… 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.
I disagree with theo geek and with you, Peter. We are not talking about interchangeable ways of conceiving of atonement.
Actually, you make the same point, when you say, “the difference between . . . and . . . lies only in the semantics, logic and character of God depicted within this statement.” Only, you say?
So what kind of character does God have, according to penal substitution? In order to understand, it’s important to have in mind the concept of the necessity of atonement, or acts of penitence, when sin occurs – otherwise, the life of the entire community, not just one’s own, is in danger. This concept, and that of collective responsibility, underlies many laws of God imparted to Moses.
It was an extremely heart felt problem in the ancient world. Thus, when things were going really bad, say, an unendurable famine had come, or a bloody and doomed war, all eyes turned to the king, the symbol of the unity of the people, to make things right.
Sometimes the king responded by offering his own son on the altar.
The act was considered magnaminous in the extreme.
In the Christian conception of penal substitution, God submits to his own law (that of the necessity of atonement when sin occurs) in a profoundly personal way.
John, it was Andrew, not me, who wrote the words you quote.
I intend to respond at greater length, but am hoping for some more comments first.
Phew, that’s a relief. I was afraid that I was going to have to start saying the word “penal” in public. Actually, for a week or so I thought the P was for “Plenary.” All this to say, that this topic, like Sovereign Election is one of those things that if you’ve never heard of it you exist quite fine without it. But once you start thinking about it, it begins to consume your life. Not to minimize those of you who are obsessing on it… 8^)
Pingback: Speaker of Truth » PS doesn’t matter: hyperbole or understatement?
John, in my new post I didn’t really answer your point. Yes, in the ancient world “Sometimes the king responded by offering his own son on the altar.” Kings Ahaz and Manasseh did this (2 Kings 16:3, 21:6). No doubt they and many of their subjects considered this “magnanimous”. But God’s response to it was quite different: “the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites”, “evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger”. This was paganism and utterly opposed and abhorrent to the worship of the true God. How can this be a valid model of the atonement?
Hi Peter. What the kings did, including those of Israel, is detestable.
What they did is not a valid model of the atonement, because of one crucial detail, emphasized already in the Torah. The drama is laid out in Gen 22. When all is said and done (and only then), it is God who provides the sacrifice. See also Psalm 50, which makes the same point in another way.
The kings of Israel who sacrificed their sons are without excuse. The grace of God was a known entity to them (even if the only bit of theology they actually knew was something like Deut 26:5-10 and Ps 2). In the Old Covenant no less than the New, if someone doesn’t put their trust in sola gratia, egregious error is the result.
In conjunction with that one all-important detail, nevertheless, thematizing child sacrifice can be helpful. In my view, that’s why Gen 22 is in the Bible.
Pingback: Further evidence that OT scholars are cooler than NT scholars « lingalinga