Faith | Books | Culture
Chris Woznicki and Wyatt Graham talk about theological anthropology and penal substitution. I hope you enjoy this conversation.
Make sure to subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and/or Apple Podcasts. Also, see the host page at Anchor and the Youtube page. And bookmark this page to see every episode. [Read more…] about Episode 24: Chris Woznicki on Theological Anthropology and Penal Substitution
Jesus bore divine wrath at the cross for our sake (Isa 53:5), and so protected us from it. This act implies that God hates humans since he would have poured wrath upon humans if not for the work of Christ’s cross. Yet John says that God loved the world (John 3:16). So how can Scripture speak both of God’s wrath and his love for us? Does God hate us or love us?
Of all people, it may be of some interest to see how John Calvin (1509–1564) answered this question because he, in the minds of many, was a theologian of God’s wrath. While he certainly emphasized divine wrath, he (against some modern expectations) prioritized God’s love for humanity before wrath—indeed, for Calvin, passages about God’s wrath aim to underscore divine love and mercy. [Read more…] about Does God Hate People?
Penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) is not a single doctrine. As the name suggests, the doctrine comprises theological principles like a penalty for sin, a substitutionary saviour, and a particular vision of the atonement. And actually, it draws from even more theological first principles than this list.
The composite nature of PSA explains why few Christians before the reformation defined PSA exactly as the Reformed did, while most pre-reformation Christians affirmed the first principles that would make up the doctrine. Hence, the historical plausibility of PSA derives from the fact that each of its theological first principles finds clear affirmation among Christians and Scripture. So its composite conclusion not only follows from these but also has its roots in 2,000 years of church history.
These first principles include: God is just, we are unjust, and the man who ascended the cross substituted himself for us to bring us salvation. Put together, PSA makes good, biblical sense. And stated in this way, it is obvious how Christians throughout the ages have affirmed these biblical teachings using different idioms of theology. In the following, I explain these theological first principles, albeit in short form. [Read more…] about What Is Penal Substitutionary Atonement?
One of the challenges of the twenty-first century is its theological diversity. Right now within evangelicalism, a number of theologians affirm some form of divine change or passibility. But Christianity has seen such an affirmation as a Category One breach of orthodoxy.
How should we understand this? Answer: we should be slow to speak, quick to listen, and try to get behind the language of these theologians.
In recent years, many have argued that Penal Substitution is not true. They argue that God could not possibly expend his wrath on the Son of God in our place; he could not stand condemned for us and for our salvation. For them it’s simply not true.
Whenever I hear arguments against penal substitution, they interest me. I want to gain a closer look at the truth, and so I am open to listening to others. But whatever the argument is (and however good it sounds), we always need to step back and ask: Yes, but is it true?
Or better: Yes, but is penal substitution true?
Whatever you think or feel about the doctrine, we must ask: does the Bible teach it? Even if it abhors or scares us.
We must be relentlessly biblical.
And you know what. When we come to understand and to accept the Bible’s message, the abhorrence and fear melts away. You come to see that God is beautiful and that whatever he does is beautiful, good, and right. [Read more…] about Yes, But Is Penal Substitution True?
During the Reformation, the reformers favoured the doctrine of penal substitution to describe how Jesus’ death on the cross saves us. Penal substitution means that the Father punished (penal) the Son instead of us (substitution) for our sins.
Some people have found this doctrine offensive because it constitutes child abuse. As this reasoning goes, if a father punishes an innocent son by placing him a cross (a tortuous death), this would be child abuse. Likewise, God the Father would be committing child abuse by punishing the Son on the cross. Others may disagree with penal substitution because it sounds like a pagan idea rather than a Biblical idea. Still others might simply assert that penal substitution arises out of medieval worldview, where God is a wrathful god who punishes sins and a person must receive punishment to satisfy justice.
It is this latter accusation, which I would like to respond to. The doctrine of penal substitution is not a medieval idea. It is a Biblical idea and an early Christian doctrine. I will focus on this latter idea (penal substitution as an early Christian doctrine) here. [Read more…] about Is Penal Substitution a Medieval Idea?
