An Alternate View (to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

We must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.

We see Christ, who was made for a little while lower than the angels, because of His suffering death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. It was fitting for Him, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the originator of their salvation through sufferings. Both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for this reason He is not ashamed to call them brothers , saying, “I will proclaim Your name to My brothers, in the midst of the assembly I will sing Your praise.” ;“I will put My trust in Him.” ;“Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.”

Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

That shows qualifications of Jesus to be Christ. He was fully human. I don't know of anything in that post that would cause someone who believed in penal substitution to say "wrong". Hebrews goes into this further and indeed He makes propitiation for the sins of his people, by his own blood. And in that area I think you come face to face with the concept of penal substitution. You seem to be trying to make the case that the fact that Jesus Himself was tempted, thus he he able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. That, while true, is not complete. Your own post adds "propitiation" which, without getting into to an argument about exactly what that means, suggests that the death of Christ does something on our behalf - more than just qualifying Christ to be our advocate, even though it truly does.

If Christ died "for our sins according to the scriptures" then more of an explanation is needed than the above. Something was done for us and on account of our sins, directly, and ample scriptural evidence is that it somehow appeased the Father.

DaveXR650 said:

That shows qualifications of Jesus to be Christ. He was fully human. I don't know of anything in that post that would cause someone who believed in penal substitution to say "wrong". Hebrews goes into this further and indeed He makes propitiation for the sins of his people, by his own blood. And in that area I think you come face to face with the concept of penal substitution. You seem to be trying to make the case that the fact that Jesus Himself was tempted, thus he he able to come to the aid of those who are tempted. That, while true, is not complete. Your own post adds "propitiation" which, without getting into to an argument about exactly what that means, suggests that the death of Christ does something on our behalf - more than just qualifying Christ to be our advocate, even though it truly does.

If Christ died "for our sins according to the scriptures" then more of an explanation is needed than the above. Something was done for us and on account of our sins, directly, and ample scriptural evidence is that it somehow appeased the Father.

Click to expand...

It does show how Jesus is qualified. Is that really all you think that passage shows?

I did not mean it to be compleye (just addressing the readon Christ died) And it is from one perspective.

Why did Jesus have to become one of us?
Why did Jesus have to suffer the powers of Satan?

Those two questions are answered in the passage, and that exolains the Atonement.

I think what you mean is it does not address the law.

Calvinistic theology holds that the Atonement is centered on divine justice.
We sin and miss the mark of what God's law requires.
The demands of justice must be met.
God meets this demands, and we are saved.

But traditional Christianity views the Atonement differently.
Rather than all sinning and missing the mark of God's law it is ontological.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

The difference is whether God's law is the focus or God Himself (God's glory).
A lot of the ideas are the same, but there are differences

An Atonement based on divine justice does not address falling short of God's glory.

BUT an Atonement based on God's glory (God Himself) fulfills the law and justice.

JonC said:

It does show how Jesus is qualified. Is that really all you think that passage shows?

I did not mean it to be compleye (just addressing the readon Christ died) And it is from one perspective.

Click to expand...

So, first you question whether that is all I got out of that passage and then in the next sentence you state that that is all you were try to address in that passage. Do you not see how people find your pattern of argument difficult?

JonC said:

Why did Jesus have to become one of us?
Why did Jesus have to suffer the powers of Satan?

Those two questions are answered in the passage, and that exolains the Atonement.

I think what you mean is it does not address the law.

Click to expand...

Correct. I think the explanation of the necessity for Jesus to become one of us is agreed upon by all. As to suffering under the powers of Satan, I'm not an expert, but agree that it happened in a direct sense, yet I realize that God's sovereignly was over it all the time. (It was indeed God's plan, and Jesus knew he must do it). I also believe that in the sense of Christ being a ransom for us, and we being bought with a price, this is relevant. But here I also believe that the power Satan had here had to do with our sin and it's resulting in our predicament. For God's part, it is his holy nature and his incompatibility with any sinfulness in a creature - due to his innate justness and holiness that indeed makes this "ontological". And, if you explain the atonement as only an exchange of a certain amount of punishment for each specific sin and that such and operation once done, restores the sinner to God, and you have that stand alone - well then you have indeed failed to fully explain the atonement.

