The Case for Penal Substitution

[JonC]

The Gospel is attacked when foundational doctrines are attacked. If someone attacks the Trinity, the virgin birth, or the resurrection they are attacking the Gospel. While criticizing Penal Substitution does not automatically rise to that level, it could if related doctrines are called into question such as justification by faith. I made that point in my previous post.

I agree to an extent. That is why I have rejected Penal Substitution Theory. But at the same time I believe our explanation of the gospel is not the gospel itself. Men are saved believing several theories. As corrupt as I believe Oenal Substitution Theory to be, it was my view for decades. I am no more or less a Christian for having abandoned it.

 

[Reformed]

But at the same time I believe our explanation of the gospel is not the gospel itself. Men are saved believing several theories.

People are saved by the Gospel (Romans 1:16). Preaching the Gospel is the explanation of the Gospel and we better get it right (Galatians 1:6-9). Sinners are not converted because we are perfect in our presentation; they are saved by the power of the message itself. Even though God is greater than our errors, every believer should strive to present the Gospel accurately; whether that is sharing the good news with someone at the local coffee shop or preaching it from the pulpit. And I do bring the Atonement into my sharing of the Gospel. I tell people that they have a sin-debt they owe to God and the consequences of dying in their sins. I tell them of the price Christ paid on the Cross through His blood, a price they are incapable of paying, and through repentance and faith in Christ's completed work on the Cross, their sin-debt will be paid-in-full. So, the Atonement cannot be divorced from the Gospel. They are intricately linked.

 

[Reformed]

And this is where I wave a dismissive hand at the charges that Penal Substitution is a dodge in order to promote Calvinistic doctrine. While I believe the Reformed view of predestination and election is faithful to scripture, I am not so ideological that I believe it needs to be force-fed into every Gospel discussion. Why is it that I first heard of Penal Substitution from a bunch of synergistic Dispensationalists? Why is Penal Substitution the dominant atonement view at DTS, LTS, SWBTS et al? Not all of these institutions are Calvinistic strongholds.

 

[JonC]

People are saved by the Gospel (Romans 1:16). Preaching the Gospel is the explanation of the Gospel and we better get it right (Galatians 1:6-9). Sinners are not converted because we are perfect in our presentation; they are saved by the power of the message itself. Even though God is greater than our errors, every believer should strive to present the Gospel accurately; whether that is sharing the good news with someone at the local coffee shop or preaching it from the pulpit. And I do bring the Atonement into my sharing of the Gospel. I tell people that they have a sin-debt they owe to God and the consequences of dying in their sins. I tell them of the price Christ paid on the Cross through His blood, a price they are incapable of paying, and through repentance and faith in Christ's completed work on the Cross, their sin-debt will be paid-in-full. So, the Atonement cannot be divorced from the Gospel. They are intricately linked.

As you know (I believe) the early gospel presentations did not offer such explanations. They were statements of the actual gospel (of Christ as Messiah) accompanied by the testimony in action of the Church (and the reputation of Christians). Now this would be "anti-intellectual", and to be fair I do not understand (save for God) how people were reached (I am not sure we would have, but "they" are not "us"). So I do disagree a bit.

My denomination typically believes you have to start by explaining sin and how men are guilty. Personally, I believe this is evident (because Scripture says it is). Man knows they are "fallen", that is why we have so many religions. But I do understand that we have to articulate the gospel in a meaningful way.

 

[Reformed]

I do understand that we have to articulate the gospel in a meaningful way.

The only word I would change in your statement is "meaningful". I would substitute it with "accurate". After all, it really is a life and death issue.

 

[JonC]

The only word I would change in your statement is "meaningful". I would substitute it with "accurate". After all, it really is a life and death issue.

The reason I stick with "meaningful" is that throughout history the gospel has been presented in inaccurate ways (Ransom to Satan, for example). But people were saved. I don't think that we can state that the ECF's were not saved, or that C.S. Lewis was not saved, or N.T. Wright is not saved, etc.

Even now there are Christians who are saved through a gospel presentation absent Penal Substitution Theory (Luther's was in fact Satisfaction rather than Penal Substitution Theory; Anabaptists do not hold Penal Substitution Theory) and of course there are people like you and I who were saved by understanding the gospel in the context of Penal Substitution Theory.

