Downes notes in relationship to atonement (but this is true of any theory or doctrine) that there are two issues before us:
1. The relationship between the "raw material" of Scripture and the doctrinal formulations that we construct out of that raw material.
2. The relationship between explicit statements and implicit, equally authoritative, teaching in Scripture
We should guard ourselves from attempting to read our doctrines out of every text and at the same time it is ok to not "expect Scripture to state the same truth for us in exactly the same way as a creed or confession does."
As I apply this to penal substitution, I have sympathy toward some of Nick's objections and through that have found some sloppiness in my thinking. At the same time, I have not been able to consider the whole of Scripture and make the same conclusions as he does.
I can however find truth and joy in the words of JI Packer based on Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:15; 1Peter 3:18 and Isaiah 53:
The notion which the phrase ‘penal substitution’ expresses is that Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory. To affirm penal substitution is to say that believers are in debt to Christ specifically for this, and that this is the mainspring of all their joy, peace and praise both now and for eternity.
So in the end, we need theories to understand the fact. However, wherever our theories are not explicit in the raw material of the text we must be cautious in both their defense and propagation. Selah.
4 comments:
"We should guard ourselves from attempting to read our doctrines out of every text and at the same time it is ok to not expect Scripture to state the same truth for us in exactly the same way as a creed or confession does."
While I would agree with this, I believe (and I'm sure this is no surprise to you) that if you applied this to classic texts like Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:21, etc, etc, I would say quite a bit is read into such texts 'looking' for Psub.
"However, wherever our theories are not explicit in the raw material of the text we must be cautious in both their defense and propagation."
I would agree with this comment as well, noting that it applies just as much to the Psub view as to other views.
Hi Rick
If you ever get the opportunity it is worth George Smeaton's survey of the atonement in church history in his book The Apostles' Doctrine of the Atonement. He uses the term "theory" in a pejorative way, and regards PSA as a biblical doctrine and not a theory at all. I think he's right.
Hey Nick are you on a one man crusade to engage with proponents of PSA in the blogosphere? Have you come across Garry Williams essay in "Where Wrath and Mercy Meet"? You should read it.
By the way Nick why would Christ need to become a curse, or sin, for us?
Martin,
I have not heard of those two books but do see they are on amazon for a reasonable price. This is about the 7th book suggestion (all different titles) I've received from various blogs.
I do like the description of 'one man crusade', it's kind of true because from what I can tell there are pretty much two camps: PSA advocates and PSA deniers of the liberal sort. I've only been looking around on blogs for this issue over the last month or so, so I can't speak beyond that, but I seem to be the only one denying PSA on non liberal grounds.
As for your question about Christ becoming "sin" and a "curse," He did so to make atonement. What I deny is that "made sin" and "made curse" refer to PSA, especially in reference to God's wrath. I discuss these two passages in my Opening Essay of my PSA debate.
Post a Comment