What are the issues with Penal Substitution Theory?

[JonC]

What are the issues of you see with the Theory of Penal Substitution?

We have had threads in the past offering support for the Theory of Penal Substitution. Since this is increasingly a contemporary issue I would like to know what issues you (if you do not hold the theory) have with the Theory of Penal Substitution.

What I am looking at here is (obviously) from a perspective of people who disagree with the theory (not from people who seek to silence anyone who disagrees with Penal Substitution Theory). This is an opportunity for the other side to state their case.

While Penal Substitution Theory is not a baptist distinctive, it is common enough among baptists that I'd prefer to open this to the "all Christian" group.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Christ died for our sins, it is plain and simple. It is God's story, I think that is all that needs to be understood by we mere humans. It is enough for me to just trust, after all who can psycho analyze God? Sometimes...imho, people get too carried away with questioning every little thing God does. To be like the little children, imo, is to simply trust without all the question. There is no theory about it, Christ took our place and the punishment we all deserve , upon Himself. That is enough for me and I do not question that.

 

[JonC]

One of the issues I have with the theory is its relative newness. As most (who don't hold the theory....i.e., the majority of Christian's both historically and alive today) probably realize the Theory of Penal Substitution originated during the Reformation when John Calvin articulated Scripture through the language of the law courts using an Aquinian context of justice. When it comes to the Bible, antiquity does not mean correct. But "new" typically means wrong.

 

[JonC]

Christ died for our sins, it is plain and simple. It is God's story, I think that is all that needs to be understood by we mere humans. It is enough for me to just trust, after all who can psycho analyze God? Sometimes...imho, people get too carried away with questioning every little thing God does. To be like the little children, imo, is to simply trust without all the question. There is no theory about it, Christ took our place and the punishment we all deserve , upon Himself. That is enough for me and I do not question that.

Good example. Penal Substitution Theory teaches that Christ died for our sins. BUT Scripture teaches that Christ died for us because of our sins to liberate us from the wages of sin, to free us from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Penal Substitution Theory cheapens the cross.

I too, believe that Christ is enough. But I believe we are commanded to study and when we start taking God's Word on it's own ground we learn more of God's love and our obligation.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Well, I do not know enough about all these "new definitions". I just know Christ is God Incarnate, which says to me ,that with all the garbage thrown at us from the fallen angels it is only God Himself who can help us. I wrestle with understanding things all the time , even with how He can forgive someone like myself. But it is clear that He can and He does by what I see on the cross. It is completion and everyone can go put all the definitions they want on that, for me it is simply God's will, be done!

 

[JonC]

Well, I do not know enough about all these "new definitions". I just know Christ is God Incarnate, which says to me ,that with all the garbage thrown at us from the fallen angels it is only God Himself who can help us. I wrestle with understanding things all the time , even with how He can forgive someone like myself. But it is clear that He can and He does by what I see on the cross. It is completion and everyone can go put all thedefinitions they want on that, for me it is simply God's will, be done!

Amen! God knows us. God became one of us. That's just amazing to me. The Creator became a child. And that Child bore our sin in His flesh. He bore our transgressions, our shame, our infirmity....and gives us not only life eternal but one of such abundance the world will never know.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Good example. Penal Substitution Theory teaches that Christ died for our sins. BUT Scripture teaches that Christ died for us because of our sins to liberate us from the wages of sin, to free us from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Penal Substitution Theory cheapens the cross.

I too, believe that Christ is enough. But I believe we are commanded to study and when we start taking God's Word on it's own ground we learn more of God's love and our obligation.

For our sins, because of our sins, what's the difference? He died for all sin, so that all who would seek escape can come to the bondsman for their freedom. Those who are looking for the payment to get out .....behold your redeemer, Christ the Lord! God is the answer to all our problems another words. Trust in the Lord in all things.

 

[JonC]

For our sins, because of our sins, what's the difference? He died for all sin, so that all who would seek escape can come to the bondsman for their freedom. Those who are looking for the payment to get out .....behold your redeemer, Christ the Lord! God is the answer to all our problems another words. Trust in the Lord in all things.