The problem, as I see it, is that a false idea contributes to greater error as this is a doctrine upon which other doctrines are built.

 

[Reformed]

I will stick with accurate. Note I did not say perfect. God is greater than our limitations and errors but we should always strive for accuracy when it comes to Bible truth.

 

[JonC]

I will stick with accurate. Note I did not say perfect. God is greater than our limitations and errors but we should always strive for accuracy when it comes to Bible truth.

I think that this is why people are saved through presentations that allow the gospel to be based on any one of these theories. The gospel itself is basic and is the power to salvation (not the understanding that conveys the gospel). It shines through (even the Penal Substitution Theory ). That is why we can meet as brethern while disagreeing on these topics.

 

[Reformed]

That is why we can meet as brethern while disagreeing on these topics.

Jon, I am not looking for ways to disagree. Perhaps it is just my skeptical nature and my penchant for defining terms and taking nothing for granted. Prima facia I agree with you. Agreeing to disagree is a nice sentiment among the polite and civil but it all depends on what that means. I may have to agree to disagree with a Jehovah's Witness but I will never consider their gospel anything but lies from the pit of hell. While I do not consider Christus Victor or Ransom Theory to be inherently big "H" heretical, to the extent their advocates stray into other errors determines whether I view them as co-laborers in gospel work. There are some on this board who reject justification by faith. If we are not justified by faith in Christ then we are not justified at all. I can never be at peace with that denial of a foundational part of the gospel message.

 

[Reformed]

@JonC I need to offer a P.S. to my last post. I do believe both Christus Victor and Ransom Theory (of any variety) to be a serious error. There is a fine line between error, serious error, and Heresy. You may notice I used a capital "H" for Hersey. I believe big "H" heresies are damnable heresies. They are false doctrines that pervert the Gospel and are worthy of Paul's condemnation in Galatians 1. Not every aberrant view rises to such a level. It is when a view corrupts the Gospel (directly or indirectly) that it must be opposed with all vigor.

 

[The Biblicist]

@JonC I need to offer a P.S. to my last post. I do believe both Christus Victor and Ransom Theory (of any variety) to be a serious error. There is a fine line between error, serious error, and Heresy. You may notice I used a capital "H" for Hersey. I believe big "H" heresies are damnable heresies. They are false doctrines that pervert the Gospel and are worthy of Paul's condemnation in Galatians 1. Not every aberrant view rises to such a level. It is when a view corrupts the Gospel (directly or indirectly) that it must be opposed with all vigor.

I believe that both you and jon are seriously wrong in your estimation of guaging the seriousness of these errors have with regard to the gospel. Certainly, God can use his word regardless of what spin the bearer of the gospel may put on it. He can take the reading of God's word by a Catholic Priest whose entire message goes on to absolutely pervert it and in spite of that perversion can empower it and save anyone he pleases hearing his word. Certainly, error does not change the state of salvation of the one propagating the error but that is not the criteria by which the seriousness of the error is to be judged.

The seriousness of the error is not determined on what God can do with His Word, or whether the error being propagated does not change the spiritual condition of the speaker/writer/teacher/preacher but the seriousness of the error is determined by the explanations, definitions and meanings being attributed biblical langauge especially when dealing with absolute doctrinal essentials as the gospel.

Nearly every "Christian" religion/denomination claims we are saved "by grace" but not every Christian denomination explains or defines "grace" in keeping with its true biblical meaning. Nearly every "Christian" religion/denomination claims to preach the gospel and uses the Biblical words that express the gospel but that does not mean their definitions and explanations actually conform to the Biblical meaning of the gospel and its language.

You cannot possibly deny the true biblical meaning of "penal" and "substitonary" atonement and claim you are preaching the true gospel of Christ! Can't be done. Redefinion, repudiation of the Biblical truth with regard to "penal" atonement is NO GOSPEL at all. Redefinition, repudiation of the Biblical truth with regard to "substionary" is NO GOSPEL at all. And to claim that the seriousness of error is ultimately determined or guaged on whether or not God can still use the biblical language to save and/or because the wrong explanation, wrong meanings, repudiation of those truths does not unsave the person teaching/preaching is completely ludricrous.

