Comments on: The Boundaries of Evangelicalism http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/10/evangelical-boundarie/ A First Things Blog Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Jeremy Pierce http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/10/evangelical-boundarie/#comment-311 Jeremy Pierce Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:57:50 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=250#comment-311 I linked to my friend Wink's post on that, where he explains exactly what he means, much better than I could, so you could read his explanation. He definitely retains the penal element. I wouldn't include rejection of the penal element as easily compatible with evangelicalism. It's at least much closer to the fringes than Wink's view, which I think is close to the core in what it affirms. The short version is that he thinks the atonement is about our union with Christ. We're punished in our union with Christ as we are united with him on the cross. We're saved in our union with Christ as we are raised with him to new life. He doesn't substitute for us, because we're there with him on the cross dying with us. It's not instead of our dying, because we don't get out of the whole dying thing at all. We do experience it. Substitutionary atonement insists that Christ died so we didn't have to. Penal union says rather that we did actually die in his death (and it was a punishment), so his death wasn't a substitution at all. So it's penal but not substitutionary. I linked to my friend Wink’s post on that, where he explains exactly what he means, much better than I could, so you could read his explanation. He definitely retains the penal element. I wouldn’t include rejection of the penal element as easily compatible with evangelicalism. It’s at least much closer to the fringes than Wink’s view, which I think is close to the core in what it affirms.

The short version is that he thinks the atonement is about our union with Christ. We’re punished in our union with Christ as we are united with him on the cross. We’re saved in our union with Christ as we are raised with him to new life. He doesn’t substitute for us, because we’re there with him on the cross dying with us. It’s not instead of our dying, because we don’t get out of the whole dying thing at all. We do experience it. Substitutionary atonement insists that Christ died so we didn’t have to. Penal union says rather that we did actually die in his death (and it was a punishment), so his death wasn’t a substitution at all. So it’s penal but not substitutionary.

]]> By: Terry Tiessen http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/10/evangelical-boundarie/#comment-309 Terry Tiessen Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:15:56 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=250#comment-309 You wrote: "I might include people who reject the substitutionary element of the atonement but retain a penal element." That one puzzles me. It isn't something I recall meeting and I can't construct how it would look. Any chance you intended to speak of people who reject the penal element while retaining the substitutionary? That I am familiar with. If you meant exactly what you said, can you unpack a bit further the "penal non-substitutionary" view? Thanks. You wrote: “I might include people who reject the substitutionary element of the atonement but retain a penal element.”

That one puzzles me. It isn’t something I recall meeting and I can’t construct how it would look. Any chance you intended to speak of people who reject the penal element while retaining the substitutionary? That I am familiar with.

If you meant exactly what you said, can you unpack a bit further the “penal non-substitutionary” view?

Thanks.

]]>