The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[agedman]

Aged man,
I think it does as Hebrews 2 explains it, and the rest of the epistle explains the work of our Great High Priest.

I was dealing with Hebrews 1, but let us look upon Hebrews 2.

1We must pay closer attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every transgression and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.
​

Does anything yet support the view that God punished Christ?

5For it is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. 9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.​

Did I miss God punishing the Son?

11For both the One who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers….

14Now since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil,15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
​

Is this an example of God punishing the Son or is it the Victorious Christ?

16For surely it is not the angels He helps, but the descendants of Abraham. 17For this reason He had to be made like His brothers in every way, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, in order to make atonementh for the sins of the people. 18Because He Himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted.
​

Is this an example of God punishing the Son or is it demonstrating the Victorious Christ?

 

[Iconoclast]

I was dealing with Hebrews 1, but let us look upon Hebrews 2.

1We must pay closer attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every transgression and disobedience received its just punishment, 3how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?

This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, 4and was affirmed by God through signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will.
​

Does anything yet support the view that God punished Christ?

5For it is not to angels that He has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

When God subjected all things to him, He left nothing outside of his control. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him. 9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.​

Did I miss God punishing the Son?

11For both the One who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers….

14Now since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity, so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death, that is, the devil,15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.
​

Is this an example of God punishing the Son or is it the Victorious Christ?

16For surely it is not the angels He helps, but the descendants of Abraham. 17For this reason He had to be made like His brothers in every way, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, in order to make atonementh for the sins of the people. 18Because He Himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted.
​

Is this an example of God punishing the Son or is it demonstrating the Victorious Christ?

It is an example of Jesus taking upon Himself the seed of Abraham dying under the curse and penalty of their lawlessness.
In doing this He was indeed victorious.
Sin is lawlessness.
Jesus was sinless.His children broke the law of God. Punishment for sin took place at the cros.s

 

[JonC]

Just for the record, I do not believe that God punished Jesus either, and have said so several times. God punished sin in Jesus, who was the sin-bearer.

God did not punish Jesus but punished the sin He laid upon Jesus. I'd love for ypu to provide an actual verse with that one as well.

 

[agedman]

The Lord Jesus tells us that He and His father mutually indwell each other (John 14:11; c.f. also John 10:38; 14:10, 20). The technical term for this is perichoresis. This implies both union and distinction between Father and Son. One of the many problems with polytheism is the idea that different deities may make different demands of people and compete with one another as we see in the poems of Homer and Hesiod. Within the Trinity this is avoided, not because the Persons fortuitously happen to agree on most things, but because they must agree, for they are one God. The idea therefore that on the cross the Father inflicts a punishment upon the Son that He is unwilling to bear, or that the Son draws from the Father a forgiveness that He is unwilling to bestow is a non-starter.

But there is also a distinction between the Persons. Without it, it would be ridiculous to talk of a distinct Father, Son and Spirit at all, and it would be impossible for them to relate to each other as separate Persons as the Scripture teaches they do. But if Son, Father and Spirit are all fully Divine and equal in their possession of all the Divine attributes (e.g. holiness, wisdom, truth etc.), what distinguishes them? The answer is their asymmetric in their relationship with each other. The Father is in a relationship of Fatherhood to the Son and the Son is in a relationship of Sonship to the Father. The Son is everything the Father is, save that He is not the Father, the Spirit is not the Son and so forth.

It must surely be agreed that God’s actions reflect His nature. He does what is holy because He is holy; what is good because He is good. Therefore God’s nature will be reflected in the actions of each Person of the Trinity and both unity and distinction between the Persons will be reflected in what God does.

The above is without dispute and agreeable.

So the actions of the Persons reflect their unity. In John 14:10-11, the Lord Jesus teaches that His works are at the same time His Father’s works and this is grounded in the Perichoretic Union. In John 5:19, He testifies that ‘Whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner.’ The fundamental unity in their actions mirrors the fundamental union of their Persons.

Absolutely! Totally agreeable.

On the other hand, the actions of the Persons reflect their distinctions. The Bible teaches that the Father sent the Son, and that the Son willingly obeyed the Father (John 10:15-18; Philippians 2:5-9). Father and Son send the Spirit, but the Spirit does not send the Father. The work of the Trinity in salvation is outlined in Ephesians 1:3-14. The Three work in perfect harmony to accomplish their single goal, but their roles are quite different.

I have found nothing disagreeable so far.

In order to represent this unity and distinction between the Persons, Augustine taught that the Father’s actions are not without the Son and the Son’s actions not without the Father. That seems to work rather well. Augustine affirmed that while the Persons of the Trinity do not perform the same action in the same way, nevertheless they do not act independently of one another– their respective contributions to any given activity are inseparable.

I can partially agree. However, The Lord Spoke in terms of a one way street, that He spoke, performed, and presented that which the Father obliged.

Does the Scripture present the Father doing the same at the Son’s demand?

If it does not, then some of that presentation is wrong is it not?

So it is not meaningless to say that God the Son propitiated God the Father. The same Person is not the subject and object of the verb. Nor does the fact that the Father exacts a punishment borne by the Son mean that they are divided or act independently. Their relationship is asymmetric, but they are mutually and inseparably engaged upon two aspects of the same action with one purpose– the salvation of guilty sinners while satisfying the justice of the Triune God.

Is the Scripture stating that Son propitiated (appeased) the Father or God?

If it was the Father, then was the Spirit also involved?

Can the Father actually act independently of the Spirit and the Word without causing disunity of the trinity?

 

[agedman]

It is an example of Jesus taking upon Himself the seed of Abraham dying under the curse and penalty of their lawlessness.
In doing this He was indeed victorious.
Sin is lawlessness.
Jesus was sinless.His children broke the law of God. Punishment for sin took place at the cros.s

Because Jesus is sinless, then He would have been inappropriately punished by God would He not?

 

[JonC]

No...it is found in correctly understanding the verses already offered...and seeing what happens to unsaved people during the second death.
You have not acknowledged our sinfulness and the substitute taking our place from our law breaking.

My point is it is not actually in the Bible. Anybody can say anything is there, even though it really isn't, "when properly understood".

I have acknowledged our sinfulness and Jesus bearing our sins, dying for our sins, and atoning for us.

I will never again acknowledge God punishing Christ instead of punishing us....or punishing our sin laid upon Christ instead of punishing our sin remaining on us....because it is not in the Word of God or teachings of Scripture.

BUT I understand that is your belief and respect ypu. I affirmed Penal Substitution Theory for most of my life. It was not until God drew me to the realization it was not a biblical teaching that I changed my view. It certainly was not something I wanted to do.

That said, God has opened up so much of Scripture that was obscured by Penal Substitution Theory. So I appreciate His guidance.

I guess our growth is in stages. At the start I probably needed the crutch of a Western worldview to understand other aspects. We see this with people being saved and growing under Arminianism only to move away from the doctrine as they mature.

 

[JonC]

Because Jesus is sinless, then He would have been inappropriately punished by God would He not?

Yep. God will never condemn the Righteous or acquit the guilty.

The simple (and biblical) solution is a rebirth.

The issue is it is foolishness to mane because it doesn't conform to the expectations of men. It's just too simple for some (even Christians) to believe.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

God did not punish Jesus but punished the sin He laid upon Jesus. I'd love for ypu to provide an actual verse with that one as well.

That the Father inflicted pain and suffering upon Christ I presume you will not dispute.in the light of Isaiah 53:10. Verse 5 tells us that our Lord's wounds and bruising were for our transgressions and iniquities. Verse 6 says that Yahweh laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Go figure.
I would go further and consider the Lord Jesus being made a curse (by whom?) and being made sin, but I have a Zoom meeting in 15 minutes and the thread is likely to be finished by the time the meeting is over.

The key to understanding Scripture is to compare texts. "Compare Scripture with Scripture." I recommend it to you.

