I don't believe in penal substitutionary atonement. Oh, look, the world is still turning, Christ still reigns, and I am waiting for Him. What person decided that we had to believe that the Father was punishing the Son for the specific sins of specific people, who then go free? What about the rest of them?
And another thing: doesn't it seem like some guy just decided to make this the end-all-be-all of "the gospel," and then guilted everyone else into it? This is why every person who wants to be provocative starts essays with, "I believe in [insert stupid, barely passable Protestant formulation of some truth], BUT..."
Has no one thought any of this through? Whose fault is it, if you fail to respond efficaciously to a gospel invitation you never got the grace to heed? Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude that the "good news" isn't for them? For whom did Christ die?
I've got a problem with the idea that the drama of the Cross is a play-act for the special few who were chosen beforehand. Giving glory to God is one thing; believing a lie to win a theological spitting contest is quite another.
And another thing: doesn't it seem like some guy just decided to make this the end-all-be-all of "the gospel," and then guilted everyone else into it? This is why every person who wants to be provocative starts essays with, "I believe in [insert stupid, barely passable Protestant formulation of some truth], BUT..."
Has no one thought any of this through? Whose fault is it, if you fail to respond efficaciously to a gospel invitation you never got the grace to heed? Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude that the "good news" isn't for them? For whom did Christ die?
I've got a problem with the idea that the drama of the Cross is a play-act for the special few who were chosen beforehand. Giving glory to God is one thing; believing a lie to win a theological spitting contest is quite another.
Comments