The Biblical Doctrine of Penal Substitution

[Martin Marprelate]

I hope that this answers your question and perhaps even highlights our disagreement for future discussion.

Thank you for laying this out.
I will respond in a few days. My minister has to go away suddenly this weekend and I have to prepare to lead and speak at two services, so you will understand that my time is taken up in the immediate future.

 

[JonC]

Thank you for laying this out.
I will respond in a few days. My minister has to go away suddenly this weekend and I have to prepare to lead and speak at two services, so you will understand that my time is taken up in the immediate future.

No problem. When you get time, don't hesitate to dismantle what I have said and point out what I bring into my position. If it stings I might fuss, but who cares. That's what we do when we look at these things. We need to know what we believe and why we believe it. I was speaking to myself more than anyone else when I said that the first time.

Enjoy your time in the pulpit! Will your sermon be posted on your website?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Enjoy your time in the pulpit! Will your sermon be posted on your website?

I shall be spending quite some time there! Lee, my minister, is in the sad situation of having both his father and father-in-law dying of cancer in different parts of the country. The end for both of them seems quite near, but one never knows.

My church website is www.scottdrivechurch.org.uk You can link to the sermon page from there and find mine under my real name of Stephen (Steve to my friends) Owen. You will se that I shall be leading a short series on some of our Lord's sayings from the cross, leading up to Easter. This is to allow Lee and Annette to spend as much time as they need with their respective fathers.

 

[Yeshua1]

Brother, I have repeatedly warned you about this. You are proving to be a gossip.

I will try to explanmyself clearer, as not try to in by being a :gossip", just sometimes think that you seem to be agreeing and disagreeing at same time on this issue!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe that the atoning work of Christ properly begins with the Incarnation.

Atonement indicates sacrifice. The worshipper “draws near” the purposed sacrifice, lays his hands on the head of the animal, kills the animal (some miss this point, the animal was killed by the worshipper except when representing Israel…or if the atoning offering was a bird), the priest deals with the blood depending on the sacrifice, and the animal was burned on the altar (some part of the animal was always burnt on the alter as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord”). This foreshadows the Atonement of Christ.

God draws near. Jesus did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8

I believe that the Atonement is both penal and substitutionary. Christ died on the cross in our place, as our representative, bearing our iniquities, so that the justice of God is satisfied and the wrath that we rightfully deserve is averted. The Father offered his Son at the Cross (he did not literally leave him, but he forsook him – he gave him over to Judas, to the Jews, to Pilate, and to the Cross and there offered him as an atoning sacrifice, laying upon him our iniquity).

Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"—

Isaiah 53:5-6 - But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

Hebrews 10:8-10 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them" (which are offered according to the Law), then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.


But I also believe it covenantal. Some here either deny the idea or shove it off to the peripheral - slightly out of focus and barely in view.

Genesis 17 speaks of the “Everlasting Covenant” between God, Abraham and his descendants – man's part was circumcision (those without the sign had broken the covenant).

Deuteronomy describes another covenant - Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Jeremiah looks to a New Covenant - "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, ... "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. .. for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34

New Testament insists that the covenant God made with Abraham is on a different footing than the covenant given at Sinai. Paul links this covenant with the New Covenant as these New Covenant people are the benefactors of the promises made to Abraham (true Israel, true Jews, circumcised hearts). The Atonement ushered in the New Covenant as all covenants involved sacrifice. But the New Covenant is a better covenant, founded on better promises (Hebrews 8:6), and not of the letter but of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Galatians 3:13-14 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” Luke 22:19-20

I also believe that the Atonement should be viewed in terms of Jesus’ death accomplishing victory over sin and death. This is a position that some strongly deny, at least strongly deny it should exist except as a footnote to penal substitution (their “primary” view. I do not believe there can be such a thing as a “primary” view. Scripture is scripture). This view of the Atonement takes on the symbolism of the Passover.

I always found it interesting that the first prophesy of the Atonement was on grounds of Christ’s victory.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

John 12:31-32 "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

Ephesians 4:7-10 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)

And there are other passages that I accept as well. I hope that this answers your question and perhaps even highlights our disagreement for future discussion.

Godforsoke Jesus while on the Cross in same fashion woul any one paying for ther sin, under God wrath! And while there are differing views on the atonement, te PST is the main one emphasised in the scriptures thermselves!
Denying that as being the primary biblical view is what causes some of us to wonder if you hold to this or not....

 

[JonC]

Godforsoke Jesus while on the Cross in same fashion woul any one paying for ther sin, under God wrath! And while there are differing views on the atonement, te PST is the main one emphasised in the scriptures thermselves!
Denying that as being the primary biblical view is what causes some of us to wonder if you hold to this or not....

