Revisiting the Somatic Death Objection to Penal Substitution: Original Sin and the Nature of Consequences
In an essay titled ‘The Logic of Reparative Substitution: Contemporary Restitution Models of Atonement, Divine Justice, and Somatic Death,’ Joshua Farris and S. Mark Hamilton articulate a largely ignored objection to the penal substitutionary atonement theory: the Somatic Death Objection. In this es...
| 主要作者: | |
|---|---|
| 格式: | 電子 Article |
| 語言: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | 載入...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| 出版: |
Sage
2022
|
| In: |
Irish theological quarterly
Year: 2022, 卷: 87, 發布: 1, Pages: 50-65 |
| Further subjects: | B
Punishment
B personal eschatology B Atonement B Death B Original Sin B Penal Substitution |
| 在線閱讀: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| 總結: | In an essay titled ‘The Logic of Reparative Substitution: Contemporary Restitution Models of Atonement, Divine Justice, and Somatic Death,’ Joshua Farris and S. Mark Hamilton articulate a largely ignored objection to the penal substitutionary atonement theory: the Somatic Death Objection. In this essay I respond to Farris and Hamilton’s Somatic Death Objection by appealing to the doctrine of original sin and the distinction between, what I call, mere consequences and penal consequences. I begin by defining the model in question: Penal Substitutionary Atonement. I then examine the Somatic Death Objection as Farris and Hamilton articulate it. Having done this, I provide two eschatologically based responses to the objection but argue that these responses are found wanting for various reasons. Finally, I turn to the doctrine of original sin and the distinction between mere consequences and penal consequences to argue that the Somatic Death Objection need not undermine penal substitution. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1752-4989 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Irish theological quarterly
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/00211400211060647 |