Comments on: The Necessity of Penal Substitution (Part 2)

By: Ben W.

Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:24:47 +0000

Amen brother!

]]>

By: Brian A

Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:13:39 +0000

Great post, David, and great discussion.

I have not heard preachers use the “Ransom Theory,” exactly, but I do recognize that there is a general confusion about the meaning of Jesus’ sacrifice, and I appreciate such a thoughtful explanation. It’s so easy to be imprecise.

Reading it makes me praise God and thank him for the wonderful cross, where all my sins were forgiven. I remember again the great relief of knowing that I am helpless but that his blood covers me completely.

]]>

By: Ben W

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:40:25 +0000

This doctrine shows the heinousness of sin and the marvelous grace and mercy of God.

God is infinite. We are finite sinners. We could never “work off” one little sin that we commit against God. God could punish all the sinners for eternity in hell; however, there would be less justice displayed in the punishment of sinners than in the death of Christ. Jesus bore the full measure of God’s wrath to satisfy God’s infinite hatred of sin. We are forgiven; we are counted as righteous, all because of the penal substitution of Jesus Christ.

Why would he want to save wanton sinners like us? We are on par with Gomer, the rebels who died alongside Jesus, the Geresene demoniac, Barabbas, Jezebel and Ahab. Would any of us want to save any of those people? Jesus left his righteous and holy throne to be with sinners. He was punished as a rebel in our place. He lived the life we should have lived and died the death we should have died to save us!

]]>

By: Joe

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:51:21 +0000

Yes, David, you are correct; in fact, as I first read what you wrote about Ransom Theory, my mind immediately went to C.S. Lewis and Aslan. I guess if some early church fathers and C.S. Lewis found it compelling, I shouldn’t just dismiss it out of hand. There does seem to be some validity to it. As I read the accounts of the crucifixion, it seems as though Jesus, while submitting himself to the Father, was allowing evil men and Satan to do whatever he wanted, at least for a time. And there is certainly a lot of language in the Psalms about this. But ultimately, I believe we are free because God freed us, not because Satan allowed us to go.

Thanks again for this article and this discussion; I learned a lot from it.

]]>

By: Ben Toh

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 16:38:46 +0000

Actually, I’ve heard the “ransom theory” taught in our sermons without calling it the “ransom theory.” The analogy used was regarding freeing the American hostages in Iran during the time of former President Carter. Supposedly Iran wanted U.S. dollars in exchange for the hostages, while Satan demands a blood payment to release his captives, and only the blood of Jesus is able to pay the ransom price to set us sinners free.

But as Dave pointed out, Satan is not the controlling factor, and more importantly the most offended party is God himself, who needs Jesus to be a propitiation for our sins, to satisfy and appease and absorb God’s wrath that we sinners deserve.

]]>

By: David L

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:47:17 +0000

Thanks guys, praise God. Actually the ransom theory of the atonement was very popular with some of the early church fathers. And interestingly, in C. S. Lewis’ book “The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe” it is portrayed as well (with some slight variation). If you remember, Aslan offers himself as payment to the witch who then lets Edmond go in exchange.

]]>

By: Henoch

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:22:27 +0000

David, thank you for this excellent summary of such an central and essential Christian doctrine.
Similarly to Joe, i have to say that i never heard of the “ransom theory” being actually taught and preached somewhere. The only time i came across this theory was when i was reading through commentaries on Mark 10:45.

]]>

By: Joe

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:33:34 +0000

David, thanks for submitting this nice pair of articles.

I like the way you presented evidence from Scripture, tradition, reason and experience: the good old Wesleyan quadrilateral.

In my limited experience, penal substitution is the primary way that modern evangelical Christians understand and present the gospel. That was certainly the way it was presented to me in UBF Bible studies and messages, and it is what I have mostly heard in other churches and in Christian media. I had never heard of Ransom Theory as a serious competitor; the weight of biblical evidence is against it. I never thought of Christus Victor as an alternative theory of atonement; I thought it was simply what the Bible teaches. When Christ ascended to heaven, he sat down at the right hand of the Father and began to rule the heavens and the earth. That is the punchline of the first evangelistic message by Peter in Acts 2:36: Jesus is Lord and Christ. I think it is possible to preach an evangelistic message without explicitly appealing to Penal Substitution. However, a balanced understanding of the gospel must certainly include Penal Substitution. And it should include other ways presented in the Bible, such as the message of the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus in the synoptic gospels.

Thanks again. God bless.

]]>