However; from what I read advocates of penal substitution don't do this. The only time they do is when they are being overzealous in trying to prove to fellow advocates of penal substitution that the atonement must be limited. And it is here where they take their case too far I think. The necessity of the concept of the union with Christ, and of even a sense of "dying with Christ" as you like to say, is true and I can give you references. That is not necessary though since most Baptists say this when baptizing someone. And, if you read Owen, or Stott, as someone has recommended in another thread currently, you find that all the other aspects of the atonement are carefully taught and agreed to by Calvinist reformers.
It's just that our sin was a huge and yes ontological issue with God and Christ took it from us and it was placed on Him. You have to have that as part of the atonement.

DaveXR650 said:

So, first you question whether that is all I got out of that passage and then in the next sentence you state that that is all you were try to address in that passage. Do you not see how people find your pattern of argument difficult?

Correct. I think the explanation of the necessity for Jesus to become one of us is agreed upon by all. As to suffering under the powers of Satan, I'm not an expert, but agree that it happened in a direct sense, yet I realize that God's sovereignly was over it all the time. (It was indeed God's plan, and Jesus knew he must do it). I also believe that in the sense of Christ being a ransom for us, and we being bought with a price, this is relevant. But here I also believe that the power Satan had here had to do with our sin and it's resulting in our predicament. For God's part, it is his holy nature and his incompatibility with any sinfulness in a creature - due to his innate justness and holiness that indeed makes this "ontological". And, if you explain the atonement as only an exchange of a certain amount of punishment for each specific sin and that such and operation once done, restores the sinner to God, and you have that stand alone - well then you have indeed failed to fully explain the atonement.

However; from what I read advocates of penal substitution don't do this. The only time they do is when they are being overzealous in trying to prove to fellow advocates of penal substitution that the atonement must be limited. And it is here where they take their case too far I think. The necessity of the concept of the union with Christ, and of even a sense of "dying with Christ" as you like to say, is true and I can give you references. That is not necessary though since most Baptists say this when baptizing someone. And, if you read Owen, or Stott, as someone has recommended in another thread currently, you find that all the other aspects of the atonement are carefully taught and agreed to by Calvinist reformers.
It's just that our sin was a huge and yes ontological issue with God and Christ took it from us and it was placed on Him. You have to have that as part of the atonement.

Click to expand...

They may easily find my pattern of argument difficult (I was not actually presenting an argument but a reason different from the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement for Christ's death in order to generate views...argument would come later).

Penal Substitution theorists do not generally directly address differences in other theories because they want to be another (and the primary) aspect of the Atonement. They will typically talk of the Atonement has having multiple angles (usually comparing the Atonement to a diamond). The goal is to draw other positions within theor own.

Penal Substitution Theory advocates know that the theory does not address things written in the Bible about the Atonement, but simply say that those things are also true. But Penal Substitution Theory is a stand alone theory (by this I mean if is right then no other position can be right).

But how one addresses the Atonement largely begins with exactly what the Atonement was purposed to solve (what was the problem that needed to be addressed to reconcile man).

Obviously other assumptions affect these theories (can one treat sin as "things", can God lightimately forgive sins, can God be appeased, is Jesus a propitiation or must God's wrath be expressed, propitiation vs expiation, etc.).

I jave read Owen and Stott. One of my favorite commentaries on Romans is Stott's commentary, and I do not think there is anything of Owen I have not read.


I was speaking of the Atonement, narrowly...redemption. Penal Substitution Theory does not view redemption as an ontological issue solved (that comes after redemption).

But traditional Christianity viewed the Atonement as a purely ontological issue which when accomplished has solved the problem (justice).

So from the traditional perspective Penal Substitution Theory is just a theory inserted as a prelude to reconciliation and is obsolete (the reconciliation itself accomplishes justice without Penal Substitution Theory).

