Unanswered Questions (Penal Substitution Theory)

[DaveXR650]

@canadyjd posted that I "seem to be equating “death” with “punishment”. Death is the consequence of sin. Punishment comes after the great throne judgment."

I am saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement falsely equates the two.

The consequence of sin is death. This is not divine judgment. That judgment is "stored up for that day" (Judgment).

It's absurd to suggest death is not a divine judgment. Didn't you ever read Genesis 3? You have painted yourself into a corner to where you must with every reply deny essential scriptures. But we find ourselves thousands of years later and the reality of human life is that we naturally die, we can die because of all kinds of accidents, situations and sometimes by God direct action. We can even die as a martyr and be doing God's will. But originally, it was indeed a divine judgment that we had to die. It's the same with punishment or God's wrath. Sometimes wrath and punishment is done by God directly and some is held up for judgment. There is no falsely equating of anything in penal substitution. You just have to come up with some kind of scenario with which you can extricate yourself from your corner.

No stupidity about God having to punish actions, no willfully ignorant God, no pretending the righteous can justly take punishment for another's crimes, no silliness about sinful actions being moved to other people to be punished.

I hope you realize that what you are calling stupidity is really God himself acting according to his perfect nature.

 

[JonC]

I do believe you referred to my belief as unbiblical first, and I shared your use of constructive criticism.

I didn’t realize you believed calling your beliefs “unbiblical” was different from you calling my beliefs unbiblical. Let’s review your post#13.

So, you apparently didn’t realize you called PSA “unbiblical” or you simply make a distinction between you referring to someone else’s beliefs as unbiblical and someone referring to your belief as unbiblical.

Whatever the case, it is extremely difficult to maintain a meaningful conversation with you, so I will bow out now.

peace to you

I think you misunderstood what I meant.

Those who affirm Penal Substitution Theory and oppose my view think of my view the same way I think of their view.

I do not take offense. I held Penal Substitution Theory for most of my life. Reading early church and Anabaptist writings I also found the classic view lacking, unbiblical, and missing the truth of Scripture. I wondered how those Christians could be so ignorant of Scripture.

But I did not think less of those Christians.

Now that I have come to the same position and reject Penal Substitution Theory, I have no right to be offended when others think poorly of the classic view.

Did I call the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement "unbiblical"? Absolutely. I believe it is. Did members who hold the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement call the classic view "unbiblical"? Yes, and I'd expect nothing less. That is fine. We should argue our beliefs.

I am not sure what part of that you find difficult to understand.

My point is Christians should honestly debate. This means expressing their views of other positions. This does not include attacking other people.

Please let me know what part of this dies not make sense to you and I'll do my best to explain in, hopefully, a clearer way.

 

[JonC]

It's absurd to suggest death is not a divine judgment. Didn't you ever read Genesis 3? You have painted yourself into a corner to where you must with every reply deny essential scriptures. But we find ourselves thousands of years later and the reality of human life is that we naturally die, we can die because of all kinds of accidents, situations and sometimes by God direct action. We can even die as a martyr and be doing God's will. But originally, it was indeed a divine judgment that we had to die. It's the same with punishment or God's wrath. Sometimes wrath and punishment is done by God directly and some is held up for judgment. There is no falsely equating of anything in penal substitution. You just have to come up with some kind of scenario with which you can extricate yourself from your corner.

I hope you realize that what you are calling stupidity is really God himself acting according to his perfect nature.

Yes. I read Genesis 3. We have discussed this before. I believe Genesis 3 means what it states in Scripture.

Why go to ad hominem again???

I am saying that the teaching that God transfered criminal actions from the guilty to the Innocent and then punished the innocent for those actions, thereby clearing the guilty, is a stupid teaching. It is not found in God's Word and it is a stupid handling of sins.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am saying that the teaching that God transfered criminal actions from the guilty to the Innocent and then punished the innocent for those actions, thereby clearing the guilty, is a stupid teaching. It is not found in God's Word and it is a stupid handling of sins.

Yes. I know you are. And if you are referring to penal substitution by that statement you are being unwise.

