Category Archives: Theology

Credo Paper: Penal Substitution

Chris Evangelista
Dr. Joseph Mangina
WYT1101HF
28 November 2011

Penal Substitution

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:13-14

 

In chapter eight of The Apostolic Faith, David Yeago begins his discussion on the atonement by taking a look at two theories of atonement which he deems inadequate. The second theory, and the subject of this essay, is the doctrine of penal substitution. Yeago builds his case against this doctrine on three points: (1) that it creates a conflict between God’s love and justice, (2) that it presents the goal of Christ’s atoning work as God changing his attitude towards sinners, and (3) that scriptural support for Christ’s death as the substitution for punishment is weak.

In this essay, I will argue that Yeago does build a convincing case against penal substitution as an explanation for atonement. He does an inadequate job of presenting the strengths of penal substitution, choosing instead to present and counter points that work to his advantage when he goes on to present his own model of atonement. I will show that his first two points do not actually discredit or disprove penal substitution. In fact, the alternative that he proposes for these two points would seem to harmonize quite nicely with the doctrine. Furthermore, his third point – that the scriptural case for substitutionary punishment is weak – is itself ironically weak, as it relies merely on the argument that the scriptural conclusions made by proponents of penal substitution are “illogical”, rather than being based scripture itself. Continue reading

Conscious Vs. Immersion Catechism

Chris Evangelista
Dr. Ephraim Radner
WYT1105HF
24 November 2011

Paper 2: Conscious vs. Immersion Catechism

Part 1
Roughly the first two thirds of the Heidelberg Catechism can be seen as elements representing the turn to “conscious training”. These questions cover the topics of sin, salvation, the Trinity, and the Sacraments, and are presented in a logical way that stands in stark contrast with the “narrative” form of the catechism of the past. Only the last third of the catechism – the questions dealing with the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer – might be considered as questions that can be taught by “osmosis”, and for a good reason: except for introductory questions (such as Question 92, which actually lists out the Ten Commandments), these questions largely consider Christian conduct and prayer, which can be seen and imitated by catechumens.

The very format that Heidelberg Catechism is written in, questions followed by answers, lends itself to being communicated primarily through class, memorization, or cognitive means. Reading the catechism, one might imagine catechumens grilling a catechist with these questions. Certainly, the catechism seems to follow a certain logic in which a question draws on preceding questions and their answers. This systematic approach highlights the shift to conscious training as it seeks much more to engage the hearers in reasoned discussions about the doctrines of the faith. Continue reading