Defending Penal Substitution

[Wormwood]

Paul declared to the church in Corinth that he was determined to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and him crucified. For Paul, the cross was the apex of God's work through Jesus Christ. But what exactly was this work? Theologians have been examining and debating atonement theories throughout the centuries. I have noticed that a host of Christian groups and theologians have begun to attack the concept of penal substitution. The view has been labeled as barbaric and even "divine child abuse."

I believe these arguments are not justified and that the concept of penal substitution is a valid aspect of the atonement. Allow me to provide a definition as well as an introductory defense of this doctrine.

The Penal Substitution view of the atonement is that Jesus died to pay the penalty of sins and to redirect God's wrath from us toward the cross.

In our contemporary culture, the very idea of a wrathful God is distasteful. God is promoted as being love and love only. Sin is either diminished or viewed as a non-entity. Some present-day Christian philosophers are arguing that evil has no ontological reality and is ultimately merely the absence of good. Thus, when Jesus died on the cross, he couldn't be dying to pay for sins because sins have no ontological substance. For these people, the cross is more about a divine example, identifying with humanity and victory. Others, who hold to heretical views of Christ and deny his deity will view Jesus as more of an idealist who promoted pacifism and declared God's ways through non-violence.

While I would certainly agree that there are many angles to the work of Christ's atonement that include issues like divine example, identifying with humanity, victory through faith, redemption, covering and so forth, penal substitution is a necessary aspect of the cross that should not be dismissed.

Many who despise the concept of penal substitution often have very shaky OT hermeneutics, in my opinion. A number of these theologians wrestle to suggest that the wrath of God and even commands to Israel to commit genocide are not accurate depictions of God at all. Some will suggest that Israel was doing what they through God wanted, but were all mixed up. Others just seem to ignore this concept of wrath and judgment in the OT altogether. It is as if they want to completely divorce the two covenants and pretend that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT.

The reality is that God's wrath is mentioned over 500x in the OT. While the blood of slaughtered animals certainly acted as a covering for Israel, it needs to be understood in the context of death. The wages of sin is death. God did not have blood cover the mercy seat simply because it was more opaque than water. Shed blood represented punishment and death due to the sins of God's people. Some object to this idea because they think it makes God come across as some savage and blood-thirsty deity with an insatiable wrath who will take anyone's blood in order to be pacified. This is certainly not the case. The God of Israel is not like the false gods of the nations that would demand the sacrifice of virgins and children in order to be momentarily appeased. For these gods, any blood would seem to work because the wrath appeared to be almost mindless. However, the true God set up a sacrificial system of animals to foreshadow the sacrifice of Jesus. God provided the ultimate sacrifice for us and all the previous sacrifices pointed to this act of love and mercy.

If we do away with the concept of penal substitution, the seriousness of sin is undermined in my estimation. I find it interesting that many of the denominations attack penal substitution are also very liberal on various moral issues that are currently being debated among Christians. Penal substitution reminds us of our own culpability and the very real judgment coming upon the world. We are not subject to outside powers or merely the circumstances of a broken world. No, we are subject to our own evil and inner passions that brings all those who encounter even a hint of God's holiness in Scripture to their knees in terror. Reconciliation only makes sense through penal substitution in my mind. In order to be reconciled, evil must first be dealt with. Jesus took our sins and nailed them to the cross. He was bruised for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. He who knew no sin became sin for us. This is not God sweeping evil under the rug. It is God placing the curse on Christ by hanging him on a tree that we might be freed from that curse.

While Jesus was certainly the ultimate example and the cross displays God's love, faithfulness, and victory over the world, it is also a substitution. He died for your sins that you might be imputed with his righteousness by grace, through faith.

 

[nothead]

Paul declared to the church in Corinth that he was determined to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ and him crucified. For Paul, the cross was the apex of God's work through Jesus Christ. But what exactly was this work? Theologians have been examining and debating atonement theories throughout the centuries. I have noticed that a host of Christian groups and theologians have begun to attack the concept of penal substitution. The view has been labeled as barbaric and even "divine child abuse."

I believe these arguments are not justified and that the concept of penal substitution is a valid aspect of the atonement. Allow me to provide a definition as well as an introductory defense of this doctrine.

The Penal Substitution view of the atonement is that Jesus died to pay the penalty of sins and to redirect God's wrath from us toward the cross.

In our contemporary culture, the very idea of a wrathful God is distasteful. God is promoted as being love and love only. Sin is either diminished or viewed as a non-entity. Some present-day Christian philosophers are arguing that evil has no ontological reality and is ultimately merely the absence of good. Thus, when Jesus died on the cross, he couldn't be dying to pay for sins because sins have no ontological substance. For these people, the cross is more about a divine example, identifying with humanity and victory. Others, who hold to heretical views of Christ and deny his deity will view Jesus as more of an idealist who promoted pacifism and declared God's ways through non-violence.

While I would certainly agree that there are many angles to the work of Christ's atonement that include issues like divine example, identifying with humanity, victory through faith, redemption, covering and so forth, penal substitution is a necessary aspect of the cross that should not be dismissed.

Many who despise the concept of penal substitution often have very shaky OT hermeneutics, in my opinion. A number of these theologians wrestle to suggest that the wrath of God and even commands to Israel to commit genocide are not accurate depictions of God at all. Some will suggest that Israel was doing what they through God wanted, but were all mixed up. Others just seem to ignore this concept of wrath and judgment in the OT altogether. It is as if they want to completely divorce the two covenants and pretend that the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT.

The reality is that God's wrath is mentioned over 500x in the OT. While the blood of slaughtered animals certainly acted as a covering for Israel, it needs to be understood in the context of death. The wages of sin is death. God did not have blood cover the mercy seat simply because it was more opaque than water. Shed blood represented punishment and death due to the sins of God's people. Some object to this idea because they think it makes God come across as some savage and blood-thirsty deity with an insatiable wrath who will take anyone's blood in order to be pacified. This is certainly not the case. The God of Israel is not like the false gods of the nations that would demand the sacrifice of virgins and children in order to be momentarily appeased. For these gods, any blood would seem to work because the wrath appeared to be almost mindless. However, the true God set up a sacrificial system of animals to foreshadow the sacrifice of Jesus. God provided the ultimate sacrifice for us and all the previous sacrifices pointed to this act of love and mercy.

If we do away with the concept of penal substitution, the seriousness of sin is undermined in my estimation. I find it interesting that many of the denominations attack penal substitution are also very liberal on various moral issues that are currently being debated among Christians. Penal substitution reminds us of our own culpability and the very real judgment coming upon the world. We are not subject to outside powers or merely the circumstances of a broken world. No, we are subject to our own evil and inner passions that brings all those who encounter even a hint of God's holiness in Scripture to their knees in terror. Reconciliation only makes sense through penal substitution in my mind. In order to be reconciled, evil must first be dealt with. Jesus took our sins and nailed them to the cross. He was bruised for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. He who knew no sin became sin for us. This is not God sweeping evil under the rug. It is God placing the curse on Christ by hanging him on a tree that we might be freed from that curse.

While Jesus was certainly the ultimate example and the cross displays God's love, faithfulness, and victory over the world, it is also a substitution. He died for your sins that you might be imputed with his righteousness by grace, through faith.

Maybe the principle has to do with doing God's ideal will or not, not necessarily from a PENAL PLAN of God, but rather that all destinies would have gone more ideal for the sake of community and the world AND OURSELVES if we had loved God at least to a minimal degree back in covenant, as He loved us first.

For instance He gives the Israelites the Land of Milk and Honey and so too the Great and Impossible Command in Deut 6. So then the Jews took possession of the Land and started Covenant. However as they failed to love God and then their neighbors, each and every time this failure represents what DID happen instead of what should have happened. And the community as a whole suffers and wars start again and their neighbors rise up and take what once was theirs...

...all because of the dirth of love. It to me isn't a righteous JUDGEMENT of Law since we sinned by doing something bad. Many times it is what we DID NOT DO which should have harmonized and sealed things into an ideal destiny. Shema says just this, that to sin the sin of omission is to not do what you should have done.

So then the propitiation, how does this fit in...the innocent animal's blood symbolized both the giving up of life when we sin not only for us but others around us...

...this also meaning an act of love can mediate many sins and set wrongs right at least to a degree. Part of PENANCE (your penal paradigm) is to do the things to right the wrong you did and put the universe more out of wack...the good acts doing their actions toward that end.

Jesus' act of love was completely in character of his God and was of itself the IKON of a mediating act of propititiation. Martyrs acts in repeating this also help right the world of disharmony. These men are immortal forever by their bravery and courage, and the love which gave them impetus.

 

[Wormwood]

I agree with aspects of what you have said. Certainly, there are repercussions from our actions that I believe God never desired for us (although clearly He knew what would happen). However, I think you are omitting the fact that many of God's judgments in the OT (as well as NT) are direct punishments from God. They are not nearly actions we bring upon ourselves by our bad choices, but divine judgments carried out on wickedness.

God's wrath is more than human beings being subject to their own devices (although this certainly is an aspect of that wrath). The reason death and pain entered the world is because God cursed the world as a result of humanity's rebellion. God did not simply allow Israel to suffer due to their own poor choices, but sent invading hordes to destroy the city and kill its inhabitants. God sent plagues on Egypt and a destroying angel to kill all the firstborn. God sent snakes among the Israelites who grumbled in the desert and many of them died as a result. Even in the NT we see God strike down Ananias and Saphira. Paul also declares that some had died in Corinth because of the ways they were abusing communion. Finally, Jesus makes it very clear in Revelation that he would come and put certain false teachers and wicked people on a bed of suffering because of their wicked behavior. Not to mention depictions of final judgment as fire, outer darkness, people being cut in pieces and gnashing of teeth.

This is why I think God's act of mediation and love in Christ can only be rightly understood in terms of diverting wrath and taking the punishment of our sins. While the sacrifice of Jesus and that of martyrs act as examples to us both of love and faith, this is only one element of the atonement. Penal substitution is another aspect that I believe is crucial to understand the gravity of God's love and sacrifice on our behalf.

 

[nothead]

I agree with aspects of what you have said. Certainly, there are repercussions from our actions that I believe God never desired for us (although clearly He knew what would happen). However, I think you are omitting the fact that many of God's judgments in the OT (as well as NT) are direct punishments from God. They are not nearly actions we bring upon ourselves by our bad choices, but divine judgments carried out on wickedness.

God's wrath is more than human beings being subject to their own devices (although this certainly is an aspect of that wrath). The reason death and pain entered the world is because God cursed the world as a result of humanity's rebellion. God did not simply allow Israel to suffer due to their own poor choices, but sent invading hordes to destroy the city and kill its inhabitants. God sent plagues on Egypt and a destroying angel to kill all the firstborn. God sent snakes among the Israelites who grumbled in the desert and many of them died as a result. Even in the NT we see God strike down Ananias and Saphira. Paul also declares that some had died in Corinth because of the ways they were abusing communion. Finally, Jesus makes it very clear in Revelation that he would come and put certain false teachers and wicked people on a bed of suffering because of their wicked behavior. Not to mention depictions of final judgment as fire, outer darkness, people being cut in pieces and gnashing of teeth.

This is why I think God's act of mediation and love in Christ can only be rightly understood in terms of diverting wrath and taking the punishment of our sins. While the sacrifice of Jesus and that of martyrs act as examples to us both of love and faith, this is only one element of the atonement. Penal substitution is another aspect that I believe is crucial to understand the gravity of God's love and sacrifice on our behalf.

I agree the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. To fear to disappoint Him comes with this package. But the fear of losing the love He gives us beyond the giving of existence, the abiding and sustaining love of God, this fear drives many men to do great deeds.

For when the Devil's test comes we fear more the loss of this love than anything else under the sun or beyond it. We would like to take the easy way out, who would not.

But the love God gave us comes with a price. That price is the whole being of us. ALL, and this is the Great Command, not optional.

For those who have had the pentecostal awakening, this is David's famous creed:

Psalm 51

[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
[SIZE=.75em]12 [/SIZE]Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
[SIZE=.75em]15 [/SIZE]O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.

 

[Wormwood]

I agree the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. To fear to disappoint Him comes with this package. But the fear of losing the love He gives us beyond the giving of existence, the abiding and sustaining love of God, this fear drives many men to do great deeds.

Again, I agree for the most part, but I would have a bit of a different take on the issue of "deeds" vs. faith. In my estimation, I think Reformers mischaracterized early Judaism as primarily a "works based" system. Not only that, but they were reacting to the abuses they saw in the church that minimized faith. Thus, I think the issue of "works of the Law" that Paul objects to in the NT is not really related to "great deeds" but is more related to issues of circumcision, lineage and so forth (which was putting confidence in the flesh) but not something necessarily related to "good deeds."

It concerns me how many have almost divorced faith from good deeds entirely as if faith is merely a cognitive act and any effort to excel in good deeds is viewed with a great deal of skepticism (I am not saying you are suggesting this nothead). We will be judged by our works and our works are a direct reflection of our belief. I think this is evident in Hebrews 4-5 where the "disobedience" of the Israelites in the desert is a reflection of their "unbelief." If we truly fear and love God, we will live lives of faithful obedience to the best of our ability. Even John Calvin said, "We are not saved by our works, but neither will we be saved without works." (quote may not be exact, going from memory )

For those who have had the pentecostal awakening, this is David's famous creed:

Does one have to have a "Pentecostal awakening" to make this their prayer to God? The Pentecostal issue is another thread so I wont touch that in this discussion

 

[nothead]

Again, I agree for the most part, but I would have a bit of a different take on the issue of "deeds" vs. faith. In my estimation, I think Reformers mischaracterized early Judaism as primarily a "works based" system. Not only that, but they were reacting to the abuses they saw in the church that minimized faith. Thus, I think the issue of "works of the Law" that Paul objects to in the NT is not really related to "great deeds" but is more related to issues of circumcision, lineage and so forth (which was putting confidence in the flesh) but not something necessarily related to "good deeds."

It concerns me how many have almost divorced faith from good deeds entirely as if faith is merely a cognitive act and any effort to excel in good deeds is viewed with a great deal of skepticism (I am not saying you are suggesting this nothead). We will be judged by our works and our works are a direct reflection of our belief. I think this is evident in Hebrews 4-5 where the "disobedience" of the Israelites in the desert is a reflection of their "unbelief." If we truly fear and love God, we will live lives of faithful obedience to the best of our ability. Even John Calvin said, "We are not saved by our works, but neither will we be saved without works." (quote may not be exact, going from memory )


Does one have to have a "Pentecostal awakening" to make this their prayer to God? The Pentecostal issue is another thread so I wont touch that in this discussion

For the Jew, Works and Faith go hand in hand. For instance, say the ultimate test comes, and you have to make the choice. Lie and live, or tell the true testimony of Jesus and die. This test came to many the first three generations and later. SO many the question was, how to treat the ones who could not withstand the test.


The WORK was to speak out and then die without making a blubbering fool out of yourself. The FAITH was to trust God still has a hand in all things, even the sheep led to slaughter all day long for His sake.

But either way you were brave and withstood or cowardly and fell back taking the proverbial bribe: to remain living.

I say there's no difference here; work or faith. You fail, you shame the God of you. He is TOO GOOD to shame. I will not. God help me if I do.

 

[Hashe]

Are there any real practical differences in believing in ONLY the Penal substitution? Or a more complex atonement method?
In the end how is going to make a difference to the way people live out their faith?

 

[Wormwood]

Thanks for the question Hashe. I certainly hope no one believes ONLY in the Penal Substitution aspect of the atonement. Then we would neglect the love of God, redemption, covenant, sacrifice, reconciliation, the Day of Atonement and a host of other teachings we find in Scripture about the cross of Christ.

Yes. These understandings have immense implications for how we live out the faith. If the cross is only understood as God's love and identification with humanity, then it drastically shapes our understanding of sin and judgment. If the cross is seen only as sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf, then the lesson of the cross would be far different and people may be taught simply to "live sacrificially." Views on the atonement shape church teaching about the reason Jesus died and how we should live as a result. Hermeneutics as they apply to homosexuality, liberation theology, feminism and many other areas are all shaped and even fueled by a particular emphasis on the atonement.

I believe a holistic view of the atonement is important to guard us against imbalances that lead to poor understanding of the human condition and God's remedy in Christ. This includes, but is not limited to, Penal Substitution.

 

[ScottAU]

Amended article I wrote over a year ago.


Penal Substition

Let's peel off the fluff and get to some of the bottom line issues.

Point 1.
Penal Substitution is a doctrine which was birthed out of the Protestant Reformation when certain Reformers added a Judicial Aspect to the Anselmian Satisfaction Model of the Atonement. The early church did not teach Penal Substitution.

References:
( a ) The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, Rashdall Hastings, 1919. Full text available at http://archive.org/details/theideeaofatone00rashuoft

( b ) Wikipedia. While it is true that anyone can write an article on wikipedia the articles are reviewed by the community to ensure a semblance of accuracy. The articles on the Atonement clearly represent an accurate portrayel of the development of the theories regarding the Atonement through history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution

( c ) Theopedia. This is a website similar to Wikipedia but the content is focused upon theology in general.

http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ

Extract

The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

( d ) Penal Substitution in Church History, Michael J. Vlach, 2009.
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20i.pdf
This fourth reference is an interesting work because the author attempts to prove that the Patristic era of the church upheld the Penal Substition view of the atonement. What makes it interesting is that if one actually reads the quotes he provides from early church fathers one will find that none of those quotes clearly state anything close to what is taught in the Penal Substition model. The statements that Jesus "died on behalf of sinners" or that He "bore our sins" does not mean that Jesus "bore the full wrath of God as a substitute for the sinner."



Point 2.
Penal Substitution clearly teaches that Jesus Christ bore the "wrath of God" as the "sinners substitute" (ie. a Penal Substitute) and because of this the wrath of God no longer abides on those for whom He was a substitute, this is because the justice of God was "satisfied" in full. One of the problems with this theory is that the Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and that the punishment due is eternal separation from God with the sinner being cast into Hell which in turn is cast into the Lake of Fire. If Jesus truly bore this penalty then Jesus would have to be presently in Hell awaiting the final judgement the end of which would be to eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Jesus suffered an excrutiating death on the cross at the hands of sinful men and then rose from the dead three days later. It is clearly evident that Jesus did not bear the literal penalty due the wicked. The Father forsook Jesus within a context of Jesus being left subject to torture and a cruel means of execution.

This second point alone is clearly enough to thoroughly destroy any notion that the Penal Substitution view of the Atonement is in anyway factual.


Point 3.
If Jesus literally bore the penalty due the sinner and thus satisifed the wrath of God then it would clearly mean that the atonement is Limited in that Jesus died only for those who would actually be saved. If the Atonement is universal in application then that would mean that the penalty of sin was satisifed on behalf of all sinners and thus could not be made due again otherwise the result is double jepoardy (ie the same sins being punished twice). Therefore under Penal Substitution the Atonement is either limited in scope or universal salvation is true.

This is a logical necessity to anyone who holds to the Penal Substitution view of the atonement. They must consistently hold to the view that Jesus did not die for all men lest universal salvation be true. Here is a quote from the Reformed theologian John MacArthur who makes this very point...

And Christ died as your substitute and He bore your sins on the cross, therefore you died with Him there. This is a limiting aspect of the death of Christ. It necessarily limits the application of the atonement. The atonement, listen carefully, can only be a real substitution for those who died in Christ. I'll say that again. The atonement can only be a real substitution for those who died in Christ on the basis of those statements in that verse. The all is everyone who died in Christ, everyone for whom Christ was the substitute. That is the sense of the atonement which is limited.

...

But when you talk about substitution, you now are talking about the limited aspect of it. It is limited to those who died in Christ. Now you have to ask the question...who are those who died in Christ? To answer that, look at Romans chapter 3--Romans chapter 3. In Romans chapter 3 this is very important, verse 25, well verse 24 talks about the gift of God's grace which is the salvation or redemption in Christ. In verse 25 God displayed publicly as a propitiation, a satisfaction, a covering, appeasing the wrath of God, He displayed Christ as that. So He's talking about Christ's redeeming work, His justifying work, His work of salvation. And then in verse 26 we get right down to it. The middle of the verse, "All this that Jesus Christ and that God whose purpose it is might be just and the justifier of the one who...what?...has faith in Jesus." There's the qualifier.

...So He is the substitute only for those who believe. That's the point. Otherwise you've got a major problem because you've got Christ dying as a substitute for the whole world, that means He was bearing the sins of the whole world in a substitutionary sense. And if, in fact, He was carrying Himself to the cross as a substitute for the sins of every person who ever lived, He would therefore have done away with the wrath of God and procured for them eternal life, and we'd all be universalists. So there has to be a limiting feature.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/47-36/

While John Macarthur may teach that there are some "universal aspects" related to the death of Christ he is forced to logically conclude that Jesus only really died for the elect and not for the entire world. This is clearly an example of where a doctrine forces the theologian to redefine scriptures to fit a preexisting belief. What John MacArthur actually ought to do is throw out the writings of Augustine, Luther and Calvin and yield to what the Scripture actually teaches. Yet I fear that he (and those like him) have too much invested in lies such as this to do such a thing.


Point 4.
Penal Substitution denies that God forgives sins. It teaches that sin is a literal transferable property and that God literally transferred sin to an innocent (Christ) and then punished Him in the place of the guilty. It was through this that God's wrath was satisfied and thus, with the sins paid for, the sinner could now be excused. Thus the sins were not actually forgiven, they were simply transferred to another and still punished.

This in and of itself paints God as unjust due to punishing an innocent in order to excuse the guilty. Yet the Bible states...

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.


Point 5.
Penal Substitution logically concludes that salvation is purely forensic and that unconditional eternal security is true.

Penal Substitution serves to redefine salvation as a mere book-keeping entry where the problem between God and man is rectified through a legal transaction as opposed to repentance and faith, and the resultant cooperation (see 2Cor 6:1-2) with God which produces a genuinely pure heart whereby the actual motivation for rebellion is dealt with once and for all (sin is destroyed at the root). Penal Substitution diverts sinners from what can be a manifest reality to a forensic perception.

Due to the "penalty being paid," under Penal Substitution, it cannot be "made due again" thus if it has been paid for on your behalf then there is no sin you can do which would forfeit your right standing before God (which is a purely judicial standing) which means you now have a license to sin. Many people believe this very tenet and yet will deny that they have a license to sin and will therefore wil use phrases like "you should not sin," yet they simply cannot say "you cannot sin" because in their minds salvation is purely forensic in nature and is totally disconnected from the true condition of the heart (and therefore disconnected from the deeds which flow out of that heart). This in turn forces them to reject warnings like that found in Hebrews 10:26-29 because they cannot perceive the reality of the cleansing found in Hebrews 10:22.

Penal Substition is a direct attack on "heart purity" having anything to do with the reconcilion process. Under Penal Substititon God is reconciling Himself to man's sin through a judicial methodology as opposed to man having to reconcile Himself to God through the means of the cross (inclusive of repentance and faith) which produces true heart purity. This aspect lies at the very root of the deception of Penal Substitution.

Point 6.
Penal Substitution completely negates the release from the bondage of sin. Under Penal Substitution, salvation is merely "being set free from condemnation" as opposed to "being set free from condemnation and bondage." Penal Substitution gives people a false assurance of salvation whilst they remain in bondage to their sins. That is why those beholden to this error take so much offense to the message of "go and sin no more" because in their minds "going and sinning no more" has NOTHING to do with salvation. To imply that "going and sinning no more" is related to "being saved" is basically a direct attack upon their assurance of salvation, an assurance which rests on their belief that an abstract judicial transaction took place at the cross.

This is the very reason why those who cling to the doctrine of Penal Substitution are so opposed to the message of "the sin must stop." To imply that a cessation of sin must result from a genuine repentance is a direct attack on the premise of a salvation based on an abstract judicial exchange (which they term the "Finished Work of Christ"). It is for this reason that Penal Substitution theology is so dangerous for it innoculates the mind against the truth of Biblical repentance and Biblical faith and replaces them with "abstract and passive notions."


Point 7.
If the sins of all men were literally transferred to the account of Jesus (if He bore the guilt) then He would not have been without spot. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus offered Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14). Yet Penal Substitution teaches that Jesus offered Himself up "with our spots." If Penal Substitution is true then Jesus was spotted with sin when He offered Himself. This view is possibly the reason why the translators of the King James Bible concluded with "He was made sin" in 2Cor 5:21 as opposed to "sin offering" which would be more in line with the Septuagint (see Adam Clarke's Commentary on 2Cor 5:21). Sin is not a literal substance and therefore one cannot literally be "made" sin. 2 Cor 5:21 is either using figurative language (as Paul uses elsewhere to personify sin) or "sin offering" is a more accurate rendition of the text.
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=2co&chapter=005


Each of the above points clearly and logically refute any notion that Penal Substitution could possible be true. Taken together they completely destroy the doctrine at the foundation level and to continue to believe it, after a critical examination, is to reject reason due to the logical inconsistencies of the doctrine.

(End Article)

If we do away with the concept of penal substitution, the seriousness of sin is undermined in my estimation. I find it interesting that many of the denominations attack penal substitution are also very liberal on various moral issues that are currently being debated among Christians. Penal substitution reminds us of our own culpability and the very real judgment coming upon the world. We are not subject to outside powers or merely the circumstances of a broken world. No, we are subject to our own evil and inner passions that brings all those who encounter even a hint of God's holiness in Scripture to their knees in terror. Reconciliation only makes sense through penal substitution in my mind. In order to be reconciled, evil must first be dealt with. Jesus took our sins and nailed them to the cross. He was bruised for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities. He who knew no sin became sin for us. This is not God sweeping evil under the rug. It is God placing the curse on Christ by hanging him on a tree that we might be freed from that curse.

