Chesnutmare
No I did not consult with RC Sproul personally, I used the words "Reformed sources".
Below is one of them.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/vicarious-substitution-2/
Reading what RC Sproul says here, where does it conflict with what DeYoung said in the link?
DeYoung says the following:
Quote
Pay careful attention to what Lewis says in that paragraph. He does believe in a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but he rejects penal substitution. He admits that penal substitution is not quite as silly as it once sounded, but he still does not accept it. Instead, he argues that Christ pays a debt (which is true), but not as a punishment for our sakes.
Lewis’ theology of the atonement is confusing (see for example this helpful Touchstone article), but I would argue his view is more like Christus victor or ransom to Satan than penal substitution. Aslan’s death, you may recall, was a sacrifice to the Witch and was explained rather ambiguously as “deeper magic.” This is not the place to defend the critical importance of penal substitution. My point is simply that Lewis does not teach it in Mere Christianity, and in fact undermines it.
What am I missing?
Tom