How Does Penal Substitution Relate to Other Atonement Theories?

[Martin Marprelate]

The issue is what is left out. I don't fault the article for summarizing. I do fault it for leaving out what it claims is not addressed. That is a dishonest picture of opposing views.

I would say the same if it were an article opposing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement by claiming it's "cosmic child abuse", leaving out the distinction that Penal Substitution Theory also insists God was taking the punishment upon Himself.

People can summarize. But when the argument rests in what is left out then it is wrong.

As I wrote above, the article is the basis for discussion. If you feel that your position has not been addressed fairly, you need to explain it further in more depth and show why you believe it has been so addressed. Mere assertions will not do.

Sorry. I will rephrase.

The classic view holds that the wicked will suffer God's wrath at Judgment.

The OP insists that all positions other than the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement fail to address sin as related to God.

In what way does viewing the wicked as experiencing God's wrath, being cast into the "outer darkness", into the "Lake of Fire" fall short of addressing the result of sin in terms of divine judgment?

If the wicked experience God's wrath and so forth, then there is no hope for anyone, including you and me. The issue to be discussed, as I have pointed out continually, is how God shows mercy to sinners while remaining 'a just judge.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is not true.

The classic view holds that God forgives sins. Penal Substitution Theory does not.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God forgives sinners, NOT sins. This is an important distinction.

The Classic view holds that God forgives sins upon repentance and that this is based on Christ.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement holds that God forgives sinners but that God can not actually forgive sins. God must punish sin, so He punished our sins on Christ in order to forgive us.

Well the so-called "Classic theory" errs at this point. Imagine a human judge freeing a prisoner found guilty of the most heinous crimes because he said he was sorry! I simply invoking the name of Christ does the trick, why did He have to die such a terrible death?
The "sins vs sinners" question is a distinction without a difference. One of my favourite verses in the Bible is Hebrews 8:12. 'For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' We are those who often can't remember what we had for supper the day before yesterday, yet we often find it so hard to forgive. But God, who knows all things perfectly, has (as it were) deleted our sins from the memory bank of heaven. But in order to do this and remain the righteous God, He had to pay, on His own initiative, the full penalty for our sins in the Person of Jesus Christ. Wonderful beyond words!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This is not true.

The classic view holds that God forgives sins. Penal Substitution Theory does not.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God allows sinners to escape punishment by punishing their sins. That is not forgiveness.

If you punch me in the face I can forgive you.

But if I have to punch your brother in the face in order to not to punch you, that is not forgiveness. That is demanding the sin be punished so that you will not.

The reductio ad absurdum argument does not work. If I commit Actual Bodily Harm (that's what it's called in the UK) against you, I will have broken the law, and the law must and will inflict the appropriate penalty. For me to say that I'm terribly sorry and to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will not help me.
You may decide not to press charges. That is probably because I didn't hit you hard enough! But you are not God; you are a miserable sinner like me and to liken yourself to God is a bit silly.

 

[JonC]

This is nonsense and dishonest. You should practise what you preach.

Scripture says that the wages of sin is death, and that we have all sinned.

Do you believe that, having sinned, you will experience death as a wage of your sin?

 

[JonC]

The reductio ad absurdum argument does not work. If I commit Actual Bodily Harm (that's what it's called in the UK) against you, I will have broken the law, and the law must and will inflict the appropriate penalty. For me to say that I'm terribly sorry and to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will not help me.
You may decide not to press charges. That is probably because I didn't hit you hard enough! But you are not God; you are a miserable sinner like me and to liken yourself to God is a bit silly.

You are devolving into ad hominem with this post. I have never claimed to be like God.

What actual sin do you believe God forgives rather than punishes?

 

[JonC]

Well the so-called "Classic theory" errs at this point. Imagine a human judge freeing a prisoner found guilty of the most heinous crimes because he said he was sorry! I simply invoking the name of Christ does the trick, why did He have to die such a terrible death?
The "sins vs sinners" question is a distinction without a difference. One of my favourite verses in the Bible is Hebrews 8:12. 'For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' We are those who often can't remember what we had for supper the day before yesterday, yet we often find it so hard to forgive. But God, who knows all things perfectly, has (as it were) deleted our sins from the memory bank of heaven. But in order to do this and remain the righteous God, He had to pay, on His own initiative, the full penalty for our sins in the Person of Jesus Christ. Wonderful beyond words!

