What is the doctrine of penal substitution?

General Faith
1

In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins. As a result, God’s justice is satisfied, and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

The word penal means “related to punishment for offenses,” and substitution means “the act of a person taking the place of another.” So, penal substitution is the act of a person taking the punishment for someone else’s offenses. In Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the Substitute, and the punishment He took (at the cross) was ours, based on our sin (1 Peter 2:24).

According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.

Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41–42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4–6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.

During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25–26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.

There are quite a few different theories about how, exactly, Christ’s sacrifice frees us from the penalty of sin. Penal substitution is the most logically and biblically sound view.

In case you wonder, I firmly hold to Penal substitution.

J.

1 Like
2

“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” 2 Cor 5:21

1 Like
3

And then there is Isaiah 53. I would genuinely enjoy asking you a few follow up questions about it, @Bestill. At the same time, I know that you prefer not to have too many questions directed your way, and I respect that.

Shalom.

J.

4

What you wrote made me think of this verse, so I posted it. I don’t mind sincere questions.

5

Ever heard of Penal substitutionary Atonement and how do you understand this in light of Isaiah 53?
A sincere question.

Johann.

6

The term ‘penal substitutionary atonement’ is not something that floats around in my vocabulary, but from your explanation it is what I believe. The wages of sin is death, and Jesus received that wage. I have no doubt that Jesus died the death that was owed to me. Having paid for my sin, my sin is now paid for. No double jeopardy. Salvation is by believing and accepting what He did for me. Otherwise I’m still held accountable for my sin.

Isaiah 53 also confirms this and more. “The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” It was my iniquity, my sin, and it was taken from me and put on Him. When my sin was placed on Him, He then died the death those sins deserved. He did this so I could be set free from the penalty and go from a death sentence to life. It was all by His grace and motivated by His love.

And its not just me He did this for. “For God so loved the world…” Like any gift, the gift is given and the gift also has to be received. What good is a gift if the person its given to refuses to receive it? Before you can receive, you need to believe in the Giver. Once you believe in the Giver you will realize the magnitude grace that’s found in the gift. You take it on yourself with gratitude and that transaction results in salvation.

7

Correct @Bestill.

The language of “receiving Christ” is explicitly biblical and is tied in the New Testament to faith rather than to a human work or transaction that merits salvation. In Johannine theology the act of receiving is grammatically and conceptually equated with believing.

~John 1:12

“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”[1]

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.

The verse contains two parallel verbal expressions that interpret one another. The verb λαμβάνω (lambanō) means to receive, take, or welcome. John then immediately explains what that reception means with the participle τοῖς πιστεύουσιν (tois pisteuousin), those believing. In other words receiving Christ is not a separate action beyond faith but the personal appropriation of Christ through πιστεύω (pisteuō), to believe or trust.

The Gospel then clarifies the object and content of that faith.

~John 3:16 bxRom. 5:8; Eph. 2:4; 2 Thess. 2:16; 1 John 3:1; 4:9, 10

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”[2]

The salvific act is grounded in the giving of the Son by the Father. The verb δίδωμι (didōmi) emphasizes divine initiative. The human response is expressed by πιστεύων εἰς αὐτόν, believing into him, a construction that conveys reliance and personal trust directed toward Christ.

Paul articulates the same reception using the language of faith directed toward the risen Lord.

~Romans 10:9–10 xMatt. 10:32; Luke 12:8; [1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11] Acts 16:31

“Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”[3]

The internal element is καρδίᾳ πιστεύεται, believing with the heart. The outward expression is confession of Jesus as Lord. The resurrection is central because the cross accomplishes atonement and the resurrection vindicates the saving work of Christ.

Paul also uses reception language directly in his instruction to the churches.

~Colossians 2:6 vch. 1:10; 1 Thess. 4:1

“Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him.”[4]

The verb παρελάβετε (parelabete) again carries the sense of receiving or accepting. In context it refers to the initial moment of faith by which believers came into union with Christ and entered the sphere of His lordship.

It is therefore correct to say that salvation is a gift given by God in Christ.

~Romans 6:23 [ch. 2:7]; See ch. 5:12

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[5]

The noun χάρισμα (charisma) denotes a gracious gift. Salvation is not earned but granted through divine grace because of Christ’s obedient life, His atoning death on the cross, and His victorious resurrection.

