What are the issues with Penal Substitution Theory?

What are the issues of you see with the Theory of Penal Substitution?

We have had threads in the past offering support for the Theory of Penal Substitution. Since this is increasingly a contemporary issue I would like to know what issues you (if you do not hold the theory) have with the Theory of Penal Substitution.

What I am looking at here is (obviously) from a perspective of people who disagree with the theory (not from people who seek to silence anyone who disagrees with Penal Substitution Theory). This is an opportunity for the other side to state their case.

While Penal Substitution Theory is not a baptist distinctive, it is common enough among baptists that I'd prefer to open this to the "all Christian" group.

 

One of the issues I have with the theory is its relative newness. As most (who don't hold the theory....i.e., the majority of Christian's both historically and alive today) probably realize the Theory of Penal Substitution originated during the Reformation when John Calvin articulated Scripture through the language of the law courts using an Aquinian context of justice. When it comes to the Bible, antiquity does not mean correct. But "new" typically means wrong.

 

Good example. Penal Substitution Theory teaches that Christ died for our sins. BUT Scripture teaches that Christ died for us because of our sins to liberate us from the wages of sin, to free us from the bondage of sin and death. In this way Penal Substitution Theory cheapens the cross.

I too, believe that Christ is enough. But I believe we are commanded to study and when we start taking God's Word on it's own ground we learn more of God's love and our obligation.

 

Amen! God knows us. God became one of us. That's just amazing to me. The Creator became a child. And that Child bore our sin in His flesh. He bore our transgressions, our shame, our infirmity....and gives us not only life eternal but one of such abundance the world will never know.

 

I believe Scripture to be complete. Not long ago I presented my understanding of the atonement and was ridiculed by a few holding to the Theory of Penal Substitution. They made fun of my belief because it was too much Scripture and too little philosophy. With that in mind, I appreciate what your saying.

But the fact remains that human philosophies can often alter what is read from what is written.

Scripture tells us that the Cross was the will of God. Do we need to add that God considered Jesus a sinner and as such condemned Him, punished Him? Is that the intent of God's Word?

Well, Scripture tells us God will not condemn the righteous and that God is faithful to His Holy One. So no. That is not what it means that it was God's will to "crush Him".

The problem with just taking any philosophical idea and saying it's good enough because it is done within Christianity and cloaked in Bible words is that it can become a stumbling block. It does not matter what Scripture means to us. It matters what Scripture means.

AND - Scripture is sufficient.

Thank you for your insight.

 

Exactly. This is what has been called "the Great Exchange".

God Himself took on human nature - became man and was tempted yet dis not sin. He prevailed where we fail. And He lay down His life as a ransom for us.

Scripture is sufficient without, as you rightly point out, these "new" definitions. God's Word was never left to invention. It is complete and sufficient in and of itself and we have His Spirit to guide us.

 

I agree. I believe where it goes wrong is in assuming redemption is through retributive justice. Most who defend the theory never get what you have rightly pointed out. They argue passages but are not aware of their own presuppositions that make divine righteousness (in terms of redemption) an issue of law rather than a righteousness apart from the law.

In short, the view assumes God is bound and operates within a specific concept of human justice (retributive justice).

It has, in my opinion, a false start that nullifies any attempt at a biblical defense. The first thing advocates of the Theory have to do is to justify the presupposition that divine justice is retributive. Only then can they start a biblical argument (which is, or should be, common knowledge - first examine the presuppositions). But most don't seem to recognize retributive justice as questionable....or even that other (and older) systems exist in terms of divine justice and forgiveness.

I think we need to look at the theory within it's own presuppositions as well - rather than "making God evil" or guilty of "child abuse", the theory itself takes into account that this is a work within the Trinity (God taking punishment upon Himself, in effect). That said, it is not compatible with some truths that Scripture teaches (several passages would define God's work of redemption as unrighteous were the Theory correct).

But again, it is fruitless to argue against the Theory if at first the basic presuppositions are not addressed. Since most who hold the Theory do not even recognize this base, they don't defend it (and they see the Theory at every turn in Scripture and history because they don't recognize what is presupposed). The first step anyone holding the Theory needs to take is to recognize, evaluate, and defend its presuppositions.

 

I mean retributive justice - not retribution.

 

That is the gist of retributive justice.

If you punch me then God has to punch someone in order to forgive you because your crime was against the law.