Dan McCartney: Why Did God Not Spare His Son? The Antecedent Necessity of Penal Substitution

a

0 blog reaction(s) so far

     Share on Facebook Share on Facebook     Share on FriendFeed

5 Responses to “Dan McCartney: Why Did God Not Spare His Son? The Antecedent Necessity of Penal Substitution”

  1. Travis Prinzi Says:

    Mark, is there going to be audio available from this conference?

  2. Mark Traphagen Says:

    Should be some time this week at wtsbooks.com. I’ll post it on the home page of that site when the CDs are available, as well as here at Sacred Journey

  3. Westminster’s Emerging Church Forum, Students and Guests Notes. « Sets ‘n’ Service Says:

    [...] http://foolishsage.com/2006/10/29/dan-mccartney-why-did-god-not-spare-his-son-the-antecedent-necessity-of-penal-substitution/ [...]

  4. Justin D Says:

    James Dunn in his Paul book objects to the use of penal substitution as a metaphor for describing how Christ’s death relates to redemption. His basic argument is that’s not how Paul describes the relationship (the similar line of arguments works for sacrifices too). I wonder what McCartney would say to Dunn’s line of argument.

  5. Mark Traphagen Says:

    Good question, Justin. I’m not familiar enough with the details of Dunn’s argument to be able to engage McCartney on it. I’ve just been told that the conference posts on my blog are going to be linked from the front page of the WTS web site. That means a lot of WTS-trained folk will be seeing these discussions. Perhaps one of them might be interested in taking on that question.

Leave a Reply

Track with co.mments