Thoughts on penal substitution

Feb 28, 2017
15
6
26
Nashville
✟17,459.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
For those who don't know, Penal Substitution is the belief that Jesus suffered the Father's wrath on the cross, was cut off from the rest of the Trinity, and was damned.
I disagree with this for two reasons: first, in my mind it reduces Christ's role in our salvation from the author of our salvation to merely the instrument, or in layman speech "the Father's punching bag."
Secondly, by having God attack Himself, the Son being isolated and damned, it literally splits the Trinity, which is blasphemous. All the same, I'd like to hear other opinions. Let me hear any counter-arguments you may have :)
Peace of Christ,
DeusExMachina
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrBubbaLove

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
What tradition teaches this?
It's also pretty prevalent in Evangelical circles, Pentecostalism. Pretty much all who descended from the Reformers.

It is rejected by Orthodoxy.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The most popular explanation of atonement seems to be penal substitution (PS), but there are lots of issues:



PS is not fair or just by human standards even if the innocent is willing, so why would God give us a different standard and say His is perfect?

PS makes God out to have the problem needing something in order to forgive people.

PS has God responsible/cause for the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ.

PS loses all the benefit that comes from disciplining/punishing the guilty



If God is Love, how could God have a problem forgiving people? The reason given for “penal substitution” is God cannot forgive us without Jesus being our substitute, but that makes God out to having a problem, lacking in Love someway, and being almost blood thirsty.

What is the relationship between “forgiveness” and punishment of the individual for a transgression? (most theories of atonement like to talk about “sin” needing punishment yet sin cannot be “punished”, only people can be punished.)

Would the perfect parent (the one you would like to be and be like God) see to the punishment or discipline of his/her children in order to have the Love to forgive those children?

The best parent does not “punish” (discipline) their children in order for the parent to have the love to forgive, they punish (discipline with time out or something) their children for the benefit that discipline provides?

God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be disciplined somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.

What are the “benefits” to being fairly (disciplined) for our transgressions?

Answers:

Deterrent for the person being disciplined and others aware of the discipline which keeps them from repeating the action.

It places the value on the transgression (the greater severity to the disciplining the greater the transgression), sometimes we do not know how much pain it has caused until we know the how we will be disciplined for the transgression.

It shows fairness and justice, the parent/judge needs to be consistent and we want to know we have a fair and just parent/judge.

It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime.

It also should strength and improves the relationship between the parent and the child it is a teaching moment.

We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love if at all possible, so if our parents do not discipline us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.


I also like the idea of the offender bringing something to the offended.

The thing is we are not talking about an argument among people or bring a token gift.


The subject you are addressing is huge since books have been written on it with lots of different conclusions; mostly due to the preconceived ideas of the authors.


We can work on this together and draw our own most likely alternative interpretation that will be very biblical, consistent and logical.


To begin with:


During the time of Christ, the Jewish people in and around Jerusalem would have had a much better understanding of atonement since atonement sacrifices were going on every hour at the temple, maybe thousands each day. All mature adults would have most likely participated in the individual process of atonement, but this was only for unintentional sins (really minor sins) since intentional sins had no Old Testament system for atonement.


Those only able to afford a bag of flour (Lev. 5) certainly would not have considered that bag of flour to be a “substitute” for them. There is nothing to suggest the Jewish people ever thought of any sacrifices to be substitutes for them. So what did they experience in this atonement process for unintentional sins?

If we could relate to their atonement experience for “minor” sins we might be able to extrapolate to what the atonement process would be like for intentional sins? (Read Lev. 5)


Forgiveness for unintentional sins came after the completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5), but did God need a bag of flour to forgive the person’s sins?


Would God need anything to forgive a person’s sins or is it the person needing something to accept that forgiveness as pure charity?


Is Christ Crucified described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment)?


I find the ransom description more than just an analogy to be an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”

(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)


Would a ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:


1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.

2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.

3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.

4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.

5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.

6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.



Go to Luke 15: 11-32 the prodigal son story to illustrate:


Who in the middle of the night snuck in and dragged off the young son, force the son to do evil stuff and finally chained him to a pigsty starving to death? (this is not the way it happened, but the child of the father was kidnapped.)


Who returned to the father, was it the son that rebelliously wished his father’s death so he could get his inheritance or was it the child of the father?


We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?


There is the one ransom, but could there be many kidnappers and many children?


Who are the kidnappers?


