Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

[JonC]

Jon. I don't claim any expertise in this area but honestly you owe it to explain exactly what you mean is wrong with PSA before you make a claim that meaningful discussion cannot be had here. The piece I sited above is by someone who has some credentials. I understand you do too. All I ask is that you explain what exactly you mean. To just dismiss an article like that out of hand without any reason could be an indicator of why meaningful discussion doesn't occur. I also reject the idea that you can claim 95% of something as true then say the overall theory is wrong because 5% is wrong.

Sorry. I forget that my explanation may have been on a thread 2 years ago. Guess I'm getting old.

Let's look at some things the Penal Substitution Theory gets right - what it shares with most other views:

1. God (the Father) was "pleased to crush Him (the Son)".

2. Christ gave Himself for us. He "was made sin for us".

3. The chastisement for our well being fell on Him, and by His stripes we are healed. He bore our sins in His body - the iniquity for us all was laid on Him.

4. Christ was forsaken (by the Father) to suffer and die on a Roman cross.

5. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

6. Through Christ we escape the wrath to come.

There is more, but I think we get the picture - there is a lot right with the Penal Substitution Theory.

What does Penal Substitution Theory get wrong?
Here's some (about 2.5 %):

What the Theory gets wrong is what it adds to Scripture.

1. It adds that God was punishing Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us.

2. It redefines divine justice through a secular judicial philosophy of retributive justice.

3. It presents God as punishing the Righteous for the sins of the guilty to spare the guilty (which is an abomination to God).

 

[DaveXR650]

OK. Thanks Jon. This is fairly new to me looking at the atonement in such detail. When I start looking I find so many viewpoints attacking PSA that clearly are setting the groundwork for attacking the necessity of Christ's death and reducing the atonement to merely showing us an example of love. Clearly you are not in any way doing that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your view.

By the way, do you (or for anyone on here) know much about the governmental theory that is attributed to Baxter? I am having a hard time understanding it even when I read explanations of it. It seems that it makes Christ's death merely symbolic.

 

[JonC]

OK. Thanks Jon. This is fairly new to me looking at the atonement in such detail. When I start looking I find so many viewpoints attacking PSA that clearly are setting the groundwork for attacking the necessity of Christ's death and reducing the atonement to merely showing us an example of love. Clearly you are not in any way doing that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your view.

By the way, do you (or for anyone on here) know much about the governmental theory that is attributed to Baxter? I am having a hard time understanding it even when I read explanations of it. It seems that it makes Christ's death merely symbolic.

I know very little of the Moral Government Theory. We covered it when I was in seminary but only in passing. I think it originated with Hugo Grotius. If I recall, it teaches that Christ died as a demonstration of God's moral response to sin, Christ being the Atonement or propitiation, so that men may be forgiven.

I'm sure it changed since Grotius, so Baxter's theory may be significantly different (but I am unaware of his view).

 

[JesusFan]

I understand that is what Penal Substitution Theory teaches. I believed, studied, and taught the Theory for decades. But it is not in the Bible.

It really is, but many do not like ascribe to it, as they follow NT Wright that view would be "cosmic child abuse"

 

[JesusFan]

OK. Thanks Jon. This is fairly new to me looking at the atonement in such detail. When I start looking I find so many viewpoints attacking PSA that clearly are setting the groundwork for attacking the necessity of Christ's death and reducing the atonement to merely showing us an example of love. Clearly you are not in any way doing that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your view.

By the way, do you (or for anyone on here) know much about the governmental theory that is attributed to Baxter? I am having a hard time understanding it even when I read explanations of it. It seems that it makes Christ's death merely symbolic.

The big problem for any atonement view other then Psa would be on just what basis can God justify a lost sinner and yet still remain Holy and tgrue to his very nature!

 

[JonC]

It really is, but many do not like ascribe to it, as they follow NT Wright that view would be "cosmic child abuse"

That is silly (although I don't doubt people believe that).

It cannot be "cosmic child abuse" because God is God (the Father, Son, and Spirit). In essence, Penal Substitution Theory holds that God took upon Himself the punishment for our sins rather than punishing us).

That said, it still is not found in the pages of Scripture. It is secular philosophy, not true theology.

 

[JesusFan]

That is silly (although I don't doubt people believe that).

It cannot be "cosmic child abuse" because God is God (the Father, Son, and Spirit). In essence, Penal Substitution Theory holds that God took upon Himself the punishment for our sins rather than punishing us).

That said, it still is not found in the pages of Scripture. It is secular philosophy, not true theology.

The Psa viewpoint is really only one that allows God to remain true to Himself and still be able to fully justify a lost sinner!

 

[JonC]

The big problem for any atonement view other then Psa would be on just what basis can God justify a lost sinner and yet still remain Holy and tgrue to his very nature!

That is no problem at all. Every major view of the Atonement maintains God's holiness.

The difference is how.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God maintains His holiness by punishing Christ for our sins.

Most other views hold that men must die and be born again (or born from above).

 

[JonC]

The Psa viewpoint is really only one that allows God to remain true to Himself and still be able to fully justify a lost sinner!

No, it isn't. In fact, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the only major view that discounts rebirth in favor of God punishing the Righteous to acquit the guilty.

Have you ever considered the possibility that men must die to the flesh and be born again, be mane new creations in Christ, that the old must pass away?

 

[JesusFan]

That is no problem at all. Every major view of the Atonement maintains God's holiness.

The difference is how.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God maintains His holiness by punishing Christ for our sins.

Most other views hold that men must die and be born again (or born from above).

NO, Psa does NOT state and hold that the Father punished Jesus, just that in Christ as the sin bearer for his own people, that he represented them and took upon himself what was due us as being lost sinners!

 

[JesusFan]

No, it isn't. In fact, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the only major view that discounts rebirth in favor of God punishing the Righteous to acquit the guilty.

Have you ever considered the possibility that men must die to the flesh and be born again, be mane new creations in Christ, that the old must pass away?

Jesus was not being punished for being righteous, but due to the truth that he was as the sin bearer made as One who knew no sin becoming as it were sin on our behalf!

 

[JonC]

Jesus was not being punished for being righteous, but due to the truth that he was as the sin bearer made as One who knew no sin becoming as it were sin on our behalf!

It does not matter why. Scripture states that it is an abomination to acquit the guilty and to condemn the Righteous. Unless you are claiming Jesus ceased being righteous when He bore our sins, but that would be anti-Christian.

The point is Penal Substitution Theory jumps through legalistic hoops of secular philosophy to avoid the biblical truth that our salvation is God's righteousness manifested not through but apart from the law.

It is much simpler to simply accept Scripture, that men must die to the flesh and be born again (or born from above....made a new creation in Christ). This settles the demand for justice and demonstrates the justness of God in saving the sinner.

No addition to Scripture is needed.

 

[JonC]

NO, Psa does NOT state and hold that the Father punished Jesus, just that in Christ as the sin bearer for his own people, that he represented them and took upon himself what was due us as being lost sinners!

Yes, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does hold that Christ took upon Himself the punishment due us, instead of us, and that this punishment was the wrath of God.

In fact, it has been worded (often) by Penal Substitution Theorists (like RC Sproul) that the Father looked upon His Son as if he were the worst sinner.

I understand the argument that Gid was not punishing Christ but punishing the sin placed upon Him, but that is really a very silly argument that essentially removes Christ from our redemption by making it an issue between the Father and sin.

You are wrong in your assessment of the Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[ntchristian]

Linked articles can be a good thing to supplement an simple case argument made here. But I do not see any better presentations being made here. Only claimes what I understand is not really correct. I am not going to wast my time reading what I find is false in my current understanding. Telling me my view is not correct does not change my mind. Clear presentation from a few clear Scriptures, I would think, that would be possible here. None given is not helpful.

If you are set as in concrete in a Western mindset, then that is the lens through which you will interpret scripture, which will not have the meaning which the scriptures had or the early church had. I have stated and given references to how the earliest Christians and Eastern Christians interpret important doctrines and how these differ from Western interpretations. The central and crucial question then becomes this: Which is correct, and how do we determine which is correct? As for me, I choose the interpretations of the earliest Christians and the early church. These were Eastern interpretations, not Western ones. The atonement is a prime example of this. All Western doctrines of the atonement came multiple centuries after the earliest doctrines. The earliest Western atonement doctrine came 1000 years after Jesus, and PSA 1500 years after. That fact, and the profound differences of the much later Western theories with the earliest, original ones are the reason I choose to believe what the early church believed and therefore interpret scripture in the context of the early Greek, eastern church rather than the much later Western, Latin church -- RCC or Protestant. I will not say every belief of the West is wrong, but, for me, if it deviates from what was held by the early church, I must choose the early church. My choice of a username for this forum reflects that belief and position.

 

[ntchristian]

OK. Thanks Jon. This is fairly new to me looking at the atonement in such detail. When I start looking I find so many viewpoints attacking PSA that clearly are setting the groundwork for attacking the necessity of Christ's death and reducing the atonement to merely showing us an example of love. Clearly you are not in any way doing that. Thanks for taking the time to explain your view.

By the way, do you (or for anyone on here) know much about the governmental theory that is attributed to Baxter? I am having a hard time understanding it even when I read explanations of it. It seems that it makes Christ's death merely symbolic.

I don't hold to the Example Theory, either.

As to the Governmental Theory, I have studied it. I almost tried to force myself to believe it, as an acceptable alternative to PSA. But in the end I could not. I think it's better than PSA -- I don't see how anything could be worse, but some of it doesn't make sense, and I found myself trying to rationally twist it to get it to make sense enough that I could accept it. I failed. And, to me, it fails.

 

[JonC]

If you are set as in concrete in a Western mindset, then that is the lens through which you will interpret scripture, which will not have the meaning which the scriptures had or the early church had. I have stated and given references to how the earliest Christians and Eastern Christians interpret important doctrines and how these differ from Western interpretations. The central and crucial question then becomes this: Which is correct, and how do we determine which is correct? As for me, I choose the interpretations of the earliest Christians and the early church. These were Eastern interpretations, not Western ones. The atonement is a prime example of this. All Western doctrines of the atonement came multiple centuries after the earliest doctrines. The earliest Western atonement doctrine came 1000 years after Jesus, and PSA 1500 years after. That fact, and the profound differences of the much later Western theories with the earliest, original ones are the reason I choose to believe what the early church believed and therefore interpret scripture in the context of the early Greek, eastern church rather than the much later Western, Latin church -- RCC or Protestant. I will not say every belief of the West is wrong, but, for me, if it deviates from what was held by the early church, I must choose the early church. My choice of a username for this forum reflects that belief and position.

I agree with most of this. The only caution I would add is how we take "Eastern". It is often taken as Eastern Orthodox, which has problems of its own. Where the Roman Catholic Church moved towards legalism the Orthodox Catholics moved towards symbolizing and spiritualzing Christ's work.

I consider the 15th century Anabaptist theology a bit more balanced. They maintained what you refer to as an Eastern concept if the Atonement but managed to avoid some Roman pagan influences we see with the Eastern Orthodox. I suspect this was simply a matter of sticking closely to Scripture. (Not that 15th century Anabaptists didn't have issues of its own).

 

[ntchristian]

I agree with most of this. The only caution I would add is how we take "Eastern". It is often taken as Eastern Orthodox, which has problems of its own. Where the Roman Catholic Church moved towards legalism the Orthodox Catholics moved towards symbolizing and spiritualzing Christ's work.

I consider the 15th century Anabaptist theology a bit more balanced. They maintained what you refer to as an Eastern concept if the Atonement but managed to avoid some Roman pagan influences we see with the Eastern Orthodox. I suspect this was simply a matter of sticking closely to Scripture. (Not that 15th century Anabaptists didn't have issues of its own).

Actually, I agree with everything you said. And my theology now has more in common with Anabaptists than Orthodox, except I don't agree with Anabaptists on pacifism and oaths.

Maybe I should start my own church and call it the Anabaptist Orthodox Church.

 

[DaveXR650]

I consider the 15th century Anabaptist theology a bit more balanced. They maintained what you refer to as an Eastern concept if the Atonement but managed to avoid some Roman pagan influences we see with the Eastern Orthodox. I suspect this was simply a matter of sticking closely to Scripture. (Not that 15th century Anabaptists didn't have issues of its own).

I've noticed that there are a lot of similarities in the way Puritans like Bunyan, Owen and Watson describe LIVING the Christian life with Baxter and Wesley and even Menno and the Moravians. Jonathan Edwards mentions reading Thomas Kempis and Martyn Lloyd Jones spends a good portion of his book "The Puritans" praising Wesley and the Methodists in their way of life. I'm not sure what to make of that, it's just what I have noticed.

 

[JesusFan]

It does not matter why. Scripture states that it is an abomination to acquit the guilty and to condemn the Righteous. Unless you are claiming Jesus ceased being righteous when He bore our sins, but that would be anti-Christian.

The point is Penal Substitution Theory jumps through legalistic hoops of secular philosophy to avoid the biblical truth that our salvation is God's righteousness manifested not through but apart from the law.

It is much simpler to simply accept Scripture, that men must die to the flesh and be born again (or born from above....made a new creation in Christ). This settles the demand for justice and demonstrates the justness of God in saving the sinner.

No addition to Scripture is needed.

Does God punish lost sinners who are in hell?

 

[JesusFan]

I agree with most of this. The only caution I would add is how we take "Eastern". It is often taken as Eastern Orthodox, which has problems of its own. Where the Roman Catholic Church moved towards legalism the Orthodox Catholics moved towards symbolizing and spiritualzing Christ's work.

I consider the 15th century Anabaptist theology a bit more balanced. They maintained what you refer to as an Eastern concept if the Atonement but managed to avoid some Roman pagan influences we see with the Eastern Orthodox. I suspect this was simply a matter of sticking closely to Scripture. (Not that 15th century Anabaptists didn't have issues of its own).

The Psa best explains the biblical concept of the atonement