The difference is that Penal Substitution Theory assumes that Calvin's judicial philosophy (Renaissance Legal Humanism) is divine justice.


Note: To clarify- I am not talking about huminanism as used today. Legal Humanism was a judicial philosophy that arose in 16th century France (it was the philosophy that Calvin studied and adopted). Basically it failed because it took Roman Law and tried to make it work in 16th century France. It was never concerned with reducing crime but instead was concerned with meeting the demands of secular law. It did influence Western law, primarily in civil codes. But it necer actually worked. It survives in Penal Substitution Theory because it is the basis of the theory.

JonC said:

Penal Substitution theorists do not generally directly address differences in other theories because they want to be another (and the primary) aspect of the Atonement. They will typically talk of the Atonement has having multiple angles (usually comparing the Atonement to a diamond). The goal is to draw other positions within theor own.

Penal Substitution Theory advocates know that the theory does not address things written in the Bible about the Atonement, but simply say that those things are also true. But Penal Substitution Theory is a stand alone theory (by this I mean if is right then no other position can be right).

Click to expand...

That's not what I get reading Owen or Stott or the more modern guys like Torrance. They are not saying that no other position can be right if penal substitution is right. They are saying that the aspect of penal substitution is there, it is true, and it is an essential aspect.
You are using "ontological" in a manner which I have not come across in this context so I'm not sure what you mean. If you just mean that it relates to an aspect of God that is part of the essence of who God is then I would have to say that you are wrong. The reason being that our sin, because of God's essential being, is incompatible with the idea of him freely forgiving and yet remaining just. This is due to his true nature and the fact that God will be God, according to his own nature. So if that is what you mean then penal substitution is definitely ontological in that our sin puts us in direct opposition in an organic way with the essence of who God is, not just as owing an externally acquired debt, which has no ontological aspect to it, either to the essence of man or God.

You may have read writings by Calvinists who, in trying to convince other reformed brothers of the truth of a definite atonement frame their argument in a way that so focuses on the idea of each sin requiring a specific amount of punishment to be inflicted on Christ in order to pay for each transgression, and that once done, forever nullifies that sin and no other. Then they go on and show that if that were true of all sins for everyone you would have universal salvation. In my opinion, while that is a clever argument it can lean to people misunderstanding if that becomes your total understanding of the atoning work of Christ. I don't think it was ever intended to be used like that. I heard James White say once that if you don't have limited atonement you don't have penal substitution. Everyone does not agree with that.

Also, when you say "from a traditional perspective" what do you mean? The last statement, does it come from somewhere or is that your own? I ask because of those who believe in penal substitution, Calvinists teach that Christ's death actually accomplished redemption for those who will be saved (and then of course there are discussions of how this works and the timing involved), while those who teach a general atonement tend to believe that Christ's death potentially accomplishes redemption and so would be a "prelude" to redemption. In either case what is meant by traditional perspective? Early church fathers certainly did not refute penal substitution. At best, many didn't seem to say anything about it although some came very close in my opinion. The actual refuting of penal substitution that I am aware of seems to come from liberal theologians from much later, or from Socinians in Owen's time. Neither group I would consider traditional. That is why I admit I get triggered when someone refutes penal substitution as being false as opposed to someone who comes from a tradition that may emphasize other aspects as well.

At any rate, explain what exactly what you mean by "accomplishes justice without penal substitution". I think that is the core issue here.

DaveXR650 said:

That's not what I get reading Owen or Stott or the more modern guys like Torrance. They are not saying that no other position can be right if penal substitution is right. They are saying that the aspect of penal substitution is there, it is true, and it is an essential aspect.
You are using "ontological" in a manner which I have not come across in this context so I'm not sure what you mean. If you just mean that it relates to an aspect of God that is part of the essence of who God is then I would have to say that you are wrong. The reason being that our sin, because of God's essential being, is incompatible with the idea of him freely forgiving and yet remaining just. This is due to his true nature and the fact that God will be God, according to his own nature. So if that is what you mean then penal substitution is definitely ontological in that our sin puts us in direct opposition in an organic way with the essence of who God is, not just as owing an externally acquired debt, which has no ontological aspect to it, either to the essence of man or God.