 

[canadyjd]

I think you misunderstood what I meant……

Did I call the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement "unbiblical"? Absolutely. I believe it is. Did members who hold the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement call the classic view "unbiblical"? Yes, and I'd expect nothing less. That is fine. We should argue our beliefs.

I am not sure what part of that you find difficult to understand…..

Just to explain what I find difficult to understand let’s review your post 36.

Interesting.

So you are equally opposed to those who criticize my view as "unbiblical" (a much worse lable than I put on the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement)…..

So, you have acknowledged you referred to PSA as “unbiblical”. You also referred to it as “stupid and silly.”

You then claim when others referred to your belief as “unbiblical” it is a “much worse label than you put on PSA”.

So, just to help me understand, how is others referring to your belief as “unbiblical” a “much worse label than you referring to their belief as “unbiblical, stupid, and silly”?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

It's absurd to suggest death is not a divine judgment. Didn't you ever read Genesis 3? You have painted yourself into a corner to where you must with every reply deny essential scriptures. But we find ourselves thousands of years later and the reality of human life is that we naturally die, we can die because of all kinds of accidents, situations and sometimes by God direct action. We can even die as a martyr and be doing God's will. But originally, it was indeed a divine judgment that we had to die. It's the same with punishment or God's wrath. Sometimes wrath and punishment is done by God directly and some is held up for judgment. There is no falsely equating of anything in penal substitution. You just have to come up with some kind of scenario with which you can extricate yourself from your corner.

I hope you realize that what you are calling stupidity is really God himself acting according to his perfect nature.

The Second death IS divine judgment. It is the wrath of God poured out on the wicked.

And God certainly causes men to die as a judgment (like the fella who touched the Arc).

But Scripture tells us that the wages of sin is death. We have to believe that.

 

[JonC]

Just to explain what I find difficult to understand let’s review your post 36.


So, you have acknowledged you referred to PSA as “unbiblical”. You also referred to it as “stupid and silly.”

You then claim when others referred to your belief as “unbiblical” it is a “much worse label than you put on PSA”.

So, just to help me understand, how is others referring to your belief as “unbiblical” a “much worse label than you referring to their belief as “unbiblical, stupid, and silly”?

peace to you

Sure. Let's take a look.

Interesting.

So you are equally opposed to those who criticize my view as "unbiblical" (a much worse lable than I put on the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement).

I appreciate your support on that, but it does not bother me. I understand that it is because that is how they view my position, so it doesn't bother me at all.

I said that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is unbiblical.

If you believe that theory then yes, I am saying that belief you hold is unbiblical.

But that is not ad hominem.

You believe my view is unbiblical if you hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

And that's fine. You can say you believe the Classic view is unbiblical because believe Penal Substitution is correct.

We can't simply pretend each of us believes the other person wrong but biblical. That does not make sense.

 

[JonC]

Ok....this thread is getting a bit crazy. It is a very simple question. I'll try to make it easier.

Suppose God punished our sins on Christ instead of punishing us and then Christ said "it is finished" and afterwards ascended to the Father without physically dying.

How would that change Penal Substitution?

 

[DaveXR650]

Suppose God punished our sins on Christ instead of punishing us and then Christ said "it is finished" and afterwards ascended to the Father without physically dying.

Suppose you actually link an article where a real Baptist theologian refutes penal substitution and then we can have a reference point to refute or support what he said. That might actually help. We would have concrete arguments on hand to look at rather than these meaningless hypothetical scenarios.

 

[canadyjd]

Sure. Let's take a look.

I said that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is unbiblical.

If you believe that theory then yes, I am saying that belief you hold is unbiblical.

But that is not ad hominem.

You believe my view is unbiblical if you hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

And that's fine. You can say you believe the Classic view is unbiblical because believe Penal Substitution is correct.

We can't simply pretend each of us believes the other person wrong but biblical. That does not make sense.

I often don’t think you read my posts. You completely missed the point I made.

We are talking passed each other. Time for me to call it a night

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Suppose you actually link an article where a real Baptist theologian refutes penal substitution and then we can have a reference point to refute or support what he said. That might actually help. We would have concrete arguments on hand to look at rather than these meaningless hypothetical scenarios.

I have listed several serious Baptist theologians who truly reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Several were Mennonite theologians (which are Baptist) but a few were Baptist pastors.

I am a member of a SBC congregation. Within the SBC there have been several pastors objecting to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. It is not a "hot topic" but enough of a topic for the SBC to write a resolution advocating the Theory. The resolution has been challenged.

This is interesting because the SBC confessional statements have historically been written to accommodate both penal substitution and non-penal substitution Baptists.

Here is part of an article from The Evangelical Theological Society:

Since its founding, the Southern Baptist Convention has deliberately permitted a variety of substitutionary theories of atonement. Apparently unaware of this fact, in 2017, messengers to the annual meeting passed a non-binding resolution on the necessity of penal substitutionary atonement.My Account Status | The Evangelical Theological Society


W.T. Conner was a Baptist theologian rejected Penal Substitution.

James Garrett was (Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Theology at Southwestern Seminary and a leading theologian among Southern Baptists) rejected the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I mentioned Greg Boyd (Yale Divinity School, Princeton Theological Seminary). He is Baptist and rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Matthew Emerson is a Southern Baptist theologian who rejects penal substitution.

Lucas Stamps is a Baptist professor who rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Graham Walker is a Baptist theologian and professor of theology who rejects penal substitution.

Steve Chalke is a Baptist minister and writer who rejects the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Mark Baker is a theologian and missionary who rejects Penal Substitution Theory.


That's a quick, short list. If you want more just open your eyes.

But most Baptist theologians hold the theory (or some form of it) as best explaining the cross. Baptists are a mix of Reformed and Baptistic doctrines.

There are Reformed churches who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as well, so there should be no surprise there are Baptist theologians who view it as an error.

Penal Substitution Gospel


But that is another topic.

Why is it that Penal Substitution theorists never answer questions that challenge their theory?

I always get a reply about my view, about examining others who hold a different view.....it gets old.

Can you guys really not answer simple questions?

Afterwards start a thread questioning the classic view.

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC. Regarding your link to another thread where you list some Baptist theologians who are against penal substitution I feel there needs to be some follow up. It is difficult to find their work readily available but that's neither here nor there and it does not necessarily reflect the quality of their work. However, I found two of the ones you mentioned, Stamps and Emerson actually defending penal substitution against an attack by someone else in a recent article.
Baptist Catholicity and Penal Substitutionary Atonement — Center For Baptist Renewal
What gives and what is this "Baptist-Catholicity" movement anyway? You know what I was asking. Is there really a serious movement among Baptists to ditch penal substitution? The fact is, while some of these guys, being theologians, have expanded explanations of the atonement and like Torrance, go into aspects of Christs death that may or may not be part of the actual atonement, depending on how it's defined - I still am not seeing any serious Baptist attacking penal substitution. So far, I find this article, and I came across an article on an Anabaptist site that was ambiguous but didn't seem opposed to penal substitution and there is of course Torrance, who it turns out is not at all opposed to penal substitution although he is opposed to limited atonement.

Afterwards start a thread questioning the classic view.

As soon as you define it we will.

 

[JonC]

@JonC. Regarding your link to another thread where you list some Baptist theologians who are against penal substitution I feel there needs to be some follow up. It is difficult to find their work readily available but that's neither here nor there and it does not necessarily reflect the quality of their work. However, I found two of the ones you mentioned, Stamps and Emerson actually defending penal substitution against an attack by someone else in a recent article.
Baptist Catholicity and Penal Substitutionary Atonement — Center For Baptist Renewal
What gives and what is this "Baptist-Catholicity" movement anyway? You know what I was asking. Is there really a serious movement among Baptists to ditch penal substitution? The fact is, while some of these guys, being theologians, have expanded explanations of the atonement and like Torrance, go into aspects of Christs death that may or may not be part of the actual atonement, depending on how it's defined - I still am not seeing any serious Baptist attacking penal substitution. So far, I find this article, and I came across an article on an Anabaptist site that was ambiguous but didn't seem opposed to penal substitution and there is of course Torrance, who it turns out is not at all opposed to penal substitution although he is opposed to limited atonement.