The Bible is quite clear why Jesus died upon the cross and the Bible says nothing of Jesus being a "wrath substitute" for the sinner.

Jesus was a propitiatory (sin expiating/means of mercy/mercy seat) sacrifice offered up to God which provides us with a way to approach God for reconciliation. Redemption (being set free from sin) is found IN (the Spirit of His life) Jesus Christ.
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;


Jesus gave Himelf for us that He may redeem (set us free) from all iniuity and to make us pure and zealous of doing the right thing all the time.
Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

The cross is the means by which we may be set free from the service of sin.
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Rom 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The blood of Christ is the means by which we approach God in repentance and are washed clean of a conscience which we have defiled by our rebellion to God.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

It is the blood of Christ which enjoins us into covenant with God.
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The blood only cleanses us on the condition of us approaching God with a true, broken and contrite heart (Heb 10:22, Psa 51:17) by which we walk in the light as He is in the light.
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.


If Penal Substitition is true then why is it not explicitly taught anywhere in the Bible? Why is any allusion whatsover to Penal Substititon absent in the Book of Hebrews?

Look at the following verses and do they really teach Penal Substitition?

Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

2Co 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
2Co 5:11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
2Co 5:13 For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.
2Co 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
2Co 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
2Co 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2Co 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)



The Penal Substition is a very dangerous satanic deception which is used to give assurance that one can be reconciled to God whilst one's heart remains filthy and full of iniquity. It is extremely deceptive to those who have been brainwashed into it to such a degree that they will often reject reason and logic that they may cling to dogmatic comfort. The Pharisees in Jesus day were exactly the same in the sense that they held strong to their errors in the face of pure teaching and even miracles.

He died for your sins that you might be imputed with his righteousness by grace, through faith.

No He didn't.

The Bible does not say anywhere that we might be imputed with "His" righteousness. Here is what the text actually states...

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

God counts FAITH for righteosuness. This teaching of the "righteousness of Christ" being credited to a believer is simply not taught anywhere in the Bible.

God looks at the hearts of the faithful and credits their FAITH as righteousness apart from any works that they do. God does not credit the obedience of Jesus to anyone, there is and was no legal transaction whereby we swap records with Jesus. That notion is nonsensical, pure foolishness and extremely dangerous. Jesus did not obey in our place, Jesus obeyed so we could follow Him in the same obedience having put off ur old man.

The reason that God credits faith as righteouness apart from works is because works are only dressing, so to speak, and in and of themselves can be done for all manner of motivation. God examines the secret things of a man and therefore knows the heart. Anyone who submits themselves to God in truth from the heart is counted as righteous by God. If righteousness was reckoned according to deeds then we would all be found unrighteous due to our criminal past and any sins of ignroance we presently commit.

God reckons faith as righteousness and will judge us by our deeds. That is what the Bible teaches. Deeds reflect genuine faith and those who are truly born of God are manifest to the world by being workers of righteousness.


Both "Penal Substitition" and "Imputed Righteousness of Christ" doctrines serve as backbones of a satanic false gospel message which serves to assure people they are saved when they are not. This false gospel effectively inoculates the mind to the real truth.

 

[Wormwood]

Penal Substitution is a doctrine which was birthed out of the Protestant Reformation when certain Reformers added a Judicial Aspect to the Anselmian Satisfaction Model of the Atonement. The early church did not teach Penal Substitution.

Many of the atonement "models" that are adopted today cannot be traced back to the "early church." This does not mean they are not factual or biblical. Certainly, Western Protestants focused more on juridical matters, but according your argumentation, all Protestant denominations are invalid since they cannot be traced back to the "early church."

Penal Substitution clearly teaches that Jesus Christ bore the "wrath of God" as the "sinners substitute" (ie. a Penal Substitute) and because of this the wrath of God no longer abides on those for whom He was a substitute, this is because the justice of God was "satisfied" in full. One of the problems with this theory is that the Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and that the punishment due is eternal separation from God with the sinner being cast into Hell which in turn is cast into the Lake of Fire. If Jesus truly bore this penalty then Jesus would have to be presently in Hell awaiting the final judgement the end of which would be to eventually be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Jesus suffered an excrutiating death on the cross at the hands of sinful men and then rose from the dead three days later. It is clearly evident that Jesus did not bear the literal penalty due the wicked. The Father forsook Jesus within a context of Jesus being left subject to torture and a cruel means of execution.

This is a ridiculous argument. First, it presumes to understand the justice of God with regards to substitution and that such substitution can only be effective in a 1-1 correspondence. Second, It neglects the fact that Jesus is the eternal Word of God. Finally, this picture of the cross need not be a strictly juridical picture that demands numbers on a ledger. That is not the point. It reveals the wrath of God must punish sin, not that there is some divine ledger that God was evening out. Certainly the death of Christ on the cross is symbolic of sacrificial love. One could easily make the same argument that "a brutal death on a cross is a ridiculous way to display love." These are simply images of the cross that display spiritual truths.

If Jesus literally bore the penalty due the sinner and thus satisifed the wrath of God then it would clearly mean that the atonement is Limited in that Jesus died only for those who would actually be saved. If the Atonement is universal in application then that would mean that the penalty of sin was satisifed on behalf of all sinners and thus could not be made due again otherwise the result is double jepoardy (ie the same sins being punished twice). Therefore under Penal Substitution the Atonement is either limited in scope or universal salvation is true.

No, it certainly does not. Jesus died for all people but that grace is only applied through faith. Christ's death is sufficient for all people, but it is only applied through faith. You are taking this doctrine beyond its necessary implications.

Penal Substitution denies that God forgives sins. It teaches that sin is a literal transferable property and that God literally transferred sin to an innocent (Christ) and then punished Him in the place of the guilty. It was through this that God's wrath was satisfied and thus, with the sins paid for, the sinner could now be excused. Thus the sins were not actually forgiven, they were simply transferred to another and still punished.

Again, I find this to be a weak argument. Our debt it owed to God and God swallows the debt, thus allows the potential for us to be forgiven. The same would be true if you owed a million dollars to the bank. If they "forgive" the debt it does not mean the money ceases to exist and the bank can just white-out the loss. Forgiveness that is nothing more than sweeping evil under the rug is even more problematic and neglects the justice of God.

“whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25–26, ESV)

Penal Substitution logically concludes that salvation is purely forensic and that unconditional eternal security is true.

Penal Substitution serves to redefine salvation as a mere book-keeping entry where the problem between God and man is rectified through a legal transaction as opposed to repentance and faith, and the resultant cooperation (see 2Cor 6:1-2) with God which produces a genuinely pure heart whereby the actual motivation for rebellion is dealt with once and for all (sin is destroyed at the root). Penal Substitution diverts sinners from what can be a manifest reality to a forensic perception.

Not at all. Embracing penal substitution does not mean that other views of the atonement are invalid.

Penal Substitution completely negates the release from the bondage of sin. Under Penal Substitution, salvation is merely "being set free from condemnation" as opposed to "being set free from condemnation and bondage."

What? This is lunacy. One does not have to focus only on one view of the cross. The truth of Penal Substitution does not negate other views of the atonement. The only thing rejecting penal substitution make the cross more limited in its work. To suggest that one has to have only one view of the atonement is crazy. The Bible points to many pictures including redemption (buying slaves), sacrifice (surrender), Day of Atonement (covering), etc. We are not forced to pick only one. In fact, it is wise of us to embrace them all. To limit the cross is a major blunder in my opinion.

If the sins of all men were literally transferred to the account of Jesus (if He bore the guilt) then He would not have been without spot. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus offered Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14). Yet Penal Substitution teaches that Jesus offered Himself up "with our spots."

Clearly 2 Cor. 5:21 is speaking about the transfer of righteousness for sin. This is not teaching that Jesus was a sinner or sinful and penal substitution implies no such thing. Rather, his sinless life made his suitable to be a substitute and exchange for us. Lets not over-analyze this.

The Penal Substition is a very dangerous satanic deception which is used to give assurance that one can be reconciled to God whilst one's heart remains filthy and full of iniquity.

I have heard you rant on this in the past. You have a very weak understanding of various theological positions on this matter which leads you to such polarized conclusions. Nothing about penal substitution suggests that a person does not need to live a righteous life. John Calvin proclaimed that a person could not be saved without works and John Wesley was about the biggest advocate of living a sanctified life as a necessary requirement for salvation as any theologian in history. You clearly do not understand the teachings of protestant theologians and have taken the easy way out of trying to put them all in one camp with your view being the solution to all their errors. Very misguided.

 

[justaname]

Interesting in this subject...If Jesus did not die for our sins according to the scriptures, then we are all still children of wrath. If Jesus did not bear our sins then we are still accountable for all our sins.

Thankfully the scriptures clearly states Jesus "bore our sins." Not only this but that the Father was pleased to crush Him. This explains propitiation, as the wrath is fully satisfied in the act of the cross for those who believe.

1 Corinthians 15:3
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

Isaiah 53:4-6
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

Isaiah 53:10-11

10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, bputting 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.
11 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.

Jesus bore our sin upon Himself...in such God was pleased...

1 How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven,
Whose sin is covered!
2 How blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity,
And in whose spirit there is no deceit!

No longer is our transgressions imputed to us who believe.

Ephesians 2:3-5

3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

We were counted with the rest as children of wrath, yet for those who believe the wrath is no longer upon us.

 

[ScottAU]

My comments in blue.

Many of the atonement "models" that are adopted today cannot be traced back to the "early church." That's right and many of them cannot be found in the pages of Scripture either. This does not mean they are not factual or biblical. Not alone it woudln't but when these theories clearly contradict the Bible and clearly contradict what the early church taught, as well as contradict reason and logic it is very clear that they are obviously false. Certainly, Western Protestants focused more on juridical matters, but according your argumentation, all Protestant denominations are invalid since they cannot be traced back to the "early church." My article is not addressing "all Protestant denominations," one can discern the validity of each theological system on a case by case basis. My article is very specifically addressing Penal Substitution. All you have done in this paragraph is attempted to skim over the patently obvious fact that the doctrine of Penal Substitution is of recent origin and is in contradiction to what the early church taught.

This is a ridiculous argument. First, it presumes to understand the justice of God with regards to substitution and that such substitution can only be effective in a 1-1 correspondence. My statement has nothing to do with a 1-1 correspondance simply because Jesus was a single individual who, it is taught, recieved the punishment due to more than one individual. If you will read my statement again you'll see that issue I am raising is that Penal Substition claims that the "debt owed is payed in full" and yet Jesus most certainly was not separated from God, sent to Hell and then cast into the Lake of Fire. Second, It neglects the fact that Jesus is the eternal Word of God. Finally, this picture of the cross need not be a strictly juridical picture that demands numbers on a ledger. That is not the point. It reveals the wrath of God must punish sin, not that there is some divine ledger that God was evening out. This "evening out" is not true. It was Anselm who came up with the idea of a ledger having to be "evened out" with the Satisfaction model to which the Reformers added the judicial aspect. Jesus taught the parable of the unjust servant whose debt was freely forgiven without anything having to be "evened out." God freely forgives sin. The death of Christ is the means by which God has chosen to reconcile the world to Himself but it has nothing to do with balancing some books which is why you will not find anything of the sort taught in the Bible. Certainly the death of Christ on the cross is symbolic of sacrificial love. One could easily make the same argument that "a brutal death on a cross is a ridiculous way to display love." These are simply images of the cross that display spiritual truths.

No, it certainly does not. Yes it does. If the "penalty" was "paid in full" then that penalty cannot be made due again. That is simple logic. You have to throw reason out the window otherwise. Jesus died for all people but that grace is only applied through faith. The grace of God that brings salvation teaches us to deny ungodliness and to live soberly, uprightly in the present age (Tit 2:11-12). Look up the word grace in the Greek and you will find that it encompasses the divine influence upon the heart as well as graciousness. The grace of God is applied by faith, faith is the dynamic whereby we yield to the lead of God because we truly trust and believe in His word. Christ's death is sufficient for all people, but it is only applied through faith. Yes His death is sufficient for all people in the context that the Bible presents it which has NOTHING to do with Penal Substitution. THis is why you do not use Scripture to substantiate your case. You are taking this doctrine beyond its necessary implications. No I am not. If the "penalty" was "paid in full" it cannot be due again. That is not taking Penal Subsitition beyond its implications, that is what the doctrine teaches and that is what they teach in many seminaries. John MacArthur and many others clearly teach this.

Again, I find this to be a weak argument. How is it a weak argument if a "debt" is "paid in full" to claim that the debt was not forgiven? Our debt it owed to God and God swallows the debt, thus allows the potential for us to be forgiven. Again the debt is not forgiven, it is paid. The same would be true if you owed a million dollars to the bank. If they "forgive" the debt it does not mean the money ceases to exist and the bank can just white-out the loss. But Penal Substitution teaches that the debt is paid. So in your example someone else paid the debt on your behalf even if it was the bank itself, thus the debt is not forgiven but rather extinguished through the tendered payment. Forgiveness that is nothing more than sweeping evil under the rug is even more problematic and neglects the justice of God. Yet I don't believe that God's forgiveness is "nothing more than sweeping evil under the rug." The means by which God forgives sin leaves the "former criminal" in a state where they do not reoffend which is why the grace of God is not a license to sin. This is what the book of Hebrews teaches...

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Heb 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
Heb 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
Heb 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Carefully read the above plainly for what it says. God remits sin so there is no more offering needed. In other words the death of Christ serves as a means to destroy the root of sin in the sinner which is an evil heart. We approach God with a true heart, broken and contrite, foraking our rebellion, and in doing so we enter into a yielding relationship in the Spirit of life IN Jesus Christ (see Rom 8:2). The reason that there is no sacrifice for ongoing iniquity because the death of Christ is the means to purify the heart. Ongoing iniquity means that the heart is still defiled and thus makes a mockery of a genuine cleansing taking place. This is all but rejected in modern theology but the early church did not reject it. They understood this and this is why they were so victorious in their walk and why their message turned the world upside down.

Penal Substitution is a lie from the pit of hell because it utterly destroys the notion of a cleansing of all unrighteousness, a cleansing from all sin, a redeemption from all iniquity and being made pure. Instead it teaches that we are reconciled to God via a forensic legal exchange which has taken place at the cross whilst we remain in a flithy state. It is pure blasphemy.

Not at all. Embracing penal substitution does not mean that other views of the atonement are invalid. While the adherents of Penal Substitition might claim to uphold other aspects as taught in Recapitulation, Ransom, Christus Victor and Moral Influence it still undermines the real purpose of the death of Christ which is to effect an genuine inward cleansing of the heart. Go ask any Penal Substition teacher if your sins are still paid for (and thus you still remain saved) if you go out and choose to do an evil act. They will find that question uncomfortable because it reveals how they reject heart purity in salvation as it has been replaced by a judicial book-keeping entry.


What? This is lunacy. It is not lunacy. Penal Substitution adherents generally also believe in being "born a sinner" and thus view the act of sinning as being resultant being in a human body (just as the gnostics taught). Thus they simply cannot teach that one no longer serves sin. They all teach that the sin never stops until death if you question them. One does not have to focus only on one view of the cross. The truth of Penal Substitution does not negate other views of the atonement. Penal Substition absolutely negates the Ransom view which teaches we are set free from the bondage of serving sin. When Paul writes that we "are set free from the law of sin and death by the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ" (Rom 8:2) the Penal Substitutionists ignore it. To them "we are set free from, condemnation due to the penalty being paid in full." The truth is that the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ puts one in a state where they are serving righteousness instead of serving sin, thus God can forgive sins without offering a license to sin. The only thing rejecting penal substitution make the cross more limited in its work. To suggest that one has to have only one view of the atonement is crazy. I never claimed that. Personally I subscibe to Ransom, Recapitulation, Christis Victor and Moral Influence all of which were upheld by the early church. The Bible points to many pictures including redemption (buying slaves), sacrifice (surrender), Day of Atonement (covering), etc. Yes but notice the absence of Penal Substitution. The Bible does not teach it. We are not forced to pick only one. In fact, it is wise of us to embrace them all. It is foolish to embrace anything that contradicts the Scripture. Just becauise someone says something is true does not make it so. Jesus warned of massive deception to come. He was not joking. To limit the cross is a major blunder in my opinion.


Clearly 2 Cor. 5:21 is speaking about the transfer of righteousness for sin. 2Cor 5:21 is speaking of the means of reconcilation. That verse cannot be isolated out of its surrounding context and then some meaning forced into it. We are made the righteous of God in Christ if we abide in the Spirit of His life. There is nothing forensic about it. It is a manifest reality bearing a true condition of our hearts, hearts that are made pure by faith. Jesus was "made sin" so to speak so this could take place. In other words we approach God via the sacrifice of Jesus with a true heart in repentance and faith (having forsaken our rebellion) and henceforth abide in the Spirit of the life of Christ. That is how reconcilation takes place and this is why Paul pleads that we be reconciled to Christ. It is the deceivers who deny this and instead supplant it with a judicial abstraction that leaves people still in bondage to their sin. Also in 2Cor 6:1 which is the verse right after 2Cor 5:21 Paul explicitly states that we must cooperate with God lest we recieve grace to no working effect. In other words if there is no genuine obedience, trusting, yielding faith then there will be no heart transformation.
This is not teaching that Jesus was a sinner or sinful and penal substitution implies no such thing. Penal Substitution teaches that God lied to Himself and viewed Jesus as a guilty sinner as our substitute. God then punished Jesus as if He was guilty and by punishing the innocent substitute He lets the innocent go unpunished. That is a monstrous teaching. Rather, his sinless life made his suitable to be a substitute and exchange for us. Lets not over-analyze this. You mean "let's not use logic and reason" but instead appeal to blind dogma which is unsubstantiated in the Bible.


I have heard you rant on this in the past. You have a very weak understanding of various theological positions on this matter which leads you to such polarized conclusions. Which is why people gloss over the points I make or misrepresent them? Nothing about penal substitution suggests that a person does not need to live a righteous life. Yes it does for the basis of justification is premised on the penalty being paid in full and the obedient track record of Jesus being credited to us. Thus when God looks at you He sees Jesus. If that is not a suggestion that the condition of our heart and the deeds we produce have nothing to do with justification then I don't know what does. John Calvin proclaimed that a person could not be saved without works John Calvin also taught that human beings always remained totally depraved and would always serve sin till death. He taught that the Elect could fall into vile sin and remain in a justified state before God. Sure he taught that the true Elect would have works as they were sanctified but he denied heart purity and John Wesley was about the biggest advocate of living a sanctified life as a necessary requirement for salvation as any theologian in history John Wesley's support of Penal Substitition is a contradiction in his theology and I doubt he really, really thought it through. Wesleyian theology has many problems but it does teach that one must live holy.. You clearly do not understand the teachings of protestant theologians and have taken the easy way out of trying to put them all in one camp with your view being the solution to all their errors. That's your opinion Very misguided.

Thank you.

 

[Forsakenone]

Diddo, I thought this topic of Penal Substitution was about a different topic.

