3 Reasons I changed my mind about Penal Substitution

[Yeshua1]

Penal Substitution is rooted in the character of God as He revealed Himself to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding with goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty.” Immediately the question arises, how can God be merciful and gracious, how can He forgive iniquity, transgression and sin without clearing the guilty? How can He clear the guilty if He abounds with truth—if He is a ‘just Judge’ (Psalm 7:11)? How can it be said that, ‘Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed’ unless God can simultaneously punish sin and forgive sinners?

I have argued this case over five or six years on this board and shall not do so again. At one stage I was challenged to present the Biblical case of the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. I posted it on this board, but newcomers may not have read it. I have since put it on my blog. Here it is again.
The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution
I was further challenged as to how God the Father could forsake God the Son without 'breaking' the Trinity. Here is my reply to that:
Penal Substitution and the Trinity

Just think that denying the PSA is one of the rotten fruits left to the Church by the NPP!

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, shows that all who are saved are the elect of God!

Says you

 

[Yeshua1]

I think most are rooted in the same passage, but each views exactly how a righteous God justifies unrighteous people. This is certainly true of the Moral Influence Theory and Recapitulation (although I believe both flawed). It is true of "Christus Victor" and the "Ransom Theories" as well.

Sometimes the "problem" is expressed that God will not acquit the guilty nor will He condemn the innocent as both are abominations. So how will God make unrighteous people righteous rather than simply destroying them for their unrighteousness. Each of those theories "solve the problem" in different ways. They are competing theories.

I think the simplest answer (the most biblical answer) is that God recreates the sinner into a new creation (the "new man" is sinless, the "old man" must die).

In order to allow for God to do that, to make the sinner to be born again, is to have Lord Jesus died in their stead , and suffer the wrath and experience what they deserve while on that Cross!

 

[JonC]

God cannot declare a sinner to be saved and justified in his sight apart from the death of Jesus, as he became in their place their sin bearer, and was treated by the father just as if the sinner himself was there!

Thank you for your opinion on the topic. It is good (and interesting) to see the different views.

But the problem with your view is it's subjective - we have no common (mutual) way evaluating it because it is not in the Bible and others may not follow the preachers you hold in authority.

 

[JonC]

The theology of paul is that of God!

If by "of God" then I agree. But if we rely on the Bible then Paul's theology did not include Penal Substitution Theory.

It is wrong of you, Brother, to put YOUR words in the mouth of Paul.

That is ADDING TO SCRIPTURE.

It is sinful.

Rather than telling us what Paul thought, just give us what he WROTE.

 

[JonC]

In order to allow for God to do that, to make the sinner to be born again, is to have Lord Jesus died in their stead , and suffer the wrath and experience what they deserve while on that Cross!

I know that is what you believe (that is Penal Substitution Theory).

Others (like me) disagree with Penal Substitution Theory. The reason there is even such a debate is Scripture does not contain Penal Substitution Theory. It is systematic theology- men working these things out.

In the end I would reject Penal Substitution Theory simply because it is not in Scripture (the text, i.e., "what is written") AND it is so foundational a doctrine.

If it were a secondary doctrine I would may be a little more relaxed on needing Scripture. But I believe the atonement is too important a doctrine to leave up to human hands.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Others (like me) disagree with Penal Substitution Theory

you keep saying that, but have failed to show from Scripture, 1. that it is wrong, and 2, from Scripture what it does teach on this?

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for your opinion on the topic. It is good (and interesting) to see the different views.

But the problem with your view is it's subjective - we have no common (mutual) way evaluating it because it is not in the Bible and others may not follow the preachers you hold in authority.

Not my opinion, as the Cross and the PSA atonement was ONLY way God could stay Holy and also forgive sinners and fully justify them despite their sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

If by "of God" then I agree. But if we rely on the Bible then Paul's theology did not include Penal Substitution Theory.

It is wrong of you, Brother, to put YOUR words in the mouth of Paul.

That is ADDING TO SCRIPTURE.

It is sinful.

Rather than telling us what Paul thought, just give us what he WROTE.

Romans and Galatians are in the scriptures!

 

[Yeshua1]

I know that is what you believe (that is Penal Substitution Theory).

