DOCSLIB.ORG

The Logic of Divine-Human Reconciliation: a Critical Analysis of Penal Substitution As an Explanatory Feature of Atonement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Logic of Divine-Human Reconciliation: a Critical Analysis of Penal Substitution As an Explanatory Feature of Atonement Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2012 The Logic of Divine-Human Reconciliation: A Critical Analysis of Penal Substitution as An Explanatory Feature of Atonement Blaine Swen Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Swen, Blaine, "The Logic of Divine-Human Reconciliation: A Critical Analysis of Penal Substitution as An Explanatory Feature of Atonement" (2012). Dissertations. 414. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/414 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2012 Blaine Swen LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO THE LOGIC OF DIVINE-HUMAN RECONCILIATION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PENAL SUBSTITUTION AS AN EXPLANATORY FEATURE OF ATONEMENT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY BY BLAINE ANTHONY SWEN CHICAGO, IL DECEMBER 2012 Copyright by Blaine Anthony Swen, 2012 All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the many professors of the Philosophy Department at Loyola University Chicago for their guidance and inspiration during my time at Loyola. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Thomas L. Carson, Dr. Andrew Cutrofello, Dr. Heidi Malm, Dr. James Murphy, S.J., Dr. David T. Ozar, and Dr. K. David Yandell. I am especially grateful to my director and advisor, Dr. Paul K. Moser for his invaluable insight and direction. I would also like to thank Loyola University Chicago, The Loyola University Center for Ethics, and The Ethics AdviceLine for Journalists for the financial support which made completing this project possible. Finally, I am extremely grateful to my family and friends for their support and encouragement. I would like to thank my parents, Mitchell and Debra Swen, as well as Chris Anderson, W. Scott Cheney, and Mark Rockwell. I am also very thankful to Carolyn Pichert for her tireless support and many well-timed words of encouragement. ...if one earnestly and devoutly weighs the mysteries of the Incarnation, he will find so great a depth of wisdom that it exceeds human knowledge. In the Apostle's words: "The foolishness of God is wiser than men" (I Cor 1:25). Hence it happens that to him who devoutly considers it, more and more wondrous aspects of this mystery are made manifest. Saint Thomas Aquinas TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi ABSTRACT vii INTRODUCTION 1 Overview 1 Fourteen Problems for Penal Substitution 9 CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM OF SIN 25 Introduction 25 Four Conceptions of the Problem of Sin 26 Schleiermacher’s Conception of the Problem of Sin and Its Solution 43 Kierkegaard’s Conception of the Problem of Sin and Its Solution 73 CHAPTER 2: SATISFACTION AND GOD'S EXTENSION OF FORGIVENESS 100 Introduction 100 Personal Reconciliation, Forgiveness, and Satisfaction 101 Anselm's Theory of Satisfaction 115 Aquinas's Theory of Satisfaction 137 CHAPTER 3: SATISFACTION AND HUMAN APPROPRIATION OF FORGIVENESS 154 Introduction 154 Personal Reconciliation, Human Appropriation of Forgiveness, and Satisfaction 155 A Divine-Manifest Offering Account of Penal Substitution 161 Richard Swinburne's Theory of Satisfaction 182 Eleonore Stump's Theory of Satisfaction 198 CHAPTER 4: A DIVINE-MANIFEST OFFERING APPROACH TO PENAL SUBSTITUTION AND THE FOURTEEN OBJECTIONS AGAINST PENAL SUBSTITUTION 209 Introduction 209 A Divine-Manifest Offering Approach to Penal Substitution and the Problems for Penal Substitution as a Theory of Satisfaction 209 A Divine-Manifest Offering Approach to Penal Substitution and the Problems for Penal Substitution as Vicarious Satisfaction 226 A Divine-Manifest Offering Approach to Penal Substitution and the Problems for Penal Substitution as Penal 248 Conclusion 263 APPENDIX A: ANALYTIC OUTLINE 264 iv REFERENCE LIST 292 VITA 301 v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CDH Anselm, Cur Deus Homo. CF Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith. CT Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae. DMP divine-manifest offering approach to penal substitution F&T Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling. M Anselm, Monologium. MHR Anselm, Meditation on Human Redemption. P Anselm, Proslogium. SCG Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles. SS Schleiermacher, "Second Speech: The Nature of Religion" in On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers. ST Aquinas, Summa Theologica. SUD Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death. vi ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to offer an analysis of the major conceptual and ethical problems facing penal substitution insofar as it is utilized as an explanatory feature