Christian Philosophy - Issue: Penal Subscription

I enjoyed this presentation (watched it 3 times....so far). I'd like to discuss thus with you and @DaveXR650 (since he also liked the presentation).

While I disagree with the opinion, there are aspets in his presentation I find more Biblical than how the Penal Substitution Theory is typically taken by its followers.



What I liked:

1. The speaker rightly based Penal Substitution Atonement on Christian philosophy, noting its dependency on judicial and legal philosophy.

2. The speaker denied that out sins and/or guilt was transferred from us to Christ. This is a point I have repeatedly called out.

The speaker distinguished between imputation and transfer. Christ shared in our infirmity. Sim and guilt can never be justly transferred, but it can be imputed to another (the other sharing in the guilt).

3. I agreed with the speaker that Jesus is not our substitute in terms of Jesus dying in our stead.

The speaker uses a term I have repeatedly used- representive substitution.

The example given of substitute is that of a pinch hitter where the hitter takes the place of and bats instead of the person. He is correct that Christ is not our substitute.

The example given of representation is that of an agent working on behalf of a players interest. He is correct that this falls short.

The example given of representive substitution is that of a person acting in proxy on a board. Jesus is our representive substitute - he represents us with our shared involvement (not "instead of" but with).

4. I agreed with the speaker that the view God punished Jesus (or our sins on Him) is incorrect.


I'll discuss problems with the video next (to keep it seperated) and look forward to a good discussion.

 

The first part of the video (handling objections) was not the best because it addressed low hanging fruit (objections from within a similar concept).


The video bases Penal Substitution (and the Atonement in general) on judicial philosophy (and on a Western philosophy).

The imputation of sin is "legal fiction" (legal fiction, he says, is a fiction adopted that results in a just conclusion.....he gives several examples, one is charging ships, pretending they are a person, with a crime resulting in a just conclusion regarding whatever crime had been committed by those on the ship).

Penal Substitution Theory does rely on "legal fiction".


I disagree with the video as I do not believe the Atonement is based on judicial philosophy.

The speaker defended his view from a logical standpoint very well. But he did not develop his view via Scripture. Instead he assumes (much like Calvin) that his judicial philosophy is correct and defends penal substitution strictly through how Western courts have acted.


The video was interesting, but it carries forward Aquinas' argument (arguing against Aquinas' conclusions regarding punishment but remaining within that area).

 

Then you had a pleasant surprise .

I have several points of agreement on that presentation.

I believe he was exactly right regarding imputation of guilt and on representative substitution, to name two points.

 

I agree with Dr. Craig regarding the imputation of righteousness.

The reason is, as the early church viewed the work of Christ, it is a "solidarity". This goes both ways - Christ shared our infirmity so that we could share His righteousness.

Just like imputation of sin - laying our iniquity on Christ - does not transfer sin away from us so also the imputation of righteousness does not transfer righteousness away from Christ.

Good video.

 

I agree that faith is the way we receive God's grace.

I notice that Dr. Craig uses "expiation" in the passage. I don't have an issue with "propitiation", but it is probably reading into the text (the focus of the word in the verse is actually expiation, and it helps not get off track from the passage itself).

Anyway, I liked the video. No disagreements here.