Sophia Forum: Is Christ’s Penal Substitution Incoherent?

Posted by: Azusa Pacific Seminary

The doctrine of Christ’s penal substitution holds that Christ bore the suffering that we deserved as the punishment for our sins, thereby satisfying the demands of divine justice and winning our pardon. Critics, however, have charged that such a doctrine of the atonement is philosophically and theologically incoherent. William Lane Craig, Ph.D., research professor of philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology and professor of philosophy at Houston Baptist University, subjects these allegations to critical scrutiny.

Craig has authored or edited more than 30 books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, and Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. In 2016, Craig was named by TheBestSchools.org as one of the 50 most influential living philosophers.

RSVP at bit.ly/SOPHIAFORUM (case sensitive), or email [email protected] for more information.