Penal Substitution in Practical Application

[Reformed]

Discussing and debating theology should have a two-fold goal. 1. To conform our theology to truth of the Word of God. 2. To conform our behavior to live in light of the Word. The recently closed thread I started on Penal Substitution was to make a biblical defense of the doctrine. That was accomplished. The subsequent discussion went off the rails about halfway through the thread. I regret that. What I want to do in this thread is to discuss the practical aspects of Penal Substitution. How does the doctrine impact our daily Christian life? How does it affect the proclamation of the Gospel? Does it strengthen our faith? Does it increase our assurance? Does it have any value at all apart from Internet debate fodder? Let us find out.

Have you ever been in debt? I mean oppressive overwhelming debt? A debt so bad that you had to face foreclosure, bankruptcy, or repossession? Do you recall the burden that debt had on your life? How many of you got out of debt? You struggled, scrimped, and saved but you paid it off. How did you feel when you were debt free? I was in the position and the feeling of being debt free was massive relief mixed with joy. Those were emotions I felt when a temporal debt was pair off. How about our sin debt being satisfied by Christ? The debt Christ satisfied for us was not a temporary debt. Our sin was against a holy infinite God. We lacked the currency to pay that debt. It was paid for by the Son of God on our behalf. Our sin, not in part, but the whole. As the hymn writer wrote, "Is nailed to the cross and we bear it no more." Our reaction should be greater than just relief and joy, although they are part of it. The satisfaction of our sins by Jesus Christ should work in us a spirit of thankfulness and devotion. We are new creatures and belong to Christ. We will not face condemnation but have received sonship and an inheritance. That is practical theology.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[JonC]

I think it goes back to realizing that the purpose of Penal Substitution is not to establish the mechanics of the atonement but to be a model (or “motif”) similar to Christus Victor. Penal Substitution cannot be a doctrine (like the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity) that examines the logical function of “how” God’s love and justice are reconciled. In such a form it is merely one theory among others.

As such, the main focus or issue of Penal Substitution cannot be morality. It cannot be a rationalization of God’s ways or methods but has to be primarily concerned with the remission of our sins. It has to have "feet".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The debt Christ satisfied for us was not a temporary debt. Our sin was against a holy infinite God. We lacked the currency to pay that debt. It was paid for by the Son of God on our behalf.

Amen!

On merit not my own I stand;
On doings which I have not done,
Merit beyond what I can claim,
Doings more perfect than my own.

Upon a Life I have not lived,
Upon a Death I did not die,
Another’s Life; Another’s Death,
I stake my whole eternity.

Not on the tears which I have shed,
Not on the sorrows I have known,
Another’s tears; Another’s griefs,
On these I rest, on these alone. Horatius Bonar/

 

[Van]

Since PSA denies God's sacrificial sacrifice for all mankind, it teaches futility, you are in debt, one you can never pay, and Christ did not pay it for everyone, so you have no assurance He will remove your sin burden. PSA is simply a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement, two bogus peas in a pod.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think the key to understanding Penal Substitution is to appreciate the utter holiness of God.
'Our God is a consuming fire.'

'Eternal light! Eternal Light!
How pure that soul must be
When, placed within Thy searching sight
It shrinks not, but with calm delight,
Can live and look on Thee.'

I once heard a sermon by an old Welsh preacher who had made a visit to the great steel works at Port Talbot in Wales. He described seeing these enormous vats called, as I remember, 'Bessemer Converters' where the iron ore is heated to over 400 degrees Centigrade to burn off impurities. The orange of the molten iron seemed to throb with the heat, he said.

Now imagine the purity of our God that bars the way to heaven. 'But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie.' It would be instantly be burned up by the Bessemer Converter of the holiness of the LORD and of His righteous anger against sin . When Isaiah had a vision of God, he was instantly aware of God's holiness and his own sinfulness, and cried out, "Woe is me, for I am undone!" And Peter, when he first began to realise something of who Jesus really was, wanted to be as far away from Him as possible: "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!"

'The angels that surround Thy throne
may bear that burning bliss;
But that is surely theirs alone,
For they have never, never known
A fallen world like this.

O how shall I, whose native sphere
Is dark, whose mind is dim,
Before the ineffable appear,
And on my naked spirit bear
The uncreated beam?'

I think that perhaps the most important verses in connection with Penal Substitution is Romans 3:25-6. 'God set [Christ] forth as a propitiation........to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.' God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13); He cannot compromise His own justice and righteousness, yet 'God.....devises means so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him.' So it is that the Lord Jesus Christ, having no dross of His own to be burned off, nevertheless endured the Bessemer Converter of God's wrath against sin on our behalf. 'Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.' Divine justice is satisfied; the wicked have been punished, but the punishment has fallen upon the willing head of our Lord Jesus.

'There is a way for man to rise
To that sublime abode:
An offering and a sacrifice,
A Holy Spirit's energies,
An Advocate with God.

These, these prepare us for the sight
Of holiness above;
The sons of ignorance and night
Can dwell in the eternal Light
Through the eternal Love.' Thomas Binney

 

[Reformed]

I think it goes back to realizing that the purpose of Penal Substitution is not to establish the mechanics of the atonement but to be a model (or “motif”) similar to Christus Victor. Penal Substitution cannot be a doctrine (like the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity) that examines the logical function of “how” God’s love and justice are reconciled. In such a form it is merely one theory among others.

As such, the main focus or issue of Penal Substitution cannot be morality. It cannot be a rationalization of God’s ways or methods but has to be primarily concerned with the remission of our sins. It has to have "feet".

Jon, I like how Packer began his famous lecture on Penal Substitution. First, he recognized the flaw in approaching the doctrine as an intellectual exercise. He wrote, "Now I do not query the substantial rightness of the Reformed view of the atonement; on the contrary, I hope to confirm it, as will appear; but I think it is vital that we should unambiguously renounce any such intellectual method as that which I have described, and look for a better one." He goes on to list two questions that need answering about the doctrine, "I shall now try to commend what seems to me a sounder method by offering answers to two questions: (1) What sort of knowledge of Christ’s achievement on the cross is open to us? (2) From what source and by what means do we gain it?" Packer viewed Penal Substitution in a more defined way. He understood the soteriological implications of Christ's death on the cross and Christ taking on himself the divine wrath for sin. He also understood the impact the Cross had on the kingdom of God. But he saw what the Reformers and Puritans saw in the doctrine, namely its penal and substitutionary aspect to the benefit of sinners. As @Martin Marprelate so aptly made the point in post #5, the sinner cannot approach God without being consumed by His holiness and righteous wrath against sin. God cannot just overlook sin. He cannot sweep it under the carpet as though it was a simple matter of housekeeping. Sin is an affront against a holy God and His law. Let me carry this just a bit farther. Sin is rebellion against God. Samuel confronted Saul about this rebellion and said this in 1 Samuel 15:23a, "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as the iniquity and idolatry." Divination (witchcraft) and idolatry - serious stuff. God's wrath burns against these things and it cannot be extinguished save His wrath is dispensed. This is where Christ's sacrificial death on the cross comes into the picture when Jesus became our propitiation for the sin-debt we all bear.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I like how Packer began his famous lecture on Penal Substitution. First, he recognized the flaw in approaching the doctrine as an intellectual exercise. He wrote, "Now I do not query the substantial rightness of the Reformed view of the atonement; on the contrary, I hope to confirm it, as will appear; but I think it is vital that we should unambiguously renounce any such intellectual method as that which I have described, and look for a better one." He goes on to list two questions that need answering about the doctrine, "I shall now try to commend what seems to me a sounder method by offering answers to two questions: (1) What sort of knowledge of Christ’s achievement on the cross is open to us? (2) From what source and by what means do we gain it?" Packer viewed Penal Substitution in a more defined way. He understood the soteriological implications of Christ's death on the cross and Christ taking on himself the divine wrath for sin. He also understood the impact the Cross had on the kingdom of God. But he saw what the Reformers and Puritans saw in the doctrine, namely its penal and substitutionary aspect to the benefit of sinners. As @Martin Marprelate so aptly made the point in post #5, the sinner cannot approach God without being consumed by His holiness and righteous wrath against sin. God cannot just overlook sin. He cannot sweep it under the carpet as though it was a simple matter of housekeeping. Sin is an affront against a holy God and His law. Let me carry this just a bit farther. Sin is rebellion against God. Samuel confronted Saul about this rebellion and said this in 1 Samuel 15:23a, "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as the iniquity and idolatry." Divination (witchcraft) and idolatry - serious stuff. God's wrath burns against these things and it cannot be extinguished save His wrath is dispensed. This is where Christ's sacrificial death on the cross comes into the picture when Jesus became our propitiation for the sin-debt we all bear.