You may have read writings by Calvinists who, in trying to convince other reformed brothers of the truth of a definite atonement frame their argument in a way that so focuses on the idea of each sin requiring a specific amount of punishment to be inflicted on Christ in order to pay for each transgression, and that once done, forever nullifies that sin and no other. Then they go on and show that if that were true of all sins for everyone you would have universal salvation. In my opinion, while that is a clever argument it can lean to people misunderstanding if that becomes your total understanding of the atoning work of Christ. I don't think it was ever intended to be used like that. I heard James White say once that if you don't have limited atonement you don't have penal substitution. Everyone does not agree with that.

Also, when you say "from a traditional perspective" what do you mean? The last statement, does it come from somewhere or is that your own? I ask because of those who believe in penal substitution, Calvinists teach that Christ's death actually accomplished redemption for those who will be saved (and then of course there are discussions of how this works and the timing involved), while those who teach a general atonement tend to believe that Christ's death potentially accomplishes redemption and so would be a "prelude" to redemption. In either case what is meant by traditional perspective? Early church fathers certainly did not refute penal substitution. At best, many didn't seem to say anything about it although some came very close in my opinion. The actual refuting of penal substitution that I am aware of seems to come from liberal theologians from much later, or from Socinians in Owen's time. Neither group I would consider traditional. That is why I admit I get triggered when someone refutes penal substitution as being false as opposed to someone who comes from a tradition that may emphasize other aspects as well.

At any rate, explain what exactly what you mean by "accomplishes justice without penal substitution". I think that is the core issue here.

Click to expand...

I know that is not what you get when you read their works. That is exactly what I was saying.

But the only way Penal Substitution theorists can accept other positions is by destroying those positions (making them into something they are not).

How can a Penal Substitution theorist believe any of the classic positions are also true since the classic positions view Christ as suffering under the powers of Satan as a representative of mankind, the Father allowing this as His plan was to justify Christ afterwards to break that power?

Penal Substitution theorists view Christ as a penal substitute (which is in direct opposition to the classic views).

How can Penal Substitution theorists believe Satisfaction theory correct when Satisfaction theory insists that Jesus coukd not experience punishment for our sins?

How they do it is they extract bits of those and toss out the rest, claiming both can exist.

We see this with Chrustus Victor (the thrm I described above). Penal Substitution theorists will say that they agree with Christus Victor but it is incomplete without Penal Substitution. BUT to add Penal Substitution they have to make Christus Victor something it is not.

@DaveXR650

I can explain a bit better if we put the shoe on the other foot.

Say I believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct and compatible with my view. Thecreadom I belueve this is Christ bore our sins, He died for our sins, He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, it pleased God to crush Him, and by His stripes we are healed. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

But I do not belueve that Christ suffered Gid"?'s punishment for our sins, I do not believe that Jesus died instead of us, I do not believe our sins were transferred from us to Christ, and I do not believe that God forgave sins by punishing them on Christ.

You would be right, then, to respond that I do not believe in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I agree whete we all agree, but what I am calling the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not that theory at all.

JonC said:

How they do it is they extract bits of those and toss out the rest, claiming both can exist.

Click to expand...

No, they are correcting what they see as error and trying to respect and honor what came before to the extent they can. Anselm I think was of the opinion that Christ made "satisfaction" to God's sense of honor and justice. And then he said the Eucharist and baptism would complete an individual's salvation. To say that that is incomplete or contains error does not mean that Christ did not indeed make satisfaction to God's honor and sense of justice.

You correct Christ as Victor from the early church in that unlike them, you reject the idea that a ransom had to be paid to Satan, yet you state your "theory" and still call it Christ as Victor. This is the way everyone does it and it's a little unfair to suggest only advocates of penal substitution trash everyone else's ideas, especially when you can find so many writings that say otherwise.

