My last post was a response to Aubrey Sequeira’s critique of my book The Cross in Context, my view of atonement, and my use of honor and shame in theology. He presented his view in an interview on The Mission Podcast as well as in his longer talk at the 2023 Radius Conference.
I also went onto X (the platform formerly known as Twitter) to comment on a post publicizing the interview,
Unfortunately, Aubrey misrepresents much of what I write. I don’t think it’s on purpose. Maybe it’s the podcast forum or maybe he just misunderstands. Whatever the case, much of what’s suggested to be my view is not my view
Aubrey was then kind enough to engage with me in order to find mutual understanding. He acknowledged that it is possible that he may have misunderstood and unintentionally misrepresented my views. I believe him. I don’t think he misrepresented me on purpose. I primarily think he did not engage my book close enough to understand the arguments I make in there.
His 3 Atonement Questions
So, here are the 3 questions Aubrey Sequeira asked me concerning my view of the atonement as explained in The Cross in Context. He asks,
1. Do you affirm that in his death Jesus vicariously bore God’s punitive justice and absorbed His righteous wrath towards sinners? Yes / No?
2. Penal Substitutionary atonement as described above is the heart of the gospel message, providing the divinely-revealed “logic” of how Christ achieves atonement and accomplishes redemption on behalf of his people. Do you agree with this statement? Yes / No?
3. Are the legal / judicial categories of Scripture (guilt, retributive justice, righteousness) primary and foundational for our understanding of how the cross of Christ accomplishes atonement? Yes / No?
The video below answers those 3 questions. I hope you find this interaction helpful.
Feel free to leave comments or ask questions. I simply ask that we all keep the conversation constructive and assume the best of each other, creating “steelman” rather than “strawman” arguments.