Penal Substitution.....?

[plum]

I am a newbie when it comes to understanding the vocabulary of Soteriology. So forgive me for displayed ignorance!
I was reading the "Jesus Creed" blog and read a post about "Penal Substitution". Are any of you familiar with this term?

penal substitution focuses (and I’ll deal with this tomorrow) on Jesus’ substitution “instead of us” in his suffering the punishment of God/Father (but be careful not to divide the persons against one another). That is, we have the God’s wrath (penal) directed at sin and sinners, and Jesus steps in, suffers/absorbs that wrath “instead of us” so we are relieved or let off the hook. But once again: for a genuinely trinitarian penal substitution, we must not divide the persons of the Trinity: this, too, springs from Father, Son, and Spirit.
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=963

What is about these two terms “penal” and “substitution”?
Here is what one is saying by using those terms: the atonement takes place at the cross; the cross is the place where God vented his wrath against sin; the cross is the place where God in Christ assumed the punishment for sin; the cross is the place where Christ substituted for my sins; the cross is the place where Christ was punished for the sins of the world (or, if you so think, the elect). The use of these terms suggests that it is stating atonement takes place on the cross (no resurrection, no Pentecost) and that is fundamentally about propitiating the wrath of God against sin. To clarify — I’m not suggesting for one second that those who believe in penal substitution do not think there is saving significance in the resurrection or in Pentecost; I’m suggesting the terms being used do not naturally convey those events as well. I’ve rarely heard anyone speak of a “vicarious” or “substitutionary” resurrection — though I think orthodoxy believes in such.
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=968

Is he saying that there would be salvation even without the resurrection and sending of the Spirit at shavuot/Pentecost? I happen to agree, but I think it's interesting to think of it that way.

do you have any insight on these articles? Any summary for those of us who are just beginning in our deeper exploration into these topics? What do you think about penal substitution?
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=968

 

[Philip]

I was reading the "Jesus Creed" blog and read a post about "Penal Substitution". Are any of you familiar with this term?

I am familiar with it. I find it repugnant, but it seems to be the primary understanding of atonement in Protestaantism.

Is he saying that there would be salvation even without the resurrection and sending of the Spirit at shavuot/Pentecost?

That seems to be what he is claiming.

What do you think about penal substitution?

PSA is primarily the result of Anselm's interpretation of some of St Augustine's teachings under the light of feudalism. It was later enhanced by Aquinas and used fully by Calvin. It distorts the problem of sin and reduces salvation to a forensic transaction. It does not have its roots in the ancient Christian traditions, but rather in Manichaean fatalism. I can think of little good to say of it.

 

[plum]

*nods* Perhaps you could explain why it's not true? I see that you don't agree, but I'm not sure what you think. I'd love to hear more. I'm not here to start a debate, but rather... an informative discussion. If you'd like to tell me how you disagree with it, feel free

 

[cygnusx1]

I am familiar with it. I find it repugnant, but it seems to be the primary understanding of atonement in Protestaantism.



That seems to be what he is claiming.



PSA is primarily the result of Anselm's interpretation of some of St Augustine's teachings under the light of feudalism. It was later enhanced by Aquinas and used fully by Calvin. It distorts the problem of sin and reduces salvation to a forensic transaction. It does not have its roots in the ancient Christian traditions, but rather in Manichaean fatalism. I can think of little good to say of it.

yeh silly Augustine Anslem Calvin and Aquinas and co ......... you would think men of this calibre wouldn't be so easily duped ...........



that is because they weren't!

 

[JM]

http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html

It's Biblical and logical...​

 

[Philip]

*nods* Perhaps you could explain why it's not true? I see that you don't agree, but I'm not sure what you think. I'd love to hear more. I'm not here to start a debate, but rather... an informative discussion. If you'd like to tell me how you disagree with it, feel free

First, note that my objection to Penal Substitutionary Atonement rests in the Penal portion of the theory. I have no problem with substitutionary atonement when properly understood. The exact details of PSA vary from group to group and person to person, but my general objections include

1. I do not accept the idea that God is bound by some external rule of justice. I God's actions are the definition of justice. Whatever He chooses to do is just, and we have no basis for questioning it. If He chooses to grant salvation to those who eat turnips, it is just to do so. If He chooses to forgive those who repent, it is just to do so.
2. I do not accept the idea that God must punish someone to be able to forgive sin. I believe in a sovereign God who is able to do as He pleases. If it pleases Him to forgive, He forgives. He need not require punishment from the sinner or anyone else if He so pleases.
3. I do not accept the problem of sin as a problem of guilt. PSA holds that once a person is 'justified', they are (or will inevitably be) saved. This reduces salvation to a forensic declaration. It does not require an ontological change in the sinner.
4. I do not accept righteousness as matter of perception. PSA involves a person being declared righteous. For one reason or another (depending on the version of PSA), God declares the sinner to be righteous. However, the sinner is never actually made righteous.

There are other ideas that are often connected to PSA, but are not necessary for PSA, that I also dispute. These include

1. I do not accept the Western teaching of Original Sin. More precisely, I do not accept the teaching of Original Guilt. We bear the consequences of Adam's sin in that creation has been separated form its original state. However, we do not bear the guilt of Adam's sin.
2. I do not accept the idea that Christ's human nature is any way different from my human nature. Christ's person is different from my person in that it also includes a Divine nature, but His human nature is identical to mine.
3. I do not accept the Western dichotomy between faith and works.

Enough of my objections for now. As for what I do believe instead of PSA

1. I accept the Christus Victor/Recapitulation model of Atonement. I believe that in the Incarnation, Christ reunited creation with God. He placed man back on the path toward perfect union with God.
2. Secondarily, I accept the Ransom and Moral Example models of Atonement. That is, by Christ's submission to death at the hands of the unrighteous, He showed us how to be righteous. In His Resurrection, we see that He is vindicated as righteous before God. In this, He has shown us how to be at one with God.
3. I believe that by the grace of God through faith in Christ we are made righteous. We are not declared righteous. We are not 'imputed' with another's righteousness. We are made righteous.
4. I do accept the dichotomy between works of Faith and works of Law.
5. I believe that God freely forgives sin without a need for punishment or satisifaction of justice. The only requirements are that we repent of our sins and forgive (freely forgive) those who sin against us.

I think that covers the basics of what I dislike about PSA and what I believe in its stead.

 

[JM]

Enough of my objections for now. As for what I do believe instead of PSA

1. I accept the Christus Victor/Recapitulation model of Atonement. I believe that in the Incarnation, Christ reunited creation with God. He placed man back on the path toward perfect union with God.
2. Secondarily, I accept the Ransom and Moral Example models of Atonement. That is, by Christ's submission to death at the hands of the unrighteous, He showed us how to be righteous. In His Resurrection, we see that He is vindicated as righteous before God. In this, He has shown us how to be at one with God.
3. I believe that by the grace of God through faith in Christ we are made righteous. We are not declared righteous. We are not 'imputed' with another's righteousness. We are made righteous.
4. I do accept the dichotomy between works of Faith and works of Law.
5. I believe that God freely forgives sin without a need for punishment or satisifaction of justice. The only requirements are that we repent of our sins and forgive (freely forgive) those who sin against us.

Could you supply Scripture, don't mean to be a drag, but I'd like to study it further.

 

[Philip]

Could you supply Scripture, don't mean to be a drag, but I'd like to study it further.

Will do so tomorrow, but I will note here that it is a matter of interpretation of Scriptures. The Scriptures I use are likely the same others use in support of PSA. It's midnight here, and I'm off to bed.

 

[JM]

Sounds good, peace.

 

[Van]

I do not accept the idea that God is bound by some external rule of justice. I God's actions are the definition of justice. Whatever He chooses to do is just, and we have no basis for questioning it. If He chooses to grant salvation to those who eat turnips, it is just to do so. If He chooses to forgive those who repent, it is just to do so.

Scripture says God is just, not that whatever God does we are to accept as just. Words have meanings and the inspired writers of scripture used them to convey those meanings to us. God has attributes and God's actions are consistent with His attributes. Our understanding of God should be that His actions are just because He is just, not that whatever He does becomes just.

I do not accept the idea that God must punish someone to be able to forgive sin. I believe in a sovereign God who is able to do as He pleases. If it pleases Him to forgive, He forgives. He need not require punishment from the sinner or anyone else if He so pleases.

I agree, God can forgive anyone He pleases to forgive, He can have mercy on whom He has mercy. So why did Jesus die on the cross? Just to provide an example of love, for there is no greater love than to lay down our life for another? Is this the reason given in scripture? Nope. What about reconciliation, what about propitiation, what about giving His life as a ransom. What if it pleased God to declare that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness of sin. So Abraham's sins were forgiven, but Abraham was not united with God, for no one had ascended to heaven before Jesus came to earth. All the OT saints had obtained approval through faith, but they did not enter the kingdom. What does Hebrews 11:39-40 say? How are we made perfect or complete? When we are placed spiritually in Christ Jesus! Jesus set us free from the bonds of unholiness, when we are placed in Christ we are no longer separated from God because of our unholiness, we are instead united with God, made alive, because of the circumcision of Christ.

I do not accept the problem of sin as a problem of guilt. PSA holds that once a person is 'justified', they are (or will inevitably be) saved. This reduces salvation to a forensic declaration. It does not require an ontological change in the sinner.

Once a person is spiritually placed in Christ, and undergoes the circumcision of Christ, they are justified to life united with God. This sovereign act of God is termed positional sanctification. But beyond this forensic declaration of righteousness, salvation continues, during the remainder of our physical life, where as a new creature in Christ we are conformed to the image of Christ, and we carry out our ministry of reconciliation. If we lead ineffective lives for Christ, we lose our salvation in that we lose some of the available benefits of salvation, if we build with perishable stuff, hay and wood, we lose our rewards, and enter the kingdom as on escaping from a fire, bringing nothing with us. So salvation is more than being united with Christ, it is being conformed to the image of Christ and carrying out the ministry of Christ. This part of salvation is called progressive sanctificaiton. In summary, the conversion to a new creature in Christ is an ontological change, and our progressive sanctification results in continuing ontological change, even if we are building with straw on the foundation of Christ.

I do not accept righteousness as matter of perception. PSA involves a person being declared righteous. For one reason or another (depending on the version of PSA), God declares the sinner to be righteous. However, the sinner is never actually made righteous.

When we are placed in Christ we are made righteous. Our body of flesh (sin) is removed and we arise in Christ a new creation.

I do not accept the Western teaching of Original Sin. More precisely, I do not accept the teaching of Original Guilt. We bear the consequences of Adam's sin in that creation has been separated form its original state. However, we do not bear the guilt of Adam's sin.

I agree, by one man's sin, the many were made sinners, which includes both our separation from God due to our sinful sate of being "in Adam" and our corruption, resulting in our predisposition to sin. We are not punished for Adam's sin, but for our own sin, other than our separation from God is the punishment of eternal darkness.

I do not accept the idea that Christ's human nature is any way different from my human nature. Christ's person is different from my person in that it also includes a Divine nature, but His human nature is identical to mine.

I think the assertion here is that since Jesus was not "in Adam" and His flesh was not corrupted and predisposed to sin, for He knew no sin, we too are not corrupted because we are identical in our human nature to Jesus. I disagree. When scripture says the many were made sinners, I believe the many refers to everyone but Jesus.

 

[cygnusx1]

1. I believe that God freely forgives sin without a need for punishment or satisifaction of justice. The only requirements are that we repent of our sins and forgive (freely forgive) those who sin against us.

I think that covers the basics of what I dislike about PSA and what I believe in its stead.

So why did Jesus have to die ???

