Category Archives: Theological Issues

Posts on theological issues not in other categories

Penal Substitution just doesn't matter …

Posted on by
Reply

… or so argues Theo Geek Andrew. In apparent response to others insisting that this doctrine is central to all Christian theology and almost if not absolutely a condition for salvation, Andrew argues:

the exact consequences to us and experiences of a penal substitutionary system seem to be able to be replicated without all the penal substitutionary doctrines being there. …

PS in my estimation seems to come pretty close to being functionally equivalent to a theology that contains no PS. The implication of this is that it is not an important doctrine. It might be true, but it isn’t important that it’s true. It’s truth does not have effects on our lives that are any different to the effects its falsity would have on our lives. …

I do not think it can be validly claimed that PS is an important or central doctrine within the Christian faith, when it can be so easily in theory and practice swapped-out for other ideas. … The difference between “a God who is loving and forgives sins out of love” and “a God who demands justice be repaid but removes this need from himself by Jesus and thus forgives sins out of love” lies only in the semantics, logic and character of God depicted within this statements and not at all in the resultant functionality of these two doctrines or how they relate to our everyday experience of life.

Thanks, Andrew, for putting this matter in its proper perspective.

Kiwis respond to "Pierced for Our Transgressions"

Posted on by
Reply

I posted earlier about Reuben and Andrew’s initial reactions from New Zealand to the book Pierced for Our Transgressions.

Since then Andrew has posted seven times in response to this book: his first impressions; on the word hilasterion; on penal substitution in the early church; on a comparison with the Ransom from Satan model; and on the views of the atonement of Gregory Nazianzus, Athanasius, and Anselm and Aquinas – all these in just three days! He has certainly been busy, and is justifying his blog name Theo Geek. All very worthwhile background material, showing how one-sided is the evidence presented in the book.

And now his flatmate Reuben, a generally much less prolific blogger at Notions Incognito, has posted the first part of his full review of Pierced for Our Transgressions. The conclusion he comes to from chapter 2 is that there is indeed reasonable biblical evidence for the doctrine of penal substitution, but that this is much less widespread and certain than the authors claim, and there is no proper basis for their insistence that it is a central theme throughout the Bible. He also notes, concerning chapters 2 and 3, that they have “omitted all views and doctrines which do not fit with PS”; so effectively they presuppose rather than argue their point that “it is the foundation of all Christian theology”. His notes on chapter 5 reflect and summarise (but do not reference) what Andrew has written about the history of the doctrine. Reuben rounds up his review of Part I by agreeing with NT Wright’s assessment that the book is “deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical.”

I look forward to the forthcoming second part of this review.

Andrew and Reuben are certainly getting value for money out of their shared copy of the book!

Cunningham: God does forgive

Posted on by
Reply

Sorry to keep on about the atonement, but this is important …

Previously I reported that Richard Cunningham, Director of UCCF, said that “God never forgives”, or “God doesn’t forgive sin”. I am pleased to report, courtesy of Adrian who has posted an article by him, that Cunningham now seems to have gone back on those words. For now he writes:

Forgiveness only becomes possible if God in Christ is punished for our sin and thus manages to satisfy (propitiate) God’s wrath towards human wickedness.

Presumably these printed words are to be understood as more authoritative than his words in a sermon, variously reported and not given in their full context. Since Cunningham does seem to believe in some kind of forgiveness of sins, I can now retract my accusation of heresy. I would like to apologise for the misunderstanding.

But what are we to make of this new version of Cunningham’s thinking?

Continue reading →

More from Packer on the Atonement

Posted on by
Reply

J.I. Packer has re-entered the atonement debate with an article written for UCCF, and published in full by Reformation21. Martin Downes quotes extensively from it; thanks to Justin Taylor for the tip.

UPDATE: No surprise that Adrian Warnock was also quick to post the full text of this article, on his blog which is now at this new location. Adrian’s post also includes an article by Richard Cunningham, which I will comment on separately.

Packer presents the same view of the atonement as in his 1973 lecture, which I discussed at length here; indeed, Packer quotes from this lecture and reaffirms what he wrote then.