Looking at verses in particular:


(NIV) Ro. 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—


“God presented” this might be better expressed as “God is offering” since it will later be received, received or rejected on the contingency of some kind of “faith”. Instead of received it might better be translated as accepted (with the option of being rejected or not accepted).

“Sacrifice of atonement” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer as the “ransom payment” or just “ransom”. So God is offering a ransom payment to be accepted by those with faith or rejected by those refusing or just not accepted by those lacking faith.


A huge part of that ransom payment that especially applies to those that are already Christians is the life giving cleansing blood of Christ. Christ and God would have personally preferred that blood remained in Christ’s veins, but I needed it given up by Christ to flow over both my outside and my heart to know, experience, “trust” and feel I am cleansed and made alive. So Christ willingly gave up His blood for me and because of me. This is an overwhelming tragedy I insisted on to believe: I was made holy, righteous and stand justified. Without knowing and feeling this blood flowing over my heart, I might question my cleansing?


“Demonstrate his righteousness” God did not become righteous, but just showed the righteousness He has always had. (God’s justice/ holiness/being right) comes with the atoning sacrifice that includes the life giving cleansing blood showing God’s righteousness/justice in a very particular way; by resolving the huge problem that existed under the Old Covenant. That huge problem in the Old Covenant was with the handling of intentional sins that where committed, repented of, and which the individual sought forgiveness from God for doing (and God forgave without justly disciplining the sinner [thus not showing His righteousness through His disciplining]). These sins could be forgiven by God, but there was no way to fairly/justly discipline (punish) the sinner and still have the sinner live in the Promised Land. God did have fair/just punishments (discipline) for these sins, but the Jews could not follow through with them, since all Jews deserved to be treated similarly (there would be no one left in the Promised Land).


“in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” Instead of “unpunished” I would translate that Greek word to be “undisciplined”.

“because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”, shows the contrast between before and after the cross. This is not saying: “before the cross sins are now being punished by Christ going to the cross”, but is saying they were left unpunished prior to the cross. If they are being handled the “same way” as sins after the cross there would be no contrast? (And there are lots of other problems with this reasoning.) There is no “punishment” (disciplining for intentional sins) before the cross yet there is “punishment” (disciplining of God’s children) with the cross.


Any good parent realizes the need for not just forgiving their rebellious disobedient child, but to also see to the child’s fair/just/loving discipline if at all possible, but under the Old Covenant there was no “fair/just/loving discipline” so God could not show His justice/righteousness except to point out in the Law what really should happen, but that is not “good” disciplining, the child can almost feel they got away with something.


By my coming to the realization of my forcing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of my personal sins I experience a death blow to my heart (Acts 2: 37) the worst possible experience I can have and still live (That is also the most sever disciplining I can experience and still live). Thus I know God is my loving concerned Parent (since He at great cost has seen to my disciplining). I know how significant my sins really are; I can put those sins behind me after being disciplined. Since God and Jesus shared in my disciplining “I am crucified with Christ” (a teaching moment) our relationship is even greater than before my transgressing.

What is the benefit/value for us that we would want to accept the ransom payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder?

What value benefit did it have for those 3000 on the day of Pentecost?

Would those 3000 have become baptized believers on the day of Pentecost if Peter had not been able to say: Acts 2:36 “…this Jesus whom you crucified”?

So for those 3000, their crucifying Christ (ransom payment/atoning sacrifice) resulted in them becoming baptized believers on the day of Pentecost! Did it have value for them?


This will get us started if you really want to know.
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
For those who don't know, Penal Substitution is the belief that Jesus suffered the Father's wrath on the cross, was cut off from the rest of the Trinity, and was damned.
I disagree with this for two reasons: first, in my mind it reduces Christ's role in our salvation from the author of our salvation to merely the instrument, or in layman speech "the Father's punching bag."
Secondly, by having God attack Himself, the Son being isolated and damned, it literally splits the Trinity, which is blasphemous. All the same, I'd like to hear other opinions. Let me hear any counter-arguments you may have :)
Peace of Christ,
DeusExMachina

Not only does it split the Trinity, which makes the Godhead into a sort of "good cop/bad cop game" and pits the Son's will against the Father's (impossible!) ...

It makes God the Father subservient to His attributes. God WANTS to forgive us, but His hands are tied - He can't. Justice demands otherwise, and God is just ... (this is often what is said to explain PSA).

The problem with that is, TRULY EXAMINE and see if this is justice? Remember whipping boys? The favored son couldn't be whipped, so a slave would be chosen, and beaten when the son transgressed. SOMEONE had to bear the punishment, after all. Is that justice? If you (*see note below) think it is, then you must have some idea of divine scales of good/bad and/or crime/punishment in mind, some idea that such things rule the universe. They don't. God does. HE CAN show mercy whenever He decides. There is no order above Him constraining Him to justice against His will or desire to save people. And even if there was, punishing an innocent in place of the guilty is not justice, and I don't see how anyone can think it would be.

There are other issues, but those are the two biggest.

But ... where does it say that suffering is the payment for sin?

Yes, the wages of sin is death, but that is a natural consequence of turning away from God, who is the Source of life. We are not naturally immortal in ourselves. God isn't saying He will kill us for sinning, He is saying that if Adam sinned, he would cut Himself off from God, who is life, and so die. And he did. And so do we, lacking that grace and direct fellowship with God that Adam once enjoyed.

And those animals that were sacrificed, as a figure of sin=death? Yes, they died. Blood was poured out. But they didn't torture them first. God never demanded suffering. That is the worst of it, in a way - painting God as some kind of bloidthirsty monster that can only be appeased by SUFFERING. That's horrible, and a terrible misrepresentation of a God who says He is love.


*ETA: the "you" is meant as a general you, not the op. In a way, I'm speaking to whoever is reading and agrees with the premise.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For those who don't know, Penal Substitution is the belief that Jesus suffered the Father's wrath on the cross, was cut off from the rest of the Trinity, and was damned.
I disagree with this for two reasons: first, in my mind it reduces Christ's role in our salvation from the author of our salvation to merely the instrument, or in layman speech "the Father's punching bag."
Secondly, by having God attack Himself, the Son being isolated and damned, it literally splits the Trinity, which is blasphemous. All the same, I'd like to hear other opinions. Let me hear any counter-arguments you may have :)
Peace of Christ,
DeusExMachina

That is all mostly correct. Each part of the Trinity has roles to play. The Father doesn't get to be
born from a woman, the Spirit is filling in before Jesus returns, and Jesus does not dance
on people's heads like a flame.

Jesus voluntarily filled his role and was cut off from the Father on the Cross and died as
humans do. Again, the Father does not get to die on the cross. But as with any Father
having the Son go through that is monumental.

English Standard Version
saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

The only blasphemy to worry about is active, informed rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Rejecting sermon topics is not blaspheme.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 28, 2017
15
6
26
Nashville
✟17,459.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
That is all mostly correct. Each part of the Trinity has roles to play. The Father doesn't get to be
born from a woman, the Spirit is filling in before Jesus returns, and Jesus does not dance
on people's heads like a flame.

Jesus voluntarily filled his role and was cut off from the Father on the Cross and died as
humans do. Again, the Father does not get to die on the cross. But as with any Father
having the Son go through that is monumental.

English Standard Version
saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

The only blasphemy to worry about is active, informed rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Rejecting sermon topics is not blaspheme.
Yes I suppose you're right. It is however still heretical IMO
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Not only does it split the Trinity, which makes the Godhead into a sort of "good cop/bad cop game" and pits the Son's will against the Father's (impossible!) ...

It makes God the Father subservient to His attributes. God WANTS to forgive us, but His hands are tied - He can't. Justice demands otherwise, and God is just ... (this is often what is said to explain PSA).

The problem with that is, TRULY EXAMINE and see if this is justice? Remember whipping boys? The favored son couldn't be whipped, so a slave would be chosen, and beaten when the son transgressed. SOMEONE had to bear the punishment, after all. Is that justice? If you (*see note below) think it is, then you must have some idea of divine scales of good/bad and/or crime/punishment in mind, some idea that such things rule the universe. They don't. God does. HE CAN show mercy whenever He decides. There is no order above Him constraining Him to justice against His will or desire to save people. And even if there was, punishing an innocent in place of the guilty is not justice, and I don't see how anyone can think it would be.

There are other issues, but those are the two biggest.

But ... where does it say that suffering is the payment for sin?

Yes, the wages of sin is death, but that is a natural consequence of turning away from God, who is the Source of life. We are not naturally immortal in ourselves. God isn't saying He will kill us for sinning, He is saying that if Adam sinned, he would cut Himself off from God, who is life, and so die. And he did. And so do we, lacking that grace and direct fellowship with God that Adam once enjoyed.

And those animals that were sacrificed, as a figure of sin=death? Yes, they died. Blood was poured out. But they didn't torture them first. God never demanded suffering. That is the worst of it, in a way - painting God as some kind of bloidthirsty monster that can only be appeased by SUFFERING. That's horrible, and a terrible misrepresentation of a God who says He is love.


*ETA: the "you" is meant as a general you, not the op. In a way, I'm speaking to whoever is reading and agrees with the premise.
I agree, so what happened?

Look at my post 6
 
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I agree, so what happened?

Look at my post 6

I apologize. If you are asking why I posted after you, it takes a long time for me to type (one finger) and I was typing while you were writing yours. I did not see your post before I posted.

Is that what you are asking? Or do I misunderstand you?
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Penal substitution results from magical thinking about punishment and satisfaction. I suppose it has a place, but it's rotten when people don't recognize its limitations. Overstated, it can appear to limit God's freedom, making his will subordinate to abstractions just as justice.

Any articulation of this doctrine that separates the persons of the Trinity is not consistent with orthodox theology. God has only one will which cannot be divided.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DrBubbaLove
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree, so what happened?

Look at my post 6
The proper question to ask might be why should we talk about ransom type theological view of our salvation in a thread started to talk about a different view (PS the OP)?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For those who don't know, Penal Substitution is the belief that Jesus suffered the Father's wrath on the cross, was cut off from the rest of the Trinity, and was damned.
I disagree with this for two reasons: first, in my mind it reduces Christ's role in our salvation from the author of our salvation to merely the instrument, or in layman speech "the Father's punching bag."
Secondly, by having God attack Himself, the Son being isolated and damned, it literally splits the Trinity, which is blasphemous. All the same, I'd like to hear other opinions. Let me hear any counter-arguments you may have :)
Peace of Christ,
DeusExMachina
I agree the view reduces Christ's role and is rather an affront to the Trinity Doctrine.

Conveniently many evangelicals reject that Doctrine, though still believing in a Trinity, as well as more traditional/orthodox views of how/why are transgressions can be forgiven. So those rejecting (assuming they understand they are rejecting) the Trinity Doctrine probably do not have a hard time with the idea of dividing God (in the orthodox view). They of course would say making a division in the Trinity or between Jesus and Father is [NOT] in conflict with their concept of a "Trinity" or God.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

expos4ever

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2008
10,592
5,732
Montreal, Quebec
✟248,004.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
For those who don't know, Penal Substitution is the belief that Jesus suffered the Father's wrath on the cross, was cut off from the rest of the Trinity, and was damned.
I disagree with this for two reasons:.....
I am also deeply suspicious of this model of atonement. If you read Romans 8:3 carefully, you will note that it is sin, not Jesus that is the target of God's wrath on the cross. Stated simply, one can see the cross as the place where God attacks and condemn sin, with Jesus serving as the self-sacrificing "receptacle" that contains that sin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrBubbaLove
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am also deeply suspicious of this model of atonement. If you read Romans 8:3 carefully, you will note that it is sin, not Jesus that is the target of God's wrath on the cross. Stated simply, one can see the cross as the place where God attacks and condemn sin, with Jesus serving as the self-sacrificing "receptacle" that contains that sin.
yep. It also presents a problem since the idea that Christ took the punishment for all our sins should be mean everyone is saved, unless we limit whose sins we say He paid for. We all know (or most of us of anyway) that not everyone will be saved. So to promote penal substitution we need to change our idea of atonement for sins.

The solution for Calvin was to imagine the idea of limited atonement, so Christ did not pay for or was not the penal substitute for everyone's sins, only for the sins of the elect. Which obviously conflicts with the foundational Christian belief that Christ died for all of us - no one excluded.

Also the idea of transferring our guilt onto another person so God can take His Wrath out on them instead of us to make atonement is in contrast to a Christ sacrificing Himself out of love for our atonement.
[adding - it also rather presents a troubling view of the Trinity not just abandoning itself but also working against or directing Wrath at Itself.]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Feb 28, 2017
15
6
26
Nashville
✟17,459.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
yep. It also presents a problem since the idea that Christ took the punishment for all our sins should be mean everyone is saved, unless we limit whose sins we say He paid for. We all know (or most of us of anyway) that not everyone will be saved. So promote penal substitution we need to change our idea of atonement for sins. The solution for Calvin was to imagine the idea of limited atonement, so Christ did not pay for or was not the penal substitute for everyone's sins, only for the sins of the elect. Which obviously conflicts with the foundation Christian belief that Christ died for all of us - no one excluded.
Also the idea of transferring our guilt onto another person so God can take His Wrath out on them instead of us to make atonement is in contrast to a Christ sacrificing Himself out of love for our atonement.
I agree. Exactly
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrBubbaLove
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums