tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post114516549768738265..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Reductionism? Hardly.Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145304689316895022006-04-17T13:11:00.000-07:002006-04-17T13:11:00.000-07:00I have just recently started reading the blogs of ...I have just recently started reading the blogs of this great site that is linked through my brother and shepherd Sean K. Higgins blog, and I have found great joy in wrestling with great truths of theology and our Perfect Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you all for fighting for the truth as Jude commands us to do. <BR/>As for the the discussion of the atonement, I was greatly reminded by my faithful pastor John Zimmer of Grace Bible Church in Marysville, that Christ's death would be vain and empty without the resurrection of the dead. He sought, as Peter did, to remind of truths of the resurrection of the dead and especially Christ from 1Cor. 15:12-18. Praise God for Zimmer's faithfulness to preach the Word in season and out of season. And most importantly thank our Almighty Father for His Word that reminds us that Christ died for our sins, but he rose as conquering victor over death and sin, the death we all deserved and the sins of those the Father has soveriegnly elected. Praise God for the hope of eternal life and glory with Christ.<BR/>Thank you for devotion to the glory of God alone and the passionate pursuit of truth and righteousness.<BR/>And Phil thank you for agree to from the great and expansive chasm of your knowledge of Spurgeon at our ONE28 2007 Snow Retreat.<BR/><BR/>Andy Bowers, Marysville, WAAndy B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03641728681946753773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145278293130636172006-04-17T05:51:00.000-07:002006-04-17T05:51:00.000-07:00If Jesus did not die as a substitute for sinful ma...If Jesus did not die as a substitute for sinful man, then why did He have to die at all? Doesn't this assault the sovereignty of God?Gordonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18042761082770423304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145273803803358132006-04-17T04:36:00.000-07:002006-04-17T04:36:00.000-07:00Yes! Thankyou! I've been banging my head against t...Yes! Thankyou! I've been banging my head against the keyboard trying to explain this to Steve Chalke's supporters before now. <BR/><BR/> If you defend the doctrine of penal substitution, it's not because you believe it's the only element of the cross, but because it's the only element that's being attacked. I've just blogged on a related topic before I came over here, and I feel so much better now.Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14873728356115837593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145268308819819822006-04-17T03:05:00.000-07:002006-04-17T03:05:00.000-07:00great post & I've been waiting for the dialog with...great post & I've been waiting for the dialog with Scot McKnight-<BR/>I was gonna post but I held my post until I saw the two of you actually engage- <BR/>it is helpful-your points are precise. I do appreciate the evident humility in the two above posts from the both of you.<BR/><BR/>--I have learned that Scot is good brother on the left(I think of this comment from JT as a reminder-<BR/>http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/11/mcknight-on-emerging-church.html<BR/>)<BR/>--I think he has some good things to say to us- simply because I believe that he is a brother and as a brother has the the Holy Spirit indwelling him.<BR/>(we Do need to enlarge our applications of the Cross in our evangelism BUT the good of the Gospel for sinners is that part of the Gospel that actually gives the sinner the right to be called Sons of God-that part which gives us actual access to Holy of Holies-in a sense I feel weird talking about which application of the cross is most important because all applications of the cross are important but it seems that the justice of God and mercy of God actually met in the penal substitution)<BR/><BR/>I think that your response above is regretfully accurate-it seems that there is a deephasis on the severity of God(Rom 11:22) with all this reductionism talk.<BR/><BR/>P.S.<BR/>I just noticed this message on Tony Capocia's site when I did a google search for the above Romans 11:22 reference-<BR/>http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/love.htm <BR/>Dr.M's point on Fosdick is telling<BR/><BR/>& Additionally I still remember a good message given in the evening service at Grace from Will Varner "Is The God of OT the same as the God of the NT" reminding us all of Jesus covered in the blood of his enemies in the Revelation)SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10420768244670972014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145252919499665152006-04-16T22:48:00.000-07:002006-04-16T22:48:00.000-07:00Scot:Thanks for your comments. You wrote:"I don't ...<B>Scot:</B><BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"I don't think it is accurate to <B>reduce</B> our evangelical theory of atonement to the exrpession 'penal substitution' theory."</I><BR/><BR/>You are still portraying the evangelical insistence on penal substitution as "reductionism." Dever clearly acknowledged that penal substitution <I>does not exhaust</I> the meaning of the atonement. So did I. I don't know of anyone who would say otherwise.<BR/><BR/>What we are saying is 1) that the idea that Christ bore the punishment for our sin is <I>vital</I> to a correct understanding of the atonement; and 2) that "penal substitution" is historically one of the core distinctives of evangelicalism—so that those who eliminate this concept from their doctrine of the atonement have embraced a soteriology that is not technically or historically "evangelical."<BR/><BR/>But to answer your actual question: As far as the precise <I>terminology</I> "penal substitution theory" is concerned, I wouldn't even employ that expression, except in a discussion such as this. Even then, I have used it sparingly and with lots of qualifiers and careful definitions. Given the fact that I have repeatedly <I>stressed</I> that the name is being used as shorthand for a comprehensive view and <I>not</I> as a denial of other aspects of the atonement, I really don't think your complaint holds any water.<BR/><BR/>I've never heard anyone use that expression in gospel preaching (or even in normal conversation) as if it were a sufficient description of the gospel message.<BR/><BR/><I>"would you also not agree that some of the other theories (apart from Anselm's satisfactio) are often missed and not allowed a fair day at the table, with the result that their presence would inform how we define gospel and how we evangelize?"