Penal Substitution Atonement (explain and discuss)

[JonC]

This thread is to explain, clarify and discusd questions about Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA).

It is not a thread to discuss opposing doctrines of the Atonement (off topic posts will be removed and members who habitually post off topic will be restricted from this thread).

Here are a few definitions:


On the cross God treated Jesus as if He had lived our lives with all our sin, so that God
could then treat us as if we lived Christ’s life of pure holiness. - John MacArthur

The idea that Christ’s death is a sacrifice offered in payment of the penalty for our sins. It is accepted by the Father as satisfaction in place of the penalty due to us. - Millard Erickson

God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the punishment for sin” - from Pierced for our Transgressions.

Jesus taking the penalty (punishment) for humanity's sins by being punished in our place (as our substitute) on the cross, thereby satisfying God's justice and enabling forgiveness and reconciliation. - Paul Enns

Jesus Christ, as humanity's substitute, endured and paid the penalty (punishment) for humanity's sin on the cross, satisfying God's holy justice so that believers could be forgiven and justified, taking our place to receive what we deserved. - RC Sproul

The doctrine where Christ, as our representative substitute, bore the penalty (punishment) for our sins on the cross, satisfying God's justice and wrath, so believers could be freed from condemnation and justified, meaning He took our place to endure what we deserved. It's an exchange: Christ suffered God's wrath in our stead, securing our salvation through His vicarious punishment, enabling God to be both just and the justifier of the ungodly. - Joel Beeke

The doctrine that Jesus Christ, in love, bore the penalty (punishment, wrath, curse) that humanity deserved for its sin, acting as our substitute on the cross to satisfy God's justice, thereby securing our forgiveness, adoption, and salvation, making it the core of the Christian gospel. - JI Packer

 

[JonC]

I prefer more precise definitions.

Jesus taking the penalty for humanity's sins by experiencing God's punishment instead of us, as our substitute and for our debt, on the cross, thereby satisfying God's justice and enabling God to reconcile us to Himself.


I am not sure why Beeke uses "representative substitute". This is a departure from most. A representative substitute acts on behalf of somebody while a substitute (simple substitute) stands in the place of somebody.

I am not sure of the distinction Beeke is trying to make.


I disagree with the definition from Pierced for our Transgressions because I view it as too vague (almost any position can use that to describe their view, even though they may reject PSA).

 

[JonC]

PSA has several weaknesses that need to be addressed.

What distinguishes PSA from the common Christian belief that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the punishment for sin is how it defines several words.

PSA is unique in that it defines substitution as "penal substitution" (as opposed to representative substitution or satisfactory substitution).

Related is PSA's definition of punishment. PSA holds this to be simple punishment (the punishment due us) whereas other theologies, like Lutheran theology, holds it to be satisfactory punishment (a punishment unrelated to sins but that satisfies justice).

 

[JonC]

Another issue is punishment related to the moral law.

PSA considers the moral law to demand the punishment for violations of the law (for sins). The idea is that justice demands that sin be punished.

In dealing with violations of the law, Israel was instructed to act against the one who sins. Often this was by taking that person outside of the area and stoning that person. If a wife sought to stop a fight between her husband and another man, and grabbed the man by his genitals, her hand that was used to do so was to be removed.

However Scripture does not present these sins as actions that must be punished. Scripture does not present these as debts at all. Rather than punishment the reason the Old Testament gives for killing the one who commits a serious sin is to remove the evil. Same with the woman having her offending hand removed. This is the reason given throughout Deuteronomy. What is in view is not the one who sins but Israel.

Looking at the Sacrifice system we see a similar theme. Animals were killed outside of the Temple, but sins were not addressed at all with the killing of the animal. What addressed sins was the blood of the animal, and this in the Temple or Tabernacle. This blood was not a payment for a debt, but instead represented cleansing or purification. Life is in the blood.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

First of all, thank you for listing seven definitions of the doctrine of Penal Substitution. I was struck by the substantial unity of the definitions.

I prefer more precise definitions.

Herein lies the problem. Presumably because you cannot find fault with those definitions, you have created your own definition just so that you can disagree with it. This is the very definition of a straw man. I am prepared to defend any of the other definitions, but I'm not going to make any comment upon yourI am not sure why Beeke uses "representative substitute". This is a departure from most. A representative substitute acts on behalf of somebody while a substitute (simple substitute) stands in the place of somebody.

