Penal substitution disputed by many

I'm taking a look at theories and views of the atonement and find it interesting. In a very brief thumbnail sketch, the seven major theories of the atonement are as follows

Atonement Theories:

1) Satisfaction theory - God's was offended by sin and His honor needed to be restored, thus Calvary.

2) Ransom theory - Satan had a legitimate claim to the souls of men and the earth because of sin and Jesus offered Himself as a ransom to ransom men and the earth back to God.

3) Governmental theory - God had to punish sin to show that His ruole and government were not to be disturbed.

4) Penal substitution - every breach of the law had to be punished and the necessary sacrifice to heal the breach had to be perfect. The shedding of blood was required.

5) Moral influence theory - God loved us so much He couldn't just let us go and Calvary was God's way of morally influencing us to return to Him.

6) Recapitulation - Christus Victor - God designed all with a established order and sin disrupted this order. Chrsit was the supreme victor over the sin that caused theinterrupted order and died to re-establish this order to the glory of God.

7) Healing model - God was interested in more than just the salvation of souls. He was interested in the entire cosmos and at Calvary mankind and the entire created order were given the means to be eventually set free to be brought back to God.

Meanwhile, it's a sure fact that a large portion of the church over the cenuries adopted the PENAL SUBSTITUTION theory which truth be told is not a theory but a fact. But my,in my study I now know many reject pernal substitution for the other models and views. They say penal substitution speaks of a nagry, wrathful and bloodthirsty God out for revenge which is a distortion of God's character which is love with a willingness to forgive. I wasn't really aware of the depth of the controversy.

5 But He was pierced through forour transgression, He was crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.

6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; But he Lord caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.

- PIERCED THROUGH for our transgressions
- CRUSHED for our iniquities
- CHASTENING for our well being
- by HIS SCOURGING we are healed
- the iniquity of us all FELL ON HIM

How is that not penal substitution? What do you think?

Through this penal substutution, I also think that the entire created order, the entire cosmos, will eventually be affected unto complete restoration and renewal. Bu yet, if the ATONEMENT has other benefits besides the salvation of our souls, it still does not seem to do away with the foundational penal substitution aspect of the event at Calvary. What do you think?

I personally haven't seen any of these words, including penal substitution, in the bible. Man has the need to put things in a nice convenient package that can be easily quoted, easily understood and that serve as a definitive "definition." By doing so they rob Christ of His power. Seek not the doctrines of men but the power of God and refrain from putting God in a box.

/I personally haven't seen any of these words, including penal substitution, in the bible. Man has the need to put things in a nice convenient package that can be easily quoted, easily understood and that serve as a definitive "definition."/

So what's wrong with studying the things of the word so as to understand them in a better and more definitive way and come up with workable terms?

You may not see the words penal substitution in the Bible but we see,

- PIERCED THROUGH for our transgressions
- CRUSHED for our iniquities
- CHASTENING for our well being
- by HIS SCOURGING we are healed
- the iniquity of us all FELL ON HIM
(Isaiah 53:5-6)

What's not penal substitution about that? The phrase does no violence or harm to the actual text. He bore the "penalty" I deserved by becoming a "substitute" in my place.

/By doing so they rob Christ of His power. Seek not the doctrines of men but the power of God and refrain from putting God in a box./

I didn't know Christ could be robbed of His power.

These "doctrines of men" like penal substitution are taken from the word itself such as Isaiah 53:5-6. Hardly an attempt to put God in a box.

/Seek not the doctrines of men but the power of God and refrain from putting God in a box./

"For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the POWER OF GOD." ( I Cor 1:18)

Penal substitution is plainly evident in scripture. I would be surprised if anyone disputed the idea of it. They may call it something else, but it is surely there. I am told that Charles Finney did reject the idea of the substitutionary death of Christ being the payment for our sins. Finney had the worst soteriology of any theologian I know of.

Another "doctrine" which I had heard for years and accepted without much thinking is the idea that Christ kept the Old Testament Law and when he died, that earthly obedience was credited to us as our righteousness when we believed and were saved. I now think this doctrine is misguided. It sounds lovely and all, but I don't think it's true. I will say that if Jesus had not perfectly kept the Law, he would not have been in a position to save us. But I do not believe that the earthly obedience he performed while in the flesh on Earth is the righteousness we gain at salvation.

If you are interested in reading a fairly long essay on the subject by William Kelly, you can read it here:

http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/7subjcts/righteou.html

-Daniel

When God created Adam and Eve, they were in right relationship with Him and all things were good. Through their sin they became estranged, alienated, from the life that was in God. But from before the foundation of the world God knew that His creation would sin, and He provided an atoning sacrifice and a covenant by which man could once again be restored to sonship, bear the image of God, and partake of His divine nature. This reconciliation came through the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ. God loved us that much! God loved ME that much! He desired right relationship with us. He desired for us to be empowered by His very spirit. He desired intimacy with us.