I believe Scripture to be complete. Not long ago I presented my understanding of the atonement and was ridiculed by a few holding to the Theory of Penal Substitution. They made fun of my belief because it was too much Scripture and too little philosophy. With that in mind, I appreciate what your saying.

But the fact remains that human philosophies can often alter what is read from what is written.

Scripture tells us that the Cross was the will of God. Do we need to add that God considered Jesus a sinner and as such condemned Him, punished Him? Is that the intent of God's Word?

Well, Scripture tells us God will not condemn the righteous and that God is faithful to His Holy One. So no. That is not what it means that it was God's will to "crush Him".

The problem with just taking any philosophical idea and saying it's good enough because it is done within Christianity and cloaked in Bible words is that it can become a stumbling block. It does not matter what Scripture means to us. It matters what Scripture means.

AND - Scripture is sufficient.

Thank you for your insight.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

I believe Scripture to be complete. Not long ago I presented my understanding of the atonement and was ridiculed by a few holding to the Theory of Penal Substitution. They made fun of my belief because it was too much Scripture and too little philosophy. With that in mind, I appreciate what your saying.

But the fact remains that human philosophies can often alter what is read from what is written.

Scripture tells us that the Cross was the will of God. Do we need to add that God considered Jesus a sinner and as such condemned Him, punished Him? Is that the intent of God's Word?

Well, Scripture tells us God will not condemn the righteous and that God is faithful to His Holy One. So no. That is not what it means that it was God's will to "crush Him".

The problem with just taking any philosophical idea and saying it's good enough because it is done within Christianity and cloaked in Bible words is that it can become a stumbling block. It does not matter what Scripture means to us. It matters what Scripture means.

AND - Scripture is sufficient.

Thank you for your insight.

Christ was GOD, PERIOD! HE was NOT a sinner , God is RIGHTEOUS, the ONLY one who could make atonement for men's sins.... the innocent for the guilty. As for the meaning of NOT CONDEMNING a righteous man, evil men do this. God was condemned , God means, in not condemning =a righteous man to hell. Righteous people are persecuted and condemned by wicked men in this world all the time. The lot of the prophecy concerning Christ's crucifixion fell upon wicked hearts not believing hearts. As for some philosophies.
Alive in Christ Colossians 2:7-9
…7rooted and built up in Him, established in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. 8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ. 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.…

 

[JonC]

Christ was GOD, PERIOD! HE was NOT a sinner , God is RIGHTEOUS, the ONLY one who could make atonement for men's sins.... the innocent for the guilty. As for the meaning of NOT CONDEMNING a righteous man, evil men do this. God was condemned , God means, in not condemning =a righteous man to hell. Righteous people are persecuted and condemned by wicked men in this world all the time. The lot of the prophecy concerning Christ's crucifixion fell upon wicked hearts not believing hearts. As for some philosophies.
Alive in Christ Colossians 2:7-9
…7rooted and built up in Him, established in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. 8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, which are based on human tradition and the spiritual forces of the world rather than on Christ. 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.…

Exactly. This is what has been called "the Great Exchange".

God Himself took on human nature - became man and was tempted yet dis not sin. He prevailed where we fail. And He lay down His life as a ransom for us.

Scripture is sufficient without, as you rightly point out, these "new" definitions. God's Word was never left to invention. It is complete and sufficient in and of itself and we have His Spirit to guide us.

 

[kyredneck]

it is clear that He can and He does by what I see on the cross. It is completion and everyone can go put all the definitions they want on that, for me it is simply God's will, be done!

behold your redeemer

Amen!

19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;
20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. 1 Cor 6

 

[tyndale1946]

Amen!

19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;
20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. 1 Cor 6

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Christ alone!... Saves his own!... Brother Glen

 

[utilyan]

What are the issues of you see with the Theory of Penal Substitution?

We have had threads in the past offering support for the Theory of Penal Substitution. Since this is increasingly a contemporary issue I would like to know what issues you (if you do not hold the theory) have with the Theory of Penal Substitution.

