How Does Penal Substitution Relate to Other Atonement Theories?

[taisto]

An article by Stephen J Wellum, Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

How Does Penal Substitutionary Atonement Relate to Other Atonement Theories?

Trying to capture all that our Lord Jesus Christ achieved in his glorious work is not easy given its multi-faceted aspects. John Calvin sought to summarize the comprehensive nature of Christ’s work by the munus triplex—Christ’s threefold office as our new covenant head and mediator—prophet, priest, and king. What Calvin sought to avoid was reductionism, the “cardinal” sin of theology. Although it’s dangerous to prioritize one aspect of our Lord’s work, Scripture does stress the centrality of Christ’s priestly office and his sacrificial death for our sins (Matt 1:21; 1 Cor 15:3–4). And given the centrality of Christ’s cross, it’s crucial that we explain it correctly.

A variety of atonement theologies have emerged throughout church history. In fact, unlike the ecumenical confessions of Nicaea and Chalcedon that established orthodox Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, no catholic confession exists regarding the cross. From this fact, some have concluded that no one view of the cross should be privileged—a conclusion I reject. Despite the lack of an ecumenical confession, all Christians have agreed that Christ’s death secures forgiveness of sins resulting in our reconciliation with God. Yet, admittedly, as with other doctrines, the church’s understanding of the atonement clarified over time. Specifically, during the Reformation and post-Reformation eras pastors and theologians began to recognize that penal substitution was the best theological explanation for why the cross happened and what it achieved.

Recently, however, some have challenged that claim. We are told repeatedly that penal substitution is reductionistic, that it doesn’t account for the richness of the cross. We’re told that what’s needed is not one view but multiple views. But is this correct? My thesis is that it is not, and for at least two reasons. First, views other than penal substitution fail to grasp the central problem that the cross remedies, namely our sin before God. Second, from another angle, other views stress various legitimate entailments of the cross but without penal substitution as their foundation, these entailments alone cannot explain the central problem of our sin before God. Before developing these complementary points, I will first describe various atonement theories over against penal substitution.

 

[taisto]

VARIOUS ATONEMENT THEOLOGIES IN HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

First, recapitulation was one way of explaining the cross, a view often associated with Irenaeus and even Athanasius. Christ’s redemptive work was interpreted primarily in terms of his identification with humanity through the incarnation.

By becoming human, God the Son reversed what Adam did by living our life and dying our death. Adam’s disobedience resulted in the corruption of our nature and the deprivation of Godlikeness. Christ reverses both of these results in his incarnation and cross-work. Especially in Christ’s resurrection, immortality is restored to us as well as reconciliation with God. This view emphasizes several biblical truths. Christ’s work is presented in representational and substitutionary terms. But its central focus is on sin’s effects on us and Christ’s restorative work, not on our sin before God and the need for Christ to satisfy God’s own righteous demand against us by paying for our sin.

Second, Christus Victor, a view often associated with the ransom theory to Satan, views the primary objects of Christ’s death as the powers—sin, death, and Satan. By his work on the cross, Christ liberates us from these powers. In the Patristic era, the Fathers focused on Christ redeeming us from Satan, while modern adherents focus more on liberation from the powers of sin and death.

Like recapitulation, Christus Victor captures a lot of biblical data, especially Christ’s defeat of the powers (Gen 3:15; John 12:31–33; Col 2:13–15; Heb 2:14–16; Rev 12:1–12), but unlike penal substitution, God is not viewed as the primary object of the cross.

Third, the example or moral influence view has been promoted within non-orthodox, liberal theology. It had its roots in the theology of Peter Abelard (AD 1079–1142), but became prominent with the rise of liberal theology (18th–19th centuries). It taught that God’s love is more fundamental than his justice and that God can forgive our sins apart from Christ satisfying divine justice. God, then, is not the primary object of the cross. Instead, Christ’s death reveals God’s love and sets an example for us.

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.

 

[taisto]

EVALUATING ATONEMENT THEOLOGIES IN RELATION TO PENAL SUBSTITUTION

Let us now return to my thesis. Various atonement theologies emphasize many biblical truths and entailments of the cross. But unlike penal substitution, they fail to grasp the central problem that the cross remedies, namely our sin before God.

