I tried sending an email in the “email me” box, but it did not appear to go through. Here was my email…
Hi Ron, I had a question for you that was sort of off-topic at the Juicy site, so I thought I’d ask here. I hope that’s okay. You said…
“No penal substitutionary atonement = no biblical Gospel.”
My question to this comment would be: Do you think that unless someone rightly understands the meaning of atonement as referenced in the NT one time, which some Christians have much later theorized as the PSA, that there can be no salvation outside a right understanding of – and total agreement with – the 16th Century PSA theory?
My concern there would be that this falls into that “must-have-perfect-understanding” approach to salvation which we agreed is not part of the Gospel message of salvation by grace, not by works…
I hope you might have time and energy to answer this, I’m curious as to the strength to which you’ve tied this modern theory to the gospel.
Oh, and I saw on the other page where you suggested it isn’t a modern theory, but only a modern name for what I presume you think is the original and only church-approved theory? If so, I would question how you reach that conclusion, from what I’ve heard, we don’t know for sure what the early church thought about atonement, but one of the more commonly-offered suggestions was that the early church leaned more towards a Ransom Theory of Atonement.
It seems to me one of the worrisome aspects of modern evangelicalism (and I think the point that Bush was probably making in those excerpts at the other blog…): That people MUST agree with OUR understanding of salvation and God and biblical interpretation in order to be saved…
I hold to the teaching that we are sinful, fallen humans who are not capable of perfection or perfect knowledge in this world and, thus, God does not save us by our perfect knowledge, but by God’s grace.
Our Life Is But a Span 
I tried sending an email in the “email me” box, but it did not appear to go through. Here was my email…
Hi Ron, I had a question for you that was sort of off-topic at the Juicy site, so I thought I’d ask here. I hope that’s okay. You said…
“No penal substitutionary atonement = no biblical Gospel.”
My question to this comment would be: Do you think that unless someone rightly understands the meaning of atonement as referenced in the NT one time, which some Christians have much later theorized as the PSA, that there can be no salvation outside a right understanding of – and total agreement with – the 16th Century PSA theory?
My concern there would be that this falls into that “must-have-perfect-understanding” approach to salvation which we agreed is not part of the Gospel message of salvation by grace, not by works…
I hope you might have time and energy to answer this, I’m curious as to the strength to which you’ve tied this modern theory to the gospel.
Oh, and I saw on the other page where you suggested it isn’t a modern theory, but only a modern name for what I presume you think is the original and only church-approved theory? If so, I would question how you reach that conclusion, from what I’ve heard, we don’t know for sure what the early church thought about atonement, but one of the more commonly-offered suggestions was that the early church leaned more towards a Ransom Theory of Atonement.
It seems to me one of the worrisome aspects of modern evangelicalism (and I think the point that Bush was probably making in those excerpts at the other blog…): That people MUST agree with OUR understanding of salvation and God and biblical interpretation in order to be saved…
I hold to the teaching that we are sinful, fallen humans who are not capable of perfection or perfect knowledge in this world and, thus, God does not save us by our perfect knowledge, but by God’s grace.
What say you?