Featured Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

Sorry. I forget that my explanation may have been on a thread 2 years ago. Guess I'm getting old.

Let's look at some things the Penal Substitution Theory gets right - what it shares with most other views:

1. God (the Father) was "pleased to crush Him (the Son)".

2. Christ gave Himself for us. He "was made sin for us".

3. The chastisement for our well being fell on Him, and by His stripes we are healed. He bore our sins in His body - the iniquity for us all was laid on Him.

4. Christ was forsaken (by the Father) to suffer and die on a Roman cross.

5. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

6. Through Christ we escape the wrath to come.

There is more, but I think we get the picture - there is a lot right with the Penal Substitution Theory.

What does Penal Substitution Theory get wrong?
Here's some (about 2.5 %):

What the Theory gets wrong is what it adds to Scripture.

1. It adds that God was punishing Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us.

2. It redefines divine justice through a secular judicial philosophy of retributive justice.

3. It presents God as punishing the Righteous for the sins of the guilty to spare the guilty (which is an abomination to God).

 

I know very little of the Moral Government Theory. We covered it when I was in seminary but only in passing. I think it originated with Hugo Grotius. If I recall, it teaches that Christ died as a demonstration of God's moral response to sin, Christ being the Atonement or propitiation, so that men may be forgiven.

I'm sure it changed since Grotius, so Baxter's theory may be significantly different (but I am unaware of his view).

 

That is silly (although I don't doubt people believe that).

It cannot be "cosmic child abuse" because God is God (the Father, Son, and Spirit). In essence, Penal Substitution Theory holds that God took upon Himself the punishment for our sins rather than punishing us).

That said, it still is not found in the pages of Scripture. It is secular philosophy, not true theology.

 

That is no problem at all. Every major view of the Atonement maintains God's holiness.

The difference is how.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God maintains His holiness by punishing Christ for our sins.

Most other views hold that men must die and be born again (or born from above).

 

No, it isn't. In fact, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the only major view that discounts rebirth in favor of God punishing the Righteous to acquit the guilty.

Have you ever considered the possibility that men must die to the flesh and be born again, be mane new creations in Christ, that the old must pass away?

 

It does not matter why. Scripture states that it is an abomination to acquit the guilty and to condemn the Righteous. Unless you are claiming Jesus ceased being righteous when He bore our sins, but that would be anti-Christian.

The point is Penal Substitution Theory jumps through legalistic hoops of secular philosophy to avoid the biblical truth that our salvation is God's righteousness manifested not through but apart from the law.

It is much simpler to simply accept Scripture, that men must die to the flesh and be born again (or born from above....made a new creation in Christ). This settles the demand for justice and demonstrates the justness of God in saving the sinner.

No addition to Scripture is needed.

 

Yes, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does hold that Christ took upon Himself the punishment due us, instead of us, and that this punishment was the wrath of God.

In fact, it has been worded (often) by Penal Substitution Theorists (like RC Sproul) that the Father looked upon His Son as if he were the worst sinner.

I understand the argument that Gid was not punishing Christ but punishing the sin placed upon Him, but that is really a very silly argument that essentially removes Christ from our redemption by making it an issue between the Father and sin.

You are wrong in your assessment of the Penal Substitution Theory.

 

I agree with most of this. The only caution I would add is how we take "Eastern". It is often taken as Eastern Orthodox, which has problems of its own. Where the Roman Catholic Church moved towards legalism the Orthodox Catholics moved towards symbolizing and spiritualzing Christ's work.

I consider the 15th century Anabaptist theology a bit more balanced. They maintained what you refer to as an Eastern concept if the Atonement but managed to avoid some Roman pagan influences we see with the Eastern Orthodox. I suspect this was simply a matter of sticking closely to Scripture. (Not that 15th century Anabaptists didn't have issues of its own).