31. Penal substitutionary atonement - 22 February 2012 |
|
 |
 |
Introduction
Session 31 of the Emmanuel Guided Reading Course brings us to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, an aspect of the atoning work of Christ. This follows from the previous session’s introduction to the work of Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, and has in recent decades become somewhat controversial in evangelical circles. With this in mind, we’ll address the issue by looking at some sections from Jeffery et al, Pierced for Our Transgressions, a recent work on this subject. Here’s an outline of what we’ll be reading:
- Introductory material (pp. 21-32)
- Some biblical data (pp. 67-73)
- Some objections and responses (pp. 240-249, 265-278)
- Some thoughts about illustrations used by preachers (pp. 329-336)
As we reflect on this material, we’ll have the opportunity to consider other aspects of Christ’s atoning work as well.
Questions for reflection
i. “It’s unjust for Christ – an innocent man – to be punished for the sins of others.” How would you respond?
ii. What problems might arise from the claim, “Christ bore the sins of all people”?
iii. Is it helpful when preachers tell stories and use illustration in their sermons? Why or why not?
Study questions
We’ll start with a brief look at the introduction to the book (pp. 21-32), which sets the scene for the work.
1. What is “the doctrine of penal substitution” (p. 21)? How many different significant parts of this definition can you identify? Why is each part significant?
2. What is “the more disturbing thing” (p. 25)?
For reflection: Why do you think the authors found this “more disturbing”? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
*3. How would you describe the overall structure of the book (pp. 31-32)? Is this a helpful way to divide up the subject? Can you think of any particular strengths and weaknesses?
We turn next to a short section in the “Biblical foundations” chapter, on the Gospel of Mark (pp. 67-73), where the authors consider two passages, Mark 10:33-45 and Mark 15:33-34.
4. What is significant about “Jesus’ passing reference to ‘the cup I drink’” (p. 68) in Mark 10:38 (pp. 68-70)? How do the authors understand the imagery of the “cup” (pp. 69-70)? Do you agree with them?
5. How is the authors’ understanding of Jesus’ death informed by the biblical symbolism of “darkness” (pp. 71-72)
We turn now to the second part of the book, in which the authors answer a number of objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement.
The authors begin this section on pp. 205-207 by explaining what they are seeking to do, and why.
6. Why did the authors feel it was important to engage in detail with specific objections to their position (pp. 205-207)?
For reflection: Does this approach make you feel uncomfortable? If so, can you identify why?
Next we’ll look at some of the specific objections, and the authors’ responses, in detail. Feel free, of course, to read other sections of the book that catch your eye, and to bring any questions with you to the tutorial.
Section 10.1 (pp. 240-249)
7. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 240-242.
For reflection: Do you find this objection compelling? Before you read on, consider how you might respond to it.
8. The authors “begin by noting…” what (p. 242)?
9. Why is “the willingness of Christ’s suffering” (p. 242) an insufficient response?
10. How does the doctrine of union with Christ address the objection in this section (pp. 242-245). How does Luther’s analogy help (p. 244)?
*11. The authors claim that “the theme of corporate moral responsibility is far more pervasive in Scripture than is commonly realized” (p. 245). What do you think of the examples of this on pp. 245-248?
12. The authors conclude this section by highlighting three further “consequences of denying that our guilt could be imputed to Christ” (p. 248). What are these consequences (pp. 248-249)? Are you persuaded?
Section 10.4 (pp. 265-267)
13. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 265-266.
14. How do the authors respond (pp. 266-267)?
For reflection: Have you heard this explanation before? Are you persuaded?
Section 10.5 (pp. 268-278)
15. Summarise the objection outlined on pp. 268.
16. Eleonore Stump rejects “premise (a),” the belief that Christ “pays the debt of those for whom he died” (p. 268). What alternative approach do the authors take (pp. 268-269)? How does this address Stump’s objection?
17. According to Roger Nicole, what is the doctrine of “particular redemption” (sometimes called “limited atonement”)?
18. What five arguments in favour of particular redemption do the authors outline on pp. 271-275?
For reflection: Is it possible to consistently believe in penal substitutionary atonement while also denying the doctrine of particular redemption?
Finally, we’ll turn to the appendix, entitled, “A Personal Note to Preachers” (pp. 329-336).
19. What problem do the authors identify on pp. 329-331 with some contemporary illustration of penal substitutionary atonement?
For reflection: Have you ever heard the illustrations mentioned here before? What do you think about them?
20. What “seven questions” (p. 334) do the authors encourage preachers to ask themselves before using a particular illustration of penal substitution (pp. 334-335)? Does an illustration need to be perfect in every way in order to be useful (p. 336)?
| Tweet | Post comment via Facebook |
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Guided Reading Course, Minister's Blog