The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[JonC]

I'm quite happy with the question I asked, thank you.
Why don't you answer it?

I did. But will again.

'His flesh for our flesh' and 'his life for our life.' What do these words mean if they do not mean substitution and a penalty?

It means that Christ gave His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.

Where do you see the words this was God punishing Christ in the verse?

 

[ntchristian]

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.

I don't see PSA there, and neither did Clement of Rome. Your view is akin to claiming to see airplanes in the first millennium.

 

[ntchristian]

Help me out then.

Highlight in the quote where they state that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

I say that for illustration as I know it is impossible. But I do understand what you mean.

I believed Penal-substitutionary-atonement for decades. Studied in seminary. Taught it in theology.

Sometimes we see things that are not there.

Consider how many Christians appreciate C.S. Lewis without really seeing his theology (he was very anti-Penal Substitution Theory).

Or, since you mentioned him earlier, Augustine. We know Augustine believed the idea Christ died to appease God was heresy. So how could he affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

Maybe that is how we learn from others with opposing views. I don't know.

All I know is I desire to be faithful to Scripture. So if you really find a passage stating that God punished Christ instead of us, or that Jesus suffered the wrath of God, then point it out to me and I will be the better for it. Not what you see, but what is really there in the text.

Until then, I'm content with a simpler faith.

The reason Westerners see PSA in scripture when it is not there is because they see scripture like Calvin and Luther -- with a Western mindset that is foreign to scripture and the early church. In other words, they are interpreting scripture without the context in which it was written.

That's why none of them have ever been able to meet my challenge to show me where scripture says Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, 'cause it ain't there. Neither are the other PSA distinctives, as you have also rightly pointed out.

If people would only study the period of time in which PSA arose, they would see why it arose then: Calvin and Luther lived in a legal, juridical age and place, and that's how they interpreted scripture -- according to the context in which they were living, and also because they were the offspring of Romanism, not the Eastern Church.

Context in scripture interpretation is crucial, but many in the West are not aware of where their views have come from, or why.

It is 100% undenaible scriptural, scholarly, theological, historical fact that PSA is not in scripture or the early church or the church of the first millennium, or the first 1500 years A.D.

PSA is basically an outgrowth of Roman Catholicism, taking Satisfaction and expanding it, making it even more legalist and juridical. It is foreign to the NT.

 

[ntchristian]

I know nothing of any 'THEORY of PSA.' I only know the Doctrine of PSA.
'The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'
'Pierced for our Transgressions' By Ovey, Jeffrey and Sach (IVP. ISBN 978-1-84474-178-4).
I have posted this maybe a dozen times over the years. That is what Scripture teaches, what many of the Church Fathers taught, and it is what I am arguing for.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you be more clear, please?

This is true so far as it goes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with PSA.

The ECFs were taken up with the doctrine of the Person of Christ, and the Trinity. It took them about 400 years to get that sorted. It is fair to say that the Atonement was more than somewhat neglected by them. But where they do speak of it, they speak, albeit briefly, in terms of penal substitution, as I shall show as and when I get the time.
It is one of the glories of the Reformation that this great doctrine was rescued from the cold, dead embrace of Romanism and restored to its rightful place at the very centre of the Christian faith..

https://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

Claiming to see PSA in the NT and early church, and the Fathers, is akin to claiming to see airplanes in the first millennium.

 

[Iconoclast]

Does sin go unpunished?

Fact is all sin is going to be punished.

In the sinner, or in the substitute .

You offer parts of verses that you suggest all Christians agree with, but you never clarify what you mean by
You say all Christians believe this, but you redefine it taking away what it means.
In what way does the Lord lay upon Him the iniquity of us all?
You seem to limit the meaning to we die a physical death, so Jesus did also.
You ignore the consequence of Spiritual death, second death, being beaten with many stripes, being judged without mercy...you gloss over it.

In the other thread you also posted this;

If the sing were to be taken that God condemned Christ instead of condemning us by punishing Jesus instead of punishing us....then it would be Penal Substitution Theory.

If it were taken that Christ bore the shame of men, the wages of sin as our representative, esteemed striken by the men He came to save, yet bearing their sins, sharing their infirmary....then it would be biblical... but not Penal Substitution Theory.

I believe Christ suffered the "wages of sin", "bore our sin", was "stricken", and ,was made sin for us". I believe this "in our place".

But where I disagree with Penal Substitution Theory is I see this being "in our place" the same way Adam sinned "in our place" (as a representative).

Penal Substitution Theory defines "in our place" as "in our stead" or "as our substitute".

The difference may seem small but it changes Christ as sharing our infirmary to Christ experiencing our infirmary instead of us.

All Christians believe the LORD laid on Christ the iniquity of us all, it "pleased God to crush Him", Christ was "made sin for us", by His stripes we are healed, the chastisement of our peace was on Him, etc.

But Penal Substitution Theorists add human philosophy to Scripture. They believe God was wrathful to Christ, that God was punishing Jesus with the punishment for our sins instead of God punishing us, that God looked upon Christ as if He were a sinner, etc.

Scripture does state that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:6. But all Christians believe that the Lord has laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. That is not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is just common Christian belief.

You can't just pull out parts of the theory that is in Scripture and claim the presence of Scripture in the theory proves the theory correct.

Penal Substitution Theory holds that God punished Christ for our sins instead of punishing us (which is, of course, not found in Scripture).

The World's wrath is the powers of sin and death, the principles, rulers, and powers that we were warned to guard against.

No. Tge sin and guilt offerings are definitely not rendered incoherent. The difference is how they are perceived (i.e., the difference between the Jewish leaders and the teachings of Christ).

The reason the sin offerings are not incoherent is they foreshadow Christ (they are not rules Christ had to follow but spoke of Christ and ate fulfilled in Him).

There is the "wrath to come" (which is the Judgment....which is Christ-centered).

That said, you could consider that it is an abomination for God to acquit the guilty and condemn the righteous. You could also consider that God's wrath is never allocated to the righteous.

I will give you a positive statement of what is being claimed. Nowhere in Scripture is God said to have punished the Righteous One (Christ), nowhere is God said to condemn the righteous and acquit the guilty. In fact, another positive statement is that it is an abomination for God to condemn the Righteous and acquit the wicked.Our forgiveness is not an acquittal. We still suffer the wages of sin, which is death. But our sins are not counted against us at the Judgment because there is no condemnation in Christ - yet those who are condemned are so because they have rejected Christ. All judgment is given to Christ.

1. It adds that God was punishing Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us.

2. It redefines divine justice through a secular judicial philosophy of retributive justice.

3. It presents God as punishing the Righteous for the sins of the guilty to spare the guilty (which is an abomination to God).

It does not matter why. Scripture states that it is an abomination to acquit the guilty and to condemn the Righteous. Unless you are claiming Jesus ceased being righteous when He bore our sins, but that would be anti-Christian.

The point is Penal Substitution Theory jumps through legalistic hoops of secular philosophy to avoid the biblical truth that our salvation is God's righteousness manifested not through but apart from the law.

It is much simpler to simply accept Scripture, that men must die to the flesh and be born again (or born from above....made a new creation in Christ). This settles the demand for justice and demonstrates the justness of God in saving the sinner.

No addition to Scripture is needed.

These errors will be investigated once again as well as the last response, later this afternoon.

 

[DaveXR650]

Roman 3:21-26.
God's righteousness was manifested and witnessed by the law and the prophets. (Connection with the Old Testament shown)
Verse 22. Our connection to it through faith.
Verse 24. Our justification is connected directly to our redemption in Christ Jesus.
Verse 25. Propitiation in His blood and our connection by faith.
Verse 26. Shows that this was necessary for God to forgive sinners and still be just.

That said, no passage has God pouring His wrath on Christ, punishing Christ instead of punishing us, or even substituting Christ for us (He is our Representative, the Mediator of a better covenant.

The problem is that I think those verses do show PSA even if that was all there was to go on. You don't. Even the wrath is there if you are willing to let propitiation be propitiation and not change the meaning of it.

 

[JonC]

The reason Westerners see PSA in scripture when it is not there is because they see scripture like Calvin and Luther -- with a Western mindset that is foreign to scripture and the early church. In other words, they are interpreting scripture without the context in which it was written.

That's why none of them have ever been able to meet my challenge to show me where scripture says Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, 'cause it ain't there. Neither are the other PSA distinctives, as you have also rightly pointed out.

If people would only study the period of time in which PSA arose, they would see why it arose then: Calvin and Luther lived in a legal, juridical age and place, and that's how they interpreted scripture -- according to the context in which they were living, and also because they were the offspring of Romanism, not the Eastern Church.

Context in scripture interpretation is crucial, but many in the West are not aware of where their views have come from, or why.

It is 100% undenaible scriptural, scholarly, theological, historical fact that PSA is not in scripture or the early church or the church of the first millennium, or the first 1500 years A.D.

PSA is basically an outgrowth of Roman Catholicism, taking Satisfaction and expanding it, making it even more legalist and juridical. It is foreign to the NT.

I agree. The RCC focus on merit was simply replaced with wrath.

 

[JonC]

Roman 3:21-26.
God's righteousness was manifested and witnessed by the law and the prophets. (Connection with the Old Testament shown)
Verse 22. Our connection to it through faith.
Verse 24. Our justification is connected directly to our redemption in Christ Jesus.
Verse 25. Propitiation in His blood and our connection by faith.
Verse 26. Shows that this was necessary for God to forgive sinners and still be just.

The problem is that I think those verses do show PSA even if that was all there was to go on. You don't. Even the wrath is there if you are willing to let propitiation be propitiation and not change the meaning of it.

I understand. For the benefit of others, and perhaps our discussion, I'll post the passage here:

Romans 3:21–26 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 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. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

I think we can agree on a lot in this passage.

We disagree a little in that I do believe the New Covenant is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law (completely) where as Penal Substitution Theory holds it was accomplished through the law and now made avaliable to us apart from the law.

We agree that being justified is a gift by God's grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.

We agree Christ is Whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

I do need to note the word translated "propitiation" is translated differently throughout Scripture and probably is broader than just propitiation. But that's a side note. We do escape the wrath to come via Christ.

We agree that God "overlooked" sins of the past until the New Covenant.

I think the only major disagreement we have here is that I cannot find God punishing Christ instead of us in that passage. I also cannot find where Christ is suffering God's wrath.

 

[JesusFan]

I did. But will again.


It means that Christ gave His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life.

Where do you see the words this was God punishing Christ in the verse?

His physical death by itself would have accomplished nothing for us!

 

[JonC]

His physical death by itself would have accomplished nothing for us!

I agree. Our hope is in the Resurrection (1 Peter 1:3; 1 Corinthians 6:14).

 

[JonC]

Another interesting fact is Penal Substitution Theory does not necessitate the Cross....or even Christ's physical death. Instead it is concentrated on the myth that Christ died spiritually (experienced a spiritual death and separation from God) so that we would not experience a spiritual death.

As @Servant of Lord Jesus rightly points out, for a Penal Substitution Theorist Christ's death (physical death) is meaningless. So is the Cross (except as a symbol for spiritual death). But to every other believer Christ's death and resurrection, and the Cross, is of infinite value.

 

[ntchristian]

For those who contend that various Church Fathers taught PSA: Besides the links that I have already posted that refute this claim, I'll add this to also prove otherwise: The official teaching of the church for the first 1000 years -- East and West, Greek and Latin -- was Ransom/Christus Victor. To claim that the Fathers taught PSA is to claim that they taught a doctrine that was unknown and thus not taught in the church as a whole. If any of the Fathers had taught PSA, they would have been considered heretics by the church. But they did not and were not. They could not have taught something that had not been invented yet. PSA was inconceivable to the early church and the church of the following centuries. Ransom/Christus Victor was replaced by Anselm 1000 years later, and his Satisfaction Theory fit right in with the feudalistic society in which he lived. See, context again. Just as Calvin's and Luther's context caused them to interpret atonement as Penal Substitution. But neither of these was the context in which the apostles wrote the NT or the early church interpreted it. That's why PSA was unknown in scripture and the early church, and the church of the first millennium. And the same is true for all the other much later atonement theories developed in the West.

The Fathers did not teach PSA. To claim they did is to read them with a Western, juridical, legalist mindset -- the same mistake some make in interpreting the Bible, which is an Eastern book about Eastern religions -- Judaism and Christianity. The Christianity taught in the West after the first millennium could be said to be "another Christianity".

 

[ntchristian]

Another interesting fact is Penal Substitution Theory does not necessitate the Cross....or even Christ's physical death. Instead it is concentrated on the myth that Christ died spiritually (experienced a spiritual death and separation from God) so that we would not experience a spiritual death.

As @Servant of Lord Jesus rightly points out, for a Penal Substitution Theorist Christ's death (physical death) is meaningless. So is the Cross (except as a symbol for spiritual death). But to every other believer Christ's death and resurrection, and the Cross, is of infinite value.