of Christ's contribution to divine-human reconciliation. I present fourteen problems and argue that penal substitution can overcome these problems by embracing a "divine-manifest offering" approach to atonement. On this approach, God mercifully chooses to require satisfaction for sin through penal substitution in order to give God's Self the opportunity to meet this requirement by satisfaction through penal self- substitution. This divine self-substitution is intended by God to elicit a free human response of openness to a personal relationship of mutual love with God. Its effectiveness in drawing humans to such a relationship with God is a result of its ability to create obstacles to human persistence in alienation (e.g. demonstrating the danger of sin and the value of God's offer of personal reconciliation), to remove obstacles to human appropriation of divine forgiveness (e.g. a subjective perception of shame, doubt of divine justice, doubt of divine love towards humans), and to motivate humans toward divine-human personal reconciliation with a display of the depth of God's love for humans. vii INTRODUCTION Overview The following is a dissertation in philosophy of religion which examines the logic of penal substitution as a key explanatory feature of the doctrine of the atonement. Thesis Several contemporary philosophers have renewed attacks upon penal substitution specifically (e.g. Eleonore Stump and Richard Swinburne) and theories of satisfaction generally (e.g. Philip L. Quinn and Richard Purtill).1 Such attacks have prompted several others to offer defenses of the view (e.g. John E. Hare and Steven L. Porter). The purpose of this research is to offer an analysis of the major conceptual and ethical problems facing penal substitution insofar as it is utilized as an explanatory feature of Christ's contribution to divine-human reconciliation. I argue that penal substitution can overcome these problems by embracing a "divine-manifest offering" approach to atonement.2 According to this view, God does not by God’s nature need satisfaction for sin. Neither does God need satisfaction in order to offer personal reconciliation to fallen humans. Instead, on a divine-manifest offering approach, God mercifully chooses to require satisfaction for sin through penal substitution in order to give God's Self the opportunity to meet this requirement by satisfaction through penal Self-substitution. This 1 "Penal Substitution" and "Satisfaction" are defined below. 2 "Divine-manifest offering" is a phrase employed by Paul K. Moser in The Elusive God. I will discuss this in more detail in chapter 3. 1 2 divine Self-substitution is intended by God to elicit a free human response of openness to a personal relationship of mutual love with God. Its effectiveness in drawing humans to such a relationship with God is a result of its ability to create obstacles to human persistence in alienation (e.g. demonstrating the danger of sin and the value of God's offer of personal reconciliation), to remove obstacles to human appropriation of divine forgiveness (e.g. a subjective perception of shame, doubt of divine justice, and doubt of divine love towards humans), and to motivate humans toward divine-human personal reconciliation with a display of the depth of God's love for humans. Relevant Definitions "Atonement" Many humans report experiencing, to some degree, existential perceptions of guilt, shame, moral self-dissatisfaction, estrangement, loneliness, restlessness, and hopelessness. Many different courses of action are pursued in addressing these existential problems, including, for example, ignoring the problem or denying that the experienced shame has any corresponding basis in actual guilt; or the experienced estrangement corresponds to actual alienation from a real entity. Christian theory has historically interpreted these existential perceptions as indicative of human "sin." While the nature of sin is debated, it is generally agreed that sin includes human moral evil and that such evil is “sin” because it is offensive to or, in some sense, against, God.3 The "problem" with sin is that it has certain negative consequences4 which somehow separate humans relationally from God.5 3 We should note that human moral evil need not be conscious rebellion against God to be considered "sin." Such evil is still before, or against God, even if one does not believe that God exists. 3 The Christian doctrine of the atonement is concerned with the idea that Christ has overcome, or made it possible to overcome, the problem of sin. Christ, in dealing with the problem of sin addresses these consequences in order to contribute
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download "Penal Substitution As an Undivided Work of the Triune God"