Every atonement view stresses something biblical about the cross. Recapitulation rightly grasps the Adam–Christ relationship across redemptive history (Rom 5:12–21). In the first Adam, God demanded covenantal obedience, yet Adam disobeyed and brought sin and death into the world. What is needed is the incarnation of God’s Son, the last Adam, to live and die for us, and thus restore us to the purpose of our creation (Heb 2:5–18). But too often, this view doesn’t emphasize enough that our triune God requires perfect covenantal obedience from us, and the need for Christ to be our representative in life and penal substitute in death. It rightly stresses many biblical truths but fails to grasp adequately the God-law-sin relationship.

Similarly, Christus Victor also emphasizes many glorious truths. It underscores the need for the Son to become human to crush Satan’s head (Gen 3:15) and defeat sin and death. And yet, it doesn’t make central the God-law-sin relationship. In Scripture, sin, death, and Satan are only powers over us because of our sin before God (Gen 2:17; Rom 6:23; Heb 2:14–15). How are the powers defeated? Furthermore, why did the divine Son have to die to defeat them? Why did the Son not merely exert his divine power? Because it is only when our sin is paid for that the powers are destroyed (Col 2:13–15; 1 Cor 15:55–57). Our greatest problem is not the powers but standing justified before God. Christus Victor without penal substitution hangs in mid-air.

Scripture also presents Christ and his cross as the supreme moral example of love, obedience, and suffering (John 13:12–17; Eph 5:1–2, 25–27; Phil 2:5–11; 1 Pet 2:18–25). But the cross only functions this way because of who dies and what he achieves, namely the full satisfaction of God’s holy demand against our sin, which is the very demonstration of divine love (1 John 4:7–10).

Also, it’s never enough for Christ merely to identify with us in his incarnation and show us how to live. Solidarity is not atonement, only its prerequisite. We need more than a mere example to redeem us. What we need is for the divine Son to live and die for us. Our problem is not merely that we need a great teacher to show us how to live. Our problem is sin before the triune holy God, and this problem requires the enfleshment of God’s own Son to live for us and to die for us as our penal substitute. It’s only as our propitiatory sacrifice that God’s own righteous demand is fully met, and we, in Christ, receive all the glorious benefits and entailments of his new covenant work.

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 againstGod(Ps 51:4), and why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross. Before we can speak of the horizontal entailments of the cross, we must first speak of the vertical—namely the triune God, in his Son, taking his own demand on himself so that we, in Christ, may be justified before him (Rom 5:1–2).

Other atonement views either miss or undermine this point. For them, the object of the cross is either our sin (forms of recapitulation), or Satan (ransom theory), or the powers (forms of Christus Victor). But what they fail to see is that the primary person we have sinned against is our great and glorious triune Creator and Lord, and as such, the ultimate object of the cross is God himself.

The Bible’s presentation of the cross is rich and multifaceted—like a beautiful gem that can be looked at from many angles. And yet, the very center of Christ’s cross-work is that he has come as our mediator and new covenant head to offer himself before God on behalf of sin. Penal substitution best accounts for why the divine Son had to die, and why he alone saves. With Paul, may we alone glory in and preach Christ crucified (1 Cor 1:23).

By:
Stephen J. Wellum
Stephen J. Wellum is a Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and editor of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology.

 

[Alan Gross]

An article by Stephen J Wellum, Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

How Does Penal Substitutionary Atonement Relate to Other Atonement Theories?

Trying to capture all that our Lord Jesus Christ achieved in his glorious work is not easy given its multi-faceted aspects. John Calvin sought to summarize the comprehensive nature of Christ’s work by the munus triplex—Christ’s threefold office as our new covenant head and mediator—prophet, priest, and king. What Calvin sought to avoid was reductionism, the “cardinal” sin of theology. Although it’s dangerous to prioritize one aspect of our Lord’s work, Scripture does stress the centrality of Christ’s priestly office and his sacrificial death for our sins (Matt 1:21; 1 Cor 15:3–4). And given the centrality of Christ’s cross, it’s crucial that we explain it correctly.

