Over at my blog, my co-blogger Wink has initiated a fascinating discussion that may prove of interest to some readers of Prosblogion. It's not entirely philosophy and relies much on biblical exegesis, but some philosophical issues come up (and I think the main move he is making is primarily resulting from a philosophical distinction I've never seen anyone make before), and since these are issues I've seen discussed in philosophy of religion journals I figured I'd link to it from here for those who read this blog who don't also read mine.
The topic is the nature of the Christian atonement. He's agreeing with those who criticize the penal substitution model of the atonement, but what's interesting is that he doesn't reject the penal elements, which in my opinion is the main thrust of most criticisms of penal substitution. He insists that the atonement is essentially (though not exclusively) about forensic or legal matters, with God's wrath needing satisfaction. Yet he goes on to say that it's not Christ's substitution as a payment for sin that satisfies God's wrath but rather identification with Christ on the cross. Some penal substitution advocates insist that both are involved, but he argues that they're mutually inconsistent and thus can't be.
Here are the various posts: Defining Penal Substitution, Critiquing Penal Substitution, and Penal Union. Then there's my Thoughts on the Atonement Discussion So Far, which gives some of my thoughts that didn't seem to fit as a comment in any of the other posts. If any further posts arise, I'll update this list.