You are not being honest with your presentation here.

The Classic view does not believe that God forgives simply based on a person saying "I'm sorry".

The classic view holds that God forgives based on Christ and His obedience, based on the Cross, upon actual repentance (a change from a mind set on the flesh to a mind set on the Spirit). This is a "rebirth" (God takes from man his corrupt heart and gives him a new heart, a new spirit, puts His Spirit in them). Man must die to sin, die to the flesh, and be made alive in Christ.

But the classic view does believe that God forgives sins.


What made you think that the classic view held that God forgives based on the sinner saying "I'm sorry"?

 

[JonC]

The article is not dishonest and you have not shown that it is. You may argue that it is not comprehensive, but as I wrote before, people, including you, do not read long posts, or if you do, you don't respond to them.

Yes, I have.

The article presents other views as not dealing with sin and it's relation to God. The article does not even mention how those views hold God's wrath as being stored up and poured out on the wicked "on that day".

The article skips over what those positions hold as God's righteous judgment against the wicked and simply pretends it says nothing.

The "wages of sin is death but the gift of God is everlasting life in Christ Jesus" being two eternal truths IS essential.

Classic Christianity holds that Christians will experience the wages of sin (death) but in dying so shall we life in Christ because the gift of God is life in Jesus.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that we will NOT experience the wages of sin but instead will experience the gift of God.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Scripture says that the wages of sin is death, and that we have all sinned.
,
Do you believe that, having sinned, you will experience death as a wage of your sin?

Absolutely! Unless of course Jesus Christ has made full satisfaction for my sin, which He has.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are devolving into ad hominem with this post. I have never claimed to be like God.

I think you'll find you did, just a bit. Probably about as much as you accused me of being a violent man who goes around punching people.

What actual sin do you believe God forgives rather than punishes?

All sin for which He has Himself covered by the satisfaction made by the Lord Jesus Christ.
But do you really not understand the difference between yourself and God? God is the Judge of all the earth; Like an earthly judge He cannot just forgive sin. And we are instructed to leave judgment to Him. 'Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" says the LORD.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are not being honest with your presentation here.

The Classic view does not believe that God forgives simply based on a person saying "I'm sorry".

The classic view holds that God forgives based on Christ and His obedience, based on the Cross, upon actual repentance (a change from a mind set on the flesh to a mind set on the Spirit). This is a "rebirth" (God takes from man his corrupt heart and gives him a new heart, a new spirit, puts His Spirit in them). Man must die to sin, die to the flesh, and be made alive in Christ.

But the classic view does believe that God forgives sins.

What made you think that the classic view held that God forgives based on the sinner saying "I'm sorry"?

You did, in your presentation of your so-called "Classic view." Tell us: why did Christ have to die and, particularly, to die such a terrible death? How, exactly, is God's forgiveness 'based on the cross'? If what is needed is the New Birth, why did Christ need to come at all? If He did need to come and die in order for us to be forgiven, how is God's forgiveness any different from that set forth in the Doctrine of Penal Substitution?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, I have.

The article presents other views as not dealing with sin and it's relation to God. The article does not even mention how those views hold God's wrath as being stored up and poured out on the wicked "on that day".

The article skips over what those positions hold as God's righteous judgment against the wicked and simply pretends it says nothing.

I have read the article through again and I think Wellum is perfectly fair.

I think you need to get to grips with the article, specifically these points:

Penal substitution does not deny the multi-faceted aspects of Christ’s death such as the restoration of what Adam lost, the defeat of the powers, the revelation of God’s love, and so on. Instead, it contends that central to the cross is God the Son incarnate acting as our new covenant representative and substitute to satisfy fully the triune God’s righteous demand against us due to our sin.

