Decline and debate of Penal Substitution Theory

[Van]

Simply put, PST is a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement. On the other hand, Christ's substitutionary sacrifice for the sin of the world, those that are or will be redeemed, and those who were not and will not be redeemed, reflects the truth from scripture. No need to make a theological stew of arcane claims. It does not matter whether a majority or minority believe a mistaken view, it remains mistaken.

 

[Ran the Man]

I am referring to the idea that in recent days numerous voices from the Protestant world have challenged the Theory.

If it's a theory, it should be challenged. For no scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. You know the verse.

 

[JonC]

If it's a theory, it should be challenged. For no scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. You know the verse.

It is a theory, but many accept it as Scripture itself.

 

[JonC]

In the churches I associate with, I would say that P.S. is, if anything, more popular than before, but a large portion of British churches, including many of those of the Baptist Union, have simply caved in to the spirit of the age or have given up on theology altogether.

Martin,

I was wondering (based on my observation with Lewis and Dekker's fiction), where do the younger (say, 20- 30 year olds) generations of believers fit in?

I'd say in the U.S. the younger generation is less theologically minded than my generation ways but more open to Scripture in other ways. When I mention Penal Substitution Theology I am typically met with "yea, that's what we believe". But when I say "so you believe God punished Jesus instead of us" their answer is it was not God's punishment.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If it's a theory, it should be challenged. For no scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. You know the verse.

It's not a theory; it's an established doctrine, which has been in the Church from the very beginning.
But i you want to challenge it, that is, of course your right and you will find yourself in the company of a large number of liberal theologians.

 

[JonC]

It's not a theory; it's an established doctrine, which has been in the Church from the very beginning.
But i you want to challenge it, that is, of course your right and you will find yourself in the company of a large number of liberal theologians.

Again, you are confusing two things Martin.

There is Scripture and the truth that Christ bore our sins, it being God's will for Him to die at the hands of wicked men. God was pkeased to crush Him. By His stripes we are healed. Christ died so that we would escape the wrath to come (ect.). These truths are throughout men's expressed understanding of Scripture.

And then there is Penal Substitution Theory (which stands alongside other theories of Atonement). This theory contextualizes biblical truth by theorizing a judicial framework through which the Atonement is understood (like Anselm's Satisfaction theory looked to honor and Aquinas' Substitution theory focused on moral merit). The Theory attaches a divine penal aspect to the Cross as Christ suffers divine punishment for our sins in our stead.

This thread is NOT about biblical teachings of penal substitution woven throughout the work of Christ. This thread is about Penal Substitution Theory. Do not hijack it.

I am asking if you have noticed people moving from tbe Theory and if so why do you think they are abandoning it to seek out Scripture.

 

[JonC]

To help - Penal Substitution Theory theorizes that sin is a legal debt which can be transfered. It theorizes divine justice operates under the type of judicial philosophy known as "retributive justice" and contextualizes the work of Christ within this judicial system. These are only a couple of elements that keep the teaching one theory among many. Whether right or wrong it is one theory of Atonement.

https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement

Theories of the Atonement by Leon Morris

A brief introduction to the Theories of the Atonement

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

What is the penal substitutionary atonement theory? | CARM.org

Some of it's disciples may teach the Theory as if it were biblical doctrine but that is simply because they do not recognize elements of human reasoning within the Theory. They can't say, as Spurgeon did, to weigh it against Scripture because it is Scripture to them.

My point is this blindness to what is reasoning and what is in the text of Scripture is facilitating a decline with a generation that comes from a population which held the Theory as biblical doctrine. More and more it seems that younger people are weighing the Theory against Scripture and finding it problematic. Is this because of a change in worldview? Is this an influence of the things they watch or read (like C.S. Lewis or Ted Dekker)?

Think of it this way - the Chronicles of Narnia are popular among Evangelicals. But the message (very strong in the first movie and book) stand in opposition to the Theory. Is this influencing the way the children of these people understand the Cross? Are they catching the dichotomy in views their parents are missing?

Ted Dekker is a popular Christian author. His books not only present a view that is different from the Theory, but the Theory itself is very mildly masked as the delusion those who are not "in Christ" have accepted.

To shift to another theory (to illustrate what I am asking) - did the Left Behind series have any influence on a younger generation's acceptance of one eschatological theory over another?

 

[Ran the Man]

It's not a theory; it's an established doctrine, which has been in the Church from the very beginning.
But i you want to challenge it, that is, of course your right and you will find yourself in the company of a large number of liberal theologians.

so if i challenge it I'd better be careful or I might be a liberal? sounds like the tactics they used to take over the SBC back in the 80s.
The church never taught it until augustine.

 

[Ran the Man]

Martin,

I was wondering (based on my observation with Lewis and Dekker's fiction), where do the younger (say, 20- 30 year olds) generations of believers fit in?

I'd say in the U.S. the younger generation is less theologically minded than my generation ways but more open to Scripture in other ways. When I mention Penal Substitution Theology I am typically met with "yea, that's what we believe". But when I say "so you believe God punished Jesus instead of us" their answer is it was not God's punishment.

I'm sorry, but theologians are funny as heck. Don't you know what penal subsititution sounds like? ha ha!!

 

[JonC]

so if i challenge it I'd better be careful or I might be a liberal? sounds like the tactics they used to take over the SBC back in the 80s.
The church never taught it until augustine.

