The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement

[John Caldwell]

Yes, the Lord does indeed have wrath against sin, Romans 1:18.



This is not necessarily true. There may be one that is right above all the others, and the most biblical. If I agree with one of the other theories more, it does not make that theory true.



We do not know this. the wrath of God was poured out against Christ over our sin. See 2 Corinthians 5:21. Jesus became sin for us and took our penalty.



Jesus said, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? on the cross.



The Bible teaches that God did indeed punish Christ on our behalf and instead of us.



If anyone is truly born again, they will be made into a new creature in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) and will abide for ever (1 John 2:17). This amounts to living holy (1 John 3:6).

Hi Justbyfaith,

Thank you for taking the time to provide the passages. I absolutely agree with those verses. The problem is that they do not seem to necessitate Penal Substitution Theory (although they do not in themselves deny the theory). Let’s look:

Romans 1:18-19 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

This verse states that God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness. God has made Himself evident (at least to some extent) to all men so that all are without excuse.

No one is claiming that God’s wrath is not revealed against all unrighteousness of men. No one is saying that God’s wrath is not kindled against sinful men. But it is one thing to say that God’s just wrath abides on the unrighteousness of men and another to believe that this creates in God some type of debt that must be satisfied. Do you get the distinction? God’s wrath is not against sinful acts but against sinful men (those who commit those acts).

2 Corinthians 5:20 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

This verse does not necessarily mean that God literally made Christ to be sin (a sinful act, evil, ungodly, unrighteous, disobedient). If I understand you correctly, you are not taking this literally but to indicate that God made Christ to be as if He were a sinner. This does not prove Penal Substitution Theory. We all believe that Christ “took on our infirmity”. He was made sin for us. And because of this Christ died the death that we will die so that we will not face the wrath that is to come.

Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" that is, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"

This also cannot be a proof text for Penal Substitution Theory. While in itself it does not deny the possibility that God separated from Jesus, it does not necessitate that interpretation either. Most (if not all) Christians believe that God forsook Christ to suffer at the hands of wicked men (see Acts 3).

Now for the part that is problematic for Penal Substitution Theory.

Psalm 22 is a passage that foreshadows the cross. It begins with the surfing of God’s Servant, who cries out “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” As the Psalm progresses the Servant is trusting in God for a deliverance that has yet to come. He is beaten, His body is bruised. He is mocked. But He remains faithful to the God who has demonstrated Himself faithful. As the Psalm progresses we come to a marvelous conclusion that we can hold as evidence of God’s faithfulness – the gospel itself. God has NOT despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted. God has NOT hidden His face from him. But when He cried to Him for help, He heard!

And therein lies our hope. The conviction of a righteous person is an abomination to God, it flies in the face of divine justice (Proverbs 17). God forgives not on the basis of punishing sin but on the basis of repentance (Psalm 103; Isaiah 30; 38, 43; Jeremiah 31;33; 2 Chronicles 7; Jonah 3…just to name a few).

You may punch me in the nose (I wouldn’t’ blame you, but this is an illustration – just go with it)…you may punch me in the nose but I would be a fool to punch @marks in the nose because I thought justice demanded that I punch someone and I didn’t want to punch you. This is not justice. God’s justice is one of repentance, not retribution. If one repents then God is faithful to forgive. If one does not repent then that person will face the wrath to come “on that day”.

Justice is justice - until it is not.

 

[Episkopos]

I reject the concept that the debt was owed to Satan.

True. The idea is more that we were unknowingly slaves of the devil...not because he forced us...but because that is all we knew. We identified ourselves to his ways. He had us fooled completely. And His trickeries continue in they that still have not learned to know themselves. So then the light exposed (and continues to expose) that darkness in us and gave us (gives us) a chance to come out of that darkness and come into His light.

So then Jesus was winning us back to Himself...not making a deal with the devil for us. The devil would never give us up willingly anyway.

It just so happens that the Lord is still trying to win the church to Himself.

 

[marks]

You may punch me in the nose (I wouldn’t’ blame you, but this is an illustration – just go with it)…you may punch me in the nose but I would be a fool to punch @marks in the nose because I thought justice demanded that I punch someone and I didn’t want to punch you. This is not justice. God’s justice is one of repentance, not retribution. If one repents then God is faithful to forgive. If one does not repent then that person will face the wrath to come “on that day”.

