PSA vs. a Bloodless Atonement

Every so often Todd Friel at Fortis produces a video on a hot button topic that is worth sharing. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) has always been under attack. The only thing that changes are the public faces doing the attacking. The old tired argument against PSA is that God is not angry and wrathful, ergo He will not punish another on our behalf. Besides not being biblical it is one short trip away from denying eternal punishment. In fact, not really knowing the principles in the new generation that is against PSA, they may already be denying eternal punishment and advocating Universalism. False teaching doesn't come dressed like the boogeyman. It comes in the form of smart, articulate, and even charismatic spokesmen.

Reformed said:

Every so often Todd Friel at Fortis produces a video on a hot button topic that is worth sharing. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) has always been under attack. The only thing that changes are the public faces doing the attacking. The old tired argument against PSA is that God is not angry and wrathful, ergo He will not punish another on our behalf. Besides not being biblical it is one short trip away from denying eternal punishment. In fact, not really knowing the principles in the new generation that is against PSA, they may already be denying eternal punishment and advocating Universalism. False teaching doesn't come dressed like the boogeyman. It comes in the form of smart, articulate, and even charismatic spokesmen.

Click to expand...

It's been my experience in conversation that Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology both agree on PSA, but with a different look on how they get there. The RCC denies it.

Charlie24 said:

It's been my experience in conversation that Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology both agree on PSA, but with a different look on how they get there. The RCC denies it.

Click to expand...

I don't think Calvinism or non-Calvinism is an issue when it comes to PSA. Both sides agree over PSA and we get there the same way. The object of the Atonement is where we disagree, but that's for another thread

Reformed said:

I don't think Calvinism or non-Calvinism is an issue when it comes to PSA. Both sides agree over PSA and we get there the same way. The object of the Atonement is where we disagree, but that's for another thread

Click to expand...

Calvinists and non-Calvinist do not get to PSA through the same view. There are many differences in the framework.

That is probably for another thread.

Charlie24 said:

Calvinists and non-Calvinist do not get to PSA through the same view. There are many differences in the framework.

That is probably for another thread.

Click to expand...

We would agree that the PST is the view of the Atonement that best explains the biblical account from the Apostles

Reformed said:

I don't think Calvinism or non-Calvinism is an issue when it comes to PSA. Both sides agree over PSA and we get there the same way. The object of the Atonement is where we disagree, but that's for another thread

Click to expand...

Agreed, as the PST view is what has been the prominent view held by both reformed, and Majority of Baptists

Reformed said:

I don't think Calvinism or non-Calvinism is an issue when it comes to PSA. Both sides agree over PSA and we get there the same way. The object of the Atonement is where we disagree, but that's for another thread

Click to expand...

It is, depending on how you view Calvinism (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was not articulated as we know it today until John Calvin).

I agree that a "bloodless Atonement" is a false atonement. I would say that it is not only unbiblical but outside of Christianity (without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness).

That said, the OP is kinda misleading. The difference between orthodox theories is not the blood of Christ. It is not that God's wrath doesn't abide on the wicked.

"Christus Victor", Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, Satisfaction Theoty, Substitution Theory, Penal Substitution Theory...none of these are "bloodless Atonement" positions.

Most anti-Penal Substitution Theory positions are not due to any of the points made in the OP video. Christians have opposed the theory from the time it was offered (rarely because of the issue the OP points out).

The movenent away from the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement from within Calvinistic congregations (typically younger Calvinists) has nothing to do with the issues mentioned in the OP either. They are just a generation that does not share some of the concepts the theory assumes, and since Penal Substitution Theory is not actually in the Bible (in the text of Scripture) they seek to move Calvinism towards a more biblical position. Personally, I doubt where they end up will be any better (it is reforming the Reforned rather than starting with Scripture).

That said, there is a movement within Mennonite theology towards a "bloodless" Atonement theory.

Charlie24 said:

It's been my experience in conversation that Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology both agree on PSA, but with a different look on how they get there. The RCC denies it.

Click to expand...

They do. But both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism were developed from within Calvinism, so that is a given.