tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post8637833670085814466..comments2024-01-24T04:02:06.466-05:00Comments on Why I De-Converted from Evangelical Christianity: Does the Penal Substitutionary Theory Make Sense?Ken Pulliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-1033883900270876912010-05-08T09:34:05.219-04:002010-05-08T09:34:05.219-04:00Loren,
The PST is not a prerequisite to be consid...Loren,<br /><br />The PST is not a prerequisite to be considered a Christian but it is a prerequsite to be considered an evangelical Christian in America and I believe also now in the UK Evangelical Alliance. <br /><br />The idea that man can become God will never be accepted by evangelical Christianity. It smacks of Mormonism and is considered to be the original lie of Satan in the garden.<br /><br />One thing that both Judaism and Christianity have historically held is a sharp demarcation between the Creator and the Creation. God is "wholly other". He is separate and distinct from his creation, according to these traditions.<br /><br />So, I don't think that you will ever see widespread acceptance of <i>theosis</i> in Christianity.<br /><br />In addition, my focus on my blog is towards American evangelical Christianity. Its what I used to be and what I know. It is also arguably the largest group of Christians in the US and certainly one of the most vocal.Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-81209139077079610832010-05-07T20:31:50.785-04:002010-05-07T20:31:50.785-04:00Ex N1hilo said, "t's a question of author...Ex N1hilo said, "t's a question of authority. ... To reject His clarification as found in Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:24 and 3:18, Hebrews 9:14, Romans 5, etc., is to place one's own opinion over the testimony of one's Creator ..."<br /><br />It may be self-evident to you that every declaration found in the 66 canonical books is coming straight from the mouth of God. But it's certainly not self-evident to everyone.<br /><br />Just take the Hebrews text. Why is everything in the Epistle to the Hebrews automatically assumed to be God's words? Why do you think so? You don't have any idea who wrote it. The book never claims to be a divine oracle. <br /><br />It comes down to this: The church voted to include that letter in the canon (against some objection). Pastors routinely claim it's the word of God. It's in everyone's Bible. So you buy what you're told by fallible men ... based mostly (if not wholly) on tradition.<br /> <br />You're right: It is a "question of authority."SteveJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525881183798559993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-47284912205854109032010-05-07T19:40:01.320-04:002010-05-07T19:40:01.320-04:00David,
Its actually that book that got me started...David,<br /><br />Its actually that book that got me started blogging. My first few posts discussed it. Beginning <a href="http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-penal-substitutionary-theory-of.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>Ken Pulliamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12161943466797514854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-68918139499515918262010-05-07T19:09:14.702-04:002010-05-07T19:09:14.702-04:00In an effort to not reinvent the wheel, might I re...In an effort to not reinvent the wheel, might I recommend "Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution" by theologians in the UK Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-76702991000546861122010-05-07T15:01:22.137-04:002010-05-07T15:01:22.137-04:00I am confused. If God is Jesus (the three in one, ...I am confused. If God is Jesus (the three in one, Holy Trinity) why would he want to punish himself? Is God a masochist?<br />This discussion is a good example of how Christians tie themselves in knots to try and justify their beliefs- that often do not make much sense.If the Romans did crucify Jesus- ant that is a big IF- then it was because he was a disruptive influence on their regime at the time.Clarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17836679819711814306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-49021095050130523782010-05-07T14:01:45.828-04:002010-05-07T14:01:45.828-04:00Proverbs 28:5 (ESV) Evil men do not understand jus...Proverbs 28:5 (ESV) Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it completely.Ex N1hilohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05386655937760778985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-45856770265068690102010-05-07T13:48:33.484-04:002010-05-07T13:48:33.484-04:00It's a question of authority. God, who made y...It's a question of authority. God, who made you and gave you your conscience, has clarified what justice is, and how it is satisfied in the atonement by imputation.<br /><br />To reject His clarification as found in Isaiah 53:5, 1 Peter 2:24 and 3:18, Hebrews 9:14, Romans 5, etc., is to place one's own opinion over the testimony of one's Creator and thus to insure that one's understanding of justice fails on this point.Ex N1hilohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05386655937760778985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-882699495059104312.post-86544043657534643672010-05-07T10:52:28.725-04:002010-05-07T10:52:28.725-04:00It is true that a minority of evangelicals have of...<i>It is true that a minority of evangelicals have offered alternative theories of the atonement but they have been roundly criticized as unbiblical by the overwhelming majority of the movement.</i><br /><br />Maybe that's the problem. The seeds of penal substitution theory (that Christ died to satisfy the demands of God's justice; Luther, Calvin) are in the bible, but you can make a stronger case for either satisfaction theory (that Christ died to satisfy the demands of God's honor; Anselm) or ransom redemption theory (that God tricked the devil by offering Jesus as a payment, and Satan was foiled by the resurrection). I'm not a Christian, mind you, so I don't have much at stake here. I'm only pointing out that it's not terribly hard to shoot down the theory based strictly on justice.<br /><br />But even more importantly: I don't know that any of these three atonement theories must be seen as prerequisites for Christian belief. Stephen Finlan, for instance, rejects all of them, believing that the Incarnation is the central doctrine of Christianity, while atonement is something Christianity can (and should) do without. In place of atonement, he suggests the principle of theosis, whereby "the Word became man so that you might learn from man how man may become God" (See his <i>Problems with Atonement</i>, p 121). He's not advocating gnosticism; in his opinion, "those who teach that every person is as divine as Christ is (such as the gnostic gospel of Philip) lose sight of the Incarnation, and cannot really be called Christian" (ibid, p 4). He's simply advocating what orthodox thinkers like Athanasius and Clement of Alexandria maintained, that people may be deified on account of the "the Word becoming man". Finlan writes:<br /><br />"Theosis has a biblical basis, and this should not be forgotten. There is the promise that 'you may become participants of the divine nature' (II Pet 1:4); there is the command to become perfect, Godlike (Mt 5:48); there are the prophecies of doing greater things than Jesus did (Jn 14:12) and of revelations yet to be seen (Jn 1:51). Theosis means each person incarnating divinity in his or her small way, inspired by the direct Incarnation of divinity that took place in Galilee and Judea." (pp 121-122)<br /><br />So perhaps, ironically, the bible carries within itself the seeds for transcending/rejecting atonement theories.Loren Rosson IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15002312216839280976noreply@blogger.com