Penal Substitutionary Theory

Could we agree that the most common Protestant view of the atonement states that there was a substitution of Christ in our place to receive the punishment we deserve, in order to satisfy God's holiness and justice? Perhaps also that Christ's righteousness was credited to our accounts, as our sin was credited to his?

(I'm asking this so I don't misrepresent the penal substitutionary theory)

If so, then why was God's justice satisfied by the unjust decision to replace the guilty party with an innocent party, namely, his incarnate and consubstantial Son? It seems that if God was so holy that he absolutely had to mete out justice, then he wouldn't have chosen to punish an innocent party.

Martin Luther didn't pull himself out of the Roman Catholic merit system of salvation, but only put a patch over the hole by inventing a way in which he didn't have to merit all his righteousness himself. This is still the heart of the Papist doctrine of supererogatory works and a soteriological system based on merit.

Ignatios said:

Could we agree that the most common Protestant view of the atonement states that there was a substitution of Christ in our place to receive the punishment we deserve, in order to satisfy God's holiness and justice? Perhaps also that Christ's righteousness was credited to our accounts, as our sin was credited to his?

(I'm asking this so I don't misrepresent the penal substitutionary theory)

If so, then why was God's justice satisfied by the unjust decision to replace the guilty party with an innocent party, namely, his incarnate and consubstantial Son? It seems that if God was so holy that he absolutely had to mete out justice, then he wouldn't have chosen to punish an innocent party.

Martin Luther didn't pull himself out of the Roman Catholic merit system of salvation, but only put a patch over the hole by inventing a way in which he didn't have to merit all his righteousness himself. This is still the heart of the Papist doctrine of supererogatory works and a soteriological system based on merit.

Click to expand...

Prov. 17:15 makes it very clear that God cannot condemn the just. 2Cor. 5;21 makes it very clear that Christ made the sin of all the elect His own and suffered not as an innocent but as a guilty one. Sin wasn't pasted on Him as a thing outside Himself but all the guilt of all whom He represented was made to be His. Sin not only incurs punishment but it incurs guilt as well. The punishment doesn't relieve the guilt. If I am punished as a criminal and spend whatever time is required in jail as the punishment I am still guilty when I am released from jail. My debt is paid but I am still guilty. Christ didn't just take the debt but also the guilt. He bore our sin in His body on the tree, not on His body. He took our sin not in a pasted on manner but became guilty in our place. The sin that He bore was borne as His own though He hadn't actually committed it Himself. In the same way that He became sin and suffered because of it we are made the righteousnes of God in Him. 2Cor. 5:21

Prov. 17:15 makes it very clear that God cannot condemn the just. 2Cor. 5;21 makes it very clear that Christ made the sin of all the elect His own and suffered not as an innocent but as a guilty one. Sin wasn't pasted on Him as a thing outside Himself but all the guilt of all whom He represented was made to be His. Sin not only incurs punishment but it incurs guilt as well. The punishment doesn't relieve the guilt. If I am punished as a criminal and spend whatever time is required in jail as the punishment I am still guilty when I am released from jail. My debt is paid but I am still guilty. Christ didn't just take the debt but also the guilt. He bore our sin in His body on the tree, not on His body. He took our sin not in a pasted on manner but became guilty in our place. The sin that He bore was borne as His own though He hadn't actually committed it Himself. In the same way that He became sin and suffered because of it we are made the righteousnes of God in Him. 2Cor. 5:21

Click to expand...

Amen. And He did so willingly as the second Person of the Godhead. So it wasn't God choosing to "punish an innocent party", it was God willingly bearing our sin on a tree Himself.

Ignatios said:

If so, then why was God's justice satisfied by the unjust decision to replace the guilty party with an innocent party, namely, his incarnate and consubstantial Son? It seems that if God was so holy that he absolutely had to mete out justice, then he wouldn't have chosen to punish an innocent party.

Click to expand...

Is it unjust for an innocent party to desire to ally Himself to that guilty party solely through His sense of favor toward them, and then to take up the job of satisfying His own sense of justice by undergoing a rightful punishment for them that they could not endure?

Ignatios said:

Martin Luther didn't pull himself out of the Roman Catholic merit system of salvation, but only put a patch over the hole by inventing a way in which he didn't have to merit all his righteousness himself. This is still the heart of the Papist doctrine of supererogatory works and a soteriological system based on merit.

