Add Row
Add Element
cropper
update

Biblical Living Unlocked

Logo - Biblical living unlocked
update
Add Element
  • Home
  • Categories
    • Biblical Parenting
    • Parenting Tips
    • Family Fellowship
    • Bible Teaching
    • Apologetics
    • Community Stories
    • Youth Focus
    • International
    • Walton Evangelical Church
    • Salt Church Mar Menor
    • Salt Church Los Montesinos
    • John Piper
    • News & Offers
Add Element
  • Ken on Facebook
    update
  • update
  • update
  • update
  • update
  • update
  • update
4 Minutes Read

They Are Trying to Shame Us out of Good Theology by Misrepresenting Penal Substitution



Why Did Jesus Die? Understanding the Cross and God’s Love

Introduction

The Bible teaches that Jesus died for our sins. But some people today are mocking or misunderstanding what that means. Pastor Mike Winger explains why Jesus died on the cross, what it really shows us about God, and why some popular ideas about it are wrong. Let’s take a closer look at what the Bible says and why it matters.

What Is Penal Substitution?

Jesus Took Our Place

The word “penal” comes from the idea of punishment. “Substitution” means someone taking someone else’s place. So “penal substitution” means Jesus was punished in our place. He took the punishment we deserve for our sin.

Romans 5:8 says,

“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

This doesn’t mean God was angry and needed to hurt someone. It means Jesus willingly took our punishment so that we could be forgiven and become friends with God.

Common Misunderstandings

Is God Violent and Angry?

Some people wrongly say that penal substitution teaches that God is mean or bloodthirsty. They say things like, “Would a loving God really kill his own son?”

But this is not what Christians believe. The Bible shows that:

• Jesus chose to die. He wasn’t forced. (John 10:18)

• Jesus is God the Son. He and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

• God is both just and loving. (Romans 3:26)

So the cross is not about God losing his temper. It’s about his perfect justice and love meeting in one amazing act.

Is It Like Pagan Sacrifices?

No, It’s Completely Different

Some critics say that penal substitution is like ancient pagan sacrifices, where people killed animals or even humans to make angry gods happy.

But the Bible teaches the opposite:

1. Jesus is our true representative – He stood in for all of us. (Romans 5:19)

2. It’s about justice, not cruelty – God must deal with sin fairly. (Deuteronomy 32:4)

3. Jesus bore our sin willingly – He gave himself. (Galatians 2:20)

4. God gave the sacrifice – God provided what we could never offer. (John 3:16)

So the cross is not a copy of pagan ideas. It’s the complete answer to sin that only God could give.

Did God Pour Out His Wrath on Jesus?

Understanding God’s Holy Anger

The Bible speaks about God’s “wrath” – this means his holy anger against sin. It’s not a selfish rage but a right response to evil.

Romans 5:9 says,

“Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!”

Jesus suffered the punishment we deserve. That’s why we can now be saved from God’s wrath and welcomed as his children.

Jesus Reveals God’s Love and Justice

Not One or the Other – Both Together

Some say the cross only shows God’s love, not his justice. Others think it’s only about punishment. But the Bible teaches both.

At the cross:

• God shows his love by sending his Son. (John 3:16)

• God shows his justice by punishing sin. (Isaiah 53:5)

Jesus didn’t save us from a bad, angry God. He is God, and he came to save us from sin and its consequences.

Is the Father Against the Son?

No – They Are United

Some critics say penal substitution divides the Trinity – like the Father punishing the Son while the Son tries to protect us.

But Jesus said: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work together in perfect unity. The Father sends the Son. The Son obeys willingly. The Spirit helps us believe and understand. (Romans 8:11)

Why Couldn’t God Just Forgive Us?

God Is Just and Loving

Some ask, “Why didn’t God just forgive us without Jesus dying?”

The answer is: Because God is just. He can’t pretend sin doesn’t matter. But because God is love, he made a way to forgive us—by taking the punishment himself.

Romans 3:26 says, “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness… so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

Doesn’t That Show Forgiveness Without Punishment?

Some people use Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32) to say that God doesn’t need to punish sin to forgive us.

