No Sanity Required
No Sanity Required is a weekly podcast hosted by Brody Holloway and Snowbird Outfitters. Each week, we engage culture and personal stories with a Gospel-driven perspective. Our mission is to equip the Church to pierce the darkness with the light of Christ by sharing the vision, ideas, and passions God has used to carry us through 26 years of student ministry. Find more content at swoutfitters.com.
No Sanity Required
Defending Penal Substitutionary Atonement
In this bonus episode, Brody, Zach, Rob, and JB sit down to discuss penal substitutionary atonement. Some modern voices are reviving old critiques, calling the idea that Jesus bore God’s wrath on the cross abusive and outdated. At the Fall Be Strong Men's Conference, we’re addressing this head-on. The Snowbird team will unpack the biblical truth of penal substitutionary atonement—how Jesus willingly took our place, satisfied God’s justice, and made a way for sinners to be saved.
This isn’t just theology for theologians—it’s the core of the gospel. Come join us as we stand firm for a doctrine that shows the beautiful harmony of God’s love and justice.
Be Strong Men’s Conference 2025
Please leave a review on Apple or Spotify to help improve No Sanity Required and help others grow in their faith.
Click here to get our Colossians Bible study.
Welcome to no Sanity Required from the Ministry of Snowbird Wilderness Outfitters. A podcast about the Bible, culture and stories from around the globe.
Speaker 2:I wanted to do this bonus episode. I wanted to do this bonus episode Today we're recording to discuss a breakdown from the summer, but y'all are going to see this week an emphasis and a focus on our social media platforms where we're changing the discussion or the theme or the focus of Be Strong. This fall, in 2026, fall Be Strong we were slated to talk about a doctrine called penal substitutionary atonement and we're changing that. We're moving that up to 25. This is a last-minute change, but we feel like it's necessary and so, before we get into this conversation again, it's a bonus episode. We'll keep this brief.
Speaker 2:I want to talk about why we're making that change, sort of why now, because this is something that continually comes up in Christian circles, theological circles, but it's important to us. It's important enough that we're making that change. We're going to address it at the 25 Fall Be Strong Conference rather than the 26th, and so I want to start off by just talking about what the doctrine is. I'm going to let JB talk about that and then I'm going to give a little bit of a recent modern history of sort of the conflict or controversy around this doctrine, and then we're going to talk a little bit about what it, what are the what, what's the dexterity and the layers to it, and and sort of uh, drive that towards the be strong conference that's coming up next month. So anyway, that's a lot going on, but, um, but, so why don't you? Let's start off with JB, just a simple layman's, laywoman's work and definition of penal substitutionary atonement.
Speaker 3:Yes, Okay. So before we hit record, we were joking and I said that before really working at Snowbird. I thought penal substitutionary atonement was something to do with circumcision. I hope I'm not the only one out there that thinks that.
Speaker 2:Surely not Little, I think little still thinks that.
Speaker 3:But Snowbird does a great job. We've talked a lot about this on the podcast before but in those two weeks of staff training all of our summer staff goes through and we cover a lot of doctrinal things like penal, substitutionary atonement. They do a great job of explaining that so it's been super helpful for me. But basically I'll break it down as penal is penalty um substitution, obviously substitution taking someone's place, and then atonement um is like the covering, so basically um the gospel essentially of Jesus dying on the cross for our penalty, paying the price, like taking our place. And yeah, I might have clammed up a little bit. No, it's good, okay.
Speaker 2:That works. The only thing I would just add for clarity is Christ is dying in our place as the one who is bearing the wrath of God, is dying in our place as the one who is bearing the wrath of God, which is why I think which is a big part of his prayer in the garden when he said if it's possible to let this cup pass for me, it's the fact that he's always been in perfect harmony and fellowship with the father, and now he's about to receive the wrath of the father for sin that he's never committed, and so the weight of that is overwhelming to Christ in that moment. And one of the arguments that is made against penal substitutionary atonement as what theologians call an atonement theory or atonement doctrine, of which there are different opinions and different theories or doctrines, which we'll get into a little bit. But one of the things that I think is wrongly applied to penal substitutionary atonement by its opponents is the idea that it pits Jesus, the son, against God the father. It pits them against one another where we would say oh no, no, it's perfectly harmonious. It is the will of the Father to do this and it is the will of the Son to do this. Jesus said no one takes my life from me. I lay it down. One of the arguments against it is and I went down a rabbit hole Saturday listening to opponents of this and they say you've got God. I would listen to a pastor standing in a pulpit. I don't know who the guy was, but he stood in the pulpit and he said you can't have the son under the wrath of the father because now they're not in harmony, they're not in fellowship and what we would say is they're in perfect fellowship. Maybe for us, the clearest picture that we have in the Bible of the fellowship and the oneness between the father and son is the cross of Christ, where Jesus willfully, lovingly and knowingly embraces our judgment, our wrath. God's just. Uh, I don't. I don't want to go, I don't want to drop a bunch of names, um, but I did. I've got a note at the beginning here saying why are we addressing this now? Um, so let me give a quick history of snowbird me, my personal sort of journey with this, and then I'm going to. I'm going to push the discussion across the table.
Speaker 2:In 2008, I attended a conference. It was a Together for the Gospel conference, and the topic of that conference was penal substitutionary atonement. I heard in person John MacArthur and RC Sproul at the same conference. Both have gone to be at the Lord and both taught a different aspect. I don't remember now a lot about that conference. Piper preached I heard Sproul, macarthur, piper, all at that conference. Cj Mahaney preached, moeller preached, and it was different aspects of the atonement.
Speaker 2:Because it is one of the things that is important to understand is this is something that volumes have been written on and people will try to condense it into a 20-minute debate or an hour-long debate, but I remember leaving there realizing this doctrine is important, but I had always assumed everyone believed this. I thought if you're a Christian, you believe that you might not call it penal substitutionary atonement, but you believe that Jesus bore the wrath of God for your sin. And I realized in that conference a lot of people don't hold to that and so it has resurfaced at different times throughout history. But going back to the 90s, there was a movement called the Emergent church. Have you ever heard of that, jb? It's before your time. So we were these guys and like we were kind of coming of theological age when this was happening.
Speaker 2:And and in the 90s this, this movement emerged out of orthodox evangelical christianity that tried to contextualize this is a super cliff note version tried to over contextualize theological doctrine to make it fit into in a more palatable way into society and culture in modern times. And what ended up happening is they ended up. This movement abandoned historical christian doctrine that we've held to since the church fathers of the first and second century. Now it eventually derailed and went under because no, nothing that comes against this is going to stand. I want to be clear when you come against the person and work of Jesus, you will. It won't stand. The movements will rise and fall.
Speaker 2:The movement of the gospel has been ongoing since Jesus walked the earth and really since before then, into the Old Testament, all the way back to the garden. So movements come and go, but they're repackaged differently, and so what's recently emerged is John Mark Comer, who some of our listeners will be familiar with, made a statement in a tweet about a book. The book is called Lamb of the Free. Does that sound right? Lamb of the Free? Written by a guy who's like a liberal Bible professor, and in it he basically debunked. He said that this book dealt a final death blow or knockout knockout blow to penal substitutionary atonement.
Speaker 2:So, um, it caught me off guard because I, when it was brought to my attention, I it was, uh, gavin ortland, who I was. I watched his stuff and he had talked about it, and so I just want to, in in the next few minutes, turn these guys loose to talk about what is the importance of this doctrine and why is it so important that we hold to it and that we push back against people that reject it, and why, at Snowbird, this is a hill we will die on. We will never shrink back from defending this doctrine, and we don't have to because the word of God defends it. This is not a cultural issue, um, and we don't have to cause. The word of God defends it. This is not a cultural issue. It's not like, uh, we'll, we won't shrink back from defending a certain type of music or worship style or Bible translation. We'll shrink back from that stuff. There's things that but we will never shrink back from what the Bible clearly states.
Speaker 2:And so, um, yeah, so with that, let's, let's dive in. Uh, let me start by asking um, we'll start across the table with Rob. Let's talk about different opinions and ideas that people hold about what was happening on the cross when Christ? Both of you guys can just chime in what, what are the opposing views? What do people believe and do we reject all of those views or do we harmonize those views with penal substitutionary atonement?
Speaker 4:Yeah, I think that's the frustrating part is most of what has been out there that's been called like a theory of the atonement. To me you know there's theological jargon that's helpful in a certain realm to clarify, to shorthand, to move on in the conversation when you're talking to people that understand, that live in that world, but that can be frustrating and muddy the water for people who don't. So I think there are many aspects not theories, but many aspects of the atonement, the work of Christ on the cross, that are clearly taught in Scripture, that should be held to and I mean for the believer absolutely celebrated. They're beautiful teachings from the Scripture. Saying theories already kind of sets people up to think there's different options or is just the ideas of man that are being overlaid on top of Scripture, when in most cases not all, but most cases that's not the reality. These are just biblical teachings that have been shorthanded for clarity's sake, for unification, like when false teaching about the atonement is trying to enter the church and believers, scholars, theologians, pastors, whatever come together and no, we're saying that the Bible teaches this and here's why. And no, we're saying that the Bible teaches this and here's why.
Speaker 4:And then they come up with a statement like penal substitutionary atonement, to shorthand what is clearly throughout the New Testament especially. It has its deep, strong roots in the Old Testament. And so, yeah, there's different aspects, but what we're saying is the heart of the atonement, the centrality of the atonement, that if we lose this one thing, all the other aspects of the atonement like that Christ was victorious over sin, death and the grave. He defeated our greatest enemies for us, so that we get to now live in his victory, that death, like one day when I physically die, that death isn't going to hold on to me. It's not going to hold on to me because it couldn't hold on to Christ. Christ defeated death and so I get to live in his victory, so I'm going to pass through the death that he's already defeated into the eternity of life with him in his kingdom.
Speaker 4:Well, that doesn't mean anything if penal substitutionary atonement wasn't accomplished, meaning if Jesus in his perfect, spotless righteousness didn't go to the cross and God, the Father, see him as having my guilt, my sin, my shame, and punish him in accordance with the punishment that I deserve, and then that he not only covers my sin, but the Bible in the New Testament says it still uses the word atonement, but it really emphasizes this word called propitiation, which takes it to expand our understanding of what Jesus was doing is that he actually absorbs and then satisfies God's wrath.
Speaker 4:That's why there's therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because there's none left over. Jesus absorbed and satisfied God's wrath, so that there's none left over. Jesus absorbed and satisfied God's wrath so that there's none left over for me. So if that doesn't happen, his victory over death doesn't matter, because I'm still in my sin. And so I think it's in a lot of ways a scarecrow-type argument to try to pit Christ as victorious, that aspect of the atonement, over and against what we shorthand penal substitutionary atonement. Those aren't in conflict, they're in perfect harmony along with what does it mean that he's paid our debt? What does it mean that he's our example?
Speaker 2:All these things are beautiful aspects of what Christ accomplished and they work together perfectly specifically in the Bible, but the teaching and the doctrine of that is there and it is harmonious with these other doctrines called. One is called Christus Victor, one is called Ransom Theory or Ransom Atonement. So yeah, how you harmonize those through scripture and then where we see the atonement doctrine in scripture.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I think that's super helpful and I do. I love the way that Rob phrased it with. These are different aspects, and we were having a conversation beforehand where, yeah, I do see that Christ is victorious and we see that over and over.
Speaker 5:You talked about it in Colossians 2, right In Colossians 2, where it says 13 to 15, it says you were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, god made alive, together with him, having forgiven all our trespasses by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands, this he set aside, nailing it to the cross, and he disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open. Shame by triumphing over them. So do we see both the ransom theory and Christus Victor here? Yes, absolutely, that is awesome, and we should like what you said, man. We should celebrate this. This is awesome. However, if we just have and that's where I think it's important that these aspects aren't mutually exclusive you don't have to say and that's where, yeah, it is kind of a straw man argument to say, oh yeah, set this up here. See, that can't be right. Oh, no, no, no, no. Us on our behalf, that we are actually a part of the gospel because he took our sin in his body on the tree so that we would die to sin and live to righteousness.
Speaker 5:A couple more passages I think are super helpful. That's 1 Peter, 2, 24. He himself, and I think it's just important to slow down and look at all of the words. He bore our sins right. Those are sins that we had to bear the penalty of, but we don't have to because there is a penalty that's been paid and a substitute for that for christ. And so when we in this, we see that christ takes our sin and in return gives us his righteousness right so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, by his wounds, you have been healed Like I can't. That's such clear substitutionary language. And then and he's actually, you know, referring back to Isaiah 53, which we read in church last night, but I'm gonna I'll skip over the beginning of it In verse 4, surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrow. And then verse 5, he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities. The chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds, wounds we are healed. And I. And then at the end, and uh, he says in verse 12 um, therefore, I will divide him a portion with the many and he shall divide the spoil, the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors. Yet he bore the sin of many and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Speaker 5:And then we see, all throughout the New Testament, those themes are being picked up, as Christ is having to pay for our sin, pay the penalty for, I mean, we, everybody. If you went to Sunday school, you memorized Romans 3, 23,. For the wages of sin is death, right, but the gift of God is eternal life. That there is a payment that has to be paid for sin, and what I get so confused, like what you're talking about. I mean it doesn't make sense why people are attacking this and the only thing that does make sense is an emotional overreaction like what you were saying.
Speaker 5:We saw this in the 90s. This is the emergent church revisited and people want to say see, are you telling me that this beautiful gospel just boils down to divine child abuse? And you're like no man. You've got a terrible understanding of the work of all of the persons of the Trinity. Yes, did God exercise his wrath? Yes, but Jesus Christ offered himself up freely as a payment for that wrath, to receive that wrath for the joy that was set before him.
Speaker 5:So in our minds it seems crazy, because it says in Isaiah 53, it was the will of the Lord to crush him. That seems crazy. But then we see, oh no. Jesus says oh no for the joy that was set before him. He endured the cross, despising the shame because they were working together in this perfect unity and harmony. And when yesterday morning, with in our family worship, we were just, we were talking through that passage and saying, man, when we realize what an amazing, an amazing unity and community that existed for eternity in the Trinity, that it makes when it says in 1 John 4, right that in this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. We can't imagine the amount of love that existed inside the Trinity. And how much more does that make God sending Jesus and Jesus willingly going.
Speaker 5:I mean that to me is overwhelming. And then you know that. And it says that God sent Jesus, his son, to be the propitiation for our sins. And it it uses that. It in in the original language the grammatical construction is that the son equals, he is the propitiation, and not just a propitiation it says for our sins. And so I think over and over when we're reading through scripture, to slow down and just see when it's using the work of Christ, and then to see that personal pronoun Like, oh, he did this for our sins. And then the other one. I wanted to mention two more. I wanted to mention real quick 1 Peter 3.18,. For Christ suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the righteous for the unrighteous.
Speaker 5:I mean you can't. I mean that is that's substitution. He suffered, that's the penalty. The righteous, he, the only righteous one For the unrighteous, that's us, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit. And then, I think, in 2 Corinthians, 5, 21,. For our sake, he made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. I mean, that's why I don't see. I do love highlighting those other aspects, because that's great. Is Jesus an example? Yes, but we couldn't follow that example had he not given us his righteousness, had he not taken our sin and given us his righteousness. Is he victorious? Yes, but he's not just victorious for himself, he's victorious because he's bringing us into it, meaning a fundamental change in us to be able to follow in that. So, yeah, I think it's great to think of these, not in opposition but in harmony, and they only draw their significance because of what's happened in the penal substitutionary atonement.
Speaker 4:You know, I think Brian McLaren was the first one I ever heard and he was like the godfather of that emergent movement.
Speaker 2:He wrote the Generous Orthodoxy. Was that first book?
Speaker 4:Yeah, that was the first book, that really popped yeah. Which was neither of those things. It was neither.
Speaker 2:Generous nor Orthodox.
Speaker 4:Yeah, but.
Speaker 5:Or is it?
Speaker 2:a new Orthodoxy.
Speaker 5:Did he write a new kind of Christian? He wrote a new kind of Christian and he wrote Generous Orthodoxy, generous Orthodoxy. That was the two. Yeah, that was the two.
Speaker 4:Yeah, yeah, Um and he was the one who made that comment about this view of the atonement, this aspect the the heart of the gospel, that he likened it to divine child abuse.
Speaker 2:And isn't that same book where he said it'd be like if a husband was mad at his wife and he kicked the dog?
Speaker 5:Right, yeah, it was that same. That's in generous orthodoxy, I think.
Speaker 4:Right, it was that same. That's in generous orthodoxy, I think. Yeah, what?
Speaker 2:Which is just this was at the hub of the emergent movement JB. So the idea was God is punishing Jesus for my sin. That's like a husband who's mad at his wife, who then kicks the dog to punish the dog.
Speaker 3:Is that supposed to be like an analogy to the Trinity?
Speaker 5:Maybe that's horrible, we don't know.
Speaker 4:That's horrible yeah it's horrible on every possible level. But what became clear? Because, you know, then Rob Bell, you know, took the ball and ran with it. Um, you know he wrote about McLaren's writing that you know Christianity was black and white form, it was oppressive. He experienced this freedom when he realized, oh, god's not really like this.
Speaker 4:The heart of the gospel, the selfless, sacrificial love of God on display through Jesus on the cross, is the idea. What it's going to back towards is oh, god's not really angry at your sin. God's really not sending people to hell. Right removes. It's designed to remove and cover that reality of God's nature and character. So if God's not really angry at sin, well then Jesus didn't need to die for our sin.
Speaker 4:Something else was going on there, and so that all becomes like this attempted Jedi mind trick to get people away from calling people to repentance. You don't need to call people to repentance. You don't need to tell them that God is going to hold them accountable for their sin, like we just need to tell them Jesus loves them. We just need to tell them that Jesus has this awesome plan that sin in the Bible gets redefined. And this is what worries me, because I've seen some of the other people that you mentioned more recently saying similar things that sin isn't a personal offense against a holy God, where we've fallen short of the glory, right His glory, that we're not living out what it means to be an image bearer. That sin's not an attack against God's nature and character. Sin gets redefined Once you remove God's holiness and his wrath and his justice. Sin gets redefined as I'm not living the optimal human life that God designed me for.
Speaker 2:Living up to my potential right.
Speaker 4:So it just it goes from being centered on the nature and character of God to being centered on me.
Speaker 2:So why then would I think this is important for this episode, that we explain this? Why would those people that are proponents of those different ideas, why would they say jesus had to die on the cross?
Speaker 4:yeah, that, that's a good y'all know that's a good question With the older school now for us somehow it's no longer the early 2000s they would then emphasize his sacrificial love in so much that he was willing to die for the things that he he was teaching for living.
Speaker 4:this kind of example and his death is more at the hands of the people who put him down for teaching that rather than this was god's, always god's plan, from before the foundation of the earth, that the sun should suffer in our place okay, that's the argument they would make, which is crazy. My assumption is that something similar is going on now.
Speaker 5:Yeah, and to me, what's always been the frustrating part of that is that that doesn't make sense, right, like if you were going to show your supreme power over something, why would it be necessary to die? That's not what amazing generals do, right? And there has to be something else in play, and I do think that the appeal is that it does soften the gospel, right, it makes Christianity seem more palatable, but what happens is you've lost the gospel and it's no longer Christianity.
Speaker 4:Yeah, you've absolutely neutered it in an attempt to and I appreciate that you say seems, because the reality is it can't.
Speaker 5:It doesn't yeah Right. There is no gospel.
Speaker 4:Yeah, right, there is no gospel, yeah, yeah and because just one more thought is all attempts, you know, because some people, I think from a legitimately good way and I think it exposes weaknesses in their understanding of scripture in other places Like, if your starting point is man, I've got to get people to trust in Jesus. If that's your starting point, then you're going to end up softening the gospel over salvation. No one can come to Christ unless God draws him, unless God opens their eyes. That's why Jesus was healing blind people and opening the ears of deaf people and bringing back a corpse from the dead. All of that to illustrate only I can save, you know.
Speaker 4:And so our responsibility is not to try to get them to be attracted to Christ, our responsibility is just to tell them the truth, and that's the vehicle God has chosen to use to bring dead people to life. And so we don't hesitate to say tell them about the holiness of God and our need to repent. Because here's the beauty, when you understand that, like, how beautiful is it that the same God whose holiness you've offended and whose hell you deserve, he himself, has provided the way for you to be forgiven and to have his wrath towards you satisfied without you ever paying an ounce of it. You know, like and so, but I think if we start from the perspective, I've got to get them to see that Christ is beautiful, um and and attractive. We've already. We're already on the wrong foot and we'll end up compromising other doctrines along the way. But if we're firm and man God's sovereign, he's the only one who can save and he will save. And just tell him the truth.
Speaker 2:I'll close with two illustrations. One that last thing you said made me think of when, when a new parent is trying to teach their child to eat vegetables. Or you know like you get that little cups of baby food and that child's only been on milk or formula and they want to try to get them to eat the vegetables. Or you know like you get that little cups of baby food and that child's only been on milk or formula and they want to try to get them to eat the carrots or the peas or the green beans, and so they'll take and they can't, the kid won't eat it. Because they accident not accidentally because they gave that kid the sweet yogurt or the dessert type, the fruit. So now the kid's like I don't, whatever you're putting in my mouth, I don't want that. It tastes nasty, I want that other thing that tastes really good. So then you see, parents and I did this with our first child you put a little bit of the vegetable and then you put the sweet stuff on top of it, like you're trying to trick that kid's taste buds. Well then they just spit it all out. And then so I remember for us the second kid came along and we're like let's don't introduce the sweet stuff, let's just, when we take them to hard food or to soft food, let's give them you know, like the brand cereal, the green stuff. And then that kid didn't taste the sweet stuff, so they accepted it, you know. But I think there's this attempt to sweeten the gospel, but it's already the sweetest truth in history. So what they're doing is they're trying to make it palatable to someone who doesn't have eyes to see, ears to hear or desire for it. That's right.
