“The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.” So begins the cogent defense of the timeless doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement provided by the death of Jesus Christ in Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution
The above statement stands at the heart of the gospel, which is why it is hard to believe that anyone who calls themself an “evangelical” would raise a disenting voice against it, yet those disenting voices are numerous, as the authors point out. The gospel is under attack from within the church. Much of the emerging church movement is a Trojan horse concealing pastors and theologians who purport to be a part of historic evangelicalism. In the name of cultural relevance they are prepared to denude the gospel of its essential distinctive – the bloody, sacrificial death of the God-Man – on the basis that people outside of the faith “don’t get it.” People outside of the faith have never gotten it ( see 1 Corinthians 1,2).
In offering their defense, the authors ground their thesis in both Scripture and history. Much of the historic defense of the doctrine of penal substitution is to be found in theological journals, dissertations, and lengthy systematic theologies. Pierced for Our Transgressions brings the best of the defense of the doctrine together in one very easy to read book. After thoroughly establishing the basis of penal substitution in Scripture, the authors relate the doctrine to the context of systematic theology generally, demonstrating its foundational position to all that we believe theologically.
Having established the theological framework for the doctrine, the authors display it in its historic context in the writings of of the Church Fathers, the Puritans, and contemporary theologians.
The most valuable aspect of the work, however, is the direct and practical way in which the authors interact directly with the objections raised to the doctrine of penal substitution in our contemporary theological context. Taking six broad categories of the debate (penal substitution and the Bible, the culture, violence, justice, the understanding of God, and the Christian life), the authors frame 26 objections offered by those who hold a dissenting view of penal substitution, dealing scripturally and historically with each (i.e., “The violence involved in penal substitution amounts to ‘cosmic child abuse,’ Penal substitution relies on biblical words, metaphors and concepts that are outdated and misunderstood in our culture,” “Penal substitution is not important enough to be a source of division”).
The book is a theologically saturated pastoral response to the critics of penal substitution. It is not a polemic with heated rhetoric aimed at individuals or groups. It is a cogent response to a heresy that has been fought since the early days of the church. It is an indispensable weapon in our arsenal as we continue to fight the skirmishes of the truth war.
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
Kiki D
Thank you, but much more importantly, your agreement aligns with all of scripture.
Further, if the blood that redeems us, was only important as it lies in the dirt beneath the cross of Jesus, there was a whole lot of discussion of the pre Christ blood with the sacrificial offerings in the old testament that would appear to be more chatter than doctrine. I am of the persuasion that, as in the examples of the high priest necessity to place and offer the blood of lambs at the mercy seat in the holy of holies, so was it required that “the” Lamb of God place “his” blood at the “eternal mercy seat”, for a once and for all offering for our sins. The old offerings covered, the new offering TAKETH AWAY!
John 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Mr. MacArthur, and those who subscribe to his position, that the blood of Jesus was only a symbol, rather than element essential, of the payment for your’s and my sins have the right to believe what they may. I, along with many others, believe that the blood of Jesus Christ, is not in the dirt at Calvary, but was, and is in heaven, and has been accepted by our heavenly Father as a final payment for that which we could not pay for ourselves, our sin!
It makes a big difference “where” the blood was offered. The affirmation of the “necessity” of the shed blood is not the issue, we agree on that, where the blood ended up is.
Herein lies the heart of this matter.
Hebrews 9
1Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
2For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
3And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
4Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
5And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
6Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
7But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
8The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
I, like the writer of these words cannot now speak particularly of this mercyseat.
With the cherubims of glory overshadowing this scene, all I can do at this moment is cry out in my heart;
Praise God from whom all blessings flow!
Humbly a sinner saved by the majesty og His grace,
don sivyer ( a undeserved child of the MOST HIGH GOD )
You’re right Don. while i refuse to partake in controversial which only engender strife and resentment, the blood of Jesus is foundational. it is key. It is fundamental to our very faith and goes beyond denominational differences. indeed, the preaching of it should actually be the unifying force that cuts THROUGH our denominational barriers.
Pixelmaster
You’re right when you say that many issues are splitting hairs. Not this one however. The blood of Jesus Christ is the very foundation of our salvation. You ask; “do you think that God is concerned with our views on this issue”? Extremely so. What is it you are trusting in as Christ my Lord and Savior. If it were of none importance why did he shed it? The blood of Jesus Christ is essential for salvation, for without it there is no remission of sin and we are of all men most miserable. If his blood was not shed and offered at the mercy seat for a final redemption for sin, we have no hope, whatsoever. I hope you can see that this is not a minor doctrine, but rather the very underpinning of all that we hold to be truth. Without it all the rest crumble.
We are told to study the word of God so as we may “rightly divide” it. If there is a right way to divide there must also be a “wrong” way to divide it.
The very reason for much of the denominational divide revolve around the acceptance of the word of God as the final authority for all matters in faith and practice.
In the beginning, Satan questioned God by asking Adam; “yea hath God said” and it continues to this very day.
Pixelmaster, God is bigger than any of our minds can fathom, but if he gave us the bible to guide us to understanding him, would it not make sense to read, study, and believe it. This doctrine is the hinge to our salvation, without it the door to redemption remains closed.
May the Lord bless you this day.
This kind of debate seems so much like splitting hairs to me. It seems like this sort of thing is the reason why we have so many denomonations in the world. Do you really think that God is that concerned with our views on this issue or the other issues that divide us? I mean, let’s say that someone has a more liberal stance on this one issue and says, I don’t have the answer but I trust that Christ is my Lord and Saviour. It is this kind of thinking that we all have to have a more correct view of things than the other person that has divided the church as we have seen. I am I too liberal, is it wrong to think that God is bigger than the box that the church has put him in?
It should be noted that John MacArthur does NOT deny that it is the blood of Jesus that saves us. Much of this controversy stems from quotes by Dr. MacArthur taken out of context by Bob Jones III. A lengthy article by Phil Johnson, MacArthur’s editor, refutes the allegations about MacArthur:
“On June 13, 1986, MacArthur wrote to Bob Jones III, complaining that the magazine had taken snippets of his remarks out of context and deliberately made them seem sinister. MacArthur assured the magazine’s editors that he absolutely affirms the necessity of the shed blood of Christ for atonement and explained that the point he was trying to make in the quoted excerpt was merely that the saving efficacy of Christ’s blood is not because of some property in the blood itself, but rather because Christ had poured it out in death as a substitute for sinners.”
Read the full article by Phil Johnson at http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm.
Paul
Thank you for standing up for the necessity of the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. ” the bloody, sacrificial death of the God-Man”.
Below is a quote from a well respected man of this hour who does not hold to your same position.
It speaks for itself!
“It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us” (John MacArthur, D.D., The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on Hebrews, Moody, 1983, p. 237).
“We need to keep in mind that the blood was a symbol…Christ’s own physical blood, in itself, does not cleanse from sin” (ibid.).
Now compare this with scripture:
“The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (I John 1:7).
This is an age old battle that even our “conservatives” dispute to this day.