It is not the words but the meaning and explanations attached to Biblical words that determines the seriousness of the error with regard to absolute essential doctrines.

False doctrine is usually conceived by redefining pivotal words, redefining Biblical lines of distinction or by making absolutes into relatives and/or transforming finalities into transitions

 

[Reformed]

You cannot possibly deny the true biblical meaning of "penal" and "substitonary" atonement and claim you are preaching the true gospel of Christ! Can't be done.

I am pulling this statement out of your post because it is the most pertinent.

I believe both the Christus Victor and Ransom theories of the Atonement are a serious error. I stated that in the post you quoted. The question is whether they rise to the level of damnable heresy. Perhaps they do and I am missing it. I am not yet prepared to say that a person who holds one of these ancient views is outside of Christ. If you read what I wrote I reserved judgment on that based on whether their view of the Atonement compromises foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. I used justification by faith as an example. It is not my intention to reward error or, worse yet, allow a person who is in error to feel justified in remaining there. I believe that @JonC 's view on the Atonement places him on shaky ground. My greatest concern about his position is that he was not able to make a credible exegetical defense for it in the thread he created. I do not know the man's mind, so I do not know where he stands on other doctrinal issues.

 

[percho]

IMHO, The gospel is PSA, also God created/made man like this:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels;
And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.
for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh;
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Because before the foundation of the world God had foreordained the Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, was, by his precious blood, going to redeem man from sin and death.

Before the foundation of the world, the Son of God was going to be manifested in the flesh, conceived out of spirit, brought forth by the virgin woman, born under the law, as the Son of Man, made a little lower than the angels. God with us.The Word made flesh.

Adam was going to bring death by sin to all men.

I do not know what that does to any theories but to me it is the gospel.

 

[JonC]

I am pulling this statement out of your post because it is the most pertinent.

I believe both the Christus Victor and Ransom theories of the Atonement are a serious error. I stated that in the post you quoted. The question is whether they rise to the level of damnable heresy. Perhaps they do and I am missing it. I am not yet prepared to say that a person who holds one of these ancient views is outside of Christ. If you read what I wrote I reserved judgment on that based on whether their view of the Atonement compromises foundational doctrines of the Christian faith. I used justification by faith as an example. It is not my intention to reward error or, worse yet, allow a person who is in error to feel justified in remaining there. I believe that @JonC 's view on the Atonement places him on shaky ground. My greatest concern about his position is that he was not able to make a credible exegetical defense for it in the thread he created. I do not know the man's mind, so I do not know where he stands on other doctrinal issues.

You bring out an important point when you speak on an inability to make a credible exegetical defense.

The reason for this is I have become very cautious of reduction and am now more in favor of the biblical narrative itself.

What you have requested is that I present a theory of the atonement that is in the same type as Penal Substitution Theory or moral Influence Theory (etc.) and then defend it. This is, I believe, an erroneous mibdset. Scripture does not deal with the Atonement in this manner and I do not know that we should.

When you speak ou f Penal Substitution Theory you have not spoken of aspects of the Atonement the Theory ignores. On past threads several have indicated that Penal Substitution Theory accepts other truths that other theories bring out. But the Theory itself does not incorporate these truths.

Either Penal Substitution Theory is complete (encompassing the work of the Atonement in its entirety) or it is incomplete (leaving out aspects of the atonement in favor of magnifying one over the rest).

Do you believe that Penal Substitution Theory is a complete view that encompasses the entirety of the Atonement?

 

[Reformed]

The reason for this is I have become very cautious of reduction and am now more in favor of the biblical narrative itself.

Jon, I will address the rest of your post later but the part I am quoting is really the most important.

First, you have set up a double standard. You demanded defenders of Penal Substitution defend their view exegetically and then accused them of hiding behind "necessarily implied" and human reasoning.

Second, you consider your atonement view to be a foundational doctrine and yet you cannot defend it from scripture! You are not very cautious of reduction, you are cautious of either a) flying your true colors up the mast or b) hiding your true intentions. Is there any other foundational doctrine you are not willing to defend from scripture?

