Live Dangerously

Albert Mohler: Why They Hate It So: The Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

There are some that hate the idea of substitution. Any reference to penal substitution, wrath, meets resistance. The question is not why the unbelievers hate it so, it is why some that call themselves Christians hate it so.

Antipathy is sometimes showed so clearly against substitution that you cannot miss it.



Atonement, Objective, Subjective
Objective: Centered in the fact that God’s disposition towards sinners must change
Subjective: The key issue is the sinners disposition to God. Something inside the sinner must change toward God.

If we hold to the objective we will see the subjective. The subjective is always determined by the objective.

The dividing line is clear, That a holy God who must demand a penalty for sin and provides a penalty through His Son who meets the full righteous demands of the Father and satisfied the wrath of God. If not we change the atonement.

This truth is reaffirmed in the reformation and growing Protestantism.

There is a growing rejection of a need for an objective atonement



Theories of the atonement: (J I Packer)
1. The cross has it effect on humanity
2. On hostile spiritual forces
3. For God’s hostility towards sin.

Number three contains one and two.

Refer to three different problems
1. Humans problem is that they are trapped by hostile spiritual forces
2. Humans need to know that God loves us.
3. God’s righteous wrath against sin.

Penal substitution is a belief for all evangelicals.



A denial of a penal understanding is never alone. It has a system of ramifications in all fields of theology.

This controversy is across the Christian world. But it is more focused in those that want to change the whole of theology.



Four lager groups of objections to substitution,
1. Biblical:
We have misunderstood the scripture in whole or part. We have the whole bible story line wrong:
(1) It is a misconstrue of sin. It is a self induced pain Wrath.
(2)Where ever wrath is mentioned it is the natural out working of sin. It comes with its own consequences.
(3)Sacrifice. The animal was not being punished. It is a model but was not a objective. The Bible did not require sacrifice. Disobedience brings about alienation.
(4)Is. 53. The language has to been properly understood. Suffering alongside us, not for use.
Prophetic expectation. Isaiah was not looking for one that would pay for sin but one that would free.
(5)NT, OT. Reading categories in the OT text from the NT.
(6)Words of Jesus. In the NT we have no direct access because he never wrote anything. (denial is always connected to other doctrine)
(7)We miss the message of Jesus which is non-violence.

Some say, the Bible does teach it, but we are not going to believe it.

The central objection is the view of God. His holiness defines his love.

Walter Wink: "The soul message of the cross is the victory is non-violence over violence."

Theological objections
1. Sounds like God wanted Jesus to die.
2. We needed to be changed towards God not God towards us.
3. At the cross we meet, not wrath, love and educational experience.
4. God is not a God who punishes sinners, but a God who is merciful.

We can forgive wrongs against us, but we cannot atone for them.

Moral objections
1. Divine Child abuse.
2. The OT is wrong in the sacrificial system and Christ died to end it.
3. Marital abuse is from penal substitution.

Cultural objection
1. Not compelling to today’s people. People don’t view themselves as sinners.
2. To individualistic.


With the denial rejection of penal you open the gospel up in inclusivism. Under cuts eschatology, no hell. Undercuts the church.

1. The cross is central to Christian preaching
2. There is always more to the cross than one concept can bare.
3. There is no way to modify the gospel with out repudiating the gospel
4. Gospel deals with sin.
5. A therapeutic age demands the therapeutic answer.
6. Penal is the only adequate explanation for God being loving and merciful
7. We have been to individualistic.
8. Sinners need to here the truth and be saved from the wrath to come.

Around Boyce & Southern

The convocation service for The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Boyce College was held Tuesday, ushering in the Spring Semester. Tradition was displayed as all the faculty of Southern and Boyce came in the chapel robed. Three professor publicly signed the Abstract of Principles, publicly declaring their agreement with the confession of the Seminary. (It was not that they were just hired. Three professors sign Principles at each convocation to publicly show their agreement with the confession.) Every convocation serves as a reminder that this institution is a confessional institution. Southern and Boyce faculty is unified by a common confession of beliefs.