Your view is horrible , it has Jesus God's own Son begging to avoid the cross if it is possible , and God saying "no" for a sacrifice that was not really necessary!

That is the worst sort of sadism I know!
Making someone innocent suffer where there is absolutely no need to!

and you think Penal Substitution is "repugnant" !¬!!
I will say it looks positively wonderful compaired to an empty needless substitution!

 

[FLA2760]

I am familiar with it. I find it repugnant, but it seems to be the primary understanding of atonement in Protestaantism.



That seems to be what he is claiming.



PSA is primarily the result of Anselm's interpretation of some of St Augustine's teachings under the light of feudalism. It was later enhanced by Aquinas and used fully by Calvin. It distorts the problem of sin and reduces salvation to a forensic transaction. It does not have its roots in the ancient Christian traditions, but rather in Manichaean fatalism. I can think of little good to say of it.

Hi Philip
Are you saying that God's word is NOT inerrent?
The scriptures CLEARLY teach that redemption is through the blood( death of Christ) see Hebrews 9:11 and 1 Peter 1: 18 ,19 and that the wages of SIN is DEATH, (Rom 6:23) The book of Leviticus teaches substitutionary atonement when the worshiper lays his hand on the animal (identification) before the innocent animal dies IN THE PLACE OF (insted of) the guilty sinner, (Substitution). Leviticus Chapter 3 records this 3 times in 17 verses. Your theory seems to forget that God puts His Word ABOVE His Name, (Psalm 138:2) KJV. I agree with you on the sovereignty of God and God did exercise this in the sending of Himself in the Person of His Son to die for man's sin. Concerning the Resurrection it was God's sign that the sacrifice of Christ was accepted. 1 Cor 15: 1-4
Remember Christ Himself said 'I am the way, the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except THROUGH ME" John 14:6 Jesus was more than a Teacher and good man. The whole reason for the Incarnation (Jn 1: 29) was that God came in a body in order to go to the cross for our salvation, (Heb 10:5) Remember how satan tried to prevent this in the killing of all the male children under two years of age in Israel and later in the temptation of Christ. The devil offered all the kingdoms of the world to Christ if Jesus would bow down and worship him. A kingdom without the cross. When Jesus started to tell the disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and be killed and after three days rise again. Peter rebuked Jesus and said "not so LORD"; Jesus responded GET BEHIND ME Satan for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men" (Mark 8: 31-33)
GOD BLESS

 

[edie19]

Here is what one is saying by using those terms: the atonement takes place at the cross; the cross is the place where God vented his wrath against sin; the cross is the place where God in Christ assumed the punishment for sin; the cross is the place where Christ substituted for my sins; the cross is the place where Christ was punished for the sins of the world (or, if you so think, the elect). The use of these terms suggests that it is stating atonement takes place on the cross (no resurrection, no Pentecost) and that is fundamentally about propitiating the wrath of God against sin.

do you have any insight on these articles? Any summary for those of us who are just beginning in our deeper exploration into these topics? What do you think about penal substitution?

Sounds right to me. When God promises the Messiah He said "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Consider Jesus the Christ at His crucifixion - He was crucified with His feet down - at a place called Golgotha, which means place of the skull. The prophecy of defeating Satan was fulfilled at the cross. Our sins were atoned for by the work of Christ on the cross. Christ is the propitiation for our sins - turning away God's wrath and causing us to be found not guilty. He provided the means and the results.

edie

 

[jckstraw72]

That is the worst sort of sadism I know!
Making someone innocent suffer where there is absolutely no need to!

and you think Penal Substitution is "repugnant" !¬!!
I will say it looks positively wonderful compaired to an empty needless substitution!

nothing He said implies that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary!! Christ died to defeat sin and death and preach the Gospel to the souls in Hades. That doesnt meant He took the punishment due to us, since God doesnt punish us (we voluntarily punish ourselves if we do end up in Hell--its our decision to go there). Plus, the consequence of our sins is much worse than physical death and 3 days in the grave....if Jesus truly took our punishment then He would have to be in Hell for eternity.

Penal substitution is like a father beating up on his son to calm his anger. God is not an abusive, angry Father.

 

[cygnusx1]

nothing He said implies that Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary!! Christ died to defeat sin and death and preach the Gospel to the souls in Hades.

yes , and I think you miss the point ........ why was it necessary for Christ to die to defeat sin and death ?

That doesnt meant He took the punishment due to us, since God doesnt punish us (we voluntarily punish ourselves if we do end up in Hell--its our decision to go there).

So when scripture warns us to fear God , and reports that the wrath of God is revealed upon all who do unrighteousness , we are to change that to mean ..... "fear yourselves , for you are in danger of punishing yourselves for your sin " Absurd!!!

Plus, the consequence of our sins is much worse than physical death and 3 days in the grave....if Jesus truly took our punishment then He would have to be in Hell for eternity.

Not necessarily!

Penal substitution is like a father beating up on his son to calm his anger. God is not an abusive, angry Father.

No that is not like the illustration at all ........... you forget The Willingness of The Son Of God to be put to death , to be "bruised for our iniquities"

 

[depthdeception]

So why did Jesus have to die ???

To defeat the powers of sinfulness and evil in the world that prevent us from being recreated in the image of God, and reconciled in relationship to the Creator.

Your view is horrible , it has Jesus God's own Son begging to avoid the cross if it is possible , and God saying "no" for a sacrifice that was not really necessary!

No one's denying that Christ's death was sacrificial. He most definitely laid down his life, and sacrificed himself to the violence and depravity of human sinfulness. However, because of his faithfulness to the will of the Father (in not entering in to the cycles of human violence and sinfulness), God raised Christ from the dead by the power of the Spirit, vindicating his sinlessness and the injustice of his death at the hand of sinful humanity. Your objection is a mischaracterization, nothing less.

That is the worst sort of sadism I know!
Making someone innocent suffer where there is absolutely no need to!

As opposed to the masochistic/sadistic complex of penal substitutionary theory in which a God who does not need to punish Godself does so anyway? No, yours is the worst form of sadism/masochsim possible. Miles critique of penal substitution in Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God as divine suicide is spot on.

I will say it looks positively wonderful compaired to an empty needless substitution!

Again, you mischaracterize that which you obviously don't understand. No one is denying the substitutional nature of Christ's death (Philip's lengthy and erudite post indicated this clearly). Rather, what is being denied is that this substitution is merely and crudely "forensic" as PSA theory imagines. As the problem of human sinfulness is not forensic or "positional" at all, it is hardly evident why a penal, forensic act would amount to anything of salvific value. Rather, humanity suffers from an ontological/relational problem. Therefore, the solution to the problem must occur in kind.

 

[depthdeception]

Hi Philip
Are you saying that God's word is NOT inerrent?
The scriptures CLEARLY teach that redemption is through the blood( death of Christ) see Hebrews 9:11 and 1 Peter 1: 18 ,19 and that the wages of SIN is DEATH, (Rom 6:23) The book of Leviticus teaches substitutionary atonement when the worshiper lays his hand on the animal (identification) before the innocent animal dies IN THE PLACE OF (insted of) the guilty sinner, (Substitution). Leviticus Chapter 3 records this 3 times in 17 verses. Your theory seems to forget that God puts His Word ABOVE His Name, (Psalm 138:2) KJV. I agree with you on the sovereignty of God and God did exercise this in the sending of Himself in the Person of His Son to die for man's sin. Concerning the Resurrection it was God's sign that the sacrifice of Christ was accepted. 1 Cor 15: 1-4
Remember Christ Himself said 'I am the way, the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except THROUGH ME" John 14:6 Jesus was more than a Teacher and good man. The whole reason for the Incarnation (Jn 1: 29) was that God came in a body in order to go to the cross for our salvation, (Heb 10:5) Remember how satan tried to prevent this in the killing of all the male children under two years of age in Israel and later in the temptation of Christ. The devil offered all the kingdoms of the world to Christ if Jesus would bow down and worship him. A kingdom without the cross. When Jesus started to tell the disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and be killed and after three days rise again. Peter rebuked Jesus and said "not so LORD"; Jesus responded GET BEHIND ME Satan for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men" (Mark 8: 31-33)
GOD BLESS

