4 Cringe-worthy Claims of Popular Penal Substitution Theology

[Baptist Believer]

Thought this was a very interesting and helpful article:

4 Cringe-worthy Claims of Popular Penal Substitution Theology

Here's the introduction and the four claims:

I've often wondered if the same thing that makes violent video games appealing is why young evangelical guys are so infatuated with penal substitution theology. I figure a scary ____ God is cool for the same reason that the loud wet smack of a linebacker knocking the wind out of a quarterback is cool (I was that linebacker once). I recognize that some guys need to have a God who likes to say "RAWR!!!" but in their zeal over penal substitution, some cringe-worthy and not entirely Biblical assertions are being made. There is a theologically responsible account of penal substitution; it's part of the mystery of the cross. But I wanted to examine four of the more obnoxious assertions that I've heard in what I would call popular penal substitution theology.

1. God is allergic to sin.
2. God sees Jesus instead of us when He looks at us.
3. Since God is infinite, He is infinitely offended by the slightest of our sins.
4. God poured out His wrath on Jesus on the cross.

 

[12strings]

Opening Paragraph: I think you are unfairly stereotyping those who hold to penal substitution...I believe they are primarily driven by the simple belief that the bible teaches it, not by some unusually high love of violence...
BTW, Are you saying God does not have wrath or anger toward sin? If so, there are many scriptures that would seem to disagree.


1. Never heard that.

2. Maybe someone else will address it, perhaps specificlaly stated, but with all the substitution language, I don't think it can be proven at odds with scripture.

3. I believe the general idea is not that each of our sins has infinite offense, but that our entire disposition toward God is that of a rebel.

4. Rom. 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Is. 53:4 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted....6b the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all...10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;

How would you describe these verses differently?

 

[Revmitchell]

Number one is weird and I have never heard of it. But there is nothing cringe-worthy about the other three.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Gotta stick up for my Calvie buddies, for whom "Penal-Substitution" is critical...

I do see some weakenesses (mainly being in-complete explanations) in some types of Penal Substitution theories.....but, this guys goes a little too far.....
He is missing so much....
I think he has something to ADD to the discussion...but, he doesn't quite know what should be "subtracted " first....

I like the idea that he goes more in-depth into the "God doesn't 'see' you, but merely sees Jesus...." thing...And I think he has some good points...But, he goes WAY to far with some of it...
A "Penal-Substitutionary" explanation of atonement may indeed be inadequate, and perhaps sometimes mistaken on some particulars..but it isn't "false" whole-sale...
Maybe, as he said initially, the Anselmian BASIC model (subject to some refinement)..of a "substitutionary Atonenment" is an accurate starting point, and perhaps we have been a little bit fast and loose with the assumptions we take with it. But while he has some VERY REAL "meat"...he has some "BONES" too...

As a point...when it come to his claim number 3....I think the classic "Penal Substitutionists" are perfectly correct in their reasoning...Point "3" stands alone as tautologically true actually...
As an Arm...I have some lee-way (not usually granted to Calvinists) with some Atonement Theories...but, most Arms, actually understand the Atonement VERY similarly as their Cal counterparts...We disagree on it's scope and all that, but a "Penal-Substitutionary" Theory of Atonement, (while possibly inadequate) isn't necessarily "false" in most of it's claims....I dislike his argument here.

 

[preachinjesus]

[editted for accuracy]

I checked out the article and noticed that the author is primarily referencing Steve Furtick's sermon on the topic. Though I am not a huge fan of Pastor Furtick, he is a good pastor but he is no theologian. Frankly, I had a lot of problems with his sermon when I heard it as it lacks nuance and depth. The author of the article is trying to make punchy points instead of reasonable engagement (notice his language, tone, and structure of his points.)

To respond specifically:
1. Is a poorly framed criticism that isn't the Penal Substitutionary Atonement position. God isn't allergic to sin, I don't know anyone who is foolish enough to say that. God is perfect and does not tolerate imperfection. Sin is an afront, not a disease, to God.
2. Furtick did say this, or at least has, and I think he's wrong nine different ways. God sees us when He looks at us. I don't know any reasonable PSA proponent who believes this.
3. Sort of a second step from the first point. Our sinning is a result from the Adamic sin which separates us from God. Our sinning continues that separation. It isn't a reasonable criticms of PSA to say that God tolerates sins and overlooks our failings. His perfection necessitates separation from those who don't follow His ways.
4. I don't mind this point as I think it is a biblical one. The challenge for critics of PSA is to show how the blood atonement from the OT covenantal system is changed in the crucifixion in light of Hebrews.

Anyways, I don't have many problems with a properly defined view of PSA. I do have a problem with Christians who think that PSA is the only view and seem to find joy in the suffering of Christ on our behalf. Atonement theories are part of the big brush of God's plan which found satisfaction in the Cross.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

"God is 'allergic' to sin"..............this is a true "Straw-man" argument, if there ever was one....

Most of us "THINK" we know a "staw-man" when we see one, but we usually don't....Most of us on B.B. who scream against "straw-man" argumentation are mis-using the term, and don't actually understand it when we DO SEE IT!!! But THIS IS a "Straw-Man"....a true-to-life-actual "staw-man"...

But, BTW....most of the time, us fellow whiners on B.B. aren't exposing "straw-men"...This is a REAL "straw-man". Often we fail to differentiate Reductio ad absurdums...and call them "straw-men"...but they aren't. "Reductios" are legit argument forms...designed to expose a logically necessary conclusion which is in-defensible...Often, folks, we object to them, and call them "staw-men", and we are mis-taken. This is a TRUE "straw-man" argument. He is mis-representing a "premise"...not logically inferring a conclusion, and THAT is the difference.

 

[Revmitchell]

Thanks! We all now know what a real and true strawman is and will be much more careful to use it correctly.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thanks! We all now know what a real and true strawman is and will be much more careful to use it correctly.

In which particular separate life did I somehow hurt you????

If you choose not to respond...Than please accept my un-reserved aplogy for all ways in which I have offended you.

I was wrong on every level and I sincerely apologize for my direct insults or offences clearly directed towards you specifically...I appologize :tear:

 

[OldRegular]

[not applicable to the thread]

 

[Yeshua1]

Thought this was a very interesting and helpful article:

4 Cringe-worthy Claims of Popular Penal Substitution Theology

Here's the introduction and the four claims:

I've often wondered if the same thing that makes violent video games appealing is why young evangelical guys are so infatuated with penal substitution theology. I figure a scary ____ God is cool for the same reason that the loud wet smack of a linebacker knocking the wind out of a quarterback is cool (I was that linebacker once). I recognize that some guys need to have a God who likes to say "RAWR!!!" but in their zeal over penal substitution, some cringe-worthy and not entirely Biblical assertions are being made. There is a theologically responsible account of penal substitution; it's part of the mystery of the cross. But I wanted to examine four of the more obnoxious assertions that I've heard in what I would call popular penal substitution theology.

1. God is allergic to sin.
2. God sees Jesus instead of us when He looks at us.
3. Since God is infinite, He is infinitely offended by the slightest of our sins.
4. God poured out His wrath on Jesus on the cross.

The entire OT sacrificial system points towards the sacrifocial; death for sins of Christ upon the Cross?

Jesus said that His death would be a ransom for many...

Who is right about this, your author or the Son of God?