Featured The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

No problem. When you get time, don't hesitate to dismantle what I have said and point out what I bring into my position. If it stings I might fuss, but who cares. That's what we do when we look at these things. We need to know what we believe and why we believe it. I was speaking to myself more than anyone else when I said that the first time.

Enjoy your time in the pulpit! Will your sermon be posted on your website?

 

I do disagree because I on the cross I view the Father as actively offering His Son, laying our iniquities upon Christ as is foreshadowed in the Old Testament by the intentions of Abraham with Isaac and the sacrificial system. In other words, I believe that Atonement was active on the part of the Father offering His (foreshadowed by Abraham), passive on the part of Christ (laying down his life, submitting unto death), and through the Spirit (accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit). The Father withdrew his compassion, just for a while.

I believe that part of our disagreement is emphasis. If I understand correctly, you seem to emphasize the Atonement as primarily dealing with man, sin, wrath and justice. I emphasize the Atonement as dealing with those aspects, but ultimately as a Triune act of God, glorifying Himself through the redemption of man. One of us is right and one of us is wrong.

If my position is wrong, then please show me in Scripture where it is wrong and I will gladly adjust my view. With what part do you take exception?

Insofar as Scripture mandating one truth over another, I also disagree. The reason, I believe, that you reject my position is that it is problematic to some of the ideas that you have developed. That's my two cents.

 

Yes. I'm ambidextrous.

Many people agree with Wright on several issues without holding his theology. I also like C.S. Lewis. I haven't adopted either of those guys theologies.

 

Let's go about it this way, brother.

I have provided my view of the Atonement in summary form. I've included a few categories (I actually hold that the Atonement extends beyond the few that I've mentioned). Where do you disagree?

We know that you disagree in terms of what it meant for Jesus to be forsaken, but your idea is not inherent in penal substitution anyway (John Piper and Joel Beeke also hold to penal substitution, but they also view "forsaken" as being God's gracious presence rather than God's unqualified presence). So my view here is well within the bounds of penal substitution.

Out of my explanation of what I do believe, which points do you find anti-penal-substitution? Which ones do you find unbiblical? Let's discuss those.

 

I affirm that the Atonement is penal and substitutionary. I also believe that it is covenantal and victorious. It is restorative in terms of reconciling all of creation to God. And the Atonement is the basis that we partake in the kingdom that is both to come and is entered upon in the present. Since Scripture, not theory, is the authority for my doctrine I cannot deny one truth to elevate another. I also try to maintain a distinction between what Scripture actually states and the ideas that we developed based upon the text.

I am not sure what to make of your comment regarding Calvin and the Reformers. PST was not the theory of the Reformers (Luther held to the Anselm’s theory), put penal substitution was certainly a focus.

I do see PST as one of many theories. But I don’t see penal substitution as one of many choices. Regarding the idea that substitution is the “primary” thrust of the Bible, I believe it is wrong to point of one truth of Scripture and elevate it above others. The Atonement is at its core the love of God, as God loved the world by sending his Son to save man. And I don’t believe that we can encompass the atonement, this love of God, in any one narrow doctrine. To echo something A.W. Tozer once said:

“I can no more do justice to this awesome and wonder-filled topic than a child can grasp a star. Still, by reading towards the star the child may call attention to it and even indicate the direction one must look to see it. And so, I stretch my heart towards the high, shinning love of God so that we may be encouraged to look up and have hope”.

 

N.T. Wright is an Anglican (like an Episcopal, but different....or not...I'm still out on that one) and I am Baptist. I think that Wright is dead wrong on a lot of things.

I've read a few of his books, but my interest in N.T. Wright pales to yours by far. You seem to have latched on to this one brother and cannot but demean him even if you have to project him into every thread. I have read far more C.S. Lewis. Why not give us a break and demean him for awhile? Or Barth. I even have a copy of Barth's "Church Dogmatics". Or A.W. Tozer. I just quoted him so I must cling to every word the man has said. Why not drag him around for awhile.

Better yet, read George MacDonald. That'd give you something to talk about. Anything but this obsession with N.W. Wright. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't really care what you think of Wright.

 

Do you think that this is secondary?

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28

 

So you think penal substitution was just a means to an end? But without the Incarnation and ministry of Christ you would have no cross. Maybe you'd favor the Moral Influence Theory.

It all works together. Why elevate one truth to demean another?

 

Why? Neither of us ascribe to his position.

Why not just denounce my position via Scripture instead?