THe Biblical Place for Penal Substitution

[Van]

So from what I’m reading, PSA is not compatible with Christ died for all sinners?
And I’ll take answers from both sides of this argument please.
In what way does PSA limit the atonement of Christ?

PSA falsely asserts that Christ died for the specific sins of the supposedly individually chosen foreseen people before creation. He atoned for their penalty and did not atone for the penalty of all others, who pay their own penalty in the afterlife. Otherwise, God would be requiring double payment.

 

[Van]

I do not concur that PSA is a Trojan horse for "Limited Atonement." I thought this was an outlandish statement and that we really should leave the Calvinism/Armninian debate out of this discussion. You should bear in mind that Charles and John Wesley both held to PSA. There is no need to treat PSA as being exclusively Calvinist.

It appears as if the rest of your response is in regards to your position on the "Limited Atonement." As I mentioned to others here, I am Calvinistic in my soteriology but tend to "pussy-foot" around with the "L" meaning I acknowledge its weakness plus it seems if God will hold a man responsible for rejecting the gospel message, it stands to reason that the atonement would be sufficient to save them had they responded accordingly. Quite a few twists and turns that would most certainly follow such a statement but perhaps we should just leave this for another day?

Sir, your response is just stonewalling. I did not introduce PSA, so to charge me with error for defining it seems self serving.

You said my view was "outlandish" but did not say why. You seemed to think that if Arminians used the same phrase, that meant PSA could not be defined and understood to refer to the specific sins of the elect, rather than all humanity. But of course you "pussy-footed" and did not actually address the issue.

Please address the issue and take a stand, was Christ the substitute for the sin of the world, all humanity, or just for the supposedly previously chosen elect.

Lets look at your statement:

"...it stands to reason that the atonement would be sufficient to save them had they responded accordingly."​

Here we have the Arminian dodge, God foresaw who would believe and died just for them. Give me a break...

 

[Ben1445]

PSA falsely asserts that Christ died for the specific sins of the supposedly individually chosen foreseen people before creation. He atoned for their penalty and did not atone for the penalty of all others, who pay their own penalty in the afterlife. Otherwise, God would be requiring double payment.

This is the first time I’ve heard the that in connection with PSA. In regard to that I would disagree.
But is this just an add on idea or is this official PSA?
Who is the authority on all things PSA and not just someone who has an opinion on the subject? How does one determine the bare bones of PSA?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Do I recognize that Torrance had a wide range of views? Yes. He is interesting, but I would not recommend him to others (I used him as an example).

Do modern Anabaptists hold to PSA? Probably some, but then they woukd not be Anabaptist (to affirm PSA they would have to change other views and that change would be a departure from Anabaptist theogy).

Who introduced Torrance into the debate? You.
Who introduced the Anabaptists into the debate? You.
Who says he is only interested in the Bible? You.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Sir, your response is just stonewalling. I did not introduce PSA, so to charge me with error for defining it seems self serving.

No, I am not. I am simply stating that I am not looking at PSA through a Calvinistic filter. Perhaps I am missing some historical aspects here as I would primilarly use scripture to make my case and perhaps my scriptural arguments don't even match up with PSA as it is historically understood? I will allow you and JonC to help me with my understanding here.

You said my view was "outlandish" but did not say why.

I said that your statement was outlandish, taking a logical leap, and pretty much broad-brushing anyone who holds to or promotes PSA.

You seemed to think that if Arminians used the same phrase, that meant PSA could not be defined and understood to refer to the specific sins of the elect, rather than all humanity.

I am simply saying that PSA is not something that is exclusive to the Calvinist view.

But of course you "pussy-footed" and did not actually address the issue.

I am attempting a little light-hearted humor here stating that I am somewhat non-committal on the "L." I can appreciate the Calvinist position on "Definite Atonement" and how they come around through the "back door" concluding that Christ died only for the elect based upon the other points but I believe there are other factors to consider and I simply refuse to take a hard stand. This is my perogative and I will own it.

Please address the issue and take a stand, was Christ the substitute for the sin of the world, all humanity, or just for the supposedly previously chosen elect.

The intent of the atonement is for the Glory of God and his good pleasure. The extent of the atonement is to all who believe. The application of the atonement is only those who believe. This is my position and I am sticking to it!

Lets look at your statement:

"...it stands to reason that the atonement would be sufficient to save them had they responded accordingly." ​

Here we have the Arminian dodge, God foresaw who would believe and died just for them. Give me a break...

What exactly is wrong with the statement? It is broad enough that Calvinists and Arminians both agree and it is for this reason I have constructed this statement. A Calvinist would agree that only the elect will respond to the gospel call in repentance and faith and an Arminian would agree that all who respond to the gospel in repentance and faith will be saved. Both statements are true.

I am a Calvinistic Bible teacher teaching and preaching in a non-Calvinistic (doesn't take a stand either way) congregation. I believe this is a great exercise in how NOT to split a church over issues such as this!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am sorry, did you concur that PSA is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement?

PSA has never been a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement. Certainly Wesleyan Methodism stongly opposed Calvinism, yet equally strongly held to PSA. George Campbell Morgan was a Congregationalist who ministered on both sides of the Atlantic. He likewise held to both Arminianism and PSA.
I am firmly Baptistic and Calvinistic in my theology, but I get along just fine with many who are paedobaptists and Arminians. IMO, Penal Substitution is a far more important doctrine than either of those.

 

[kyredneck]

You said my view was "outlandish" but did not say why.

Lol, Vanology rewriting of scripture IS outlandish.

 

[Van]

"The intent of the atonement is for the Glory of God and his good pleasure. The extent of the atonement is to all who believe. The application of the atonement is only those who believe. This is my position and I am sticking to it!"

Here is a typical defense of PSA! The question was: "was Christ the substitute for the sin of the world, all humanity, or just for the supposedly previously chosen elect.?"

Was the question answered? Nope.

Christ teaches our communications are to be plain, clear and bold.

 

[Van]

PSA has never been a Trojan Horse for Limited Atonement. Certainly Wesleyan Methodism stongly opposed Calvinism, yet equally strongly held to PSA. George Campbell Morgan was a Congregationalist who ministered on both sides of the Atlantic. He likewise held to both Arminianism and PSA.
I am firmly Baptistic and Calvinistic in my theology, but I get along just fine with many who are paedobaptists and Arminians. IMO, Penal Substitution is a far more important doctrine than either of those.

1) PSA is, and was from the early stages of the Reformation, a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement.
It's core doctrine is that Christ died only for those who believe. Full Stop

2) The fact many have believed PSA reflected a correct understanding of scripture is not in dispute.

3) The fact Christ died for all humanity, not just for those who believe is far more important than any false interpretation of scripture, such as either the Calvinist or Arminian understanding of Reconciliation.

 

[Van]

Lol, Vanology rewriting of scripture IS outlandish.

Yet another off topic insult post from the Calvinist suppressors of truth. Many of the Calvinists posting on this board, think their posts should cover any discussion of gospel doctrine. However, some think the idea is to cover these topics with a pillow to smother the life out of the discussion.

How many threads have been prematurely closed because to "too many insults?" Or too many word salad answers like post 45 and 46.

The beat goes on....

 

[DaveXR650]

Do modern Anabaptists hold to PSA?

I'm not claiming to know a lot about Anabaptists or Mennonites. But I do look at what they put on their own sites and go by what they themselves say. It should not surprise you that they are all over the place, since Calvinists, the most systematic group of all, are also all over the place. But it does bother me when you try to declare the desirability of loose or no strict theology, and then when someone else puts up an example of what those who are loose and sort of open in their theology are doing - and you then act like the rest of us just don't understand what they really mean and thus aren't allowed to make the same claims they make themselves. You are playing it both ways.