Albert Mohler continue his walk through of the Apostle's Creed. Mohler turned to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Reminding us the necessity of the resurrection for the Christian faith.

I should have done this earlier. But here is the list of the chapel sermons of last semester that I profited the most from:

1. "Jesus, Take the Meal: Why We're Afraid of the Lord's Table" Luke 22:7-30. Russell Moore

2. Message by Rev. Junior Hill

3. "Answering the Call to the Undesirable Setting". Rev. Eric Redmond


And more news about Albert Mohler. Albert Mohler appeared on the TV program One to One on Kentucky Educational Television. Albert Mohler was able to talk about his new book Culture Shift and answer some questions about it. This time Dr. Mohler was given plenty of time to explain Himself! Anyway, I really enjoyed watching the interview. (HT Steve Weaver)

Hero of the Month

My good friend Steve Weaver has written an article on Albert Mohler. I found this to be a good overview of Mohler's life, his stand at Southern, and his continued labors for the faith.

Mohler for President!

Pastor Robert Jeffress has declared that he will nominate Albert Mohler for the next President of the SBC.

The Media...Again

I find it interesting that right after I posted on the twistful ways of the media this story has came up.

Come to find out, the Gospel of Judas is not what people said it was.


HT: Albert Mohler

Tonight's interview with Dr. Mohler

I just got done watching the interview that NBC Nightly News did with Albert Mohler on the the subject of young evangelicals and politics. From what I saw I will say that I was very disappointed with NBC. The only part of Dr. Mohler's interview that was used was reduced to a very short clip.

The topic that was on a new generation of evangelicals (the group was labeled "emergent." However, the church in the interview was far more "emerging.") and what this means to politics. The new generation of Christians are less likely to pledge their allegiance to the Republican party. Thus, the question was, how is this new movement of evangelicals shaping the political scene?

They interviewed and focused on one young pastor Tadd Grandstaff of Pine Ridge Church who was suppose to represent this growing tide of evangelicals. He used the most modern lighting, screens, podcast, and blogs. He made the point that declaring his church "Republican" and bring the politics in the pulpit would turn away all the non-republicans they are trying to reach.

That was one part of the topic. Wanting to say that younger evangelicals, those that will inherit the church, vote other than Republican.

Then the interview got on the topic of homosexuality. It was said that the young group was not as "doctrinaire" as old evangelicals. Though, Pastor Tadd says that homosexuality is a sin, they want to talk about the good of true marriage, not the sin of homosexuality. He does not have to bash or speak against homosexuality. Now, this is where I have to back off because I distrust NBC's interviewing. I do not know what the preacher believes in full. For NBC will use what parts of an interview they want to. This was just a clip with no context, or time for the pastor to clarify. So, I cannot say yea or nay about the pastor.

Then, to back up the pastor's position, NBC interviewed a member of the church on this matter. Now, once again, there is no room for a definite say on what the pastor believes and teaches. Is this a member since the founding of the church? Did the person just become a member? Is this one of those members that only comes to church every three months? We do not know. But, the member said that homosexuality is a private matter and should not be an issue in the church. (even the fact she was talking about homosexuality can be questioned) scary! But, like I mentioned, no way to tell what the pastor teaches.

Then comes the interview with Dr. Mohler. Of course, this is the context which within he is put on! All that this interview consisted of was Dr. Mohler saying that The Christian faith sets
boundaries that believers must live in. End of interview.

Then the the interview goes back to Pastor Tadd and the question of if rules set down by older members of the church were to strict. (a.k.a Albert Mohler) Once again, the interview was just clips from pastor Tadd and no way to tell if he knew the question was sprung from what Dr. Mohler said. I don't believe that pastor Tadd would disagree at all with what Dr. Mohler said (as briefly as it was said at that) and affirm it completely.

my response to all fo that was, "That's it!"

Sad in my opinion. The only thing that I came away knowing was that news service's interviews cannot be trusted. Clips taken form here, there, this person, that person. No way to tell what each party truly believes. In fact, I'd say that Dr. Mohler and Pastor Tadd would agree on a lot of things.

The Cost of Being Rich

Just in case you thought money gives satisfaction. Read this by Albert Mohler