Yes. I had forgotten that lecture until you mentioned it on the other thread. I remain impressed with the way he deals with the topic.

Even way back I appreciated his insistence of a "model" over theory (communicating what cannot be completely known). Something about that lecture always reminded me of Piper...I am not sure why. Reading it now, the introduction (when he spoke of Penal Substitution as not answering the "how") was probably his strongest part. This may be due to that fact we come out of that tradition. Sometimes familiarity detracts from certain points.

Insofar as application, I think Tim Keller is a step above (although repetitive). This may be due to his work in NYC.

 

[Reformed]

I think Tim Keller is a step above

I am generally not a fan of Tim Keller's theology or methodology. I know he appeals to many urban hipster types in Reformed circles.

 

[JonC]

I am generally not a fan of Tim Keller's theology or methodology. I know he appeals to many urban hipster types in Reformed circles.

I think his strength is in the gospel itself (application) rather than theology proper. I can only take so much (he gets rather repetitive).

That said, insofar as the topic of the OP, N.T. Wright is also good with application when it comes to Penal Substitution Atonement as a model. Many reject his understanding of Penal Substitution Theory (the "how's"), but insofar as Christ expeincing the penality of our sins for us his application is good. Problem is he says in 1000 words what you or I would say in 20.

My favorite is probably Piper. But again, I can only take so much before I start feeling like I've entered Mr. Roger's neighborhood.

Anyway, my point is it has to remain a model because when it becomes a theory or a doctrine (how justice and grace is reconciled) it ceases to convey biblical truth and becomes as dangerous a theory as the "bloodless" or "non-violent" Christus Victor theories.

 

[JonC]

But more to the topic of the OP. How is Penal Substitution applied, what is it's practical application? That is what we have to ask of any part of our theology. If it cannot be applied it is worthless, it is the difference between knowing about Christ and knowing Christ.

If you take Penal Substitution as a doctrine or theory, there is no application. It is simply that Christ suffered the wrath of God, the punishment, that we deserved so we would not suffer that wrath. But if we take Penal Substitution as a model then it shifts from (or, more correctly, never shifts to) asking "how" divine wrath/ justice is reconciled with or to grace or forgiveness to a biblical view. That biblical view of Penal Substitution looks at the remission of sins. That understand of Penal Substitution is not only addressed in Scripture but its application is given.

The cross was God reconciling the world to Himself, not counting man's sins. It focuses on forgiveness and forms the basis to which we interact with each other.

Scripture never addresses Christ paying for our sins, but instead looks at Christ as paying for (purchasing, or redeeming) us. This is the basis of our forgiveness, that while we were sinners Christ died for us, and forms the foundation of who we are in Christ. We are purchased with a price. This is why we are to be holy people. This is why we are not to hold other people's transgressions against them, this is why we are to forgive, this is how we are to forgive. The list goes on.