    TRINJ 36NS (2015) 51–67 PENAL SUBSTITUTION AS AN UNDIVIDED WORK OF THE TRIUNE GOD KEITH E. JOHNSON* In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas explains, There are two reasons why the knowledge of the divine persons was necessary for us. It was necessary for the right idea of creation.… In another way, and chiefly, that we may think rightly concerning the salvation of the human race, accomplished by the incarnate Son, and by the gift of the Holy Spirit.1 Thomas is not merely reminding his readers that the divine persons cooperate in accomplishing salvation. He is making a much stronger claim—namely, that the Trinity and salvation are inseparably linked in such a way that how one thinks about the Trinity directly affects one’s understanding of salvation.2 The purpose of this essay is to explore Aquinas’s claim that thinking rightly about the Trinity is necessary for thinking rightly about salvation. To this end, I want to show how one fundamental element of the Trinitarian faith confessed by the church—namely, the undivided operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—can help us rightly articulate scriptural teaching regarding the atoning work of Christ. As a test case for my thesis, I will examine the doctrine of penal substitution.3 In recent years, penal substitution has *Keith E. Johnson serves as Director of Theological Education for Cru (Campus Crusade for Christ) and is guest professor of systematic theology at Reformed Seminary in Orlando, Florida. 1Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, Q.32, a.1, ad.3, in St.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Atonement in the Theology of Jacobus Arminius
    JETS 53/4 (December 2010) 773–85 THE NATURE OF ATONEMENT IN THE THEOLOGY OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS j. matthew pinson* Jacobus Arminius is one of the best known and least studied theologians in the history of Christianity. His writings have been neglected by Calvinists and Arminians alike. Calvinists have disliked him because of his opposition to scholastic predestinarian theology. Most Arminians have neglected him because what little they have read of him reminds them more of Calvinism than they like. Arminius scholar Carl Bangs is correct when he says that most modern treatments of Arminius assume a definition of Arminianism that does not come from Arminius. Bangs states that most interpreters of Arminianism begin with a preconception of what Arminius should be expected to say, then look in his published works, and do not find exactly what they are looking for. They show impatience and disappointment with his Calvinism, and shift the inquiry into some later period when Arminianism turns out to be what they are looking for—a non-Calvinistic, synergistic, and perhaps semi-Pelagian system.1 This is the approach many scholars have taken toward Arminius regard- ing his doctrine of atonement. For example, the Calvinist scholar Robert L. Reymond has said that the Arminian theory of atonement is the governmental theory, which “denies that Christ’s death was intended to pay the penalty for sin.” He claims that the governmental theory’s “germinal teachings are in Arminius.”2 Similarly, well-known Wesleyan-Arminian scholar James K. Grider states: “A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scriptural Necessity of Christ's Penal Substitution
    TMSJ 20/2 (Fall 2009) 139-148 THE SCRIPTURAL NECESSITY OF CHRIST’S PENAL SUBSTITUTION Richard L. Mayhue, Th.D. Senior Vice-President and Dean Professor of Pastoral Ministry and Theology This introductory essay overviews the indispensable theme of Christ’s penal substitution on Golgotha’s cross. The subject unfolds in two parts; the first section provides background and context for this essential theological truth. The second section reasons that three compelling biblical necessities require a true believer in Jesus Christ to understand scripturally and accept the Savior’s penal substitution on behalf of redeemed sinners, especially oneself. The landscape/backdrop for this article provides (1) a definition of “Christ’s penal substitution,” (2) statements by representative defenders and objectors to this doctrine, and (3) an introduction to subsequent and more focused writings in this issue of TMSJ. Then follows the proposition that Scripture must necessarily be understood as consistently (in both OT and NT) teaching Christ’s penal substitution, which rests on three convincing biblical lines of thinking: (1) revelational evidence, (2) lexical evidence, and (3) theological evidence. The writer thus concludes that this teaching is clear, not obscure, thoroughly biblical, not humanly contrived, and essential to personal salvation, not optional. * * * * * America’s highest military honor, given for conspicuous gallantry at the risk of one’s life above and beyond the call of duty, has been since 1863 the Congres- sional Medal of Honor (hereafter CMH). To date 3,467 heroes have earned this medal associated with gallantry that more times than not cost the recipients their lives. Over 60% (522) of the 850 CMH awarded from WWII until now have been received posthumously.
