Recently I spent some time defending penal substitution. But while it’s necessary to defend penal substitution when it comes under attack, it shouldn’t be necessary to defend penal substitution.
Intellectuals can fall into the trap of demanding a rational justification for everything. But that’s not always the appropriate response. There are situations where that represents a mischievous or even malicious use of one’s intelligence.
Suppose your mother bakes you a birthday cake. How should you respond? When she brings it to the dining table, should you demand that she furnish an intellectual justification for her birthday present?
No. That’s no way to treat a gift. The proper response is “Thank-you!”
When God is gracious to us, we should at least be grateful. God’s grace, our gratitude. Is that too much to ask?
For people to attack the logic of penal substitution is no way to treat a priceless gift. That’s an act of supreme ingratitude.
My point is not that penal substitution is illogical, but we should overlook that fact. I don’t think it’s illogical. But that’s beside the point. Our response to penal substitution ought to be one of thankfulness, not a thankless, confrontational protest. It’s difficult to adequately convey the degree of impudence which such a defiant attitude reflects.
It’s as if you desperately needed a blood transfusion to survive, a friend offers to donate his blood on the spot, and you make it a requirement that he defend his generous offer to your personal satisfaction.
Steve said: It’s as if you desperately needed a blood transfusion to survive, a friend offers to donate his blood on the spot, and you make it a requirement that he defend his generous offer to your personal satisfaction.
ReplyDeleteWere you defending against unbelievers or believers?
I guess I'm not sure who you were defending against, but this certainly isn't an analogy that fits someone like Pulliam.
In Ken's case, he claims to believe that he doesn't need a transfusion. So he's demanding an explanation of something he claims not to need.
Most unbelievers aren't ready to admit they need saved, which is one of the uses of the Law.
Good point. A heart of gratitude is refreshing.
ReplyDeleteI remember arguing with some of the "cosmic child abuse" crowd. And I simply asked what do you think of Isaiah 53?
Just ponder that chapter about Christ and the heart is humbled and edified as well.
And we did have a discussion as well. Maybe I should have let it go.
Fosi,
ReplyDeleteI was responding to both.
It's true that Ken rejects the premise, but as you know I've also responded to Ken on his own terms. So it's not as if I'm begging the question.
The issue of unbelievers is not that straightforward, for, of course, ingratitude is why they're unbelievers in the first place. Although they rationalize their position, the underlying motivation is emotional.
"It’s difficult to adequately convey the degree of impudence which such a defiant attitude reflects."
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, give it a try anyways.
;-)
Steve said: So it's not as if I'm begging the question.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I was just looking for some clarification of who the antagonists were since all I paid attention to was your exchange with Ken's comments.
Steve said: Although [unbelievers] rationalize their position, the underlying motivation is emotional.
I'll agree here as well and add that this fits a lot of self-claimed Christians as well.
"For people to attack the logic of penal substitution is no way to treat a priceless gift. That’s an act of supreme ingratitude."
ReplyDeleteFor people to attack the logic of Anselmian satisfaction is no way to treat a priceless gift. That’s an act of supreme ingratitude.
Steve, Christians who attack the logic of penal substitution are saying that there was no penal substitution. That was not God's gift. He had another way, in and through Christ's death, of reconciling men to God.
And if the illogicality of penal substitution is beside the point, as you say, then I fail to say how your point is other than that if penal substitution were illogical, we should overlook that fact.
I think you have confused the the logic of penal substitution with acceptance of God's grace in salvation. If to question the logic is impudent, then the logic of the atonement can never be questioned and we cannot know if it was penal substitution (as distinct from, say, Anselmian satisfaction).
SRNEC SAID:
ReplyDelete"For people to attack the logic of Anselmian satisfaction is no way to treat a priceless gift.”
Irrelevant. That’s not what I’ve been debating or defending in my recent posts.
“Steve, Christians who attack the logic of penal substitution are saying that there was no penal substitution. That was not God's gift. He had another way, in and through Christ's death, of reconciling men to God.”
And their denial is an act of insolent ingratitude. Snubbing the vicarious atonement of Christ because they find blood atonement personally offensive to their refined sensibilities.
