The truth that the blood represents the outflowing power of the resurrection from the dead was hooted down in the early 20th century by orthodox Evangelicals under the delusive influences of penal substitution. [2/06/9]
Theologians may quibble over the “recipient” of Christ’s “payment” (apodo–) or ransom, and whether it was literal or figurative, etc. But why, then, do they not hassle over whether and how and to whom God “gave” (dido–) His Son? Has pedantry sucked the vitality and simplicity right down a black hole of fruitless wrangling when aggregate New Testament contexts could elegantly clarify the common use of these words? [2/06/09]
It may seem commendable to stay loyally, even ferociously, attached to the only concept of justice one can see in Scripture and to reflexively denounce, accordingly, the usurpation of its exalted status by other redemptive categories when the issue of atonement is at stake. Good enough. But what if the penal justice so roundly invoked and defended in this connection is only half the picture delineated by Scripture…and not the redemptive, saving half? This is precisely the situation confronting the many centuries long dominance of “penal substitution” within theology. The challenger of “penal substitution” as the modus operandi of atonement is no longer some other category, such as love, mercy, forgiveness, grace, or what have you, no matter how they may be variously conceived. No, the new contender is a superior justice—a category that will not give way to the claims of other categories, legitimate as they surely are within the proper limits of their inspired contexts. This category will stand its ground against the stream of opposition to diluting God’s righteous claims—a prerogative proudly clutched by the proponents of “penal substitution.” The issue has now been drawn, and the battle pitched, on level ground: WHICH JUSTICE SHALL PREVAIL IN REDEMPTION, PENAL OR RESTORATIVE? Who shall take the field and securely plant the banner of victory: a penal justice deflected from its deserving objects to a sinless Savior, or a restorative justice directed to a deserving Savior and therein magnified to the surprisingly enormous benefit even of undeserving sinners? This is the NEW BATTLEGROUND. [2/06/09]
God surrendered His Son, Jesus, to the “tender mercies” of sinners and their injustices in order to prove His own justice was powerful enough to reverse the injuries and, in the process, overcompensate him for them so that all sinners could avail themselves of that eruption of graciousness, too! THUS DID GOD’S TENDER MERCIES “REPAY” OURS! [2/09/09]
It was not Adam’s intention to die when he ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In fact, he was assured by Satan that he would “not surely die.” The generality of history, down almost to the person, has proven him sadly, tragically, wrong. With One Supreme Exception. Adam proved only that sin leads to death. Jesus proved that righteousness leads to life…superabundant life! This is the way he took away the sin of the world—of anyone who believes, regardless of ethnicity or personal history. By giving us back an authentic foretaste of the healing from the diseases that sin brought and even of the resurrection life that will one day completely engulf and expunge the death that is sin’s ultimate dread fruit, Jesus released us and liberated us from our sin. ALL FOR FREE! All for the taking, “without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1)! [2/10/09]
The Premial Atonement 