PSA or PST or (P)
I continue to think about the critiques of the Penal Substitution Theory of the Atonement. Here are my latest meanderings!
The article at this link isn't a defense per se, but it's a good read. I hope that it could help as you think through your take on penal substitution.
Years ago I wrote a blog post pertinent to sin and redemption, which covers Christology, Anthropology, and Soteriology. I identify the only two internally consistent rival theological systems of thought in Christianity and a third compromise system. Most Christians likely fall into the compromise position, somewhere along a spectrum of developed theology. You can find it here. The post largely captures what I believe, though I might state things today in a more nuanced way to achieve a greater specificity in some areas or to open it up to more debate in other areas.
Flipping through the dissertation (The Logic of Divine-Human Reconciliation: A Critical Analysis of Penal Substitution as An Explanatory Feature of Atonement by Blaine Swen) has led me to some further conclusions:
- I believe the author is Arminian and develops his theology along these lines. This means that many of our fundamental premises will differ (I am a Calvinist). Also see my blog post linked above on why this is an issue. His reference list is radically different from what mine would be, if that makes sense.
- I am interested in the idea that Jesus appeared to forgive without demanding reparation. The author of the dissertation does not put a citation in that sentence, but cites a Calvinist presentation in the previous paragraph (a bunny trail here, I follow up in the fourth bullet) (read it here). As I am a Calvinist, I am interested why a speaker would say something that I would take issue with. But it became clear to me after listening (reading software!) to most of his speech that we come from different camps regarding the continuity between the OT and NT as specifically relating to the application of biblical law in the NT church (I am a Theonomist).
- In searching for the speech I just mentioned (I found the above link on this page), I discovered a [late] former evangelical christian then agnostic atheist who criticized penal substitution. Interestingly he also criticizes Philosophical Theology. I kind of agree with his assessment of Philosophical Theology as he sort of agrees with my position (I am a Presuppositionalist), though he does not perfectly represent it.
- After realizing I was looking at the wrong citation, I edited the second bullet and followed through on the relevant citation. Perusing the Google book, looking up names (Rene Girard ... mimetic desire and scapegoat mechanism ... NO!), and reading the back cover has left me bewildered why the author of the dissertation would even quote this book favorably. Maybe the philosophies align with his Arminianism.
Make Your Choice, Your Choice is Made for You
As I have reviewed these issues I am reminded that theological camps differ greatly and that premises determine outcomes (if arguments are cogent). That being said, I don't wish to end the discussion but I would rather discuss presuppositions, world views, philosophical underpinnings, etc. If you want to know why someone would be a Calvinist or the type of Calvinist that I am, I would love to discuss it. Anything else is window shopping (as opposed to "how did the product get there?"). Choosing your theological camp largely determines your theological positions with regard to specific doctrines. That sounds like a tautology. But my point is to say that arguing which building has the greater structural integrity without discussing foundations is futile.
