Hi Loz

this is an old thread on Atonement.  You might find it interesting to read some of it from the beginning, if you are interested in discovering what Steve Chalke was really going on about......

x Jody

(Isn't there also one thing missing from Mark Baker's list: "I accept His death for my life?")

An Evangelical Anglican Approach to Substitutionary Atonement:

The Substitutionary Atonement.  The Substitution was the ransom or the debt paid for us - we were ransomed to death [not the devil] through rebellion, so Jesus took our place and the debt is what we owe Jesus - as the New Adam, the Son of Man He became the debtor for us and as the Son of God, the Incarnated and Incarnational expression of the Trinity He cancelled and tore up the debt by taking our place - the Reconciliation is our location within the Incarnation.  Jesus said I am the ransom - Here I am! - the payment was His Life for our Life - and the party to whom the ransom was paid was us, because we had released death into the world through the fall and what we received in payment was not our death but His Eternal Life  we received the Fullness of the Godhead, the Trinitarian Life that dwells in and through Jesus - which is why the Communion Table is the New Covenant and when we cross through the veil and the vale, that valley of vision we are crossing through this exchange - new lamps for old, new hearts for old, new Life for our death. 

When people ask you to whom was the ransom paid?  Ask them to whom did Jesus give His Life?

Jody,

On the www.ntwrightpage.com

There is, at the bottom, a question-and-answer series with him.  I think the latest has a question about Steve Chalke and Penal Substitution in which Tom answers using the analogy of a chord with penal substitution being but one note within it.

Richard

Dear all

I hadn't heard Tom Wright's stuff on this.  I quite liked that quotation Richard used - 'cacophony of monotone' sums it up quite well :-)

The concept of penal substitution is a valid reading of Scripture (in my opinion), but I would not say that it is necessary to read it into Scripture.  I think that this is where OE (open evangelicals) would differ with CE (conservative evangelicals) on one level.

Even the texts which specifically talk of punishment need to be carefully exegeted and not presumed to mean punishment in the way that we mean it in its 21st century definition.  The word 'punishment' in Isaiah 53 might be better translated 'chastisement' as it is, in fact, in the NKJV.  It is this element of restoration that is held in the english word chastisement that is lost when we translate it punishment.  We would also be wise to carefully explore the word 'wrath' before making assumptions about its meaning in the english.

I would want to affirm completely that I am sinful, that sin is a very serious problem and that I deserve nothing more than for God to remove His breath from me.  I think sometimes (it is something that has been levelled at me more than once) that CEs think that I do not take any of this seriously enough, or that I do not take the Bible seriously enough - neither are true.

Having said this, who I believe God to be leads me to an understanding that punishment is not an end in itself, it does not have redemptive value in itself, it redeems by turning people back to God.  This is the cycle that Israel repeated continually in the OT -

turning away from God->stumbling block->punishment->turning back to God->restoration

At the cross, it could be argued, we have too often finished the cycle midway.

I would repeat what I have said elsewhere (open evangelicalism - theology or mindset? forum) to say that this must begin at who we think God is, the answer to that question will help us to understand each other better.

Love Jody

John,

I don't think anyone is 'refuting' the central concept of Penal Substitution (i.e. that Jesus took my Sin and its consequence 'into' himself, defeating it on the Cross) but are, instead, opposing the sometimes one-dimensional and 'legalistic' out-preachings that can arise from a 'micro-focus' on the sacrificial atonement of the cross which ignores the broader focus of God's Victory over Evil and Restoration of Creation entire (and not just us!) which arises from his Love and Passion for the 'cosmos' (with us as the King-creatures within it).

Tom Wrights analogy of a harmonious chord 'distored' by an over-dominance of one particular note within it hits the nail on the head here.  Vicarious, sacrificial, atonement is central to God's great plan in creation but isn't where it starts and isn't where it ends - we need to look for the harmony of ideas that God intended and not the 'cacophony of monotone' which man can make it.....

In love,

Richard

I understand from Karen’s posting elsewhere that some people have a problem, as she puts it, not so much with the ‘substitution’ bit of ‘penal substitution’, as the ‘penal’ bit.

I am not clear, however, and would appreciate if someone would explain to me, what Jesus’ substitution involves without the ‘penal’ element. In other words, what did he take on for me (as my substitute) that I could not have taken on for myself?

Maybe you have also read the article from Zoe Williams www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1665903,00.html it proved some balance, though it didn't get the same kind of profile on the page as Polly's.  The key issue for me, both with the atonement itself and with films like "The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe" is, what is understood by people outside of the Church?  From that standpoint, I think Polly's perceptions are bang on - from her understanding and her experience of Christians - the disturbing issue the church has to face is a continuing misplaced belief that people who do not share our faith will still understand phrases like, "the wages of sin is death", or for that matter, "are you washed in the blood of the lamb?"  In his great book written last year, "Ambiguous Evangelism", Bob Mayo explores this, to quote from the back of the book, "An increasing number of people know so little about the story of the Christian faith that it cannot be assumed they have an adequate framework within which to interpret the gospel message.  How might we enable those whom we long to know Christ to grasp what we have to share?".  Results from a survey were published in the Guardian today part of which asked children under the age of 10 who was the most famous person in the world?  Their answer (and He beat Rooney . . . was God), this is heartening in one sense - but they do not know that God is love and they do not know about Christ's substitutionary work on the cross, they do not know about God, never mind His character and what motivates Him.  Is the Christ I know one who has delivered me from wrath or embraced me in His love - my answer will determine how I go about sharing the faith that I have

Hi all

Just to say, that I think it is completely appropriate to put Polly Toynbee's article on the Fulcrum website, it would be a poor show if we can't listen to or dialogue with those with whom we feel far apart from.  Sorry if I gave a different impression.

To put it into perspective, my anger was short lived, in hindsight it might have given the wrong impression, but I genuinely did mean that I was angry.  I can be quite impulsive and on reading the article I did feel a sudden flare of anger, but it died down quickly and was replaced by this fascination with why this article had been written.  I would still say that the article could have been countered on most arguments, but that doesn't negate that there are valid points, and more importantly valid feelings which have been put across in the article.

I think I felt a sadness that the readership would be exposed to such a one sided argument.  One letter responding to this was from a 9 year old called Lucy (smile), she said that maybe they should have got children to review the film...........

Love Jody