3 Reasons I Changed My Mind About Penal Substitutionary Atonement

During the August Front Porch Hiatus, a bit a controversy flared up in the broader Christian community over a very popular writer's denial of the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA - the belief that Jesus died as an actual substitute for our sins, taking the wrath and punishment due those sins on cross).

Honestly, this type of controversy flares up every five years or so as someone famous usually "moves on" to something they deem less offensive. I've been at this long enough that I've seen several cycles of denial and then defense of PSA. It gets tiring sometimes. So, why not just turn a blind eye and move on, quietly holding firm to our belief? Because at its heart, PSA IS the gospel. There were other things that happened at the cross - Jesus was an example of love (moral example theory of atonement), he paid a ransom for our sins (Anselm's ransom theory of atonement), and his showed himself to be the victorious king over Satan (Christus Victor theory of atonement). The crucifixion was certainly those things, but those are rooted in his sacrifice for us as a substitute.

So, every half decade or so we clear our throats and make our strong defense of PSA clear once again. We do this because if we assume the gospel we're in danger of losing the gospel. We want to preserve the gospel for the next generation by being faithful to defend it in this one.

This article, written about six years ago (probably during the last PSA kerfuffle), is a helpful summary of this vital doctrine.