I noticed that too. That's what I found so funny about his reply. He's basically using the tactic you have to agree with him or you will be among liberals. It's a fallacy some adopt when they can't defend their views.

In the 1980's there was a liberal movement within the SBC that needed to go. But at the same time many used the charge to stop any type of dialogue that challenged their position.

 

[Ran the Man]

I noticed that too. That's what I found so funny about his reply. He's basically using the tactic you have to agree with him or you will be among liberals. It's a fallacy some adopt when they can't defend their views.

In the 1980's there was a liberal movement within the SBC that needed to go. But at the same time many used the charge to stop any type of dialogue that challenged their position.

yeah I remember that witch hunt. I heard some good people were taken out of their positions at the seminaries.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This thread is about Penal Substitution Theory.

Just to be quite clear: I recognize no such thing as Penal Substitution 'theory.'
It's been a busy day today and a busy one coming up tomorrow, but I will answer @JonC's posts in due course as I have time.

 

[JonC]

Just to be quite clear: I recognize no such thing as Penal Substitution 'theory.'
It's been a busy day today and a busy one coming up tomorrow, but I will answer @JonC's posts in due course as I have time.

Then no need to answer Martin. Don't hijack this thread - it IS NOT about what the Bible says about penal substitution...but about Penal Substitution Theory and why many are leaving it behind for a biblical view of penal substitution.

If you do not know what the Theory is then great! You do not have to be concerned.

 

[37818]

Not theory, but a definition of the likes of Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:8; etc.

 

[JonC]

Not theory, but a definition of the likes of Isaiah 53:6; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:8; etc.

Yes. Those are not theories (those are verses of Scripture). I know of a few who have abandon penal substitution...but I am speaking of the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement - adding theory (like the legal transfer of sin, a paticular judicial system, ect.) to what Scripture provides.

Are you familiar with churches who teach Penal Substitution Theory as doctrine? If so, are you knowledgeable of movements away from the theory? If not, why respond in the first place?

 

[JonC]

I am aware that for some past theories are present doctrine. Where some think of the Theory of Oenal Substitution and the Theory of Evolution others consider them as plainly evident doctrine.

It does not matter.

I am looking at causes folks are leaving the teaching or doctrine or theory of Penal Substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Martin,

I was wondering (based on my observation with Lewis and Dekker's fiction), where do the younger (say, 20- 30 year olds) generations of believers fit in?

I'd say in the U.S. the younger generation is less theologically minded than my generation ways but more open to Scripture in other ways. When I mention Penal Substitution Theology I am typically met with "yea, that's what we believe". But when I say "so you believe God punished Jesus instead of us" their answer is it was not God's punishment.

Whether or not young people are theologically minded depends on how they have been theologically educated. If they have attended a Bible-believing church, they should have been exposed to good Bible teaching; if not, not. I don't think one can generalize. If the number of good churches is declining, the number of theologically-literate youngsters will also decline.

Providentially the Christian Unions in British Universities are mostly very evangelical and so those who attend usually get some good teaching and directed to Bible-believing churches.

The question you ask will often govern the answer you get. If you ask, "Do you believe Isaiah 53:5 & 10a is in the Bible?" I imagine that you will get a positive response. Likewise if you ask, "Do you believe that God gave His beloved Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen mankind," I think you might get a "yes" eventually.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. Those are not theories (those are verses of Scripture). I know of a few who have abandon penal substitution...but I am speaking of the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement - adding theory (like the legal transfer of sin, a particular judicial system, etc.) to what Scripture provides.

Just to clarify-- Is a belief in Isaiah 53:6 an example of the 'Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement'? Do you regard 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' as an example of the illegal transfer of sin?

Are you familiar with churches who teach Penal Substitution Theory as doctrine?

On the basis of your example above, yes, but we call it the Doctrine of Penal Substitution..

If so, are you knowledgeable of movements away from the theory?

Most certainly, in liberal and some 'broad evangelical' churches.

 

[JonC]

Just to clarify-- Is a belief in Isaiah 53:6 an example of the 'Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement'? Do you regard 'And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all' as an example of the illegal transfer of sin?

No. Isaiah 53:6 is an example of God causing the iniquity of us all to fall upon Christ. Isaiah 53 demonstrates penal substitution - NOT Penal Substitution Theory.

Penal Substitution Theory goes beyond Christ bearing our sins to our sins being judicially transferred (in a legal sense) to Christ's account and Christ being treated by God as if Christ Himself were guilty of our sins resulting in this "sin debt" being paid. That is the difference.

That said, I know several people who strongly believe the Theory of Evolution. They do not see it as a theory either. What makes it a theory is not the data but how the data is put together. The same is true of the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement. Many who hold the Theory cannot distinguish between the data (Scripture) and how the data is put together. They cannot see their own reasoning present in the Theory so they hold it as fact.

That is why I try to extend grace to friends who hold either theory as fact. They lean on their own understanding to the extent they can't even separate their interpretation of the "data" from the "data" itself. You can't tell some evolutionists that adaptation is not evolution. They simply can not see it. The same is true with some who hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement.

 

[JonC]

It is a theory, but many accept it as Scripture itself.

I see you think that is "funny", @Iconoclast .Haven't learned to use your big boy words yet I see...