tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post7366966520521941982..comments2024-03-22T07:16:35.188+00:00Comments on Against Heresies: The Atonement: Theory or Doctrine?Martin Downeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08019053545918223050noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31896366.post-83464241261803591632010-09-23T12:09:21.437+01:002010-09-23T12:09:21.437+01:00Hi,
Nice site. Great discussion!
The distinction...Hi,<br /><br />Nice site. Great discussion!<br /><br />The distinction for those that reject the penal substitution theory (like myself) is not that Christ didn't die for our sins-- we believe that as that is what the Bible and the Church have always taught.<br /><br />The question is: "Was it God who was punishing him and killing him for our sins?" or "Was his suffering due to God's wrath?" <br /><br />This is where we would say "no." <br />Yes, Christ died for our sins, that we might live. But his participation in our nature, suffering and death were the means by which to conquer those things so that they do not separate us from God anymore. We separated ourselves from God; God did not separate himself from us. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself-- not himself to the world.<br /><br />None of the passages that Packer sites say that it was the Father who was inflicting Christ's suffering. They just say that he took on sin for us and suffered for us, not that the suffering was God's wrath.<br /><br />Suffice it to say, there are many Christians like myself (and the Orthodox Church worldwide), who can say that Christ died for our sins and He is the only Way-- but we reject the penal substitution theory. <br /><br />And we would not have been considered heretics by most of the Church throughout history--even today.<br /><br />Thanks for the good content and letting me comment! Blessings!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com