I think that the most unsettling aspect is that it is while we were sinners that Christ died for us. It is while we were sinners that God loved us so much He gave of Himself that our sins would be forgiven. So often we hold people to a standard that, if Christ adopted our standard of forgiveness, we would never have been saved.

The greatest part of the application of Penal Substitution Theory is offering of ourselves, foregoing the "wrong" others have done even while they remain in the wrong, and loving each other as Christ has loved us. (It blends with other models, but I don't think that this can be helped because, as Packer noted, God's work here is so much greater than the various models of the atonement - it surpasses our understanding).

Anyway, that is the part I struggle with here. I tend to trade insult for insult. Often it starts a bit "tongue in cheek", but it rarely ends that way. Just imagine if we could love others as Christ loved us, that while we were still sinners (still enemies) He died for us.

 

[Reformed]

If you take Penal Substitution as a doctrine or theory, there is no application.

I disagree for reasons I have given in the OP and my other thread on the doctrine.

Scripture never addresses Christ paying for our sins, but instead looks at Christ as paying for (purchasing, or redeeming) us.

If we are going to require the exact words in scripture to support a doctrine then we are going to have to discard other foundational truths. As I have said before, we will have to throw out the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. This thread is not about making a case for Penal Substitution. That is in my other thread on the topic. This thread is about the practical application of the doctrine. If you go back to the beginning of my first Penal Substitution thread you will see my argument for the doctrine.

Anyway, that is the part I struggle with here. I tend to trade insult for insult. Often it starts a bit "tongue in cheek", but it rarely ends that way. Just imagine if we could love others as Christ loved us, that while we were still sinners (still enemies) He died for us.

I do not intend to trade insult for insult in this thread. I intend to focus on the practical aspects of Penal Substitution. I am making the request that anyone who believes Penal Substitution is not the most accurate view of the Atonement or sees no practical benefit of the doctrine in the individual Christian's life to refrain from posting. This is not a thread to debate Penal Substitution itself.

 

[JonC]

I disagree for reasons I have given in the OP and my other thread on the doctrine.



If we are going to require the exact words in scripture to support a doctrine then we are going to have to discard other foundational truths. As I have said before, we will have to throw out the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union. This thread is not about making a case for Penal Substitution. That is in my other thread on the topic. This thread is about the practical application of the doctrine. If you go back to the beginning of my first Penal Substitution thread you will see my argument for the doctrine.


I do not intend to trade insult for insult in this thread. I intend to focus on the practical aspects of Penal Substitution. I am making the request that anyone who believes Penal Substitution is not the most accurate view of the Atonement or sees no practical benefit of the doctrine in the individual Christian's life to refrain from posting. This is not a thread to debate Penal Substitution itself.

I am not talking about "exact words" here. What I am talking about is that difference Packer pointed out in his introduction about Penal Substitution taken as a model which addresses the remission of sins as compared to a "theory" which is presented as doctrine of the "how" divine justice is reconciled with divine forgiveness.

What I mean is that a concentration on the "how's" that Packer referred to as theorizing is not very useful in application. Scripture shows us the application. It is having that same mind in us as was in Christ as He humbled Himself to death, even death on a cross. That is the application. It is a death and burial with Christ in hope of a resurrection. This application has results. Insofar as forgiveness, we forgive others as we have been forgiven. We are purchased with the precious blood of Christ. This, not in the dogma of a model but in what the model itself communicates, is where value is found.

 

[Reformed]

I am not talking about "exact words" here. What I am talking about is that difference Packer pointed out in his introduction about Penal Substitution taken as a model which addresses the remission of sins as compared to a "theory" which is presented as doctrine of the "how" divine justice is reconciled with divine forgiveness.

Packer writes, "The first thing to say about penal substitution has been said already. It is a Christian theological model, based on biblical exegesis, formed to focus a particular awareness of what Jesus did at Calvary to bring us to God." One practical aspect of Penal Substitution is that is based on biblical exegesis. IOW the Bible teaches it. Instead of bending scripture to fit a presupposition, scripture reveals - plainly reveals - that Christ's death was both substitutionary and penal. The reason I put emphasis on "plainly reveals" is not because the words "penal substitution" appear in the Bible but that the theme of penal substitution is woven throughout scripture. It was the basis for the Jewish sacrificial system which Jesus perfected and completed. So, the fact that Penal Substitution is based on biblical exegesis establishes a solid basis for belief and dismisses the accusation of eisegesis.

 

[JonC]

I think Packer’s strength insofar as application (the topic of the OP) is in his use of “model”. He writes:

The passion to pack God into a conceptual box of our own making is always strong but must be resisted. If we bear in mind that all the knowledge we can have of the atonement is of a mystery about which we can only think and speak by means of models, and by which remain a mystery when all is said and done, it will keep us from rationalistic pitfalls and thus help our progress considerably.

I know you don't like the use of "narrative”, but it is an important aspect of Scripture. Here Packer writes confirms the historical (factual) element but also “that the biblical thought-models in terms of which those events are presented and explained are revealed models, ways of thought that God himself has taught us for the true understanding of what he has done for us and will do in us.”

Packer states that these models work together to convey truths we could not otherwise comprehend. In this way the "narrative" aspect of Scripture is vital to comprehend - otherwise Scripture becomes nothing but a reference book where divine facts are gleaned. That is the vital part one must accept before going further into J.I. Packer’s lecture because they are the context that Packer himself has provided in way of setting the stage for what was to follow (he builds his case for Penal Substitution).

The ultimate strength in his argument (I am not saying I agree with Packer (in toto) is in his explanation of “model”. This is how Penal Substitution moves from theory or doctrine to application.

He tells us that “if we wish to speak of the ‘doctrine’ of penal substitution, we should redemptive that this model is dramatic, kerygmatic picturing of divine action … than it is like the defensive formula-models which we call the Nicene ‘doctrine’ of the Trinity.”

This is where I side more with J.I. Packer and less with you. What people on this thread have done was take Penal Substitution and make it into a “doctrine” based on the “defensive formula-models” like the doctrine of the Trinity. They have used penal substitution to try to answer the “how’ questions, i.e., how God is just and the justifier of sinners” rather than the “why” questions that focus on the remission of sins. (As evidence, @Martin Marprelate has even insisted on penal substitution being a doctrine using the comparison of the doctrine of the Trinity for his case on the thread defending PSA and within replies that elements were not necessarily in the text itself). This is exactly the opposite of the type of model Packer offers - but it is the normal view for those arguing on this board).

As such a doctrine, Penal Substitution Theory is academic and philosophical (which in itself does not mean it is wrong). BUT as a model focusing on forgiveness, sacrifice, and the wrath from which we are delivered, the model has “feet”. It can be applied to our lives. And it has been applied this way in Scripture – with both evangelistic and discipleship application.

 

[JonC]

Probably the best observation I can offer to the discussion of application is that Scripture itself does not focus on the "how God worked" but on the "what God did".

Scripture never states that God paid the debt against is by punishing our sins in Christ. Instead Scripture says God offered His only Son, Christ bore our sins, theough this God was reconciliation the world to Himself, etc.

We want to focus on the "how" because that us the way we think. But when we are able to look at the "what" as offered in the text of Scripture the application is not only self'evident but it is also stated in the text.

What God was doing was reconciling the world to Himself, forgiving the sins of man. The application is that we urge men to be reconciled to God.

What Christ was doing was dying for us while we were still sinners. The application is that we are to have this same love for people.

What God was doing was forgiving us our transgressions. The application is that we are to forgive others, not counting things against them.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think perhaps the great application of the doctrine of P.S. is assurance.
I came across this in Bunyan's autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners.