Apart from this central achievement of the cross, there is no restoration of humanity, there is no defeat of the powers, and there is no love revealed. Why? Because at the heart of penal substitution is a specific understanding of the God-law-sin relationship—or better, a specific theology proper. Penal substitution takes seriously the fact that the triune God is alone independent and self-sufficient. Specifically, in relation to the moral law, this entails that God does not adjudicate a law external to him; instead, he is the law. This is why, in relation to sin, God cannot tolerate sin (Hab 1:12–13; Isa 1:4–20; 35:8); he must act in holy justice against it (Gen 18:25) because he cannot deny himself.

And yet, how does God demonstrate his holy justice and covenant love, given his free decision to redeem us (Gen 3:15; Hos 11:9)? In this regard, the Bible’s storyline reveals a tension that’s rooted in who God is vis-à-vis sin. This tension is central to the why of the cross. Since God is the Law, he cannot forgive us without the full satisfaction of his holy and righteous demand (Rom 3:21–26; Heb 9:15–22). To justify the ungodly (Rom 4:5), the triune God must take the initiative to provide a Redeemer who can pay for our sin and act in perfect obedience for us. Christ must not only be our victor and substitute, he must also be our penal substitute. Ultimately, satisfying God’s justice is central to the cross, and other views of the atonement fail to stress this vital point.

 

[JonC]

Absolutely! Unless of course Jesus Christ has made full satisfaction for my sin, which He has.

You add a caveat.

IF God's words are everlasting, IF what He declared as true is actually true, THEN there is no "unless".

You indicate that God lied, that there is an "unless".

But the verse specifically tells us that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life.


God declared that YOU (if you have sinned) will experience the wages of sin which is death. Is that true?

That is a major disagreement you seem to want to gloss over.

Traditional Christianity says that the wages of sin is death (sin produces death, which we earn as a wage). So we will all experience death as a wage of sin. But the gift (not earned) of God is life in Christ. So in dying yet shall those in Christ live.

You say that God misstated His view, that the wages of sin are death....unless.

 

[JonC]

I think you'll find you did, just a bit. Probably about as much as you accused me of being a violent man who goes around punching people.

All sin for which He has Himself covered by the satisfaction made by the Lord Jesus Christ.
But do you really not understand the difference between yourself and God? God is the Judge of all the earth; Like an earthly judge He cannot just forgive sin. And we are instructed to leave judgment to Him. 'Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" says the LORD.'

I did in only one way - I said that God puts His Spirit in us.

I never accused you of being a violent man. That is a stupid claim.

I agree that God does not (I wouldn't say "cannot") simply forgive sins. You are once again making claims I never made.

I am saying that Scripture is correct, that God forgives upon repentance. I also said that this repentance is a change of mind - turning from a mind set on the flesh to a mind set on the Spirit. And I said that this involves dying to sin, dying to the flesh, having God put a new heart in us, making us a new creation.

Why do you keep pretending I am suggesting a "simple forgiveness"?

Why do you say that I am suggesting man simply says "I'm sorry" and God forgives?

Do you not understand the traditional Christian faith or are you intentionally misrepresenting the classic view?


Let's look at Ransom Theory (not even a specific Ransom Theory, but in general).

How does Ransom Theory relate sin to God?

How, according to Ransom Theory, are the wicked punished?

That is simple - God has stored up His wrath "for that day" and will visit this wrath on the wicked "on that day".

 

[JonC]

I have read the article through again and I think Wellum is perfectly fair.

I think you need to get to grips with the article, specifically these points:

Penal substitution does not deny the multi-faceted aspects of Christ’s death such as the restoration of what Adam lost, the defeat of the powers, the revelation of God’s love, and so on. Instead, it contends that central to the cross is God the Son incarnate acting as our new covenant representative and substitute to satisfy fully the triune God’s righteous demand against us due to our sin.

Apart from this central achievement of the cross, there is no restoration of humanity, there is no defeat of the powers, and there is no love revealed. Why? Because at the heart of penal substitution is a specific understanding of the God-law-sin relationship—or better, a specific theology proper. Penal substitution takes seriously the fact that the triune God is alone independent and self-sufficient. Specifically, in relation to the moral law, this entails that God does not adjudicate a law external to him; instead, he is the law. This is why, in relation to sin, God cannot tolerate sin (Hab 1:12–13; Isa 1:4–20; 35:8); he must act in holy justice against it (Gen 18:25) because he cannot deny himself.

