Orthodox Problems with Penal Substitution by Alexander Renault (from his book “Reconsidering Tulip” )
The penal substitution view was completely absent from the church for over 1,000 years. It was only in the 11th century that Anselm of Canterbury began to introduce the groundwork for this kind of theology to the West. Nor was it fully developed into the doctrine we now know as penal substitution until the 16th-century Reformers came along. To this day it has never been accepted in the east (nor has it ever been fully accepted by the Roman Catholics).
“The Evolution of Atonement Theories in Western Christian Theology: Where they Have Been and Where They are Going” by Madeleine Rebouché
ABSTRACT
There are three main ways of viewing the atonement that have dominated Western Christian Theology in the past: the classic view, the Latin view, and the subjective view. Each of these views were important in their time and place within history, but it is time that we begin to search for a new way of viewing the atonement in order for the gospel to remain a viable narrative for Christians to connect to in contemporary thought. I argue that the God must be nonviolent and that divine justice should follow a restorative versus a retributive model of justice. It is through these new understandings of God’s character, agency, and justice that the atonement must be understood.
"Saved From God? Alternatives to Penal Substitution Atonement Theory" - Matthew Distefano
In so many words, this is the Gospel according to Western Christianity. Over the details we may quibble, but we are often told that Jesus died in order to save sinners from the wrath of God. In other words, he was a substitutionary sacrifice—he died in our place—to appease the Father’s justice, honor, and wrath. The story of how we get to such a place where we need such a sacrifice basically goes like this:
BE A SUPPORTER OF MR. DISTEFANO’S WORK
"At-One-Ment, Not Atonement" by Fr. Richard Rohr
The common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) agreed with neither of these understandings.
Duns Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice (understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul). He was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18) and gave a theological and philosophical base to St. Francis’ deep intuitions of God’s love. While the Church has not rejected the Franciscan position, it has been a minority view.
BE A SUPPORTER OF C.A.C AND FR. ROHR’S WORK
“Atonement” by Richard Rohr
Two generations ago, the landmark theologian in our tradition (Nazarene), H. Orton Wiley, wrote that the penal substitution theory of the atonement was inconsistent with Wesleyan (Nazarene) theological commitments, and therefore could not be our atonement theory. Franciscan priest and thinker Richard Rohr is also concerned that penal substitution has led western Christianity down very negative pathways. He writes,
“For the sake of simplicity and brevity here, let me say that the common Christian reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”— either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God the Father [proposed by Anselm of Canterbury [1033– 1109] and has often been called “the most unfortunately successful piece of theology ever written”.
BE A SUPPORTER OF THE CENTER FOR ACTION AND CONTEMPLATION