I personally think that forgiveness of sins is only the doorway, the entrance if you will, into all that God desires for us. Why stand and examine the construction of the door, the style of hinges, the placement of the knob, when the point is to walk through the door and experience that for which the door was created. I have peace with God through Christ. The enmity is gone. I now have access to the life of God, the mysteries of God, and the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2) through the power of the Holy Spirit. His LIFE lies behind that door. His SPIRIT lies behind that door. I am stepping through that door and never looking back. Hallelujah I am forgiven, but if that is all there is to it, I am missing God's entire plan. Christ in me, the hope of Glory. Greater things shall we do through His Holy Spirit. Being made partakers of the divine nature.

English Standard Version
And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,

Christ being our righteousness, is only possible if Christ was perfectly sinless , this was only posable if he kept the law and was perfectly righteous, so when we believed god the righteousness that is in Christ , is imputed to us ,and we are declared righteous,in him , as Christ bore our sins , so also he bares our righteousness, in the same what he became the spotless lamb of god , the perfect sacrifice, on our behalf , not blemished in any way , but was wholly acceptable to the father , in both ways , as a propitiation, an appeasement towards gods perfect justice and wrath , and as a perfect righteousness that is accounted to us , that was required by gods perfect requirements....

Christ fulfilled all things according to the law .....

Brother David,

Thanks for this thoughtful question and study, Lord willing it will prove profitable for (hyper)the cause of Christ in building up His body:)

Personally I do not subscribe to penal substitution, tho initially it made sense upon a cursory reading of scripture.
The reason my position changed was after discovering that there are more than one word translated as "for" and as you might suspect, they have different meanings.
The one in question is "hyper" which more often than not, I've found it to mean "for the benefit of" and not "instead of" tho further study revealed that some do include "instead" as a viable definition- (possibly to accommodate a penal substitute position?) but in reading the text and inserting either "instead of vs for the benefit of" the latter makes much more sense to me and makes for an overall consistent use of the word.

An easy example would be Romans 5:6 which is a relevant text-
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Now the first "for" is not the same root/Greek word as the second and it is the second "for" that we are concerned with as it's pivotal to our understanding of Christs sacrifice.
I understand that one could (and some do) read this and interpret it as "instead of" tho when the same word appears a little later it would be a misuse of that definition as it would distort the text and render it senseless-
For example in Romans 14:15
But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

One can simply insert "instead of" when they read "for" (hyper) and see that wouldn't work nearly as well as "for the benefit of" does (at least to my me).

The "Hyper" term appears 170 times and there are other far better examples as well as alternative definitions such as "above, of," etc....

In any case I hope this helps you dear brother in being a berean:)

I'm not trying to be contrary here bro but I can't go along totally with the views you have expressed.

/I think what Martyr is getting at, and I have sympathies with his position, is that men have a desperate need to systematize theology./

Maybe it's not so much a desperate need to systematize theology as a keen desire to understand the word of God and put its many symmetrical parts together in a logical, coherent and understandable way. The book of Romans for example is a masterpiece of logic and coherence written by Paul in a very systematic way.

/Another favorite word of the scholars and academics is hermeneutics. The art and the science of studying the Bible. I am just not sure it is either an art or a science./

How can a scholar dedicated to studying the Bible be a bad thing? Biblical hertmeneutics is associated with biblical studies. Biblical scholars trained in exegesisi and hermeneutics have produced many masterful and insightful works and writings on biblical subjects.

/I am not against art or science, but the instrument to truly understand the Word is not the head, its the heart./

That goes without saying and is not even a subject for debate. Nothing even needs to be said. You somehow seem to be saying that biblical scholoars and academics never reach the point of being touched in their heart by their studies. I don't believe this is so.

/If I want to understand God and His Word it must be first filtered through my heart./

Again, that goes without saying. Why wouldn't a truly saved biblical scholar not be aware of this?

/Men can be useful, and I am not against professors and academics, but the great truth of the Word are revealed to us by the Spirit. The Word of God is Inspiration, the understanding of Gods word is revelation./

Can a biblical professor minister and teach you something out of his heart that will touch your heart since the word of God is what he is teaching? In my time when I was taught by biblical professors and teachers I left many classes greatly edified because of the subject matter just taught. Many biblical scholars have written very good things because their hearts have been touched by their systematic studies. When our hearts are touched by the word of God most of the time affects our mind also. Like I said, I'm not trying to be contrary but there's no need to stack the deck against someone doing a systematic study of a biblical subject. How can revelation to the heart not follow if they are studing the word of the Lord?