As soon as you define it we will.

I don't see a need, here, to discuss those who oppose Penal Substitution Theory. But it would be an interesting discussion for another thread.

I find it hard to believe, with Anabaptist theologians like Weaver, Belousek, Murray, and Finger (to name only a few modern Anabaptist scholars) that you have not encountered any Anabaptists rejecting Penal Substitution.
Anabaptist theology as a whole rejects retributive justice as divine justice.

You may want to study more on that.

Also, the Southern Baptist theologians I listed actually wrote opposing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Two of them openly challenged the SBC on the issue.

It'd be an interesting topic, perhaps looking at each individually, for an appropriate thread.

But I think if we were to discuss them it'd just be received with a bunch of Penal Substitution theorists trying to discredit the theologians rather than examining what they have to say about atonement theories. That is what always happens (on all sides).

Anyway, this thread is not about Anabaptist theology. It is not about Baptists who oppose the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It is simply asking a few questions of Christians who believe Penal Substitution Theory correct.

I do not understand why, if Penal Substitution theorists really believes their view is right, they refuse to answer questions and instead try to change the topic into discussing opposing views.

 

[JonC]

@JonC.
As soon as you define it we will.

Will what? This thread is not about the Classic view (which has been defined several times... @Arthur King did much better than I could on that part).

Why do opposing views have to be defined before Penal Substitution theorists can answer a few simple questions about the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement?????

 

[JonC]

It's absurd to suggest death is not a divine judgment.

Ok. Let's unpack this.

Suppose you are correct - that physical death is not a product of sin but divine judgment against sin.

If that is true then we still suffer part of God's punishment for our sins. Jesus atoned for a significant part, but we atone for part as well. Jesus partly propitiated God's wrath and atonement is a joint work of God and man.

 

[DaveXR650]

Suppose you are correct - that physical death is not a product of sin but divine judgment against sin.

You have a style of scripture interpretation that gets you into trouble. God said that Adam would die if he ate the fruit. That was the divine judgement. What did that look like? Adam and all people became subject to physical death, mortality, injury, accident and violence by men and beasts. So yes, you could say it was a "product" of sin if you want and not be wrong. You are wrong though if you insist that it cannot be a product or result of sin and yet be due to divine judgement.

What you are doing is trying to create a false and absurd scenario to discredit what was said and then debate the scenario instead of the principle. One of the theologians you mentioned earlier was in Africa a few years ago and his wife ended up dying as a result of an auto accident. I'm not saying that God was angry with her when that happened or even that God directly did that to her. But I am saying that her susceptibility to such things, like all of us, is a direct result of divine judgment against sin, both Adam's and our own. It is a false choice to say that my position is either that God killed her in present wrath - or it was just a "product" of sin with no aspect of God's divine judgement.

Here's another example. You can say that God cannot act purely in mercy towards us if he demands payment for sin. But he can. His sending his own son to atone for our sins is the act of pure mercy we are talking about. He indeed is acting towards us in pure, free grace and yet he has revealed that is cost him plenty in that he did not even spare his own son. But you can't seem to hold both thoughts at the same time and instead look at that as a contradiction.

 

[JonC]

You have a style of scripture interpretation that gets you into trouble. God said that Adam would die if he ate the fruit. That was the divine judgement. What did that look like? Adam and all people became subject to physical death, mortality, injury, accident and violence by men and beasts. So yes, you could say it was a "product" of sin if you want and not be wrong. You are wrong though if you insist that it cannot be a product or result of sin and yet be due to divine judgement.

What you are doing is trying to create a false and absurd scenario to discredit what was said and then debaf the principle. One of the theologians you mentioned earlier was in Africa a few years ago and his wife ended up dying as a result of an auto accident. I'm not saying that God was angry with her when that happened or even that God directly did that to her. But I am saying that her susceptibility to such things, like all of us, is a direct result of divine judgment against sin, both Adam's and our own. It is a false choice to say that my position is either that God killed her in present wrath - or it was just a "product" of sin with no aspect of God's divine judgement.

