About a Book by a Friend....

[Willie T]

The Penal Substitution theory of the atonement - the view that Christ had to suffer under the wrath of God in order to satisfy His justice on our behalf - is the very antithesis of Christianity.

Did that get your attention?

Good!

Why is such a doctrine Christianity's hostile opposite? Because it runs contradictory to Christianity's Christ, who taught that we look most like God the Father when we forgive with no expectation of or desire for vengeance, and when we do good to our enemies as opposed to harming them. Jesus told us explicitly that, in the Kingdom, eye for an eye methodology is strictly prohibited.

The god of penal substitution, however, demands not just an eye for an eye, but an eternity of suffering for one transgression, and can only let a guilty party off the hook if another suffers brutality in their place. He knows nothing of "turn the other cheek" or of loving His enemies...unless of course he's given the opportunity to crush someone else in the place of the guilty. He's not a god who can just shake off a grudge and move on. No. He demands retributive justice, and yet Jesus, who is said to be the Father's exact representation, taught just the opposite.

Regardless of how we interpret some of Paul's words or try to make a case for a violent, retributive God by piecing together obscure Old Testament passages, you can never square these things with the words and life of Jesus. If God the Father demanded Jesus' murder as the only means of satisfying His justice, then Jesus was wrong in nearly all that He taught us of His Father.

For this reason I say that the doctrine of Penal Substitution is Christianity's hostile opposite, as it presents a picture of God that is hostile and opposed to the message of Jesus, which was forgiveness and mercy without any expectation of vengeance or revenge.

 

[Kathi]

Does not sound Biblical to me.But our world is full of this stuff.Have to be very careful.

 

[Willie T]

Does not sound Biblical to me.But our world is full of this stuff.Have to be very careful.

Actually, that doctrine is preached from most pulpits, despite the fact that it is directly opposite of Jesus' teaching.

 

[Kathi]

Actually, that doctrine is preached from most pulpits, despite the fact that it is directly opposite of Jesus' teaching.

That does not surprise me.But from "most pulpits"? Of the several Churches I have attended this was not taught.

 

[Willie T]

That does not surprise me.But from "most pulpits"? Of the several Churches I have attended this was not taught.

If not "Penal Substitution", then what have you experienced as being taught about the atonement Christ made for us?

 

[Kathi]

Are you asking if whether His sacrifice provided limited or unlimited atonement?

 

[Willie T]

Are you asking if whether His sacrifice provided limited or unlimited atonement?

I'm asking what my OP post, and Jeff's words were about.... PENAL SUBSTITUTION. (It was clearly explained in the very first sentence of my OP post.)

 

[Danus]

Whats being said in the OP is that God didn't willingly die on the cross in place of any sinner. What's being said in the OP, is a "semi pelagian", or "Pelagian" argument that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was not punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of Justice for anyone who will be saved, and that people must choose Christ and basically "earn" their salvation by their own righteousness, and not the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure the OP poster can expand on that a bit more, but that's basically what's being said.

 

[Willie T]

Whats being said in the OP is that God didn't willingly die on the cross in place of any sinner. What's being said in the OP, is a "semi pelagian", or "Pelagian" argument that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was not punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of Justice for anyone who will be saved, and that people must choose Christ and basically "earn" their salvation by their own righteousness, and not the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure the OP poster can expand on that a bit more, but that's basically what's being said.

Actually, totally the opposite was said.

 

[Danus]

Actually, totally the opposite was said.

I guess you'll have to be more clear then.

Then opening statement was this; "The Penal Substitution theory of the atonement - the view that Christ had to suffer under the wrath of God in order to satisfy His justice on our behalf - is the very antithesis of Christianity."

This says that Christ death on the cross was not in place of sinners who will be saved. That's what "Penal Substitution" is. You might be adding in the idea of "Punishment" vs "Atonement" - not sure, but it's been expressed both ways in the past, and criticized on many angles.

 

[Willie T]

I guess you'll have to be more clear then.

Then opening statement was this; "The Penal Substitution theory of the atonement - the view that Christ had to suffer under the wrath of God in order to satisfy His justice on our behalf - is the very antithesis of Christianity."

This says that Christ death on the cross was not in place of sinners who will be saved. That's what "Penal Substitution" is. You might be adding in the idea of "Punishment" vs "Atonement" - not sure, but it's been expressed both ways in the past, and criticized on many angles.

Admittedly, much of the "Satisfaction" theory gets mixed into this..... but the point that Jeff spent three paragraphs making was the fact that there was never a need on God's part to beat the Hell out of Jesus to ease His own anger and lustful vengeance.

Of course, atonement had to be made... and was. We were "bought" by Jesus..... but God was not "paid off" and satiated by beating on Jesus.

 

[Kathi]

I'm asking what my OP post, and Jeff's words were about.... PENAL SUBSTITUTION. (It was clearly explained in the very first sentence of my OP post.)

Oh excuse me.

 

[Danus]

I doubt that's the whole argument against Penal Substation from the book. Reformed theology does not emphasis the torture of Jesus Christ as a necessary part of atonement. Nor is it enough for Christ to just have died on the cross. Rather Christ had to do two things.
1. Live the righteous life.
2. Die on the cross.
In light of that, in a nut shell, Christ life and death is a substitute atonement for those who will be saved. Nothing the saved can possibly do can meet the requirement. We can't live the life Jesus Lived, nor can we pay a price for the sin in us. We are all already condemned to the first death anyway........this is the part for those who argue against "Penal Substitution" are actually not liking, and using the argument against Penal Substitution to frame their argument against substitution atonement. Least that's been the case. So, the book you might be referring to must have more to it than just the beating of Christ.

