English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Among recent assessments of penal substitutionary accounts of atonement one significant critique is Mark Murphy’s “incoherence objection.” In this essay I express general agreement with Murphy’s critique of penal substitution, yet I suggest that there is a way to reconceive the doctrine of atonement such that it is conceptually coherent, is commensurate with scripture, and is a version of penal substitution. I call this view: The Penal-Consequence View of Atonement. This is a view of atonement that makes use of a distinction between what I call “penal consequences” and “mere consequences.” The view is defended with special reference to the topics of corporate moral responsibility and union with Christ.

Do We Believe in Consequences? Revisiting the “Incoherence Objection” to Penal Substitution