And yet, how does God demonstrate his holy justice and covenant love, given his free decision to redeem us (Gen 3:15; Hos 11:9)? In this regard, the Bible’s storyline reveals a tension that’s rooted in who God is vis-à-vis sin. This tension is central to the why of the cross. Since God is the Law, he cannot forgive us without the full satisfaction of his holy and righteous demand (Rom 3:21–26; Heb 9:15–22). To justify the ungodly (Rom 4:5), the triune God must take the initiative to provide a Redeemer who can pay for our sin and act in perfect obedience for us. Christ must not only be our victor and substitute, he must also be our penal substitute. Ultimately, satisfying God’s justice is central to the cross, and other views of the atonement fail to stress this vital point.

In your opinion, and reading the article, how does the article itself compare the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement in regards to God's righteous judgment on sinners to the way the other views present God's righteous judgment on sinners?


If you are honest then you will have to admit that the article doesn't.

The article picks things that don't stand in contradiction to Penal Substitution Theory and then says that Penal Substitution Theory deals with sin in relation to God.

Then the article declared that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement the Penal Substitution Theory is the best explanation because of how it deals with sin in relation to God.

BUT the article never once offers or even hints at how the other views deal with sin in relation to God.

It is a dishonest article.

Writers need to compare and examine exactly how these views deal with the same things, then make an argument for the one the writer feels superior.

 

[taisto]

Absolutely! Unless of course Jesus Christ has made full satisfaction for my sin, which He has.

Jesus gave us a parable to help us see how God paid the price that we could not pay.

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.” “A certain money lender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

When a money lender cancels the debt of a person who owes money, that money lender incurs the debt upon himself and pays for it out of his own account. A substitution has occurred. The person for whom the debt has been cancelled does nothing, except be extremely grateful. But, the one who forgave them the debt has just incurred that loss upon himself, having substituted the accumulation of wealth for the loss, out of his bank account, by choosing to pay off that person's debt thereby giving a free gift to the former debtor.

Here in this parable we see the substitutionary process of Christ Jesus in our behalf.

Martin, thank you for your support. I am done with the nonsense of those who oppose penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

You did, in your presentation of your so-called "Classic view." Tell us: why did Christ have to die and, particularly, to die such a terrible death? How, exactly, is God's forgiveness 'based on the cross'? If what is needed is the New Birth, why did Christ need to come at all? If He did need to come and die in order for us to be forgiven, how is God's forgiveness any different from that set forth in the Doctrine of Penal Substitution?

It was necessary that Christ "share our infirmitiy", "become like us in every point, but without sin", "become a curse for us". Not only was Christ's death necessary, but Christ's death under the power of sin, of death, of Satan, was necessary. His death on a Roman Cross was necessary.

There could be no "new birth" without "another Adam". Christ had to be the Firstborn of many brethren for man to be saved.

The differences between traditional Christian faith and Penal Substitution are many.

Penal Substitution Theory does not necessitate Christ's physical death in terms of redemption. Christ did need to experience God's wrath against sins, but He did not need to experience what we will also experience in order that we be saved.

Traditional Christianity in terms of redemption necessitates Christ's actual death.

Penal Substitution Theory has no use of the Cross itself because Christ is, under this theory, suffering God's punishment rather than punishment under the worldly powers.

Traditional Christianity necessitates the Cross itself (Christ needed to suffer and die under the worldly powers at the time within the Jewish world....why that exact time, God knows.


Penal Substitution Theory holds that Christ had to suffer so that we would not experience the wages of sin but instead receive the gift of God.

Traditional Christian faith (Christianity for the 1st thousand years) held that we do experience the wages of sin because we have sinned, but that those who are in Christ will receive the gift of God.

 

[JonC]

Jesus gave us a parable to help us see how God paid the price that we could not pay.

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.” “A certain money lender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

When a money lender cancels the debt of a person who owes money, that money lender incurs the debt upon himself and pays for it out of his own account. A substitution has occurred. The person for whom the debt has been cancelled does nothing, except be extremely grateful. But, the one who forgave them the debt has just incurred that loss upon himself, having substituted the accumulation of wealth for the loss, out of his bank account, by choosing to pay off that person's debt thereby giving a free gift to the former debtor.

