Penal Substitution Gospel

[Silverhair]

You're right. I know Greg Boyd and he's so far from mainstream Christianity. He says God does now know what will happen in the future. Just read "Letters to a Skeptic."

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

He is a Baptist theologian. He is known for his writings on Open Theology (a 4th century concept, see Calcidius).

Boyd believes that omniscience is knowing all there is to know, but that some content events are outside the scope of omniscience. Open Theology was advanced most recently by Boyd, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, and John Sanders (among others).

It is primarily a philosophical argument, but it runs counter to our understanding of omniscience.

Boyd would view God as knowing how many hairs are on your head, but not knowing if you would choose to believe the gospel until you make that choice.

So it is not exactly like rejecting omniscience. It is more like defining what is knowable. A similar debate surrounds "middle knowledge".

It, like Penal Substitution, is a philosophy that detracts from Scripture. It is what happens when men are carried away by vain philosophy. It is why I warn so strongly about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Most will be fine. But many have exchanged the gospel of Jesus Christ for the theory.

 

[Silverhair]

I wasn't thinking of you at all. I didn't know you had even gotten involved in this subject. I agree with almost everything in your post. Just to repeat one more time. Even if you don't believe in penal substitution, either because you haven't studied that deeply or that you come from a tradition that doesn't emphasize it, because we are passive in the atonement, I believe if you feel the need to come to Christ because of your sin and you believe in Him as Lord and Savior, that is all that is necessary. If though, because of teaching that opposes penal substitution, you are led to believe that there is no necessity to come to Christ in order to be reconciled to God the Father and/or there never was a sin issue involving your sin against God - in that case you are in danger of losing the gospel. In fact, you don't know the gospel. For the record, I do not think @JonC believes this way himself, but some of the things he says I feel could dovetail into what some others are saying and could be damaging to those who don't understand all this.

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.

 

[Silverhair]

He is a Baptist theologian. He is known for his writings on Open Theology (a 4th century concept, see Calcidius).

Boyd believes that omniscience is knowing all there is to know, but that some content events are outside the scope of omniscience. Open Theology was advanced most recently by Boyd, Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, and John Sanders (among others).

It is primarily a philosophical argument, but it runs counter to our understanding of omniscience.

Boyd would view God as knowing how many hairs are on your head, but not knowing if you would choose to believe the gospel until you make that choice.

So it is not exactly like rejecting omniscience. It is more like defining what is knowable. A similar debate surrounds "middle knowledge".

It, like Penal Substitution, is a philosophy that detracts from Scripture.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

One view is that God chooses not to know.

But typically it's not Open Theology. That holds that God does know everything that is knowable. But that contingent events (events dependent in human free-will) are for the most part unknowable.

It is a philosophy. I wouldn't encourage anybody to go down that road.

That said, Boyd is a well known scholar. I wouldn't discredit him that. And he is just as Christian as Penal Substitution theorists are. It is liberal, but that is where philosophy leads men.

I believe that trying to know God without going directly through Christ is not really theology but philosophy. That is one reason I view the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as philosophy. It is not in the Bible, but it also seeks to understand redemption from a path other than Christ Himself (the theory ultimately focuses on the Father, not Christ, and in so doing completely missed the Father and Son).

 

[DaveXR650]

I do not see God as punishing Christ for the sins of others.

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.

 

[DaveXR650]

I would take it from what @DaveXR650 wrote re the LGBTQ issue that Boyd tends to the far liberal woke side of things.

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.

 

[Piper]

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.

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.

 

[Piper]

One view is that God chooses not to know.

But typically it's not Open Theology. That holds that God does know everything that is knowable. But that contingent events (events dependent in human free-will) are for the most part unknowable.

It is a philosophy. I wouldn't encourage anybody to go down that road.

That said, Boyd is a well known scholar. I wouldn't discredit him that. And he is just as Christian as Penal Substitution theorists are. It is liberal, but that is where philosophy leads men.

I believe that trying to know God without going directly through Christ is not really theology but philosophy. That is one reason I view the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as philosophy. It is not in the Bible, but it also seeks to understand redemption from a path other than Christ Himself (the theory ultimately focuses on the Father, not Christ, and in so doing completely missed the Father and Son).

Incorrrect.
Greg Boyd is a proponent of Open Theology.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Matthew Emerson is a Southern Baptist theologian who rejects penal substitution.

Lucas Stamps is a Baptist professor who rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

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."

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Incorrrect.
Greg Boyd is a proponent of Open Theology.

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.

 

[Piper]

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

 

[RipponRedeaux]

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.]

 

[Piper]

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.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

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.

 

[Arthur King]

From the link:

"In sum, penal substitution requires at least two things (1) that Jesus’ death is just, or deserved, that is, to satisfy the wrath of God, to satisfy the retributive demands of God’s justice, and (2) that Jesus dies in our place, as our substitute, taking the punishment upon himself so we won't have to suffer it."​

Does this say who is in view in the phrase "Jesus died in "our" place." How about Jesus died for humanity's sin, those to be saved and those never to be saved?

I did not see where Arthur King provided or endorsed a definition in the second link.

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.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

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.

 

[Silverhair]

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.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

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

 

[JonC]

Incorrrect.
Greg Boyd is a proponent of Open Theology.

That is what I said.

You need to start reading posts before responding.