Penal Substitution Atonement (explain and discuss)

DaveXR650 said:

Once again, for the sake of this thread, you should not be quoting that here unless you believe it to be a part of PSA.

Click to expand...

It is fair to quote Scripture.

The thread is to explain, but also to answer questions about PSA.

If you are saying that verse, which is about the reason Christ died, is anti-PSA then this would be the thread to argue against the verse.

Charlie24 said:

Not when two minds are locked in disagreement.

Click to expand...

Agreement may not be gained, but that does not mean nothing can be gained. For me, these discussions have helped to solidify my position.

I had not considered the distinction that PSA looks at the atonement as changing God via appeasement while traditional Christianity views the atonement as changing man.

I do not know that I would have considered that had I not read posts from those here who will never agree with my position.

Also, it is not always about what we would gain. Others may (in the past have) read our posts and gained.

DaveXR650 said:

Once again, you have more than one understanding of a meaning of a phrase. Death is truly the consequence of sin but in PSA death it is spiritual as well as temporal, and death is a punishment and part of God's wrath which while although still a consequence in one way, it does go further, obviously. We need to quit talking past each other.

Another related issue is that "wrath" in God's case is not totally equivalent to our wrath. If I become filled with wrath I probably need to be grabbed by people who care about me until I calm down. Not so with God. The strong feeling helps us understand but that's as far as we can take it - and PSA advocates are explaining that constantly. So to keep making the connection, absolutely, to human wrath is disingenuous.

Click to expand...

I agree that there are often multiple meanings for phrases. That is why I belueve we need to be precise in our definitions.

You noted that those who hold your definition (the one you provided on the other thread) but view that punishment as wrought by Satan do not hold PSA.

I noted that your definition of PSA is my belief (which is not PSA).

I simply believe that we need to be more clear, less vague, when we define these things.


You say Sproul and Packer, while holding your view, do not adequately understand PSA becsuse they extend PSA to non-Calvinists (to those who may reject Christ died only for the sins of the elect).

But if we use that then people like @Charlie24 who are not Calvinists do not hold PSA.


Now....I agree with you that the logical conclusion of PSA is a limited atonement. But perhaps it is not today because PSA has become more vague than it was in the past.

JonC said:

Agreement may not be gained, but that does not mean nothing can be gained. For me, these discussions have helped to solidify my position.

I had not considered the distinction that PSA looks at the atonement as changing God via appeasement while traditional Christianity views the atonement as changing man.

I do not know that I would have considered that had I not read posts from those here who will never agree with my position.

Also, it is not always about what we would gain. Others may (in the past have) read our posts and gained.

Click to expand...

I was more less focused on the discussion being repeated over and over with a different conclusion altogether.

I can see though you have gained in nailing down your conclusion more firmly.

I would think the same could be said of the opposite conclusion.

JonC said:

I agree that there are often multiple meanings for phrases. That is why I belueve we need to be precise in our definitions.

You noted that those who hold your definition (the one you provided on the other thread) but view that punishment as wrought by Satan do not hold PSA.

I noted that your definition of PSA is my belief (which is not PSA).

I simply believe that we need to be more clear, less vague, when we define these things.


You say Sproul and Packer, while holding your view, do not adequately understand PSA becsuse they extend PSA to non-Calvinists (to those who may reject Christ died only for the sins of the elect).

But if we use that then people like @Charlie24 who are not Calvinists do not hold PSA.


Now....I agree with you that the logical conclusion of PSA is a limited atonement. But perhaps it is not today because PSA has become more vague than it was in the past.

Click to expand...

The Calvinists view PSA as a payment made only for the Elect, that's where I get off the train.

I believe the atonement was the reconciliation payment for sin for the entire world.

Limited Atonement is not found in my Bible.

JonC said:

You noted that those who hold your definition (the one you provided on the other thread) but view that punishment as wrought by Satan do not hold PSA.

Click to expand...

Here again. Be careful with explaining exactly what you mean. Yes, if the punishment was due to either a right that Satan had somehow obtained or if it was due to something due Satan then it is directly opposed to PSA. PSA requires that the punishment or penalty be that which is directly owed to or due according to justice to God. What may be confusing and I honestly don't know the answer to this so I am not stating a position but we know that Jesus was turned over into the hands of wicked men who actually did the killing of Jesus. In that sense if one were to say that this was due to Satan or wicked men I don't know if that would be against penal substitution. As long as the other part was understood - namely that Jesus was suffering on account of our sin and the suffering was a satisfaction owed to God, not Satan.

JonC said:

I noted that your definition of PSA is my belief (which is not PSA).

Click to expand...

Not sure what definition you mean but the original one was just a quote from the article in the OP of the other thread. Here we get in to the problem with you doing a thread like this. If you want to understand PSA then you are going to have to let those who believe it define it without you vetoing their statement. That definition had passed the editors of the Gospel Coalition. I don't know of the writers status beyond that.

I fully agree that you learn far more by digging into Owen. However, if you think you can find a precise and concise statement on anything by Owen then you are not familiar with Owen.

Charlie24 said:

The Calvinists view PSA as a payment made only for the Elect, that's where I get off the train.

Click to expand...

We don't want to get into that on this thread except to say that the arguments for PSA will be slightly different coming from a strict Calvinist. Like I said, I don't believe anyone is "locked out" so to speak of coming to Christ because they lack atonement, but many verses in scripture indicate something far more is going on with our redemption than sacrifice provided, followed by a waiting by God to see if it works to anyone's advantage.

But I would recommend, at least from what I have seen so far, William Lane Craig, who as far as I know provides a solid view of defense of PSA from a non Calvinist viewpoint.

