Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Robert Hach (aka Robert Hand) is the author of The Passion and Persuasion: A Biblical Deconstruction of the Evangelical Rhetoric of the Cross. In this first part of a two-part interview, we discuss his experiences in a cultish Christian group, and how that led to his interest in rhetoric. We then discuss some of the basic ideas about God, justice/righteousness, forgiveness, and the unique atoning death of Jesus in the New Testament.
Questions addressed include:
- Does God’s “justice” (righteousness) demand that he can’t forgive unless he gets full payment for sin?
- Is full payment compatible with the forgiveness of a debt?
- Is God actually like a debt-holder when it comes to us, storing up a record of wrongs to hold as a barrier against being reconciled to us?
- What, if anything, does the famous parable of the prodigal son tell us about forgiveness and atonement? What, if anything, represents the death of Jesus in that parable?
- And how does Jesus’s atonement relate to the law given through Moses?
I encountered some serious audio difficulties in recording Mr. Hach; this was entirely my fault, and I apologize to him and to you for the audio problems here. I’ve taken some steps to mitigate these, with limited success. But I’m compelled to present this interview despite those problems, given the interest of the material.
Links for this episode:
- The Passion and Persuasion: A Biblical Deconstruction of the Evangelical Rhetoric of the Cross
- Possession and Persuasion: The Rhetoric of Christian Faith
- Interviews with Mr. Hach on The Byte Show
- Reflections of a Generic Christian
- Wagner, Hand & Pflug @ Facebook
- Wagner, Hand & Pflug: “American Nomads” live @ WLRN Folk Music Radio
- Wagner, Hand & Pflug albut @ CDBaby
- This week’s thinking music is “Marathon Man” by Jason Shaw.
Good listen. Curious to hear the other half from Mr Hach. I do not hold to Penal Substitionary Theory either. My main objection was the same one you brought to light more clearly in this interview… and that is that saying one is “forgiven” yet their debt was “paid in full” is obfuscation. It really makes the words have no meaning because these are mutually exclusive terms.
I first heard objections to PSA from a street preacher Jesse Morrell. While I may today have many disagreements with him he still did pretty diligent work studying his atonement views. He said he was using the normal Ray Comfort plan like Robert spoke about in the beginning. The “You’re due for hell, a debt you cannot repay, Jesus paid your debt, therefore you’re forgiven and you don’t go to hell. You just need to repent and believe” That worked for Mr. Morrell until a student at a university told him that he did not need to repent and believe if Jesus “paid his debt.” Since unbelief was a sin, that sin was “paid for” also. That caused Mr. Morrell a stir and he realized the student was right. So he set off to studying. Then later after running into him I came out of the PSA view. Calvinists decry you, what’s new… but I’d rather be a bit unsure than act like my atonement view is -THE- Gospel.
That one explanation that Sean Finnegan went through a while back was pretty good… can’t remember if that was on your podcast or his now, but it did well explaining the different atonement views and his own take.
Comments are closed.