Let me tell you why I fear for you. 13 years ago I was an elder in a Baptist church in Maryland. One of my fellow elders started sharing some strange ideas. He shared his view that the Bible should be viewed as a narrative story not a book. Time passed and then he said that if God has a story for mankind, why must it be contained in just written form? Things finally came to a head when he admitted the Bible is not actually the word of God. We called for his repentance from this dangerous sin but he resigned and left the church. When I see "narrative" used as a reason not to defend a foundational Christian doctrine from scripture the warning flags go up and sirens sound.

Jon, I am genuinely concerned about you.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

Jon, I will address the rest of your post later but the part I am quoting is really the most important.

First, you have set up a double standard. You demanded defenders of Penal Substitution defend their view exegetically and then accused them of hiding behind "necessarily implied" and human reasoning.

Second, you consider your atonement view to be a foundational doctrine and yet you cannot defend it from scripture! You are not afraid of reduction, you are afraid of either a) flying your true colors up the mast or b) hiding your true intentions. Is there any other foundational doctrine you are not willing to defend from scripture?

Let me tell you why I fear for you. 13 years ago I was an elder in a Baptist church in Maryland. One of my fellow elders started sharing some strange ideas. He shared his view that the Bible should be viewed as a narrative story not a book. Time passed and then he said that if God has a story for mankind, why must it be contained in just written form? Things finally came to a head when he admitted the Bible is not actually the word of God. We called for his repentance from this dangerous sin but he resigned and left the church. When I see "narrative" used as a reason not to defend a foundational Christian doctrine from scripture the warning flags go up and sirens sound.

Jon, I am genuinely concerned about you.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I ask any who hold one theory to prove the foundation of their theory via Scripture and if they cannot to provide the reason it should be accepted. I believe this a reasonable request. Insofar as my idea about taking Scripture as it comes rather than holding to a single theory, I would defend this simply by trusting in God and not leaning in our own understanding. It is a matter of repentance and belief.

The issue is that when men choose one theory as “the” theory they are in effect denying or reducing other aspects of the Atonement as a byproduct or cause. That is fine, if this is what those who hold to the Theory believe. But it is very dangerous ground.

Thank you for your concern, but I can assure you that your fears are misplaced. When I say that Scripture should be taken as a narrative I mean that I am becoming cautious of a few systematic theologies because they contextualize passages apart from the way those passages are presented in Scripture. I am saying that we should allow Scripture to define itself within the context Scripture provides because it is God-breathed.

Your concern here is actually the concern I have for the church today. It is a concern that drove me to seminary. The only reason that theories are allowed to define Scripture is that they have been around long enough to become tradition and any challenge is viewed as a challenge to Scripture itself.

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. One issue with these theories is that they ultimately view Scripture as static. NOT objective (which it is) but static in terms of a lack of motion. What people end up with is a summery that replaces the biblical narrative.

The danger, and why I am concerned for those who dogmatically cling to the Theory (or any single theory) is that while dealing adequately with the topic of its focus, it has a tendency to skew anything that does not fall within its purview.

This is how we get truly heretical doctrine (like God separating from Christ for three hours; God paying a ransom to Satan; God being wrathful towards the Son, a “bloodless” atonement, etc.). This type of error could be avoided by simply by taking Scripture as it comes. Let Scripture define Scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

I ask any who hold one theory to prove the foundation of their theory via Scripture and if they cannot to provide the reason it should be accepted. I believe this a reasonable request. Insofar as my idea about taking Scripture as it comes rather than holding to a single theory, I would defend this simply by trusting in God and not leaning in our own understanding. It is a matter of repentance and belief.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Even if you don't go with any said theory you should be able to articulate your view FROM SCRIPTURE giving clear reasons as to why Scripture supports your view, from Scripture.

You cannot and then expect others to do what you will not.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am pulling this statement out of your post because it is the most pertinent.

I am not yet prepared to say that a person who holds one of these ancient views is outside of Christ.

You are missing the point. Serious error is not determined by whether or not you are prepared to say a person holding that that error is outside of Christ. Serious error is determined by whether essential doctrines are robbed of the truth content regardless if they are being expressed by Biblical terms. Biblical terms robbed of Biblical content is error. Essential doctrines expressed by Biblical terms void of Biblical truth is serious error.

