Reimagining Penal Substitutionary Atonement (pt 1)

This is the first part in a series of videos arguing for the preservation of the PSA themes of the Bible by re-examining how they fit into their historical and narrative setting.

In this video I lay out how I understand the present debate, and then outline relevant elements of my epistemology and rhetoric.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• christianity
• theology
• atonement
• penal
• substitution
• cross
• jesus
• debate
• critical
• realism
• religion
• bible
• god

[johnandraquell]

If there is no substitutionary Atonement then Christ's death was incompleate and we are forced to try to catch the football of salvation that he threw in the hope that we would catch the ball and salvation now becomes by works not by grace. When is the last time you read the book of Romans at face value?

[MrBDRhodes]

@johnandraquell -- Hey brother, thanks for commenting. Your insinuations toward Pelagianism is a serious one, and it's a heresy that I'm quick to join you in frowning upon. I agree fully that salvation is by grace from start to finish. Grace all the way!

However, I'm confused as to what in my video made me sound Pelagian?? I agree with you that we can't earn God's favor. Maybe there's a specific point in the video you can point to to help me understand your concern more clearly.

[StJames37]

@fractalfires But it's true that the most troubling issue with PSA is that it logically turns the Trinity either into a mutable 'god' (who by definition is not the 'Christian' God), or into a Marcionite scheme of the Father and Son being two different 'gods' (which again is not the 'Christian' idea of God).

[StJames37]

@fractalfires Not even St Augustine - from whom Calvin took his idea of unconditional predestination - knew anything about 'satisfaction' or 'PSA'. Augustine (who alone among the 'Fathers' had a few 'unorthodox' teachings, which Calvinists 1100 years later would adopt) and all much earlier Fathers were in agreement in teaching the so-called 'Christus Victor' and 'Ontological' theories.

[StJames37]

@fractalfires Amen. I would agree with that correlation. Calvinists and others sometimes try to drum up support for their ideas from the early Church. They 'quote mine' the Church Fathers for fragments, here and there, which are ambiguous enough to support Reformation ideas. (I know this because I was a Reformed Presbyterian for many years). Often they will try to read 'PSA' into some ambiguous quotes by a Church Father - but context always shows how they are twisting the text.

[StJames37]

@fractalfires Were PSA true, it would mean that the Trinity is not immutable (unchanging). If one has a god who is not immutable, one no longer has the 'Christian' God.

[StJames37]

@fractalfires For me, this anachronism is a strong reason to reject PSA all together. Another reason is that PSA pits the Father against the Son, and teaches that their perfect communion of love was changed: the Son suffered the wrath of the Father. PSA interprets Christ's citation of Psalm 22 while on the Cross, as meaning that the Father couldn't even look upon the Son at that moment, since he was so covered in sin.

[StJames37]

@fractalfires True, they speak of 'substitution', but they mean this in the sense of 'ransom' from sin, the Devil, and Death itself. PSA is the historical invention of Calvinism, while the 'Satisfaction' is that of medieval Catholicism. PSA is an anachronistic interpretation of the Biblical texts.

[StJames37]

@fractalfires Not at all since people had been talking about PSA for 1500 years before the terminology was coined during the Reformation. There was an earlier theory invented by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th Century - the so-called 'Satisfaction' theory. Nevertheless, 0% of the Church Fathers or Early Church knew or taught PSA or 'Satisfaction'.