I do disagree because I on the cross I view the Father as actively offering His Son, laying our iniquities upon Christ as is foreshadowed in the Old Testament by the intentions of Abraham with Isaac and the sacrificial system. In other words, I believe that Atonement was active on the part of the Father offering His (foreshadowed by Abraham), passive on the part of Christ (laying down his life, submitting unto death), and through the Spirit (accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit). The Father withdrew his compassion, just for a while.

I believe that part of our disagreement is emphasis. If I understand correctly, you seem to emphasize the Atonement as primarily dealing with man, sin, wrath and justice. I emphasize the Atonement as dealing with those aspects, but ultimately as a Triune act of God, glorifying Himself through the redemption of man. One of us is right and one of us is wrong.

If my position is wrong, then please show me in Scripture where it is wrong and I will gladly adjust my view. With what part do you take exception?

Insofar as Scripture mandating one truth over another, I also disagree. The reason, I believe, that you reject my position is that it is problematic to some of the ideas that you have developed. That's my two cents.

 

[JonC]

I will try to explanmyself clearer, as not try to in by being a :gossip", just sometimes think that you seem to be agreeing and disagreeing at same time on this issue!

Yes. I'm ambidextrous.

Many people agree with Wright on several issues without holding his theology. I also like C.S. Lewis. I haven't adopted either of those guys theologies.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes. I'm ambidextrous.

Many people agree with Wright on several issues without holding his theology.

Leviticus 19:19.

 

[JonC]

Godforsoke Jesus while on the Cross in same fashion......

Let's go about it this way, brother.

I have provided my view of the Atonement in summary form. I've included a few categories (I actually hold that the Atonement extends beyond the few that I've mentioned). Where do you disagree?

We know that you disagree in terms of what it meant for Jesus to be forsaken, but your idea is not inherent in penal substitution anyway (John Piper and Joel Beeke also hold to penal substitution, but they also view "forsaken" as being God's gracious presence rather than God's unqualified presence). So my view here is well within the bounds of penal substitution.

Out of my explanation of what I do believe, which points do you find anti-penal-substitution? Which ones do you find unbiblical? Let's discuss those.

 

[Yeshua1]

Let's go about it this way, brother.

I have provided my view of the Atonement in summary form. I've included a few categories (I actually hold that the Atonement extends beyond the few that I've mentioned). Where do you disagree?

We know that you disagree in terms of what it meant for Jesus to be forsaken, but your idea is not inherent in penal substitution anyway (John Piper and Joel Beeke also hold to penal substitution, but they also view "forsaken" as being God's gracious presence rather than God's unqualified presence). So my view here is well within the bounds of penal substitution.

Out of my explanation of what I do believe, which points do you find anti-penal-substitution? Which ones do you find unbiblical? Let's discuss those.

Not realy saying that your views are anti biblcal , but do see that you and I seem to be disagreeing on wha tthe main thrust ofhe bible is on the Cross, mine is that PST is th eMain and primary one, but you seem to see it as one of many, and not really developed from the Bible, but from Calvin and the reformers, who might hav erred from your viewoint?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. I'm ambidextrous.

Many people agree with Wright on several issues without holding his theology. I also like C.S. Lewis. I haven't adopted either of those guys theologies.

On the issue of the Cross though, Wright seems to be dead wrong!

 

[JonC]

Not realy saying that your views are anti biblcal , but do see that you and I seem to be disagreeing on wha tthe main thrust ofhe bible is on the Cross, mine is that PST is th eMain and primary one, but you seem to see it as one of many, and not really developed from the Bible, but from Calvin and the reformers, who might hav erred from your viewoint?

I affirm that the Atonement is penal and substitutionary. I also believe that it is covenantal and victorious. It is restorative in terms of reconciling all of creation to God. And the Atonement is the basis that we partake in the kingdom that is both to come and is entered upon in the present. Since Scripture, not theory, is the authority for my doctrine I cannot deny one truth to elevate another. I also try to maintain a distinction between what Scripture actually states and the ideas that we developed based upon the text.

I am not sure what to make of your comment regarding Calvin and the Reformers. PST was not the theory of the Reformers (Luther held to the Anselm’s theory), put penal substitution was certainly a focus.

