3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution

[Yeshua1]

show from the Bible that this is wrong

Penal Substitution
The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.
Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.

Theories of the Atonement by Leon Morris

How can God be both Holy, needing to judge sin and place His wrath upon those doing it, and also at same time be able to freely forgive and justify lost sinners if not by PST?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it isn't. Many other views do as well (even views that most of us would reject allow for God to be holy and the justified of sinners).

That is why other views exist. They meet the criteria of a Holy God justifying sinners. They are not all correct, but we'd not need to demonize other views simply because we reject them.

How can God propitiate his divine wrath if not by PST?

 

[SavedByGrace]

PST

what is this?

 

[Van]

Message of Reconciliation

Christ's death bought everyone out of the Old Covenant, and into the New Covenant in His blood. Those to be saved and those never to be saved, 2 Peter 2:1 Any other viewpoint denies 1 Timothy 2:6 Only those spiritually placed into Christ undergo the washing of regeneration where the penalty for all their specific sins, past, present and future are removed. Titus 3:5

 

[Yeshua1]

what is this?

Penal Substitution atonement

 

[SavedByGrace]

Penal Substitution atonement

you said PST and not PSA

 

[percho]

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. 1 Tim 2:1-7

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: Eph 1:9,10

Maybe, maybe not?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Maybe, maybe not?

your point being?

 

[1689Dave]

says you, but Jesus Christ disagrees, see Mark 1:15; Luke 13:1-5; 24:47, etc

Paul gives a clear revelation. When understood, it kills universal atonement dead in its tracks. You need to experience the freedom this brings.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Paul gives a clear revelation. When understood, it kills universal atonement dead in its tracks. You need to experience the freedom this brings.

really?, check this out, God Who is The Saviour of the Human Race

 

[JonC]

show from the Bible that this is wrong

Penal Substitution
The Reformers agreed with Anselm that sin is a very serious matter, but they saw it as a breaking of God's law rather than as an insult to God's honor. The moral law, they held, is not to be taken lightly. "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and it is this that is the problem for sinful man. They took seriously the scriptural teachings about the wrath of God and those that referred to the curse under which sinners lay. It seemed clear to them that the essence of Christ's saving work consisted in his taking the sinner's place. In our stead Christ endured the death that is the wages of sin. He bore the curse that we sinners should have borne (Gal. 3:13). The Reformers did not hesitate to speak of Christ as having borne our punishment or as having appeased the wrath of God in our place.
Such views have been widely criticized. In particular it is pointed out that sin is not an external matter to be transferred easily from one person to another and that, while some forms of penalty are transferable (the payment of a fine), others are not (imprisonment, capital punishment). It is urged that this theory sets Christ in opposition to the Father so that it maximizes the love of Christ and minimizes that of the Father. Such criticisms may be valid against some of the ways in which the theory is stated, but they do not shake its essential basis. They overlook the fact that there is a double identification: Christ is one with sinners (the saved are "in" Christ, Rom. 8:1) and he is one with the Father (he and the Father are one, John 10:30; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself," 2 Cor. 5:19). They also overlook the fact that there is much in the NT that supports the theory. It is special pleading to deny that Paul, for example, puts forward this view. It may need to be carefully stated, but this view still says something important about the way Christ won our salvation.

Theories of the Atonement by Leon Morris

You are going about it wrong.

It is incorrect to come up with a teaching and then say "show from the Bible it is wrong". Instead we should start with Scripture.

For example - I could say "penguins shoot deadly darts out of their eyes"....show me from the Bible that is wrong (extreme example, obviously, but I think you may see my point.....we derive doctrine from Scripture).

Your task would be to prove Penal Substitution Theory is correct via Scripture. You can get close by saying that Christ bore our sins, the Father was pleased to crush Him, it was for our sins He suffered, by His stripes we are healed, He who knew no sin became sin for us....and the like. BUT everyone (even those who reject Penal Substitution Theory) believes those passages to be true if they are Christian.

So your task would be to first prove via Scripture that divine justice is of the type held in Penal Substitution Theory. You may think "well, we all know what justice is"...and we all think we know what justice is...but there are many views. I can save you the time and let you know that you have to start with an assumption about divine justice before you can ever get to Penal Substitution Theory. The closest you can get is to examine ANE judicial systems and expectations in the OT. But that is not close enough.

BTW....I do like Leon Morris. I believe he is very wrong here, but he is right in terms of what the Atonement means in his tradition. He has written some very good books on John (if you have not read them, I highly recommend you take a gander).

 

[George Antonios]

Anyone can point to the “clobber” verses that present Jesus as a substitute for sin’s penalty, such as Isaiah 53:5 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. Plenty of people find ways around these to read the cross another way—and with proof texts, that’s always possible. Yet as I began to read Scripture more deeply, I came to see these texts in the light of Scripture’s great themes and typologies. I could see no other way to interpret them—the animal skins in Genesis 3, the ram in Genesis 22, the Passover lamb and the firstborn sons, the darkness of judgment the night of the exodus from Egypt and the darkness that fell as Jesus died, all the undeniable language of propitiation and the blood on the mercy seat, and so much more.

Actually reading the Scriptures in their cohesive entirety, and seeing the Old Testament repeatedly preview the gospel, showed me that Jesus bearing our sin and its penalty is central—not peripheral, and not artificially imposed—to the story’s vast sweep.

