What do you think?
Rate this book
Responsibility and Atonement
According to how we treat others, we acquire merit or guilt, deserve praise or blame, and receive reward or punishment, looking in the end for atonement. At times we need people to forgive and show us mercy. In this study distinguished theological philosopher Richard Swinburne examines how
these moral concepts apply to humans in their dealings with each other, and applies these findings determining which versions of traditional Christian doctrines--sin and original sin, redemption, sanctification, and heaven and hell--are considered morally acceptable.
these moral concepts apply to humans in their dealings with each other, and applies these findings determining which versions of traditional Christian doctrines--sin and original sin, redemption, sanctification, and heaven and hell--are considered morally acceptable.
- GenresPhilosophyTheology
220 pages, Hardcover
First published June 22, 1989
About the author
Richard Swinburne
48 books148 followersRichard G. Swinburne is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Over the last 50 years Swinburne has been a very influential proponent of natural theology, that is, philosophical arguments for the existence of God. His philosophical contributions are primarily in philosophy of religion and philosophy of science. He aroused much discussion with his early work in the philosophy of religion, a trilogy of books consisting of The Coherence of Theism, The Existence of God, and Faith and Reason.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 1, 2024
THE EMINENT PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION LOOKS AT ATONEMENT AND THE AFTERLIFE
Richard G. Swinburne (born 1934) is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford; he has written many other books such as Is There a God?, The Existence of God, The Coherence of Theism, Faith and Reason, The Resurrection of God Incarnate, etc.
He wrote in the Introduction of this 1989 book, “Some years ago now I wrote a trilogy on the philosophy of religion---The Coherence of Theism (1977), The Existence of God (1979), and Faith and Reason (1981). Its major themes were the coherence and justification of the belief that there is a God… and the rationality of living by that belief. It was concerned largely with issues common to various theistic creeds, except in the final volume, where it began to investigate specifically Christian issues. With the present volume I move further in that direction. This volume will, hope, prove to be the first of four volumes on specifically Christian doctrines.”
He explains, “if my arguments are correct, there could not be a natural inclination to pursue the bad as such. The nearest thing to an opposite for goodness of will is simply weakness of will, the weakness of any inclination to fight temptation in the interests of pursuing the good. The extreme form of weakness of fill would be the lack of any motivation to pursue the good, which could only belong in a full form to an agent who didn’t have any moral beliefs.” (Pg. 50)
He suggests, “For perfect removal of guilt, then, the wrongdoer must make atonement from his wrong act, and the victim must forgive him. Atonement involves four components---repentance, apology, reparation, and what, for want of a better word, I shall call penance… They are all contributions to removing as much of the consequences of the past act as logically can be removed by the wrongdoer. The consequences are, first, the harm caused by and distinguishable from the act of causing it and, secondly, the purposive attitude of the wrongdoer towards the victim manifested in the causing of the harm. By removing the former harm the wrongdoer makes reparation.” (Pg. 81-82)
He observes, “If there is an endless life after death, in which the wrongdoer can meet his victim, then I am inclined to think that a wrongdoer will always have adequate opportunity to make atonement for any wrong, however bad. Analogy and, I suspect, the intuitions of most of us educated in a semi-Christian society, suggest that no wrong is so great that no atonement will suffice. However large your debt, some cheque would pay it off. So surely whatever evil a man has done in a few years of life on Earth would be remittable if he had the time and resources to make proper analogy, due reparation and generous penance. However, maybe sometimes wrongdoers do so much wrong on Earth that they cannot make adequate atonement during the remainder of their earthly life. But if there is an afterlife where they can confront their victims, surely they can make their adequate atonement to them.” (Pg. 89)
He acknowledges, “That there is in humans this proneness to wrongdoing is something which has been recognized in some form or other by all religions and by most poets and artists who have given any thought to the human condition. Note that it is not a proneness to do what is wrong because it is wrong, it is a proneness to do what is wrong DESPITE the fact that it is wrong.” (Pg. 116)
He admits, “My theological assumption is this: that there is a God… the creator who made and keeps in being the world and the natural laws which govern its operation… that he became incarnate in Christ who was both God and man, lived a saintly human life, allowed himself to be crucified (that life and death being openly intended by him as an offering to God to make expiation in some way for the sins of men), that he rose from the dead, founded a Church to carry on his work, and seeks man’s eternal well-being in friendship with himself… In calling my assumption an ‘assumption’ I do not in the least imply that it cannot be given adequate justification.” (Pg. 122)
He argues, “it seems to be incompatible with the perfect goodness of God that he should ‘give’ us life subject to very tight moral restrictions on its use. No given can give a present with full instructions for its use… Something is a gift if, maybe within limits, the recipient can choose what to do with it. And a gift is not a generous one if any instructions for its use… are too detailed... To my mind, a perfectly good God who ‘gave’ us life would indeed give it to us as a gift, not subject to too tight moral restrictions on its use… It follows that there is a range of activity open to man, not covered by obligation to God… within which it is up to man how he may act.” (Pg. 129)