Yet Scripture also clarifies that the ability to receive Christ ultimately arises from God’s regenerating work.

~John 6:44 ch. 12:32; Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; [ver. 65; ch. 4:23]

The Father who sent me draws him. The author never specifically explains what this “drawing” consists of. It is evidently some kind of attraction; whether it is binding and irresistible or not is not mentioned. But there does seem to be a parallel with 6:65, where Jesus says that no one is able to come to him unless the Father has allowed it. This apparently parallels the use of Isaiah by John to reflect the spiritual blindness of the Jewish leaders (see the quotations from Isaiah in John 9:41 and 12:39-40).

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”[6]

The verb δύναται (dunatai) expresses ability. Apart from divine drawing the human heart does not come to Christ. This is why the new birth precedes and enables genuine faith. Many don’t agree here.
~John 3:3

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”[7]

Therefore receiving Christ in the biblical sense means personally trusting in the crucified and risen Son of God, resting in His righteousness and atoning work rather than one’s own merit. The Father gives the Son. The Son accomplishes redemption through the cross and resurrection. The Spirit grants new birth so that a person believes. Through that faith the believer receives Christ and enters into the salvation that God has graciously given.

Thanks sorella.

J.

  1. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. - ESV ↩︎

  2. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. - ESV ↩︎

  3. Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. - ESV ↩︎

  4. Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him. - ESV ↩︎

  5. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. - ESV ↩︎

  6. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. - ESV ↩︎

  7. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. - ESV ↩︎

8

It seems this topic has quietly faded away into “nothingness” which is somewhat surprising given that it touches the very heart of the Gospel itself. The doctrine of the atonement is not a secondary issue, but central to understanding how God reconciles sinners to Himself through Christ (Romans 3:24-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Any thoughts from the brethren? Or would it be worthwhile to create a poll and see where everyone stands on the various views of the atonement?

The Major Atonement Theories
Theory Main Idea Associated With
Ransom Theory Christ’s death was a ransom to liberate sinners from bondage to Satan, sin, and death. Early Church Fathers such as Origen
Christus Victor Christ conquered the powers of sin, death, and Satan through His death and resurrection. Early Church; revived by Gustaf Aulén
Recapitulation Christ succeeded where Adam failed, retracing humanity’s steps in obedience. Irenaeus
Satisfaction Theory Christ satisfied God’s offended honor. Anselm of Canterbury
Penal Substitution Christ bore the penalty due to sinners, satisfying God’s justice in their place. Reformers and many Evangelicals
Governmental Theory Christ’s death demonstrates God’s justice, allowing Him to forgive while maintaining moral order. Hugo Grotius
Moral Influence Theory Christ’s death demonstrates God’s love and inspires repentance. Peter Abelard
Example Theory Christ’s death primarily provides an example of obedience and self-sacrifice. Various liberal traditions
Where Penal Substitution Fits

As someone who holds to Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA), I affirm that:

Sin incurs God’s judicial wrath (Romans 1:18).
The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23).
Christ bore that penalty as our substitute (Isaiah 53:5–6).
God laid our iniquity upon Him (Isaiah 53:10–12).
Christ became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).
He was made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).
He bore our sins in His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24).

Is PSA the Only Biblical Model?

Many Reformed theologians would say that PSA is the heart of the atonement, but not the entirety of its effects.

For example:

Christus Victor explains what Christ’s victory accomplished over Satan and death (Colossians 2:15; Hebrews 2:14–15).
Recapitulation highlights Christ as the Last Adam (Romans 5:12–21; 1 Corinthians 15:45).
Penal Substitution explains how God’s justice was satisfied (Isaiah 53; Romans 3:25–26).

Thus, many Reformed scholars see Christus Victor and Recapitulation as complementary motifs, while maintaining that Penal Substitution best explains how sinners are reconciled to a holy God.

