What is Penal Substitution Atonement

[Yeshua1]

In his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Francis Turretin poses the question, 'Did Christ truly and properly satisfy God's justice in our place?' He writes:

The question concerns a penal satisfaction properly so-called by which he not only fulfilled the will of God, but also His justice (Christ having taken upon Himself our sins. This the Socinians deny; we affirm.
Second....the question concerns a true and proper satisfaction made by the payment of a full price and which meritoriously obtains the liberation of the guilty on the ground of justice. This we preach from the word of God.......
Third....the question is whether [Christ] died for us substitutively (i.e. in our place, that by being substituted in our place, he suffered the punishment due to us). We affirm that He did.

So do I. Christ suffered the punishment due to me and due to other believers, thus rendering satisfaction to the justice of God the Father. I have never suggested that He suffered the punishment of those in hell. If He had done, they would not be there.

This will be my last post on this subject for a while. I have other stuff to do. I will undertake a more detailed exposition of the Biblical evidence for PSA when time permits, though this may not be for a month or so.

I would just like to add that while I do not see jesus death in the place of the lost in hell, as His death benefits only the Elect in regards to salvation, he would have suffered in the same way as the lost do in hell while upon the cross, as he faced what we all should have faced!
And Turretin is top notch for theology!

 

[Yeshua1]

In his Institutes of Christian Religion (II.xii.2-3), John Calvin writes:

"Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to the just judgment of God, and in the same flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us the victory. Those, therefore, who rob Christ of divinity or humanity either detract from his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness. On the other hand, they are no less injurious to men, undermining and subverting their faith, which, unless it rest on this foundation, cannot stand.”

Calvin believed that Christ appeased God's wrath and the penalty that sinful man rightly owed. In other writings, Calvin cites Romans 3:25.

Romans 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; (NASB)

Rather than just defeating Satan (most bloodless atonement theories), Christ, through His blood (Rom. 3:25), paid the penalty for sin and the sin-debt that each person who comes to Him by faith owes.

Think Calvin and Turretin got it more right than Luther did!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet this difference not worth mentioning yields a huge difference when applied to our theology. If Luther is right and Christ's blood satisfied the demands of the Law by outweighing sin and wrath (God did not punish Jesus with the Hell we deserved at Judgment, but Christ's physical death was sufficient because He is God) then the entire Calvinistic system is based on a faulty context.

But if Calvin was correct and the demands of justice require that the punishment be assumed by someone, and to satisfy the demands of the Law God punished Jesus not only in our stead but with the punishment we would have received at Judgment then Luther's view does not fulfill the demands of the Law.

This distinction without a difference is only unimportant when one doesn't pay attention to the difference it makes.

The entire OT sacrifical system was PST to its very core, was it not?

 

[Yeshua1]

John and Charles Wesley didn't think so.

Well, they were both 5 pointers, just of the ole "free will" variety!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are definitely wrong! The "travail of his soul" is punishment and it is that specified punishment which Isaiah says satisfies God's justice toward sin. Indeed, if you remove the "punishment" factor then you make a mockery of "according to his works" and any just consequences for sin.

In some fashion, Jesus did really experience being forsaken and being judged by God for the behalf of us!

 

[Yeshua1]

Contrast John Wesley with Whitefield, Edwards, Gill, Venn, Romaine and Rowlands. The latter six stand head and shoulders above him in godliness.

How many of them were calvinists?

 

[The Biblicist]

The Law of God does not have an alternative consequence other than penal consequences for violating its standard. The wages of sin is death. That is the penal consequence for condemnation under law. Nowhere does scripture prescribe an alternative consequence or an alternative payment for sins. Jon's position rests entirely upon an alternative satisfaction for violation of God's Law. Unless there is an alternative consequence for sin clearly justified in scripture, it is foolish to claim that Christ paid for our sins other than according to the penal consequence that is demanded - death. Nowhere does the Scripture restrict "death" to mere physical death. Gehenna is reserved for beings whose whole person is at enmity with God thus confining their hatred to a restricted place while suffering separation from God.Christs person is not at enmity with God and therefore such a restricted place is unnecessary while the suffering of separation from God took place in the body on the cross as that was the actual cause of the "travail of his soul" that satisfied the Father. The union between his humanity and deity within one body "satisfied" the Father with regard to the eternity of the penalty as he encompasses eternity.

 

[The Biblicist]

Christ was MADE TO BE SIN in the very same judicial sense we are MADE RIGHTEOUS in the eyes of God - imputation -2 Cor 5:21.

The "travail of his soul" (Isa. 53:11) judicially satisfied God's wrath against sin as a direct consequence of being judicially made "an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10)

Death is not the natural consequence of pre-fallen man but the explicitly stated consequence of sin directly addressed to the pre-fallen man (Gen. 2:17). Death "entered the world" not through the creation of life, but with the advent of sin (Rom. 5:12). Death is "the wages of sin" (Rom.6:23) rather than the natural consequence of life.

Theological positions that deny these explicit and essential points of Biblical doctrine are heretical and logically repudiate the Biblical framework of the atonement.

 

[JonC]

The entire OT sacrifical system was PST to its very core, was it not?

No. But it was substitutionary with the penalty of sin in view (a propitiation). The OT sacrifice foreshadowed the Cross, but the priests did not see themselves as punishing the sacrificial animals with the punishment due them. It was a propitiation, turning aside God's wrath and looking to a more perfect Sacrifice.

 

[The Biblicist]

No. But it was substitutionary with the penalty of sin in view (a propitiation). The OT sacrifice foreshadowed the Cross, but the priests did not see themselves as punishing the sacrificial animals with the punishment due them. It was a propitiation, turning aside God's wrath and looking to a more perfect Sacrifice.

False! The OT Priests did see the "offering for sin" that pictured DEATH of the substitute in the place of God's people on the day of atonement, as that is precisely why they laid hands on the head of the sacrifice while confessing THEIR sins over it - thus in type transferring the penalty of their sins to that of the TYPE which signified what they KNEW (Acts 10:43) Christ would fulfill in his own person (Heb. 10:1-18).

 

[The Biblicist]

Moreover, in the judicial context of being "justified before God" the term "reckoned" in Romans 4 does refer to imputation of righteousness that faith embraces rather than impartation of righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

They KNEW the death of the sacrifice was PENAL and SUBSTITUTIONARY or IN THEIR PLACE because the Prophets told them (Acts 10:43 "all" inclusive of Abel, Heb.11:4, Enoch, Noah, Moses, etc.) and the prophets spelled it out in no uncertain terms (Isa. 53:1-11).

 

[The Biblicist]

Another common error is to argue that God's people did not realize the typology based upon the current generation living in Christ's day as they had been dumbified by tradition and hardened against the truth so they could not see (Jn. 12) what previous generation could and did see and understand. The Levites did understand the penal substitutionary nature of the sacrificial system during the time of Moses (Lev. 10:10) and taught the people with clarity as did Isaiah during his generation. There was always a "remnant" according to election that did understand and did believe in the gospel.

 

[JonC]

False! The OT Priests did see the "offering for sin" that pictured DEATH of the substitute in the place of God's people on the day of atonement, as that is precisely why they laid hands on the head of the sacrifice while confessing THEIR sins over it - thus in type transferring the penalty of their sins to that of the TYPE which signified what they KNEW (Acts 10:43) Christ would fulfill in his own person (Heb. 10:1-18).

I never said that the OT Priests did not see the sacrifice as their substitute. Where we disagree is that I believe the OT priests viewed this in the context of a passover looking towards a greater Sacrifice while you believe the OT priests viewed this within a 16th century retributive justice construct. The issue is the post-enlightenment construct you are imposing on Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture is the priest described as punishing the sacrificial animal with the punishment due man. Likewise, nowhere in Scripture is God described as punishing Christ with the punishment that we (individually) would have suffered had we never believed.

Now, I know you will come back with Scripture to accompany your theories. We've been down this road several times already. But you will not come back with Scripture proving your theories to be true because there are none. What you've done in the past several posts is to weave tradition into passages of Scripture without distinction. I think you are too shackled to Rome to see this objectively.

 

[Yeshua1]

I never said that the OT Priests did not see the sacrifice as their substitute. Where we disagree is that I believe the OT priests viewed this in the context of a passover looking towards a greater Sacrifice while you believe the OT priests viewed this within a 16th century retributive justice construct. The issue is the post-enlightenment construct you are imposing on Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture is the priest described as punishing the sacrificial animal with the punishment due man. Likewise, nowhere in Scripture is God described as punishing Christ with the punishment that we (individually) would have suffered had we never believed.

Now, I know you will come back with Scripture to accompany your theories. We've been down this road several times already. But you will not come back with Scripture proving your theories to be true because there are none. What you've done in the past several posts is to weave tradition into passages of Scripture without distinction. I think you are too shackled to Rome to see this objectively.

The Beauty of Calvin's viewpoint though was that he was NOT imposing what the 16th century viewed it as being, but was very consistent to what the Ot/Jesus and paul all saw it as being!

 

[JonC]

The Beauty of Calvin's viewpoint though was that he was NOT imposing what the 16th century viewed it as being, but was very consistent to what the Ot/Jesus and paul all saw it as being!

That is your unsupported opinion. What we know is that the framework John Calvin provided was a context foreign to the Church for fifteen centuries. We also know that some of the ideas contained in Calvin's framework were dependent on late middle age philosophy. And we know that John Calvin was educated as a lawyer.

Your saying that John Calvin's contextual framework of retributive justice was how the OT/Jesus and Paul all saw it is silly as there are no evidences supporting your claim. You are projecting you views on Scripture (which is a very poor practice when it comes to studying Scripture).

 

[Yeshua1]

That is your unsupported opinion. What we know is that the framework John Calvin provided was a context foreign to the Church for fifteen centuries. We also know that some of the ideas contained in Calvin's framework were dependent on late middle age philosophy. And we know that John Calvin was educated as a lawyer.

Your saying that John Calvin's contextual framework of retributive justice was how the OT/Jesus and Paul all saw it is silly as there are no evidences supporting your claim. You are projecting you views on Scripture (which is a very poor practice when it comes to studying Scripture).

Calvin though was basing his understanding on how the scriptures themselves, especially in the teachings of both Jesus and Paul!

 

[JonC]

Calvin though was basing his understanding on how the scriptures themselves, especially in the teachings of both Jesus and Paul!

And Luther wasn't? Is that really your claim? What about Anabaptist theology? Did they also disregard Scripture? What about fifteen centuries of Christians?

Your claim that what the OT/Jesus and Paul really thought was lost for 15 centuries only to be discovered by John Calvin is silly. Do you think an angel showed him, perhaps on a scroll he could only read with magic eyeglasses?

This is one reason Calvinism gets a bad name. All the talk about "Scripture alone" and it boils down to what they think OT priests, Jesus and Paul thought instead of "it is written".

It doesn't work that way, brother. Both Calvin and Luther saw the same teachings in Scripture, but each through a different context. Your context is extra-biblical (again, this is why you can't defend it sola scriptura...for all the hype, you've abandoned scripture alone).

 

[The Biblicist]

I never said that the OT Priests did not see the sacrifice as their substitute. Where we disagree is that I believe the OT priests viewed this in the context of a passover looking towards a greater Sacrifice while you believe the OT priests viewed this within a 16th century retributive justice construct. The issue is the post-enlightenment construct you are imposing on Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture is the priest described as punishing the sacrificial animal with the punishment due man. Likewise, nowhere in Scripture is God described as punishing Christ with the punishment that we (individually) would have suffered had we never believed.

Now, I know you will come back with Scripture to accompany your theories. We've been down this road several times already. But you will not come back with Scripture proving your theories to be true because there are none. What you've done in the past several posts is to weave tradition into passages of Scripture without distinction. I think you are too shackled to Rome to see this objectively.

Oxymoronic! On one hand you admit the Priest did see it substitutionary for sin ("sin offering") and then on the other hand you think it might have been a substitution for something other than man or something less than penal, maybe a substitute for a tea party or a batter for baseball???? You have just emptied the word "substitute" of any meaning with regard to the obvious meaning "in the place of" with regard to the penal consequences of sin - death. Your denying mere common sense in denying the priest did not realize it was substitution for death as a penal consequence. Your problem is that your theology is determined by traditions not by scripture. They obviously saw the animal being punished with death in the place of man as the animal was a "sin offering" and that substituionary penal character is fully described in Isaiah 53 in language you must explain away- end of story. The Father "laid on him" our iniquities, and the Father is the one that must be "satisfied" in the travail of his soul. It is penal and it is substitutionary and it is for sinners and the Christ was the recognized antitype as even John the Baptist said "the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."

 

[JonC]

Oxymoronic! On one hand you admit the Priest did see it substitutionary for sin ("sin offering") and then on the other hand you think it might have been a substitution for something other than man or something less than penal, maybe a substitute for a tea party or a batter for baseball???? You have just emptied the word "substitute" of any meaning with regard to the obvious meaning "in the place of" with regard to the penal consequences of sin - death. Your denying mere common sense in denying the priest did not realize it was substitution for death as a penal consequence. Your problem is that your theology is determined by traditions not by scripture. They obviously saw the animal being punished with death in the place of man as the animal was a "sin offering" and that substituionary penal character is fully described in Isaiah 53 in language you must explain away- end of story. The Father "laid on him" our iniquities, and the Father is the one that must be "satisfied" in the travail of his soul. It is penal and it is substitutionary and it is for sinners and the Christ was the recognized antitype as even John the Baptist said "the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."

It is unfortunate you can't comprehend the distinction here as it excludes you from holding an informed stance (between Penal Substitution and Substitutuon/Satisfaction) and arguing the issue. My recommendation is that you read Luther and Calvin on the topic until the difference becomes clear (only because the distinction you can't grasp is so clear between Calvin and Luther).

My argument, quite simply, is that it never was our punishment that satisfied the demands of sin and wrath but Christ Himself. The difference is that you picture God satisfying His law of retributive justice by inflicting on Christ the punishment we, as saved individuals, would face at Judgment and I think that far too man-centered an explanation. Instead I believe Christ bore our sin in the flesh, suffered and died to redeem us with His blood. Christ satisfied the demands against us not by being punished with our punishment but because He is God.

Your view is too humanistic an approach. When you start looking at this with Christ and not man at the center your view may change.