I do see PST as one of many theories. But I don’t see penal substitution as one of many choices. Regarding the idea that substitution is the “primary” thrust of the Bible, I believe it is wrong to point of one truth of Scripture and elevate it above others. The Atonement is at its core the love of God, as God loved the world by sending his Son to save man. And I don’t believe that we can encompass the atonement, this love of God, in any one narrow doctrine. To echo something A.W. Tozer once said:

“I can no more do justice to this awesome and wonder-filled topic than a child can grasp a star. Still, by reading towards the star the child may call attention to it and even indicate the direction one must look to see it. And so, I stretch my heart towards the high, shinning love of God so that we may be encouraged to look up and have hope”.

 

[Yeshua1]

I affirm that the Atonement is penal and substitutionary. I also believe that it is covenantal and victorious. It is restorative in terms of reconciling all of creation to God. And the Atonement is the basis that we partake in the kingdom that is both to come and is entered upon in the present. Since Scripture, not theory, is the authority for my doctrine I cannot deny one truth to elevate another. I also try to maintain a distinction between what Scripture actually states and the ideas that we developed based upon the text.

I am not sure what to make of your comment regarding Calvin and the Reformers. PST was not the theory of the Reformers (Luther held to the Anselm’s theory), put penal substitution was certainly a focus.

I do see PST as one of many theories. But I don’t see penal substitution as one of many choices. Regarding the idea that substitution is the “primary” thrust of the Bible, I believe it is wrong to point of one truth of Scripture and elevate it above others. The Atonement is at its core the love of God, as God loved the world by sending his Son to save man. And I don’t believe that we can encompass the atonement, this love of God, in any one narrow doctrine. To echo something A.W. Tozer once said:

“I can no more do justice to this awesome and wonder-filled topic than a child can grasp a star. Still, by reading towards the star the child may call attention to it and even indicate the direction one must look to see it. And so, I stretch my heart towards the high, shinning love of God so that we may be encouraged to look up and have hope”.

The Cross basis of grace though would be tied directly into the sacrical sysem ofI Israel, and how much more PST could that get? And while the Cross didi do many things, its primary focus is Jesus death as the sin bearer for sinners ...

 

[JonC]

On the issue of the Cross though, Wright seems to be dead wrong!

N.T. Wright is an Anglican (like an Episcopal, but different....or not...I'm still out on that one) and I am Baptist. I think that Wright is dead wrong on a lot of things.

I've read a few of his books, but my interest in N.T. Wright pales to yours by far. You seem to have latched on to this one brother and cannot but demean him even if you have to project him into every thread. I have read far more C.S. Lewis. Why not give us a break and demean him for awhile? Or Barth. I even have a copy of Barth's "Church Dogmatics". Or A.W. Tozer. I just quoted him so I must cling to every word the man has said. Why not drag him around for awhile.

Better yet, read George MacDonald. That'd give you something to talk about. Anything but this obsession with N.W. Wright. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't really care what you think of Wright.

 

[JonC]

The Cross basis of grace though would be tied directly into the sacrical sysem ofI Israel, and how much more PST could that get? And while the Cross didi do many things, its primary focus is Jesus death as the sin bearer for sinners ...

Do you think that this is secondary?

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you think that this is secondary?

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28

No, but was direct esultof the Cross/Resurrection of Jesus, and the means used by God to get there was PST!

 

[Yeshua1]

N.T. Wright is an Anglican (like an Episcopal, but different....or not...I'm still out on that one) and I am Baptist. I think that Wright is dead wrong on a lot of things.

I've read a few of his books, but my interest in N.T. Wright pales to yours by far. You seem to have latched on to this one brother and cannot but demean him even if you have to project him into every thread. I have read far more C.S. Lewis. Why not give us a break and demean him for awhile? Or Barth. I even have a copy of Barth's "Church Dogmatics". Or A.W. Tozer. I just quoted him so I must cling to every word the man has said. Why not drag him around for awhile.

Better yet, read George MacDonald. That'd give you something to talk about. Anything but this obsession with N.W. Wright. I don't mean to be rude, but I don't really care what you think of Wright.

Let go to conservation on Barth, as intrested in how his views seem to be runninghere an used by some not even aware of him!

 

[JonC]

No, but was direct esultof the Cross/Resurrection of Jesus, and the means used by God to get there was PST!

So you think penal substitution was just a means to an end? But without the Incarnation and ministry of Christ you would have no cross. Maybe you'd favor the Moral Influence Theory.

It all works together. Why elevate one truth to demean another?

 

[JonC]

Let go to conservation on Barth, as intrested in how his views seem to be runninghere an used by some not even aware of him!

Why? Neither of us ascribe to his position.

Why not just denounce my position via Scripture instead?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why? Neither of us ascribe to his position.

Why not just denounce my position via Scripture instead?

I was just askin if we could go to a conversation on Him, as some do seem to align with him here, without knowing it!