Atonement (Not PSA)

[JonC]

I want to speak respectfully here, because my concern is not with you as a person, but with the view itself. I cannot accept the idea that the cross was not a legal, substitutionary act, because Scripture uses that language directly. The Bible says, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23), and it also says that Christ “was wounded for our transgressions” and that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (Isaiah 53:5). Paul writes that Christ “redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). These are not later theological additions. They are the words of God.

For that reason, I believe the substitutionary and penalty‑bearing nature of the cross is part of the plain teaching of Scripture. My disagreement is not with your sincerity or your desire to honor the text. It is simply that when I read these passages, I see substitution everywhere, and I cannot set that aside without setting aside the language Scripture itself uses. Yours in Him, Tony

Thank you for being respectful. I hope I come across the same.

I agree with you. The cross was substitutionary rather than a legal act. We can know this as a fact several ways. Jesus is the "last Adam" of whom Paul spoke. In Him God was reconciling man to Himself. I would even say this is inherent in the Word becoming flesh.

I also believe that Christ bore our sins so we would bear His righteousness, that God laid our iniquity on Him so that God would clothe us in His righteousness. It pleased the Lord to crush Him, to put Him to grief, and it is by His stripes we are healed. He did become a curse for us to redeem us from the curse. He was made sin for us.


I am not saying that the Atonement is less than substitutionary, far from it. I am saying that Christ did not die as a penal substitute.

Penal Substitution is both legal and substitution. It is a type of substitution that satisfies a judicial demand. Otherwise you have a form of Anselm's view (Christ stepping in for us to accomplish what Adam could not by merit).

BUT penal substitution views Jesus as suffering divine punishment instead of us. The penal part makes the theory a legal act via substitution.



If penal substitution were in fact the "plain teaching of Scripture" then you would have provided a passage actually teaching penal substitution. But you didn't. You provided passages that Christians believed centuries before penal substitution was articulated.


Now - I do believe that when you read the Bible you see penal substitution all over the place. I believe that for two reasons. First, you strike me as an honest man. Second, I also saw penal substitution from Genesis to Revelation. Once somebody tells you the ink blot is a bat you can never see it for what it really is.

But that is you, and was me. Who cares what people "see" as being taught by the Bible? These understandings are a dime a dozen. What matters is not our understanding of what we think the Bible teaches but the words that proceed from God.

 

[JonC]

@Anthony Pritchard

I know people define terms differently. On this board we have several who believe they hold Doctrines of Grace while rejecting a major point if the doctrine. So I like to ask a few questions so that I better understand your perspective.


1. Do you believe that God forgives sins or that God must punish sins in order to be just?

Typically PSA theorists believe the latter. John Calvin held that judicial philosophy (secularly and theologically) and in developing PSA Calvin explained that justice requires all crimes be punished as it is the duty of the judge to avenge the law.

God, under this view, satisfies the requirements of justice by punishing the Just in order to clear the guilty. But this is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is not dependent on the means or the one being forgiven.

I ask this because I do not believe that judicial philosophy is just, much less divine justice.

2. Do you believe that God views punishing the Just and clearing the guilty both to be abominations? If so, do you believe God punished Jesus instead of us?

I ask this one because I do not believe God punishes the Just. I also do not believe God will clear the guilty.

 

[atpollard]

Post #18 left off with the Levitical Offerings.

Just saying that I am patiently waiting to read what comes next.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

@Anthony Pritchard

I know people define terms differently. On this board we have several who believe they hold Doctrines of Grace while rejecting a major point if the doctrine. So I like to ask a few questions so that I better understand your perspective.


1. Do you believe that God forgives sins or that God must punish sins in order to be just?

Typically PSA theorists believe the latter. John Calvin held that judicial philosophy (secularly and theologically) and in developing PSA Calvin explained that justice requires all crimes be punished as it is the duty of the judge to avenge the law.

God, under this view, satisfies the requirements of justice by punishing the Just in order to clear the guilty. But this is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is not dependent on the means or the one being forgiven.

I ask this because I do not believe that judicial philosophy is just, much less divine justice.

2. Do you believe that God views punishing the Just and clearing the guilty both to be abominations? If so, do you believe God punished Jesus instead of us?

I ask this one because I do not believe God punishes the Just. I also do not believe God will clear the guilty.

Brother, thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply. I appreciate the tone, and I want to answer in the same spirit. I do not want to argue philosophy or systems, only to stay with the words God has given us.

For me, the question is not whether the atonement is substitutionary. We both agree it is. The question is whether Scripture itself describes that substitution in penal terms. When I read the passages, I see that it does.

“The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). “He was wounded for our transgressions… the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (Isaiah 53:5). “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). “He made him to be sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

These are not philosophical categories. They are the Spirit’s own words. Wages, curse, chastisement, iniquity laid on another, sin borne by another. These are penal terms. They describe guilt, consequence, and judgment transferred to a substitute.

To your first question, yes, I believe God forgives sins. But Scripture also says that forgiveness is grounded in the shedding of blood. “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). Forgiveness is free to us, but it was not free in itself. It was purchased.

To your second question, I do not believe God punishes the just in the sense of condemning the innocent. But I do believe what Scripture says, that Christ “the Just for the unjust” suffered once for sins (1 Peter 3:18). He was not punished as a sinner. He bore the penalty of sin as the spotless Lamb of God. That is why He could redeem us.

So my disagreement is not with your sincerity or your desire to honor the text. It is simply that when I read these passages, I cannot separate substitution from the penal language God Himself uses. I do not want to add anything to Scripture, but I also do not want to remove anything from it.

I appreciate the conversation, Brother, and I am grateful for the respectful tone.