Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

One Comment

  1. Sean
    October 22, 2017 @ 7:23 pm

    Good listen. Curious to hear the other half from Mr Hach. I do not hold to Penal Substitionary Theory either. My main objection was the same one you brought to light more clearly in this interview… and that is that saying one is “forgiven” yet their debt was “paid in full” is obfuscation. It really makes the words have no meaning because these are mutually exclusive terms.

    I first heard objections to PSA from a street preacher Jesse Morrell. While I may today have many disagreements with him he still did pretty diligent work studying his atonement views. He said he was using the normal Ray Comfort plan like Robert spoke about in the beginning. The “You’re due for hell, a debt you cannot repay, Jesus paid your debt, therefore you’re forgiven and you don’t go to hell. You just need to repent and believe” That worked for Mr. Morrell until a student at a university told him that he did not need to repent and believe if Jesus “paid his debt.” Since unbelief was a sin, that sin was “paid for” also. That caused Mr. Morrell a stir and he realized the student was right. So he set off to studying. Then later after running into him I came out of the PSA view. Calvinists decry you, what’s new… but I’d rather be a bit unsure than act like my atonement view is -THE- Gospel.

    That one explanation that Sean Finnegan went through a while back was pretty good… can’t remember if that was on your podcast or his now, but it did well explaining the different atonement views and his own take.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
7 × 25 =