What is Penal Substitution Atonement

[The Biblicist]

@The Biblicist

Can we at least agree that what separates PSA from Substitution is this context of retributive justice (as you explained in your post about the demands of the Law)? Is this not what separates Luther from PSA, and what you see as my error?

I will not agree to what is a lie and a complete distortion. YOUR definition of retributive justice is something I repudiate and deny is found in scripture or in my position. To claim I believe your definition of "retributive" justice as you have defined it is simply a lie, as I believe no such thing.

I believe God's only standard of law is a JUST and HOLY standard that vindicates and reveals the just and holy nature of God. Your view is a mess of contradictions based upon unbiblical definitions.There is no such thing as an atonement in Scripture that does not satisfy divine justice. Your theory repudiates that divine justice needs satisfaction but rather God has provided another option, another way to be satisfied and that is merely the obedience or righteousness of Christ. In your theory his death does not satisfy divine justice against sin and sinners but your theory repudiates that divine justice needs satisfying.

 

[The Biblicist]

The righteousness of Christ is essential for our atonement because without it there is no qualified substitute to satisfy divine justice against sin in our behalf. However, the righteousness of Christ is not sufficient to atone for our sins as his righteousness cannot satisfy divine justice against sin and sinners. The Biblical atonement demands the death of the substitute IN ADDITION TO his personal righteousness to satisfy divine justice against sin and sinners. You have an atonement that meets heaven's standard for entrance but insufficient to satisfy divine justice against sin and sinners.It is not either or but both and both are met in the legal position of a substitute as clearly revealed in the Law of God in the sacrificial laws.Basically, you are trying to merge the language of penal substitionary atonement with the Christus Victorius theory which is a distortion of the atonement as it too does not necessitate the death of Christ to satisfy divine justice but rather regulates it to the area of Christ's personal obedience, but unnecessary for satisfication of divine justice against sin and sinners.

Anything called an "atonement" that does not satisfy divine justice against sin and sinners is no atonement at all but a perversion of the gospel of Christ and "another gospel."

 

[JonC]

I will not agree to what is a lie and a complete distortion. YOUR definition of retributive justice is something I repudiate and deny is found in scripture or in my position. To claim I believe your definition of "retributive" justice as you have defined it is simply a lie, as I believe no such thing.

I believe God's only standard of law is a JUST and HOLY standard that vindicates and reveals the just and holy nature of God. Your view is a mess of contradictions based upon unbiblical definitions.There is no such thing as an atonement in Scripture that does not satisfy divine justice. Your theory repudiates that divine justice needs satisfaction but rather God has provided another option, another way to be satisfied and that is merely the obedience or righteousness of Christ. In your theory his death does not satisfy divine justice against sin and sinners but your theory repudiates that divine justice needs satisfying.

A "no, you misunderstood" would have been sufficient.

Since you reject my definition of retributive justice (that justice demands punishment for sin, therefore God punished Christ with this punishment to satisfy the demands if the Law), please point out where you find its flaw.

This way at least we have some sense of our difference.

 

[JonC]

Anything called an "atonement" that does not satisfy divine justice against sin and sinners is no atonement at all but a perversion of the gospel of Christ and "another gospel."

You just stated a rejection of retributive justice. So if you are not talking about punishment due sin what are you taking about?

(BTW, retributive justice is far from the Christus Victor Motif. It is the type of justice presented in PSA, held by not only Calvin, Knox, and Gill but also Arminius and Wesley). If you are into confessions, it's the basis of judgment in the Westminster Confession.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes, that is what I am denying.

We are running short on time here. I would like closure on this one point so we can carry it forward (if we choose fit).

Can we at least agree that retributive justice is what separates PSA from Substitutionary Atonement? Is this not what separates Luther from PSA, and what you see as my error?

Your error is that you cannot see the singularity of God's standard is his own HOLINESS which must be satisfied against sin and sinners. There are no alternative options such as "retributive" punishment versus "just" punishment. You have invented a Trojan horse that has no place in scripture or debate about scripture. God is holy, His law is holy and therefore there is but one standard and that is a HOLY and JUST standard which vindicates God's holiness rather than some idea of punishing for the sake of punishing. We have no basis of agreement here - none!

