The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JonC]

I think one of the problems that bedevil discussions on PSA is the idea that God pours out His wrath upon the Lord Jesus Christ. On the contrary, it is God Himself, in the Person of Christ who is taking our sins upon Himself (c.f. Acts of the Apostles 20:28) and paying the penalty for them, thus satisfying His own justice. Christ is made sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) and God the Father punishes sin in Christ. The wrath is not towards Christ but towards sin.

One last point: if Christ has not paid the penalty for my sins in full, nothing is more certain than that I shall have to pay it myself. Otherwise how is God going to be 'just, and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:26)? How is He going to be 'faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness' (1 John 1:9)?

This seems like a good jumping off place for the discussion to continue.

I closed the previous thread as it was approaching an end and I believe there would not be sufficient time for members to address or unpack what was introduced.

(@Martin Marprelate , I'm using the above part of your post as it does introduce some legitimate concerns others have had with Penal Substitution Theory. I'm not directly addressing you, but opening discussion for those who are willing to participate).

 

[JonC]

One of the objections mentioned in the OP is that Penal Substitution Theory presents God as pouring out His wrath on Christ. This is a problem, but maybe one that can be reconciled to an extent.

The typical response from Penal Substitution Theorists is that God, taking upon Himself our sins, takes upon Himself the wrath due those sins.

There are several issues.

First, while God is Triune we need to remember what or Who the Godhead means. Here are still three distinct persons. So there is a tension between the Father and Son that is not present in Scripture.

Second, the idea that God would punish the Righteous, even if taking upon Himself that punishment or punishing the sin laid upon the Righteous, is anti-biblical. It is an abomination to condemn the Righteous and to acquit the guilty.

Third, Penal Substitution Theory is far from the only position that has Christ "being made sin", God laying on Him our iniquities, Jesus bearing our sins, etc.

Fourth, Penal Substitution Theory is far from the only position that maintains the justness of God while forgiving sinners. Scripture itself explains this without the introduction of judicial philosophy.

 

[Reynolds]

This seems like a good jumping off place for the discussion to continue.

I closed the previous thread as it was approaching an end and I believe there would not be sufficient time for members to address or unpack what was introduced.

(@Martin Marprelate , I'm using the above part of your post as it does introduce some legitimate concerns others have had with Penal Substitution Theory. I'm not directly addressing you, but opening discussion for those who are willing to participate).

The objection of God not pouring out His wrath on Christ, but on Himself seems to be getting too close to, if not dead in the middle of, "oneness" theology.

 

[canadyjd]

….
Second, the idea that God would punish the Righteous, even if taking upon Himself that punishment or punishing the sin laid upon the Righteous, is anti-biblical. It is an abomination to condemn the Righteous and to acquit the guilty…..

First, it was the Jewish leaders and the Roman’s that “condemned the righteous and acquitted the guilty” by putting Jesus to death. Let’s not blame God for their evil. God used their evil to bring PSA to His chosen people.

Second, Jesus clearly stated His purpose was to lay down His life for His sheep. The theology of the “Lamb that takes away the sin of the world” has PSA at its foundation.

Third, scripture clearly teaches that Jesus’s death was “propitiation” . If you don’t know what that means, (and I suspect you do) you might want to look it up before you declare PSA to be unbiblical.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

First, it was the Jewish leaders and the Roman’s that “condemned the righteous and acquitted the guilty” by putting Jesus to death. Let’s not blame God for their evil. God used their evil to bring PSA to His chosen people.

Second, Jesus clearly stated His purpose was to lay down His life for His sheep. The theology of the “Lamb that takes away the sin of the world” has PSA at its foundation.

Third, scripture clearly teaches that Jesus’s death was “propitiation” . If you don’t know what that means, (and I suspect you do) you might want to look it up before you declare PSA to be unbiblical.

peace to you

I agree that it was the Jewish leaders and Romans who condemned Christ. Peter preached on this - Christ died at the hands of wicked men (but according to God's plan).

I also agree that Christ is the Lamb that takes away the sins the world.

And yes, Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the world. Propitiation has wrath in view. And, I'd add, that in Him we escape the wrath to come.

But this is basic Christian belief. I am talking about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Just stating passages the theory confirms does not make the theory more or less unbiblical.

 

[JonC]

The objection of God not pouring out His wrath on Christ, but on Himself seems to be getting too close to, if not dead in the middle of, "oneness" theology.

I agree. It is a very poor defense.

 

[canadyjd]

Just stating passages the theory confirms does not make the theory less unbiblical.

So, in your mind, just because scripture confirms PSA, it is still “unbiblical”. I am truly astonished.

There is no debating this if you readily admit scripture confirms PSA but you still claim it is unbiblical. Obviously, you base your views on something other than scripture

I’ll leave you to your thread.

peace to you

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The objection of God not pouring out His wrath on Christ, but on Himself seems to be getting too close to, if not dead in the middle of, "oneness" theology.

If you will read my post again, you will see (I hope!) that God does not pour out His wrath upon Himself, but on sin, Christ (who is God) being the sin-bearer. I referenced Acts 20:28. '.....The Church of God which He purchased with His own blood..' If that is too near to "oneness theology," you will have to take it up with someone far more exalted than I.
The ancient error of Patripassionism states that the Father somehow suffered on the cross. I have not stated that at all. The Lord Jesus, who is God, suffered and died to satisfy Divine justice But to be sure it is a mystery.

'Tis mystery all; the Immortal dies.
Who can explain His strange design?
In vain the first-born seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
'Tis mercy all! Let saints adore!
Let angel minds enquire no more.

 

[JonC]

So, in your mind, just because scripture confirms PSA, it is still “unbiblical”. I am truly astonished.

There is no debating this if you readily admit scripture confirms PSA but you still claim it is unbiblical. Obviously, you base your views on something other than scripture

I’ll leave you to your thread.

peace to you

No. Scripture does not confirm Penal Substitution Theory.

You offered a few points all Christians (even those who reject Penal Substitution Theory) belueve and claimed it proved the Theory biblical.

The reason Penal Substitution Theory is unbiblical is not because of verses it affirms but because of additions to Scripture.

To illustrate - Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God. They believe Jesus is the Messiah. But Mormonism is not biblical.

You can't pick out the good and ignore the bad.

 

[JonC]

If you will read my post again, you will see (I hope!) that God does not pour out His wrath upon Himself, but on sin, Christ (who is God) being the sin-bearer. I referenced Acts 20:28. '.....The Church of God which He purchased with His own blood..' If that is too near to "oneness theology," you will have to take it up with someone far more exalted than I.
The ancient error of Patripassionism states that the Father somehow suffered on the cross. I have not stated that at all. The Lord Jesus, who is God, suffered and died to satisfy Divine justice But to be sure it is a mystery.

'Tis mystery all; the Immortal dies.
Who can explain His strange design?
In vain the first-born seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
'Tis mercy all! Let saints adore!
Let angel minds enquire no more.

How is this different from telling a child, when he talks back, that you are not spanking him but his back talk?


It sounds like you are saying God was not punishing Christ but the sin He laid upon Christ. God was not pouring His wrath on the Son but taking His wrath on Himself.

I'm sorry, MartinM, but this really sounds like a lot of doublespeak to avoid a legitimate issue.

I don't understand why Scripture is not sufficient here - that Christ's suffering & death was via wicked men but in accordance to God's plan.

 

[Reynolds]

What do you believe? I honestly don't know what I believe on the issue. Mind is definitely not set.

 

[canadyjd]

No. Scripture does not confirm Penal Substitution Theory.

You offered a few points all Christians (even those who reject Penal Substitution Theory) belueve and claimed it proved the Theory biblical.

The reason Penal Substitution Theory is unbiblical is not because of verses it affirms but because of additions to Scripture.

To illustrate - Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God. They believe Jesus is the Messiah. But Mormonism is not biblical.

You can't pick out the good and ignore the bad.

Debating you is harder than trying to herd a couple dozen cats into a pond for a bath.

You make a statement, then deny you said it, then compare me to Mormons.

I don’t have the energy or desire to wade through your statements.

Have a good night, thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[JonC]

What do you believe? I honestly don't know what I believe on the issue. Mind is definitely not set.

I believe that God's Son became man and subjected Himself to the bandage under which we were enslaved. He suffered and died by the hands of evil men. This was in accordance with God's plan.

Having shared "our infirmaty" (having suffered under the curse, considered by the world as a criminal) God raised Him on the 3rd day, vindicated. And all judgment is given Him.

God is just. All flesh must perish, for the wages of sin is death. But where the First Adam became a living being, the Last became a Life Giving Spirit.

We are saved, not from death but through death. We must be born again, recreated in Christ - in Whom there is no condemnation. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

 

[JonC]

Debating you is harder than trying to herd a couple dozen cats into a pond for a bath.

You make a statement, then deny you said it, then compare me to Mormons.