But that story isn’t about the whole message of the cross. It shows that God is eager to welcome us when we return. But Jesus still had to make that return possible through his death.

God’s Wrath and God’s Love Are Not Opposites

They Go Together at the Cross

Critics often ask, “Is God loving or punishing?” But that’s a false choice. God is both loving and just. That’s why the cross is so powerful.

1 Thessalonians 1:10 says, “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”

Jesus saves us from the judgment we deserve, by taking it himself. That is perfect love.

Conclusion

The cross of Jesus is not a picture of cruelty—it’s a picture of God’s amazing love and justice. Jesus wasn’t a helpless victim. He chose to die for us. God didn’t hurt an innocent stranger. He gave himself to save us.

Let’s not be ashamed of the cross, even when people mock it. The Bible tells us clearly:

“The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” (1 Corinthians 1:18)

Jesus died so that we could live. That’s the heart of the gospel.

Key Bible References

• Romans 5:8–9

• John 3:16

• Isaiah 53:5

• Romans 3:26

• Galatians 2:20

• 1 Thessalonians 1:10

• 1 Corinthians 1:18

• John 10:18

• John 14:9

• Luke 15:11–32








Apologetics

16 Views

0 Comments

Write A Comment

*
*
Related Posts All Posts
01.21.2026

Can Recent Archaeological Findings Shake Joshua's Jericho Story?

Update The Archaeological Puzzle of Jericho The ancient city of Jericho, renowned for its biblical connections, appears in the texts as a site of significant conquest. Yet, modern archaeology presents a contrasting narrative that has left many scholars in a quandary. Did Joshua truly conquer Jericho as recounted in the Bible? Archaeologist Brian Windle suggests that recent findings might just challenge the long-standing debates surrounding this iconic story.In 'New Jericho Evidence Reopens a Closed Case,' the discussion dives into the archaeological evidence surrounding Jericho, exploring key insights that sparked deeper analysis on our end. Why Jericho’s Evidence is Confusing The complexities surrounding Jericho’s archaeological evidence stem from historical excavations, notably those conducted by Kathleen Kenyon in the mid-20th century. Kenyon's methodologies and interpretations led her to conclude that the city's walls were already in ruin long before Joshua's purported conquest. This conclusion has cast doubts over the possibility of a conclusive archaeological vindication of the biblical account. For generations, both believers and skeptics have sparred over the implications of these findings. What Recent Discoveries Reveal Recent archaeological efforts have uncovered significant artifacts, including pottery and tomb finds that predate and postdate Joshua's alleged entrance. The implications of this evidence are profound; they allow for new interpretations that could potentially reconcile the biblical narrative with historical facts. For instance, the discovery of fortification walls suggests that fortifications were rebuilt over multiple eras, sparking discussions about what this means for the timeline of Joshua’s conquest. Destruction Layers: A Key Indicator? A focal point of Windle’s argument is the analysis of destruction layers in the archaeological strata. Specifically, the presence of sudden destruction in a certain layer could align with the biblical portrayal of Jericho's fall if dated accurately. However, historians and archaeologists must grapple with the broader context of destruction patterns throughout the ancient Near East, leading to an intricate debate about causation versus coincidence. The Role of Faith in Historical Interpretation For many, the interpretation of Jericho's archaeological evidence transcends mere academic interest; it is entwined with faith. Believers may view the struggle for tangible evidence as necessary not just for faith affirmation but for understanding their spiritual heritage. On the other hand, skeptics and seekers are often left questioning the historical validity of biblical texts. The ongoing discussions around Jericho highlight a broader conversation: the delicate interplay between faith and evidence. Implications for Apologetics and Faith Strengthening The revelations about Jericho could empower believers to engage in meaningful conversations regarding faith, history, and archaeology. The trend is moving toward a more nuanced view where believers can confidently discuss archaeological validations as supporting evidence for biblical stories. For church leaders and educators, these discussions present an opportunity to strengthen faith among youth through informed, open discourse. What This Means for Future Research As technological advances continue to refine archaeological methodologies, future research into Jericho might yield fresh insights that bridge the gap between scripture and historical evidence. The emerging consensus suggests that instead of a binary view of belief versus skepticism, scholars should recognize the complexities inherent in interpreting ancient texts and artifacts. Engaging with these complexities may ultimately lead to a richer understanding of both biblical history and the foundations of faith.