In the case of Torrance, my only point was that it is a wrong conclusion to claim that one cannot hold PSA as true and at the same time hold other views as well. Torrance is an example, as well as numerous others who are not Calvinists at all - but do hold that PSA is a central facet of the many facets of the atonement, as Willian Lane Craig says in his latest book.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

"The intent of the atonement is for the Glory of God and his good pleasure. The extent of the atonement is to all who believe. The application of the atonement is only those who believe. This is my position and I am sticking to it!"

Here is a typical defense of PSA! The question was: "was Christ the substitute for the sin of the world, all humanity, or just for the supposedly previously chosen elect.?"

Was the question answered? Nope.

Christ teaches our communications are to be plain, clear and bold.

1 Jn 2:2 QED.

Now please explain to me what the word "Propitiation" (hilasmos) means.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

Yet another off topic insult post from the Calvinist suppressors of truth. Many of the Calvinists posting on this board, think their posts should cover any discussion of gospel doctrine. However, some think the idea is to cover these topics with a pillow to smother the life out of the discussion.

How many threads have been prematurely closed because to "too many insults?" Or too many word salad answers like post 45 and 46.

The beat goes on....

I see only one person on this thread acting caustic and hurling insults. The rest of us are trying to have a productive conversation and I hope it continues.

 

[DaveXR650]

I do have to say that @JonC and @Van are correct in that I have heard and read Calvinists clearly state that if you don't have limited atonement you don't have penal substitution. What they are doing in these arguments is defining penal substitution as each individual sin of each elect person being either forgiven or not atoned for at the time of Jesus death. The reasoning behind this would be that it is the only way sin can truly be dealt with in an actual way. Christ's death did something real and therefore it must be only for the elect or else there has to be another explanation of the atonement.

With penal substitution, that particular view of it (no pun intended) does indeed require a definite or particular atonement. For a hyper-Calvinist, one who believes that the elect are truly saved from God's decree or at least from the time of Christ's death - no problem. For a moderate Calvinist, or other groups that still believe in penal substitutionary atonement the general belief is that Christ has died, and upon faith and repentance, or upon becoming united with Christ, then the benefits of the atonement are applied.

Those groups do not buy John Owen's famous argument of did Christ die for all the sins of some or some of the sins of all, and therefore, how can you believe in a universal atonement and not be a true universalist. That is outside of the scope of this but I do have to admit that some Calvinists do indeed insist that no limited atonement, no penal substitution (as they define it). Furthermore, they don't want any help from Arminians, or Weslyans whose evidence that I have seen (from primary sources Jon, like Wesley and Arminius) indicate that they did indeed believe in penal substitutionary atonement - but some Calvinists, unfortunately, won't align with them on this. It makes things more complicated when defending PSA that half of our side doesn't consider arguments from Arminians as useful at all!

 

[DaveXR650]

This is the first time I’ve heard the that in connection with PSA. In regard to that I would disagree.
But is this just an add on idea or is this official PSA?
Who is the authority on all things PSA and not just someone who has an opinion on the subject? How does one determine the bare bones of PSA?

@Van is right. But the argument is about limited atonement, with the presupposition that PSA is already true - and that it is defined as the actual atoning for the sins of the elect. The double payment of penalty argument is from John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". In all fairness though I should add that you have to understand Calvinism as a whole or reject it as a whole. The atoning for the sins of the elect cannot be isolated from the time when they will hear the call of God and come to Christ in faith and repentance. It's not fair to break it apart and then claim that a separate part doesn't make any sense. Therefore, if you cannot see how the atonement actually atoned for the sins it was meant to atone for - and yet the elect, who include all who want to come by their own choice - can infallibly do so and that therefore the gospel can be preached to every person, accompanied by a genuine invitation to all, and yet all those who freely come, come because they were chosen before the foundation of the world - then you don't and probably never will believe what is called Calvinism.