A variety of atonement theologies have emerged throughout church history. In fact, unlike the ecumenical confessions of Nicaea and Chalcedon that established orthodox Trinitarian and Christological doctrine, no catholic confession exists regarding the cross. From this fact, some have concluded that no one view of the cross should be privileged—a conclusion I reject. Despite the lack of an ecumenical confession, all Christians have agreed that Christ’s death secures forgiveness of sins resulting in our reconciliation with God. Yet, admittedly, as with other doctrines, the church’s understanding of the atonement clarified over time. Specifically, during the Reformation and post-Reformation eras pastors and theologians began to recognize that penal substitution was the best theological explanation for why the cross happened and what it achieved.

Recently, however, some have challenged that claim. We are told repeatedly that penal substitution is reductionistic, that it doesn’t account for the richness of the cross. We’re told that what’s needed is not one view but multiple views. But is this correct? My thesis is that it is not, and for at least two reasons. First, views other than penal substitution fail to grasp the central problem that the cross remedies, namely our sin before God. Second, from another angle, other views stress various legitimate entailments of the cross but without penal substitution as their foundation, these entailments alone cannot explain the central problem of our sin before God. Before developing these complementary points, I will first describe various atonement theories over against penal substitution.

I like his article and had read and studied it, previously.

"Although it’s dangerous to prioritize one aspect of our Lord’s work, Scripture does stress the centrality of Christ’s priestly office and his sacrificial death for our sins (Matt 1:21; 1 Cor 15:3–4). And given the centrality of Christ’s cross, it’s crucial that we explain it correctly."

I think he hits the nail on the head with a ball peen dead blow hammer.

"We are told repeatedly that penal substitution is reductionistic, that it doesn’t account for the richness of the cross. We’re told that what’s needed is not one view but multiple views.

"But is this correct?
"My thesis is that it is not, and for at least two reasons.

"First, views other than penal substitution fail to grasp the central problem that the cross remedies, namely our sin before God.

"Second, from another angle, other views stress various legitimate entailments of the cross but without penal substitution as their foundation, these entailments alone cannot explain the central problem of our sin before God."

 

[JonC]

The article misses an important distinction.

While it is true that each presentation of the Atonement has different focuses, the issue is that the views cannot all be true because Penal Substitution Theory, Satisfaction Theory, and Substitution Theory view the Cross in a way that opposes the traditional views.

It is like saying Baptist theology and Roman Catholic theology depend on one another, that Baptist theology rests on RCC theology.

If the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is true then Christianity was entirely wrong about the gospel until the 16th Century.

If there was an understanding of the gospel before the Reformation then Penal Substitution Theory is wrong.

They are competing ideas. It is wrong to blend them together and say "well, they are all right".


The OP needs to prove it's claims. Saying that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the best way of viewing the gospel is a logical fallacy.

 

[JonC]

"First, views other than penal substitution fail to grasp the central problem that the cross remedies, namely our sin before God.

"Second, from another angle, other views stress various legitimate entailments of the cross but without penal substitution as their foundation, these entailments alone cannot explain the central problem of our sin before God."

I can help here, as the above is a misunderstanding. I can't speak for every view, but I can for the "classic view".

Penal Substitution Theory combined two things that the classic view (Ransom theories, Christus Victor, Recapitulation) does not, and this is the reason the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is not compatible with other views.

Penal Substitution Theory combined the wages of sin with God's wrath to come (Judgment). The classic view does not do this. Scripture does not do this.

The reason the claim that the classic view does not remedy man's sin before God is a misunderstanding is Penal Substitution theorists merely look at half of biblical redemption as held in the classic view.

What the classic view holds is that it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment. Christ died under the curse of sin to free us from the bondage of sin and death. In Christ we escape the wrath to come, which the Classic View understands to be at the Judgment Day when the wicked are condemned. This is, in the Classic understanding, a Christ-centered judgment. Those who do not believe are already condemned because they have rejected Christ and the Judgment is exercised against the wicked "on that day".