Others (like me) disagree with Penal Substitution Theory. The reason there is even such a debate is Scripture does not contain Penal Substitution Theory. It is systematic theology- men working these things out.

In the end I would reject Penal Substitution Theory simply because it is not in Scripture (the text, i.e., "what is written") AND it is so foundational a doctrine.

If it were a secondary doctrine I would may be a little more relaxed on needing Scripture. But I believe the atonement is too important a doctrine to leave up to human hands.

The substitution model is all way thru the scriptures!

 

[JonC]

you keep saying that, but have failed to show from Scripture, 1. that it is wrong, and 2, from Scripture what it does teach on this?

1. Asking to disprove from Scripture what is not in the text of Scripture is not only an obvious fallacy but it is stupid. It is like me asking you to prove from Scripture there were not 3 wisemen who cane to see Jesus. Your argument ultimately is since Scripture dies not address Penal Substitution Theory it must be correct.

2. Scripture teaches that Christ died or us, became a curse for us, that God was pleased to crush Him, that He died at the hands of evil people but this was God's predetermined plan, that it is by His stripes we are healed... etc.

What is important to this conversation, however, is the fact that Scripture itself does not teach Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

The substitution model is all way thru the scriptures!

So?? I never said it wasn't. I said Penal Substitution is wrong - not that sin is without consequence, or that Christ is less than the "Last Adam" , experiencing the suffering and death we deserved.

You are starting to enter the utter foolishness I said this topic aways devolves into (strawman arguments, saying what we all believe as if it is somehow unique to Penal Substitution Theory)

 

[JonC]

The substitution model is all way thru the scriptures!

So?? I never said it wasn't. I said Oenal Substitution is wrong - not that sin is without consequence, or that Christ is less than the "Last Adam" , experiencing the suffering and death we deserved.

 

[SavedByGrace]

1. Asking to disprove from Scripture what is not in the text of Scripture is not only an obvious fallacy but it is stupid. It is like me asking you to prove from Scripture there were not 3 wisemen who cane to see Jesus. Your argument ultimately is since Scripture dies not address Penal Substitution Theory it must be correct.

2. Scripture teaches that Christ died or us, became a curse for us, that God was pleased to crush Him, that He died at the hands of evil people but this was God's predetermined plan, that it is by His stripes we are healed... etc.

What is important to this conversation, however, is the fact that Scripture itself does not teach Penal Substitution.

Don't see any point in responding as it might be stupid

 

[JonC]

Romans and Galatians are in the scriptures!

So is 1st and 2nd Corinthians.

But none of them state Penal Substitution Theory.

Look, it is easy. If you and @SavedByGrace are correct and Scripture states Penal Substitution, if Penal Substitution is what Paul wrote, then you could post at least one verse that I (rejecting Penal Substitution Theory) reject.

But you can't and you know it. There are no passages that state Penal Substitution Theory. You and @SavedByGrace are adding to Scripture. Even if your Theory is correct, your claim is false as it is not in the Bible.

 

[JonC]

Don't see any point in responding as it might be stupid

If you would respond by asking again me to disprove your view it would be stupid. I think you are not a stupid person, so I don't expect that.

It is up to you to prove what you believe is "what is written" - NOT to disprove my view. I can prove my view of the Atonement is biblical.

That is how arguments work. You do not say something and tell the other person to disprove it. You say something and then YOU prove it.

AGAIN -I can prove my view biblically. You have demonstrated that you cannot provide a passage proving yours.

 

[SavedByGrace]

AGAIN -I can prove my view biblically

ok, then lets see the Scriptures that support your view

 

[JonC]

ok, then lets see the Scriptures that support your view

Sure.

Isaiah 53 - He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Romans 8 - Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sure.

Isaiah 53 - He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Romans 8 - Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Isaiah 53 strong proof for PSA!

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53 strong proof for PSA!

No. Penal Substitution Theory does rely on the passage (as do all of the other theories). Isaiah 53 confirms what we all believe. It is FAR from proving Penal Substitution.

In fact, Isaiah 53 says the people, not God, were the ones who esteemed Him stricken. The passage does not even present the "Servant" as experiencing divine wrath!