Our faith honors God’s credibility; that’s why it so pleases Him and calls forth His graciousness, which comes to us courtesy of the accomplishment of Jesus Christ. [9/2/10]
Theological discourse about Christ’s being a “substitute” is a slippery slope. Its insistent use is, in point of fact, treacherously intended by its champions to be a slippery slope into the waiting arms (rather, jaws…) of “penal satisfaction.” There is no particular theological or psychological force to the idea of “substitution” per se except as foreplay leading to penal theories concerning atonement. We must beware all blandishments regarding substitution being an “independent” element of the Atonement that Christ is so routinely alleged to have accomplished. To be sure, his being “a ransom in exchange for all” (1 Timothy 2:6) indicates the full extent of the efficacy of his role in the Atonement, but it by no means lends added credence to the notion of any penal quality to his sacrifice. His self-surrender was heroic and fully endorsed by his Father in the resurrectionary sequel. [9/9/10]
Why do translators and theologians render Romans 4:25 as “[he] was given up for our sins and raised for our justification“? Answer: because they think they know better than the apostle Paul what he was trying to say! [9/7/10]
Judging from the closing lines of Anselm’s Cur deus homo we can be fairly certain that he would have instantly repented the errors of his vicarious satisfaction theory, had he been treated to a clear exposition of God’s premial justice and its resurrectionary modus operandi. Would that every penal substitution advocate followed as readily in such amenably penitent footsteps as well. [9/7/10]
The active ingredient in atonement is not punishment at all! Much rather, the essence of atonement is RESTORATION FROM LOSS, REPARATION FOR INJURY. [9/7/10]
The Premial Atonement 