JonC said:

How can Penal Substitution theorists believe Satisfaction theory correct when Satisfaction theory insists that Jesus coukd not experience punishment for our sins?

Click to expand...

Are there modern satisfaction theorists who are saying this? Does Anselm go into this? I am just asking as I honestly don't know and have not found where they refute this - unless you mean some of the Catholic theologians who are reserving room for the Eucharist and baptism to have a true and direct role in our salvation. If that is what you mean then I do agree that they might say that and for that reason, not that they inherently believe that Christ cannot suffer for man's sins. In satisfaction theory, Christ's death satisfies God's offended honor and sense of justice but don't forget that this offence was because of man's sin. So I do ask how someone who adheres to a satisfaction theory rejects the idea that Christ could not experience punishment for man's sin yet could suffer death to satisfy God's justice - on account of man's sin!

DaveXR650 said:

No, they are correcting what they see as error and trying to respect and honor what came before to the extent they can. Anselm I think was of the opinion that Christ made "satisfaction" to God's sense of honor and justice. And then he said the Eucharist and baptism would complete an individual's salvation. To say that that is incomplete or contains error does not mean that Christ did not indeed make satisfaction to God's honor and sense of justice.

You correct Christ as Victor from the early church in that unlike them, you reject the idea that a ransom had to be paid to Satan, yet you state your "theory" and still call it Christ as Victor. This is the way everyone does it and it's a little unfair to suggest only advocates of penal substitution trash everyone else's ideas, especially when you can find so many writings that say otherwise.


Are there modern satisfaction theorists who are saying this? Does Anselm go into this? I am just asking as I honestly don't know and have not found where they refute this - unless you mean some of the Catholic theologians who are reserving room for the Eucharist and baptism to have a true and direct role in our salvation. If that is what you mean then I do agree that they might say that and for that reason, not that they inherently believe that Christ cannot suffer for man's sins. In satisfaction theory, Christ's death satisfies God's offended honor and sense of justice but don't forget that this offence was because of man's sin. So I do ask how someone who adheres to a satisfaction theory rejects the idea that Christ could not experience punishment for man's sin yet could suffer death to satisfy God's justice - on account of man's sin!

Click to expand...

They are thinking that they are correcting errors, but in so doing they are deleting what once was. And that is fair if the position was wrong.

We have been over this before and I just don't see how you can say this:

JonC said:

Say I believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct and compatible with my view. Thecreadom I belueve this is Christ bore our sins, He died for our sins, He is the propitiation for the sins of the world, it pleased God to crush Him, and by His stripes we are healed. God is just and the justifier of sinners.

Click to expand...

And then in the next statement say this:

JonC said:

But I do not belueve that Christ suffered Gid"?'s punishment for our sins, I do not believe that Jesus died instead of us, I do not believe our sins were transferred from us to Christ, and I do not believe that God forgave sins by punishing them on Christ.

Click to expand...

And so I think this is where you lose people. You cannot possibly believe A, then deny B and then follow up with this:

JonC said:

You would be right, then, to respond that I do not believe in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I agree whete we all agree, but what I am calling the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not that theory at all.

Click to expand...

It simply is a logical impossibility, and I don't know of anyone else who argues this way.

DaveXR650 said:

We have been over this before and I just don't see how you can say this:

And then in the next statement say this:

And so I think this is where you lose people. You cannot possibly believe A, then deny B and then follow up with this:

It simply is a logical impossibility, and I don't know of anyone else who argues this way.

Click to expand...

Those of us who now and who have historically held a position that itself is a denial of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement DO believe that God laid our iniquity on Christ, He bore our sins, He died for our sins, it pleased God to crush Him, and by His stripes we are healed.

Throughout history most Christians HAVE argued that way.

My point is if I said I believe Penal Substitution Theory yet correct what I see as errors by removing God transferring our sins from us and putting them on Christ, God punishing Jesus for our sins, etc. then what I have left is NOT the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

There are only three theories of Atonement that present Jesus as suffering God's punishment...(Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory). All other views presdnt Jesus as suffering Satan's punishment and God justifying Christ.

