Featured Penal Substitution Theology and the faith of those without it

Insofar as NT Wright is concerned, you are correct in what you have the man affirming, but wrong in what you have him denying (Wright does not seem to separate history and theology as we would. On that topic he is, however, fairly consistent with the early church (which I always found a bit near sighted at times). Anyway, I suggest starting a thread of his views if it concerns you so much as to bring him up on this topic (I could understand if the topic were different, but here it seems a bit off).

There is a difference between rejecting penal substitution and rejecting another person's position of Penal Substitution Theory.

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...-tell-me-nt-wright-denies-penal-substitution/

 

"Everything we need for God’s forgiveness, for the removal of God’s anger, and for reconciliation with God himself can be found in Jesus."

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/getting-to-the-heart-of-atonement

 

Penal substitution does not necessarily mean what you make it to mean, Van. You are ignoring that the Calvinistic doctrine of Limited Atonement was articulated almost a century after Penal Substitution as well as the fact that John Wesley was one if it's (PST) strongest advocates.

It is not that Penal Substitution itself is a "Trojan horse" for limited atonement but that a particular view of limited atonement grew out of inflating penal substitution to unbibical proportion. You are stereotyping, brother.

 

I knew you'd agree with N.T. Wright sooner or later. Laugh...I actually disagree with him on several points - but not really what he said of separation (if he means taking God's wrath, not being separated from the Spirit). But if he agrees with you on the "forsaken" issue, then he definitely holds to a PSA view.

I have read several forwards authored by people who don't actually espouse a particular view. And I will say that some have presented PSA in what could (IMHO) be termed "cosmic child abuse". Maybe it is because Wright does not seem to separate history and theology and Chalke's view seems very similar if not identical to the writings of the early church. But I suspect it is because Wright appreciates what Chalke has to say about the view they share instead of his comments on PSA (remember, Wright focuses more on Christus Victor).

I'm also guilty of violating the same principle. I highly encourage people to read John Calvin's works on prayer (they are outstanding) but at the same time I reject his reasoning in support of infant baptism and a state-Church. I also like (really like) C.S. Lewis, but I disagree with him on many points. And Tozier...and D.L. Moody...

 

Laugh We are all a bit dangerous because we're nearly right.

I glanced at Amazon for a moment before I responded and found this interesting. J.I. Packer commended one of N.T. Wright’s books for “tweaking” distortions back into shape and “it’s first-class approach to Bible study,” “masterly throughout.” The book? “Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today” (Published in 2013). I found it a bit ironic giving the climate on other threads towards the brother. Packer, Piper, and Carson disagree with N.T. Wright, but none of them seem to think he's the heretic others here seem to want him to be.

 

I though that I had given you a pretty good hint by pointing you to the theology of John Wesley. In short, history proves you wrong.

The narrow view of PSA that you hold is not the only view of PSA in existence. You are lumping all men into a category and then fighting that characterization.

Martin provided a good example when he appealed to the penal substitution of the Early Church Fathers. They certainly did not hold a PSA view as you imply to be the norm, but they did hold to penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement.

 

Yea...I know. And we can find numerous definitions for marriage as well. Point is you would be far better off stating and defending what you believe than denouncing the views of others.

Here is a quote from Leon Morris

The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.
Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.

 

Yea...I know. And we can find numerous definitions for marriage as well. Point is you would be far better off stating and defending what you believe than denouncing the views of others.

Here is a quote from Leon Morris

The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.
Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.

 

It's a different topic, but Van is right that some hold a skewed view of Penal Substitution Theory which leads to another skewed view of the scope of the atonement.

Jesus did die, as Calvin insisted, for the sins of all mankind. He did, as the early church insisted, bear the sin of mankind. But that does not mean that the Cross is not for those saved something that it was not for those who are remained lost (and this by God's design). Limited Atonement and PSA falls apart when it is restricted to a ledger system of accounting sins. Doing so forms an easy to follow doctrine, but unfortunately what is being followed is far from biblical.

Jesus bore our sins, and the sins of the world. Reconciling man to Himself, Jesus bore the penalty of sin in His flesh. Jesus is the savior of all, especially those who believe. But Jesus died on the cross to redeem only those who would believe. Redemption is certainly limited. Atonement is certainly penal and substitutionary.