I can confidently assert that Philip asserts no such thing. Rather than the Scriptures being "inerrant," he is simply suggestinng--and quite accurately, at that--that throughout human history, there have been severe misinterpretations of Scriptures in regards to atonement theology that have occurred through the lens of societal structures and contextual/legal conceptions of "justice," rather than seriously and honestly reflecting the historic assertions and teaching of the Church from the earliest of days. PSA theory is really a late comer to the atonement scene, with very little theological support before the time of Anselm.

 

[Philip]

So why did Jesus have to die ???

See my signature.

Your view is horrible , it has Jesus God's own Son begging to avoid the cross if it is possible , and God saying "no" for a sacrifice that was not really necessary!

Who said Christ's death was unnecessary? I sure did not.

and you think Penal Substitution is "repugnant"

What is repugnant is your misrepresentation of my view. I hope it was an act of ignorance.

 

[Philip]

Hi Philip
Are you saying that God's word is NOT inerrent?

I don't believe my post made any comment on the errancy of Scripture.

The scriptures CLEARLY teach that redemption is through the blood( death of Christ) see Hebrews 9:11 and 1 Peter 1: 18 ,19

I agree. Of course, none of the verses you cited mention anything about a punishment.

and that the wages of SIN is DEATH, (Rom 6:23)

I agree. Death is the natural consequence of sin. Our sins separate us from God. Separation from God results in death. Romans 6:23 makes no mention of death being a punishment for sins.

The book of Leviticus teaches substitutionary atonement when the worshiper lays his hand on the animal (identification) before the innocent animal dies IN THE PLACE OF (insted of) the guilty sinner, (Substitution). ]Leviticus Chapter 3 records this 3 times in 17 verses.

Please read Post #6. I explicitly stated

First, note that my objection to Penal Substitutionary Atonement rests in the Penal portion of the theory. I have no problem with substitutionary atonement when properly understood.

Unless you are asserting that Leviticus teaches that the sacrificial animals were punished in place of the sinner your criticism is wholly without merit.

Your theory seems to forget that God puts His Word ABOVE His Name, (Psalm 138:2) KJV.

It does nothing of the sort. Your post has illustrated, however, that you are placing your interpretation of God's word on par with the word itself.

I agree with you on the sovereignty of God and God did exercise this in the sending of Himself in the Person of His Son to die for man's sin. Concerning the Resurrection it was God's sign that the sacrifice of Christ was accepted. 1 Cor 15: 1-4

I agree. What does this have to with PSA? In particular, what does it have to do with the penal aspect of PSA?

Remember Christ Himself said 'I am the way, the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except THROUGH ME" John 14:6 Jesus was more than a Teacher and good man. The whole reason for the Incarnation (Jn 1: 29) was that God came in a body in order to go to the cross for our salvation, (Heb 10:5)

I agree. What does this have to with PSA? In particular, what does it have to do with the penal aspect of PSA?

Remember how satan tried to prevent this in the killing of all the male children under two years of age in Israel and later in the temptation of Christ. The devil offered all the kingdoms of the world to Christ if Jesus would bow down and worship him. A kingdom without the cross. When Jesus started to tell the disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and be killed and after three days rise again. Peter rebuked Jesus and said "not so LORD"; Jesus responded GET BEHIND ME Satan for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men" (Mark 8: 31-33)

I agree. What does this have to with PSA? In particular, what does it have to do with the penal aspect of PSA?

 

[Philip]

Penal substitution is like a father beating up on his son to calm his anger. God is not an abusive, angry Father.

More precisely, it is a Father beating His innocent, faithful Son to calm His anger with another, guilty child.