Moral Influence and God's destructive act
I include here an argument I make in a paper on judgment and atonement. I only submit part of the argument here. Let me sum up my argument so far:
1. Evil is ultimately destructive.
2. Human evil is finite because humans have finite power.
3. Ultimate destruction can only be achieved by infinite power.
4. On the cross, God shows the end of evil by displaying ultimate power in judgment.
5. Ultimate destruction by God's power would render the world to nothing, so God must also absorb this destruction.
6. God empties evil of its power by defeating it on the cross by displaying its end (which only God can do) and by absorbing its destruction (which only God can do).
I started thinking of this line of thought in terms of the moral influence theory of atonement, too. So, here's my thought:
There is a second reason for God doing an ultimately destructive act and it can be understood in terms of moral influence. The display of the end of human sin in ultimate destruction leaves no room for any human sinful action to be seen outside this act of God. While God’s act of destruction on the cross exceeds all human acts (because God’s act of power is infinite and humans can only act with finite power), the human condition of sin requires a infinite act of destruction to be the backdrop against which their sinful, penultimate acts of destruction can be seen. Were God’s judgment on the cross finite, then humans could see their acts of sin not against the cross, but somehow as the exception to God’s act of destruction. If, however, God’s act of destruction is ultimate, then, every human act of destruction can be seen in its light (shadow?). There is no act of destruction whose end is not displayed on the cross. There is no human destructive act which is peripheral to God’s act. As a result, humans can see on the cross God’s love in bearing the ultimate destruction and the necessity of his ultimate act of destruction to provide the rubric in which the human act of sinfulness can be seen. This seems in line with the goal of moral influence.
1. Evil is ultimately destructive.
2. Human evil is finite because humans have finite power.
3. Ultimate destruction can only be achieved by infinite power.
4. On the cross, God shows the end of evil by displaying ultimate power in judgment.
5. Ultimate destruction by God's power would render the world to nothing, so God must also absorb this destruction.
6. God empties evil of its power by defeating it on the cross by displaying its end (which only God can do) and by absorbing its destruction (which only God can do).
I started thinking of this line of thought in terms of the moral influence theory of atonement, too. So, here's my thought:
There is a second reason for God doing an ultimately destructive act and it can be understood in terms of moral influence. The display of the end of human sin in ultimate destruction leaves no room for any human sinful action to be seen outside this act of God. While God’s act of destruction on the cross exceeds all human acts (because God’s act of power is infinite and humans can only act with finite power), the human condition of sin requires a infinite act of destruction to be the backdrop against which their sinful, penultimate acts of destruction can be seen. Were God’s judgment on the cross finite, then humans could see their acts of sin not against the cross, but somehow as the exception to God’s act of destruction. If, however, God’s act of destruction is ultimate, then, every human act of destruction can be seen in its light (shadow?). There is no act of destruction whose end is not displayed on the cross. There is no human destructive act which is peripheral to God’s act. As a result, humans can see on the cross God’s love in bearing the ultimate destruction and the necessity of his ultimate act of destruction to provide the rubric in which the human act of sinfulness can be seen. This seems in line with the goal of moral influence.
posted by Aaron Perry at
2:33 PM
10 Comments:
How can God destroy that which does not exist? I think a good Anselmian--to whom you are clearly indebted--would want to know that. For him, Evil has no being of its own, but is a corruption of the Good.
It sounds like, for you, evil must have ontological status. It has to be before it can be destroyed. Yes?
Help me out...
If your proposal succeeds, btw, the 1000 year rivalry between Anselm and Abelard will be put to an end. So I'm cheering for you.
SGFMB
evil is destroyed by being emptied of its power. it is destroyed by its threat being removed. i am still in the augustinian tradition of evil being a negation of the good by saying it is that which is ultimtaley destructive--because the destructive act is only possible by a previous creative act. so, it is destroyed by being taken to its end and defeated. the ultimately destructive act is the relationship of the trinitarian being threatened in the death of hte Son at the wrath of the Father. the ultimate act of destruction by the Father is absorbed by the eternal Son and this relationship is moved beyond infinite destruction and infinite absorption by the work of the Spirit.
so, i'm not reifying evil. it is not a 'thing,' but a possibility that always shows the trait of destruction.
AP, Could you help me understand "ultimate" a little better. Do you mean ultimate as "final" or the "biggest" or "most complete". I am trying to understand arguments 3-5. This is an interesting way to think about the atonement. Have you thought of any analogies that illustrate your argument?
Ultimate not as final destruction, but not really as biggest--which could indicate "biggest so far." Ultimate in the sense of unsurpassable.
this is wonderful stuff!
hmmm. so no one can really taunt, "nah nah na na nah! God didn't conquer ME!" everything that is done by us and that will happen by us falls under the authority of God's omnipresent ultimate-power Suprashadow. i like it. and my pacifist sympathies are definately being put to the test here...
hmm..pacifist sympathies put to the test? say more about that... (i mean, exactly what pushes against that conviction?)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
oh. well, first off, a "sympathy" is not a conviction. i've not commited to any 'side' yet.
i guess it's just that i haven't really thought that much about how God might be able to use violence for a "moral" good...
I think that formerly, i saw God's usage of it as a utilitarian necessity--a means to a promised end; i didn't think that any future destructive *act itself* could be 'holy?' i don't know why i have had that disconnect in my mind, it is not logical. sort of a wrath is used for love's purposes, but wrath (identity of) itself does not equal love?
again, i'm NOT working with logic. but this concept still doesn't transfer over to we humans for mimetic practice very well---we're fallen, and our wars-(acts of destruction)however well intended, generally cannot bring about *full* moral change, but can only [possibly] change a physical situation for the better...so is not a FULL moral restoration, but always only partial (in the most optimistic sense).
perhaps pacifism is one ideal that could be strived for as humans because we cannot fully redeem by our own means: a destructive act can only be fully redemptive if it is done by God... which is just repeating what you said--sorry! no new logic here.
thanks, jo. also, the Tradition's thinking about war does not come from the violent acts of God (i.e., OT holy war). it comes from the Christian use of force from the position of authority.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home