Featured Penal Substitution Gospel

Who is Greg Boyd? I don't think I have seen anything he has written. From what you are saying it would seem that Boyd does not think God omniscient.

 

I am far from a scholar in regard to PSA but from what I have seen written on here and that I have been able to gather from the net and comparing that to what I see in scripture it does seem to be a step to far. I do not see God as punishing Christ for the sins of others.

From what you have written it would seem that you equate rejecting PSA with rejecting the gospel. If I have misunderstood you, my apologies. While rejection of PSA can lead to not knowing Christ as your saviour the same can be said of any of the salvation theories. What should be remembered is that we are not saved through a salvation theory but through faith in the risen Christ.

 

So he would say God is willfully blind re salvation? He is just redefining omniscience. I have heard the term Open Theology but do not know much about it but then again not so sure I want to spend time doing so. I would take it from what @DaveXR650 wrote re the LGBTQ issue that Boyd tends to the far liberal woke side of things.

 

Just like someone who believes that you freely choose to believe in Christ gets accused of "self salvation" or salvation by works and just like Calvinists are accused of slandering God and having a view of a monster of a God - you have the same things happening with penal substitution.

As you said it, if the idea is that God, because of being offended by our sin, is full of wrath and is just wanting to punish someone, big time and fortunately for us, Jesus steps in and says "If you have to punish someone punish me", and then he takes it for us to placate the vengeful God, then I don't believe it either.

But if God the Father, and the Son, being separate and yet also one, in counsel with each other in perfect love and harmony and with the wisdom they have that is totally above all of us, after determining that for the sake of justice, our sin by way of being part of Adam and by our own actions must be punished. If they came to decide that the method of the cross, with Jesus shedding his blood and dying, was the right way for God to judge sin, as well as satisfy His wrath, which he poured out on His Son, who was uniquely qualified to act as a suitable substitute for us by virtue of being one with the Father as well as a true human and sinless so that he could represent us and facilitate our redemption and reconciliation with God. I can believe that and dare not be repulsed by it.

I get very uncomfortable when people start questioning God's motives and how much justice or punishment he required and so on. When we get into that area I think we are on the verge of blasphemy. We know about the crucifixion and we know that Jesus felt impelled to go there so it must have been important to us and to the Father who in His wisdom did not take the cup from Jesus when he prayed. We have multiple scriptures showing this from Leviticus to Hebrews.

I admit some express PSA in awkward ways that aren't helpful but while I suppose you can reject certain expressions or tones of explanation as being not helpful I don't see how, if you reject the idea that God was dealing with our sin with Christ on the cross, directly, by his blood being shed and his death - in that case I don't think you have the gospel right.

 

I didn't mean to pick on Boyd. I was looking at the examples and Boyd was the first one who came up with any writings or videos attached. I didn't mean to put him on the spot.

 

True. He is what I call a heretic. He believes that God does not know or control the future. He is far from an Arminian. He believes and is a proponent of Open Theism.

 

Incorrrect.
Greg Boyd is a proponent of Open Theology.

 

You are wrong regarding both of them. Emerson and Stamps wrote an article entitled Baptist Catholicity And Penal Substitutionary Atonement. In it they state :"...we feel that here especially they [Steve Harmon and Curtis Freeman --Rip] are the ones who have missed the mark, not those who affirm penal substitutionary atonement."

 

Yes, James White has done an expose of Boyd's Open Theology. That's the logical extreme of Arminianism.

I bought one of Boyd's books 30 years ago. But it's in decent shape. It's Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity. It's rather good on that issue. Boyd is at least a Trinitarian.

 

At least that. He had a long time feud with John Piper on his Open Theism. Piper ended up having a pastor's conference and publishing a book. In it, he and Sinclair Ferguson, in effect, showed that Boyd is very close to the edge of Orthodox theology, and probably Beyond the Bounds.
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Bounds-Undermining-Biblical-Christianity/dp/1581344627

 

Jesus died a violent, substitutionary death to be a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of Jews and Gentiles. by this death, Jesus took upon himself God's righteous judgment and wrath against the sins of those for whom he died. By dying as their penal substitute, Jesus paid the penalty for their sins, and he therefore both propitiated God's wrath against their sins and expiated their sins so that the sins of the Jews and Gentiles would be forgiven and so that they would be justified by faith, forgiven of their sins, reconciled to God, reconciled to each other, participate in the future resurrection and saved from God's wrath. [An extract from Jarvis J. Williams, from his essay Violent Atonement : The Foundation Of Paul's Soteriology In Romans.]

 

Amen Brother. I've met and talked to Jarvis. He is a solid scholar. His defense of Atonement is one of the best.

 

Neat. His work is needed to rid the BB of the anti-PSA rolls.

 

I do not believe in limited atonement.

But the question of extent of the atonement is downstream from the mechanism of the atonement. I am concerned with the mechanism question.

 

True statement Dave, if you reject the idea that God was dealing with our sin with Christ on the cross, directly, by his blood being shed and his death - in that case I don't think you have the gospel right. But, as I have seen it in the bible I would question that PSA fits that bill. in the way that PSA is articulated.

 

You did not put Boyd on the spot but since I do not know him I have to go by what others have written. I did not consider that you were putting him on the spot but rather just giving information regarding him.

 

If you think Boyd's bad, you should read up on Steve Chalke.