@DaveXR650

I might have misunderstood you (your A and B thing).

In case, maybe this will help:

I believe Jesus bore our sins, God laid our sins on Him.
I do not believe God transferred our sins from us and put them on Jesus. I do not believe sins can be treated as material things. I do not believe God clears the guilty or punishes the innocent.

I believe that it pleased God to crush Him.
I do not believe that God wanted to crush Him so God Himself crushed Him (I believe it was in accordance with God's predetermined plan).

I believe that it is by His stripes we are healed.
I do not believe that we are healed by Jesus suffering God's wrath.

I believe Jesus is the propitiation for our sins.
I do not believe our sins cannot be propitiated but instead must be punished.

I agree with the passages but I do not agree with the explanation your sect provides.


One major reason is I do not believe Legal Humanism (16th century French philosophy Calvin held) is divine justice. I do not believe tgat philosophy is just at all.

JonC said:

Those of us who now and who have historically held a position that itself is a denial of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement DO believe that God laid our iniquity on Christ, He bore our sins, He died for our sins, it pleased God to crush Him, and by His stripes we are healed.

Throughout history most Christians HAVE argued that way.

Click to expand...

We tend to end up here always and can really go no further because if you "do believe that God laid our iniquity on Christ, he bore our sins, he died for our sins, it pleased God to crush Him and by His stripes we are healed" then you are quoting the same statements that we who believe penal substitution use as proofs of - penal substitution. And, while I do find many who do not believe in penal substitution and have followed up on suggestions, some by you, of people trying to argue against it, I do not see anyone accepting the above statements as fact and then still denying penal substitutionary atonement. I don't mean to offend you and in fact I am relieved by your statements. It's just that I don't know where else to go with this because I think you do indeed believe in penal substitution and prove it by your statements above.

JonC said:

I believe Jesus bore our sins, God laid our sins on Him.
I do not believe God transferred our sins from us and put them on Jesus.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't see how you can make these two statements, together, in your own context, and somehow not see that you are saying the exact same thing.

DaveXR650 said:

We tend to end up here always and can really go no further because if you "do believe that God laid our iniquity on Christ, he bore our sins, he died for our sins, it pleased God to crush Him and by His stripes we are healed" then you are quoting the same statements that we who believe penal substitution use as proofs of - penal substitution. And, while I do find many who do not believe in penal substitution and have followed up on suggestions, some by you, of people trying to argue against it, I do not see anyone accepting the above statements as fact and then still denying penal substitutionary atonement. I don't mean to offend you and in fact I am relieved by your statements. It's just that I don't know where else to go with this because I think you do indeed believe in penal substitution and prove it by your statements above.

Click to expand...

I am quoting the same passages, not the same statements.

Penal Substitution Theory does not just believe that Jesus bore our sins, that God laid our iniquities on Him. It holds that God transferred our sins from us and put them on Him.

This is only possible if one views sins in a material type of way (not really that they are physical things, but that they can be transferred). It also views sins as a matter of justice (that God laid our sins on Jesus to punish them there and satisfy the demands of the law).

Historically this is not how sins were viewed (at least not until the 11th century AD).

By His stripes we are healed. This does not mean that Jesus suffered God's wrath. It means that we were healed by His stripes. Historically this was viewed as Gid reconciling mankind to Himself.

Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the World, God set Him forth as a Propitiation in His blood, Christ as High Priest propitiates for Christians when they sin. Penal Substitution holds that this means Jesus suffered God's punishment (which means this wrath is expressed rather than propitiated).

But the last passage I referenced deals with Christ as Mediator to Christians. If we escape the wrath to come then that wrath is propitiated. This does not mean wrath experienced.

Do yes, one can easily believe those passages without believing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Most Christians have.