3 Reasons I Changed My Mind About Penal Substitution

"I was raised in the kind of evangelical church that drummed into us as children that Jesus died to save us from our sins. The cross of Jesus was the center of the message at summer camps, holiday Bible clubs, and youth group talks. Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever. When I began reading theological books and exploring the faith for myself, I grew suspicious of the beliefs I’d been raised with."

Classic, just classic, opener of someone fixin' (as they say in your south) to echo the serpent's hiss of Genesis 3:1, yea, hath God said ...?

By the way, the "pagan" belief system of a vengeful God who can only be satisfied by blood is not altogether wrong, just a perversion of the truth.
Sacrifice itself was a "pagan" thing, does that mean Christ's death was not therefore a sacrifice?
Attacking the true doctrine of penal substitution is attacking the atonement.
Tread lightly if you plan on treading about the cross.

 

[JonC]

do you understand what this is?

Yes, I do understand the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

In an argument it is usually reduced to a few simple passages that we all agree on. Its adherents look back to the writings of the early church and point to statements that we all agree on to "prove" the theory existed early on. And I do agree that there are penal and substitutionary aspects of the Atonement (all Christians do).

Where Penal Substitution Theory goes wrong is not with the passages it presents but with how it fits those passages into an idea of divine justice that is foreign to Scripture.

Penal Substitution Theory would present God as punishing Christ for the sins those who are being saved committed. That is so close to what is in Scripture that people often take it as truth without realizing the Bible never claims that Christ is being punished by God or that He is punished instead of us or for our individual sins or to satisfy the demands of divine justice (all or part of that).

 

[Yeshua1]

You are going about it wrong.

It is incorrect to come up with a teaching and then say "show from the Bible it is wrong". Instead we should start with Scripture.

For example - I could say "penguins shoot deadly darts out of their eyes"....show me from the Bible that is wrong (extreme example, obviously, but I think you may see my point.....we derive doctrine from Scripture).

Your task would be to prove Penal Substitution Theory is correct via Scripture. You can get close by saying that Christ bore our sins, the Father was pleased to crush Him, it was for our sins He suffered, by His stripes we are healed, He who knew no sin became sin for us....and the like. BUT everyone (even those who reject Penal Substitution Theory) believes those passages to be true if they are Christian.

So your task would be to first prove via Scripture that divine justice is of the type held in Penal Substitution Theory. You may think "well, we all know what justice is"...and we all think we know what justice is...but there are many views. I can save you the time and let you know that you have to start with an assumption about divine justice before you can ever get to Penal Substitution Theory. The closest you can get is to examine ANE judicial systems and expectations in the OT. But that is not close enough.

BTW....I do like Leon Morris. I believe he is very wrong here, but he is right in terms of what the Atonement means in his tradition. He has written some very good books on John (if you have not read them, I highly recommend you take a gander).

How is the Holy Wrath of God towards a sinner propitiated if not via Psa?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, I do understand the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

In an argument it is usually reduced to a few simple passages that we all agree on. Its adherents look back to the writings of the early church and point to statements that we all agree on to "prove" the theory existed early on. And I do agree that there are penal and substitutionary aspects of the Atonement (all Christians do).

Where Penal Substitution Theory goes wrong is not with the passages it presents but with how it fits those passages into an idea of divine justice that is foreign to Scripture.

Penal Substitution Theory would present God as punishing Christ for the sins those who are being saved committed. That is so close to what is in Scripture that people often take it as truth without realizing the Bible never claims that Christ is being punished by God or that He is punished instead of us or for our individual sins or to satisfy the demands of divine justice (all or part of that).

Jesus took upon Himself willingly the divine wrath that we deserved!

 

[JonC]

How is the Holy Wrath of God towards a sinner propitiated if not via Psa?

Yes. All of the Theories of Atonement (mainstream one's anyway) address God's wrath towards a sinner being either propitiated or expiated (depending on the theory).

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. All of the Theories of Atonement (mainstream one's anyway) address God's wrath towards a sinner being either propitiated or expiated (depending on the theory).

We hold that His wrath can be due to Jesus taking it for us, how do other theories account for this happening?

 

[percho]

your point being?

I thought about it.

I am going to go with, Yes.

Jesus gave himself a ransom for all. As with, also, the human race thread.

 

[Iconoclast]

Had to smile when I saw your reference to John 1:29, my favorite verse.

Penal Substitution theory sails under false colors. It is a Trojan Horse for Calvinism's Limited Atonement. The issue is not whether Christ death provided the substitunary sacrifice necessary for the remission of sin. Christ's resurrection demonstrates it did. The issue is not the error of pitting one Person of the Trinity against another. And the issue is certainly not the mistaken views of fallible scholars.

Happy Easter

That you can read John Murray and not see Redemption accomplished and applied betrays an inability still there.Murray clearly sees the Accomplishment of Redemption as the work of All three persons of the trinity which you miss.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Penal Substitution Theory would present God as punishing Christ for the sins those who are being saved committed

this is where you go wrong. Jesus willingly gave Himself for the sins of the whole world, it is not as some have supposed, that the Father "punished" Jesus against His will, to go to the cross. This is humanistic rubbish. Hebrews 12:2, "looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God"