JonC said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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. I don't know how you would deny that this definition speaks of the Lord Jesus suffering instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the punishment for sin. Perhaps you will tell us. With regard to our Lord experiencing 'God's punishment for our sins,' this is OK so long as one remembers that it is actually God who is experiencing that punishment. As Stott says, we should never imagine that on the cross, God inflicted upon the Lord Jesus a punishment that He was unwilling to receive, nor that by that punishment our Lord extracted from the Father a mercy that He was unwilling to give. The great strength of this definition is that it clearly shows that the Atonement is Father and Son working together for the salvation of sinners.

I am sure you will not deny that I have been steadfast for nearly twenty years using the Pierced for our Transgressions definition. I will need to be persuaded that it is not a suitable definition of PSA. The fact that you find it hard to pick holes in it is not sufficient reason for me to stop using it.

But I don't mind discussing any of the other definitions in the O.P., save that it might be better to avoid Beeke's, solely to avoid disappearing down a rabbit-hole discussing "representative substitution." What I won't do is discuss yours because you disagree with PSA so your definition must inevitably be some sort of straw man.

JonC said:

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."

Click to expand...

Who says this? That it is a specific doctrine of the atonement is true, but I don't see that the definitions in the O.P. deny that Penal Substitution is Penal and Substitutionary.

JonC said:

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.

Click to expand...

Where exactly have I asserted that Owen did not hold PSA?
Having said that, I maintain the right to disagree with him. He was a man just as we are, and men can make errors. I have Death of Death in the Death of Christ on my bookshelf (Banner of Truth paperback version), though I haven't read it for a year or three. Where exactly does your "clarification" show up in the book. If it is Owen's rather than yours I have no objection to discussing it, but why did you not attribute it to Owen?

JonC said:

You say Sproul and Packer, while holding your view, do not adequately understand PSA becsuse they extend PSA to non-Calvinists (to those who may reject Christ died only for the sins of the elect).

Click to expand...

I wish you would be more careful in the things you say. I don't agree with everything Sproul and Packer say but no one, and especially not me, would dare say they did not have at least a working knowledge of PSA. Also, Monergism site has an article on atonement by Beeke and there is nothing aberrant about his standard Calvinistic view of atonement. But he is more interested in discussing it in terms of Calvinism than other theories.
In case someone is interested. It does show what I was explaining above that a good Calvinist does not want or need any help from non-Calvinists in explaining the atonement and in some cases the arguments for PSA from those different groups will actually collide, especially when read by someone like Jon, who is looking for words to parse.

Charlie24 said:

The Calvinists view PSA as a payment made only for the Elect, that's where I get off the train.

Click to expand...

You are correct, but we should be able to agree about Penal Substitution while disagreeing about the extent of the atonement Wesleyans certainly used to believe in PSA while being staunch Arminians. I'm not sure they believe in anything much these days, but there we go.

Martin Marprelate said:

You are correct, but we should be able to agree about Penal Substitution while disagreeing about the extent of the atonement Wesleyans certainly used to believe in PSA while being staunch Arminians. I'm not sure they believe in anything much these days, but there we go.

Click to expand...

I agree with the Calvinists on PSA to the point I previously mentioned.

The general theme we agree, but for whom is the difference.

I find no fault in the others who disagree with me, God does not demand we understand the complete details of the Atonement.

Only that through His Son we have been set free from the curse that condemned us.

DaveXR650 said:

Not sure what definition you mean but the original one was just a quote from the article in the OP of the other thread.

Click to expand...

This one: "Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever." It is the view of the Atonement even those who strongly oppose PSA believes.

DaveXR650 said:

If you want to understand PSA then you are going to have to let those who believe it define it without you vetoing their statement.

Click to expand...

I already understand PSA (I held it most of my life). BUT since I no longer hold it I was letting those who do define it.

That is why I used Paul Enns, RC Sproul, JI Packer, the Anglican who write "Pierced..." (I can't recall his name), Millard Erickson and John Owen.

You are pretending I defined PSA on this thread. I didn't.

I merely mentioned that one definition provided was so vague that it applies to every Christian regardless of where they stand on PSA.

DaveXR650 said:

I wish you would be more careful in the things you say. I don't agree with everything Sproul and Packer say but no one, and especially not me, would dare say they did not have at least a working knowledge of PSA.

Click to expand...

I believe they held PSA and limited atonement.

YOU were the one who objected to "humanity's sins" not me. I did not come up with "humanity's sins". They did.

Your disagreement is with them because you find their definition of PSA ignorant. I do not even hold the theory.

JonC said:

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.

Click to expand...

Deut. 27:26. ''Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law. And all the people shall say, "Amen!"
James 2:10. 'For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.' See also Gal. 3:10-14.

Martin Marprelate said:

"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. I don't know how you would ...

Click to expand...

I know you do not understand how. You did not understand how the Classic view could mean anything but God forgiving sins because we say "I'm sorry" either.

You are right that the Classic view would change "in stead of" to "in our place".

But not all would (satisfaction atonement, substitution atonement, for example).

JonC said:

the Anglican who write "Pierced..." (I can't recall his name),

Click to expand...

Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffery and Andrew Sach.

Martin Marprelate said:

Deut. 27:26. ''Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law. And all the people shall say, "Amen!"
James 2:10. 'For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.' See also Gal. 3:10-14.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely true. The conclusion that God punished the righteous, or cleared the wicked, coukd not forgive sins based on repenrance, would place men under this curse.

I have not considered that before. Maybe people continue doing that because they are given over to a curse...they have been abandoned in their own understanding.

Martin Marprelate said:

Mike Ovey, Steve Jeffery and Andrew Sach.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I couldn't recall their names.