 

[The Biblicist]

A "no, you misunderstood" would have been sufficient.

Since you reject my definition of retributive justice (that justice demands punishment for sin, therefore God punished Christ with this punishment to satisfy the demands if the Law), please point out where you find its flaw.

Don't you read your own definitions? You defined "retributive justice" in detail and I answered it in detail. You are not being honest here as you have not repeated your true meaning of retributive justice. You changed from using "retributive punishment" to using "retributive justice" both of which are oxymoronic with regard to the single Biblical standard. God has but one standard for punishment - JUST and HOLY. So it is "just punishment" and "just justice." There is no punishning "for the sake of punishing" in God's Law or His Word. There is no focus on the sinner or sin but ON GOD'S HOLINESS being vindicated. Sin and sinners are punished BECAUSE God is holy and just.

Again, where there is no satisfaction of DIVINE JUSTICE against sin and sinners there is no atonement and there is no recognition that God is holy.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The definition I spoke of was suggested by yeshua1. He said that Jesus had to suffer the punishment the lost would at Judgment.

I have been careful not to do so. I have given you my definition of PSA several times and you have been strangely reluctant to address it.

I did not coin the term "retributive justice". If you read of the defenses published in support of the Westminster Confession you will be exposed to the term quite often. It is the view that God's justice must be satisfied in terms of sins punished. Men like Calvin, Gill, and Knox believed in divine retributive justice.

It's actually not in the WCF or the 1689 Confession.

Regardless of its use, it is descriptive of what you believe

It may be descriptive of what you believe we believe.

 

[JonC]

Your error is that you cannot see the singularity of God's standard is his own HOLINESS which must be satisfied against sin and sinners. There are no alternative options such as "retributive" punishment versus "just" punishment. You have invented a Trojan horse that has no place in scripture or debate about scripture. God is holy, His law is holy and therefore there is but one standard and that is a HOLY and JUST standard which vindicates God's holiness rather than some idea of punishing for the sake of punishing. We have no basis of agreement here - none!

I have invented nothing. You done even know what I believe. All this time in trying to at least get a solid answer from you but you are shifting sand.

If you reject retributive justice (if you deny justice demands punishment for sin and God, being just, punishes all sin) then please point out your disagreement. I'm trying to understand but you are all over the place.

 

[JonC]

Don't you read your own definitions? You defined "retributive justice" in detail and I answered it in detail. You are not being honest here as you have not repeated your true meaning of retributive justice. You changed from using "retributive punishment" to using "retributive justice" both of which are oxymoronic with regard to the single Biblical standard. God has but one standard for punishment - JUST and HOLY. So it is "just punishment" and "just justice." There is no punishning "for the sake of punishing" in God's Law or His Word. There is no focus on the Goner or sin but on the HOLINESS of God in scripture. Sin and sinners are pushed BECAUSE God is holy and just.

Again, where there is no satisfaction of DIVINE JUSTICE against sin and sinners there is no atonement and there is no recognition that God is holy.

Can you not read? I said using YOUR definition. I'm trying to at least get a common definition.

Retributive justice in terms of PSA is that justice demands sins be punished and God punished Jesus to satisfy this demand.

Is this not where we disagree? Is this not where Luther fails in terms of PSA, and where you see my error?

 

[JonC]

I have been careful not to do so. I have given you my definition of PSA several times and you have been strangely reluctant to address it.

It's actually not in the WCF or the 1689 Confession.


It may be descriptive of what you believe we believe.

Are you denying that God's justice demands sin be punished and that God punished Jesus in our stead with the punishment for our sins - that God could not forgive us our sin without punishing sin so Christ took that wrath?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, that is what I am denying.

We are running short on time here. I would like closure on this one point so we can carry it forward (if we choose fit).

Can we at least agree that retributive justice is what separates PSA from Substitutionary Atonement? Is this not what separates Luther from PSA, and what you see as my error?

I would say that the wrath of God directed towards Jesus on the Cross is not a "gotcha" type, but a "someone has to pay for the penalty of breaking My Law" kind!

 

[JonC]

To clarify by illustration

When you get a parking ticket the law demands a penalty. To satisfy the demands of the law the ticket must be paid. You can pay the fine or someone else can, at their expense, pay the fine.

This is an example of retributive justice. The fine is an example of retributive punishment.

The idea is that the Law demands a debt (a sin debt) be paid. Divine Justice means God must punish the sins.

 

[JonC]

I would say that the wrath of God directed towards Jesus on the Cross is not a "gotcha" type, but a "someone has to pay for the penalty of breaking My Law" kind!

Exactly. Like my example of the ticket.

We sin and are guilty. The Law demands a penalty. Jesus steps in and God imposes that penalty on Him instead of us. Our sin debt is paid.

Correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. Like my example of the ticket.

We sin and are guilty. The Law demands a penalty. Jesus steps in and God imposes that penalty on Him instead of us. Our sin debt is paid.

Correct?

Yes, as long as he gets ALL that the penaly against the Law would be, as in wrath, forsaken by God, experiencing for those 3 hours on the Cross what sinners will who face that wraith instead of Jesus taking it!

 

[Yeshua1]

To clarify by illustration

When you get a parking ticket the law demands a penalty. To satisfy the demands of the law the ticket must be paid. You can pay the fine or someone else can, at their expense, pay the fine.

This is an example of retributive justice. The fine is an example of retributive punishment.

The idea is that the Law demands a debt (a sin debt) be paid. Divine Justice means God must punish the sins.

Does God punish those who reject Jesus or not?

 

[JonC]

Yes, as long as he gets ALL that the penaly against the Law would be, as in wrath, forsaken by God, experiencing for those 3 hours on the Cross what sinners will who face that wraith instead of Jesus taking it!

Yes, I understand. And this is what I thought the distinction was between PSA and Substitutionary Atonement (except I know there are differences in opinion on how this was experienced). This is retributive justice.

 

[JonC]

Does God punish those who reject Jesus or not?

Yes. In fact, we will also experience God's wrath because of sin. We will die. But in Christ we will live. Those who are outside of Christ will suffer the second death. Interestingly enough, judgment is also Christ-centered.

 

[JonC]

Well, we are ten pages in. What we have discovered (to my surprise) is that @The Biblicist and @Martin Marprelate reject the retributive justice most (until now it seemed all) held as the context for PSA. So, as far as they go we cannot settle on a firm definition of PSA - we only know @Martin Marprelate believes Luther's view falls within it and @The Biblicist disagrees.

The best we have is @Yeshua1 . From his comments, I gather that PSA holds that divine justice demands a punishment for sin, that God satisfied this demand by sending His Son to take this punishment in our place, poured out His wrath set aside for us onto His Son (who suffered not only a physical death but more importantly a spiritual suffering as God in some form abandoned Him on the Cross, thus paying our sin debt.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, we are ten pages in. What we have discovered (to my surprise) is that @The Biblicist and @Martin Marprelate reject the retributive justice most (until now it seemed all) held as the context for PSA. So, as far as they go we cannot settle on a firm definition of PSA - we only know @Martin Marprelate believes Luther's view falls within it and @The Biblicist disagrees.

The best we have is @Yeshua1 . From his comments, I gather that PSA holds that divine justice demands a punishment for sin, that God satisfied this demand by sending His Son to take this punishment in our place, poured out His wrath set aside for us onto His Son (who suffered not only a physical death but more importantly a spiritual suffering as God in some form abandoned Him on the Cross, thus paying our sin debt.

Just as long as we do not move into heresy and see jesus as being spiritually dead, as that would mean that he no longer paid for us in our place, but actually become a true sinner, and thus had to get born again. THAT version is rank heresy of the word of faith cults!

 

[JonC]

Just as long as we do not move into heresy and see jesus as being spiritually dead, as that would mean that he no longer paid for us in our place, but actually become a true sinner, and thus had to get born again. THAT version is rank heresy of the word of faith cults!

I'm not accusing anyone here of believing that.

I disagree with your view, brother. But this entire thread has been a failed attempt (mostly my own fault) at narrowing down what is and is not PSA. I wanted to see the distinction and I believe it to be the framework that is retributive justice. It is just a different context in terms of divine justice.

Thank you for explaining your position clearly and honestly.