Penal Substitution

[Martin Marprelate]

PSA holds that Divine Justice demands sin be punished. On the Cross God punished Christ with the wrath due the elect for their sins. The sinner is forgiven because Another took their punishment and satisfied the demands of divine justice.

Here divine justice is satisfied because Jesus was punished for the sins of sinners in their stead. The sin, not the sinner is the focus.

Complete nonsense! Jesus died in the place of sinners. The attempt to separate sin from sinners is ridiculous. There is no sin without sinners. There are no sinners unless they sin.

Another way to prove the point is that PSA rejects the idea of simple forgiveness. God can't just forgive a sinner without punishing the sin because the sin itself constitutes a debt that must be satisfied. The debt itself is separate from the guilty individual as divine forgiveness includes collecting the debt in full (from one person in order to forgive another).

This is retributive justice, and I just don't see that it is present in Scripture.

The idea that God can forgive sins without punishing it is pure Pelagianism and if you had troubled to read the O.P.s you would have come across Exodus 34:7-- 'by no means clearing the guilty'-- and Proverbs 17:15. God cannot be an abomination to Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

 

[JonC]

Complete nonsense! Jesus died in the place of sinners. The attempt to separate sin from sinners is ridiculous. There is no sin without sinners. There are no sinners unless they sin.

The idea that God can forgive sins without punishing it is pure Pelagianism and if you had troubled to read the O.P.s you would have come across Exodus 34:7-- 'by no means clearing the guilty'-- and Proverbs 17:15. God cannot be an abomination to Himself (2 Timothy 2:13).

Thank you for considering what I have written. And I do apologize for my difficulty in articulating the distinction I am trying to flesh out. I am not talking about "clearing the guilty", but rather questioning the contextual framework upon which PSA is built.

The Atonement is substitution - I agree. Scripture says the righteous for the unrighteous. And you are absolutely correct that any attempt to separate sin from sinners is ridiculous. There is no sin without sinners AND sin is an action performed by the sinner (a sin cannot be guilty as the guilt rests upon the sinner alone).

Perhaps this secular example will help understand the distinction I am so poorly trying to bring to light. In examining our (America's) judicial system Benjamin Corey wrote:

‘For 500 years [since Calvin introduced penal substitutionary atonement] we have focused our understanding of God and God’s justice as the need for punishment instead of the need for reconciliation, and this has led to a broken framework in our country in regards to justice. When we allow this broken framework to influence the application of justice (as we have) we see criminal acts in terms of “need to punish as justice” instead of “need to restore as justice.” Yes, there are many criminal acts that require a person to be removed from society for their protection and for ours, but this theological framework has caused us to view “justice served” when a person receives what we feel is an appropriate sentence instead of seeing “justice served” when both the offender and the offended (even if that’s just society in general) have had their lives reconciled (perhaps not with each other, but in a general sense). Justice becomes punishment, not healing and restoration.” (Benjamin Corey, “Justice Broken”)


Calvinism assumed that the highest form of justice is retributive justice. It is quite easy to understand why John Calvin, a lawyer, made the presupposition as it fit naturally within his own worldview. But being native to a 16th century judiciary milieu (and natural to our contemporary secular worldview) does not excuse the presupposition from examination. Christopher Marshall noted in “Beyond Retribution”, “Wherever Calvinism spread, punitive sentencing follows.” I am contending that retributive justice is our norm, and we presuppose this norm upon the Scripture. What Scripture does provide is a sense of restorative justice (the easiest example is the Mosaic Law). What is the reason to assume that divine justice operates within a retributive context when applied to the atonement as there exist no command, passage, or law in Scripture that advocates such a supposition?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Calvinism assumed that the highest form of justice is retributive justice.

This is based on a misunderstanding of Calvinism and, I think, of Christianity in general.
First of all you should note that John Howard, the first great prison reformer, was a Calvinist. I think you have the Howard Association in the USA named after him? In Britain it is the Howard League for Penal Reform. Your man Corey blames Calvinism entirely unjustly. Can he show that before Calvin justice was administered with more mercy? I don't think so!

Next, I do not think you will be able to find any publication by a supporter of PSA that retributive justice should be practised exclusively. The Bible rejects it precisely because of Penal Substitution 'Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but leave room for God's wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" says the Lord. Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him.......etc.' (Romans 12:19-21). It is precisely because God's justice is fully satisfied against His people that Christians forgive, knowing how much we have been forgiven.