He asks, “what is the point in keeping a totally corrupt being alive? He has lost the center of his being. There would be no point in giving him the ‘vision’ of God, for he could not enjoy it… For the totally corrupt there must be … damnation… the penalty of the loss of the vision of God, a penalty of far greater importance than any … punishment by means of painful sensations…. Annihilation, the scrap heap, seem an obvious final fate for the corrupt soul… The New Testament writings seem to me ambiguous on the issue of whether the punishment of the wicked is an everlasting sensory one… they claim that the wicked will be thrown int a fire… But all that the latter implies is that the fire will leave nothing of the wicked unburnt... the consequence of putting them in such a fire will be their elimination.” (Pg. 182-183)
He states, “I prefer an alternative way of understanding predestination… This is to understand it as the doctrine that God predestines in the sense of ‘intends as their destiny’ the salvation of all men; and he helps them toward that salvation, but he does not force it upon them. Our names may be in the book of life, but it is up to us whether they stay there.” (Pg. 194)
He suggests, “Those who die having pleaded the sacrifice of Christ with true repentance and apology, die forgiven by God… [who] would surely recognize their basic inclination of will towards the good manifested in that pleading, either by taking them straight to Heaven… or by allowing them to reform their own character further, e.g., in Purgatory. He who is ready for Heaven stands justified before God… it seems clear that there are so many who dies with some Christian faith and some half-faith and a mixture of good deeds and bad behind them and a half-formed character for whom some sort of intermediate state seems highly appropriate.” (Pg. 198)
This book will be of great interest to those (particularly Christians) who are seriously studying philosophical theology.
Richard G. Swinburne (born 1934) is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford; he has written many other books such as Is There a God?, The Existence of God, The Coherence of Theism, Faith and Reason, The Resurrection of God Incarnate, etc.
He wrote in the Introduction of this 1989 book, “Some years ago now I wrote a trilogy on the philosophy of religion---The Coherence of Theism (1977), The Existence of God (1979), and Faith and Reason (1981). Its major themes were the coherence and justification of the belief that there is a God… and the rationality of living by that belief. It was concerned largely with issues common to various theistic creeds, except in the final volume, where it began to investigate specifically Christian issues. With the present volume I move further in that direction. This volume will, hope, prove to be the first of four volumes on specifically Christian doctrines.”
He explains, “if my arguments are correct, there could not be a natural inclination to pursue the bad as such. The nearest thing to an opposite for goodness of will is simply weakness of will, the weakness of any inclination to fight temptation in the interests of pursuing the good. The extreme form of weakness of fill would be the lack of any motivation to pursue the good, which could only belong in a full form to an agent who didn’t have any moral beliefs.” (Pg. 50)
He suggests, “For perfect removal of guilt, then, the wrongdoer must make atonement from his wrong act, and the victim must forgive him. Atonement involves four components---repentance, apology, reparation, and what, for want of a better word, I shall call penance… They are all contributions to removing as much of the consequences of the past act as logically can be removed by the wrongdoer. The consequences are, first, the harm caused by and distinguishable from the act of causing it and, secondly, the purposive attitude of the wrongdoer towards the victim manifested in the causing of the harm. By removing the former harm the wrongdoer makes reparation.” (Pg. 81-82)
He observes, “If there is an endless life after death, in which the wrongdoer can meet his victim, then I am inclined to think that a wrongdoer will always have adequate opportunity to make atonement for any wrong, however bad. Analogy and, I suspect, the intuitions of most of us educated in a semi-Christian society, suggest that no wrong is so great that no atonement will suffice. However large your debt, some cheque would pay it off. So surely whatever evil a man has done in a few years of life on Earth would be remittable if he had the time and resources to make proper analogy, due reparation and generous penance. However, maybe sometimes wrongdoers do so much wrong on Earth that they cannot make adequate atonement during the remainder of their earthly life. But if there is an afterlife where they can confront their victims, surely they can make their adequate atonement to them.” (Pg. 89)
He acknowledges, “That there is in humans this proneness to wrongdoing is something which has been recognized in some form or other by all religions and by most poets and artists who have given any thought to the human condition. Note that it is not a proneness to do what is wrong because it is wrong, it is a proneness to do what is wrong DESPITE the fact that it is wrong.” (Pg. 116)
He admits, “My theological assumption is this: that there is a God… the creator who made and keeps in being the world and the natural laws which govern its operation… that he became incarnate in Christ who was both God and man, lived a saintly human life, allowed himself to be crucified (that life and death being openly intended by him as an offering to God to make expiation in some way for the sins of men), that he rose from the dead, founded a Church to carry on his work, and seeks man’s eternal well-being in friendship with himself… In calling my assumption an ‘assumption’ I do not in the least imply that it cannot be given adequate justification.” (Pg. 122)
He argues, “it seems to be incompatible with the perfect goodness of God that he should ‘give’ us life subject to very tight moral restrictions on its use. No given can give a present with full instructions for its use… Something is a gift if, maybe within limits, the recipient can choose what to do with it. And a gift is not a generous one if any instructions for its use… are too detailed... To my mind, a perfectly good God who ‘gave’ us life would indeed give it to us as a gift, not subject to too tight moral restrictions on its use… It follows that there is a range of activity open to man, not covered by obligation to God… within which it is up to man how he may act.” (Pg. 129)
He asks, “what is the point in keeping a totally corrupt being alive? He has lost the center of his being. There would be no point in giving him the ‘vision’ of God, for he could not enjoy it… For the totally corrupt there must be … damnation… the penalty of the loss of the vision of God, a penalty of far greater importance than any … punishment by means of painful sensations…. Annihilation, the scrap heap, seem an obvious final fate for the corrupt soul… The New Testament writings seem to me ambiguous on the issue of whether the punishment of the wicked is an everlasting sensory one… they claim that the wicked will be thrown int a fire… But all that the latter implies is that the fire will leave nothing of the wicked unburnt... the consequence of putting them in such a fire will be their elimination.” (Pg. 182-183)
He states, “I prefer an alternative way of understanding predestination… This is to understand it as the doctrine that God predestines in the sense of ‘intends as their destiny’ the salvation of all men; and he helps them toward that salvation, but he does not force it upon them. Our names may be in the book of life, but it is up to us whether they stay there.” (Pg. 194)
He suggests, “Those who die having pleaded the sacrifice of Christ with true repentance and apology, die forgiven by God… [who] would surely recognize their basic inclination of will towards the good manifested in that pleading, either by taking them straight to Heaven… or by allowing them to reform their own character further, e.g., in Purgatory. He who is ready for Heaven stands justified before God… it seems clear that there are so many who dies with some Christian faith and some half-faith and a mixture of good deeds and bad behind them and a half-formed character for whom some sort of intermediate state seems highly appropriate.” (Pg. 198)
This book will be of great interest to those (particularly Christians) who are seriously studying philosophical theology.
May 23, 2021
A concise and often convincing work of analytic theology, Swinburne explains morality, moral responsibility, guilt, reward, punishment, atonement, redemption, heaven, hell, and much more building his case step by step on foundational intuitions and philosophical argument. There are some surprises along the way and Swinburne demonstrates that while he is quite aware of church history and theological development, he is not afraid to posit his own views.
Swinburne rejects the moral argument for
God's existence, does not believe free will and foreknowledge are compatible, rejects divine timelessness as incoherent, rejects eternal conscious torment, and believes in post mortem opportunity, purgatory, and inclusivism. He also posits a "Sacrifice" view of the atonement which seems to stand in between Anselm's satisfaction theory and moral government. This section of the book was particularly fascinating and a crescendo building on all that went before. If the book had ended there, I would unequivocally recommend it to all. What follows is less theologically orthodox but nonetheless a bold and impressive exploration. I have no doubt that this book will be profoundly influential on my thinking in the future as it developed a number of ideas I have been puzzling over in regards to morality, justice, and punishment. It also would be a good place to point atheists and agnostics who wish to understand the philosophical foundations of atonement, redemption, and salvation.
Swinburne rejects the moral argument for
God's existence, does not believe free will and foreknowledge are compatible, rejects divine timelessness as incoherent, rejects eternal conscious torment, and believes in post mortem opportunity, purgatory, and inclusivism. He also posits a "Sacrifice" view of the atonement which seems to stand in between Anselm's satisfaction theory and moral government. This section of the book was particularly fascinating and a crescendo building on all that went before. If the book had ended there, I would unequivocally recommend it to all. What follows is less theologically orthodox but nonetheless a bold and impressive exploration. I have no doubt that this book will be profoundly influential on my thinking in the future as it developed a number of ideas I have been puzzling over in regards to morality, justice, and punishment. It also would be a good place to point atheists and agnostics who wish to understand the philosophical foundations of atonement, redemption, and salvation.
August 30, 2014
In his first of four works on Christian themes, Swinburne introduces us to the intersections of morality, relationships, and theology in explaining why Jesus died on the cross to atone for sin. Swinburne opens with a discussion on moral terms in chapter one and follows with two chapters on moral responsibility - that is, that human beings are responsible for the choices they make. In chapter four through six, Swinburne discusses the consequences of these choices that either lead to merit and reward, a need to make things right, or if one refuses to make something right, the right of the victim or state to take atonement through punishment. He ends the section with a discussion on the natural state humanity finds himself in. These themes, are then applied to the theological topics of sin, a need to make things right in God and people's end states. He does a great job in discussing what the atonement on the cross did for people, and why choice and responsibility leads to soul-building and character formation thus justifying one's end state (annihilation or eternal relationship with God). A great read.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews