One object of love that most sharply divides or wonderfully unites is the “simple gospel.” (I’m quoting Greg from an email exchange.) In the small cyper-world I frequent, I’ve noticed that as of recently one topic in particular is causing alot of division and conversation - the nature of the atonement. Now I realize this debate isn’t new. It is one that will never cease until the Lord, Jesus, himself returns. And, thus, Luther’s prophetic words continue to ring true when he said, “In every generation the gospel will have to be reaffirmed because if you preach the gospel…boldly and accurately it will produce conflict” (R. C. Sproul quoting Luther, T4G ‘06).

Let me just point our readers to a few places where this debate is evident. First, “Britain’s three most prominent Christians groups ended their 14-year conference partnership” because of an unsettled debate over an invited speaker, Steve Chalke. Chalke is most well-known for his infamous statement of comparing the penal substitutionary atonement to divine child abuse. You can read the report here. Second, J. I. Paker recently responded to criticisms of penal substitutionary atonement. Third, the guys over at 9Marks, including our own Mr. Gilbert, have been working hard at equipping pastors to articulate and defend the gospel. You’ll find his work here and here.

Now I could simply point readers to these articles and other resources, but instead I’d like to have the conversation among us. So Greg I’m going to call on you first because I’ve already referenced you twice. What do you mean by the “simple gospel?” Second, would someone please define penal substitutionary atonement? Third, how does the penal substitutionary atonement relate to other soteric blessings, i.e. justification, adoption, sanctification, etc.? Fourth, what is lost if the penal substitutionary atonement is abandoned?

Posted in Theology & Doctrine |