One main difference here is that the Classic View holds that God's word will never change or fail. The wages of sin is death (sin, not God, produces this death and all will die under its wages). But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus (in Him we escape the wrath to come, though dying yet shall we live, it is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment).


So no, the Classic View views the Cross as a remedy for sin, for human sin, before God. At Judgment the wicked will suffer God's wrath.


Given that mistake, do you believe Penal Substitution theorists simply do not understand the classic view of the Cross (that is is a different view they argue against ignorantly)?

 

[JonC]

Let's look at the claims in the OP (not necessarily in order).

1.The "example or moral influence view has been promoted within non-orthodox, liberal theology".

True in a way, but misleading.

The Moral Influence Theory and the Moral Exemplar Theory are not the same theory.

Abelard (1079–1142) rejected Anselm's Satisfactory Theory (the theory that would be revised to Substitution Theory, which would in turn be reformed to Penal Substitution Theory).

The presentation in the article leads one to believe the Moral Influence Theory is a liberal theory. It is not. But liberal theology typically holds the Moral Exemplar Theory- not because of its view of the Cross but because of social application.

The "Moral Influence Theory" held by liberal theologians today is more often the Moral Exemplar Theory.

Grudem explains the difference as the former showing us God's love, the latter how to live.

 

[JonC]

2. "Penal substitution had precursors in the early church and even in Anselm."

This is false. One reason is the term "penal substitution". It is true that "penal" and "substitution" in some form (Anselm uses "representation") exists in the Early Church and Anselm. But the term "penal substitution" is referring to a specific type of substitution that is absent in the Early Church writings.

Anselm presented "substitution" as representative in terms of Christ making a satisfactory act for us (not in our place, not instead of us, but an act to restore to God the honor robbed of Him by man).

Also, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is much more than the term "penal substitution" just as the term "penal substitution" is much more than the words "penal" and "substitution" independently.

 

[JonC]

3. "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."

This is misleading. The author has molded other theories in a way to support his own thesis. That is dishonest.

The Classic View of Atonement, for example, addresses the God-sin-law even more directly and specifically than does the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. The difference is that the Classic view maintains a distinction between the wages produced by sin and God's judgment on the wicked. The article addresses the former but conveniently ignores the latter.

The Classic view also has a much higher view of God than does Penal Substitution Theory. This goes to Theology Proper (which is the study of God the Father).

Where Penal Substitution Theory holds that the wages of sin were taken by Christ so that we would not suffer those wages, Classic theology maintains that God's words are everlasting - they do not change. All who sin will die. Nothing changes this because God declared it to be true. But in dying so shall we live. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life.

Penal Substitution Theory ultimately finds a way for God to nullify His words. The classic view says God's words will stand. If you sin then you die because sin pays death to the sinner as a wage. It is appointed, therefore, man once to die. But then there is the Judgment (after death). And here Judgment will be poured upon the wicked.

 

[JonC]

@taisto

Do you know how to access PM's. Being a newer member, @Salty and I have been trying to help you out.

(I will remove this post once I know that you understand the PM system as it does not pertain to the OP)

 

[JonC]

4. "But its central focus is on sin’s effects on us and Christ’s restorative work, not on our sin before God and the need for Christ to satisfy God’s own righteous demand against us by paying for our sin."

This is the same error the author made before.

Views that follow the "classic view" of the Cross do have different focuses. BUT they have an overarching context - Christ obediently suffered the consequences of sin, became a curse for us, a solidarity with man, to free mankind from the bondage of sin. Christ suffered under the powers of sin, of Satan, of evil...just as we suffer under these powers. But unlike us, He did not earn that wage - He obediently took it upon Himself.

This is what the article focuses on, and then asks "what about sin as it relates to God?".

Sins are forgiven. But the issue is the wicked, and God's judgment on the wicked is met out "on that day".