01.21.2026

The Search for Evidence in Faith: Insights from Sam Harris and Ross Douthat

Update Why Atheists Seek Proof: Understanding the Demand for Evidence in Faith The debate surrounding belief in God often centers on the need for empirical proof. In a recent dialogue featuring the prominent thinkers Sam Harris and Ross Douthat, this topic came to the forefront. Many atheists, like Harris, demand concrete evidence to endorse faith-based beliefs, igniting a significant conversation about the nature of belief, faith, and the evidence that supports religious convictions. What does it mean to find a balance between faith and reason? In this exploration, we delve into the arguments surrounding proof, belief, and the unique insights presented by Harris and Douthat.In 'It’s WILD What This Atheist Demands As Proof', the discussion dives into the demand for evidence in belief, exploring key insights that sparked deeper analysis on our end. The Intersection of Faith and Reason To understand the desire for proof among atheists, one must consider the broader discourse on belief. Faith, by its very nature, often requires a leap into the unknown. Harris emphasizes that belief should be rooted in evidence, suggesting that without it, faith becomes merely wishful thinking. Douthat, on the other hand, argues that faith encompasses mysteries and truths that transcendent logic. This fundamental disagreement highlights the crux of the debate: is faith defendable without proof, and what constitutes enough evidence for belief? Finding Common Ground in the Debate The debate between Harris and Douthat also serves as a case study for how believers and skeptics might find common ground. Both sides value truth, yet they approach it from different angles. While Harris insists on scientific inquiry and evidence, Douthat advocates for the legitimacy of faith experiences. This dialogue encourages individuals, especially youth and college students, to engage with opposing viewpoints, cultivating empathy and understanding in a polarized society. Historical Context: The Roots of Faith and Skepticism The demand for proof in faith has historical roots that span centuries. From the Enlightenment, when reason began to challenge traditional belief systems, to the modern age, where scientific discovery continues to unveil mysteries of existence, the landscape of belief has evolved dramatically. As believers reflect on this evolution, they can appreciate how skepticism has shaped the way faith is articulated today. Engaging with history provides a backdrop for understanding current belief systems and the relationships between faith, evidence, and doubt. The Surprising Genius of Jesus: A Case for Faith In exploring the concepts brought forth in the conversation, Glen Scrivener’s analysis, particularly in his discussion “The Surprising Genius of Jesus,” becomes essential. He presents Jesus as not only a figure of spiritual significance but also a profound thinker whose teachings challenge both believers and skeptics alike. The narrative of Jesus encourages faith by presenting compelling moral truths and existential questions that deserve exploration, even amidst the demand for solid evidence. Apologetics: Equipping Believers to Respond For many believers navigating conversations with skeptics, understanding apologetics is vital. The discipline provides tools and arguments that can address common inquiries about faith, helping believers articulate their convictions amidst skepticism. This equipage emphasizes that doubt is not a threat to faith but is a part of the discovery process. By employing sound reasoning paired with personal testimony, believers can engage constructively with those seeking evidence. Challenges and Risks: Engaging in Faith Discussions While exploring these dialogues is beneficial, believers must also recognize the potential challenges that arise. Miscommunication can lead to misunderstandings, and the fervency of belief can sometimes overshadow the importance of respectful discourse. Engaging with skeptics requires a humility that acknowledges the limitations of human understanding while being open to seeking truth together. Moving Forward: Building Bridges Between Belief and Skepticism As discussions about faith and evidence continue to flourish, individuals at all points of belief are encouraged to engage deeply with one another. The insights from Sam Harris and Ross Douthat remind us of the importance of balance between reason and faith. By fostering an environment of open inquiry and respectful dialogue, both believers and skeptics can gain rich perspectives that deepen their understanding of life’s greatest questions. For believers, becoming acquainted with the intricacies of the faith can lead to renewed confidence and a robust spiritual life. It is also crucial to continuously learn from different perspectives. Those who challenge our beliefs can often enrich them, prompting personal growth and deeper engagement with the core of our faith. Engaging with difficult questions and seeking in-depth understanding can equip believers to articulate their faith meaningfully. Thus, the challenging conversations sparked by demand for proof may ultimately become pathways to deeper faith and connections.