There is an argument that God does not forgive, that He merely extracts payment from Christ. This is a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is God Himself, in the Person of His Son, who has paid the penalty due to Himself so that He can forgive guilty sinners. This is the truest and highest form of forgiveness. This is why it can be said, 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed' (Psalm 85:10).

The very reason why Christianity has led to greater social reform than, say, Hunduism or Islam is because to the Christian all people have an innate worth and significance, partly because they are made in the image of God, and partly because Christ died for such as they are (sinners-- Romans 5:6).

 

[JonC]

This is based on a misunderstanding of Calvinism and, I think, of Christianity in general.
First of all you should note that John Howard, the first great prison reformer, was a Calvinist. I think you have the Howard Association in the USA named after him? In Britain it is the Howard League for Penal Reform. Your man Corey blames Calvinism entirely unjustly. Can he show that before Calvin justice was administered with more mercy? I don't think so!

Next, I do not think you will be able to find any publication by a supporter of PSA that retributive justice should be practised exclusively. The Bible rejects it precisely because of Penal Substitution 'Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but leave room for God's wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" says the Lord. Therefore, if your enemy is hungry, feed him.......etc.' (Romans 12:19-21). It is precisely because God's justice is fully satisfied against His people that Christians forgive, knowing how much we have been forgiven.

There is an argument that God does not forgive, that He merely extracts payment from Christ. This is a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is God Himself, in the Person of His Son, who has paid the penalty due to Himself so that He can forgive guilty sinners. This is the truest and highest form of forgiveness. This is why it can be said, 'Mercy and truth have met together; righteousness and peace have kissed' (Psalm 85:10).

The very reason why Christianity has led to greater social reform than, say, Hunduism or Islam is because to the Christian all people have an innate worth and significance, partly because they are made in the image of God, and partly because Christ died for such as they are (sinners-- Romans 5:6).

My apologies...again. I did not mean to imply that John Calvin invented retributive justice and that it spread because it was a construct of Calvinism. I probably should not have offered Marshall's quote as it may have confused the discussion (I only wanted to highlight the difference, and this was a poor choice on my part). My argument is that PSA erroneously applies retributive justice to the atonement.

You offer that it is because God's justice is fully satisfied against His people - God poured out His Wrath on Christ and punished Him in our stead therefore fulfilling the demands of justice (which is retributive justice by definition) that restorative justice (a reconciliation between man and God) can occur. And I believe your best argument thus far is pulling back to view the Trinity (God taking that wrath upon Himself). The issue, however, that I am addressing here is that retributive justice is not offered as a context of divine justice even in the Old Testament. It is offered only as a negative, never as an example.

In 2 Samuel 12 we read that David committed evil before God and repented, telling Nathan that he had sinned against the Lord. BUT God forgave David, took away his sin so that he would not die as death was what the Law demanded.

The passage, taken literally as it stands, is simple forgiveness. David repented and God forgave. There were consequences but what has taken place is restorative justice (concerning David, God, Israel, and the enemies of God who would have cause to blaspheme). The basis is not the Law but God Himself, His sovereignty, mercy, AND justice.

This is not, however, justice if divine justice is retributive justice. God must punish David with the punishment the Law requires in order to satisfy its demands. PSA advocates tend to look forward to the Atonement (God poured out this wrath due David upon Christ therefore satisfying the punishment demanded by the Law) as the basis for this forgiveness.

My question concerns the addition of retributive justice. I believe we are taking for granted a context that is foreign to Scripture, and I believe PSA advocates imply (either consciously or unaware) this context into their argument.

 

[The Biblicist]

In 2 Samuel 12 we read that David committed evil before God and repented, telling Nathan that he had sinned against the Lord. BUT God forgave David, took away his sin so that he would not die as death was what the Law demanded.

The passage, taken literally as it stands, is simple forgiveness. David repented and God forgave. There were consequences but what has taken place is restorative justice (concerning David, God, Israel, and the enemies of God who would have cause to blaspheme). The basis is not the Law but God Himself, His sovereignty, mercy, AND justice.

This is not, however, justice if divine justice is retributive justice. God must punish David with the punishment the Law requires in order to satisfy its demands. PSA advocates tend to look forward to the Atonement (God poured out this wrath due David upon Christ therefore satisfying the punishment demanded by the Law) as the basis for this forgiveness.

