“The penal substitution model has been criticized for depicting a kind Son placating a fierce Father in order to make him love man, which he did not do before. The criticism is, however, inept, for penal substitution is a Trinitarian model, for which the motivational unity of Father and Son is axiomatic. The New Testament presents God’s gift of his Son to die as the supreme expression of his love to men. ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son’ (John 3:16). ‘God is love, . . . Herein is love, not that we love God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins’ (I John 4:8-10). ‘God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ (Rom. 5:8). Similarly, the New Testament presents the Son’s voluntary acceptance of death as the supreme expression of his love to men. ‘He loved me, and gave himself for me’ (Gal. 2:20). ‘Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends . . .’ (John 15:13f.) And the two loves, the love of Father and Son, are one: a point which the penal substitution model, as used, firmly grasps.”
- J.I. Packer from his classic article “What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution.”
HT:TP via PC
3 comments:
I actually wrote an apologetics article against Packer's essay, and I'm finishing up a Penal Substitution debate now. Both are on my webpage.
Nick - thanks for the comment. I see you have several posts on the point. Is there any one or two that you would recommend as more important for me to read (my time is limited)?
Since you are Catholic (and I detect one who understands what that means), then I suspect we have some very basic foundational disagreements. Therefore I have low expectations of either of us changing via an internet exchange. That aside, I'd be happy to read a couple of key articles if for no other purpose respect toward you and to increase my understanding.
Rick,
Thank you for this opportunity for me. I certainly don't want to dump a pile of papers on you or tell you to go read a long book. My goal is to get my point across with a reasonable amount of space.
The essay I would like you to read, even if just for your information, is the founding essay of my atonement debate:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/01/penal-substitution-debate-negative.html
I don't think you will find these arguments on most other Catholic pages.
Post a Comment