I am not sure of the distinction Beeke is trying to make.

Obviously I cannot speak for Beeke, but I think it is possibly a disctinction without a difference. The Lord Jesus suffered on our behalf, but also in our place.
If I write a letter on your behalf, I write it, you don't. I write it instead of you. If you still have to write the letter, there wasn't much point in my writing it.
If I go to jail on your behalf, I go and you don't. I go to jail instead of you. If we both go to jail, there wasn't much point in my going to jail.
If I die on your behalf, I die and you don't. I die instead of you. If we both die, there wan't much point in my dying for you.

I disagree with the definition from Pierced for our Transgressions because I view it as too vague (almost any position can use that to describe their view, even though they may reject PSA).

I don't think that is a valid criticism. 'Penal' refers to punishment; 'substitution' refers to the punishment being in the stead of someone else. That is all the doctrine is. "God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the punishment for sin” It works fine for me. If you don't like it, you have to deal with it as it is.

 

[JonC]

First of all, thank you for listing seven definitions of the doctrine of Penal Substitution. I was struck by the substantial unity of the definitions.

Herein lies the problem. Presumably because you cannot find fault with those definitions, you have created your own definition just so that you can disagree with it. This is the very definition of a straw man. I am prepared to defend any of the other definitions, but I'm not going to make any comment upon yourI am not sure why Beeke uses "representative substitute". This is a departure from most. A representative substitute acts on behalf of somebody while a substitute (simple substitute) stands in the place of somebody.

Obviously I cannot speak for Beeke, but I think it is possibly a disctinction without a difference. The Lord Jesus suffered on our behalf, but also in our place.
If I write a letter on your behalf, I write it, you don't. I write it instead of you. If you still have to write the letter, there wasn't much point in my writing it.
If I go to jail on your behalf, I go and you don't. I go to jail instead of you. If we both go to jail, there wasn't much point in my going to jail.
If I die on your behalf, I die and you don't. I die instead of you. If we both die, there wan't much point in my dying for you.

I don't think that is a valid criticism. 'Penal' refers to punishment; 'substitution' refers to the punishment being in the stead of someone else. That is all the doctrine is. "God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the punishment for sin” It works fine for me. If you don't like it, you have to deal with it as it is.

Oh...I find fault with all of them.

I do not disagree with the generic one (the one from Pierced for out Transactions) as that one basically says nothing. One could believe Jesus did not experience God's punishment for our sins and Jesus did not die instead of us while affirming that definition of PSA.

BUT this thread is not here for anybody to argue against PSA (read the OP).

It is to explain and discuss what PSA means.

Many who hold it do not even know. For example, PSA is not just any pensl aspect coupled with just any type of substitution. The term is "penal substitution" (not penal and substitution). It is a type of vicarious substitution.

"Penal substitution" is generally considered a single, unified term used in Christian theology to describe a specific theory of the atonement. While it is composed of two words, "penal" and "substitution," they function together as a fixed phrase to describe the specific idea that Christ's punishment (penal) took the place (substitution) of the punishment sinners deserve for their offenses against God's justice."

 

[JonC]

Presumably because you cannot find fault with those definitions, you have created your own definition just so that you can disagree with it.

Actually, I agreed with @DaveXR650 on this one. Take away the punishment being God's punishment and you no longer have PSA.

All I did was added the clarification found in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen because I believe it an important aspect of PSA.

BUT, I will say that you are the first person I have dealt with that argued Owen did not hold PSA.

I am not arguing against PSA on this thread. I bring up issues its advocates need to address, and weaknesses. But this is so they can be addressed and perhaps strengthened.

I plan on going this with other atonement views as well.

 

[JonC]

I guess this is a good pausing point.

So here is the definition:

Jesus taking the penalty for humanity's sins by experiencing God's punishment instead of us, as our substitute and for our debt, on the cross, thereby satisfying God's justice and enabling God to reconcile us to Himself.

@Martin Marprelate what point to you believe is false?

 

[Charlie24]

This thread is to explain, clarify and discusd questions about Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA).

