Reevaluating Atonement Theology and Penal Substitution

This is a rebroadcast of our interview with Dr Terryl Givens. Back in 2022, we discussed several atonement theories in connection with Gene England, who wasn't a fan of penal substitution. With this being Holy Week, this is a good intro to atonement theology as we get ready to discuss Dr Diedre Green & Dr Eric Huntsman's book called "Latter-day Perspectives of Atonement." Why did Jesus die for us? Was he a moral teacher, or did his death substitute for our sins? Why does God require someone to die for sin? We’re going to dive into atonement theology with Dr. Terryl Givens. Were Gene England’s views of the atonement heretical? Check out our conversation... https://youtu.be/4lf-LUOPvnU Don’t miss our other conversations about atonement: https://gospeltangents.com/lds_theology/atonement/ Copyright © 2024 Gospel Tangents All Rights Reserved Except for book reviews, no content may be reproduced without written permission Atonement Theories GT  37:53  Well, there was another story about atonement theories, and I'd love to have you talk a little bit about that. But he got a little bit of flack for [that] as well. Terryl  38:00  Yeah, he did. GT  38:01  Can you kind of give us a brief background on atonement theories? Terryl  38:04  Sure. Let me see if I can go through very, really, really quickly. The early church, the first couple of centuries didn't seem to concern themselves with atonement as a theology. Jesus died for us. He resurrected. That seemed to be the essential, theological elaboration of his death. The atonement doesn't show up as a word in earliest Christian writings. But then a couple of centuries into the tradition, theologians begin to try to articulate what did it mean? Why did he have to die? In what sense did he substitute himself for us? So, really, the most significant development probably comes in the 11th century with Satisfaction theory of Anselm. The idea is that God is a governor. He's a sovereign of the universe. His majesty has been offended. His dignity has been impugned by our rebellion, and therefore some kind of a payment has to be made, some kind of penalty. So, Christ offers to satisfy an offended justice sovereignty by paying the price. Terryl  39:13  Abelard, writing a few years later, 11th and 12th century, vehemently repudiates that notion and insists that what really happens is that we are just so--it's the shock of divine love of seeing what Christ underwent on our behalf, that our hearts are broken, and we are moved to repent. So, that becomes the theology of moral exemplariness. Terryl  39:39  As we get to the age of the reformers, Calvin and Luther develop satisfaction theory into penal substitution, which becomes the most pervasive model in the modern Christian world. Penal substitution is all predicated on the idea of justice. Justice demands punishment.  We sin. Somebody has to be punished. God is waiting to punish somebody. So, Jesus says, "Well, you can punish me." So, he punishes Jesus. That's also related to the Protestant theology of grace, which is technically called imputed righteousness. So, Christ dies for us, and He will be judged in our place, and that's the only way that we can be found innocent. So, Latter-day Saint-ism never develops its own theology of atonement. Joseph Smith never used the word, as far as I can find. So, we just kind of assimilate what's in the air. When James Talmage, writes Jesus the Christ and gets to the most important principle of atonement, he effectively says, "We don't know. I'm not going to pretend to understand what happened in the garden or on the cross, but in some way, right. We are redeemed by his offering." Terryl  40:53  Well, Gene England was distressed that the language of Latter-day Saint discussions of atonement migrated toward the penal substitution, which he thought was perverse, this notion that God's got to punish somebody. GT  41:08  Yeah.