Can you name the book?

 

[Willie T]

The title is a reverse play on the words of Jonathan Edward's famous sermon of 1741, "Sinners in The Hands of an Angry God."

It's called Saints in The Arms of a Happy God... by Jeff Turner. I believe it is $5.99 on Kindle.

This is the blurb for the book.....
Could it be that the angry, moral monster who masquerades as the Abba of Jesus is just a projection of human angst and fear onto a God who is passionately and eternally in love with the human race? Could it be that He has never been anything but on our side and working for our betterment? Is it possible that He did not need to be convinced, through bloody sacrifice or otherwise, that we were worthy of His attention and fellowship? Is it possible that our sins never truly separated us from Him, but simply caused us to run and separate ourselves from the One Who was only ever running towards us in compassion and love? Could it be that God has far better things to say to humanity then “turn or burn”? Could it be that He is not a God Who includes some while excluding others? Could it be that He loves all equally, and that He does not divide the human race up into categories of “us” and “them”? Could it be that God actually looks like...Jesus? In Saints in the Arms of a Happy God Jeff Turner contends for all of this and more. For years we’ve been conditioned to see ourselves as mere sinners in the hands of an angry God, but the truth; the astounding, breathtaking and beautiful truth, is that we are Saints in the Arms of a Happy God! From the atonement, to hell, to the wrath of God, no doctrinal stone is left unturned as the true nature of God, as shown through the person of Jesus Christ, is explored and mined for all of its riches. So buckle up, check your religious preconceptions at the door, and get ready for a thrilling journey into the heart of a God who is defined, not by His hatred for sin or by an affinity for retributive justice, but by a Love that is far deeper than we’ve dared to dream.

 

[Willie T]

Oh excuse me.

No problem. Maybe the sentence was easy to miss.

 

[Danus]

The title is a reverse play on the words of Jonathan Edward's famous sermon of 1741, "Sinners in The Hands of an Angry God."

It's called Saints in The Arms of a Happy God... by Jeff Turner. I believe it is $5.99 on Kindle.

I love the title. I knew there was more to it.

 

[Willie T]

I love the title. I knew there was more to it.

Frankly, this is NOT a book I would recommend for the majority of this forum. I bought the hard copy, and my own wife almost threw it across the room. She read the whole first chapter, but could not get past some of Jeff's comments about Abraham. She won't even discuss it with me now.

I also have some issues about how Jeff tends to jump to conclusions when I feel I want to see a whole lot more on a subject before I will just accept it as foundational to a theory.

He will soon be going to our church, so we should have plenty of time to sit down, and hash out some things.

 

[Danus]

It seems to present an on old argument, but perhaps with a mixed bag of a few more newer versions, and I'm only basing that on the excepts you've presented; just the one-liners I can pick out there.

However, that might have been a synopsis meant to include a perception of what seems like prevailing theological views. Seems a little universal mixed with Pelagianism, but I say that mainly because of the Penal Substitution/atonement argument. That's one of the oldest theological arguments that has taken on different forms through the ages.

Theology is an interesting subject that often falls in the three sides to every argument category and it's a good idea to study all sides carefully and without prejudice.

 

[jeff77]

Does Substitutionary atonement have anything to do with conditional immortality? Or Annihilationism?

 

[Danus]

Does Substitutionary atonement have anything to do with conditional immortality? Or Annihilationism?

It could be hammered into a verity of theological views, but no. That's not the primary understanding of Substitutional atonement.

The basic understanding is that Christ died on the cross in place of those who will be saved. It is expressed in a number of biblical passages.

1 Pet 2:24; 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 Pet 3:18; 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,

There are many opposing views that take different paths. The most notable falls along the lines of "infused" righteousness verse Imputed righteousness.

Substitutional Atonement supports imputed righteousness whereby the righteousness of Christ is credited to the saved, who are saved from Gods wrath and judgment since there is nothing they have to offer that could possibility meet the condition of salvation. This is the reformed biblical, boiled down, bullet point understanding of salvation.

So the opposed view is "infused" righteousness, whereby Christ death "allows" anyone who willfully chooses, to be "connected" to Him in a way that gives a person all the power and instructions they need to be righteous like Christ in order to be saved.We find this view in a number of theologies and churches. This view can also be found in many Protestant churches.

One is biblical the other is not, but the one that is not is kind of like analyzing a Joel Olsteen sermon. It sounds right, sort of, but you have to read between the lines to pick out the error.

One of the primary sticking points for both is the subject of the Christian life; it's value and place in salvation. View number one (Substitutional atonement), or imputed righteousness; says that salvation first allows anyone to live the Christian life. That the Christian life is in flux, ever changing and growing on the path simply being with God forever. View number two, infused righteousness, says that the Christian life leads to salvation and that at any point that might change. You could get off the path and not reach salvation, but to be saved you must live the Christian life first then God will add up your score I guess and decide if you are saved or not based on how well you did. There are several flavors of this.