</I><BR/><BR/>Well, no. That was my main point in the closing section of this article.<BR/><BR/>Your claim seems to be that since evangelicals have historically placed a lot of stress on penal substitution, that stands as de facto proof that they have "reduced" the atonement to this.<BR/><BR/>That's not even historically accurate. Penal substitution was never proposed as a <I>replacement</I> for the Anselmic view; it was an elucidation and enlargement of Anselm (including aspects Anselm himself borrowed from earlier views of the atonement). <B>The progress of doctrinal development that led from the earliest "ransom" language to penal substitution was the exact opposite of "reduction."</B><BR/><BR/>If I remember correctly, Warfield offers convincing documentation for this in his famous book on the atonement.<BR/><BR/>Your stance on this issue makes me wonder what you would say to the apostle Paul in light <I>his</I> summary of his ambassadorial message in 2 Corinthians 5:20-21. He seems to commit the very "fallacy" you are so concerned about.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, his repeated statements about preaching only Christ and him crucified; glorying only in the cross; etc. would all be "reductionistic" by your standard. So I reject your argument on biblical grounds.<BR/><BR/>I also think your concern is more one-sided than you acknowledge and horribly misdirected in any case. To reiterate one major aspect of my argument that you ignored (but I hope your book will give attention to): <I><B>History would seem to be clearly on mine and Mark Dever's side here.</B></I> There is a direct line of relationship between the arguments employed by Abelard, the Socinians, the modernists, and now some of the post-evangelicals. And the spiritual legacy of those who have employed these arguments against penal substitution has never been growth and revival, but always the opposite.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145223209734018322006-04-16T14:33:00.000-07:002006-04-16T14:33:00.000-07:00I trust you've all had a blessed Resurrection Sund...I trust you've all had a blessed Resurrection Sunday!Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09693381971064363612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145220496352411372006-04-16T13:48:00.000-07:002006-04-16T13:48:00.000-07:00Phil,Thanks for this, and I would say apart from t...Phil,<BR/>Thanks for this, and I would say apart from the manner of expression in a line here or there, I'd agree with everything you say. Please hear that.<BR/><BR/>Monday and Tuesday I'll post two more on this topic.<BR/><BR/>My point is not that penal subst is wrong; I don't think I've ever said that. I don't think it is accurate to reduce our evangelical theory of atonement to the exrpession "penal substitution" theory. I'll post on this on Tuesday. <BR/><BR/>On reductionism ... you've got a good point, and I wish more would hear it. I don't think anyone is intentionally reducing. Most of our theology is not wrong intentionally but passively neglectful. Here's what I would say: by calling the evangelilcal theory "penal subst" (do you disagree that it is often called that?), there is an imbalance in categories.<BR/><BR/>But would you also not agree that some of the other theories (apart from Anselm's satisfactio) are often missed and not allowed a fair day at the table, with the result that their presence would inform how we define gospel and how we evangelize?Scot McKnighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464859313317428105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145202891982616432006-04-16T08:54:00.000-07:002006-04-16T08:54:00.000-07:00This hymn came to mind as a read the last sentence...This hymn came to mind as a read the last sentence of Spurgeon's message:<BR/><BR/>"Alas, and did my Savior bleed,<BR/>And did my Sov'reign die?<BR/>Would He devote that sacred head,<BR/>For such a worm as I?<BR/><BR/>Great attending words Phil. Something I can grab and hold.<BR/>Thanks. Have a blessed Easter.<BR/><BR/>BTW, at church today I spoke with a brother who had just lost his mom, and she was a believer. I said I was sorry, and he was kind to accept my condolence.<BR/>I then said, "George, I envy your mom, I really do." He smiled and said I know what you mean.<BR/>He is risen! He is risen indeed!donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145200068124964432006-04-16T08:07:00.000-07:002006-04-16T08:07:00.000-07:00Thanks for this Phil, along with Spurgeon's messag...Thanks for this Phil, along with Spurgeon's message. I think this is, again, a helpful reminder of how severe our condemnation and subsequent regeneration are.<BR/><BR/>I'm a little perplexed at the reductionist name calling, however. It doesn't seem to fit by the very nature of its definition. Instead, I liken the stand and defense to the charge given in 2Tim 4:2-5. <BR/><BR/>I think the important thing to remember is that there have always been and will continue to be those who will seek to change God's truths. Some are more bold than others. At the end of the day, though I would desire all who name Christ as savior to hold the same view on such doctrines, I must be concerned for my stand and for my understanding first and foremost (1Tim 4:16).<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the helpfulness and thoughtfulness of this posting. I am also very thankful for our union in Christ, which nothing can separate us from. How glorious is that?<BR/><BR/>Take care,<BR/><BR/>MikeMike Yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14897602903962464086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145190345908472202006-04-16T05:25:00.000-07:002006-04-16T05:25:00.000-07:00Very helpful post.IMHO it is grossly unfair to lab...Very helpful post.<BR/><BR/>IMHO it is grossly unfair to label those who hold to penal substitution as reductionists. The criticism seems to depend highly on rhetoric. Besides which the God-ward nature of penal substitution is surely more central than its reference to the kingdom of darkness or our moral transformation (unless of course you redefine/deny/downplay God's personal wrath)<BR/><BR/>I wonder whether affirming the truth of penal substitution is the reason for being slandered in this way. <BR/><BR/>I have yet to hear a clear, intelligible and biblical, explanation of Christus Victor that does not depend on penal substitution.Martin Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1145165743262750232006-04-15T22:35:00.000-07:002006-04-15T22:35:00.000-07:00Amen. Good stuff, Phil, and very appropriate for ...Amen. Good stuff, Phil, and very appropriate for the season. <BR/><BR/>BradBrad Hustonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13034379100231079992noreply@blogger.com