"And I saw that Christ Jesus was looked upon by God, and should be looked upon by us, as the common or public Person in whom all the whole body of His elect are always to be considered and reckoned: that we fulfilled the law by Him, died by Him. rose from the dead by Him,, got the victory over sin, death, devil, and hell, by Him; when He died, we died; and so of His resurrection." Cf. Romans 4;11, 25; Isaiah 54:17.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He tells us that “if we wish to speak of the ‘doctrine’ of penal substitution, we should redemptive that this model is dramatic, kerygmatic picturing of divine action … than it is like the defensive formula-models which we call the Nicene ‘doctrine’ of the Trinity.”

This sentence makes no sense as you have presented it. Would you like to have another go?

 

[JonC]

This sentence makes no sense as you have presented it. Would you like to have another go?

Sure - my "spell check" changed remember to redemptive (it actually filled it in as I had used the world recently). If it helps, I'm talking about the 1973 lecture.

What Packer is saying is that "if wish to speak of the 'doctrine' of penal substitution, we should remember that this model is a dramatic, kerygmatic picturing of divine action...than it is like the defensive formula-models which we call the Nicene 'doctrine' of the Trinity."

As a model penal substitution is as if a preacher were presenting to a congregation truths by way of a dramatic model because the truths contained were greater than the ability of the congregation to comprehend. If you treat the "model" as a defensive formula-model (Packer offers the error of viewing it as explaining "how" God could be both just and the justifier of sinners rather than focusing on the remission of sins) you are implying a context never intended.

My view is that these "models" work together to help form a better picture of the atonement than one "model" alone because of the focus of each.

But the topic of the thread is application. This is where it is vital to look at penal substitution as a model with the remission of sins in view. It cannot be applied any other way. The wonderful thing is that when we do this (when we stop trying to hold God accountable to us by asking the "how" and we work with the "this is what God has done" aspect) the application is provided in Scripture itself.

When we read Scripture there is always a "therefore". By this I mean there is always application. God forgave us. We forgive others. God sacrificed for us. We sacrifice for others. That kind of thing.

Edit: I also want to point out that I am not arguing Packer's lecture. I thought his view of "models" apt, but I do not claim to agree with him completely. When @Reformed asked me if there were any scholars who held my view on this topic (it was a fair question as a 'new idea' is most likely a wrong idea) I offered several well known and generally respected theologians among the many with whom I agree on the topic at hand. Although I respect the man and his work, J.I. Packer was not among them.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What Packer is saying is that "if wish to speak of the 'doctrine' of penal substitution, we should remember that this model is a dramatic, kerygmatic picturing of divine action...than it is like the defensive formula-models which we call the Nicene 'doctrine' of the Trinity."

This still doesn't quite make sense. Do you mean, '.....this model is more a dramatic, kerygmatic picturing .........than it is like......etc.
Do you or @Reformed have a link to the essay?

 

[JonC]

This still doesn't quite make sense. Do you mean, '.....this model is more a dramatic, kerygmatic picturing .........than it is like......etc.
Do you or @Reformed have a link to the essay?

I'll copy and past instead of typing:

"The first thing to say about penal substitution has been said already. It is a Christian theological model, based on biblical exegesis, formed to focus a particular awareness of what Jesus did at Calvary to bring us to God. If we wish to speak of the ‘doctrine’ of penal substitution, we should remember that this model is a dramatic, kerygmatic picturing of divine action, much more like Aulén’s ‘classic idea’ of divine victory (though Aulén never saw this) than it is like the defensive formula-models which we call the Nicene ‘doctrine’ of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian ‘doctrine’ of the person of Christ.."

"The Logic of Penal Substitution" by J.I. Packer

And again, J.I. Packer is not the actual topic of the OP (I don't want to derail the thread). I just believe that he is correct on this aspect and that it is necessary to form applications or to recognize the applications that are already presented in Scripture.