All I can say is if you don't like it, or can't get your head around it, don't become an enemy of it. There is no reason to do so in 2026. Instead, keep reading and studying scripture and the dual ideas of God's sovereignty and his honest desire that all be saved, working within the overall scope of his will being done - ends up making sense.

 

[JonC]

Who introduced Torrance into the debate? You.
Who introduced the Anabaptists into the debate? You.
Who says he is only interested in the Bible? You.

No. That was @DaveXR650 ...I think on both accounts.


Who says Torrance is only interested in the Bible? I do not know. Not me. I think he was wrong.

 

[JesusFan]

The problem with saying "the biblical basis for PSA is..." is that none of the passages provided actually speak of PSA.

A Mormon could take those verses, apply them to his faith, and say "there biblical basis for Mormonosm is...".

This is the problem with all these unbiblical theologies. They start with a theory and then look to the Bible for support.

We need to start with the Bible and first simply believe God's words.

‘And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ . ‘Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree’ ‘The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed’. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many’. “For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and nation and people”.“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. ‘He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities’. “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses”. ‘Christ has 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)’.

I believe the above. Many of us do, even some who advocate PSA believe those passages to an extent and in their own way.

The difference is PSA has to add "now let me tell you what that "really" means when "properly" understood.

The obvious question is...what if those words mean exactly what they say?

Plainly states right there that God the Father pleasure was tyo place upon Jesus as the suffering servant of Yahweh the curse the wrath the penaly due to those who break his law, in order that by Him accepting in our stead was what due to is, the Father now can declre all who tyrust in Jesus to be rightiousness ans now fully justified

 

[DaveXR650]

No. That was @DaveXR650 ...I think on both accounts.

In one of the previous PSA debates, you suggested Torrance as one who refuted PSA. At the time I was much less informed on this so I did. I bought his book on the atonement - which was more of a compiling of all he had ever wrote on the subject. It is a good book, but he did indeed include PSA in his massive and expansive view of all that the atonement did. I was a little disappointed in that it seemed to me that he had had his position misrepresented when he was used as a suggested reading.

Same goes with a couple of other theologians like Greg Boyd, who you recommended. Seriously, I am glad you put them up but when you start down the rabbit trail and see where they are and who they are affiliated with it really hurts your case and sometimes makes me wonder if you really read much of what you suggest.

 

[JesusFan]

You are assuming (actuallu, you are reading your theology into the passage).

It is true that the goat to Azazel symbolized something, but what it symbolized was the cleansing that took place when the blood was sprinkled. We see the same type of ritual in Leviticus 14 with the two birds (one effected cleansing, the other symbolized the cleansing).

But that is neither here nor there.

What verse describes Christ taking on God's wrath?

That is not in the OT sacrifice system.

The applied Lamb's blood at the Passover kept Israel, but they were delivered from Egypt (which symbolized the adversary, not God).

Too many assumptions. I think you can rework this in a way to both respect God's Word and prop up your understanding.

So per PT then the wrath of God being stored up against the ungodly is what then, only poetic messages?

 

[JesusFan]

I do not concur that PSA is a Trojan horse for "Limited Atonement." I thought this was an outlandish statement and that we really should leave the Calvinism/Armninian debate out of this discussion. You should bear in mind that Charles and John Wesley both held to PSA. There is no need to treat PSA as being exclusively Calvinist.

It appears as if the rest of your response is in regards to your position on the "Limited Atonement." As I mentioned to others here, I am Calvinistic in my soteriology but tend to "pussy-foot" around with the "L" meaning I acknowledge its weakness plus it seems if God will hold a man responsible for rejecting the gospel message, it stands to reason that the atonement would be sufficient to save them had they responded accordingly. Quite a few twists and turns that would most certainly follow such a statement but perhaps we should just leave this for another day?

I am a calvinist, but PSA is not just calvinist theology, as last I checked, likes of Geisler, Ryrie, Rogers Wesley, Stanley etc all held to that view, were their "closest calvinists?"