Click to expand...

What imagery does "agoradzo" evoke by way of illustrating our salvation?

Ignatius begins the thread with an accurate depiction of the Penal Satisfaction View of the atonement, one which the major Calvinisitic systematics would endorse--Hodge, Shedd, Strong, Berkof, Dabney, you name the Calvinist--and he holds the position Ignatius described above.

It is also the theory which Arminius held, and the presuppositional stance behind the Remonstrance.

I take it that, despite the accurate description of Penal satisfaction, Ignatius doesn't like this explanation of the atonement.

So, I think it is fair to say, yes, this is a good starting point for the dicussion.

Below, I have pasted my comments about Penal Satisfaction from the other thread, which is proffered as a refutation of Ignatius charges against Penal Satisfaction.



Forgive the long post, but I think this might be worth reading patiently....




Although I'm not a Calvinist, I am reformational in that I do affirm Penal Satisfaction View of Atonement, with Calvin (and Arminius, but not Wesley).

Penal Satisfaction, as Ignatius correctly explains, begins with God's justice demanding that every sin be exactly punished, and that God cannot arbitrarily choose to forgive sin. Sin-debt must be satisfied for there to be forgiveness. Ignatius rejects this position, but he correctly understands it. (Ignatius shows himself highly informed in this discussion, and does not deserve any aspersions otherwise.)

But Ignatius' main reason for rejecting Penal Satisfaction is faulty. His argument is that Penal satisfaction does not actually satisfy the justice of God, and is therefore logically incoherent. He claims that since the elect actually are not punished for their sin, but in fact, go scot free, then the justice of God is not satisfied.

We can illustrate his point. If my brother gets fined $100,000 for some irregularity in his trading with the Stock Market, I could actually pay his fine without him experiencing any of the consequences.

On the other hand, if he murders a clerk during a convenience store robbery, he would have to go to prison himself. If I volunteered to go to prison in my brother's stead, the judge would not permit it since it would be a miscarriage of justice. In such cases, I cannot serve as my brother's substitute.

Ignatius would say that this latter case is exactly what is wrong with Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement.

But this argument against Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement does not adequately consider the ramifications of the Doctrine of Union with Christ.

Union with Christ is a real dynamic. It makes it so that the believer actually shares Christ's history. Through Union, what Christ experienced, the believer also shares.

Perhaps another illustration would help. Prior to 1959, Hawaiians were not a part of the American Union. They couldn't rightly celebrate the 4th of July; the couldn't truly say that Washington was the Father of their country, or that the forefathers endured Valley Forge.

However, on the day of their admission into the U.S., Hawaiians, by virtue of said union, could rightly make claim to all these things. By a stroke of a pen, American history became Hawaiian history.

Likewise the person united with Christ.... Because of union with Christ, the believer is rightly said to have died with Christ and that Christ's sufferings are also his own sufferings.

There is plenty of biblical statements to corroborate this explanation.

Thus, the main argument against Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement is mollified. The holiness of God is truly satisfied, and God does not end up arbitrarily forgiving the elect.

I think this is a good reformational analysis.

BenjaminRandall said:

Below, I have pasted my comments about Penal Satisfaction from the other thread, which is proffered as a refutation of Ignatius charges against Penal Satisfaction.



Forgive the long post, but I think this might be worth reading patiently....

Click to expand...

Which I have done.

Although I'm not a Calvinist, I am reformational in that I do affirm Penal Satisfaction View of Atonement, with Calvin (and Arminius, but not Wesley).

Penal Satisfaction, as Ignatius correctly explains, begins with God's justice demanding that every sin be exactly punished, and that God cannot arbitrarily choose to forgive sin. Sin-debt must be satisfied for there to be forgiveness. Ignatius rejects this position, but he correctly understands it. (Ignatius shows himself highly informed in this discussion, and does not deserve any aspersions otherwise.)

But Ignatius' main reason for rejecting Penal Satisfaction is faulty. His argument is that Penal satisfaction does not actually satisfy the justice of God, and is therefore logically incoherent. He claims that since the elect actually are not punished for their sin, but in fact, go scot free, then the justice of God is not satisfied.

Click to expand...

Ok

We can illustrate his point. If my brother gets fined $100,000 for some irregularity in his trading with the Stock Market, I could actually pay his fine without him experiencing any of the consequences.

Click to expand...

In a strictly human justice system yes. The problem with this is it isn't a Biblical view of justice. If you paid his fine then he becomes indebted to you and is obligated to serve you until his debt is paid. That is the Biblical idea of slavery. Mercy at the expense of justice is a normal occurrence in human thinking because we are in need of mercy as much as those who need it from us. That isn't the case with God.

On the other hand, if he murders a clerk during a convenience store robbery, he would have to go to prison himself. If I volunteered to go to prison in my brother's stead, the judge would not permit it since it would be a miscarriage of justice. In such cases, I cannot serve as my brother's substitute.

Click to expand...

Justice demands death for murder. You cannot be your brothers substitute because you haven't the right over your own life in order to give it in the place of another. Your life doesn't belong to you it belongs to God who gave it.

Ignatius would say that this latter case is exactly what is wrong with Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement.

Click to expand...

Only because he doesn't believe in justice.

But this argument against Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement does not adequately consider the ramifications of the Doctrine of Union with Christ.

Click to expand...

Agreed but there is more to it than just union with Christ. It has to do also with Federal Headship. Christ as the Second Adam.

Union with Christ is a real dynamic. It makes it so that the believer actually shares Christ's history. Through Union, what Christ experienced, the believer also shares.

Perhaps another illustration would help. Prior to 1959, Hawaiians were not a part of the American Union. They couldn't rightly celebrate the 4th of July; the couldn't truly say that Washington was the Father of their country, or that the forefathers endured Valley Forge.

However, on the day of their admission into the U.S., Hawaiians, by virtue of said union, could rightly make claim to all these things. By a stroke of a pen, American history became Hawaiian history.

Click to expand...

OK, but it still leaves out the importance of the Headship of Christ. Union with Him is vitally connected to us being in Him as our Federal Head.

Likewise the person united with Christ.... Because of union with Christ, the believer is rightly said to have died with Christ and that Christ's sufferings are also his own sufferings.

There is plenty of biblical statements to corroborate this explanation.

Thus, the main argument against Penal Satisfaction View of the Atonement is mollified. The holiness of God is truly satisfied, and God does not end up arbitrarily forgiving the elect.

I think this is a good reformational analysis.

Click to expand...

Except you left out the importance of how we are united with Christ. The elect are united with Christ as our Surety, as His seed by virtue of Him being the Second Adam and by adoption. There may be more ways but I have only had 2 hours sleep today.

I wouldn't know why Federal Headship would be any different from Union with Christ. In general terms, I suspect that my term Union with Christ is practically synonymous with Federal Headship.

I prefer the term union with Christ because it captures the biblical language a bit better: we are united in him in his death, etc., although I appreciate the Pauline language of 2nd Adam, etc., and wouldn't want anyone to think otherwise.

Ron wrote,

Except you left out the importance of how we are united with Christ. The elect are united with Christ as our Surety, as His seed by virtue of Him being the Second Adam and by adoption. There may be more ways but I have only had 2 hours sleep today.

Click to expand...

Okay...how are we united with Christ? Through faith--unless someone thinks you're not united through faith....

At any rate, I don't think Ignatius was really interested in discussing Penal Satisfaction in terms of the secondary issues (i.e., Calvinism vs. Arminianism) of this view of the atonement (which both Reformed positions affirm), but rather if Penal Satisfaction is consistent with itself, and how it compares with other alternative non-Reformed views of atonement.

Personally, I would like to see how good of an argument he can make against the notion that
--God poured out his wrath
--upon his undeserving Son
--who serves as deserving man's substitute
--in a way as to express his love for humanity
--while simultaneously preserving his holy character.

To achieve this end, I intend not to post on this thread as a means of advancing an Arminian agenda, but only as a means of advocating Penal Satisfaction Atonement.

Okay...how are we united with Christ? Through faith--unless someone thinks you're not united through faith....

Click to expand...

Christ united his divine nature to our human nature in his incarnation. We unite with him through faith and works, which are both unity to his divine energies.

Personally, I would like to see how good of an argument he can make against the notion that
--God poured out his wrath
--upon his undeserving Son
--who serves as deserving man's substitute
--in a way as to express his love for humanity
--while simultaneously preserving his holy character.

Click to expand...

The problem is that God's Son doesn't deserve to take our place. This shows how impersonal sin is to those who believe in the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. Christ's death, according to this view, is against the idea that people deserve punishment for their sins. Otherwise, God wouldn't transfer the guilt and punishment of sin to one who is innocent. This necessitates a view of justice in which punishment is not necessarily related to the offender, but only exists as a necessity expression or application of the offended party's will. My question is, if God could arbitrarily transfer personal punishment onto someone who wasn't guilty, what's to prevent us from saying that he can't simply forgive it without exacting the manifestation of his wrath?

Would it be just to condemn an innocent man to death in the place of a guilty man? If we could do that, what's to say that we couldn't simply pardon the guilty man?

How can a sinful act of will be attributed to anyone other than the sinner who willed it? What effect does the transpersonal imputation of sin have on our understanding of God's justice? It seems that God doesn't care so much about who bears the punishment, only that punishment is enacted.

Ignatios said:

Christ united his divine nature to our human nature in his incarnation. We unite with him through faith and works, which are both unity to his divine energies.

Click to expand...

Hm. Can you cite Apostles for each point?

Essentially I'd point to covenantal union as the operative point here in Substitutionary Atonement. That may be idiosyncratic, but hey, you're in "Debate a Calvinist" not "Debate a Protestant".

Ignatios said:

The problem is that God's Son doesn't deserve to take our place. This shows how impersonal sin is to those who believe in the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. Christ's death, according to this view, is against the idea that people deserve punishment for their sins.

Click to expand...

Excuse me? No, that's not the case!

The point constantly maintained in Scripture is that Divine grace overwhelms our constant and persistent deservedness of our punishment, but that God's perception of our deservedness must be maintained throughout -- hence Christ Jesus is punished in union with us.

God made vows to save God's people, so we are saved in union with Christ, His Son. But we are saved by grace, through faith, not by some sense of God that we don't deserve what we received in union with Christ. God promised salvation -- our salvation would be impossible were we to undergo just punishment for our sins. Yet paradoxically God promised -- and He made good on that promise by satisfying His justice through overflowing His unmerited favor toward us.

Ignatios said:

Otherwise, God wouldn't transfer the guilt and punishment of sin to one who is innocent. This necessitates a view of justice in which punishment is not necessarily related to the offender, but only exists as a necessity expression or application of the offended party's will. My question is, if God could arbitrarily transfer personal punishment onto someone who wasn't guilty, what's to prevent us from saying that he can't simply forgive it without exacting the manifestation of his wrath?

Click to expand...

Eh, who said it was arbitrary?

Ignatios said:

Would it be just to condemn an innocent man to death in the place of a guilty man? If we could do that, what's to say that we couldn't simply pardon the guilty man?

Click to expand...

Consider the covenant models, quite ancient models of God's dealing with men. A covenanted nation would incur the wrath and punishment of the covenanted god or empire for violating the covenant. The chief representative of that nation would bear the brunt of punishment. In ancient times your parents -- your family -- would bear the brunt of punishment for evil you perpetrated in your minority. That punishment would be applied with the general understanding that your family would then discipline you, correcting you after paying the punishment so that you would be a functional member of that nation.

And what do we find ourselves in? We find ourselves in a covenant with God, in the family of God, in the nation of God, children in His household, led by Christ Jesus.

Ignatios said:

How can a sinful act of will be attributed to anyone other than the sinner who willed it? What effect does the transpersonal imputation of sin have on our understanding of God's justice? It seems that God doesn't care so much about who bears the punishment, only that punishment is enacted.

Click to expand...

The problem with this argument is that it's "abstracting" a view so that it's separated from things the view holds to be critical. Justification demands works -- not as a part of justification, as an outcome. And so we find "sanctification be inseparably joined with justification" (WLC 77). We expect to be changed by the Spirit -- in our mortal bodies (as Romans 8 states). We expect to be glorified (as Romans 8 states). We expect to do good works through the Spirit of God within us. But I think we both find it inconceivable that the Spirit would have to wait for us to be perfect, to perfect us.

