Pierced for Our Transgressions: What Scholars REALLY Said

Описание: Patreon:   / thechurchsplit  
Donate: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted...
Order My Book: https://a.co/d/1vjiC16
The Network: https://onelifenetwork.org/

In this video, I take a closer look at the major academic and theological critiques of Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution — the influential book by Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach.
While the book passionately defends the penal substitution view of the atonement, it’s also been sharply criticized by scholars across the spectrum — from N. T. Wright to Derek Flood and others — for its biblical, historical, and theological shortcomings.
We’ll walk through:
✅ Ted Grimsrud’s (Peace Theology) critique of its hermeneutics and harsh tone
✅ N. T. Wright’s charge that it’s “deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical”
✅ Derek Flood’s Evangelical Quarterly response exposing misuse of the Church Fathers
✅ Scott Harrower’s Themelios review highlighting its limited historical and Trinitarian scope
We’ll explore what each critic actually said — word for word — and discuss why their points matter for how we think about the cross, the character of God, and the heart of the gospel.
This isn’t a hit piece — it’s an honest look at how serious theologians across traditions have challenged Pierced for Our Transgressions and what that means for the ongoing conversation about atonement.

Articles:
https://peacetheology.net/2009/01/17/...

https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/a...

https://biblicalstudies.gospelstudies...

https://www.academia.edu/44853546/A_T...

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/th...


🎙️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! 😍 https://streamyard.com/pal/d/63892641...