Grafted Theology

- Penal Substitution’s Tension with the Trinity and Christology - The Christological Boundaries We Cannot Cross Any account of the atonement must remain within the boundaries of orthodox Christology. However we describe Christ’s saving work, we are not free to adjust the doctrine of Christ in order to make our theory function. Our doctrine of the atonement cannot contradict our doctrine of Christ. What we say about what God accomplished in Him must remain consistent with who He is. If Penal Substitutionary Atonement claims that Christ was condemned in our place, then this is not merely a debate about soteriology. It is a question about the identity of Christ Himself. And when Christology is at stake, we must begin where the Church did: with the Definition of Chalcedon (AD 451), historically affirmed as the Chalcedonian Creed, which has guided orthodox reflection on Christ’s person and natures throughout the centuries. The Creed confesses: “We, then, following the holy fathers, all with...

Atonement and Union with Christ Rethinking Penal Substitution in Light of Scripture’s Priestly and Participatory Logic Intro Discussions of the atonement often generate more heat than light, not because Christians generally disagree about the gospel itself, but because the explanatory models used to describe Christ’s saving work are frequently treated as if they were identical with the gospel. Within Christian theology, the atonement has been explained through a variety of frameworks that seek to account for how Christ reconciles humanity to God. Over time, however, particular theories have come to be assumed as the default or even as the necessary expression of orthodoxy within certain traditions. When this occurs, disagreement over the mechanics of atonement is mistaken for disagreement over the good news itself, and faithful Christians are unnecessarily divided over matters that lie downstream from Scripture’s central proclamation of salvation. This article is written to examine tha...