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.
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…
Does this mean that you aren’t considering my questions or that you haven’t seen them? I truly hope you’d answer these sincere questions, I’d be interested in your response.
Our Life Is But a Span 
I’m not sure what this post means, but I DO like the title of your blog here…
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.
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…
Does this mean that you aren’t considering my questions or that you haven’t seen them? I truly hope you’d answer these sincere questions, I’d be interested in your response.
In Christ,
Dan