Here's another example. You can say that God cannot act purely in mercy towards us if he demands payment for sin. But he can. His sending his own son to atone for our sins is the act of pure mercy we are talking about. He indeed is acting towards us in pure, free grace and yet he has revealed that is cost him plenty in that he did not even spare his own son. But you can't seem to hold both thoughts at the same time and instead look at that as a contradiction.

Hold on.....you are making up strange things here.

Nice try to shift the argument to a minor point but it will not work.

Who would say that God cannot act purely in mercy towards us if he demands payment for sin??? I doubt anybody. God could demand payment for sin and still act in pure mercy towards us.

He cannot forgive sins for which He has demanded payment because that is contradictory (like God making a square circle).

Your previous argument was that death is not produced by sin (if I recall, you even denied that saying it wasn't like a chemical reaction.....but that could have been another member).

But let's look at your argument again....granting that physical death is BOTH divine punishment and produced by sin.

You still make the Atonement a joint effort between God and man. Jesus is our substitute for a part of God's punishment, suffering half of the sentence. We, however, suffer the other part of our punishment.

We are partly forgiven, partly punished.

 

[DaveXR650]

Hold on.....you are making up strange things here.

Nice try to shift the argument to a minor point but it will not work.

Jon. These aren't strange things. They are classic arguments that any student of theology should recognize. Anyone should know that they wrestle with these issues in their own lives even if they aren't interested in theology.

He cannot forgive sins for which He has demanded payment because that is contradictory (like God making a square circle).

This very argument is expressed by Owen in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". And the answer is what I gave. God most certainly can - but the payment is made by someone else. If you admit that it destroys your attack on substitution.

You still make the Atonement a joint effort between God and man. Jesus is our substitute for a part of God's punishment, suffering half of the sentence. We, however, suffer the other part of our punishment.

We are partly forgiven, partly punished.

Once again, your bizarre interpretation of scripture makes demands that don't exist. Why would you think that God providing an atonement that saves us from eternal damnation, promises eternal life and fellowship with God, takes away all our sin, and allows us to actually unite with Christ is somehow insufficient if there remains any consequence of our sin in the realities of our earthly lives? Scripture clearly teaches the inevitability of physical death, disease, injury at the hands of violent people, even injury at the hands of God if we persist in disobedience in any area. Not to mention the lives of labor and stress, seeing everything fall apart and degrade, seeing the vanity of all our earthly pursuits, watching ourselves and our loved ones suffer - all this is the result of God's decree at the time of the fall and in fairness to Adam, is validated by the sin in our own individual lives. Once again, you have made up a scenario in your own mind that you deem unfair rather that just going by the massive information to the contrary in God's word.

I would suggest that you, when you get time, go back and read Owen on this. He is known for his argument for particular atonement but the beauty in his work is in explaining what the atonement is. I'm not saying this as if he is the last word but only to suggest that if you want a clear explanation of the penal and substitutionary aspects of atonement, along with all the scripture references in one place you can do no better.

 

[JonC]

Jon. These aren't strange things. They are classic arguments that any student of theology should recognize. Anyone should know that they wrestle with these issues in their own lives even if they aren't interested in theology.

This very argument is expressed by Owen in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". And the answer is what I gave. God most certainly can - but the payment is made by someone else. If you admit that it destroys your attack on substitution.

Once again, your bizarre interpretation of scripture makes demands that don't exist. Why would you think that God providing an atonement that saves us from eternal damnation, promises eternal life and fellowship with God, takes away all our sin, and allows us to actually unite with Christ is somehow insufficient if there remains any consequence of our sin in the realities of our earthly lives? Scripture clearly teaches the inevitability of physical death, disease, injury at the hands of violent people, even injury at the hands of God if we persist in disobedience in any area. Not to mention the lives of labor and stress, seeing everything fall apart and degrade, seeing the vanity of all our earthly pursuits, watching ourselves and our loved ones suffer - all this is the result of God's decree at the time of the fall and in fairness to Adam, is validated by the sin in our own individual lives. Once again, you have made up a scenario in your own mind that you deem unfair rather that just going by the massive information to the contrary in God's word.