The writer gives half the story and complains it is incomplete.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The O.P. is correct.
Any theory that omits Penal Substitution, whatever merit that theory might otherwise have, it falls short in respect of the justice of God.
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? The answer is that ‘God……devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him’ (2 Samuel 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution. “Learn ye, my friends, to look upon God as being as severe in His justice as if He were not loving, and yet as loving as if He were not severe. His love does not diminish His justice nor does His justice, in the least degree, make warfare upon His love. The two are sweetly linked together in the atonement of Christ” (C.H. Spurgeon).

 

[JonC]

The O.P. is correct.
Any theory that omits Penal Substitution, whatever merit that theory might otherwise have, it falls short in respect of the justice of God.
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? The answer is that ‘God……devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him’ (2 Samuel 14:14). Those means are Penal Substitution. “Learn ye, my friends, to look upon God as being as severe in His justice as if He were not loving, and yet as loving as if He were not severe. His love does not diminish His justice nor does His justice, in the least degree, make warfare upon His love. The two are sweetly linked together in the atonement of Christ” (C.H. Spurgeon).

The OP is correct about expressing its view of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, but it is incorrect in partially dealing with the views that oppose the view.

For example, the OP ignores that all of the views under the Classic position specifically deal with sin and it's relation to God under Judgment (the wicked will experience the full wrath of God that has been stored "until that day', they remain in their sins and every part of their existence will be torment as they will be cast from God, into "the outer darkness", into the Lake of Fire prepared for Satan and His demons.

The OP offers a superficial and partial explanation of traditional Christian faith to "show" Penal Substitution the better way.

I would ask you, if you will, how exactly is God's judgment against the wicked - pouring that stored up wrath upon them and they suffering separation from God, the "outer darkness", the Lake of Fire - somehow less than God's just judgment on the wicked? How can the wicked suffering God's wrath not be enough? I mean, what is worse than the wrath of God?

 

[JonC]

The real difference here has nothing to do with the relationship between God and sin.

Both Penal Substitution and traditional Christianity holds that God rightly casts the wicked into Hell, the "outer darkness", the "Lake of Fire". Both hold that this is just, and occurs at Judgment.

This is not even mentioned in the OP.

But unlike Penal Substitution, the Classic view holds that God's wrath "is stored up until that day" (rather than God expending part of it 2000 years ago).

Unlike Penal Substitution the Classic view holds that God forgives sin.

Unlike Penal Substitution the Classic View holds that God's words will stand forever (that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life" are both equally eternal truths, the latter not negating the former).

So there are differences. AND these differences should be discussed and debated from all sides.

But this needs to be done in an honest manner. It rarely is.

I have seen articles like the OP miss the mark (the article is dishonest, but I doubt the writer is intentionally misrepresenting opposing views).

I have also seen those who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement miss the mark (things like "cosmic child abuse, for example, isn't honest....although I doubt those who say those things know better).

Until Christians can understand opposing views they cannot argue against them. That is the issue of the OP. It does well in presenting the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, but it then offers strawmen arguments.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The OP is correct about expressing its view of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, but it is incorrect in partially dealing with the views that oppose the view.

For example, the OP ignores that all of the views under the Classic position specifically deal with sin and it's relation to God under Judgment (the wicked will experience the full wrath of God that has been stored "until that day', they remain in their sins and every part of their existence will be torment as they will be cast from God, into "the outer darkness", into the Lake of Fire prepared for Satan and His demons.

The OP offers a superficial and partial explanation of traditional Christian faith to "show" Penal Substitution the better way.

The O.P. is a short summary of the position - necessarily so since people on this board tend not to read long posts. It is the basis for discussion, not the answer to the question, though it is absolutely right in all that it asserts. The point the O.P. makes, and the point I was making above , is that none of the views mentioned how God is 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' That is the question that the so-called "Classic View" and the other, older theories fail to answer.

I would ask you, if you will, how exactly is God's judgment against the wicked - pouring that stored up wrath upon them and they suffering separation from God, the "outer darkness", the Lake of Fire - somehow less than God's just judgment on the wicked? How can the wicked suffering God's wrath not be enough? I mean, what is worse than the wrath of God?