I don’t have the energy or desire to wade through your statements.

Have a good night, thanks for the conversation

peace to you

What statement have I denied making????

Where did I compare you to Mormons????

I suspect you are blowing smoke rather than legitimately fiscussi g the topic.

 

[Reynolds]

I believe that God's Son became man and subjected Himself to the bandage under which we were enslaved. He suffered and died by the hands of evil men. This was in accordance with God's plan.

Having shared "our infirmaty" (having suffered under the curse, considered by the world as a criminal) God raised Him on the 3rd day, vindicated. And all judgment is given Him.

God is just. All flesh must perish, for the wages of sin is death. But where the First Adam became a living being, the Last became a Life Giving Spirit.

We are saved, not from death but through death. We must be born again, recreated in Christ - in Whom there is no condemnation. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

How is that different than penal substitution? Are you saying He just suffered like us and not for us?

 

[JonC]

How is that different than penal substitution? Are you saying He just suffered like us and not for us?

No. I'm saying He both suffered like us ("shared in our infirmaty") and for us ("Christ suffered and died for sins once for all. He never sinned and yet He died for us who have sinned.").

Penal Substitution Theory has a lot of truth in it. In fact, it is mostly truth. But error lies at its foundation.

Let me ask you, can you provide a passage stating that God punished Christ instead of punishing us?

I know you (and I) can see this in Scripture as we both have a similar tradition. I held Penal Substitution Theory true for most of my life. But can you actually produce a verse stating it?

Until the Reformation the idea that God poured His wrath on Christ was foreign to Christianity. Now it is common. We know it pleased God "to crush Him" (or, as Peter put it, it was by "God's predetermined plan"). But is there a verse saying God was wrathful to Christ?

Some will say this is the cup reference to in Scripture. But that does not make sence as Jesus said the disciples would share it.

The simple answer is the plain text of Scripture. Jesus suffered and died for us. We must die to the flesh, all flesh will perish, and be born again, in Christ (in Whom there is no condemnation).

 

[Reynolds]

No. I'm saying He both suffered like us ("shared in our infirmaty") and for us ("Christ suffered and died for sins once for all. He never sinned and yet He died for us who have sinned.").

Penal Substitution Theory has a lot of truth in it. In fact, it is mostly truth. But error lies at its foundation.

Let me ask you, can you provide a passage stating that God punished Christ instead of punishing us?

I know you (and I) can see this in Scripture as we both have a similar tradition. I held Penal Substitution Theory true for most of my life. But can you actually produce a verse stating it?

Until the Reformation the idea that God poured His wrath on Christ was foreign to Christianity. Now it is common. We know it pleased God "to crush Him" (or, as Peter put it, it was by "God's predetermined plan"). But is there a verse saying God was wrathful to Christ?

Some will say this is the cup reference to in Scripture. But that does not make sence as Jesus said the disciples would share it.

The simple answer is the plain text of Scripture. Jesus suffered and died for us. We must die to the flesh, all flesh will perish, and be born again, in Christ (in Whom there is no condemnation).

Isaiah 53:5 would be the best scripture I can think of.

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53:5 would be the best scripture I can think of.

But that does not quite cut it (for Penal Substitution Theory), does it?

Isaiah 53:4–5:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.


Consider, prayerfully, if this passage is saying that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon Christ.

Or

Is the passage saying that Christ bore our grief. And while men considered Him stricken by God He was suffering and dying for our sins according to Scripture. He was pierced for out transgressions and by His suffering we are healed.

 

[Reynolds]

But that does not quite cut it (for Penal Substitution Theory), does it?

Isaiah 53:4–5:

Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.


Consider, prayerfully, if this passage is saying that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us by pouring His wrath upon Christ.

Or

Is the passage saying that Christ bore our grief. And while men considered Him stricken by God He was suffering and dying for our sins according to Scripture. He was pierced for out transgressions and by His suffering we are healed.

I don't know. I honestly don't see the difference between the two. If the suffering and death is not a punishment for sin, then why do it?

 

[JonC]

I don't know. I honestly don't see the difference between the two. If the suffering and death is not a punishment for sin, then why do it?

Scripture tells us that the Son humbled Himself to become man, to take a part in humanity (to "share in our infirmity"). At minimum this tells us that Christ had to suffer and die (that is what it means to be "flesh", under the curse).

He who knew no sin was made sin for us. The Christ had to die, and we will follow. But we will live as He lives.

I know it's simplistic. But that does not make it wrong.