For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. (1 Peter 3:18)If that's not "substitutionary penal atonement", what is it? Christ "suffered once for sins." A purpose statement. Why did Christ die on the cross? "For sins." That's paying the penalty. It was "the righteous for the unrighteous." Another purpose statement. Why did Christ die on the cross? "For the unrighteous." That's substitution. He did it "that He might bring us to God." Another purpose statement. Why did Christ die on the cross? "That He might bring us to God." That's atonement.
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Rom 5:8-10)Hey, there it is again! Substitutionary: "Christ died for us." Penal: "justified by His blood." Atonement: "reconciled to God through the death of His Son."
He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24)And again! Substitutionary: "He himself bore our sins." Penal: "By His wounds you have been healed." Atonement: "that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."
But He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities; upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with His wounds we are healed. (Isa 53:5)Well, would you look at that! An Old Testament reference (lest you think the early Church fathers cooked the books). And it's all there, too. Substitutionary: "He was pierced for our transgressions." Penal: "upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace." Atonement: "with His wounds we are healed."
I don't know ... seems like a running theme to me. I'm probably just not educated enough to see how this is not abundantly clear that Christ died in my place, paying the price for my sin, in order to make me right with God. Seems like good news (read "the Gospel") to me.
19 comments:
Next you need to go through the verses that say something other than penal substitionary atonement and explain how they actually agree, if you can find any.
Since I can't really find any, that would be someone else's problem. But what I've asked is "Show me in Scripture where this is not the case" (with, as you say, an ultimate goal of correlating God's Word to God's Word ... rather than producing contradiction) and no one does it. The primary argument is, in essence, "That doesn't feel right." The notion of an angry God (a biblical concept) who hates sin (a biblical concept) and demands satisfaction (a biblical concept) but accepts His Son's death on our behalf instead (a biblical concept) offends them. My priority is "What does God's Word say about it?" There's is not.
But I'm sure you've seen enough that they try to say contradicts PSA. Maybe talk about those ones?
I've looked, David, I really have. They tell me it's not compatible with current scholars. It's not what the Eastern Orthodox church believes. And it's too much like sacrificing to Molech. The only textual response I get is, "Didn't God say He didn't desire sacrifice?" Now, either this particular God is schizophrenic, demanding sacrifice on one hand and refusing it on another, or they're misunderstanding what God meant when He said He didn't want it. So, which is it? Did He figure out He'd made a mistake and decided sacrifices were a bad thing or are these protesters missing something?
I would argue that God's "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hos 6:6) (quoted twice by jesus who was the sacrifice (Heb 9:6)) is not a repudiation of His demand for sacrifice, but a call for holiness. That is, "Given the option between sacrifices for sins or not sinning, I would prefer you don't sin." In the words of the Hosea passage, He is saying, "Show mercy and you won't have to make sacrifices for your failure to do so." Or, "It's better to do what is right than to ask for forgiveness afterward for failing to do what's right."
Or we have a wacky God who cannot figure out what He wants.
Or we just insist that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says and that it’s not really God communicating.
Those appear to be our options.
What do you say to someone (who is a believer) when you start talking about theological terms and they say, "That's not really important because it doesn't effect my daily life and it's not useful for evangelism"?
David, you asked. Here's what they tell me. "It's poetic language speaking about a loving God who poured out his life here on Earth. Not necessarily as a blood sacrifice (because that's not rational...)." No, not Scripture.
Sorry ... you asked earlier about the arguments against.
As for this question, I am baffled by the concept. Is evangelism the only point? And is truth not important? And did God give us His Word to skim it quickly and pick out what "affects my daily life" and what "is good for evangelism"?
I cannot imagine someone who is deeply in love receiving a lengthy letter from the loved one just to skim it for "what affects my daily life" and "what is useful for evangelism".
Honestly I’d wonder how much actual evangelism is being accomplished by someone with that attitude.
I ask here because I was specifically asking him about his thoughts on PSA and he'd never even heard the term before, and I think I may have confused him we I started contrasting it with Christus Victus (couldn't remember the other popular one). And his response was that he agreed with the basic explanation I had given him (an extremely basic one) and that he didn't see how knowing the "Latin" names for things was useful for evangelism. Unfortunately, I couldn't delve very deep since we were in a restaurant and he had a 1-year-old to contend with so his attention was split. He does attend a Calvary Chapel, so I'm not too surprised he's not familiar with theological terms. But it confounded me when he countered with his evangelism argument and I never recovered from it.
Oh, okay, I understand now. It's not that the person isn't interested in theology. It's the terminology that is of little use. (FYI to your friend, "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" isn't Latin. But, hey, I have not need to be nitpicking.)
The concept of PSA is fundamental to the Gospel and, as such, is important to evangelism. The term provides a shorthand, but if this person wants to express, every time it is discussed, "Jesus died in our place to pay the price for our sin," I'm okay with that as long as he/she actually knows it. There's nothing particularly holy about the vocabulary. And, hey, why would communicating with your fellow believers have any effect on your daily life, right?
The one you’re thinking of is the Moral Example theory. Which is basically that Jesus committed suicide to set an example for us. I’m not sure what the example He was settling in this view, but given that the usual response to PSA is something about “bloodthirsty or child abuse” it seems strange that dying as an innocent sacrifice as propitiation for the sin of humanity is a horrible thing, but dying to set some sort of example is a much less disturbing option.
I do agree that the terminology is less important than the concept, as the terminology is simply a way to express the concept in a sort of shorthand.
Not the one I'm thinking of ;)
Isn't that similar to Christus Victus in that His death was merely a demonstration of His victory over sin and death? It wasn't a necessary part of the salvation process?
Funny.
I don’t think so I think CV is suggesting a literal victory over sin and death, while ME (interesting that the abbreviation is that), is that nothing happened except the setting of an example. I wonder why more of the female pls who hold to that view don’t follow the example better ( whatever they think it is)
Personally I’ve thought that all of the options communicate part of the truth.
He did, defeat sin and death and we are supposed to sacrifice ourselves for others, but it seems that PSA (and the ransom theory) come the closest to capturing what happened.
"Personally I’ve thought that all of the options communicate part of the truth."
I said the same thing. The problem seems to arise when we start to say, "This, NOT that." They only contradict one another when people attempt to eliminate one or another.
It’s hard to acknowledge that any explanation of metaphysical things is going to be lacking in some sense. It’s like trying to explain the Trinity (apprehend not comprehend). All the metaphors fall short to some degree.
Post a Comment