Sentences with phrase «of penal substitution»

As for this post, are you questioning his portrayal of penal substitution theory?

The theological concept of penal substitution, or substitutionary atonement, means that Christ by his own sacrificial choice was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution), satisfying the demands of God's wrath so that he could justly forgive our sins.

Today some compare the theology of penal substitution to «cosmic child abuse», claiming that this breaks the analogy and is no longer useful.

I think the weakness of the idea of penal substitution is that it misdirects the object of God's anger.

This is how I see the theology of penal substitution: it is a metaphorical attempt to describe the theological journey from rejection to acceptance.

Aside from the fact that this is an example of that penal substitution view rearing it's head, for in this view, God hates sin, and is angry at sinners, and so must kill His Son as a way to appease His own wrath against sin (which doesn't make much biblical or theological sense), the real reason I was shocked to read this statement is because it is the exact opposite of what Paul actually says in Romans 8:32!

While there are many criticisms of the penal substitution theory, the main one rejects God's apparent need to punish transgressions.

I think this could be the basis of a reworking of penal substitution based upon legal fact (Jesus broke the letter of the law), rather than legal fiction.

A powerful commentary on the effect of the penal substitution theory on the Lamb's violent death.

The article was very helpful in seeing some of the differences between different types of penal substitution.

It comes across as deceptive to me, especially when someone disagrees with the very caricature they use as a proper understanding of penal substitution.

Not exact matches

I was a little shocked to see that Derek Flood accused Greg Boyd of teaching penal substitution.

I have often thought classical penal substitution fails because it proposes a kind of legal fiction, whereas we should say God takes the blame because though not guilty he is actually responsible.

But a lot of the passages being looked at to justify penal substitution, will boil down to the type of hermeneutic method, being employed.

In the two chapters on soteriology we find a number of them, for example, a denial of the redemptive dimension of the Incarnation, a purely forensic understanding of the doctrine of justification, and a narrow focus on penal substitution in the doctrine of atonement.

Now I believe in penal substitution atonement but I also believe in what you are saying in regards to the New covenant and the shedding of blood being needed to usher in that covenant.

The penal substitution theory of the atonement states that justice demands the punishment of sin and that Jesus Christ was punished on the cross in our place.

«A pillar of popular penal substitution theology is that God can not tolerate the presence of sin.

Although the penal substitution and ransom theories of atonement are good for putting the cross into full perspective, I like the early Christian view of the cross — Jesus was obedient to His Father (and our heavenly Father), even unto death.