PENAL SUBSTITUTION - An Essential Truth & Sound Doctrine

It's amazing how doctrine affects the way we ultimately live out our faith. If our view of God's character is wrong, our understanding of the gospel will be limited and in some cases distorted. On the subject of the Atonement there have been two opposing view points flying around. One is correct while the other is a serious defection from sound doctrine and bblical truth. The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is not a theory, it is a non-negotiable essential of Christian doctrine. This is the biblical view that Christ received our deserved punishment in order to satisfy the justice of God. The contrary position limits the character of God to one dimension (His mercy) while ignoring another dimension (His Wrath).

Simply put, the doctrine affirms the Biblical position that Christ willfully laid down his life knowing the full wrath of God (penal) would come upon Him as He voluntarily put Himself in that place on our behalf (substitution) in order to satisfy justice. It is as a result of this substitutionary act of divine retribution that righteousness can be imputed to us and forgiveness realized for all who believe this gospel which is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. To suggest that God can forgive sin without the shedding of blood in order that justice be satisfied, is to suggest that no provision for sin is necessary, that anyone from any religion can enter heaven on the grounds that God is “all-forgiving” as opposed to the grounds that the just shall live by faith in Jesus Christ who bore our sins and suffered our deserved wrath.

SCRIPTURAL GROUNDS:

Romans 3:25-26 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Other supporting Scriptures: Mark 10:45; 1Peter 2:24; Galatians 3:13; 2Cor 5:21; Colosians 2:13-15; Hebrews 9:27-28; Isaiah 53:4-6

Let me clearly state and affirm that the Cross, and the atonement made upon it, demonstrate both the Wrath and Mercy of God. I am posting this article in order to affirm the very foundational and sound doctrine of Penal Substiiution as an absolute essential truth. If anyone suggests that it is somehow a sign of “maturity” to question such foundational truth or by reasoning with an “open heart or mind” on the matter, they are inviting a spirit of apostacy upon themselves and their hearers.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I will post the most practical information available and will provide many other sources for anyone who would wish to study further on the issue…

A Historical Background:

“Open theism arose in evangelicalism over a decade ago when evangelicals posited a God to whom one can easily relate and who is manageable in place of a God who punishes sinners for their sin. This they did by proposing a model of Christ’s atonement that was not substitutionary. To do so they adopted the model of the 16th-century Socinian heresy, which taught that God could forgive without the payment of a ransom. The biblical doctrine, however, is that Christ’s atonement was substitutionary, a teaching that was not immediately defined in the early church, but which Anselm stated clearly during the 16th century. Open theists on the other hand tend to vacillate between the inadequate positions of Abelard and Grotius in their views of the atonement. Because of their distorted views of the atonement, open theists do not belong in the ranks of evangelicalism.” John F MacArthur, The Master’s Seminary Journal Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 2001

IS PENAL SUBSTITUTION BIBLICAL?:
From Reformation theology Website

In all of our zeal to contend for every doctrine of the bible (as commendable as such an attitude is), we would do well to remember that only a relatively few doctrines are so vital for the purity of the gospel that, to deny them is, in essence, to corrupt the good news of salvation in Christ. It is only fitting that, when we see these doctrines under attack, we give the primacy of our attention to defending them. And such a doctrine is the biblical conception of the atonement; that is, the conception that the atonement involves the substitution of Christ for us, by which, having taken upon himself our sins, he willingly undergoes the righteous wrath of the Father in our place. In other words, it is vital that we contend for an account of the atonement which views it as penal (that Christ satisfied the penalty of the law, as the righteousness of the Father demanded) substitution (that he underwent this penalty in our place). Any other model of the atonement will both fail the test of biblical witness, and leave us without an adequate plea for forgiveness and acceptance with God. So the question arises, “Is this biblical doctrine under attack today?”

Different conceptions of the nature of the atonement are certainly not new to this day. Origen saw the atonement as a ransom paid to Satan, to buy back sinners from his own power; and thus denied that God himself demanded the curse of his law to be satisfactorily fulfilled. Irenaeus saw the atonement as Christ recapitulating the entire experience of Adam, only without his failures; and thus, while admitting the need for the law to be positively fulfilled, denied that mankind’s failure to fulfill it must meet with the promised punishment. These two basic models, seeing the atonement either as a ransom paid to Satan or a model for Christians to follow have in common that they deny that God’s wrath must be satisfied before forgiveness can be bestowed. They both see God’s mercy as possible apart from his righteous demands’ being met and his righteous penalties’ being exacted. But these understandings, and any of their various forms, fail to do justice to the God of the scriptures, a God who will not overlook sin.

Somewhat later, during the time of the Reformation, Socinus argued against the penal substitution model of the Reformers with a point of view which, in essence, expanded upon the differing viewpoints of some of church fathers. “What Socinus did was to arraign this idea as irrational, incoherent, immoral and impossible. Giving pardon, he argued, does not square with taking satisfaction, nor does the transferring of punishment from the guilty to the innocent square with justice; nor is the temporary death of one a true substitute for the eternal death of many; and a perfect substitutionary satisfaction, could such a thing be, would necessarily confer on us unlimited permission to continue in sin. Socinus’ alternative account of New Testament soteriology, based on the axiom that God forgives without requiring any satisfaction save the repentance which makes us forgivable, was evasive and unconvincing, and had little influence.” (This quotation was taken from J. I. Packer, in an excellent defense of penal substitution, which can be found here.

Regardless of the extent of Socinus’ initial influence, the fact is that, even today there are those who would follow his basic understanding. We have been blessed in that, these attacks on penal substitution have largely occurred outside the orbit of Evangelical Christianity. However, today such views are starting to be influential among self-professed Evangelicals. As an example, I have been dialoguing with a certain Derek Flood, a self-styled Evangelical, who uses the name “sharktacos” on his internet interactions. His website, www.sharktacos.com/God, is dedicated to arguing against penal substitution; and he is in the process of writing a book espousing the same views. The influence which he seems to be having has motivated me to compose this article in response to his views. God grant that it may serve to reinforce in all of us the pressing need to hold fast to the Reformed view of the atonement.

In essence, Derek Flood’s understanding of the atonement is in line with that of Origen or Socinus. Although he may not espouse either of these views in all of its particulars, yet he shares with them the sina que non of a non-penal model – namely, that God forgives apart from requiring the demands of his righteousness to be satisfied. His arguments are, in a way, more subtle than those of Socinus, for instance; for he does feel free to admit that he does in fact “see themes of ‘punishment’ clearly in there - Christ taking the consequence upon himself for our sin –” However, it is clear that he does not see this punishment as God’s righteous retribution against sin. On the contrary, he goes on to state that “I do not see this as a fulfillment of the demands of justice, but rather a picture of God bringing about justice out of terrible injustice.” Exactly what does he mean by this qualification? Many of the other assertions which he has made should shed light on that question. For instance,

“the justice that Paul speaks of was not in the legal sense of punishement but in the Hebrew sense of “making things right”. Hence Paul speaks of “justification” which means “setting something right”. A justice based on our own performance (works) is a death trap. But a justice that originates from God’s goodness through faith means that God sets things right in our lives when we open our lives to him. The first is legal and in conflict with mercy. It sees justice as punishing (active) and mercy as leniency (inaction). That later biblical justice is in contrast about “making things right” and comes through acts of mercy as seen in the ministry of Jesus who came to establish justice in us though acts of healing and restoration. In this there is no conflict between justice and mercy because restorative justice comes through acts of mercy.”

And

“So rather than reading the idea of justice in the legal sense of punishing, we need to read with Luther the idea of justification and justice in relational terms as God setting things right, as him through mercy breaking us out of the shackles of performance and law. God did not do this by “satisfying the demands of law” as Penal Substitution would say, but by “nailing the law to the cross” (Col 2:14) by overcoming it along with sin, condemnation, wrath, and the devil and putting all of these tyrants under Christ so that they would no longer oppress us and keep us from life, but serve us and point to the God of grace.”

The fundamental issue here, and one that must remain in the forefront no matter how he qualifies it, is that this view of the atonement sees it as possible – even necessary – for God to forgive without demanding that his righteous demands be satisfied. And this one issue is sufficient to cut away every ground for our plea of acceptance with a righteous God whom we have offended.

I think this debate is vital, and concerns the whole fabric of the scriptural witness we have about who God is and how he is able to redeem us and remain just. It is not just an argument over the precise exegesis of a few key texts (although those key texts undoubtedly exist); rather, it is an argument which has to do with the true meaning of the entire biblical story. It is an argument which dictates how we will view the holy God. It is an argument which determines the very worth and substance of the great redemptive work of Christ our Savior. In order to put the discussion on a footing which does justice to the broadness of scope which it inherently involves, I have put together three sets of premises that argue for the necessity of seeing the atonement as penal substitution. These are brief and not at all exhaustive; but they should at least clarify the heads of disagreement upon which the debate should center.

Premises about God’s wrath

Premise one: The God of the bible actively dispenses wrath/retribution for sin.

From the opening accounts of Genesis, when God deals with the first sin of man by announcing a curse, and consistently throughout later revelation, we are given a picture of a God “who is of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Habakkuk 1:13), a God who says “vengeance is mine, I will repay” (Romans 12:19), a God who does in fact pour out wrath upon the world of sinners, as, for instance, in the universal flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., a God who has the rebel nations “in derision,” who “speaks unto them in his wrath, and vexes them in his sore displeasure,” who sets up his Messiah to “crush them like a potter’s vessel” (from Psalm 2), a God before whom sinners tremble in fear, proclaiming, “the great day of his wrath has come, and who shall be able to stand” (Revelation 6:17). This is a handful of testimonies from an overwhelming supply – in short, it is impossible to read the bible objectively without finding in it a God who does in fact pour out his wrath actively, and who deals out retribution/vengeance for rebellion.

Premise two: The God of the bible actively poured out wrath/retribution upon Christ. [Keeping in mind that Jesus embraced the cross and laid down His life willfully].

As we see in Isaiah 53, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he has put him to grief” – and why was God pleased to bruise the Son? Because God was making his soul “an offering for sin.” We must acknowledge here that God was actively afflicting his Son – who put Christ to death? Ultimately, it was the Father – and we must further acknowledge that it was because of our sin. The Father was well-pleased to crush the Son, because our sin was upon him. Which is encroaching upon our next point,

Premise three: The God of the bible actively poured out retribution upon Christ in the sinner’s stead.

Hence we read earlier in the chapter, “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities,” and elsewhere, “he made him to be sin for us” (II Corinthians 5:21). So then, if God actively and willingly crushed Christ, and if he did so because of the sins which were upon him, and if he is indeed a God who deals in retribution – in fact is too pure not to deal in wrath and retribution – then any model of the atonement which does not embrace a penal aspect fails to do justice to the character of God as we find it revealed in his word.

Premises about the Law

Premise one: The law demanded a curse.

From the first law given in the garden, the breaking of which issued in a curse, as God had in fact promised, “in the day you eat of it, you will die” (Genesis 2:17); to the law given on Sinai, which threatened, “Cursed is he that does not continue in everything written in this law, to do them” (Deuteronomy 27:26); to the corroborating evidence of the New Testament, which declares, “Whoever should keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is guilty of all” (James 2:10); we find without exception that the law demands a curse, and that the exaction of this curse is contingent upon the very word and solemn promise of God, “who cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). If forgiveness should come without the retributive curse of the law being fulfilled, then God will be shown to be a liar; not to mention, one whose eyes are not in fact too pure to behold evil.

Premise two: Christ became the curse of the law.

To substantiate which, we have to look no further than Galatians 3, which, having testified that the law did indeed curse those who had failed to obey it, asserted unequivocally that Christ was “made a curse for us.” Now, to our final premise, namely,

Premise three: Christ became the curse of the law for us.

As the remainder of our last text states. And it is impossible that he should have been made the curse which the law demanded by reason of himself, because he “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (I Peter 2:22), and, “he was tempted in all points, like we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). So then, the only theory of the atonement which takes into account the necessity of the law’s curse being dealt out (a necessity grounded in the solemn promise of God), and which takes into account the fact that the curse of the law was dealt to Christ, who underwent the curse, even death, as that first threat of transgression demanded – and furthermore, who did this in our place – is a theory which accepts the idea of penal substitution.

Premises about the Sacrificial System

Premise One: The sacrificial system was instituted by the sovereign command of God.

This premise is virtually indisputable. Just consider the opening words of Leviticus, in which the sacrificial system is described in detail. It is stated in unequivocal terms that the entire corpus of regulations was the very word of God (Leviticus 1:1 and following).

Premise Two: The sacrificial system taught that God could not be approached apart from innocent, substituionary blood being shed for the sinner.

Hence, before an Israelite could worship God, he was required to bring a spotless sacrifice; to place his hands upon its head, signifying the transfer of his own guilt to the animal; to kill the animal; and to sprinkle its blood upon the altar, signifying that this substitutionary blood had appeased the wrath of God. This is all because, as God’s people, Israel was required to “be holy as I am holy” (Leviticus 19:2). And in the absence of that required holiness, substitutionary retribution was necessary. It was only when sin’s penalty (death) had been exacted substituionarily that the priest could “make atonement for his sin that he has commited; and [thus] it shall be forgiven him” (Leviticus 4:35). Much more could be said here, but any study of the sacrificial system can only demonstrate in undeniable terms the pervasiveness of this substitutionary punishment as the basis for forgiveness.

Premise three: The sacrificial animals foreshadowed the self-sacrifice of Christ, the only sufficient substitute.

Of many possible passages to demonstrate this point, Hebrews 9:18-28 is notable. In the context of the true intent of the sacrifices, i.e., to demonstrate that “without shedding of blood is no remission,” the author argues very forcefully that the animal sacrifices were necessarily inadequate; but that Christ’s perfect sacrifice of himself, in relation to which he bore the sins of his people, was indeed sufficient for the remission of their sins and for securing their unshakeable hope of eternal salvation.

We have been very brief; but the sum of this is that the whole sacrificial system enjoined upon Israel bears witness to the fact that, unless the penalty of transgressing the law is exacted upon a flawless substitute, then there can be no forgiveness or reconciliation. And Christ is the only perfect substitute, as true man and wholly without sin.

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/08/is_penal_substitution_biblical.php