The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[Jerome]

None other than SBC Founder William B. Johnson, the Convention's first President, held to the moral government understanding of the atonement.

His sermon "Love Characteristic of the Deity", expounding the moral government view centered on God's love:

Founders Ministries • Sermons

"Taking this view of the atonement then, it will evidently appear, that the love of God is the procuring cause of the atonement....it represents him as an amiable Father, and infinitely benevolent moral Governor" — William B. Johnson



From the history of SBTS, regarding the creation of the seminary's Abstract of Principles in the 1850s:

Southern Baptist Seminary 1859-2009 by Gregory A. Wills

"there was one other view prevailing among Southern Baptists...a universal atonement based on a 'moral government' view of Christ's death....prominent Southern Baptists held this view, William B. Johnson and Edwin Mims, Boyce's predecessor at Furman." In drafting the Abstract of Principles, Basil Manley made sure to "accommodate the moral government view."


More on the Southern Baptist Convention's founding president's moral government view of atonement:

Studies in Baptist History, chapter on William B. Johnson

"For example, within his sermon, Eternal Misery the Desert of the Sinner, he refers, on several occasions, to God as being the 'Moral Governor of the Universe', in a manner similar to Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)."

[Church History: Hugo Grotius]

 

[agedman]

Jesus is the “lamb that takes away the sins of the world”

His sacrifice is modeled on the OT sacrifice for sin. The head of the household placed his hand upon the animals head, symbolically transferring the sin to the animal,(substitution) the animal was killed (Penal judicial punishment for sin), and God forgave those sins for one year. (Atonement)

His sacrifice can only rightly be explained as PSA.

peace to you

Please consult and consider that the PSA theory wasn’t formulated until 1500 of church history had passed. It was not taught as part of the thinking in the early church as far as research has found nothing concerning the matter. What was taught was a strong victorious Christ with a ransom thinking that as far as I can tell did NOT include any remuneration to God or Satanic systems. Think of Christ having purchased by His sacrifice all necessary to ransom (rescue).

There is no dispute concerning the physical (penal) torment other then who such performed the task.

What makes the Messiah experience remarkably different is He was innocent and everyone knew it, even openly declared it, yet He was lifted up to die that we might live. He raised Himself as victorious over death and the grave. He will return as the King of kings, bringing His kingdom to this earth to rule. All rewards are cast at His feet and all will kneel for He is Lord of lords. The victorious one who does redeem by His authority.

Where PSA theory might attend to a single event, victorious and ancient ransom present it all. Besides, as previously shown, the PSA theory has some deep flaws.

 

[agedman]

I repeat what I wrote before. If Christ has not paid the penalty for my sins, and yours in full, nothing is more certain than that we shall have to pay it myself. Otherwise how is God going to be 'just, and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:26)? How is He going to be 'faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness' (1 John 1:9)?

'....Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness.........to demonstrate at the present time His justice' (Romans 3:25-26).

In what manner was the blood of Christ shed? For the vast amount was not shed on the cross.

Romans 3:25-26 God sets forth a propitiation (the atonement) was by blood, and that is ultimately His (Christ) blood.

This is not peculiar to PSA thinking, but is also integral in substitution, victor, and ransom.

What does the Scripture state is the penalty for sin?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Please consult and consider that the PSA theory wasn’t formulated until 1500 of church history had passed.

This is demonstrably incorrect. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is found throughout Church history, not that it really matters, because Scripture should be our only guide.

 

[percho]

The problem as I see it. PSA

It is not a Theory but the Word of God.

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.

How? Christ was put to death, to the flesh.

Suffered, the wrath of God, for three days and three nights. What is more wrathful than death?

 

[JonC]

This is demonstrably incorrect. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is found throughout Church history, not that it really matters, because Scripture should be our only guide.

This is incorrect. What has been claimed as Penal Substitution Theory in the early church is passages that we all agree on and statements that affirm Christ died for us, for our sins, bore our sins, etc.

But nowhere is the idea of God pouring His wrath upon Christ or punishing Christ instead of punishing us found in Christianity until Catholics sought to reform the Church.

There is no evidence that Penal Substitution Theory existed prior to the Reformation.

 

[JonC]

The problem as I see it. PSA

It is not a Theory but the Word of God.

For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous.

Suffered, the wrath of God, for three days and three nights. What is more wrathful than death?

The problem is that Scripture does not present God as punishing Christ instead of punishing us. Since this is foreign to Scripture, Penal Substitution Theory cannot be correct.

 

[JonC]

Please consult and consider that the PSA theory wasn’t formulated until 1500 of church history had passed. It was not taught as part of the thinking in the early church as far as research has found nothing concerning the matter. What was taught was a strong victorious Christ with a ransom thinking that as far as I can tell did NOT include any remuneration to God or Satanic systems. Think of Christ having purchased by His sacrifice all necessary to ransom (rescue).

There is no dispute concerning the physical (penal) torment other then who such performed the task.

What makes the Messiah experience remarkably different is He was innocent and everyone knew it, even openly declared it, yet He was lifted up to die that we might live. He raised Himself as victorious over death and the grave. He will return as the King of kings, bringing His kingdom to this earth to rule. All rewards are cast at His feet and all will kneel for He is Lord of lords. The victorious one who does redeem by His authority.

Where PSA theory might attend to a single event, victorious and ancient ransom present it all. Besides, as previously shown, the PSA theory has some deep flaws.

What you ate going to get are Penal Substitution Theorists giving "proofs" like:

Clement- “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”

Or Eusebius - “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”

But we all believe that and it is not Penal Substitution Theory.

You are absolutely correct that until the Reformation the idea that God punished Christ instead of punishing us, or that God poured His wrath on Christ, was foreign to Christianity.

It would be a small thing except the doctrines that Penal Substitution Theory corrupts.

 

[JonC]

None other than SBC Founder William B. Johnson, the Convention's first President, held to the moral government understanding of the atonement.

His sermon "Love Characteristic of the Deity", expounding the moral government view centered on God's love:

Founders Ministries • Sermons

"Taking this view of the atonement then, it will evidently appear, that the love of God is the procuring cause of the atonement....it represents him as an amiable Father, and infinitely benevolent moral Governor" — William B. Johnson



From the history of SBTS, regarding the creation of the seminary's Abstract of Principles in the 1850s:

Southern Baptist Seminary 1859-2009 by Gregory A. Wills

"there was one other view prevailing among Southern Baptists...a universal atonement based on a 'moral government' view of Christ's death....prominent Southern Baptists held this view, William B. Johnson and Edwin Mims, Boyce's predecessor at Furman." In drafting the Abstract of Principles, Basil Manley made sure to "accommodate the moral government view."


More on the Southern Baptist Convention's founding president's moral government view of atonement:

Studies in Baptist History, chapter on William B. Johnson

"For example, within his sermon, Eternal Misery the Desert of the Sinner, he refers, on several occasions, to God as being the 'Moral Governor of the Universe', in a manner similar to Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)."

[Church History: Hugo Grotius]

I like the Johnson quote.

We, as believers, cannot expect the World to treat us better than it treated Christ. But at tge same time, we cannot expect to be treated better by God than was Christ when He was suffering at the hands of the World.

The Penal Substitution Theorists looks to a transaction of the law for assurance of salvation while the rest of Christianity, despite our differences, look to Christ.

 

[DaveXR650]

"there was one other view prevailing among Southern Baptists...a universal atonement based on a 'moral government' view of Christ's death....prominent Southern Baptists held this view, William B. Johnson and Edwin Mims, Boyce's predecessor at Furman." In drafting the Abstract of Principles, Basil Manley made sure to "accommodate the moral government view."

Thanks for posting that, Jerome. I read the sermon in the link and it looks to me like the "moral government" view of William Johnson differed from the view of Baxter or Hugo Grotius. Johnson talked a lot about the fact that by moral government he meant that God is free to forgive sinners without violating his sense of moral justice. He talked about propitiation quite a bit also. The difference to me seems to be that specific sins were not in view in Johnson's governmental theory. The purpose of this I think, is to leave the door open to 4 point Calvinism. Johnson showed in that sermon that he believed in election and was not a free willer but he is leaving the door open to the big tent of Baptists who would not tolerate a limited atonement. The only thing he says against PSA seems to be that "the love of God is the procuring cause of the atonement and not the atonement the procuring cause of God's love". But I don't think that is what PSA is all about, if that's what he meant.

 

[percho]

The problem is that Scripture does not present God as punishing Christ instead of punishing us. Since this is foreign to Scripture, Penal Substitution Theory cannot be correct.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;


†ὑπέρ hupĕr, hoop-er'; a primary preposition; "over", i.e. (with the genitive case) of place, above, beyond, across, or causal, for the sake of, instead, regarding;

I can not find punish and or punishment and death anywhere in the same thought, through Blue Letter Bible. However:
From James 1:15 and sin, when it is finished [ἀποτελεσθεῖσα — 1x From ἀπό (G575) and τελέω (G5055)], bringeth forth death.
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished [[g5055 Τετέλεσται ]: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

 

[DaveXR650]

What you ate going to get are Penal Substitution Theorists giving "proofs" like:

Clement- “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”

Or Eusebius - “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”

But we all believe that and it is not Penal Substitution Theory.

You are absolutely correct that until the Reformation the idea that God punished Christ instead of punishing us, or that God poured His wrath on Christ, was foreign to Christianity.

I don't see why those can't be used. And I don't see why scripture can't be used. And I don't see why it is impossible, that people coming later, are not allowed to articulate theology that may not have been articulated earlier in as much detail - as long as they are using scripture. I am 3/4 of the way through Augustine's "Confessions" and believe me just being further back in time does not necessarily mean better.

 

[JonC]

I don't see why those can't be used. And I don't see why scripture can't be used. And I don't see why it is impossible, that people coming later, are not allowed to articulate theology that may not have been articulated earlier in as much detail - as long as they are using scripture. I am 3/4 of the way through Augustine's "Confessions" and believe me just being further back in time does not necessarily mean better.

They can be used, but not to defend Penal Substitution Theory, because they express common Christian belief and not Penal Substitution Theory.

Augustine believed what could be viewed as a precursor to Penal Substitution Theory. He believed Christ suffered in our place to liberate us from Satan.

But even this is not Penal Substitution Theory. Augustine did not believe Christ experienced God's wrath. In fact, Augustine strongly emphasized that Christ in no way died to appease the Father.

The early church held that Christ became man, endured the human nature, including death, to liberate us from bondage. The idea that God punished Christ instead of us is fairly new.

 

[DaveXR650]

Jon, I mean that Augustine was flying almost totally in the dark, by his own admission. He had a lot of bizarre beliefs and superstitions we would be appalled at. His access to scripture seemed limited, and the ignorance that almost everyone had about Christianity was astounding. He was obviously brilliant and maintained a life of prayer none of us will never match but you cannot assume that older is always better in this case. You act like it's outrageous that you can't find explicit teaching officially on PSA yet the fact that some of old theologians thought that God had to pay a ransom to Satan doesn't seem a problem. I don't want to pretend to be very informed on church history but I challenge anyone to look up what you can read. You will see that the oldest writings look a lot like New Testament scripture and then move rapidly in other directions the NEWER they get. If the Reformers were looking at scripture I'm going with them.

 

[JonC]

Jon, I mean that Augustine was flying almost totally in the dark, by his own admission. He had a lot of bizarre beliefs and superstitions we would be appalled at. His access to scripture seemed limited, and the ignorance that almost everyone had about Christianity was astounding. He was obviously brilliant and maintained a life of prayer none of us will never match but you cannot assume that older is always better in this case. You act like it's outrageous that you can't find explicit teaching officially on PSA yet the fact that some of old theologians thought that God had to pay a ransom to Satan doesn't seem a problem. I don't want to pretend to be very informed on church history but I challenge anyone to look up what you can read. You will see that the oldest writings look a lot like New Testament scripture and then move rapidly in other directions the NEWER they get. If the Reformers were looking at scripture I'm going with them.

I see. It is not outrageous that I cannot find Penal Substitution Theory in earlier Christian writings. I knew I wouldn't as it is a product of a later systematic theology. I find it outrageous that it us not in Scripture.

The Ransom Theory is interesting. Scholars question exactly to what extent scientific writers meant God paid Satan (as many of that age used "Satan" as symbolic of death) and there were several Random versions. Rather way, ultimately the lay view was that God paid Satan (which was wrong).

That said, if you notice my objection has and will always be that Penal Substitution Theory is non-existent in Scripture and runs contrary to Christian doctrine. It is simply false.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'....Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' (Romans 3:25-26).

