Penal Substitution

Thank you for considering what I have written. And I do apologize for my difficulty in articulating the distinction I am trying to flesh out. I am not talking about "clearing the guilty", but rather questioning the contextual framework upon which PSA is built.

The Atonement is substitution - I agree. Scripture says the righteous for the unrighteous. And you are absolutely correct that any attempt to separate sin from sinners is ridiculous. There is no sin without sinners AND sin is an action performed by the sinner (a sin cannot be guilty as the guilt rests upon the sinner alone).

Perhaps this secular example will help understand the distinction I am so poorly trying to bring to light. In examining our (America's) judicial system Benjamin Corey wrote:

‘For 500 years [since Calvin introduced penal substitutionary atonement] we have focused our understanding of God and God’s justice as the need for punishment instead of the need for reconciliation, and this has led to a broken framework in our country in regards to justice. When we allow this broken framework to influence the application of justice (as we have) we see criminal acts in terms of “need to punish as justice” instead of “need to restore as justice.” Yes, there are many criminal acts that require a person to be removed from society for their protection and for ours, but this theological framework has caused us to view “justice served” when a person receives what we feel is an appropriate sentence instead of seeing “justice served” when both the offender and the offended (even if that’s just society in general) have had their lives reconciled (perhaps not with each other, but in a general sense). Justice becomes punishment, not healing and restoration.” (Benjamin Corey, “Justice Broken”)


Calvinism assumed that the highest form of justice is retributive justice. It is quite easy to understand why John Calvin, a lawyer, made the presupposition as it fit naturally within his own worldview. But being native to a 16th century judiciary milieu (and natural to our contemporary secular worldview) does not excuse the presupposition from examination. Christopher Marshall noted in “Beyond Retribution”, “Wherever Calvinism spread, punitive sentencing follows.” I am contending that retributive justice is our norm, and we presuppose this norm upon the Scripture. What Scripture does provide is a sense of restorative justice (the easiest example is the Mosaic Law). What is the reason to assume that divine justice operates within a retributive context when applied to the atonement as there exist no command, passage, or law in Scripture that advocates such a supposition?

 

My apologies...again. I did not mean to imply that John Calvin invented retributive justice and that it spread because it was a construct of Calvinism. I probably should not have offered Marshall's quote as it may have confused the discussion (I only wanted to highlight the difference, and this was a poor choice on my part). My argument is that PSA erroneously applies retributive justice to the atonement.

You offer that it is because God's justice is fully satisfied against His people - God poured out His Wrath on Christ and punished Him in our stead therefore fulfilling the demands of justice (which is retributive justice by definition) that restorative justice (a reconciliation between man and God) can occur. And I believe your best argument thus far is pulling back to view the Trinity (God taking that wrath upon Himself). The issue, however, that I am addressing here is that retributive justice is not offered as a context of divine justice even in the Old Testament. It is offered only as a negative, never as an example.

In 2 Samuel 12 we read that David committed evil before God and repented, telling Nathan that he had sinned against the Lord. BUT God forgave David, took away his sin so that he would not die as death was what the Law demanded.

The passage, taken literally as it stands, is simple forgiveness. David repented and God forgave. There were consequences but what has taken place is restorative justice (concerning David, God, Israel, and the enemies of God who would have cause to blaspheme). The basis is not the Law but God Himself, His sovereignty, mercy, AND justice.

This is not, however, justice if divine justice is retributive justice. God must punish David with the punishment the Law requires in order to satisfy its demands. PSA advocates tend to look forward to the Atonement (God poured out this wrath due David upon Christ therefore satisfying the punishment demanded by the Law) as the basis for this forgiveness.

My question concerns the addition of retributive justice. I believe we are taking for granted a context that is foreign to Scripture, and I believe PSA advocates imply (either consciously or unaware) this context into their argument.

 

I am not sure that we can stick to the language of Scripture and discuss the issue because thus far retributive justice has been assumed rather than exhibited. (And I apologize for the term, but I do not know another to represent that sense of justice).

 

No, I am not joking. Even in respect to Er we are dealing with restorative justice (and with Nineveh also, which is why Jonah did not desire to obey).

I think you are confusing restorative justice with reconciliation. I do not mean men are not judged as guilty, but that forgiveness and justice are not dependent on punishment satisfying what the Law demanded.

But again, this is not the problem. Should I be wrong in my view this would not make you correct in yours. Your theory stands upon an assumption you have yet demonstrated to be biblical.

 

I responded twice to your interpretation of Isaiah 53:10-11, echoing Peter's words recorded in Acts that it was God's will. I also pointed out that it was the people for whom and at whose hands Christ suffered that esteemed Him stricken and a transgressor in Isaiah 53, something you dismissed saying God viewed it that way also. This is what I mean when I say your presuppositions are driving your interpretation. No passage you have provided proves your theory. You, and Martin, offer a passage and then an interpretation which assumes what is not in that text itself. I am not even arguing against this, but I am asking that you provide a reason for the context you provide.

Insofar as the false dichotomy argument, I disagree. Remember, we are not talking in general but specifically in terms of the atonement. Since we agree that restorative judgment is present it becomes your task to prove God's justice is somehow also retributive justice. This is the one specific error I am addressing, but not the only issue present. If the context that would allow punishment itself satisfy divine judgment (i.e., judgement satisfied because God's wrath towards our sin is poured out on Christ instead of us) cannot be proven via Scripture then there is no need to go beyond that one error.

 

Hey Y1,

I am not sure that there are several definitions. It is judgment with the crime and punishment in view. For example, if I get a parking in my county justice demands that the ticket be paid based on the violation - it doesn't matter who pays the ticket. If I am convicted of murder justice demands a minimum sentence with respect to the crime and punishment alone. I may have committed the crime as a juvenile, but regardless to me the crime may keep me in prison for the remainder of my life.

God's justice is retributive if it demands punishment for sins committed regardless of the person (God does not forgive a sin because the sinner repents except that the punishment was inflicted on Christ). I say that PSA views Divine Justice as retributive justice because it seems to me that PSA holds that God was wrathful towards Christ and punished Him with the punishment due the elect for sins they have committed. Christ was punished with our punishment therefore satisfying the demands of the Law and making forgiveness a reality to those who believe.

 

This OP is about Penal Substitution and what @Martin Marprelate has posted. I asked for support concerning the use of retributive justice as a contextual framework.

If you have something to offer, then please offer it. But please do not continue making unsupported claims like the quote above. You do not know what Luther and Calvin saw other than what they wrote. You do not know Pauline Justification other than is provided in Scripture. I anticipate this going back to a "because I say so" kind of discussion, but if we can prevent that for at least a few pages maybe something can be gained.

 

I agree that Paul framed his discussion of the justification within the system God had placed in the OT. The Old Testament...the Old Covenant, the prophets,and the Law....bore witness to the New Covenant as a righteousness of God. But even there (in the Old Testament) divine justice is not retributive justice (the Law does not demand sins be punished but that the sinner be punished for sins committed).