Question. In CSG Book 1 Ch 1 §7.1, SMM mounts a sharp theodicy challenge to classical theism: “If He is all-knowing and all-powerful, why did He allow Jesus to be nailed to the cross?… such a God is a cruel God whom we should chase away” (136-128, 1985.12.22). UC answers this by relocating God’s “omni-” attributes within the constraints of love, law, and human responsibility (see csg-throne-judge-god-incoherent, csg-gods-omnipotence-operates-within-principle, csg-even-god-is-absolutely-obedient-to-love). The standard evangelical response invokes (a) free will, (b) felix culpa (“happy fault” — the cross was the planned means of salvation), and (c) the cross as God’s voluntary self-emptying (Phil 2:6–8). How does the CSG account compare against the strongest version of this evangelical reply?
Why it matters. This is the load-bearing apologetic exchange between UC theology and evangelical Christianity. If CSG’s account is stronger, it grounds the broader UC critique of “throne-and-gavel” theism (see csg-throne-judge-god-incoherent). If the evangelical reply is stronger, the chapter’s apologetic momentum loses its anchor and the constructive case for the True Parents claim needs an independent argument.
Current best guesses.
- CSG’s account is stronger. The evangelical reply requires accepting that God planned the crucifixion — which makes God complicit in Jesus’ execution and is hard to reconcile with the unequivocal “this is a cruel God” language SMM rejects. UC instead locates the cross as a contingent failure in the providence (Israel’s rejection of the Messiah), with Resurrection as God’s recovery move.
- Evangelical reply is stronger. The cross-as-planned reading has 2,000 years of theological development behind it (Athanasius, Anselm, Calvin, Moltmann), specific scriptural warrant (Acts 2:23: “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God”), and an internal consistency the UC reading lacks until DP’s Restoration-through-Indemnity framework is fully articulated.
- Both are responses to different questions. The evangelical reply answers “what does the cross accomplish?”; CSG’s challenge asks “what does the cross say about God’s character?” These can both stand.
A thread on this requires DP as an ingested resource (so the constructive UC half can be cited) plus at least one evangelical resource (e.g., a Moltmann or Stott chapter) on the cross. Defer thread to ~batch-020 or whenever both legs are in place.