Featured Unanswered Questions (Penal Substitution Theory)

This thread is to discuss and track questions that have been asked but not answered regarding the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

The first will be questions posed to @Martin Marprelate on another thread.

 

1. How does Penal Substitution Theory maintain God's declaration that the wages of sin is death as an eternal truth (that the person who sins dies as a result of sin)?

The reason this is asked is that God declared two truths in Romans 6:23:

(1) For the wages of sin is death; (2) but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This is reinforced by God's declaration in Ezekiel 18:5 that "the person who sins will die".

Does Penal Substitution Theory really teach that every person who sins will die as a result (a rightfully earned wage) from sin?

If so, then why did Christ suffer the wages God tells us that we will suffer?

If not, then why negate that declaration of God?

 

2. Scripture states that God will forgive those who repent - the requirement being repentance as defined by turning from a mind set on the flesh to a mind set on the Spirit (a change of mind); by turning to God; by repenting and believing in the gospel of Christ Jesus (Chronicles 7:14;Proverbs 28:13 ;1 John 1:8-9 ; Acts 3:18-19; 2 Peter 3:9; Matthew 9:13 ;Revelation 3:19 Luke 17:3 ;Luke 15:10; Luke 15:7; Romans 2:4 ; Isaiah 55:6-7; Acts 2:38 ; Matthew 4:17 ;;Mark 1:15 ;; Ezekiel 18: 21-23 ;;Luke 24:45-67).

@Martin Marprelate rejected this idea as it is what he calls "simple forgiveness".

The point is that under the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement God can punish sins but it is impossible for God to actually forgive sins (the theory holds that God forgives the wicked by punishing sins).

Why is it impossible for God to forgive actual sins?

How does Penal Substitution theorists justify nullifying those passages which base forgiveness in repentance (not saying "I'm sorry" but a change of mind - from a mind set on the flesh to a mind set on the Spirit in Christ Jesus)?

 

3. @Martin Marprelate insisted that Classic Christianity does not deal appropriately with sin as it relates to God.

Classic Christianity holds that God has stored up His wrath until "that day" (Judgment) and at Judgment God's wrath will be poured out in the wicked, that they will be "cast into the outer darkness" the Lake of Fire.

How is this (experiencing God's wrath) not an adequate judgment against sin?

 

4. The Classic view holds that God has stored up His wrath for a particular time in history referred to in Scripture as "that day" and "the Day of Judgment".

What verse disproves the idea that God's wrath is "stored up for that day" and instead was partially expended to punish the sins of the elect lain on Christ?

 

I agree that those in Christ escape the wrath to come. We are no longer wicked but are remade into new creations in Christ (in whom there is no condemnation). That is part of a point I made before - God is just and the justifier of sinners (we die to sin, are no longer wicked but are new creations). God needn't punish our sins to forgive us AND recreate us because in recreating us He removed our old heart and gives us a new one.

But there is still an issue.

The wages of sin is death. Like you point out, we suffer the wages of sin (death) because sin produces death. Christ suffered the wages of sin, but not instead of us.

How is this important in your opinion?

 

I agree that God punished the wicked at the Judgment. I wouldn't call that a "need" on the part of God, but I agree with you that at the Judgment the wicked will be punished.

One issue is that this is not unique to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Most (all that I know of) theories of Atonement hold that in that "court" (Judgment) the wicked will be punished.

The difference is that Penal Substitution holds that those in Christ also stand condemned EXCEPT that Christ was already punished in their place.

That is unbiblical because it ignores recreation (that "in that court" the Christian has already died to sin, was made a "new creation's, his old heart removed).

It ignores or minimalizes regeneration in terms of salvation. Men are recreated without condemnation (that are made new creatures in Christ, in whom there is no condemnation).

We don't stand before God as wicked men whose sins have already been punished. We stand before God as new creations in Christ.

 

For it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. The Lake of Fire is the "Second death".

 

You have misunderstood my question AND my position.

My question was that we all die a physical death then how is Christ dying a physical death in our stead?


My statement was that it is appointed man once to die and then the judgment. Christ had to die a physical death in order to have solidarity with man. He had to suffer what sin produces (physical death). And He had to be Sinless (judged righteous, vindicated, raised on the third day).

You disagree with that (which is fine), but how do you read that to mean Christ did not have to die?

 

I haven't recently, but I have everything he has written. Do he's probably somewhere in my thoughts. I didn't intentionally use his words, if that is what you are asking.

I do believe forgiveness is granted upon repentance. And I do believe repentance is accomplished only through Christ. But not because Christ "paid for our sins". Christ didn't pay for our sins, He died for our sins (our sins were the cause of His death). He paid for US. He ransomed US.

Yes, I agree both cannot be true. Neither could be true But at least one has to be a vain philosophy. Men holding either can be Christian, just at least one holds a vain philosophy and has the danger of being "carried away" and being a "stumbling block" to others.

My suggestion is that we stick with God's Word rather than relying on our own understanding.

What does the Bible say?

The wages of sin is death (not "the punishment of God for sin is death").

Christ died for our sins, Christ purchased us (not Christ paid for our sins....He paid for us by dying for our sins as He is Sinless).

People need to read and study the Bible apart from traditions and be content to be judged accordingly for their faith.

I'm fine with that, and with disagreeing. I am sad because I do believe that many who hold Penal Substitution as the gospel will hear the words "I never knew you". But I also know that most Penal Substitution theorists realize it is their understanding and the gospel itself much greater any of these Atonement theories.

 

It is strange that you refuse to answer my questions (as I asked first) until I answer yours, but that is fine.

Yes, all theories believe that God will not clear the guilty.

If you believe Classic Christianity held that God was clearing the guilty then you have not grasped biblical Christian faith.

God does not clear the guilty.
God does not condemn the Righteous.

Those are eternal truths. God delivering the Righteous from suffering and death inflicted by the wicked is even an important theme of Psalm 22. So this is, as you point out, vital to the Cross.

Your mistake is numbering those who are saved among the wicked, among the guilty. We are not.

We must die to sin. We must be made alive in Christ. The "old man" is guilty. The "new man" is not.

We are made "new creations", where there is "no condemnation". You see, God takes our old heart out and gives us a new one. God gives us a new spirit, puts His Spirit in us.

If you are the same person you were naturally born as then you are guilty and will be cast into the Lake of Fire when God judges man.


Your mistake is that you are equating God not clearing the guilty and not punishing the Righteous with God having to punish bad actions.

Instead God re-creates man into something new.

The issue with God clearing the guilty is with Penal Substitution Theory, not Classic Christianity.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God punished the sins of the guilty laid on the innocent to clear the guilty.

Classic Christianiy holds that the guilty must die, must be made into a new creation.

 

No, it doesn't. This is the "solidarity" of which the Early Church wrote. We are made new creations in Christ, clothes in His righteousness.