“And if the illogicality of penal substitution is beside the point, as you say, then I fail to say how your point is other than that if penal substitution were illogical, we should overlook that fact.”
We shouldn’t begin with our preconception of what’s logical or not, then spurn the vicarious atonement of Christ in case it doesn’t mesh with our proud and fallible preconception. Rather, we should thank God for his inestimable gift to unworthy sinners.
“I think you have confused the the logic of penal substitution with acceptance of God's grace in salvation.”
God’s grace in salvation takes the form of penal substitution.
“If to question the logic is impudent, then the logic of the atonement can never be questioned and we cannot know if it was penal substitution (as distinct from, say, Anselmian satisfaction).”
To the contrary, we can trust the superior wisdom of God. God is more logical than you or I can even imagine.
"God’s grace in salvation takes the form of penal substitution."
ReplyDeleteYes, but "God's grace in salvation" and "penal substitution" are not synonymous (even if co-extensive), so denial of the latter implies no denial of the former. You're committing the intensional fallacy throughout.
If someone claims to be grateful for the vicarious atonement, but denies penal substitution as the logic of it, you are in no position to dispute their gratefulness for the former based on the latter claim.
In Scripture, salvation by grace includes penal substitution. Therefore, to deny penal substitution denies a specific means by which God saves his people. And in Scripture, vicarious atonement involves penal substitution.
ReplyDelete"In Scripture, salvation by grace includes penal substitution."
ReplyDeleteAmen, and so be it.
What a God and Savior!
" For God has laid our sins not upon us, but upon Christ His Son, that He, bearing our punishment, might be our peace and that by His stripes we might be healed (Isaiah 53). To all this the Scripture bears witness" -Martin Luther, commentary on Galatians 3:13
If God communicates with us, then it is reasonable that he provides the sort of foundation for making the medium of his revelation obvious to those of us who have the Holy Spirit. We know this medium as the written word, specifically the Bible. The truth revealed in the Bible therefore resonates with us.
ReplyDeleteGiven that God is omniscient and we are not, it stands to reason that there will be things that we do not fully understand. That doesn't mean that we can't know the truth of a thing. I offer this analogy:
I know my car will run and I mostly understand how, but there are many details about it's operation that elude me. Someone else may have a greater understanding of the car than I do and someone else may have a lesser understanding of the car than I do. However, we may all know that it serves it's purpose to transport us to our destination. I can learn about the car in case I need to add fuel to the tank, oil to the block or air to the tires. I may need some professional help to change filters or other components or to have the vehicle regularly inspected. These are normal things that require various levels of knowledge and understanding. I have to say, only the designers fully understand the way today's automotive computers function. The manual makes some mention of the computer, but not explain it. It's not necessary for me to know in order to trust the vehicle to function.
Likewise with things theological. There are some who know much more than I do about God. There are many who know less. The Bible makes reference to many things it doesn't fully explain, but it tells us what we need to know in order to progress in our relationship with God.
It astonishes me how some people think they can't believe God unless they understand everything about him. They even doubt that others can understand more than they can. I've had too many discussions with believers and non-believers alike who dismissed what I pointed out from scripture that they didn't understand. I had one Muslim try to argue that the doctrine of the trinity couldn't be true because it was too complicated to understand. I have had Arminians try to argue that Calvinism can't be true because they can't understand it. And they also argued vehemently that I couldn't understand it either because they couldn't understand it.
Penal substitution is clearly presented in the Bible. It's foolish for anyone to think that because they can't make sense of penal substitution that the Bible can't mean what it plainly says about it. That does nothing but weaken their hermeneutic, clouding their certainty in what the Bible says about anything.
It's better, rather, to take the Bible for what it says and change our thinking through much prayer and meditation on what it says so that our understanding increases. In this way our hermeneutic is strengthened, we are more certain about who God is, and know better how to help others in their understanding.
Penal substitution is clearly outlined in the Bible. It's foolish for anyone to think that because they can't make sense of penal substitution that the Bible can't mean what it plainly says about it.
ReplyDelete