 

[Iconoclast]

You and agedman do not give account for the sins of believers being judged and punished.like the bible declares. Moving away from doctrine is not good for anyone.

 

[Iconoclast]

To say...I have acknowledged;
Our sins, Jesus bearing our sins,dying for our sins, and atoning for our sins,
When in fact you did no such thing as you never explain how he beared our sins, expiated them, or made any atonement whatsoever.
You deny He was smitten by God,you deny there was a penalty that we needed to have paid.You deny we needed redemption. In reality you are denying the cross as you suggest Jesus was a victim of your made up phrase....the evil killing world machine? Never saw that in scripture!
So...all sin is against the evil world?
It is not against God?It is not against His Holy Moral Law.??

 

[JonC]

That the Father inflicted pain and suffering upon Christ I presume you will not dispute.in the light of Isaiah 53:10. Verse 5 tells us that our Lord's wounds and bruising were for our transgressions and iniquities. Verse 6 says that Yahweh laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Go figure.
I would go further and consider the Lord Jesus being made a curse (by whom?) and being made sin, but I have a Zoom meeting in 15 minutes and the thread is likely to be finished by the time the meeting is over.

The key to understanding Scripture is to compare texts. "Compare Scripture with Scripture." I recommend it to you.

I do dispute that the Father inflicted pain and suffering on Christ. Here I believe the early church (and most of Christianity throughout history) correct).

It is important to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture (that is, take Scripture as a whole, compare Scripture with Scripture).

Consider this passage:

Isaiah 53:9–12 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

How does Penal Substitution Theory I turret this passage?

Penal Substitution Theory interprets this via human philosophy, not Scripture, and voncludes that Christ suffered at the hand of God, that God inflicted pain and suffering on Christ.

How does Scripture interpret this passage?

Scripture confirms that the World, the power of evil, "wicked men", inflicted pain and suffering on Christ but this was the predetermined plan of God - it was the will of God (it pleased God to crush Him).

Acts 2:22–28 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. “For David says of Him, ‘I saw the Lord always in my presence; For He is at my right hand, so that I will not be shaken. ‘Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted; Moreover my flesh also will live in hope; Because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.


Scripture is the exact opposite of Penal Substitution Theory. The Theory replaces the the evil of this world with God.

 

[Iconoclast]

I do dispute that the Father inflicted pain and suffering on Christ. Here I believe the early church (and most of Christianity throughout history) correct).

It is important to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture (that is, take Scripture as a whole, compare Scripture with Scripture).

Consider this passage:

Isaiah 53:9–12 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

How does Penal Substitution Theory I turret this passage?

Penal Substitution Theory interprets this via human philosophy, not Scripture, and voncludes that Christ suffered at the hand of God, that God inflicted pain and suffering on Christ.

How does Scripture interpret this passage?

Scripture confirms that the World, the power of evil, "wicked men", inflicted pain and suffering on Christ but this was the predetermined plan of God - it was the will of God (it pleased God to crush Him).

Acts 2:22–28 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. “For David says of Him, ‘I saw the Lord always in my presence; For He is at my right hand, so that I will not be shaken. ‘Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted; Moreover my flesh also will live in hope; Because You will not abandon my soul to Hades, Nor allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.


Scripture is the exact opposite of Penal Substitution Theory. The Theory replaces the the evil of this world with God.

When God allowed Job to be afflicted by Satan...who was in control?
God or Satan?
Did God control Satan?
All the links I posted make clear He was smitten by God and afflicted.vs 23 says He was delivered over to them by God...the determinate counsel of God.
That is scripture not philosophy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Penal Substitution Theory interprets this via human philosophy, not Scripture, and voncludes that Christ suffered at the hand of God, that God inflicted pain and suffering on Christ.

I'm surprise to see this thread still open
However, I know nothing of your 'Penal Substitution Theory.' What I know is the Scriptures.
The Sctipture says that it pleased the Lord to crush the Christ, and to put Him to grief.
JonC says that it did not please the Lord to crush the Christ, and that He did not put Him to grief.

There is the quandary: do we believe the Scriptures or follow JonC's philosophy that does not permit him to accept the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture?

I think it is very much worthwhile meditating upon Isaiah 53:10. We are speaking of the beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased. How much God must love us to inflict such suffering upon His well-beloved! And how much the Lord Jesus must love us willingly to suffer such agonies, shame and desertion!

 

[JonC]

When God allowed Job to be afflicted by Satan...who was in control?
God or Satan?
Did God control Satan?
All the links I posted make clear He was smitten by God and afflicted.

Who inflicted the affliction?

Scripture tells us that the World inflicted the suffering and death on Christ but that this was the will of God.

The passage makes it clear that the people who caused the suffering ("we") considered Christ smitten by God, but instead ("yet") He was bearing our sins.

Re-read the passage.

 

[Iconoclast]

Who inflicted the affliction?

Scripture tells us that the World inflicted the suffering and death on Christ but that this was the will of God.

The passage makes it clear that the people who caused the suffering ("we") considered Christ smitten by God, but instead ("yet") He was bearing our sins.

Re-read the passage.

God...used evil men in both cases
Acts3:18 ,
But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of All His prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has so fulfilled.
It was by the determinate counsel of God.
Jesus the LAMB slain before the foundation of the world, not Jesus the victim of a mob.

 

[JonC]

I'm surprise to see this thread still open
However, I know nothing of your 'Penal Substitution Theory.' What I know is the Scriptures.
The Sctipture says that it pleased the Lord to crush the Christ, and to put Him to grief.
JonC says that it did not please the Lord to crush the Christ, and that He did not put Him to grief.

There is the quandary: do we believe the Scriptures or follow JonC's philosophy that does not permit him to accept the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture?

I think it is very much worthwhile meditating upon Isaiah 53:10. We are speaking of the beloved Son in whom the Father is well pleased. How much God must love us to inflict such suffering upon His well-beloved! And how much the Lord Jesus must love us willingly to suffer such agonies, shame and desertion!

Penal Substitution Theory is the idea that God inflicted punishment on Christ - that Christ experienced God's judgment instead of us experiencing God's judgment. It is the same error the Jews who opposed God make.

I do not have a philosophy of the Atonement. I take Scripture as it comes, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture even if the result is simple or if I don't like it.

The difference between our views is I have simply removed what you add to Scripture. The issue you are having is the effect your addition has on other doctrines.

The reason the thread is open is I won't close it because I started it and am a participant. Another Staff member can close it and we can continue on another.

 

[JonC]

God...used evil men in both cases
Acts3:18 ,
But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of All His prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has so fulfilled.
It was by the determinate counsel of God.
Jesus the LAMB slain before the foundation of the world, not Jesus the victim of a mob.

Amen!

I wanted to get into this, God's law, etc but don't think we have enough time on this thread.

In short, God's law is absolute and the failure is on the part of man. Men hold a corrupt view of what is right and what is wrong. Penal Substitution Theory holds this same corrupt view.

The OT foreshadows (points to ) Christ. The sacrificial system points to God sending His own Son as a sin offering (an atoning sacrifice). In the OT it is God's forbearance, passing over sins until the New Covenant.

Christ died for our sins according to Scripture, suffering under the corrupt justice of man which was the predetermined will of God.

Scripture teaches the exact opposite of Penal Substitution Theory IF you allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

The whole point of the Atonement was God offering His Son to bear our sin, be declared guilty and condemned by the World, and vindicated by God do that we in Him would have life.

I'll start a thread at dome time so we can explore our differences and hopefully learn where we stand and why.

 

[Iconoclast]

The world does not declare Jesus guilty as the sin bearer....God and His broken law does which is why the sinless God man was the only fit to bear sins penalty on behalf of the elect.

 

[Salty]

This thread is closed
Feel free to start a new one

 

[JonC]

The continuation is here:

Penal Substitution Theory