    [Show full text]
  • Not Penal Substitution but Vicarious Punishment
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 26 Issue 3 Article 2 7-1-2009 Not Penal Substitution But Vicarious Punishment Mark C. Murphy Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Murphy, Mark C. (2009) "Not Penal Substitution But Vicarious Punishment," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 26 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil200926314 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol26/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. NOT PENAL SUBSTITUTION BUT VICARIOUS PUNISHMENT Mark C. Murphy The penal substitution account of the Atonement fails for conceptual reasons: punishment is expressive action, condemning the party punished, and so is not transferable from a guilty to an innocent party. But there is a relative to the penal substitution view, the vicarious punishment account, that is neither conceptually nor morally objectionable. On this view, the guilty person’s punishment consists in the suffering of an innocent to whom he or she bears a special relationship. Sinful humanity is punished through the inglorious death of Jesus Christ; ill-desert is thus requited, and an obstacle to unity with God is overcome. The doctrine of the Atonement raises a number of difficulties, and there is no reason to suppose that a theory of the Atonement organized around a single idea—ransom, or satisfaction, or penal substitution, or whatever— will put paid to all of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Substitution Vs. Medical Substitution: a Historical Comparison
    Penal Substitution vs. Medical-Ontological Substitution: A Historical Comparison Mako A. Nagasawa Last modified: July 15, 2021 Introduction: Who is the Heir of the Ancients? ‘When we ask what the precise nature of this vicarious activity of Christ was, we find Nicene theologians regularly falling back upon familiar biblical and liturgical terms like ransom, sacrifice, propitiation, expiation, reconciliation to describe it, but always with a deep sense of awe before the inexpressible mystery of atonement through the blood of Christ. They used these terms, however…to refer, to not any external transaction between God and mankind carried out by Christ, but to what took place within the union of divine and human natures in the incarnate Son of God .’1 ‘Atonement thus occurs for the Fathers through the dynamic of the incarnation itself, not by way of some extrinsic theory, i.e., satisfaction, penal substitution, and so on. Why, one wonders, did theology subsequently fail to reflect this? I am not sure. Part of the reason, I suspect, lies in how the incarnation came to be largely understood. With focus on the miracle of God becoming flesh in the birth of Jesus, the saving significance of the rest of Jesus’ life was overshadowed. With focus returned, so to speak, on the Cross, the climactic end of Jesus’ life, the impression de facto was that the real meaning of God’s identification lay at the beginning and at the end, not in the entire range of Jesus’ life.’2 Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, the authors of the recent book Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution , claim that penal substitutionary theory stretches back to the earliest fathers of the church.
    [Show full text]
  • The Atonement Debate Within Contemporary Evangelicalism Mick Taylor September 2006
    The Atonement Debate within Contemporary Evangelicalism Mick Taylor September 2006 The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil. (The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann p182-183) It was this quote from a brief section, in the last chapter of a short book that turned academic debate into public controversy. Over the last 20 years there had been developing within British and North American evangelical academia a discussion over what is the correct way to understand the work of Christ on the cross? The chief concern was the status of the doctrine of penal substitution, is it the best model? The only model? Is it scriptural? Is it helpful or harmful? The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann and Steve’s subsequent article on the atonement in the Christianity magazine fathered mountains of correspondence, an EA sponsored debate then in July 2005 a 3 day symposium at the London School of Theology.
    [Show full text]
  • How Penal Substitution Addresses Our Shame: the Bible’S Shame Dynamics and Their Relationships to Evangelical Doctrine David E
    How Penal Substitution addresses our Shame: The Bible’s Shame Dynamics and their Relationships to Evangelical Doctrine David E. Rennalls David E. Rennalls serves as Pastor of Discipleship at the Metropolitan Bible Church in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. He earned his MDiv from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, where he is also completing his PhD in systematic theology. He is writing on the subject of this article, namely how a penal substitution view of the atonement addresses our shame. He presented an earlier version of this article at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. David and his wife, Jennifer, are the parents of three children. Introduction It is difficult not to notice how the notion of shame surfaces in the first chapters of Genesis1 and how the need for men and women to cover them- selves from “the shame of their nakedness” remains in focus even as the canon comes to a close in Revelation.2 The dynamics of shame are intricately woven through the biblical storyline. A significant thrust of scholarship has argued, however, that the language of shame has been largely eclipsed by the language of guilt in western culture at large and in the western theological tradition in particular. An early and influential voice in the current discus- sion was anthropologist Ruth Benedict, who argued in 1946 that Japan and other Eastern civilizations were characterized by concepts of shame and SBJT 23.3 (2019): 77-98 77 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 23.3 (2019) honor which were foreign to the cultures of the West.3 Scholars following Benedict have shown that a hard distinction between “shame cultures” and “guilt cultures” cannot be maintained,4 but the growing awareness of shame’s presence in the West has drawn increasing levels of attention to the topic in western scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Eternal Submission: Changing the Doctrine of the Trinity Endangers the Doctrine of Salvation and Women D
    Against Eternal Submission: Changing the Doctrine of the Trinity Endangers the Doctrine of Salvation and Women D. Glenn Butner Jr. Etienne Gilson spoke of medieval theology as an attempt to submissive to men. For some theologians, EFS serves as the build great “cathedrals of the mind,” mental constructions meant eternal basis for distinguishing between the persons of the to bring glory to God and to inspire worship as soaring stone Trinity in contrast to more traditional accounts of eternal cathedrals across Europe have since the same time period. Like generation (how the Son proceeds from the Father) and spiration any architectural achievement, these mental cathedrals brought (how the Spirit proceeds from the Father).1 For others, eternal together the many pieces of Christian doctrine into coherent submission supplements such traditional accounts of procession2 and often beautiful structures of thought, building idea upon that emphasize the “distinguishing characteristics related to idea until great theological and philosophical systems emerged origin” to explain the “active expression” of the “distinguishing from scriptural foundations. This architectural analogy implies personal characteristics” of the Father, Son, and Spirit.3 However, something important—it is rarely possible to shift the ground all advocates of EFS share the belief that the Son’s submission to floor of a building without the entirety of the construct tumbling the Father in the divine economy (the term theologians typically down. Only with great caution and preparation, whereby new use to speak of God’s work in creation and redemption) points supports are carefully constructed before the old are removed, can back to the Son’s eternal submission within the immanent Trinity such a change go smoothly.
    [Show full text]
  • Raised for Our Justification: the Resurrection and Penal Substitution
    Raised for Our Justifcation: Te Resurrection and Penal Substitution Lee Tankersley Lee Tankersley received his Ph.D. from Te Southern Baptist Teological Seminary. Dr. Tankersley is Pastor of Cornerstone Community Church in Jackson, Tennessee and has writen a number of articles for Southern Baptist Journal of Teology. What seems to have happened is that Western theology has allowed itself to be dominated by a legalistic view of sin and a forensic model of atonement which leaves litle room for resurrection. When the atonement is thought of chiefy in terms of merit and the law, the cross becomes central, but the resurrection drops into the category of subjective redemption. [Tis] idea of atonement does not have much room for resurrection which can go almost unmentioned because it is not required.1 Tat charge came from the pen of Clark Pinnock. It is no secret that Pinnock departed over the course of his life from numerous tenets of evangelicalism. Terefore, it is not surprising to hear his voice among the myriad of self-pro- claimed evangelicals atacking penal substitutionary atonement. However, before dismissing the atack too quickly, we should at least acknowledge an element of truth in these words. I do not mean that there is truth in the claim that a forensic understanding of the atonement leaves no room for the resurrection. I aim in this article to argue otherwise. But there certainly is truth in the claim that the resurrection “can go almost unmentioned” by those of us who proclaim the gospel and understand the atonement as an act of penal substitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Substitution in Church History
    TMSJ 20/2 (Fall 2009) 199-214 PENAL SUBSTITUTION IN CHURCH HISTORY Michael J. Vlach Assistant Professor of Theology Recently, at least since the eighteenth-century liberalism gained a place in Protestantism, the penal-substitution view of Christ’s atonement has come under attack. The claim that the doctrine was unknown in the ancient church has emerged along with the idea that such a teaching was invented by the Reformers. The fact that the first thousand years of ancient Christianity frequently espoused the teaching that Jesus suffered death, punishment, and a curse for fallen humanity as the penalty for human sin shows the falsity of such a claim. The fact that early Christians supported other views of the atonement did not exclude the possibility of their supporting penal substitution also. Other views of the atonement include the classic/ransom, the satisfaction, the moral influence, and the governmental theories. Without discussing penal substitution thoroughly, the following church fathers and writings expressed their support for the theory: Ignatius, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, and Oecumenius. Martin Luther wrote during the second Christian millennium, but he too endorsed penal substitution. Available writings show clearly that the early church supported a penal-substitution view of Christ’s death. * * * * * Since the rise of Protestant liberalism in the eighteenth century, it has become common for some to claim that penal substitution, the view that Christ died on behalf of sinners, is not a biblical doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • John Wesley's Use of the Atonement I 57
    The Asbury Journal 62/2:55-70 © 2007 Asbury Theological Seminary Darren CUSHMAN WOOD John Wesl0':r Use of the Atonement Abstract Even though John Wesley claimed that the atonement was crucial to his theology, he never articulated a systematic theory of the atonement. This paper explores the way in which the atonement functions within his theology as the best approach for deciphering his understanding of the atonement as a foundational concept for his moral theology. The cross functions in his via salutis in two ways. It plays a substitutionary role in the removal of sin and guilt and has a participatory function, through the work of the Holy Spirit, to affect holiness in the life of the believer. These aspects of the atonement are seen in his sermons, New Testament Notes, and the hymns he selected. KEYWORDS: Atonement, John Wesley, Substitutionary Atonement, Cross, Moral Theology Rev. Darren Cushman Wood is Senior Minister of Speedway United Methodist Church in Indianapolis, Indiana. One of the most contentious points of conflict in the United Methodist Church between liberals and conservatives has been the atonement. For conservatives, it is the essential center of the Gospel. Any attempt to remove or diminish the centrality of substitutionary atonement is an attack on the very core of Christian identity and is grounds for "amicable separation" or heresy charges. For liberals, the criticism of substitutionary atonement is twofold. Because it is usually abstracted from the life and teachings ofJ esus, the atonement can lead to apathy toward those who are suffering today. Because it is a part of a patriarchal worldview, the atonement can sanction abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Substitution and Social Transformation
    337 Penal Substitution and Social Transformation Stephen Walton 1. Penal Substitution under attack Introduction Among the accUsations freqUently levelled against the doctrine of penal sUbstitUtion by those who profess to be Evangelicals is that it provides no reason for people to be good, and in particUlar that it provides no basis for social and political transformation. To some extent, this reflects the fact that, since the LaUsanne Congress in 1974, ‘social action’ of a moderately centre-left sort has become a form of orthodoxy amongst many Evangelicals, and any doctrine that woUld challenge the priority given to it has become a heresy. However, many of the qUestions asked are fair ones. The accUsation is not made in the book that ignited the cUrrent controversy, Steve Chalke and Alan Mann’s The Lost Message of Jesus ,1 bUt elsewhere Chalke writes— Has Christ’s death on the Cross got any relevance or meaning beyond the individUal eternal destiny of his followers? What does it mean, if anything, for the wider affairs of oUr commUnities; the UK’s foreign policy; the war on terrorism; trade jUstice; people trafficking; the hopes, ambitions and fears of coUntless millions of people? Can it offer Us any direction as we think aboUt the global challenges hUmanity faces at the beginning of the twenty-first centUry? What was the cosmic reason for JesUs death? And what are the implications today for Us as individUals, as the ChUrch and society as a whole? 2 These are fair qUestions; and the accUsation is made more explicit by his sUpporters, and by those who might be termed fellow-travellers.
    [Show full text]