01.20.2026

GodLogic's Confrontation at Uthman's Dawah Booth: What It Teaches Us

Update An Unexpected Encounter: The Clash at Uthman's Dawah Booth In the world of religious debate and outreach, few platforms are as vibrant and contentious as the dawah booths where Islamic advocates engage with passersby about their faith. Recently, a significant event unfolded as GodLogic, a notable figure in Christian apologetics, made his way to one such booth run by Sheikh Uthman. This confrontation not only signifies a clash between differing theological perspectives but also raises compelling questions about the methods and motivations behind religious discourse in our contemporary world.In 'GodLogic TAKES OVER Sheikh Uthman's Dawah Booth! Muslims Call Police!', the discussion dives into the clash between GodLogic and Sheikh Uthman, sparking deeper analysis about the challenges of religious discourse. The Background: Sheikh Uthman and His Dawah Approach Sheikh Uthman has become well-known in Islamic circles for his engaging and often confrontational approach to evangelizing Islam. His dawah sessions typically involve open dialogues where he invites questions and challenges from onlookers, creating a space for discussion. However, the recent visit from GodLogic, characterized by its high tension, showcases how contentious these interactions can become. GodLogic's pursuit appears to be part of a broader strategy to challenge misconceptions about Christianity and present a case for its truths, leading to a rather heated exchange at the booth. The Role of Law Enforcement: Escalating Tensions What escalated this interaction was not just the verbal sparring but the decision of bystanders to involve law enforcement. Witnesses reported that as GodLogic continued to press Uthman on various theological points, concerned individuals expressed fears about the growing hostility of the exchange. This led to the police being called, raising important discussions about the responsibility of witnesses during religious debates. What happens when dialogues devolve into disputes? How can both faith communities navigate contentious encounters while ensuring peace and respect? The Public’s Response: Social Media and Community Discussions In an era dominated by digital interactions, the incident quickly propagated on social media, sparking conversations across various platforms. Many expressed support for GodLogic, seeing his efforts as courageous and necessary in the battle for Truth. Others criticized the police call, suggesting it stifled the free exchange of ideas. This incident sheds light on how public perception plays a vital role in shaping dialogues between belief systems, particularly in diverse communities where multiple faiths intersect. Implications for Religious Engagement: Lessons Learned The confrontation at Sheikh Uthman's booth serves as a powerful reminder of the challenges faced in interfaith dialogues. It highlights the need for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and individuals from all backgrounds to approach each other with a spirit of humility and respect. As believers strengthening their faith or skeptics and seekers exploring different beliefs, it is essential to engage with an open mind, recognizing the humanity and depth of those who may hold opposing views. Looking Ahead: Future Trends in Religious Discourse As society continues to grapple with growing pluralism, religious engagement will take on new forms and challenges. The trend of public debates between representatives of differing faiths may increase, but so too will the complexity of these interactions. What must evolve alongside this dialogue is an emphasis on peace and understanding, prioritizing the safety of participants while encouraging robust discourse. Considering how law enforcement was involved in this incident, future participants in such discussions may be compelled to think critically about how they approach their outreach efforts. Final Thoughts: The Value of Open Dialogue The incident at Uthman's booth reminds us all of the value of maintaining dialogue, even in situations that become heated. For Church leaders, ministry workers, and parents, teaching the next generation to approach discussions with grace, patience, and respect is crucial. As skeptics and seekers enter these conversations, they must also feel safe and empowered to ask questions and express doubts without fear of overwhelming hostility. In closing, we must ask ourselves: How can we contribute positively to conversations about faith? Whether as believers or challengers, it’s up to us to pave the way for understanding and community, embracing dialogue as a path to deeper knowledge and connection.

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Core Modal Title

Sorry, no results found

You Might Find These Articles Interesting

T
Please Check Your Email
We Will Be Following Up Shortly
*
*
*