My question concerns the addition of retributive justice. I believe we are taking for granted a context that is foreign to Scripture, and I believe PSA advocates imply (either consciously or unaware) this context into their argument.

Forgiveness by God for David's sins (all his sins) was based upon the blood of the "everlasting covenant" (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3; Acts 13:33-34; Heb. 13:20). There is no either/or between restorative and retributive justice but both as both are clearly taught. Restoration is primarily due to the righteousness of Christ but it is the suffering of Christ that satisfies the penalty toward both the sin and the sinner = retribution. Retributive justice is not an "addition" but an inseparable inclusion.

Personally, I would rather stick to the language of scripture as the unbiblical terms seem only to create confusion.

 

[JonC]

Forgiveness by God for David's sins (all his sins) was based upon the blood of the "everlasting covenant" (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3; Acts 13:33-34; Heb. 13:20). There is no either/or between restorative and retributive justice but both as both are clearly taught. Restoration is primarily due to the righteousness of Christ but it is the suffering of Christ that satisfies the penalty toward both the sin and the sinner = retribution. Retributive justice is not an "addition" but an inseparable inclusion.

Personally, I would rather stick to the language of scripture as the unbiblical terms seem only to create confusion.

I am not sure that we can stick to the language of Scripture and discuss the issue because thus far retributive justice has been assumed rather than exhibited. (And I apologize for the term, but I do not know another to represent that sense of justice).

 

[Yeshua1]

The wrath of God towards all sins, and those who are sinners, is not done because God is just trying to destroy everyone, but due to Him being a Holy Judge, and there must be an active aspect to His judgments.
God must have someone pay by death the due penalty for their own personal sin debt, and God also requires in that payment a full restitution, which would be including being forsaken eternally by Him, and condemned to Hell...

Jesus freely took upon himself that required wrath, death, being forsaken by the father, and experienced just as a sinner while upon the Cross whta all lost sinners whom he saved would taste apart from them being now found saved in Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm inclined to think that this is a rather large red herring and that you are creating a false dichotomy. Penal Substitution doesn't take that position at all. God's hatred is against sin, but His justice is against the sinner. I'd like you to deal with Romans 3:25-26. How can God be just and yet justify sinners?

That was the very question Luther NEVER could get a solution to in His Roman theology, but when the Holy Spirit revealed Pauline justification to Him from Romans, he saw and was born again!

 

[Yeshua1]

My apologies...again. I did not mean to imply that John Calvin invented retributive justice and that it spread because it was a construct of Calvinism. I probably should not have offered Marshall's quote as it may have confused the discussion (I only wanted to highlight the difference, and this was a poor choice on my part). My argument is that PSA erroneously applies retributive justice to the atonement.

You offer that it is because God's justice is fully satisfied against His people - God poured out His Wrath on Christ and punished Him in our stead therefore fulfilling the demands of justice (which is retributive justice by definition) that restorative justice (a reconciliation between man and God) can occur. And I believe your best argument thus far is pulling back to view the Trinity (God taking that wrath upon Himself). The issue, however, that I am addressing here is that retributive justice is not offered as a context of divine justice even in the Old Testament. It is offered only as a negative, never as an example.

In 2 Samuel 12 we read that David committed evil before God and repented, telling Nathan that he had sinned against the Lord. BUT God forgave David, took away his sin so that he would not die as death was what the Law demanded.

The passage, taken literally as it stands, is simple forgiveness. David repented and God forgave. There were consequences but what has taken place is restorative justice (concerning David, God, Israel, and the enemies of God who would have cause to blaspheme). The basis is not the Law but God Himself, His sovereignty, mercy, AND justice.

This is not, however, justice if divine justice is retributive justice. God must punish David with the punishment the Law requires in order to satisfy its demands. PSA advocates tend to look forward to the Atonement (God poured out this wrath due David upon Christ therefore satisfying the punishment demanded by the Law) as the basis for this forgiveness.

My question concerns the addition of retributive justice. I believe we are taking for granted a context that is foreign to Scripture, and I believe PSA advocates imply (either consciously or unaware) this context into their argument.

How are you defining retributive Justice?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

My question concerns the addition of retributive justice. I believe we are taking for granted a context that is foreign to Scripture, and I believe PSA advocates imply (either consciously or unaware) this context into their argument.

