Critiquing: #023 Tom talks about life, faith and atonement

October 16, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Life and Faith — Theology of Atonement — NT Wright’s Journey — Biblical Scholarship — Role of the Church

---

Episode Assessment:

Metric	———	Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The content is generally accurate but occasionally lacks specific references or details to support claims made about theological interpretations.
Degree of Coherence	B+	The discussion is well-structured and logically coherent, with NT Wright presenting his views in a clear and systematic manner.
Absence of Fallacies	B	There are few logical fallacies, though some arguments could benefit from more rigorous substantiation.
Degree of Evidence	C+	While NT Wright cites personal experiences and broad theological principles, more concrete examples and scholarly references are needed.
Degree of Testability	C	Some claims are difficult to test or verify due to their theological nature and reliance on personal interpretation.
Rational Confidence	B	NT Wright’s confidence aligns with his extensive background and scholarship, though some assertions could be more critically examined.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence: The content often relies on NT Wright’s personal experiences and broad theological interpretations without sufficient scholarly references. For instance, his discussion on the theology of atonement could benefit from more concrete examples and academic citations.

“And when I was doing the first draft of that commentary, I really couldn’t get my head around the involvement of Jesus in creation and in recreation.”

2. Degree of Testability: Many of NT Wright’s claims, especially those related to divine actions and theological interpretations, are inherently difficult to test or verify. This includes his views on the role of Jesus in creation and recreation and the transformation of the world through the atonement.

“And this is very difficult for us to talk about because it’s to do with there being dark forces in the world, which we humans give power to by worshipping them.”

Is there a way we can text whether dark forces are more powerful after they are worshipped? This is a clear claim that seems to lend itself to testability. Feel free to propose a rigorous experiment to assess the truth of this claim in the comments section.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Syllogism 1: The Role of Jesus in Creation and Recreation

1. Premise 1: God is the creator and recreator of the world.
2. Premise 2: Jesus is the image of God through whom all things were created and are recreated.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is inherently involved in both the creation and recreation of the world.

Counter-Argument:
The assertion that Jesus is involved in both creation and recreation hinges on a specific interpretation of Christian doctrine. Critics might argue that this view does not adequately consider alternative theological perspectives that do not emphasize Jesus’ role in recreation. Additionally, the lack of empirical evidence for these divine actions makes the claim less testable and more reliant on personal belief and interpretation.

---

Syllogism 2: The Transformation Through Atonement

1. Premise 1: Jesus’ death and resurrection created a new cosmic reality.
2. Premise 2: This new reality allows for the transformation of the world and the defeat of dark forces.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ atonement is the mechanism through which the world is transformed and dark forces are defeated.

Counter-Argument:
While the idea that Jesus’ atonement transforms the world is central to Christian theology, it is less convincing to those who do not share this faith. The concept of “dark forces” and their defeat is difficult to empirically verify, and alternative explanations for moral and social transformation should be considered. Furthermore, this view may oversimplify complex social and psychological factors involved in human behavior and societal change.

---

Syllogism 3: The Kingdom of Heaven

1. Premise 1: The kingdom of heaven represents God’s sovereign rule on earth.
2. Premise 2: Jesus, through his life, death, and resurrection, inaugurates this kingdom.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus’ mission is to establish God’s sovereign rule on earth.

Counter-Argument:
The interpretation of the kingdom of heaven as God’s sovereign rule on earth is a theological perspective that may not be universally accepted. Critics might argue that this interpretation is contextually bound to certain Christian traditions and overlooks other religious or secular understandings of morality and justice. Additionally, the historical and cultural context in which these events were recorded should be critically examined to understand their broader implications.

---

By presenting these arguments and their counterpoints, the critique offers a balanced view of the theological claims made in the podcast, encouraging a deeper and more critical engagement with the content.

◉ Addressing Argument #2:

The Mechanism of Christian Atonement

The mechanism of the alleged atonement of Jesus is one of the muddiest Christian doctrines. The concept of atonement is central to Christian theology, yet it often lacks a clear, coherent explanation. What exactly is the penalty humans must pay for sin, and what penalty did Jesus pay? Despite centuries of theological discussion, these questions remain mired in ambiguity. Attempted answers range from silence to the assertion that Jesus’ declaration, “It is finished!” is a sufficient foundation for belief in Christian atonement.

Etymology of “Atonement”

To begin understanding the concept of atonement, it is helpful to explore its etymology. The term “atonement” originates from the Middle English phrase “at onement,” which means to be in harmony or agreement. In a theological context, it implies the reconciliation between God and humanity. The doctrine posits that Jesus’ death and resurrection serve as the means by which this reconciliation is achieved.

Mathematical Incoherence of Atonement

The core issue with the doctrine of atonement is its mathematical incoherence. The traditional view suggests that humanity’s sins create a debt that must be paid. However, the nature of this debt and its required payment are often described in vague or contradictory terms. The penalty for sin, according to Christian doctrine, is death and eternal separation from God. Yet, how does Jesus’ crucifixion—his temporary physical death—equate to paying an eternal penalty on behalf of all humanity?

The penalty Jesus paid is often explained through the lens of substitutionary atonement, which posits that Jesus took on the punishment that humanity deserved. However, this explanation does not clarify how Jesus’ finite suffering equates to the infinite penalty due to humanity. Additionally, if Jesus’ death was a necessary sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, why is there a need for a resurrection? Should the death alone not suffice?

Jesus’ Declaration “It is Finished!”

Many believers point to Jesus’ final words on the cross, “It is finished!” as the culmination of his atoning work. This phrase is interpreted to mean that the requirements for atonement were completed through his death. However, this raises further questions. What exactly was finished? The physical suffering, the spiritual separation, or the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies? Without a detailed explanation, this declaration remains open to interpretation and does not conclusively address the mechanism of atonement.

Need for Coherent Explanation

For honest seekers to accept the doctrine of atonement, a coherent explanation of its mechanism is essential. It is not enough to rely on doctrinal assertions or scriptural declarations without clear, logical reasoning. A thorough and understandable explanation must address how Jesus’ suffering and death satisfy the demands of justice and reconcile humanity with God. Only then can the concept of atonement hold intellectual and spiritual credibility.

In conclusion, the doctrine of atonement is crucial to Christian belief, yet it remains one of its most opaque tenets. Until the mechanism of atonement is clearly and coherently explained, it will continue to pose a significant challenge for those seeking a rational basis for faith. Understanding the etymology of “atonement” and addressing the mathematical and logical inconsistencies are necessary steps in this direction.

---

We invite you to share your thoughts and continue this discussion in the comments section below. Your insights and questions are valued as we explore this complex and important topic together.