I would suggest that you, when you get time, go back and read Owen on this. He is known for his argument for particular atonement but the beauty in his work is in explaining what the atonement is. I'm not saying this as if he is the last word but only to suggest that if you want a clear explanation of the penal and substitutionary aspects of atonement, along with all the scripture references in one place you can do no better.

You misunderstood what I was saying.

I was saying that you suggesting people believe that God cannot act purely in mercy towards us if he demands payment for sin is strange.

You are making that up to try and make some type of argument.


I know that you do not believe the conclusion of your theory. But it is there nonetheless.



You first rejected my comment that sin produces death, insisting death is divine judgment. When I pointed out that we still die you shifted to death being the consequence of sin AND divine judgment against sin.

That means that God's judgment, insofar as physical death, is benign. Man sinned, which produced death, and God "punished" man with the death that was already inevitable.

Then Christ took that punishment instead of us....but we still suffer it anyway because the poison is already in our veins.


You have made Jesus into a partial Savior and Divine Judgment as partially benign.

@canadyjd avoids this mistake by insisting that divine judgment is that punishment God exercises at Judgment. You could improve on your theory by considering his position.

But as it stands, the theory you post presents the Father as less than honest in judgment and Christ as less than Savior in redemption.

I don't think you have worked this out the best you can.

 

[DaveXR650]

I was saying that you suggesting people believe that God cannot act purely in mercy towards us if he demands payment for sin is strange.

If that is not your or Arthur's belief and one of your arguments against penal substitution then it does not apply to you and I don't want to try to pin that on you. But it is not strange. It is one of the arguments raised by those who oppose penal substitutionary atonement and Owen, in his work, states that argument and refutes it. But if you are not going to make that argument then I withdraw it as pertaining to our discussion.

You first rejected my comment that sin produces death, insisting death is divine judgment. When I pointed out that we still die you shifted to death being the consequence of sin AND divine judgment against sin.

Sin produces death indeed but not as a natural process, or like a chemical reaction or a logical consequence. It produces death because God decreed that it would be so. He did that as a response to the rebellion of Adam and Eve after he had warned them exactly what would happen. God's response and reaction to open rebellion and sin also involves "wrath" so I surmise that this was also involved in the pronouncement upon Adam and Eve. There is a difference between me saying that if you try to cross that lake the ice is too thin and you will break through and you will die and me saying directly to you as your sovereign "I am pronouncing death upon you if you try to cross that lake". I don't know why you are stuck on this but if you don't see the difference I can't help you. So yes, as in your quote, make the AND all caps.

Then Christ took that punishment instead of us....but we still suffer it anyway because the poison is already in our veins.


You have made Jesus into a partial Savior and Divine Judgment as partially benign.

I don't know where you come up with this stuff. "Oh grave, where is thy victory, Oh death, where is thy sting". This is said at all funerals because it is a true promise. But the funerals still happen. We still suffer many of the effects of the fall and yes, all those effects are part of God's judgement. Reams have been written about why we live out a life in these bodies that must die and why we suffer. Now concerning judgement, God expresses some wrath against sin at various times but withholds the final judgement until his chosen time. Reams are written on why this is happening also.

You have made Jesus into a partial Savior and Divine Judgment as partially benign.

Divine judgement is indeed partially, even mostly withheld or postponed. But the idea that we all die physically as being divine judgement and not being eliminated at the cross is an unavoidable reality because it it observed and it is clearly stated in scripture. We will all die physically, even Christians, because it is appointed to us to do so. But our relationship to death has been changed. Now it is a gateway to everlasting life, and a new spiritual body and perfect fellowship with Christ instead of a bleak abyss with at best nothing beyond and at worst, hell. So an atonement that provides that makes Jesus a partial savior?