You're joking, right?
If not, will you please explain in what sense Genesis 38:7 was restorative in respect to Er?
David's sin was forgiven because Christ had atoned for His sins as Biblicist says. Restorative justice is Hebrews 12:5-6 & Revelation 3:19. It is only possible because Christ has paid the full penalty for our sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

thus far retributive justice has been assumed rather than exhibited.

I don't see for the life of me how you can even claim that!!!!! We have nailed that peg down repeatedly. You never responded to the exposition I gave you to prove that point on Isaiah 53:10-11. Martin has laid it down in the clearest language possible!

There is God's person and there is God's Law. Sin violates His law and sinners reproach His Person. Law without penalty is nothing but a joke whether we speak of human civil or divine law. Take away penalty from the law and you have no justice that can be served against either sin or sinners.

I believe your view is based upon one specific error. That error is that you presume that the atonement must be either reconcilatory OR retributive when it is both! Sin and Sinners must be reconciled with both the Person and the Law of God.

 

[Van]

I see we are on page two of PSA and it has not been moved to the Cal/Arm forum.

As has been shown probably a half dozen times PSA is simply a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement, which is false theology.

The claim is that Christ died only for the specific sins (foreseen and otherwise) of the previously elected individuals. This of course is unbiblical:
1) Christ died as a ransom for all, and became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.
2) Everyone believing into Christ shall not perish, but have eternal life. Thus our sins are removed (the circumcision of Christ) when God transfers us spiritually into Christ, having credited of faith as righteousness.

 

[JonC]

You're joking, right?
If not, will you please explain in what sense Genesis 38:7 was restorative in respect to Er?
David's sin was forgiven because Christ had atoned for His sins as Biblicist says. Restorative justice is Hebrews 12:5-6 & Revelation 3:19. It is only possible because Christ has paid the full penalty for our sins.

No, I am not joking. Even in respect to Er we are dealing with restorative justice (and with Nineveh also, which is why Jonah did not desire to obey).

I think you are confusing restorative justice with reconciliation. I do not mean men are not judged as guilty, but that forgiveness and justice are not dependent on punishment satisfying what the Law demanded.

But again, this is not the problem. Should I be wrong in my view this would not make you correct in yours. Your theory stands upon an assumption you have yet demonstrated to be biblical.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't see for the life of me how you can even claim that!!!!! We have nailed that peg down repeatedly. You never responded to the exposition I gave you to prove that point on Isaiah 53:10-11. Martin has laid it down in the clearest language possible!

There is God's person and there is God's Law. Sin violates His law and sinners reproach His Person. Law without penalty is nothing but a joke whether we speak of human civil or divine law. Take away penalty from the law and you have no justice that can be served against either sin or sinners.

I believe your view is based upon one specific error. That error is that you presume that the atonement must be either reconcilatory OR retributive when it is both! Sin and Sinners must be reconciled with both the Person and the Law of God.

In order to have the reconciliation to God by the individual sinner, that persons individual sin debt must be atoned for and paid for by meeting the due penalty of sinning against God, dearth.

This is why Paul broke down in praise and worship of the Grace of God in Romans, as he realized in full that God Himself did not just take on death on the Cross in the person of Jesus Christ, but that he "went all the way", and was willing to endure and bear the full wrath of God for lost sinners to be redeemed, and experienced while upon the Cross just what the lost will when Judged for their own sins!

 

[JonC]

I don't see for the life of me how you can even claim that!!!!! We have nailed that peg down repeatedly. You never responded to the exposition I gave you to prove that point on Isaiah 53:10-11. Martin has laid it down in the clearest language possible!

There is God's person and there is God's Law. Sin violates His law and sinners reproach His Person. Law without penalty is nothing but a joke whether we speak of human civil or divine law. Take away penalty from the law and you have no justice that can be served against either sin or sinners.

I believe your view is based upon one specific error. That error is that you presume that the atonement must be either reconcilatory OR retributive when it is both! Sin and Sinners must be reconciled with both the Person and the Law of God.

I responded twice to your interpretation of Isaiah 53:10-11, echoing Peter's words recorded in Acts that it was God's will. I also pointed out that it was the people for whom and at whose hands Christ suffered that esteemed Him stricken and a transgressor in Isaiah 53, something you dismissed saying God viewed it that way also. This is what I mean when I say your presuppositions are driving your interpretation. No passage you have provided proves your theory. You, and Martin, offer a passage and then an interpretation which assumes what is not in that text itself. I am not even arguing against this, but I am asking that you provide a reason for the context you provide.

