Switch to: References

Citations of:

Rethinking the logic of Penal Substitution

In William Lane Craig (ed.), Philosophy of Religion: A Reader and Guide. Rutgers University Press. pp. 596--608 (2002)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A participatory model of the atonement.Tim Bayne & Greg Restall - 2008 - In Yujin Nagasawa & Erik J. Wielenberg (eds.), New waves in philosophy of religion. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 150.
    In this paper we develop a participatory model of the Christian doctrine of the atonement, according to which the atonement involves participating in the death and resurrection of Christ. In part one we argue that current models of the atonement—exemplary, penal, substitutionary and merit models—are unsatisfactory. The central problem with these models is that they assume a purely deontic conception of sin and, as a result, they fail to address sin as a relational and ontological problem. In part two we (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Punishing and Atoning: A New Critique of Penal Substitution.Brent G. Kyle - 2013 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (2):201-218.
    The doctrine of penal substitution claims that it was good (or required) for God to punish in response to human sin, and that Christ received this punishment in our stead. I argue that this doctrine’s central factual claim—that Christ was punished by God—is mistaken. In order to punish someone, one must at least believe the recipient is responsible for an offense. But God surely did not believe the innocent Christ was responsible for an offense, let alone the offense of human (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark