Wayne Grudem on Penal Substitution and Baptism

Wayne Grudem is an evangelical theologian, and a smart man—I have read stuff from him before in the course of research—but this quotation of his on the idea of theological disagreements blows my mind (and not in a good way):

“I’m thankful that believers who differ on the issue of baptism can still have wonderful fellowship with one another across denominational lines, and can have respect for each other’s sincerely held views. I certainly do not put the question of baptism in the same category as the denial of penal substitutionary atonement…because that seems to me to be a denial of the heart of the Gospel…But differing views on baptism…do not have serious consequences of that type.”

So basically, accepting a view of the atonement that centers on penal substitution is more important than baptism. What?

It has become a trendy thing for Christians to want to distance themselves from penal substitutionary atonement, which I think is unfortunate, because the Bible definitely and repeatedly affirms that Jesus Christ was punished in our place as part of the atonement (John 1.29, Romans 3.21-26, 2 Corinthians 5.21, Galatians 3.13, Hebrews 9.29, 1 Peter 2.24).

However, I am aware of nowhere in the New Testament where possessing the single, correct understanding of the atonement is tied to an individual’s salvation or the forgiveness of sins (which is a good thing, because although Christ’s substitution for us was part of the atonement, the Bible indicates that there was more to it than just that). On the other hand, there are plenty of scriptures that link baptism to salvation and the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2.38, Acts 22.16, Romans 6.1-4, 1 Peter 3.21).

I think Grudem is mixed up on this one.

God Wants Sons, Not Slaves

In Will God Run?, Charles Hodge writes some powerful words on salvation, grace, and the restoration of relationship with the Father (emphasis is mine throughout):

“The father gave the prodigal a ring. When the son met the father he said, ‘I have sinned against heaven and in thy sight, and I am no more worthy to be called thy son. I wish to be recognized as a servant, a slave.’ The father’s first impulse is to get that notion from his system. He said, ‘Son, you are my son. I don’t want slaves. I want sons.’ Salvation is restoration!¹

Salvation is more than penalty remitted; it is basically relationship restored!…May we suggest again, he is forgiven because he was a son. He didn’t buy salvation because he was penitent. He didn’t earn restoration because he came home. His fondest hope was to be given a decent job as that of a servant. Beloved, we are saved by grace and must never forget it.² 

Religion’s advice is ‘try a little bit harder,’ ‘work at it just a little bit more.’ Christianity is not advanced humanism, not just simply a few good morals! If Christianity were only morals, Socrates could be our savior. But Christianity is the restoration of a father-son relationship.³

Salvation…is the placing of God’s best robe on the worst sinner! We strive to place ourselves not to need the robe when that is our basic need! God’s answer is not ‘clean up, son.’ It’s not “try a little bit harder.’ God’s answer is, ‘Come home, son. Come home.’”⁴ 

There is so much to weigh in on in these few quotations, but I’ll just briefly touch on one issue. So often, people seem to think (and maybe they think this because it is implied in preaching), that they just need to ‘get their lives right’ and then in some sense they will be worthy of being God’s children.

This thinking is completely backwards. First, we are at no point worthy of being God’s children, and secondly, while moral living is important, it proceeds from a right relationship with the father; it does not precede that relationship.

• • •

1Charles B. Hodge, Jr., Will God Run? (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 2002), 50.

2Ibid.

3Ibid, 52.

34Ibid.