Why Reformed Christians Emphasize PSA

The strongest texts are:

Isaiah 53:4–12
Mark 10:45
Romans 3:21–26
Romans 5:6–11
2 Corinthians 5:21
Galatians 3:13
1 Peter 2:24
1 Peter 3:18

The language is explicitly substitutionary:

“for us” (hyper hēmōn, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν)
“in our place”
“bore” (anapherō, ἀναφέρω)
“propitiation” (hilastērion, ἱλαστήριον; Romans 3:25)
“curse” (katara, κατάρα)

These texts are why many conclude that Penal Substitution is not merely one metaphor among many, but a central explanation of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

A common Reformed summary is:

Christ died as our substitute (PSA), thereby defeating Satan and death (Christus Victor), reconciling us to God, and becoming the Last Adam who restores humanity (Recapitulation).

I would recommend to read the article first before responding. 30 minutes is not that long.
We have an eternity.

The British philosopher, A. J. Ayer, once remarked that Christianity is arguably the worst of the world’s religions because it rests, in Ayer’s words, on the “allied doctrines of original sin and vicarious atonement, which are intellectually contemptible and morally outrageous.”

Three sorts of objections have been lodged against the doctrine of vicarious atonement: (1) Substitutionary punishment is incoherent; (2) Substitutionary punishment is unjust; and (3) Substitutionary punishment is unsatisfactory.

In this talk, William Lane Craig will examine these three objections and defend the coherence, justice, and satisfactoriness of Christ’s substitutionary atonement for our sins.

Reasonable Faith Website, Dr. Craig
Reasonable Faith…

Books by William Craig-
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=william+cr…

Lanier Theological Library- https://www.laniertheologicallibrary.org
The Stone Chapel Podcast- https://www.laniertheologicallibrary…
Biblical Literacy- https://biblical-literacy.org

I was banned from this forum during a vigorous debate against civic over the doctrine of the atonement. While I disagreed with a moderator’s position, which I considered speculative, I believe such matters are best settled by careful exegesis of Scripture and charitable dialogue among brethren (Acts 17:11; 2 Timothy 2:24-25).

God bless.

J.

1 Like
9

I don’t ever see anyone discussing the Courts of Heaven. Don’t anyone let that surprise you because while the scripture may not name the courts of heaven per se, the clues are all over. One is the accuser who stands and accuses us, where does he go to accuse us? To the Courts of heaven. Now scripture does talk about lots of “judgment” and where else are Judgments handed down? In Court.

A long time ago I heard two different testimonies where people said they were taken up and got to visit the courts of heaven. One of them was facing charges! An Angel told him to stand and address the Court after the prosecutor made a case against him and he was freaking out. He didn’t know what to say, isn’t he saved? SO he said, I plead the blood of Jesus and there was a shout, Case Dismissed! I loved that testimony and that man sounded very credible.

I remember in scripture the Lord made Jail Breaks for His disciples, that’s always cool. He’s the Judge in the Court and He breaks His men out of prison! You gotta love that!

Scripture says there is no greater gift than a man to lay down his life for his friend, right? Well Jesus essentially jumped on the grenade for us. That’s huge if you think about it.

Now the word, Atonement, in the original language, doesn’t it have something to do with, it must be a blood atonement? I think it does. So Jesus almost had to come and die if we were to be saved to fulfill the requirements of the Court.

Jesus could have rolled out of the foxhole and just started over with new people, but He didn’t! He loves us That Much. Wow.

10

Welcome to the club, lol. I was banned from the same forum. It was a God bless the gays thread. They lean to far into so called sympathy and agreement with the gays, wherein my conscience would not allow me to compromise what truth I do know. And you know truth when it is spoken, it stings at times so they solved their problem and gave me the boot.

11

Which Atonement Theory do you hold? And why?

J

12

In fellowship with true believers, and in support of @Johann;

This subject is important due to a growing, destructive, movement among some professing Christians who opt to deny the concept of penal substitution in favor of a “different”, more comfortable gospel”, one where the sacrifice of Jesus was unnecessary for salvation. This neo-philosophy asserts that the death of Jesus was only a “human mechanism” of “scapegoating”, the cross was willingly undertaken by Jesus to simply “deliver humanity from cycles of violent sacrifice.