It is not a thread to discuss opposing doctrines of the Atonement (off topic posts will be removed and members who habitually post off topic will be restricted from this thread).

Here are a few definitions:


On the cross God treated Jesus as if He had lived our lives with all our sin, so that God
could then treat us as if we lived Christ’s life of pure holiness. - John MacArthur

The idea that Christ’s death is a sacrifice offered in payment of the penalty for our sins. It is accepted by the Father as satisfaction in place of the penalty due to us. - Millard Erickson

God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the punishment for sin” - from Pierced for our Transgressions.

Jesus taking the penalty (punishment) for humanity's sins by being punished in our place (as our substitute) on the cross, thereby satisfying God's justice and enabling forgiveness and reconciliation. - Paul Enns

Jesus Christ, as humanity's substitute, endured and paid the penalty (punishment) for humanity's sin on the cross, satisfying God's holy justice so that believers could be forgiven and justified, taking our place to receive what we deserved. - RC Sproul

The doctrine where Christ, as our representative substitute, bore the penalty (punishment) for our sins on the cross, satisfying God's justice and wrath, so believers could be freed from condemnation and justified, meaning He took our place to endure what we deserved. It's an exchange: Christ suffered God's wrath in our stead, securing our salvation through His vicarious punishment, enabling God to be both just and the justifier of the ungodly. - Joel Beeke

The doctrine that Jesus Christ, in love, bore the penalty (punishment, wrath, curse) that humanity deserved for its sin, acting as our substitute on the cross to satisfy God's justice, thereby securing our forgiveness, adoption, and salvation, making it the core of the Christian gospel. - JI Packer

Jon, I haven't seen anyone explain in these explanations why Christ became a curse for us.

Paul said He redeemed us from the curse of the Law, becoming a curse for us, that we might receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through faith.

Before the atonement man could not receive the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Christ atoned for all sin that lifted the sin debt of man who would believe making it possible for man to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The price He paid was the curse of the Law, "the wages of sin is death" in our place.

 

[Charlie24]

Jon, I haven't seen anyone explain in these explanations why Christ became a curse for us.

Paul said He redeemed us from the curse of the Law, becoming a curse for us, that we might receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through faith.

Before the atonement man could not receive the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Christ atoned for all sin that lifted the sin debt of man who would believe making it possible for man to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The price He paid was the curse of the Law, "the wages of sin is death" in our place.

Let's reason this out, Jon.

The atonement didn't save anyone, that much we know. It made salvation by grace through faith possible.

So our sin debt that cursed us to death was placed on Christ, enabling us to be saved and receive the Holy Spirit for our sins to be washed away by the Blood of Christ through faith.

So where does the wrath of God come into the picture?

 

[DaveXR650]

I guess this is a good pausing point.

So here is the definition:

Jesus taking the penalty for humanity's sins by experiencing God's punishment instead of us, as our substitute and for our debt, on the cross, thereby satisfying God's justice and enabling God to reconcile us to Himself.

@Martin Marprelate what point to you believe is false?

I can't speak for Martin but Owen would not say "humanity's sins" but the sins of the "elect". He integrated the atonement with the advocacy of Jesus before the Father and with the Holy Spirit bringing us to faith. That is why any Calvinist will object when someone says that PSA doesn't actually accomplish anything. It doesn't by itself, explain everything but it accomplishes something absolutely essential and central to one's salvation. For a Calvinist nothing in the atonement is "enabling" for God, it is part of his active plan to assuredly redeem his people.
(Now, for those reading this who are not Calvinists, you have to keep in mind that Owen also taught that anyone who comes to Christ would be saved. In fact, that is the only sure indicator that one is elect. So don't go off screaming in outrage.)
For myself, like I have said before, I don't believe that there is any functional barrier in the atonement that keeps anyone from being saved and I believe that the sovereignty of God and the free will of man as both real and true. But it is unreconcilable in our human minds so I go with unlimited atonement, knowing all the while that God must have at least known who was going to eventually come to Christ at the very least.
I say all that for two reasons. One is that many serious Calvinists don't want the help of non-Calvinists in defending PSA because universal atonement will indeed soften some of the arguments at least the way Calvinists put them forward. James White flat out says that you give up particular atonement and you give up PSA. I don't agree, but it is true that the arguments will not always be coming from the same direction.