/I personally haven't seen any of these words, including penal substitution, in the bible. Man has the need to put things in a nice convenient package that can be easily quoted, easily understood and that serve as a definitive "definition."/

So what's wrong with studying the things of the word so as to understand them in a better and more definitive way and come up with workable terms?

You may not see the words penal substitution in the Bible but we see,

- PIERCED THROUGH for our transgressions
- CRUSHED for our iniquities
- CHASTENING for our well being
- by HIS SCOURGING we are healed
- the iniquity of us all FELL ON HIM
(Isaiah 53:5-6)

What's not penal substitution about that? The phrase does no violence or harm to the actual text. He bore the "penalty" I deserved by becoming a "substitute" in my place.

/By doing so they rob Christ of His power. Seek not the doctrines of men but the power of God and refrain from putting God in a box./

I didn't know Christ could be robbed of His power.

These "doctrines of men" like penal substitution are taken from the word itself such as Isaiah 53:5-6. Hardly an attempt to put God in a box.

/Seek not the doctrines of men but the power of God and refrain from putting God in a box./

"For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the POWER OF GOD." ( I Cor 1:18)

The danger and harm in doing so is you run the risk of falling into the same trap the pharisees did. You are taking the scriptures and from them and them alone attempting to connect the dots and make a nice packaged doctrine that ties all the strings together. Jesus upbraided the pharisees for seeking Him among the scriptures because He does not dwell in there (though he certainly uses it), He is the creator of the heavens and the earth and He is spirit.

I am not downplaying the bible but I will say that sometimes you need to lift your head out of the book and look around because THERE is Christ. In fact the very things we see are made from Him who cannot be seen.

In regards to not knowing Christ could be robbed of His power...Christ is no thief. He does not take what is not given to Him. If someone turns their heart towards something else or chooses to pursue something other than the Living Word then what is Christ to do? He will plead and remain faithful but he will not infringe on that person. That person has made their choice and Christ is no thief. Did you not read when Jesus could perform no miracles because of the peoples unbelief? (Mark 6:5)

You should not have quoted 1 Corinthians 1:18. For if you look above it at verse 17 it reads "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void." Does not taking the Living Word and His work on the cross and making it into a doctrinal phrasing with everything neatly packaged fall under the heading of wisdom of speech? But Paul didn't share the Gospel in the wisdom of speech (that is words) but in POWER. Verse 18 hardly supports making a systematic teaching of it. Obviously Paul wasn't too concerned with it because he never outright spoke it because it was about walking in Christ. He didn't need to spell it out.

Look at verse 20 of that same chapter in 1 Corinthians. The wisdom of this world. Does the need to categorize and name things fit in with how this world does things or with how God does things? Who needs to know, the spirit or the flesh?

It's a shame really. Because of Pauls faith in the power of God we now have giant lists like the one posted here trying to figure out exactly what he believed and taught about certain things.

/The danger and harm in doing so is you run the risk of falling into the same trap the pharisees did. You are taking the scriptures and from them and them alone attempting to connect the dots and make a nice packaged doctrine that ties all the strings together./

And that's a bad thing? The Bible is coherent, consistent and unified in a divinely symmetrical way. Pointing this out and tying all the strings together is a bad thing?

/You are taking the scriptures and from them and them alone attempting to connect the dots...

How else should biblical exegesis be done except from the scriptures ALONE and tying together the various passages that shed light on a subject? I'm a firm believer in sola scriptura.

/You should not have quoted 1 Corinthians 1:18. For if you look above it at verse 17 it reads "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void." Does not taking the Living Word and His work on the cross and making it into a doctrinal phrasing with everything neatly packaged fall under the heading of wisdom of speech?/

No, it's not attempting wisdom of speech. We know more today about the atonement than the early Christians did and we now have the canon of the NT which is somewhat large and to be known cannot be casually studied. Nailing down a message in its specifics and comparing the relevant ppassages is an attempt to understand the words God would have you use.

/ But Paul didn't share the Gospel in the wisdom of speech (that is words) but in POWER.Verse 18 hardly supports making a systematic teaching of it./

But the entirety of the NT combined with I Cor 1:18 supports trying to tie all the passages together into a comprehensive and coherent meessage. Doing that doesn't mean you are casting aside reliance on the power of the Holy Spirit.

/Look at verse 20 of that same chapter in 1 Corinthians. The wisdom of this world. Does the need to categorize and name things fit in with how this world does things or with how God does things? Who needs to know, the spirit or the flesh?/

We're not talking about studying the wisdom of this world. We are speaking of studying the scriptures which are the inspired God breathed word of God full of His wisdom. How can you make that to mean if we delve deeply into scripture and organize it a bit we are playing into the wisdom of the world? Where does this thinking come from? Worldly existentalism says that truth can't be organized or set down. Perhaps the notion that there is no need for systemization of biblical truth is in itself a product of worldly existentalist thinking.

