SUBSTITUTION RECONSIDERED AND RE-ENVISIONED

1984

Third, God is merciful and loving towards sinrers in that He permits a substitution, so that their due punishment falls not on the guilty, but on their substitute. J. Owen remarks that: Christ dying for us as a surety. .. being made a curse for us, was an undergoing of death, punishment, curse, wrath, not only for our good, but directly in our stead; a commutation and subrogation of his person in the room and place of ours, being allowed and of God accepted (24). Chapter IV of this thesis will deal in more detail with the analysis and criticism of this model of penal substitution; for the moment it is necessary simply to continue with its description. This may best be done by focussing on some of the shifts in meaning that can take place even within the framework of thought designated

Evangelical Quarterly, 2012

The Master's Seminary Journal, 2009

This introductory essay overviews the indispensable theme of Christ’s penal substitution on Golgotha’s cross. The subject unfolds in two parts; the first section provides background and context for this essential theological truth. The second section reasons that three compelling biblical necessities require a true believer in Jesus Christ to understand scripturally and accept the Savior’s penal substitution on behalf of redeemed sinners, especially oneself. The landscape/backdrop for this article provides (1) a definition of “Christ’s penal substitution,” (2) statements by representative defenders and objectors to this doctrine, and (3) an introduction to subsequent and more focused writings in this issue of TMSJ. Then follows the proposition that Scripture must necessarily be understood as consistently (in both OT and NT) teaching Christ’s penal substitution, which rests on three convincing biblical lines of thinking: (1) revelational evidence, (2) lexical evidence, and (3) theological evidence. The writer thus concludes that this teaching is clear, not obscure, thoroughly biblical, not humanly contrived, and essential to personal salvation, not optional.

Restoration Quarterly, 2017

Religions

In recent decades, there has been a resurgent interest among Protestant theologians in the so-called Christus Victor theory of the atonement. Firmly grounded in patristic thought (esp. Irenaeus of Lyons), this understanding of the work of Christ was first studied and formulated by a Swedish Lutheran, Gustaf Aulén, in 1931. Recent works by Darby Kathleen Ray, J. Denny Weaver, Thomas Finger, Gregory Boyd, and others develop Aulén’s endeavor and present new versions of the Christus Victor model. These scholars directly or indirectly demonstrate that the main framework of the patristic understanding of atonement was more faithful to Scripture and less problematic in terms of dogma and ethics than the traditional Protestant penal substitution theory. A short analysis of contemporary versions of the Christus Victor motif shows that this model of atonement proves to be more relevant in responding to the challenges of today’s world by providing substantial background for Christian spiritual...

2021

The flow of this essay attempts to build an argument that allows one to contested dogmas on a broader and hopefully more honest and coherent manner by showing that often theology is ‘morphous’ in character. The case study is one where the concept of Atonement, sacrifice, sin and penal substitution atonement are considered in light of positions and determinations raised in this essay as it relates to hermeneutics, systematic theology and culture. The essay concludes that a polymorphic understanding does offer a critical review. I argue that theology should be understood as second-order, continuing, constructive, and communal dialogue about the Christian beliefs. Theology is an organic unity, a montage or medley that involves Scripture, the historical traditions and socially and culturally embedded insights and arguments and the present cultural and historical setting. This is expressed in another way by RC Sproul who whilst probably disagreeing with my hypothesis on polymorphism did conclude that ‘creeds are distinguished from Scripture in that Scripture is norma normans (‘the rule that rules’), while the creeds are norma normata (‘a rule that is ruled’). Composed within the methodology of developing creeds and doing Systematic Theology we find critical variables such as the culture and context, the language used and the hermeneutical insights of sources and horizons of interpretation and understanding. Thus, there is a hermeneutical and systematic justification to propose that Atonement theology is polymorphic in character. However, when seeking insight into the doctrine of the atonement, we continuously formulate and promulgate an Atonement doctrine that adopts as its basic silhouette an essential truth, the polymorphic harmony through the commonality of the claim that Jesus did something very special ‘for humanity’ or ‘for us’ in understanding the significance of His life, teaching and His Crucifixion. Schaeffer wrote: ‘Each generation of the church in each setting has the responsibility of communicating the gospel in understandable terms, considering the language and thought-forms of that setting.’ That is polymorphic theology in general and thus Atonement theory in particular – biblical, contemporary, systematic, constructive, active and relevant as it responds to the needs of the world. It is reasonable whilst demanding epistemic humility in our theology and praxis when we consider making truth claims. It ensures we are aware of our own embodiment, culture, fallibility and finitude yet it remains fully committed to both faithfulness to scripture and meaningfulness to the world.

Matthew Darby, 2020

Atonement theology is quite controversial. Each tradition has its own way of explaining the historic and salvific event of the death and resurrection of Jesus. However, even within the realm of atonement theology there are a couple of issues that reign supreme as the center of most atonement controversies. These two subjects being: justification and substitution. What does it mean that sinners are justified by the blood of Christ? How is Christ a substitute for sinners? These two aspects of the atonement have received considerable scrutiny over the last century. These doctrines have been called unjust, incoherent, and many other slanderous terms. The question is though, are they right? In this essay I intend to give a defense for both the coherence and morality of both of these issues.

2004