Featured Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

I guess Ransom - Christus Victor. This seems to be the prevailing theme in Scripture. I believe that Scripture is very literal when it comes to foundational doctrines.

I believed, studied, and taught Penal Substitution Theory for decades. I held this view all through seminary (it was a Baptist seminary). One Sunday I was a guest preacher (pulpit supply) and preached a sermon of the Cross. The sermon was well received and I felt that it was a very good sermon. Went to bed feeling good about it. Woke up convicted that I had exceeded Scripture.

I bought a couple of dry erase boards and put them on the walls of my office. I wrote out the passages that support Penal Substitution Theory. Then over the next few months I erased all passages that did not actually teach the Theory without adding to them. No passages were left.

What bothered me was that all Christians affirmed the passages that I had listed, but within Christianity Penal Substitution Theory has either not existed or has been a minority view.

I would suggest trying that experiment (the one with whiteboards). Write down every passage that "teaches" Penal Substitution Theory and see if there are any that actually state that God was punishing Christ instead of punishing us for our sins. There are none.

But you will find that it is an abomination to punish the righteous and to acquit the guilty. You will find that God's wrath never falls on the Righteous.

So whatever view is correct has to incorporate those truths along with dealing with the "sin problem".

But to get a "grasp", I'd recommend studying one of the Christus Victor views (not modern Mennonite views, but perhaps Anabaptist theology during the Reformation).

 

Yes. I agree.

 

There is a problem with your request. The issue with Penal Substitution Theory is that what differentiates it from pre-Reformation Christian faith is not in the Bible. How can you be provided with passages saying what is not there? This is what is meant by requesting to prove a negative being a logical fallacy. It can't be done.

That said, you could consider that it is an abomination for God to acquit the guilty and condemn the righteous. You could also consider that God's wrath is never allocated to the righteous.

 

You are talking about names and titles. If, for example, you cannot find verses that (even combined) speak of Christ's eternal nature or of the Godhead then you should hold it as secondary and as opinion.

For me, I can find verses that speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit as God. I can see where in Romans where Paul speaks of the Godhead. I can find passages that speak of the eternal nature of the Son.

I will give you a positive statement of what is being claimed. Nowhere in Scripture is God said to have punished the Righteous One (Christ), nowhere is God said to condemn the righteous and acquit the guilty. In fact, another positive statement is that it is an abomination for God to condemn the Righteous and acquit the wicked.

Our forgiveness is not an acquittal. We still suffer the wages of sin, which is death. But our sins are not counted against us at the Judgment because there is no condemnation in Christ - yet those who are condemned are so because they have rejected Christ. All judgment is given to Christ.

The point, of course, is that there is absolutely no support for Penal Substitution Theory in Scripture (other than passages that support all other views). Penal Substitution Theory is a humanistic philosophy that resulted from interpreting Scripture through a legalistic and secular system in an attempt to reform Roman Catholic doctrine.

 

I understand the passage to be saying that God laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. He bore our sin in His body.

I am not sure that there is another way to understand the passage.

 

It isn't. Over the past couple of decades there has been a push within Calvinistic churches to reexamine Penal Substitution Theory. That has caused others to defend the theory without true engagement. It is almost a taboo issue.

But the claims of early Penal Substitution Theorists falls short. The explanation is typically along the lines of "if they were alive today they'd hold the theory".

Here are "proofs" of early Penal Substitution Theorists from your link:

Clement wrote, “Because of the love that he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives” (1 Clem. 49:6).

“In this he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself. And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners, and will be pained on their behalf; and not on his own” (Proof of the Gospel, 3.2 Eusebius).

You redeemed us from the curse and from sin, having become both on our behalf. You have crushed the heads of the serpent who had seized man in his jaws because of the abyss of our disobedience. You have opened up for us a path to the resurrection, having broken down the gates of hell and reduced to impotence the one who had power over death. (Macrina the Younger)

But none of those are Penal Substitution Theory. Not only that, but all of them are common Christian beliefs.

It is not the 95% of truth but the 5% of error that makes Penal Substitution Theory false. That 5% is of vital importance.

But every time this is discussed here advocates of Penal Substitution Theory offer commonly held beliefs that do not address the distinction of the theory as "proof". This is why I said earlier I doubted a legitimate discussion could be had.