Penal Substitution is NOT a “Theory”

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Mankind was under the curse, in bondage to sin and death. Christ had to suffer under the curse, become a curse for the "human family". The Father vindicated Christ and He became a life giving Spirit.
The usual question: Why did Christ have to suffer and what did it achieve.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Christ had to suffer under the curse, become a curse for the "human family".
How is this not penal substitution?

Mankind was under a curse, but Jesus took on that curse to Himself, to free us from that curse?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How is this not penal substitution?

Mankind was under a curse, but Jesus took on that curse to Himself, to free us from that curse?
The reference is from Martyr.

It is not Penal Substitution Theory because it does not hold that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. Based on writings no one before the Reformation taught that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The reference is from Martyr.

It is not Penal Substitution Theory because it does not hold that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. Based on writings no one before the Reformation taught that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.
What is the curse? And how is it that we were under a curse?
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What is the curse? And how is it that we were under a curse?
Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin. Death spread to all people because all sinned. Death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed. But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many! And the gift is not like the one who sinned. For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation, but the gracious gift from the many failures led to justification. For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin. Death spread to all people because all sinned. Death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed. But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many! And the gift is not like the one who sinned. For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation, but the gracious gift from the many failures led to justification. For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!
This is a great passage, but it doesn't speak to the question.

Why did Jesus die?

The wages of sin is death. Death would destroy us. Jesus, though He didn't sin, and therefore didn't deserve death, died for us, being able to endure death without being destroyed, and provides a way for us to likewise endure death - in Him - the death due because of our sins. So because the curse that was on me He took upon Him, I go free. He became a curse Instead of me.

Much love!
 

reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2019
4,618
1,481
113
Somewhere in the USA
reformedtruths.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It took me awhile as well.

When I realized my view (Penal Substitution Theory) was not actually in the Bible I struggled to read Scripture apart from it.

I knew that thought history Christians believed Christ had to die while rejecting the Theory. But shaking off the tradition I grew up with was difficult.

The Early Church did not teach Penal Substitution Theory. Justin Martyr, for exame, taught an early form of recipitulation. His writings are available. Why do you think Justin Martyr thought Christ had to die?

For a more recent example consider C. S. Lewis. He was adament of the necessity of Christ's death while strongly rejecting Penal Substitution Theory. Why did Lewis believe it was necessary for Christ to die?

Those were the questions I asked myself. I studied Scripture apart from Penal Substitution Theory and then read their words anew. I suggest that for anyone having difficulty understanding the necessity of Christ's death apart from Penal Substitution Theory.
So you still don't have an answer then....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Preacher4Truth

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is a great passage, but it doesn't speak to the question.

Why did Jesus die?

The wages of sin is death. Death would destroy us. Jesus, though He didn't sin, and therefore didn't deserve death, died for us, being able to endure death without being destroyed, and provides a way for us to likewise endure death - in Him - the death due because of our sins. So because the curse that was on me He took upon Him, I go free. He became a curse Instead of me.

Much love!
I do not understand why you find the passage insufficient. Christ had to become a curse for us, to be made sin, in order to free us from the bondage of sin and death (the "second Adam"). He had to be man in all ways yet without sin.

Why do you believe Jesus had to be punished instead of us being punished? Why would this mean that Jesus has to die (my father was a Christian and he still died and I suspect I will probably die one day and am grateful death has lost its sting)?

That is one fault of Penal Substitution Theory. Physical death is at least one consequence of sin. We still die. So Christ's physical death could not have been instead of us.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm starting to think this is more about how we use words.

What do you think of my description in post 106?

Much love!
I like the post. I can not agree with "instead of us" because we do experience the same death. I view it as Christ delivering us through death (and from the powers of sin and death).

I would argue that Christ did not experience a death which is uncommon to man. The difference is that He is God and sinless (not what He suffered at the "hands of wicked men") .
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
The wages of sin is death. No where is scripture is there any concept of separation outside of death. Jesus died...that was the debt paid. He was also separated through death from His Father, and experienced fully what sinners will experience...The only difference of course being Christ was innocent there for gave the Father the right to raise Him from the dead. Just as we are in Christ and have that same right granted us.

The punishment for sin is death yes, and eternal separation from God.
And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. (Mt 18:8)
Is Jesus in eternal fire?

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Mt 25:41)
Is Jesus in the eternal fire?

And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Mt 25:46)
Did Jesus go off to eternal punishment?

These will pay the penalty of eternal ruin, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power, (2Thess 1:9)
Is Jesus paying the penalty of eternal ruin?

Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)
Is Jesus undergoing the a punishment of eternal fire?

Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him. (1Jn 3:15)
Does Jesus have no eternal life in him?

Not quite. The Father and Son agreed together before creation concerning the plan of salvation, thus it was the Son who gave His life a ransom for many...The Father did not kill His Son.
That is not what penal substitution says.
It says God poured out his wrath upon Jesus.

That's just nonsense. If you steal your neighbors car then return it a year later does that mean there is nothing to forgive? If you confess to your neighbour your crime, and he forgives you, does that mean then you can keep the car? Sorry, but dimple justice demands retribution, regardless of forgiveness. Add for your often quoted parable of the unforgiving servant, there is a lot more to the story that Jesus leaves out because the point he was making would become to complicated. Just consider the fact that the books in heaven still record the details of your whole life and are not wiped clean the moment you accept Christ. Learn the lesson from the OT. The blood of the sacrifice remained on the horns of the altar until the day of atonement, then they were cleansed (Levit 16). The sins of Israel was in that blood,, recorded in type until the consummation.

That doesn't address the points I made.

Again, nonsense. If a loving judge sees his own son in the dock, being charged with speeding, how will it go down if he says,I forgive you, and just let him go? Whatever fine was appropriate for the offense, would still have to be paid. The judge would demonstrate his forgiveness by paying it himself.

Again doesn't address the point I made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Anyone who calls the finished work of Christ "a theory". That would be rejecting (1) the Bible, (2) the true Gospel, (3) the Substitutionary Atoning Work of Christ. There is no middle ground here since we either believe God or we do not. Faith is essential for salvation, and that faith is in Christ and His finished work of redemption.

No-one is rejecting the Bible, or the gospel, or the Substitutionary Atoning Work of Christ - just your version of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Caldwell

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Another issue with Penal Substitution Theory is that it does NOT necessitate Christ's death (physical death and suffering).

The "classic view" of the atonement holds that Christ had to die because Jesus had to suffer under the curse, be made a curse for us, and share our suffering under the bondage of the powers of sin and death.

Penal Substitution Theory supposes that Christ died instead of us. What was not done "in our stead"? Christ did not die instead of us dying (we will die). Christ did not suffer instead of man suffering (men suffer). Christ was not crucified and His blood shed instead of Christians suffering and their blood being shed because after Christ's death Christians would die in the same ways or even worse. EVEN that separation from God that many advocates of Penal Substitution Theory attributes as Christ experiencing instead of us is not unique as they hold Adam experienced this when Adam experienced a spiritual death. This separation is, in fact, what Penal Substitution Theory holds as the "problem" remedied in Christ (that natural man is separated from God).

There is no need for Christ to have suffered and died (physically) or to have experienced a "separation from God" under Penal Substitution Theory. The blood of Christ is worthless under Penal Substitution Theory. The only value per that Theory is what Christ experienced instead of us experiencing as a punishment for our sins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mungo

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The usual question: Why did Christ have to suffer and what did it achieve.
Steve,

The "classic view" holds that Christ had to suffer and die by submitting in obedience to God to the powers of sin and death. What this accomplished was a recommendation between God and the humanity in Christ.

Under Penal Substitution Theory there is no reason for Christ's death (His bood being shed) as this is not "in our place" (we die, our blood is shed). The supposed separation is not even necessary as this happened to all men (natural man is separated from God). There is no reason for Christ to have suffered and died under your theory.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mungo

Steve Owen

Well-Known Member
Oct 13, 2019
385
267
63
72
Exmouth UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Steve,

The "classic view" holds that Christ had to suffer and die by submitting in obedience to God to the powers of sin and death. What this accomplished was a recommendation between God and the humanity in Christ.
'I have six honest serving-men;
They taught me all I knew.
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.'
[Rudyard Kipling]
So why did Christ have to suffer? And did He really submit to the power of sin?
What on earth does the second part of this mean this mean? Do you mean 'reconciliation'? And if so how was this accomplished?
Under Penal Substitution Theory there is no reason for Christ's death (His blood being shed) as this is not "in our place" (we die, our blood is shed). The supposed separation is not even necessary as this happened to all men (natural man is separated from God). There is no reason for Christ to have suffered and died under your theory.
You are entirely wrong. Only the Doctrine of Penal Substitution explains the 'why,' the 'what' and the 'how.' I placed it on my extended post long ago, but since you have steadfastly refused to go anywhere near it, I cut and paste a few points from it and add a few conclusions.

In the Scriptures we have the concept of the 'mediator', one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For [God] is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and made satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

A similar concept is that of a 'surety' or 'guarantor.' This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. Perhaps some reading this have become guarantors for their children's mortgages. If the child should default, then you will become liable for the debt and the bank will come after you for the full amount, plus any interest or penalties just as if it was you who took the debt on. Never mind if you have lived hitherto a life of blameless financial rectitude; the bank will have the shirt off you back for a debt that is not yours exactly because you are the surety.
There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend or relative effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant,’ and therefore 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' He has willingly contracted to be our guarantor, and we owe God a debt of righteousness and obedience that we are by no means able to pay, plus the sanctions due for the broken covenant of works. Therefore Christ has paid our debt by living the life of righteousness and obedience that neither Adam nor we could live (Romans 5:19), and taken upon Himself the sanctions that were due ( Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24). Once we grasp the concepts of mediator and surety, these verses become perfectly clear. Christ is pierced for our transgressions instead of us being pierced, He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, so that we need not suffer the penalty that was due; He was made a curse, so that the curse on us might be lifted (Romans 8:1 etc.), and so forth. The what and the why and the who and the how become perfectly clear.
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
'I have six honest serving-men;
They taught me all I knew.
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.'
[Rudyard Kipling]
So why did Christ have to suffer? And did He really submit to the power of sin?
What on earth does the second part of this mean this mean? Do you mean 'reconciliation'? And if so how was this accomplished?

You are entirely wrong. Only the Doctrine of Penal Substitution explains the 'why,' the 'what' and the 'how.' I placed it on my extended post long ago, but since you have steadfastly refused to go anywhere near it, I cut and paste a few points from it and add a few conclusions.

In the Scriptures we have the concept of the 'mediator', one who might fill up the gap between the outraged holiness of God and rebellious man (Isaiah 59:2). Job complained, “For [God] is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us who may lay his hand on us both.” But mediation requires a satisfaction to be made to the offended party. We see this is the book of Philemon. Here we have an offended party, Philemon, whose servant has run away from him, perhaps stealing some goods as he went; an offending party, Onesimus, and Paul who is attempting to mediate between them. Onesimus needs to return to his master, but fears the sanctions that may be imposed upon him if he does so. Paul takes these sanctions upon himself: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account. I, Paul, am writing with my own hand. I will repay…..’ (Philemon 18-19). Whatever is wanting to propitiate Philemon’s anger against his servant and to effect reconciliation, Paul the mediator willingly agrees to provide. In the same way, the Lord Jesus has become a Mediator between men and God (1 Timothy 2:5).

In 2 Corinthians 5:19, we learn that God does not impute trespasses against His people; in Christ; He has reconciled the world [believing Jew and Gentile alike] to Himself. How has He done this? Through the Mediator Jesus Christ. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us….’ (v.21). The Lord Jesus has taken our sins upon Himself and made satisfaction to God for them. Therefore the message of reconciliation can be preached to all.

A similar concept is that of a 'surety' or 'guarantor.' This is someone who guarantees the debts of a friend and must pay them in full if the friend defaults. Perhaps some reading this have become guarantors for their children's mortgages. If the child should default, then you will become liable for the debt and the bank will come after you for the full amount, plus any interest or penalties just as if it was you who took the debt on. Never mind if you have lived hitherto a life of blameless financial rectitude; the bank will have the shirt off you back for a debt that is not yours exactly because you are the surety.
There are several warnings in the Book of Proverbs against becoming a surety (Proverbs 6:1-5; 11:15; 17:18), since one is making the debts of one’s friend or relative effectively one’s own, yet we read in Hebrews 7:22, ‘By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant,’ and therefore 'The LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' He has willingly contracted to be our guarantor, and we owe God a debt of righteousness and obedience that we are by no means able to pay, plus the sanctions due for the broken covenant of works. Therefore Christ has paid our debt by living the life of righteousness and obedience that neither Adam nor we could live (Romans 5:19), and taken upon Himself the sanctions that were due ( Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24). Once we grasp the concepts of mediator and surety, these verses become perfectly clear. Christ is pierced for our transgressions instead of us being pierced, He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, so that we need not suffer the penalty that was due; He was made a curse, so that the curse on us might be lifted (Romans 8:1 etc.), and so forth. The what and the why and the who and the how become perfectly clear.
You are being inconstant.

I am saying Christ had to die because Christ had to bear my sin and become a curse for us.

You are moving this into a "law court" type of mentality (Calvin was, after all, a lawyer so this makes sense).

It is contradictory to claim that Christ died instead of us dying because we will die.
It is contradictory to claim that Christ died instead of man being separated from God because we were separated from God.
It is contradictory to claim that Christ suffered instead of us because many men have suffered the same and worse.
It is contradictory to claim that Christ experienced the wages of sin instead of us because Scripture states we do experience these wages.
It is contradictory to claim that Christ experienced a type of spiritual death instead of us because you hold Adam himself experienced this death and we are born into it.

The ONLY thing that Penal Substitution Theory can logically claim is that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us with the punishment that is reserved for the lost at Judgment. This was, in fact, the original claim of the Theory when it was articulated (and defended) in the Reformation. To Penal Substitution Theory Jesus' actual death and blood are worthless. What matters is punishment being experienced instead of us and this punishment being that "second death". And even here the theory is subjective.
 
Last edited:

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I like the post. I can not agree with "instead of us" because we do experience the same death. I view it as Christ delivering us through death (and from the powers of sin and death).

I would argue that Christ did not experience a death which is uncommon to man. The difference is that He is God and sinless (not what He suffered at the "hands of wicked men") .
Thank you, John!

Like I mentioned before, I'm not fully settled one way or the other, though penal substitution sure seems to describe things for me. It may be how we're using the words. You've given some good food for thought!

I was reviewing the day of atonement yesterday, interestingly, the sin is laid on the goat that lives. Jesus is the Lamb of God Who carries away the sin of the world.

The one died, the other lived, both point to Jesus.

Much love!
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
The "classic view" of the atonement holds that Christ had to die because Jesus had to suffer under the curse, be made a curse for us, and share our suffering under the bondage of the powers of sin and death.

Can you explain this because I can't see why Jesus
a) had to dies
b) had to suffer under a curse (and what curse wa that?)
c) had to share our suffering...
 

John Caldwell

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2019
1,704
973
113
North Augusta
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Can you explain this because I can't see why Jesus
a) had to dies
b) had to suffer under a curse (and what curse wa that?)
c) had to share our suffering...
I think that Hebrews teaches Christ had to be one of us, to share in our "infirmity", in order to represent us as High Priest.

Jesus was saving us from the "bondage of sin and death". Mankind was under this bondage, this curse. To be "one of us" Christ had to suffer under the same powers that enslaved mankind. But unlike us He was sinless. God vindicated Christ who won victory over the things that kept mankind in bondage.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think that Hebrews teaches Christ had to be one of us, to share in our "infirmity", in order to represent us as High Priest.

Jesus was saving us from the "bondage of sin and death". Mankind was under this bondage, this curse. To be "one of us" Christ had to suffer under the same powers that enslaved mankind. But unlike us He was sinless. God vindicated Christ who won victory over the things that kept mankind in bondage.
Except that no one took Jesus' life away from Him, He died voluntarily. He released His spirit. Isn't that an affirmative action, something He did proactively on our behalf?

Much love!