We have a large NT canon today which the early church didn't have. Thus more study and comparison of passages is required. How that serves to nullify the power of God in gospel presentations is a mystery to me. But to each his own.

Meanwhile, I remain supportive of sola scriptura.

Wow!

Brother Tyler you seem to take that another brother can hold/maintain a different perspective quite personally...

Am I misunderstanding your words and disposition?

Generally those who hold to a reformed grace (Calvinistic/Lutheran) position have historically also held fast to penal substitution, whereas others do not find the scriptures to teach either... do you feel it incumbent upon you to or compelled by the love of Christ to make an issue out of such things?

At the end of the day all we can really do (that's profitable) is to state our position and (if need be) why we hold to that position all while prayerfully and patiently persuading those whom oppose. Perhaps, in some cases, an individual just isn't "there" yet and we must give grace lest we fall into sin and cause another to stumble... Our Lord had strong words for those whom did so-

Many people object to the idea of penal satisfaction. Some accuse us of painting God in a negative light, as consumed with anger rather than filled with love. They assume that God can simply forgive us because He loves us unconditionally. But, they fail to realize that God is not obligated to forgive sin. He would be perfectly just to condemn all human beings for their sins. Moreover, they fail to realize that these righteous standards find their source in the very nature of God, who is inherently good and just. In other words, He acts in accordance with what He is. Since He is good, He must uphold what is good. Since He is just, He must uphold justice (Dt 32:4, Ps 11:7, Is 61:8, Heb 2:2). In fact, if He overlooked evil, He would cease to be good. If He overlooked injustice or the sins of human beings, He would cease to be just (Pr 17:15, Rm 3:4, Ps 92:15, Rev 16:7). That is why the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is so important. It was the only way to satisfy the demands of God’s righteousness while showing mercy to His people (Rm 3:21-26). God can now reckon those who are in Christ as righteous because He is satisfied with the obedience and substitutionary sacrifice of His Servant, Jesus Christ (Is 52:13, 53:10-11). It was the only way to satisfy God’s justice. In fact, Donald Macleod correctly stated that if the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not necessary, it could never be an act of divine love, nor could it reveal the righteousness of God. For example, the moral influence theory makes the sacrifice of Christ superfluous and thus undermines the idea that it was an act of love. But, the truth is that because sin inherently deserves condemnation and because there was no other way to satisfy God’s righteous requirements without condemning every human being, we can affirm that the sacrifice of Christ is both the ultimate act of God’s love towards His people and the display of God’s righteousness (Rm 1:17, 1 Jn 3:16, 4:10).

John Murray has also pointed out the contrast between this doctrine and the Roman Catholic teaching that the work of Christ "does not relieve the faithful of the necessity of making satisfaction for sins which they have committed” after their baptism. Murray answered that there is no penal liability left for the believer because the satisfaction that Christ achieved by His active and passive obedience is perfect and final. Turretin held the same position and affirmed that Christ both removed our sins by His sacrifice and fulfilled the righteous requirements of God’s law on our behalf. This is not a denial of the fact that God still chastens believers for their sins (Heb 12:5-10). But we recognize that God disciplines believers as His children, rather than as those who are still under the condemnation of the law because of their sins (Rm 8:1). In fact, the Scriptures teach us that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of His people. Unlike the sacrifices of the Old Testament which could never fully satisfy God’s justice or remove the sins of His people, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was enough to cover the sins of God’s elect because it completely satisfied His justice, being sufficient to justify their forgiveness and account them as righteous (Heb 1:3, 9:12, 25-28, 10:1-14).

Meanwhile, I remain supportive of sola scriptura.

And I maintain the bible is useful for instruction reproof rebuke, etc. but it is not the binding word of God on my life, Christ is. Christ died to be All in All, not for the bible.

Protestants, (Of which sadly I am one) will have to answer hard for missing what is in front of their faces and mistaking the written word for the Living Word and for not seeing the bible for what it is because they've been taught that to believe it is anything less than 100% the very word of God is heretical. So by fear they cling to it. Christ and the bible have been exchanged in the heart. I read my bible daily but if it disappeared I'd be okay because it's not Christ, it points to Him who is All in All!

/But then are not these same theologians who do the exegesis of scripture who tell us that the Holy Ghost does not move in apostolic power as he did in the first century./

No, not at all. Who are the "same theologians" you speak of? Some have told us what you refer to but hardly all of them! It's a one size blanket covers all assertion you make. Should we throw out all theology because of a minority?

Meanwhile, the thread is about penal substitution and why some people may not hold this view. Comments welcome in that context and subject.

If you don't care to discuss these things, why not allow those who do to do so?

Carry on...