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)
Wormwood said:
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.
Wormwood said:
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.