A leading voice in this new theology is one S. Mark Heim who wrote his book titled “Saved from sacrifice”. His theories are accredited to a Roman Catholic, French academic, Rene’ N. T. Girard (1923 – 2015) who posits that “human desire” is fundamentally memetic (imitative), and those natural desires lead to “rivalry, violence and the scapegoat mechanism which are the foundations of religion and culture.” Through a mechanism he labels as “founding murder” (Wikipedia) Girard writes his book “*Deceit, Desire, and the Novel” * (1961). His work influenced Mr. Heim to pen his book about “unmasking violence” in which he argues that the crucifixion only “unmasks” human violence by revealing how societies use scapegoating to maintain order and maintain social unity. To Heim, the cross was only for unmasking (exposing) our proclivity toward violence, and “the passion of Jesus” only represents the violence inflicted by us, and was not something that God “did to Jesus”. Heim claims God willingly chose, through the victimization of Jesus, to stand in the role of victim to persuade mankind to abandon violence. Far from providing atonement, Heim claims “salvation” is to abandon the “crowd” that gathers around marginalized victims. This “foreign gospel” encourages believers to not trust in Gods provided atonement, but to repudiate violence as the means to gain fellowship with God.

J.I Packer wrote a defense of biblical penal substitution titled “The Logic of Penal Substitution” in response to this new philosophy. In it he warns Christians against listening to this heresy which is leading whole congregations away from the True Gospel of Christ. I have had long conversations with some adherents of this “new gospel” who attend a local protestant fellowship that rejects penal substitution for a kinder-gentler philosophy that finds comfort in an “easier to swallow” doctrine of non-violence. True disciples of Jesus will not be comforted by this heresy.

Thanks @Johann for bringing this to our attention.
KP

1 Like
13

III. SUBSTITUTION

The first thing to say about penal substitution has been said already. It is a Christian theological model, based on biblical exegesis, formed to focus a particular awareness of what Jesus did at Calvary to bring us to God. If we wish to speak of the ‘doctrine’ of penal substitution, we should remember that this model is a dramatic, kerygmatic picturing of divine action, much more like Aulén’s ‘classic idea’ of divine victory (though Aulén never saw this) than it is like the defensive formula-models which we call the Nicene ‘doctrine’ of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian ‘doctrine’ of the person of Christ. Logically, the model is put together in two stages: first, the death of Christ is declared to have been substitutionary; then the substitution is characterized, and given a specific frame of reference by adding the word penal. We shall examine the two stages separately.

Stage one is to declare Christ’s death substitutionary. What does this mean? The Oxford English Dictionary defines substitution as ‘the putting of one person or thing in the place of another’. One oddity of contemporary Christian talk is that many who affirm that Jesus’ death was vicarious and representative deny that it was substitutionary; for the Dictionary defines both words in substitutionary terms! Representation is said to mean ‘the fact of standing for, or in place of, some other thing or person, esp. with a right or authority to act on their account; substitution of one thing or person for another.’ And vicarious is defined as ‘that takes or supplies the place of another thing or person; substituted instead of the proper thing or person.’ So here, it seems, is a distinction without a difference. Substitution is, in fact, a broad idea that applies whenever one person acts to supply another’s need, or to discharge his obligation, so that the other no longer has to carry the load himself. As Pannenberg says, ‘in social life, substitution is a universal phenomenon. . . . Even the structure of vocation, the division of labour, has substitutionary character. One who has a vocation performs this function for those whom he serves.’ For every service has vicarious character by recognizing a need in the person served that apart from the service that person would have to satisfy for himself.’15 In this broad sense, nobody who wishes to say with Paul that there is a true sense in which ‘Christ died for us’ (huper, on our behalf, for our benefit), and ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us’ (huper again) (Rom. 5:8; Gal. 3:13), and who accepts Christ’s assurance that he came ‘to give his life a ransom for many’ (anti, which means precisely ‘in place of’, ‘in exchange for’16), should hesitate to say that Christ’s death was substitutionary. Indeed, if he describes Christ’s death as vicarious he is actually saying it.

It is, of course, no secret why people shy off this word. It is because they equate, and know that others equate, substitution in Christology with penal substitution. This explains the state of affairs which, writing in 1948, F. W. Camfield described as follows:

If there is one conclusion which (has) come almost to be taken for granted in enlightened Christian quarters, it is that the idea of substitution has led theology on a wrong track; and that the word ‘substitution’ must now be dropped from the doctrine of the Atonement as too heavily laden with misleading and even false connotations. By ‘liberal’ or ‘modernist’ theology the idea of substitution is of course rejected out of hand. And even the theology which prides itself on being “positive” and “evangelical” and which seeks to maintain lines of communication with the great traditional doctrines of atonement is on the whole disposed to reject it. And this, not merely on the ground that it holds implications which are irrational and morally offensive, but even and specifically on the ground that it is unscriptural. Thus Dr Vincent Taylor as a result of exhaustive examination of the “Idea of Atonement in the New Testament” gives it as his conclusion that the idea of substitution has no place in the New Testament writings; that in fact it is opposed to the fundamental teaching of the New Testament; that even St Paul though he sometimes trembles on the edge of substitutionary conceptions nevertheless avoids them. It is difficult to escape the impression that Dr. Vincent Taylor’s anxiety to eliminate the idea of substitution from evangelical theology has coloured his interpretation of the New Testament witness. But his conclusions provide a striking indication of the tendency at work in modern evangelical circles. It is felt that nothing has done more to bring the evangelical doctrine of the Atonement into disrepute than the idea of substitution; and therefore, something like a sigh of relief makes itself heard when it is suggested that this idea rests on a misunderstanding of the teaching of Scripture.’17…

May our Lord Christ Jesus richly bless you and family brother!

And a highway shall be there; and a road,
And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean shall not pass over it,
But it shall be for others.
Whoever walks the road, although a fool,
Shall not go astray.

(Isaiah 35:8)

J.

14

That article covers a lot of ground and to be honest I don’t really know which theory I hold to? That’s like asking my denomination, lol. Who knows?! But I hold that Jesus did die for us on the cross and He did shed his blood and that covers my sin and allows reconciliation and forgiveness from God. It was carved in stone so to speak when Jesus resurrected on the third day. So there was atonement for sins and healing. His blood and water gushed out of His side on the cross after He dies when the soldier stuck Him with a spear, and there was a great eartquake and the rocks were rent…They found this, there is a big crack in the rocks right by the cross hole and 6 or 700 years earlier The Jewish people were under seige and buried it right below where the cross hole would be 700 years in the future the crack went all the way down into the chamber and dripped on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. (Ron Wyatt found it in the 80’s I think. His youtube videos are all over youtube.

Annd, we were healed by His stripes. They beat and whipped Him until He was unrecognizable. Bill paid, atonement made, all anyone needs to do is ask for it and it belongs to them.

I dunno what theory that fits into but it’s what I believe.

15

Ever studied this passage in Hebrew and the LXX?

Isa 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
Isa 53:9 And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Take note here in the LXX…

Isa 53:9 And I shall give the wicked for his burial, and the rich for his death. For [lawlessness he did not commit], nor was treachery in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 And the LORD willed to cleanse him of the beating. If you should offer for a sin offering the thing for your life, he shall see [seed a long-lived].
Isa 53:11 And the LORD willed by his hand to remove misery of his soul, to show to him light, and to shape in the understanding; to justify the just one, the good one serving many, and [their sins he shall bear].
Isa 53:12 On account of this he shall inherit many; and of the strong ones he will portion out spoils, because [was delivered up unto death his soul]; and [among the lawless ones he was considered]; and he himself [the sins of many bore], and because of their lawless deeds he was delivered up.

“Cleanse Him” instead of?

Here, the DSS…

Words present in the scroll but with some letters unreadable or missing are in blue like this: blue. One Hebrew word often is translated into multiple English words, and when this occurs, all the English words are in blue.

Isaiah 53 from Scroll 1Q Isaiaha
10 Yet it pleased Yahweh to bruise him.

He has caused him to suffer.

When you make his soul an offering for sin,

he will see his offspring.

He will prolong his days,

Civic, my antagonist on that forum, denied PSA because of the LXX re “cleanse”

Shalom.

J.

16

@Edward429451 this is why I believe PSA is biblical and you can bookmark articles that @KPuff graciously shared for the readers…

This from C.S. Lewis.

C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is a classic. It is a winsome, thoughtful, well-written defense of the Christian faith. Some of its better known sections–like the famous liar, lunatic, Lord, trilemma–have become part of the way evangelicals think and speak. No doubt God has used Lewis and Mere Christianity to awaken affections for Christ, engage the mind for Christ, and remove obstacles for the Spirit to draw people to Christ. I’m thankful for all this. More than that, I’ve benefited from every Lewis book I’ve read.

