Atonement theory

Scot McKnight has been doing an off again on again series on the atonement. He is writing a book on it and sharing his thought on his blog along the way. Today he is discussing penal substitution. Here is a brief excerpt:

"So let’s also think together about how an “image” speaks: if these are the two terms we bandy about [penal substitution] when we talk about what we believe, and I used to do this myself, then we are creating an image of atonement as something that settles justice [God’s just retribution against sin] — the image, as it is often used, is not being used to say something positive about the atonement, even though I know full well that many who use these terms do have in mind many other good things. Like forgiveness and reconciliation and justification and a lot of other good things.

"Let me ask if the image conveyed by penal substitution excites those good things? I don’t think it does.

"Now let’s also admit that our churches are filled with folks who have embraced the gospel that Jesus died for my sins (understood in terms of guilt) and that in so believing or accepting that gospel the problem has been taken care of — and they need not get any further than that. I am suggesting that a reduced gospel emerges from a reduced atonement theory"

<idle musing>
Good stuff. You should read the whole post. I am looking forward to his book, if he would just tell us the name of it :)
</idle musing>