Penal substitution is a topic that is being kicked around the church at the moment. The concept that Jesus took the penalty for our sin when he died on the cross.
In thinking about this a couple of things have crossed my mind:
- Sin is separation from God. The penalty for sin is separation from God (hell?). So the penalty is the same thing as the offence itself… but can we call it an offence, seeing as we are all born separate from God? Perhaps the offence is to choose separation from God? To choose your own way, to choose sin. So if you choose sin then you get sin.
- Jesus died for our sins and it does seem that he was temporarily separate from God. But perhaps death, for Christ, was more about being stronger than evil and working out God’s forgiveness than taking the penalty?
- Who’s dishing out the penalty? God? Or is it us when we choose sin, when we choose the actual penalty? Certainly the only one who can save us from the penalty/sin is God.
I probably need to get my head down and look at some theology about this to be honest. Anyway, you can take the above merely as some wandering wonderings of the mind! 🙂
Karin said…
Steve Chalke mentioned this in “The Lost Message of Jesus”, although it wasn’t the main topic of the book. What he said made sense to me, although some people were quite upset by it. Ekklesia had one or two reports of the ensuing debate in the Evangelical Alliance last year, they may still be available.
8:33 PM
Mark Porthouse said…
Thanks for the link hint Karin.
This is a very relevant article about this. A debate on the topic of penal substitution with Chalke, Stuart Murray et al.
Most interesting quote is that the argument “revolved around whether God was seen as wrathful against those who had sinned”
It is interesting to note how central this is to most people’s faith. However, we must be careful not to interpret ‘God is love’ in our own limited understanding of what love is.
6:18 PM