Here in this parable we see the substitutionary process of Christ Jesus in our behalf.

Martin, thank you for your support. I am done with the nonsense of those who oppose penal substitution.

Lol.....you may want to read that parable again

Also, did you figure out the PM thing?

 

[JonC]

I am going to make this VERY clear (so that even you, brother @Martin Marprelate , will have to address the issue or forfeit by ignoring the issue ..... seriously, though, so that we can see the problem of the OP).

Here is the claim of the OP:

"Of all the atonement theologies, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross. The alternatives either minimize or deny that God’s holy justice is essential to him, why our sin is first against God (Ps 51:4), and why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross"

The first part of that quote is an opinion based on the section in bold.

The section in bold is false (it is an error).

The alternatives hold that God's wrath is constantly set against sinners, that this wrath is "stored up until that day", and that on that day God will pour His wrath on the wicked, that they will experience being "cast into the outer darkness", from God's presence, and into the Lake of Fire as a righteous judgment because of sin.

@Martin Marprelate , how is God's wrath as described in the classic view minimalizing or denying divine justice?


Here is the conclusion of the OP:

"Penal substitution best accounts for why the divine Son had to die, and why he alone saves."

This is an unsubstantiated opinion. The alternative views hold that Christ's death was absolutely necessary (Christ had to suffer the wages of sin, which is death, to save mankind - this solidarity is essential to traditional Christian faith).

On the other hand, Penal Substitution Theory does not necessitate Christ's death at all as it does not equate what we will experience (death) as redemptive (we are, per Penal Substitution Theory, saved on the basis of what Christ suffered instead of us as our substitute).

Regardless of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, the OP simply ignored opposing views to make a claim.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I did in only one way - I said that God puts His Spirit in us.

I never accused you of being a violent man. That is a stupid claim.

It is stupid, but not more so than your accusation of me.

I agree that God does not (I wouldn't say "cannot") simply forgive sins. You are once again making claims I never made.

I am saying that Scripture is correct, that God forgives upon repentance. I also said that this repentance is a change of mind - turning from a mind set on the flesh to a mind set on the Spirit. And I said that this involves dying to sin, dying to the flesh, having God put a new heart in us, making us a new creation.

Why do you keep pretending I am suggesting a "simple forgiveness"?

Because it is 'simple forgiveness.' Where is the justice of God? '....By no means clearing the guilty.'

Why do you say that I am suggesting man simply says "I'm sorry" and God forgives?

Because that is what you are saying. The man has had a change of mind, he has had a new birth and so forth, and is totaly repentant but where is the justice? If a man in jail awaiting sentence for some foul crime announces that he has been born anew, that he has died to sin and so forth, even if 50 theologians certify that he's telling the truth, justice demands that she be satisfied, that the wages of sin be paid.
Do you understand now, or do you still not get it?

Do you not understand the traditional Christian faith or are you intentionally misrepresenting the classic view?

One of us appears not to understand traditional Christianity, but I think you will find it's you.

Let's look at Ransom Theory (not even a specific Ransom Theory, but in general).

How does Ransom Theory relate sin to God?

How, according to Ransom Theory, are the wicked punished?

That is simple - God has stored up His wrath "for that day" and will visit this wrath on the wicked "on that day".

Well we're all doomed in that case, though I did point out to you Romans 1:18 which you have blithely ignored as is your usual practice. But of course the Ransom Theory has Christ paying the ransom But the 'ransom,' of course, is not paid to Satan as Origen supposed, but to the righteousness of God., so that He may be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am going to make this VERY clear (so that even you, brother @Martin Marprelate , will have to address the issue or forfeit by ignoring the issue ..... seriously, though, so that we can see the problem of the OP).

Here is the claim of the OP:

"Of all the atonement theologies, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross. The alternatives either minimize or deny that God’s holy justice is essential to him, why our sin is first against God (Ps 51:4), and why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross"

The first part of that quote is an opinion based on the section in bold.

The section in bold is false (it is an error).

Nope. It's entirely factual for the reasons I have given above. The fact that you can't, or won't, see it does not make it false.