The infamous ETC is a prime example! ECT was based upon agreement of common Biblical language but void of Biblical truth content. Evangelicals compromised the essential truth of the gospel and adopted justification by works because they omitted the word "without" works.

In Galatians "another gospel" is defined by ADDING error to the correct verbal contents of the gospel that transform it into another gospel by which the additive error repudiates the essential "truth" of the gospel and makes it "another gospel."

In 1 Corinthians 15 another gospel is defined by SUBTRACTING essential truth from the contents of the gospel so that it becomes a "vain" object of faith.

Any view of atonement, even though it uses Biblical terms, even though it is propagated by saved people if that view is empty of the Biblical content/truth of penal satisfaction or the truth of substitution destroys the very heart of the gospel truth and is serious error.

 

[The Biblicist]

I ask any who hold one theory to prove the foundation of their theory via Scripture and if they cannot to provide the reason it should be accepted. I believe this a reasonable request. Insofar as my idea about taking Scripture as it comes rather than holding to a single theory, I would defend this simply by trusting in God and not leaning in our own understanding. It is a matter of repentance and belief.

Your theory failed your own test. For example, you attempted to use John 3:18 to demand a singular basis for condemnation "unbelief". What you actually did, was jerk a text out of context because in context there are a plural bases for condemnation that is not restricted to "unbelief." This is not a matter of questionable interpretation but this is the explicit and clear statement of scripture as the very next verse explicitly and clearly states "And this is the condemnation, that...." which goes on to speak of the nature of the human heart loving darkness and hating light as the underlying reason for their inability to beleive and thus the underlying cause for their condemnation. Proper exegesis demands there are at minimum three different criteria for condemnation stated in John 3:17-20. By proper exegesis I am referring to the grammar, tenses in context. There is a condemnation already existent prior to his incarnated coming (v. 18a). There is a condemnation occurring manifested by unbeleif after his coming (present tense participles - v.18b). There is condemnation due to the internal nature of the human heart (vv.19-20). That is immediate context. Overall context demands that the already existent condemnation in verse 18a has its source not with anything experientially based in the individual's believer's life but in the singular act of Adam due to his one act of disobedience - "for the judgment was by one to condemnation,
....Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;" - Rom. 5:16,18

You are forced to EXPLAIN AWAY the plain sense of scripture and deny fundementals of exegesis or else your whole theory collapses due to this singular truth. So, your theory collapses under the criteria of your own test.

Your theory empties the essential truths of the gospel that is necessary to actually save any sinner as your theory repudiates any necessity for "shedding blood" unto death for the remission of sins because your theory denies death is a penalization and therefore your theory denies the necessity of death for any legal satisfaction with regard to the holiness of God and remission of sins. Your theory denies the necessity of "substitionary" atonement as your theory denies any necessity for having a legal substitute to satisfy the wrath of God against sin. Your theory is a complete and utter repudiation of the "truth" of the Gospel as it completely empties the gospel of every essential necessary to actually save anyone.

 

[JonC]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Even if you don't go with any said theory you should be able to articulate your view FROM SCRIPTURE giving clear reasons as to why Scripture supports your view, from Scripture.

You cannot and then expect others to do what you will not.

I do not expect others to do what I will not. (I would much prefer people stick to Scripture itself than resort to defending and holding a systematic theory of doctrine....at least such important a doctrine).

Insofar as proving that my view is derived FROM Scripture, I have done that. What I have not done is take those passages and create a theory through which to examine Scripture.

There are many who hold this type of view of Scripture (I've already mentioned a few). The idea is that if you take Penal Substitution Theory as "the" theory of the atonement then you have assumed a topic for every passage dealing with the atonement (it affirms some passages, but denies many more in its redefinition of Scripture).

Look at the error that has come out of the view - God separated from Christ for three hours on the Cross, God was wrathful towards Christ....just these two heresies should be a wake up call. AND I grant that these errors are not actually taught in Penal Substitution Theory. My complaint is that holding one theory run the risk of redefining Scripture to that theory.

It is what Spurgeon spoke of with his illustration of Nelson and the telescope.