Insofar as the false dichotomy argument, I disagree. Remember, we are not talking in general but specifically in terms of the atonement. Since we agree that restorative judgment is present it becomes your task to prove God's justice is somehow also retributive justice. This is the one specific error I am addressing, but not the only issue present. If the context that would allow punishment itself satisfy divine judgment (i.e., judgement satisfied because God's wrath towards our sin is poured out on Christ instead of us) cannot be proven via Scripture then there is no need to go beyond that one error.

 

[JonC]

How are you defining retributive Justice?

Hey Y1,

I am not sure that there are several definitions. It is judgment with the crime and punishment in view. For example, if I get a parking in my county justice demands that the ticket be paid based on the violation - it doesn't matter who pays the ticket. If I am convicted of murder justice demands a minimum sentence with respect to the crime and punishment alone. I may have committed the crime as a juvenile, but regardless to me the crime may keep me in prison for the remainder of my life.

God's justice is retributive if it demands punishment for sins committed regardless of the person (God does not forgive a sin because the sinner repents except that the punishment was inflicted on Christ). I say that PSA views Divine Justice as retributive justice because it seems to me that PSA holds that God was wrathful towards Christ and punished Him with the punishment due the elect for sins they have committed. Christ was punished with our punishment therefore satisfying the demands of the Law and making forgiveness a reality to those who believe.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hey Y1,

I am not sure that there are several definitions. It is judgment with the crime and punishment in view. For example, if I get a parking in my county justice demands that the ticket be paid based on the violation - it doesn't matter who pays the ticket. If I am convicted of murder justice demands a minimum sentence with respect to the crime and punishment alone. I may have committed the crime as a juvenile, but regardless to me the crime may keep me in prison for the remainder of my life.

God's justice is retributive if it demands punishment for sins committed regardless of the person (God does not forgive a sin because the sinner repents except that the punishment was inflicted on Christ). I say that PSA views Divine Justice as retributive justice because it seems to me that PSA holds that God was wrathful towards Christ and punished Him with the punishment due the elect for sins they have committed. Christ was punished with our punishment therefore satisfying the demands of the Law and making forgiveness a reality to those who believe.

You have just described Pauline Justification, as both Luther and Calvin saw it, perfectly!

 

[JonC]

You have just described Pauline Justification, as both Luther and Calvin saw it, perfectly!

This OP is about Penal Substitution and what @Martin Marprelate has posted. I asked for support concerning the use of retributive justice as a contextual framework.

If you have something to offer, then please offer it. But please do not continue making unsupported claims like the quote above. You do not know what Luther and Calvin saw other than what they wrote. You do not know Pauline Justification other than is provided in Scripture. I anticipate this going back to a "because I say so" kind of discussion, but if we can prevent that for at least a few pages maybe something can be gained.

 

[Yeshua1]

This OP is about Penal Substitution and what @Martin Marprelate has posted. I asked for support concerning the use of retributive justice as a contextual framework.

If you have something to offer, then please offer it. But please do not continue making unsupported claims like the quote above. You do not know what Luther and Calvin saw other than what they wrote. You do not know Pauline Justification other than is provided in Scripture. I anticipate this going back to a "because I say so" kind of discussion, but if we can prevent that for at least a few pages maybe something can be gained.

Paul framed his discussion of the Justification provided for us by appealing to the sacrificial system God had placed in the OT, that all was pointing towards the coming Messiah, who as the very Lamb of God would bear the sin guilt of the people of God.

Are you still bothered by the concept of God placing divine wrath upon Jesus in our stead, like it would not be fair to Him to have to experience as a sinner would that wrath?

 

[JonC]

Paul framed his discussion of the Justification provided for us by appealing to the sacrificial system God had placed in the OT, that all was pointing towards the coming Messiah, who as the very Lamb of God would bear the sin guilt of the people of God.

Are you still bothered by the concept of God placing divine wrath upon Jesus in our stead, like it would not be fair to Him to have to experience as a sinner would that wrath?

I agree that Paul framed his discussion of the justification within the system God had placed in the OT. The Old Testament...the Old Covenant, the prophets,and the Law....bore witness to the New Covenant as a righteousness of God. But even there (in the Old Testament) divine justice is not retributive justice (the Law does not demand sins be punished but that the sinner be punished for sins committed).