What I am looking at here is (obviously) from a perspective of people who disagree with the theory (not from people who seek to silence anyone who disagrees with Penal Substitution Theory). This is an opportunity for the other side to state their case.

While Penal Substitution Theory is not a baptist distinctive, it is common enough among baptists that I'd prefer to open this to the "all Christian" group.

Its a bad theory. Makes God evil, God is so ticked off over sin, he needs to vent his frustration and anger to derive enough sadistic pleasure as to not upset him or cause him to explode or turn into a puppy dog. God pours out his wrath on Jesus. Jesus is sent to save us from God. Debt is not forgiven it is transferred. God in no way forgives anything, he simply makes Jesus pay for it. An exchange.
So after God expresses his anger on Jesus, God changes, not angry with you anymore, he loves you like Jesus.
And folks insist rather than a theory now its the new Gospel.

God is only "just" in the retributive sense and not merciful at all. The folks who swear God can pick and choose who he saves and damns. Is absolutely powerless when it comes to the justice of sin which one way or another must be punished.

God is a cold blooded lawyer and its no surprise the theory comes from a cold blooded lawyer.


There is lines in the bible that says you can't be punished for what someone else does.

Humility starts nice and well, but in the game of one-upping others it starts to become a false humility. Everything in the universe is your fault and look at what you did to Jesus.


I can wiggle my fingers, ultimately i don't know how, God did it. We can apply God as the cause for every phenomenon.


People try to sugar coat this one and I can see from the hurt in their face they are obligated by what someone told them scripture teaches rather than what it says.

 

[JonC]

Its a bad theory. Makes God evil, God is so ticked off over sin, he needs to vent his frustration and anger to derive enough sadistic pleasure as to not upset him or cause him to explode or turn into a puppy dog. God pours out his wrath on Jesus. Jesus is sent to save us from God. Debt is not forgiven it is transferred. God in no way forgives anything, he simply makes Jesus pay for it. An exchange.
So after God expresses his anger on Jesus, God changes, not angry with you anymore, he loves you like Jesus.
And folks insist rather than a theory now its the new Gospel.

God is only "just" in the retributive sense and not merciful at all. The folks who swear God can pick and choose who he saves and damns. Is absolutely powerless when it comes to the justice of sin which one way or another must be punished.

God is a cold blooded lawyer and its no surprise the theory comes from a cold blooded lawyer.


There is lines in the bible that says you can't be punished for what someone else does.

Humility starts nice and well, but in the game of one-upping others it starts to become a false humility. Everything in the universe is your fault and look at what you did to Jesus.


I can wiggle my fingers, ultimately i don't know how, God did it. We can apply God as the cause for every phenomenon.


People try to sugar coat this one and I can see from the hurt in their face they are obligated by what someone told them scripture teaches rather than what it says.

I agree. I believe where it goes wrong is in assuming redemption is through retributive justice. Most who defend the theory never get what you have rightly pointed out. They argue passages but are not aware of their own presuppositions that make divine righteousness (in terms of redemption) an issue of law rather than a righteousness apart from the law.

In short, the view assumes God is bound and operates within a specific concept of human justice (retributive justice).

It has, in my opinion, a false start that nullifies any attempt at a biblical defense. The first thing advocates of the Theory have to do is to justify the presupposition that divine justice is retributive. Only then can they start a biblical argument (which is, or should be, common knowledge - first examine the presuppositions). But most don't seem to recognize retributive justice as questionable....or even that other (and older) systems exist in terms of divine justice and forgiveness.

I think we need to look at the theory within it's own presuppositions as well - rather than "making God evil" or guilty of "child abuse", the theory itself takes into account that this is a work within the Trinity (God taking punishment upon Himself, in effect). That said, it is not compatible with some truths that Scripture teaches (several passages would define God's work of redemption as unrighteous were the Theory correct).

