How does the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement necessitate the Cross?

[John Caldwell]

Several times I have seen advocates of the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) comment that they do not understand how other theories necessitate the cross.

I hold a Christus Victor view of Reconciliation. This view considers God as sending His Son as a sin offering, that it pleased God to “crush Him” in the context that Christ suffered and died “at the hands of wicked men” but that this was also “in accordance with God’s predetermined plan”.

Christ suffered and died at the hands of the world (at the hands of wicked men), not at the hands of God. The cross was necessary because the cross was the “worlds” condemnation. It was necessary that Christ be handed over by the Jewish leadership (religious leadership) into the hands of the “wicked” (the secular powers of that time, the powers of the world) and Christ suffer and die that specific death under those specific circumstances.

Christ had to be condemned NOT by God but by the world. God will never condemn the righteous. The point of the cross is that the world DID condemn the righteous. God vindicated His Son, raising Him to life, given victor over the powers of sin and death – the powers of this world – that has held man in bondage.

That is just a short answer, but it should be enough to explain why Christus Victor (and most non-PSA theories) absolutely depends on Christ's suffering and death upon a Roman cross and being raised on the third day.

BUT

PSA does not necessitate the cross itself (as long as Christ died in public and His death concluded by being hung on a tree or any type of wooden structure). I am not sure that advocates of PSA have realized this.

Sure, the cross was foretold so it would happen that way. Sure, under Roman law this is how it would occur. But none of this speaks to it as being necessary (that our redemption needing the cross). Another interesting thing is PSA does not acknowledge that Christ died not under God’s law but under the law of the world. But that's another topic.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It's an interesting subject. I prefer to think that the Vicarious Atonement of Christ can simply be expressed in different ways, whether paying a ransom for the human race, which is redemption, or by inflicting punishment in a way that allows for that redemption.

I don't believe that the specific form of death, ie by a cross, is integral to the concept of redemption by the word of God. God could easily have designed the redemption of humanity in a different way--He simply chose to do it by the instrument of a cross.

The concept of redemption through punishment is natural to our minds. We can serve our punishment, and then be released. Even in death men are released from the punishment of death by being raised from the dead. So the idea of redemption through the punishment of death is not at all unnatural to our thoughts.

My own sense is that God thought it just that He Himself appear in the form of His Son to suffer our abuses in order to forgive those abuses. To not suffer those abuses would not give rise to actually forgiving those sins, but only what those sins theoretically feel like by vicitims. If God Himself was not a victim, how can He really know what the sins are and to thus forgive them?

Well, of course, God being God didn't really have to appear as a Man in order to suffer sin and to forgive it. However, God proposed within His own mind that this is a good form of justice to follow, in order to appeal to creatures in the way He designed them.

He gave them a conscience, which could not accept forgiveness unless they knew the One forgiving them somehow reconciled the injustice that had taken place. So they would only recognize a path to repentance if they saw God's Son suffer, and then forgive them, bringing them a way past the punishment of death.

Man had to witness God's understanding of what sin was, by seeing God Himself suffer. Then they could genuinely receive forgiveness in the knowledge that the One forgiving them truly understood the full ramifications of what He was forgiving.

I wouldn't ever say that God had to pay the Devil a "ransom" to redeem Man. Rather, angels are creatures of law. The cherubim in the Garden of Eden took note that Man had become lawless, and thus prevented them from returning to the Garden and from partaking of eternal life and fellowship with God. These cherubim guarded God's holiness and were zealous for God's Law!

In the same way, Satan utilizes the Law of God to confine Man to condemnation, due to their sin, just as he himself is condemned under the Law of God. He knows this, but of course, rejects the justice in it. Otherwise, he would not oppose it, and he certainly wouldn't encourage Man to follow him in his rebellion.

So God doesn't pay Satan off. Rather, God meets the judgment of sin by forgiving it. It's that simple. If God can eternally condemn sin, He can also eternally remove it and forgive it. Jesus thus became the standard and the source of this forgiveness, leading to a resurrection to perfection and to eternal fellowship with God.

 

[John Caldwell]

I like the "Ransom Theory" as a general theory (it was not always expressed as God paying a ransom to Satan). I agree that Satan uses God's laws against man. It is important to realize, IMHO, that our redemption is God's righteousness manifested apart from the law. That is a key feature to redemption (and something PSA misunderstands).

I disagree about the specific form not being integral to our redemption. The reason is Christ suffered under the evil of the world (under the bondage of sin and death, of the powers of darkness, etc.). At the time, these "powers" were represented to Israel as Rome. So I do believe that the form of Christ's death is important. The cross best represents the justice of man, which is unjust. God uses our sin to redeem us from sin. So now the cross represents redemption as Christ died at the hands of wicked men and was raised victorious three days later.

 

[Behold]

Several times I have seen advocates of the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA) comment that they do not understand how other theories necessitate the cross.

I hold a Christus Victor view of Reconciliation. This view considers God as sending His Son as a sin offering, that it pleased God to “crush Him” in the context that Christ suffered and died “at the hands of wicked men” but that this was also “in accordance with God’s predetermined plan”.

There is a deeper way to realize what you are thinking about, John.
Its this....>"God came to earth and died on the Cross, as a man".

Also, when you are talking about things being pre-determined, you have to use the context of "foreknowledge" to be accurate.
Jesus the man, who is Deity, always had the option, of Free Will.
He was not forced to hang on a Cross by the Father. As had this been the case, had He been "pre-destined" with no ability to choose to do it, then His sacrifice would not be a sacrifice, it would not be LOVE.
Its not love when you are forced..
Its only love when you do it sacrificially, voluntarily.
So, the theory of "pre-ordained", falls flat and deceitful when it tries to teach as truth that Christ had no option of Choice and was FORCED to hang on the Cross.
If that is true, then He didnt do it out of Love, and if that is true, then the sacrifice is meaningless as its not really a sacrifice of Love unless its freely given as a FREE WILL choice, = to lay down your life......As Christ did for us all.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

One thing to keep in mind

physical death was a byproduct of sin, not the penalty of sin

Jesus said it was finished before he physically gave up the ghost (died)

so the atonement he paid was not the sufferings imposed my men

 

[justbyfaith]

I think that it would be expedient here to define Penal Substitutionary Theory; because some here (including myself) may not have an accurate view of what it represents.

 

[John Caldwell]

I think that it would be expedient here to define Penal Substitutionary Theory; because some here (including myself) may not have an accurate view of what it represents.

Here's a good definition:
“The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin”. (Pierced for my Transgressions)

At glance it appears biblical. A closer look and you can probably pick out where words have been changed and rearranged from what Scripture says of the Atonement.

That is why it is so bad. It has elements of truth but takes a wicked turn.

 

[amadeus]

I think that it would be expedient here to define Penal Substitutionary Theory; because some here (including myself) may not have an accurate view of what it represents.

Even so! I don't have a clue and seldom look up definitions just to be able to understand what the thread is about. I simply skip to another thread and give God the glory!

 

[justbyfaith]

Here's a good definition:
“The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty of sin”. (Pierced for my Transgressions)

At glance it appears biblical. A closer look and you can probably pick out where words have been changed and rearranged from what Scripture says of the Atonement.

That is why it is so bad. It has elements of truth but takes a wicked turn.

Maybe you could explain a little bit better to us what it is that you think is so wicked about it.

 

[John Caldwell]

Maybe you could explain a little bit better to us what it is that you think is so wicked about it.

Sure. I mean a "wicked turn", not necessarily wicked like evil but a sharp departure from Scripture.

The reason I believe it is wrong is it applies a worldly philosophy (a 16th century judicial philosophy associated with the humanism of that day) and in so doing removes divine justice as outlined in Scripture. God can no longer be just in forgiving man because of repentance (because of a change in man) but is under the obligation to punish sinful acts so that He can forgive people who have sinned or wronged Him.

The judicial philosophy still exists today, but not in as much an archaic form. That is why if PSA had not been articulated in the 16th century it probably never would have. Prior to the 16th century Aquinas paved the way but he also was careful to specify to go further that satisfaction would be heresy and make God a liar. No one during this time would hold the 16th century judicial philosophy as just. It only exists today in PSA or in milder forms.

So it is a wicked turn because it turns the Cross upside down and empties it of the value and purpose Scripture has assigned to Reconciliation. No longer is Christ suffering the plight of mankind to redeem man from the bondage of sin and death. With PSA Christ suffers the wrath of God as a punishment so that God does not have to punish us. God being just and the justifier of sinners takes on a different and unbiblical meaning.

The reason it is an issue is what PSA replaces of Scripture. One cannot believe PSA without letting go of a biblical view of the Cross. The worst is not in what PSA affirms but in the Truth it tosses aside to make room for its theory.

 

[justbyfaith]

One cannot believe PSA without letting go of a biblical view of the Cross.

What is this biblical view of the Cross that PSA undermines in your opinion?

Please give scripture to support your view.

 

[John Caldwell]

What is this biblical view of the Cross that PSA undermines in your opinion?

Please give scripture to support your view.

To start I'll offer the parables of the kingdom. PSA denies that they accurately represent the kingdom (think, for example, of the landowner or the king - the son is sent and is killed by those to whom the son was sent).

Then, of course, we have Scripture stating that condemning the righteous is an abomination to God. Some seem to think the counter argument that acquitting the guilty nullifies this, but it does not because salvation is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law - NOT through the law. Scripture also tells us that Christ shared in our iniquity, became a curse for us. NOT that Christ took our punishment instead of us being punished so we would not suffer the punishment.

Excluding the parables that is 5 passages. I'll leave it up to those who are interested to look up the references.

The larger problem, however, is that PSA is not in Scripture. Even if we just say it is an extra-biblical understanding we have to acknowledge it is an addition to God's Word saying something that God never said

To clarify my view - I do not have to defend why PSA is wrong. When we examine mythologies it is up to the superstitious to defend why their myths are correct. That said, it is wrong because Scripture denies its validity.

 

[John Caldwell]

@justbyfaith,

I apologize if I come across overly critical. I came out of that error a few years ago. I think knowing now what it corrupts makes me argue that much stronger against it.

A few years ago I would not have changed my mind. I know this. I do not expect to change minds. I hope some will do as I did and write down the Theory along with the passages, working out their own beliefs.

 

[justbyfaith]

I'll leave it up to those who are interested to look up the references.

How are we to do that if you do not give the references?

The larger problem, however, is that PSA is not in Scripture.

I believe that it is in fact in holy scripture if you understand the word propitiation.

Also, is it not clearly proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4?

 

[justbyfaith]

It seems to me that there are two irreconcilable attributes in the heart of God:

1) Justice; which requires that the exact punishment be meted out for crimes committed;

and,

2) Mercy; which desires that less than what is deserved be meted out as punishment.

Justice and mercy meet at the Cross.

Jesus, dying in the place of us, took the penalty for our sins in order that justice might be satisfied and mercy also might be given; for He took the due penalty for our sins.

This is what is preached as THE GOSPEL by many who are included in the orthodox branch of what is termed Christianity today.

If it is not really the gospel, then these preachers are guilty of misleading the majority of those who have become Christians.

If this is not the gospel, then I would ask you, what is?

There is going to have to be something that is going to fill the vacuum that is left when you strip away what is commonly referred to as the gospel by saying that it is false doctrine.

So, @John Caldwell, and anyone else who denies the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, please, by all means, preach to us what is THE REAL GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST that replaces what has been preached as the gospel by the majority of evangelists for the past 4 centuries at least.

I hope that you have something that you define as the real gospel to replace it?

Because if you don't, then you are asking us to accept the idea that there is NO REAL GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST which we are to believe in unto salvation.

I would say to you unequivocally that such a thing is unacceptable.

 

[John Caldwell]

It seems to me that there are two irreconcilable attributes in the heart of God:

1) Justice; which requires that the exact punishment be meted out for crimes committed;

and,

2) Mercy; which desires that less than what is deserved be meted out as punishment.

Justice and mercy meet at the Cross.

Jesus, dying in the place of us, took the penalty for our sins in order that justice might be satisfied and mercy also might be given; for He took the penalty for our sins.

This is what is preached as THE GOSPEL by many who are included in the orthodox branch of what is termed Christianity today.

If it is not really the gospel, then these preachers are guilty of misleading the majority of those who have become Christians.

If this is not the gospel, then I would ask you, what is?

There is going to have to be something that is going to fill the vacuum that is left when you strip away what is commonly referred to as the gospel by saying that it is false doctrine.

So, @John Caldwell, and anyone else who denies the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, please, by all means, preach to us what is THE REAL GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST that replaces what has been preached as the gospel by the majority of evangelists for the past 4 centuries at least.

I hope that you have something that you define as the real gospel to replace it?

Because if you don't, then you are asking us to accept the idea that there is NO REAL GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST which we are to believe in unto salvation.

I would say to you unequivocally that such a thing is unacceptable.

God loved the world by sending His Son that all who believes will have everlasting life.

It is that simple. PSA is an anti-biblical myth standing in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

God loved the world by sending His Son that all who believes will have everlasting life.

It is that simple. PSA is an anti-biblical myth standing in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

How then does your theory of atonement deal with the justice of the Lord?

How does God show mercy when His nature requires that He bring about absolute justice?

 

[justbyfaith]

The question to be asking is, How does the Cross necessitate the Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

The answer is, that it does so in that the redemption of the Cross obviously satisfies the justice of God while God is still able to justify him who believes in Jesus Christ, Romans 3:25-26.

In that justice and mercy meet at the Cross.

That is a song we sing, you know.

 

[John Caldwell]

How then does your theory of atonement deal with the justice of the Lord?

How does God show mercy when His nature requires that He bring about absolute justice?

I believe God is just to forgive those who repent. Justice is never directed at actions but at people who commit those actions. There are two possible ways justice is served - punishment through the law or a rebirth apart from the law.

God deals with justice by men dying to sin and bring made alive in Christ Jesus.

Scripture never presents sin apart from the sinner. PSA does. That should be enough to call into question the theory. We will never be objects of God's wrath because Christ was never the object of God's wrath. He is our assurance.

 

[justbyfaith]

I believe God is just to forgive those who repent.

Repenting does not change the fact of sins that have been committed in the past; and justice requires that those sins be punished.

How does God show mercy to forgive those sins while continuing to be just according to your theory?