Someone asked me why I didn't write the verse out in full, so here it is.
First of all, what is a propitiation? It is a sacrifice that turns away wrath. The Puritans used to speak of the satisfaction of Christ, that He, on the cross, had satisfied the outraged justice of God. If I have upset Mrs M in some way, I might buy her a bunch of flowers as a propitiation in the hope that she will be propitiated. Now of course I don't know whether a bunch of flowers is going to propitiate Mrs M; she might hold out for a slap-up meal somewhere, but we know that God is propitiated by the death of Christ, because He Himself set Christ forth.
Now note that the text does not say that Christ's propitiation demonstrates God's love. Other texts like John 3:16 say that but this text says it is to demonstrate His righteousness. God had passed over the sins of men like David. How was that just? If God is 'angry with sinners every day,' if, 'the soul that sins shall die,' and 'after this the judgment,' how come David, who committed sins for which the law of Moses gave no sacrifice, is not in hell this very moment? Because David looked forward to Christ by faith, 'and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses' (Acts 13:39). How is that just? Because Christ has paid the penalty; He is our substitute. Justice is satisfied.
And so, in O.T. times and today, God can be just and yet justify ungodly sinners. How can He do that? Because the Lord Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for our sins in full on the cross, being made a curse for us to expiate the curse of Deuteronomy 27:26. 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree' (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23). Christ hangs on a tree; therefore Christ is cursed. But Christ is the perfect, sinless, beloved Son of God. Therefore He bears the curse on our behalf and expiates it. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' If I bear your burden, it means that you don't bear it. My muscles substitute for yours; my back aches and yours doesn't. If Christ bears your sins and the penalty of them, it means that you don't. He is your substitute; your Penal Substitute.

 

[JonC]

I don't see why those can't be used. And I don't see why scripture can't be used. And I don't see why it is impossible, that people coming later, are not allowed to articulate theology that may not have been articulated earlier in as much detail - as long as they are using scripture. I am 3/4 of the way through Augustine's "Confessions" and believe me just being further back in time does not necessarily mean better.

Sorry brother, I just had more time to read over this and think my response inadequate.

Why can't the quotes of early church scholars be used to support Penal Substitution Theory? Because they do not support Penal Substitution Theory. What people do is take their quotes and assume they would have affirmed Penal Substitution Theory based on their affirmation of Scripture. That is not how we deal with the words of other people. It is wrong.

Why can't Scripture be used to prove Penal Substitution Theory correct? Because Scripture does not present God as punishing Christ instead of punishing us or God pouring His wrath out on His Son. These are not only foreign to Scripture, they are the opposite of what is revealed in the Bible.

The problem with saying that people who came latter better articulated what those who came earlier believed is it assumes a belief those who came earlier did not express. It is not honest. Anybody can say Justin Martyr meant to say such and such, but didn't....or would have believed such and such if alive when the theory came about. But what we have is what they did say.

Here are a couple of examples:

With Augustine we know he would have rejected Penal Substitution Theory because of his stance on the source of Christ's suffering and firm insistence that Christ was in no way appeasing the Father.

With Justin Martyr we know he would have rejected Penal Substitution Theory because of the way he focused on Christ's purchase of the "human family".

But Penal Substitution Theorists will claim they all affirmed the theory simply because they held belief that is common to Christianity.


Hope that helps, or at least is more concise.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is found in the writings of many Church fathers. I wrote out a pile of them a few years back, and people stopped denying it for a while. I suppose I shall have to do it all over again. It will take a week or two, but watch this space.
BTW,
Clement of Rome - “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”
I know nothing of any 'theory of penal substitution,' but I do know the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and that is an expression of it. It is not the longest or fullest exposition of the Doctrine, but 'his flesh for our flesh and his life for our lives' speaks of a penalty and a substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

'But as Christ endured death as man and for man, so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death.
And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.'
Augustine of Hippo, 'Against Faustus,' sect. 6, p. 209.

 

[JonC]

The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is found in the writings of many Church fathers. I wrote out a pile of them a few years back, and people stopped denying it for a while. I suppose I shall have to do it all over again. It will take a week or two, but watch this space.
BTW,
Clement of Rome - “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”
I know nothing of any 'theory of penal substitution,' but I do know the Doctrine of Penal Substitution and that is an expression of it. It is not the longest or fullest exposition of the Doctrine, but 'his flesh for our flesh and his life for our lives' speaks of a penalty and a substitution.

Let's look at the claim (it is a good example of what I am talking about).

Clement of Rome - “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”

I agree this does not contradict Penal Substitution Theory. But it also is far from confirming the theory.

I also believe Clement's statement true. But I believe Penal Substitution Theory false.

Here is the quote again:

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”

Notice that this is a bit of a shell game. I could say Ransom theory is vorrect....and the quote would fit. I could say Chrustus Victor correct and the quote fit.

But where is the idea that God punished Christ instead of us? Where is the idea Christ experienced God's wrath?

It isn't there, just like it is not present in any Early Church writing and just like it is not present in Scripture.