Sentences with phrase «penal substitution»

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

This is called the «appeasement theory» or «penal substitution theory» of the atonement, and is the idea that the death of Jesus appeased the wrath of God.

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.

Nevin's focus on a mystical union in which the Spirit fills the Incarnate Son and then fills the Church with this same presence moved him away from penal substitution and toward a Christus victor notion of the atonement.

In his newest work Wittmer eruditely works through some of the most controversial issues in Christian thought today, such as whether or not we need to believe specific things to be saved, if people are basically good, the ethical issues of homosexuality, the controversies of whether penal substitution is divine child abuse, and whether it is even possible to know God or his word in any real sense.

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

Bobby, I am new to this whole way of viewing penal substitution also, so I appreciate you being a sounding board.

I see it time and time again from those who deny penal substitution and Hell.

2008: The Gods Aren't Angry tour and DVD raises concerns among some evangelicals that Bell is rejecting penal substitution.

I have some reformed friends who equate the gospel with penal substitution, to question that doctrine is to question the gospel and in their eyes make one «unsaved» this makes no sense to me at all.

I have been taught that to abandon penal substitution is to abandon the Gospel and cut myself off from grace.

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.

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.

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

It's a topic I'm wrestling through at the moment, and I'm honestly not sure where I stand on penal substitution.

A dour lot, for sure — penal substitution atonement, total depravity, etc..

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

Also, I am not a proponent of the penal substitution theory of the atonement, which states (among other things) that God had to pour out His wrath on Jesus so that we could be loved.

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

And that's why the teaching that looks at the cross as a penal substitution is so wrong (or should I say evil?)

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

That is not the language of penal substitution.

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

God is Redeeming Theology Bible & Theology Topics: atonement, christus victor, crucifixion, crucivision, death of Jesus, Easter, penal substitution, resurrection, Theology of Jesus, Theology of Sin

You wrote with the theroies od atonement and penal substitution being conveyed it appears to you that the message comes across that «God is more angry than anything and apparently doesn't like us at all».

Like you, I do not hold to the penal substitution theory of the atonement.

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

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.

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!

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

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

David, unless you repent there will be no penal substitution for you.

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.

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.