Ignatios said:

Christ united his divine nature to our human nature in his incarnation. We unite with him through faith and works, which are both unity to his divine energies.

Click to expand...

We are united to Christ by purchase, He bought us as His own by His blood, by gerneration, we are the seed of Christ, by nature, we are born of God as new creatures in Christ and have a new nature that is Christ in us, by adoption, He is our elder Brother, by marriage, we are His Bride, by being His body, by covenant, and by dominion, He is our King. We are His sheep, His inheritance, His beloved, His people. I am sure that there are more ways it is expressed in Scripture but that is all I can think of at the moment. All of these are experienced by us through faith. Works has nothing to do with it in any way.

The problem is that God's Son doesn't deserve to take our place.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, He is the only one who can. Mere men cannot stand in the place of another before God because they themselves deserve wrath and they don't belong to themselves. They have no right or authority to give themselves for another. Christ has right to stand in our place because He has no sin of His own. He also has the right because He made Himself or Surety in covenant. As God His life is His own and He alone has the right to do with it as he pleases. His life wasn't taken from Him, He laid it down of Himself and took it again of Himself. In perfect righteousness and justice the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied.

This shows how impersonal sin is to those who believe in the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. Christ's death, according to this view, is against the idea that people deserve punishment for their sins. Otherwise, God wouldn't transfer the guilt and punishment of sin to one who is innocent.

Click to expand...

And that is what separates the unbeliever from the believer. To the unbeliever sin is impersonal because he thinks he has none really. The believer knows what sin is and that it is personal rebellion against God. He knows it as personal because the Spirit has opened his eyes and stuck the finger of justice into his heart. He looks to the substituionary death of Christ as his only hope because he needs Him. No one trusts in Christ who doesn't need Him.

This necessitates a view of justice in which punishment is not necessarily related to the offender, but only exists as a necessity expression or application of the offended party's will. My question is, if God could arbitrarily transfer personal punishment onto someone who wasn't guilty, what's to prevent us from saying that he can't simply forgive it without exacting the manifestation of his wrath?

Click to expand...

It isn't just someone but that one who is Himself God. It isn't possible to transfer guilt to another who is like the guilty, a mere man. But the fact that Christ is both God and man makes it not only possible but our only hope. Man has sinned therefore it must be a man who suffers the punishment. Only God can take upon Himself that which He doesn't deserve and satisfy the infinite justice of Himself. As the Son of God His death is of infinte value and able to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

Would it be just to condemn an innocent man to death in the place of a guilty man? If we could do that, what's to say that we couldn't simply pardon the guilty man?

Click to expand...

No it wouldn't be just if the substitute was a mere man. A mere man cannot take the guilt of another. But Christ can and did. As explained before, a mere man has not the right by virtue of the fact that his life doesn't belong to him. He cannot give it. Pardon, in the sense understood by our human justice, isn't just. It is the overlooking of guilt without concern for the just punishment of it. Pardon in the Biblical sense has everything to do with justice being satisfied. The guilty are pardoned because justice has been meeted out.

How can a sinful act of will be attributed to anyone other than the sinner who willed it? What effect does the transpersonal imputation of sin have on our understanding of God's justice? It seems that God doesn't care so much about who bears the punishment, only that punishment is enacted.

Click to expand...

Oh No! God cares immensely who bears the punishment. Damnation is eternal becuse no amount of suffering in the soul of a mere man can ever satisfy the enormity of the offense. But that one who is Himself God can satisfy the enormous burden of justice.

Ignatios said:

My question is, if God could arbitrarily transfer personal punishment onto someone who wasn't guilty, what's to prevent us from saying that he can't simply forgive it without exacting the manifestation of his wrath?

...

It seems that God doesn't care so much about who bears the punishment, only that punishment is enacted.

Click to expand...

Calvin's answer is that we are spiritually united to Christ, and that via this union we experience his obedience, his death, and his resurrection. His death is penal, but that's not all it is. Here's his explanation from the Institutes, 2.16.7:


This is closer to the Orthodox understanding than some of the later Calvinists, I think.

In my opinion the heart of Calvin's religion is the concept of union with Christ, through which we experience his victory over sin and death. An interesting phrase that doesn't appear in this quotation is "fellowship of righteousness," which occurs during his discussion of justification by faith. See 3.11.10: