Here's a nugget for you to ponder and exult in as you prepare for corporate worship tomorrow:
The word "penal" . . . is there, not to prompt theoretical puzzlement about the transferring of guilt, but to articulate the insight of believers who, as they look at Calvary in the light of the New Testament, are constrained to say, "Jesus was bearing the judgment I deserved (and deserve), the penalty for my sins, the punishment due to me"--"he loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20). How it was possible for him to bear their penalty they do not claim to know, any more than they know how it was possible for him to be made man; but that he bore it is the certainty on which all their hopes rest (84).May God give us grace to continue resting our hopes on the completed work of his Son!
4 comments:
Please consider this Penal Substitution debate:
http://catholicdefense.googlepages.com/psdebate
I believe the doctrine to be unBiblical, and thus not binding on the Christian.
Thanks for your comment, Nick. I am a firm believer in penal substitutionary atonement because I believe it to be the position expressed in the Scriptures. I'm sorry you do not agree.
Matthew
Matthew,
Could you give me your top few Scriptural passages which you believe teach Penal Substitution.
No, I'm not into getting into debates on the blogosphere. But thanks for asking anyway.
If you're genuinely interested in understanding this viewpoint, I'd suggest the following books:
* John Stott, The Cross of Christ* Steve Jeffrey, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions* J. I. Packer and Mark Dever, In My Place Condemned He StoodBut it sounds to me like you've already made up your mind. As have I. So please, no more comments.
Matthew
Post a Comment