pre-created warehouse of souls that God attaches at the moment of conception to each created person.

For an animal soul, the question of the origin of the animal's soul is equally as confusing as human souls. But, as argued above, it seems most likely that animal souls cease to have consciousness at the destruction of the animal's body. What happens to the substance of the animal's soul at that point? It depends on which theory of animal soul we hold. The non-reductive physicalism and emergent physicalism would have the most clear explanation for this, while substance dualism leaves open the question of what happens to the animal's soul. Is it destroyed or disassembled? It would seem so.

In any case, we can conclude that all dogs do not go to heaven (in fact, no dogs go to heaven), but we can still be kind to animals while they are alive. The Bible condemns torture of animals. (Proverbs 12:10; Leviticus 25:6-7; Deuteronomy 25:4). And it is good to care for our pets like a shepherd would for his sheep (2 Sam. 12:1-6). At the same time, we can celebrate our uniqueness as humans, being created in the image of God, and destined to spend an eternity with God in heaven through faith in Jesus Christ.