Continue reading →

Does the risen Jesus have blood?

Posted on by
34

This is the somewhat arcane question which has been raised on the b-trans e-mail list, and is also related to my post on Hebrews 2:14 at Better Bibles Blog and to Lingamish’s response to that post.

The discussion started when I objected to a proposed rendering “mortal humanity” in Hebrews 2:14, to replace or refer back to the literal “flesh and blood”. My issue was that “flesh and blood” refers to humanity in general, not just to mortal humanity but also to the resurrection bodies which Jesus has and which we will have. But I was surprised that my suggestion proved so controversial. Here I hope to show that Jesus’ resurrection body has blood, and that this is important for our salvation.

Continue reading →

Praying for the conversion of the Jews

Posted on by
9

Iyov, who seems to have been known to me before as an anonymous commenter on various blogs, has exploded on to the blogging scene in his own right and with a new pseudonym: he has written 45 posts in less than a month since he started his blog. Some of his posts are long and technical, but he has some interesting insights on the Christian scene from a perspective very different from mine. He is clearly a knowledgeable academic, but his real name and identity remain secret.

In one of four long posts yesterday Iyov asks whether the reintroduction of the Tridentine Mass is good for the Jews. The issue here is with the prayer in the Good Friday liturgy “for the conversion of the Jews.” I must say I fail to see what the problem is with this. But perhaps this depends on exactly what is meant by “conversion”.

Continue reading →

Blair the Antichrist?

Posted on by
15

Oh dear, Tony Blair’s chair in 10 Downing Street is hardly cold and Cranmer (thanks for the link, Eddie) is effectively proclaiming him the Antichrist. Let’s see, the beast with ten horns (ten years?) who seems to have been slain (well, he did jump before he was pushed) but within hours has been “healed” by being offered a new post as, in Cranmer’s words, “Middle East messiah envoy, where he will set up his throne in Jerusalem”. Throw into the mix his expected conversion to Catholicism and possible candidacy for “Emperor President of Europe”, providing “a pulpit for Mr Blair’s personal philosophy – pro-European, anti-State, anti-individualist, socialist, federalist, ‘third way’ Catholic-ecumenism.” So, plenty of room for wild speculation here.

But I agree with Cranmer in shedding no tears for Tony Blair. However I wish him well in his new job. And I wish well to Gordon Brown his successor, a man who I hope has been waiting in the wings for his chance to undo much of the damage caused by Blair. Well, maybe that is hoping for too much, but at least there should be a chance of real action, and not just spin, on issues of social justice like third world poverty.

The Gospel is not just about guilt and forgiveness

Posted on by
Reply

Tim Chesterton continues to post excellent summaries of Yoder’s writings on the church and how it should maintain its distinction from the world.

Here is an extract which, although tangential to Tim’s main theme, is relevant to the ongoing atonement debate:

The Gospel is not to be understood as being simply about how individuals can alleviate their guilt and find forgiveness and peace of mind. That is to read the tortured psychological history of Martin Luther back into the New Testament. The Gospel, according to the New Testament, is about the creation of a new people for God, formed from communities (Jews and Gentiles) which historically have been at loggerheads with each other. Thus the God who loves his enemies calls into being a people who are learning to imitate him and love their enemies. According to Ephesians 3, this is the centre of God’s plan; this is the great and amazing mystery which has been revealed to Paul.

How true! And how sad that some people make penal substitutionary atonement, or for that matter any theory of the atonement, so central to their theology, and to their gospel presentations, that they almost ignore these implications which Yoder points out, and many other consequences.

As I wrote before, the gospel needs to be presented in a relevant way. The list I gave there of human needs, and how the gospel meets them, may have been a bit narrow, because it focused on individual matters. A more complete list would have included more communal needs, such as reconciliation and belonging in a community. These are met by other aspects of Jesus’ work which are in a sense models of the atonement, although sometimes considered separate matters: through his death and resurrection, he reconciled former enemies and founded his own new community, the church. These aspects of the matter must be included in a fully rounded presentation of the gospel.

But, Tim, we don’t have national flags in my Anglican church, except for the international set we got for the football (soccer) World Cup!