@JonC . My final thoughts on this to you specifically would be this. You are probably reading guys like Belousek, out of Ohio Northern, a Mennonite. I would only suggest that you are not quite where those guys are, which is why your argument looks strange to those of us who have looked into these matters in some detail. The reason I say that is simply because it is easier to refute them than you because they have moved further away from the concepts we are familiar with and thus their positions are identifiable, more so than yours. Your positions are very hard to differentiate from penal substitution because you are still using the same terms and verses and claiming them as true, which is what I think confuses people.

But you are heading in their direction. Regarding the atonement, because we are completely passive in it, mere observers and recipients of it's benefits, there is not a lot of explicit information given to us that is essential that we embrace for the purpose of being saved. Christ died for us according to the scripture, but exactly what does that mean? If I embrace Christ as my Lord and Savior and have wrong theology regarding the atonement am I deceiving myself? In light of that I would simply say this. The litmus test I would use to evaluate those who don't like penal substitution would be "was it truly essential that Christ die? And what would be our situation if he had not?" If you answer those two questions and find that it would not truly and organically (or ontologically) have been necessary that Christ die you are not a Christian. And if you read many of the arguments made by the modern opponents of penal substitution you find that this in indeed the case they are trying to make.

In other words, say you believe that the whole atonement was Christ defeating Satan and destroying him, and you believe that the power Satan had and the hold he had over man was because of the sin of man, then I might have a different understanding of the precise theology of the atonement yet still consider you as an actual Christian. Or, if you would say that Christ's death satisfied the offense to God's sense of justice and holiness and that he was of such an overwhelming worth as it were in the Father's view, that anyone who joined in union with Christ would be saved - because they were viewed as "in Christ" and He was their advocate, coming with his own blood - well that also I could accept as a sufficiently orthodox view of the matter even though it may not describe penal substitution as I would desire. What I think you have to have is Christ in some way "handling" the situation and that situation has got to include our individual sin, not just our status as mankind or as a member of the race and it has to be in a decisive and essential way rather that as an example to us or as a symbol.

And I find that the modern things I read fall short here and it is far more serious than the way the Early Church Fathers might has done or Anselm, or Thomas Aquinas - none of which gave any evidence of picking at the work of Christ as being our only hope of individual salvation. And so it's up to you to decide when you read these guys to decipher what it is they are trying to do. John Owen I think does a good job of explaining this regarding the Socinians of his day and honestly I would encourage you to re read this because I see some of the same philosophy in the modern refutations of the atonement. What they do is try to devaluate the worth of the work of Christ on the cross as being pivotal to our salvation - leaving us with a responsibility of following a set of ethics and behavior which they then supply. (And I challenge anyone who doubts me on this to read their other writings and see if they agree with the directions they head in those areas.)

JonC said:

They may easily find my pattern of argument difficult (I was not actually presenting an argument but a reason different from the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement for Christ's death in order to generate views...argument would come later).

Click to expand...

Doesn't it get exhausting?
I don't even TRY to convince people of anything concerning PSA, but even just answering a direct question about what I believe with a simple answer drags me into an "unprofitable" exchange and accusations ranging from "not wanting to be taken seriously" to "refusing to answer questions" or "refusing to explain" (walls of text of verses).

To quote Shakespeare ...

How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this!

... that is what PSA discussions have become for me.
Good luck and have at it.

atpollard said:

Doesn't it get exhausting?
I don't even TRY to convince people of anything concerning PSA, but even just answering a direct question about what I believe with a simple answer drags me into an "unprofitable" exchange and accusations ranging from "not wanting to be taken seriously" to "refusing to answer questions" or "refusing to explain" (walls of text of verses).

To quote Shakespeare ...

How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't! ah fie! 'tis an unweeded garden,
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this!

... that is what PSA discussions have become for me.
Good luck and have at it.

Click to expand...

It does.

It is strange to me that those holding PSA genuinely do not even seem to understand that it is not in the text of the Bible even when they tyoe that text.

And, although they will never be able to see it, PSA just holds the cross as an allegory for an accounting transaction. That was what Calvin's philosophy.

But, yea, it gets old and it is sad.