But again, it is fruitless to argue against the Theory if at first the basic presuppositions are not addressed. Since most who hold the Theory do not even recognize this base, they don't defend it (and they see the Theory at every turn in Scripture and history because they don't recognize what is presupposed). The first step anyone holding the Theory needs to take is to recognize, evaluate, and defend its presuppositions.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. I believe where it goes wrong is in assuming redemption is through retributive justice. Most who defend the theory never get what you have rightly pointed out. They argue passages but are not aware of their own presuppositions that make divine righteousness (in terms of redemption) an issue of law rather than a righteousness apart from the law.

In short, the view assumes God is bound and operates within a specific concept of human justice (retributive justice).

It has, in my opinion, a false start that nullifies any attempt at a biblical defense. The first thing advocates of the Theory have to do is to justify the presupposition that divine justice is retributive. Only then can they start a biblical argument (which is, or should be, common knowledge - first examine the presuppositions). But most don't seem to recognize retributive justice as questionable....or even that other (and older) systems exist in terms of divine justice and forgiveness.

I think we need to look at the theory within it's own presuppositions as well - rather than "making God evil" or guilty of "child abuse", the theory itself takes into account that this is a work within the Trinity (God taking punishment upon Himself, in effect). That said, it is not compatible with some truths that Scripture teaches (several passages would define God's work of redemption as unrighteous were the Theory correct).

But again, it is fruitless to argue against the Theory if at first the basic presuppositions are not addressed. Since most who hold the Theory do not even recognize this base, they don't defend it (and they see the Theory at every turn in Scripture and history because they don't recognize what is presupposed). The first step anyone holding the Theory needs to take is to recognize, evaluate, and defend its presuppositions.

the wrath of gid is not retributibve in the sense that God feels like he needs to go hurt someone in order to feel good about that, but it is a direct byproduct of His holiness, as he MUST actively judge and comdemn by wrath any sin breaking in His domain!

 

[JonC]

the wrath of gid is not retributibve in the sense that God feels like he needs to go hurt someone in order to feel good about that, but it is a direct byproduct of His holiness, as he MUST actively judge and comdemn by wrath any sin breaking in His domain!

I mean retributive justice - not retribution.

 

[Yeshua1]

Its a bad theory. Makes God evil, God is so ticked off over sin, he needs to vent his frustration and anger to derive enough sadistic pleasure as to not upset him or cause him to explode or turn into a puppy dog. God pours out his wrath on Jesus. Jesus is sent to save us from God. Debt is not forgiven it is transferred. God in no way forgives anything, he simply makes Jesus pay for it. An exchange.
So after God expresses his anger on Jesus, God changes, not angry with you anymore, he loves you like Jesus.
And folks insist rather than a theory now its the new Gospel.

God is only "just" in the retributive sense and not merciful at all. The folks who swear God can pick and choose who he saves and damns. Is absolutely powerless when it comes to the justice of sin which one way or another must be punished.

God is a cold blooded lawyer and its no surprise the theory comes from a cold blooded lawyer.


There is lines in the bible that says you can't be punished for what someone else does.

Humility starts nice and well, but in the game of one-upping others it starts to become a false humility. Everything in the universe is your fault and look at what you did to Jesus.


I can wiggle my fingers, ultimately i don't know how, God did it. We can apply God as the cause for every phenomenon.


People try to sugar coat this one and I can see from the hurt in their face they are obligated by what someone told them scripture teaches rather than what it says.

God wrath and anger towards sins and sinners is not arbitrary and vindictive, nor is he just happy with glee smashing someone, but it is a direct byproduct of Him being Holy, and he Must pour out Holy Wrath upon sin in order to be true to his very nature!

 

[Yeshua1]

I mean retributive justice - not retribution.

God must account for sinning, and the soul that sins must die as payment rendered to God for breaking His law, correct?

 

[JonC]

God must account for sinning, and the soul that sins must die as payment rendered to God for breaking His law, correct?

That is the gist of retributive justice.

If you punch me then God has to punch someone in order to forgive you because your crime was against the law.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is the gist of retributive justice.

If you punch me then God has to punch someone in order to forgive you because your crime was against the law.

Or punch Himself....
There has to be someone fount accountable for the crime done, even God cannot just say I forgive you without some one paying the price of the crime committed!