And that is one more danger of PSA and other similar theories. It compartmentalizes and isolates the atonement from the incarnation and resurrection.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree. Our hope is in the Resurrection (1 Peter 1:3; 1 Corinthians 6:14).

No, our hope is to be in that old rugged Cross!
That is where the plan of salvation was accomplished in full!

 

[JesusFan]

Another interesting fact is Penal Substitution Theory does not necessitate the Cross....or even Christ's physical death. Instead it is concentrated on the myth that Christ died spiritually (experienced a spiritual death and separation from God) so that we would not experience a spiritual death.

As @Servant of Lord Jesus rightly points out, for a Penal Substitution Theorist Christ's death (physical death) is meaningless. So is the Cross (except as a symbol for spiritual death). But to every other believer Christ's death and resurrection, and the Cross, is of infinite value.

NO, None who hold to psa stated that jesus died spiritually, as that would mean must be born again, and would be preaching Word of faith heresy!

 

[JonC]

NO, None who hold to psa stated that jesus died spiritually, as that would mean must be born again, and would be preaching Word of faith heresy!

You are wrong. Some have argued in the past that Jesus experienced a spiritual death....even that He was separated from the Father.

I am glad you don't go that far.

 

[JonC]

No, our hope is to be in that old rugged Cross!
That is where the plan of salvation was accomplished in full!

What I mean is to those of us who stick to Sola Scripura in essential doctrines the Cross is more than a location or symbol.

 

[JesusFan]

You are wrong. Some have argued in the past that Jesus experienced a spiritual death....even that He was separated from the Father.

I am glad you don't go that far.

You are wrong. Some have argued in the past that Jesus experienced a spiritual death....even that He was separated from the Father.

I am glad you don't go that far.

Who among any of the reformers held to it as you posted it?

 

[JesusFan]

What I mean is to those of us who stick to Sola Scripura in essential doctrines the Cross is more than a location or symbol.

The Cross is where and how any of us were able to get saved!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

For those who contend that various Church Fathers taught PSA: Besides the links that I have already posted that refute this claim, I'll add this to also prove otherwise: The official teaching of the church for the first 1000 years -- East and West, Greek and Latin -- was Ransom/Christus Victor. To claim that the Fathers taught PSA is to claim that they taught a doctrine that was unknown and thus not taught in the church as a whole. If any of the Fathers had taught PSA, they would have been considered heretics by the church. But they did not and were not. They could not have taught something that had not been invented yet.

Hello ntchristian. Thanks for contributing.
However, you make a variety of claims without any Scripture or other evidence (quotations from the ECFs or councils) to back them up.
You say that the official teaching of the Church for the first 1,000 years was Ransom/Christus Victor. What Papal edict or Council can you quote to show that this is the case. Where exactly was Penal Substitution anathematized?

Now everyone believes in Christus Victor. Who believes in Christus Loser? But in what sense did Christ triumph? If He simply rose from the grave, that's true, and great, but how does it help guilty souls under condemnation for their sins? Are you acquainted with the writings of Gustav Aulen? @JonC says he isn't, but if you are, we could discuss his views if you like.

Ransom Theory comes with Origen, whose teachings on the subject include God paying a ransom to Satan, and has the demerit of God being involved with fraudulent activity. But even Origen comes to Penal Substitution when he considers Romans 3:26. ''In the most recent times, God has manifested His righteousness and given Christ to be our redemption. He has made Him our propitiator.... for God is just and therefore could not justify the unjust. Therefore He required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified.' [Commentary on Romans]
So to Origen, the cross is the place where God's justice is satisfied. Christ has accomplished a work of propitiation that turns away judgment. However, this will not always be the case. Origen continues, 'When the day of judgement comes, [God's righteousness will be revealed for retribution' [ibid] So ransom, expiation and propitiation are drawn together, with propitiation front and centre. The judgment of God for unrighteousness is borne by another, Jesus Christ. His death deals with sin and ransoms the believer from captivity.
In his Commentary on John, Origen quotes from 1 John 2:1-2: 'We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins...........who blotted out the written bond that was against us by His own blood, so that not even a trace of our blotted-out sins might still be found, and nailed it to His cross.....'
Whatever else Origen may have believed, it is clear that he understood that Christ had propitiated the Father and the sins that were against us are blotted out and nailed to the cross. How was this done? By His own blood. Penal Substitution.