Speaker 2:The other illustration is just the old we've all used this or heard this where it's like you owe a debt you can't pay, right, there's an old song, zach, that you and I would have grown up with I owed a debt I couldn't pay. He paid a debt he didn't owe. I needed someone to wash my sins away. However, that went. But there's an old quote I don't know who said this, someone in the last century, but it's like jesus paid a debt I couldn't pay. He lived a life I couldn't live. He died a death I should have died and he and he raised back to life in my place. Um, it's the debt that I owe. The wages of sin is death. I can't pay that, unless I come under the punishment and the wrath of God, that's right.
Speaker 2:What Jesus did in taking my punishment would be like if I owed a debt to the government, to the IRS, and I don't have enough money, jesus takes not just enough money to pay that debt and put it in my bank account. He takes his bank account and empties it into my bank account. So I owe, I owe a seatbelt ticket for $200 and I'm broke. It's not like he's putting the $200 into my bank account. He's putting the national treasury into my bank. He's all of his wealth, all of his treasury, into my bank. He's all of his wealth, all of his all, all of his worth is going into my account to then pay the debt. And that's and that's where um back where we start. Where Rob started this with the idea of ransom being paid, is that my debt is being paid by Jesus. He's doing that on my behalf and that that is at the heart of penal substitutionary atonement. That's why I went to the cross.
Speaker 3:Right, we sang that song on Thursdays, adam and little Um, and one of the lyrics that I feel like really struck a chord with me is I'd rather die than be without you. Do you guys know?
Speaker 3:the song that I'm talking about and I feel like that I've one. It's just like kind of an emotional song, like it's very good, very just so good, such a good moment. But that that lyric of like whoa, like Jesus died because he wanted like to bear my, my sin and my shame and my guilt, so that we could one day be together, be united. Um, yeah, I also really like what Zach was saying Like just take time to like read scripture.
Speaker 3:I feel like a lot of times I I met with my community group um this year and was like listen y'all, I don't want to like read another book or a devotional, like all of those things are great, but like let's just focus on like we're gonna read scripture, we're gonna keep each other accountable, we're gonna talk about like what we read, and like I feel like sometimes we can blow things out of proportion and completely forget about scripture and the gospel and like the words that it's saying. All these things are still very important, don't get me wrong, but I think sometimes we can just get in over our heads and be like here's this theory and not really just read the sweetness and the goodness that we have.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I mean, that's why, you know, I love theological education, I love clarity. I think theological language gives clarity. But theological language is worthless unless it's grounded in scripture, unless you can say you know, this is where this is coming from. It might make sense logically, it might make sense to you emotionally, but if it's, if it's not grounded in scripture, then we don't. We don't believe it. And that's why it's good to have these conversations, because we're like, yeah, we want to say penal, substitutionary atonement. We don't just say that because we want to put ourselves on some team we're on the PSA team, woo-hoo but we want to say that because we believe this is the clearest way of explaining what the Bible is saying.
Speaker 2:Here in Sproul, macarthur and Piper at the same conference.
Speaker 5:That'd be awesome, that was amazing.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that was amazing. All right, thank y'all. Come to be strong. If you're a dude, if you're a girl, you're not really supposed to come. Come to respond in the spring, um, but we, we hope to see you at be strong. This is the content we'll be. We'll be covering much more in depth, obviously, instead of a half hour podcast. Uh, every session will be driving at this and, uh, hopefully a lot of conversation surrounding it. But let us know what you think and if there's anything we can do to to bring more clarity to this, please leave a comment or email us. Just make that, make that clear to us and we'll do our best to to try to answer those questions.
Speaker 1:Thank, you Thanks for listening to no Sanity Required. Please take a moment to subscribe and leave a rating. It really helps. Visit us at SWOutfitterscom to see all of our programming and resources, and we'll see you next week on no Sanity Required.