But C.S. Lewis was not an evangelical. Mere Christianity shows why.

Let me highlight two significant problems.

Atonement, But How?

The first caution to raise concerns Lewis’ view of the atonement. Lewis believed Jesus died on the cross for sin, but he didn’t think it was important to understand the particulars of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor an other is Christianity. The central belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter: A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. (57-58 [pagination varies by edition)

Later Lewis says that “Christ was killed for us” and “His death has washed out our sins” but “any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary” (59). This impatience of careful thinking about the atonement is bad enough, but then Lewis goes on to make clear that he rejects the understanding of the atonement evangelicals (and the Bible I would say) find most central and most glorious.

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before–the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. (59)

Pay careful attention to what Lewis says in that paragraph. He does believe in a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but he rejects penal substitution.

He admits that penal substitution is not quite as silly as it once sounded, but he still does not accept it. Instead, he argues that Christ pays a debt (which is true), but not as a punishment for our sakes.

Lewis’ theology of the atonement is confusing (see for example this helpful Touchstone article), but I would argue his view is more like Christus victor or ransom to Satan than penal substitution. Aslan’s death, you may recall, was a sacrifice to the Witch and was explained rather ambiguously as “deeper magic.” This is not the place to defend the critical imporC.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is a classic. It is a winsome, thoughtful, well-written defense of the Christian faith. Some of its better known sections–like the famous liar, lunatic, Lord, trilemma–have become part of the way evangelicals think and speak. No doubt God has used Lewis and Mere Christianity to awaken affections for Christ, engage the mind for Christ, and remove obstacles for the Spirit to draw people to Christ. I’m thankful for all this. More than that, I’ve benefited from every Lewis book I’ve read.

You can either read it here, or book mark it.

J.

1 Like
18

J.

19

The Scriptures as a whole provide no ground for a portrait of an angry God needing to be appeased in atoning sacrifice.

(Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, 51)

Penal substitution is an indispensable part of the scriptural revelation.

(Where Wrath and Mercy Meet, 68)

Two books, both of which come from evangelical publishing houses, and arrive at fundamentally different conclusions about the significance of the cross of Christ.

In Recovering the Scandal of the Cross Joel Green and Mark Baker set out to show that a penal substitutionary understanding of the work of Christ on the cross is both a misinterpretation of the biblical evidence and an unnecessary stumbling block to people from many cultures, including, increasingly, Western ones, coming to faith.

Three chapters survey the understanding of the death of Jesus in his own words and in those of the NT writers and summarise the saving significance of Jesus’ death in the NT. A chapter which analyses the strengths and weaknesses of various atonement models (Irenaeus, Gregory, Anselm, Abelard and Hodge) is followed by four which look at different ways of communicating the significance of the cross to different audiences and cultures today.

The central aim of the book—to help Christians explain the cross in ways that will both resonate with and challenge the world in which we live—is admirable. Nevertheless this reviewer has a number of concerns about Green and Baker’s work, helpful though it is in provoking reflection on things many of us assume every time we read the Bible. They start from the premise that for many Western Christians penal substitutionary atonement is the only model for understanding the cross. Whilst this may be the case in certain parts of American evangelicalism, in British evangelicalism most thinking about the cross is far hazier than that and often could not be said to conform to a particular ‘model’ at all.

Secondly it is never entirely clear in the book whether Green and Baker are arguing against a penal substitutionary model per se or against populist illustrations and explanations of penal substitution which make it appear that Christ is the innocent (and possibly unwilling) victim of an angry Father. This tends to lead them to interact principally with caricatures of penal substitution rather then with more thoughtful explanations (John Stott’s The Cross of Christ, for example, has only one footnote in the book). In fact one has to read as far as page 90 before finding a reasonably dispassionate summary of what the doctrine of penal substitution actually is.

Much of the material argues that penal substitution grew out of a Western worldview with particular notions of individual responsibility, punishment and justice. This is then compared with other cultures where such concepts have less resonance. It is unfortunate that the authors never consider whether it is possible that these values in Western culture spring, at least in part, from 2000 years of Christian influence and therefore from a Biblical world view rather than being merely a grid through which the Bible is interpreted. Most importantly there are a number of omissions in the analysis of the Biblical material.

In their NT chapters Green and Baker make little reference to texts that are important to those who hold penal substitution to be a central or primary model by which to understand the cross. So, for instance, 1 John 1:9 and Hebrews 2:17 are not to be found in the index of Scripture verses. In the very brief discussion of Romans 3:21–26 (104) it is simply asserted that, ‘What is required is not a transformation within God’s heart towards sinners but a transformation of their sinful existence before God’.

More broadly, there is little interaction with wider Biblical themes that suggest the necessity of punishment for sin. Genesis 3 is dealt with in just eleven words; there is no exploration of the substitutionary elements of Passover and no attempt to link the doctrine of the atonement to ideas about God’s justice and about death and hell.

By contrast Where Wrath and Mercy Meet is a collection of essays delivered at the Oak Hill Summer School in 2000. This book attempts to mount a defence of penal substitution in the face of challenges such as those by Green and Baker (the book interacts with some of Green’s earlier work).

Two chapters by David Peterson reflect on atonement in the Old and New Testaments, the former focussing especially on Isaiah 53 and the way in which the Servant of the Lord’s death is substitutionary and sin bearing.

Garry Williams’ essay narrows the focus to look at the Biblical evidence for penalty bearing and the nature of the law and punishment in Scripture. In doing so he deals with the objections that the doctrine of penal substitution is mechanistic and impersonal. Mike Ovey examines the cross in relation to the renewal of creation and concludes that this ‘is not merely consistent with penal substitution, but actually requires it’. (104). Finally Paul Weston’s essay helps us to see how penal substitution can be preached from the text of the Gospels—he focuses particularly on John 19—and Alan Stibbs’ essay on Justification by Faith is reprinted as an appendix.

Each essay deals helpfully with the subject under consideration and the authors have avoided unnecessary overlap. Peterson and Williams in particular look at objections to the doctrine of penal substitution and produce material that is both clear and biblically compelling. Most of the essays helpfully retain their original lecture style, making them accessible to the non-expert.

image
image333×500 53.1 KB

J.

20

If you grew up in church, there’s a decent chance that you take penal substitution for granted. In other words, if your background is solidly evangelical, you might assume that everyone naturally affirms the atonement as the act by which Christ satisfied the law’s demands, assuaged the wrath of God, and cleansed guilty sinners of all their unrighteousness.

But this assumption isn’t necessarily true. For many, commitment to penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) has eroded. Our paganized culture rejects the fundamental tenets of the Christian worldview, particularly the biblical doctrine of God that undergirds PSA. This erosion has had major effects on the evangelical movement. Pastors, therefore, need to help their people understand God’s justice and holiness as well as the central tenets of PSA. To do that, you might consider recommending these five books on this precious doctrine to your people.

  1. The Holiness of God
    This classic by R. C. Sproul is not a technical monograph on the cross. But it unpacks the doctrine behind the doctrine.

The Cross of Christ
Among John Stott’s many contributions to the church, this book may be his greatest. Stott increased the evangelical understanding of Christ’s cross-work and—as much as anyone has—standardized it.

In My Place Condemned He Stood
Stott aside, no twentieth-century writer penned more penetrating reflections on the cross than J. I. Packer. This volume, edited by Mark Dever, features several of Packer’s most illuminating and influential essays on the atonement. These are “The Heart of the Gospel,” “What Did the Cross Achieve,” and Packer’s justly famous introduction to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Pierced for Our Transgressions
Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach represent watchmen on the wall who saw that the atonement was under attack. This book, published in 2007, is a gift to Christ’s blood-bought church. Their study is a scholarly treatment of the core biblical texts on the death of Christ, a historical treatment of important doctrinal contributions by past voices, and a response to numerous objections raised against the cross.

. The Crucified King
Treat’s study is an example of what Kevin Vanhoozer calls “theological imagination.” It does not, in other words, make something up out of biblical items, but rather weaves together doctrines in Scripture that are crying out for synthesis. The earlier volumes serve the church by defending the cross; this text serves the church by helping us see all biblical teaching as a seamless garment, with accurate biblical theology leading into magisterial systematic theology.

J.

21

I’ve got that on the shelf. I read it before but it was years ago. I have the Screwtape letters too.