Thanks for posting this Mark. I think it's important to make the distinction you made, that penal substitution is not the ONLY view of the Atonement. Some detractors from the view have gone too far sometimes and said it is an INCORRECT view of the Atonement. Such an argument denies Scripture passages where it seems to speak very clearly in substitutionary language. At any rate, it's been great to introduce other ways of viewing "Christ's work" that expand the power of what he accomplished for us to non-seminary educated people, and see them find great joy in it.
blorge
· 4 years ago
It is an unfortunate development in American Christianity that the crucifixion has been conflated with the penal substitution theory.
I wonder how much the movement from the academy to the laity (that Chris just wrote about) produces a lowest common denominator effect. Seminary-educated folk want to try to explain the crucifixion to the laity, so rather than go through multiple views and nuancing them out (while not succumbing to the temptation to start climbing up the stairs of the ivory tower), the teacher or pastor boils it down to a soundbyte to put up on the church website.
trike
· 4 years ago
Just like the new perspective of Paul, I would add that the atonement of Jesus is incredibly more than just his penal substitution, but certainly not less. All of the recent work I am aware of on this issue is a great correction, as long as it doesn't try to "through the penal substitution out with the bathwater" IMHBYVOO (In My Humble But Yet Opinionated Opinion!).
graham
· 4 years ago
traditional theory of penal substitution. In recent years (and indeed throughout Church history) there have been some great reformulations of the doctrine. That's got to be a good thing.
Chris
· 4 years ago
I agree Graham, I think we ought to start with Scripture and not with obsolete theories. For example, we must first acknowledge that when Paul says in Romans "having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him," it sounds an awful lot like Jesus has averted the wrath of God through his sacrifice. Now whether that actually equates to a theory of penal substitution is another story altogether.
graham
· 4 years ago
Ah, I hate to do this, but I don't see penal substitution in Rom. 5:9. :-)
However, I agree that if we can start with scripture then we're onto a good footing. Even better if we can stop with scripture! So, if our understanding of the atonement from that verse is that we have been saved from the wrath of God because of Jesus then we're really getting somewhere. Any theory we put on top of that can only be understood as metaphorical, and that's fine.
Incidentally - and I'll state this at the end because my point was to agree with you, not disagree - I read the passage as speaking of Christ's subsitution in the sense of someone who went into battle instead of us. Some others believe Christ saves us from God's wrath by saving us from Sin, Sin being what brings God's wrath upon us.
pat k
· 4 years ago
Not to judge, but...
Oh, forget it.
Chris
· 4 years ago
I completely agree Graham, I don't necessarily think it's too big a deal what theory you come up with from a passage. If someone said to me that Rom. 5.9 was about penal substitution, I probably wouldn't object. But it's probably not what I would come up with. In the end, salvation itself is a metaphor, and we can never truly describe what Jesus did for us. We can only describe what it is like.
graham
· 4 years ago
"we can never truly describe what Jesus did for us. We can only describe what it is like."
Yeah, I like that.
Luke
· 2 years ago
I can't find much more on your blog about substitutionary atonement. Is there?
All Comments
I wonder how much the movement from the academy to the laity (that Chris just wrote about) produces a lowest common denominator effect. Seminary-educated folk want to try to explain the crucifixion to the laity, so rather than go through multiple views and nuancing them out (while not succumbing to the temptation to start climbing up the stairs of the ivory tower), the teacher or pastor boils it down to a soundbyte to put up on the church website.
However, I agree that if we can start with scripture then we're onto a good footing. Even better if we can stop with scripture! So, if our understanding of the atonement from that verse is that we have been saved from the wrath of God because of Jesus then we're really getting somewhere. Any theory we put on top of that can only be understood as metaphorical, and that's fine.
Incidentally - and I'll state this at the end because my point was to agree with you, not disagree - I read the passage as speaking of Christ's subsitution in the sense of someone who went into battle instead of us. Some others believe Christ saves us from God's wrath by saving us from Sin, Sin being what brings God's wrath upon us.
Oh, forget it.
Yeah, I like that.
Besides this one: http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/?p=510