 

[Wormwood]

article is not addressing "all Protestant denominations," one can discern the validity of each theological system on a case by case basis. My article is very specifically addressing Penal Substitution. All you have done in this paragraph is attempted to skim over the patently obvious fact that the doctrine of Penal Substitution is of recent origin and is in contradiction to what the early church taught.

ScottAU,

Thanks for your feedback. First, my point in mentioning "all Protestant denominations" is exactly that. Issues have to be weighed according to their theological merit. While it is certainly interesting to see a concept develop later in Christian history and can be a red flag, if the concept is embedded in Scripture, that is sufficient. A late focus on Penal Substitution in the life of the church does not cause it to be invalid a priori as you appeared to imply.

I would argue that it is not at all in contradiction to what the early church taught. In fact, extensive studies have been done on the Greek word hilaskomi. Research has shown that this word absolutely carries the connotation of propitiation, especially when found in contexts where it is used in contexts of wrath and anger as we see it used in the NT. Not only that, but the NT makes it explicit that the cross displayed the "justice" of God by delaying punishment on prior sins. Now you may disagree with the interpretations many, many scholars have made on the texts that deal with propitiation and the punishment Christ bore on behalf of sinners, which is fine. But to suggest that these concepts "contradict" Scripture is quite an overstatement I am afraid.

If you will read my statement again you'll see that issue I am raising is that Penal Substition claims that the "debt owed is payed in full" and yet Jesus most certainly was not separated from God, sent to Hell and then cast into the Lake of Fire.

Yes, I understood your implications, but it seems you have not understood my response. Your implication is that for Penal Substitution to be true, it is impossible for one man in a short time to take away eternal punishment from a multitude. Again, your error is that you are trying to be overly rigid in your understanding of Penal Substitution (i.e. Jesus must have a 1 to 1 punishment relationship for his suffering to be a valid substitution). Penal Substitution argues that Jesus suffered wrath for our sin. To suggest that God's wrath on sin that Jesus took to the cross must be eternal and multiplied by every sinner atoned for is unfounded. It would be like me arguing that in order for the picture of redemption to be true through the cross, Jesus would have to die for every single person redeemed. How could one death redeem so many? Clearly, the power of the cross that displays love, redemption, covering and substitution is sufficient and is not intended to be calibrated on a ledger (life per life). Also, You are ignoring the fact that Jesus is the eternal Word of God as well as man which certainly changes how we understand the power, humility, and suffering that took place on the cross.

The death of Christ is the means by which God has chosen to reconcile the world to Himself but it has nothing to do with balancing some books which is why you will not find anything of the sort taught in the Bible.

The Bible is clear that the judgment God inflicts is retributive (2 Thess. 1:5-9). Paul's emphasis is that God's eternal punishment on sin is "just." God's justice is not simply swallowed up through love. God's wrath on sin cannot be minimized to the law of "cause and effect" as if God stands outside such laws and is subject to them himself. God personally punishes the wicked and pours out his wrath on the disobedient. All people are by nature, "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3). In the OT, we see the laying on of hands on animals to be sacrifices as a transfer of guilt which would strongly demonstrates the principle of substitution. The animal life takes the place of the human life. If those sacrifices were not performed correctly, or the High Priest entered the Temple improperly, death was the result. Thus, the sacrifice of the animal was a means of diverting wrath and if that sacrifice was offered improperly, that wrath was poured out on the subject who offered it.

Moreover, Thomas Schreiner reflects,

the benefit of Jesus' death for sinners is often communicated by the preposition for (hyper: see e.g., Lk 22:19-20; Jn 6:51; 10:11, 15; 11:50-52; Rom 5:8; 1 Cor 11:24; 2 Cor 5:14-15, 21; Gal 3:13; 1 Pet 3:18). The preposition conveys the benefit that accrues to the sinners because of Christ's death. But how does Jesus benefit sinners? He benefits them by taking the punishment and guilt they deserve, by dying in their place.

The prophetic words of Caiaphas demonstrate the Jesus died on behalf of and in place of the people (John 11:49-52). Moreover, 1 Peter 2:24 makes it plain that Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the tree."

But Penal Substitution teaches that the debt is paid. So in your example someone else paid the debt on your behalf even if it was the bank itself, thus the debt is not forgiven but rather extinguished through the tendered payment.

In Greek, as well as in English, forgiveness has to do with "pardon, release, set free." Forgiveness simply denotes the act of absolving someone from debt or guilt. The word itself does not indicate the means by which this pardon or release is appropriated. A slave could be set free because the owner simply released the slave, or it could have been because the slave or someone else purchased the slave "for freedom" (which was much more common in the ancient world). Thus, the forgiveness of a debt could be as a result of cancelling an obligation or paying a debt on the other party's behalf. Yet forgiveness itself does not explain the means of that forgiveness or cancellation of debt. You are limiting the meaning of the word "forgiveness" in ways that are arbitrary and conflict both with the English and biblical languages.

Penal Substitution is a lie from the pit of hell because it utterly destroys the notion of a cleansing of all unrighteousness, a cleansing from all sin, a redeemption from all iniquity and being made pure. Instead it teaches that we are reconciled to God via a forensic legal exchange which has taken place at the cross whilst we remain in a flithy state. It is pure blasphemy.

Again, you are trying to pigeon-hole the cross into only one view of the atonement. No one view of the atonement is sufficient to say all there is to say about the cross. I never argued that Penal Substitution encapsulated all of the biblical imagery of the cross. No view of the atonement says it all. This argument could be true of any view of the cross because there are so many aspects of the cross that to say only one view fits is to severely limit the biblical picture of what Christ accomplished through his death and resurrection.

Yes it does for the basis of justification is premised on the penalty being paid in full and the obedient track record of Jesus being credited to us. Thus when God looks at you He sees Jesus. If that is not a suggestion that the condition of our heart and the deeds we produce have nothing to do with justification then I don't know what does.

Yes, and I believe this understanding is crucial. We are saved by grace and the righteousness of God comes, not from us but from God (Romans 1:16-17). God does see Christ in us so long as we live by faith. This is why Christians are denoted as those being "in Christ." I think you fail to appreciate the brilliance of early Reformers and how carefully they thought out these issues of works and grace. To suggest that they simply taught that grace means God's see Jesus in us and therefore we can live however we want would have been swiftly condemned by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and a host of others. What you are arguing against is a more recent slant of evangelicalism that is very distant from what these early reformers taught. I agree with you that such gnostic-type conversion emphasis that preaches nothing of life change, sanctification, or discipleship is unbiblical and to be utterly rejected. I just don't think Penal Substitution forces one down this road anymore than it forces one down the road of prosperity preaching.