You need to rephrase your question. You are asking how God's judgment against the wicked is less than God's judgment against the wicked. That makes no sense.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The real difference here has nothing to do with the relationship between God and sin.

Both Penal Substitution and traditional Christianity......

Penal Substitution is traditional Christianity.

holds [sic] that God rightly casts the wicked into Hell, the "outer darkness", the "Lake of Fire". Both hold that this is just, and occurs at Judgment.

This is not even mentioned in the OP.

Why would it be if both sides agree on it?

But unlike Penal Substitution, the Classic view holds that God's wrath "is stored up until that day" (rather than God expending part of it 2000 years ago).

Then the so-called "Classic view" is wrong. Psalm 7:11. 'God is angry with sinners every day.' Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.......' The word for 'revealed is apokaluptetai, and it is the 3rd person singular present indicative passive of apokalupto. the Present Tense in Greek signifies continuity. '...Is being revealed' would be a better translation. John 3:18. '....... He who does not believe is condemned already.' Here the verb in in the Perfect Tense. '......Has been condemned' is better.

Unlike Penal Substitution the Classic view holds that God forgives sin.

Both Penal Substitution and the so-called "Classic view" hold that God forgives sins. The issue is, on what basis does He forgive them?
More later.

 

[JonC]

The O.P. is a short summary of the position - necessarily so since people on this board tend not to read long posts. It is the basis for discussion, not the answer to the question, though it is absolutely right in all that it asserts. The point the O.P. makes, and the point I was making above , is that none of the views mentioned how God is 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' That is the question that the so-called "Classic View" and the other, older theories fail to answer.

You need to rephrase your question. You are asking how God's judgment against the wicked is less than God's judgment against the wicked. That makes no sense.

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.


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?

 

[JonC]

Penal Substitution is traditional Christianity.

Why would it be if both sides agree on it?

Then the so-called "Classic view" is wrong. Psalm 7:11. 'God is angry with sinners every day.' Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.......' The word for 'revealed is apokaluptetai, and it is the 3rd person singular present indicative passive of apokalupto. the Present Tense in Greek signifies continuity. '...Is being revealed' would be a better translation. John 3:18. '....... He who does not believe is condemned already.' Here the verb in in the Perfect Tense. '......Has been condemned' is better.

Both Penal Substitution and the so-called "Classic view" hold that God forgives sins. The issue is, on what basis does He forgive them?
More later.

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.

 

[JonC]

Penal Substitution is traditional Christianity.

Why would it be if both sides agree on it?

Then the so-called "Classic view" is wrong. Psalm 7:11. 'God is angry with sinners every day.' Romans 1:18. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.......' The word for 'revealed is apokaluptetai, and it is the 3rd person singular present indicative passive of apokalupto. the Present Tense in Greek signifies continuity. '...Is being revealed' would be a better translation. John 3:18. '....... He who does not believe is condemned already.' Here the verb in in the Perfect Tense. '......Has been condemned' is better.

Both Penal Substitution and the so-called "Classic view" hold that God forgives sins. The issue is, on what basis does He forgive them?
More later.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Unlike Penal Substitution the Classic View holds that God's words will stand forever (that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life" are both equally eternal truths, the latter not negating the former).

This is nonsense and dishonest. You should practise what you preach. That "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life" are both equally eternal truths" is not at issue and you should not pretend that they are.

So there are differences. AND these differences should be discussed and debated from all sides.

But this needs to be done in an honest manner. It rarely is.

Agreed. On both counts. However, the debate on this board has gone on for around ten years without resolution. I had hoped that you would follow your colleagues' advice and give it a rest, but obviously not.

I have seen articles like the OP miss the mark (the article is dishonest, but I doubt the writer is intentionally misrepresenting opposing views).

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.

I have also seen those who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement miss the mark (things like "cosmic child abuse, for example, isn't honest....although I doubt those who say those things know better).

Until Christians can understand opposing views they cannot argue against them. That is the issue of the OP. It does well in presenting the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, but it then offers strawmen arguments.

If you believe your last sentence then you need to show how the arguments are 'strawmen.' You haven't done so yet.