But if you feel you absolutely MUST punch someone, you can punch me instead of JBF. But hopefully you will miss my nose, since it's been through a lot already!

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

The killing of Jesus Christ was the end of the Jews as being representatives of God on the earth. As we say...it was a game changer. God sought other husbandmen after that.

Mark 12

1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'
8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

Now, nowhere here do we see that Jesus is saying that His Father was going to kill Him. The blame rests on the religious aspirations of men.

 

[John Caldwell]

The killing of Jesus Christ was the end of the Jews as being representatives of God on the earth. As we say...it was a game changer. God sought other husbandmen after that.

Mark 12

1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.
3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.
4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.
5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.
6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.
7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'
8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.
9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

Now, nowhere here do we see that Jesus is saying that His Father was going to kill Him. The blame rests on the religious aspirations of men.

The same is true in Peter's sermon (as related in Acts). It was God's purpose as this is the redemption of mankind unfolding, but Jesus was killed by "ungodly men".

 

[marks]

Now, nowhere here do we see that Jesus is saying that His Father was going to kill Him. The blame rests on the religious aspirations of men.

While the sins is upon the men who did this, just the same . . .

Isaiah 53:10 "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."

Who has put whom to grief? Who is "Thou"? And whose is "his soul"?

 

[marks]

The killing of Jesus Christ was the end of the Jews as being representatives of God on the earth. As we say...it was a game changer. God sought other husbandmen after that.

Acts 2
1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The death of Jesus was not the end for the Jews. Nor will it be as the prophets foretell.

Much love!

 

[Episkopos]

The same is true in Peter's sermon (as related in Acts). It was God's purpose as this is the redemption of mankind unfolding, but Jesus was killed by "ungodly men".

Yes. Jesus redeems us from being ungodly by a polar shift in our attitude. So we are not to seek to be saved...but rather we seek to lose our lives. Of course the Adamic nature can't understand this let alone do this.

How many Christians still reason from the Adamic mindset? In our time...I think the majority.

But it was religious men with aspirations to their own salvation that put Jesus on the cross. Jesus says we should seek to lose our own lives...so that we can be found in Him.

So the gospel invites us into the "upside-down" kingdom of God where there is love, joy and peace forevermore.

But this can only be perceived and entered into by they who forsake their own lives, ideas, opinions, and religious reasonings.

 

[marks]

So we are not to seek to be saved...

If we are to not seek salvation, then why are we told:

Romans 10
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

It's so close to you, salvation, just speak it, confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, believing in your heart His resurrection, and you shall be saved.

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Was the Philippian jailor reprimanded for seeking from Paul to know how he could be saved? No,

Acts 16
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

God promises, all who seek shall find.

Much love!

 

[marks]

But it was religious men with aspirations to their own salvation that put Jesus on the cross.

Actually, I'd say that it was self-righteous men who feared for their position, their influence over the people, their safety from the aggression of Rome, and who envied Jesus' popularity with the people. I think Jesus was killed by men who so wanted that people would see them as the spiritual leaders, and couldn't stand that the people actually saw Jesus that way. Jesus, Who denounced them. They hated Him for it. And killed Him for it.

If they were trying to save anything, it was their own skin, fearing what the Romans would do if the people rallied behind Jesus, and to save their status as the leaders of the people, which would have gone right down the drain unless they shut Him up once and for all.

But of course we know they failed!



Much love!

 

[marks]

But this can only be perceived and entered into by they who forsake their own lives, ideas, opinions, and religious reasonings.

IOW . . . repentance . . . the exchange of the mind.

There's a substitution! We trade the mind of the flesh for the Mind of Christ! And having now the Mind of Christ, let us think, and speak (write) as those who have the Mind of Christ.

Much love!

 

[John Caldwell]

IOW . . . repentance . . . the exchange of the mind.

There's a substitution! We trade the mind of the flesh for the Mind of Christ! And having now the Mind of Christ, let us think, and speak (write) as those who have the Mind of Christ.

Much love!

Amen!

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe your exact words were:



Implying that if God is loving, merciful, and just, that this is contrary to the idea that He has wrath against sin.

Misunderstanding.

 

[GodsGrace]

This thread is getting far too complicated for me...it is making my brain ache.

Im reading along...but half the time I cant understand what the basic issue is!! All I know is...The Lamb was slain before the creation of the world.
Therefore the God Head had the answer before it all began.

Jesus came into our TIME because He wanted to ...He came to die to remove sin inherited through the bloodline of Adam. The Father was well pleased with the perfect sacrifice.

I reject the concept that the debt was owed to Satan. Satan had nothing to do with it, was only the foolish tool of destruction from the very beginning....he thought he'd got rid of Jesus at the cross.
The sweet savour of the Lamb paid the debt of sin before God....
"While we were yet enemies..Christ died for the ungodly. "

Therein is my faith. More that that gets too complicated for me.

.........H

Perfection requires no further thought.

What you've said is perfection.

I just do need to say that satan had a lot to do with it because it's due to him that Jesus sacrificed Himself. Also, most theologians believe the debt was owed to satan...but I don't care for that either. How could God owe anything to satan?

 

[justbyfaith]

This does not prove Penal Substitution Theory.

It may not be something that we would even attempt to prove; but to provide evidence for. Anything worth believing is received by faith.

You may punch me in the nose (I wouldn’t’ blame you, but this is an illustration – just go with it)…you may punch me in the nose but I would be a fool to punch @marks in the nose because I thought justice demanded that I punch someone and I didn’t want to punch you. This is not justice. God’s justice is one of repentance, not retribution. If one repents then God is faithful to forgive. If one does not repent then that person will face the wrath to come “on that day”.

Forgiveness of sins is provided for through the blood of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Jesus, in dying, His blood was shed in order that we might be forgiven.

This is a major aspect of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Forgiveness doesn't come through my turning over a new leaf; or through my good works that I do for God.

It only comes through appropriating the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Enoch111]

Also, most theologians believe the debt was owed to satan...but I don't care for that either. How could God owe anything to satan?

Yes. That is more theological nonsense.

 

[John Caldwell]

It may not be something that we would even attempt to prove; but to provide evidence for. Anything worth believing is received by faith.


Forgiveness of sins is provided for through the blood of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Jesus, in dying, His blood was shed in order that we might be forgiven.

This is a major aspect of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Forgiveness doesn't come through my turning over a new leaf; or through my good works that I do for God.

It only comes through appropriating the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

I would not want to change your (or anyones) mind. I only want others to consider their belief and how much is presuppositions. I think the Theory is flawed - but that does not mean I deny Christ as the Propitiation for the sins of the world or that it is by His stripes we are healed (or any of the passages mentioned).

Forgiveness comes from faith and belief. Scripture says repeatedly that if one will repent God is faithful to forgive. What Scripture does not say is that forgiveness comes by the satisfaction of divine justice. I agree that those who affirm the Theory have to do so out of faith.

It is an interesting subject (one I enjoy exploring). When I believed the Theory I held no less a gospel, but having revised my belief I see a depth I missed during those days. But I can be a bit slow on the uptake so take that with a grain of salt.

I simply decided I wanted a view closer to the text of Scripture. It's easier for me that way - less thinking (but a bit more doing, I suppose). We have to hold a belief that we are willing to take responsibility for holding. For me, this belief is not Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes. That is more theological nonsense.

I agree with you that God owes nothing to satan.
I wouldn't call it theological nonsense however....that belief IS BASED on concepts found in scripture.

Satan "kidnapped" mankind in the Garden.
Jesus bought man back.

This is the ransom theory....

 

[John Caldwell]

I agree with you that God owes nothing to satan.
I wouldn't call it theological nonsense however....that belief IS BASED on concepts found in scripture.

Satan "kidnapped" mankind in the Garden.
Jesus bought man back.

This is the ransom theory....

We also need to keep in mind that some who used the language of a ransom paid to Satan may not have use it in the sense that God literally paid a ransom to Satan but rather that we were ransomed from the bondages of sin and death.

 

[GodsGrace]

We also need to keep in mind that some who used the language of a ransom paid to Satan may not have use it in the sense that God literally paid a ransom to Satan but rather that we were ransomed from the bondages of sin and death.

Agreed.
What do you think of the Christus Victor theory?
I think it's what you're posting above.

These theories also go by different names...
I'm using that link I had posted for the titles:

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison