My thoughts on Penal Substitution

[DeusExMachina]

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

 

[dshix]

What a terrifying doctrine. Boy am I glad it’s false.

 

[Eruvande]

I disagree with it for reasons I find hard to articulate. But I did resonate with the view that it necessitates a change in God, a God who is angry until He has punished His Son, after which time He is no longer angry with us. Instead of the atonement primarily changing US into sons of God.
But to be fair it is a long time since I looked at the topic in some depth, so I shall be interested in how the thread develops.

 

[James248]

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

When you read passages like Isaiah 53 it kinda sounds like it.

 

[po18guy]

Dr. David Anders (Call to Communion) teaches that this man-made doctrine renders God as unjust - in that He wills the punishing of the Innocent in order to acquit the guilty. There is no justice in such a God, or in such a doctrine.

 

[RomanoAmerio]

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

Dear DeusExMachina,

You are right to repudiate this theory, for it is false and held only by some Protestant theologians and some Catholic “speculators”.

A better way of understanding Christ’s sacrifice would be to read through the Holy Week Liturgy, particularly the beautiful passages from Exodus 12 and Isaiah 53.

Also, such a view is repugnant to the theology of the Eucharist.

 

[ltwin]

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 think this is a popular misunderstanding. Penal substitution theory does not require Jesus to be cut off from the Trinity. That simply is impossible. The Trinity cannot be severed.

1. Critics often allege that penal substitution is anti-trinitarian in that it pits an angry Father punishing a loving Son, introducing a false split in the Godhead. While this can happen in popular preaching, when it comes to the tradition, this charge is manifestly false. Penal substitution is inherently trinitarian in that it follows the best Patristic pattern of thought in seeing atonement as the work of the whole Trinity. All trinitarian action begins with the Father, is accomplished through the Son, and perfected by the Spirit. In a properly-trinitarian PSA the Father hands over the Son, while the Son willingly offers himself up in obedience to the Father, and he does so through the empowering work of the Spirit. It is a costly work of love and sacrifice that posits no split purposes within the Godhead, but only one redemptive plan born of mutual love and mercy towards sinners.

Also, contrary to popular mischaracterizations, the Father never hates the Son, but always looks on the Son in love, even while the Son suffers the penal consequences of sin in place of sinners. Calvin says as much:

Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward him. How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, “in whom his heart reposed” [cf. Matthew 3:17]? How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father toward others, if he were himself hateful to God? This is what we are saying: he bore the weight of divine severity, since he was “stricken and afflicted” [cf. Isaiah 53:5] by God’s hand, and experienced all the signs of a wrathful and avenging God. –Institutes, II.xvi.11

In fact, it is precisely because of the Son’s willingness to suffer on their behalf that the Father loves the Son (John 10:18). What’s more, classically, advocates of PSA have also held to divine simplicity, thereby ruling out tout court any thought of a split in the Godhead. All of the best exponents hold this up from Calvin all the way to J.I. Packer and John Stott. For more, see Thomas McCall’s excellent little book* Forsaken* on this.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Yeah, this is a popular theory in the Evangelical circles.

Don’t know how many times I’ve heard that Jesus was cut off from the Father…that the Father wasn’t looking at Him on the cross, etc, etc.

Stems from Jesus’ words “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” or “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Obviously quoting Psalm 22. But if you read the second half of that Psalm it indicates victory. So I believe what Jesus is saying is, essentially, is that this looks really bad, like a failure, but your eyes are decieving you, this is actually victory.

 

[mattp0625]

Dr. David Anders (Call to Communion) teaches that this man-made doctrine renders God as unjust - in that He wills the punishing of the Innocent in order to acquit the guilty. There is no justice in such a God, or in such a doctrine.

I have heard this explanation as well. Interesting from a convert.

Take it one step further.

If it is God punishing the innocent to acquit the guilty, then once is enough. In other words, you can then assert that the sacrifice was sufficient for all past, present and future sins - aka once saved, always saved - as long as you have faith (sola fide)

 

[grannymh]

A thought from the dead generation.

There is the very old idea that Adam specifically chose to separate humanity from the original friendship relationship with the Creator God. Human death was the obvious natural result once one actually explores the first three sacred chapters of Genesis. Genesis 2: 15-17. The Creator God initiated the original relationship. Genesis 1: 27. Therefore, only a Divine Person could restore the shattered relationship. John 3: 16-17. I have this very old idea that reconciling humanity with Divinity was obedience which would conquer death. 1 Corinthians 15: 54-55.

The free sacrifice on the Cross is a gift of love.

 

[AugustTherese]

Scripture alone from a protesting Bible regarding ‘penal atonement/substitution’:

“Keep yourself far from a false matter; DO NOT KILL THE INNOCENT OR RIGHTEOUS. For I will not justify the wicked.” Exodus 23:7 NKJV

“He that justifieth the wicked, and he that CONDEMNETH THE JUST, even they both are ABOMINATION to the LORD.” – PROVERBS 17:15 KJV

(Emphasis added)

Scripture alone from a Catholic Bible regarding 'penal atonement/substitution:

“pronouncing unjust judgments, condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty, though the Lord said, ‘You shall not put an innocent and righteous person to death.’” Daniel 13:53 (NRSVCE) portion of Daniel removed from KJV/NKJV

Peace and love! ~

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

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

While this can happen in popular preaching, when it comes to the tradition, this charge is manifestly false. Penal substitution is inherently trinitarian in that it follows the best Patristic pattern of thought in seeing atonement as the work of the whole Trinity. All trinitarian action begins with the Father, is accomplished through the Son, and perfected by the Spirit. In a properly-Trinitarian PSA the Father hands over the Son, while the Son willingly offers himself up in obedience to the Father, and he does so through the empowering work of the Spirit, It is a costly work of love and sacrifice that posits no split purposes within the Godhead, but only one redemptive plan born of mutual love and mercy toward sinners. Also, contrary to popular mischaracterizations, the Father never hates the Son, but always looks on the Son in love, even while the Son suffers the penal consequences of sin in place of sinners. See Calvin on this in the Institutes II.XVI.11.

In fact, it is precisely because of the Son’s willingness to suffer on their behalf that the Father loves the Son (John 10:18). What’s more, classically, advocates of PSA have also held to divine simplicity, thereby ruling out *tout court * any thought of a split in the Godhead. All of the best exponents hold this up from Calvin all the way to J.I Packer and John Stott.

 

[ericc]

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

Penal substitution is only one out of a few to explain the violence done to Jesus so as to save us. This view suffers from:

1)Inequity. a)As others have stated, punishing the innocent for the wrongs of others does not paint a just God. (b)The unjust/condemned still get their divine punishment and not a penny less. Therefore, then it is also wrong to punish 2 persons for the wrong committed by one. (c)Volunteering to take the punishment of the guilty does not make it right for the judge to accept the substitution either. Justice will not be served because the guilty went unpunished.

1. None of Jesus teachings reflect this kind of God. The most apt is the prodigal Son. The father welcoming the wayward son with open arms, best robes, ring etc does not convey a wrathful petty father. The Father need not punish in order to forgive.
2. The Gospels do not lead to the penal substitution. The few times that Father spoke about his Son, it was always full of praise and support. Mat 3:17 at his baptism and Mat 17:5 Transfiguration. It would be a full about turn to punish his Son just to appease his anger. And we know God doesn’t change. The many times that Jesus spoke about his Father, there is not once any indication of a vengeful petty father. Jesus can’t be wrong about his father. But we can be.

Rene Girard’s Mimetic Theory may help explain the violence done to Christ. In a nutshell, we, yes, we, are the ones that put Jesus to the torture. We, are the high priests, the Pilates, the people that are made uncomfortable by His teachings etc that put Jesus to death. The very people that Jesus tried to save are the ones that killed him. He knows that and yet he willingly paid the price. One can claim that it is the Father’s will and hence the Father’s fault but then we can then use the same excuse for all our sins being God’s will too.