{"id":4593,"date":"2021-03-26T11:15:08","date_gmt":"2021-03-26T10:15:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/?page_id=4593"},"modified":"2022-06-16T17:39:36","modified_gmt":"2022-06-16T15:39:36","slug":"penal-substitution-explained","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/studies\/penal-substitution-explained\/","title":{"rendered":"Penal Substitution Theory Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>A short explanation of the Penal Substitution Theory<\/h2>\r\n\r\n<small>These are just some notes a friend of mine took many years ago during our lectures. So they are not an extended explanation but just a brief overview.<\/small>\r\n\r\n<p><i>Penal <\/i>(that Christ satisfied the penalty of the law, as the righteousness of the Father demanded) <i>substitution<\/i> (that\r\nhe underwent this penalty in our place)<\/p>\r\n\r\n<p>\u201cPenal substitution is at the core of the gospel\u201d \u2013 Sinclair Ferguson\r\nclip <a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=C8H_Fg4uMSo\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=C8H_Fg4uMSo<\/a> (less than 2 mins) \u2013 could we start with this and then go from\r\nthere??<\/p>\r\n\r\n<p>The view is outlined by Joshua Tongol see 1:50-3:21 in his clip on You\r\ntube in Bibliography.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3>The Theory<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><p>Dominant\r\n\tview in evangelical circles &#8211; \u201cThe theory of penal substitution is\r\n\tthe heart and soul of an evangelical view of atonement\u201d (Thomas\r\n\tSchereiner in Belousek  2011: 83). He goes on to say that in the\r\n\teyes of some of its apologists to not agree with this view is to\r\n\treject evangelical Christian thinking.<\/li>\r\n<li>J.\r\n\tI Packer said that Jesus \u201csecured my immunity from judgement by\r\n\tbearing on the cross the penalty which was my due\u201d (Belousek\r\n\t2011:84)<\/li>\r\n<li> \u201cOn\r\n\tthe cross Jesus suffered in our place the death penalty that God had\r\n\tdecreed as just retribution for our sins; in this way, Jesus\r\n\tpropitiated God\u2019s righteous wrath and satisfied God\u2019s absolute\r\n\tjustice thereby making it possible to forgive the sins of humanity,\r\n\tin accord with God\u2019s law.\u201d (Belousek 2011:85).<\/li>\r\n<li>John\r\n\tPiper&#8217;s view of the cross\u2013 \u201csin killed itself when it killed\r\n\tJesus\u201d (see 1:53 mins of 1<sup>st<\/sup> clip by Piper in\r\n\tbibliography overleaf) also said its \u201call about God\u2019s wrath\u2026\u201d\r\n\t( see 2:27 mins of 2<sup>nd<\/sup> John Piper&#8217;s clip in bibliography)<\/p>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\n<h3>In favour of the theory<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><b>Key Proponents in History<\/b> \u2013 Apostle Paul appears to write most,\r\n\tOrigen spoke of \u2018ransom paid to Satan\u2019 and Anselm (brought in\r\n\tidea of debt repayment) so could argue that it is not newly\r\n\texpressed with the reformation (though those \u2018against\u2019 argue it\r\n\tis). \r\n\t<\/li>\r\n<li><b>There is a huge scripture scriptural backing for it<\/b>&#8211; Revelation 22v 18-19,<b>Romans 3v25-26<\/b>,Romans 5v8, Romans 8v32, Romans 12v19, Galatians 2v20 and <b>Galatians 3v 10-14<\/b>, Col 2v14, Isiah 53, <b>2 Corin 5v12<\/b>, <b>1 Pet 2v24<\/b><\/li>\r\n<li><b>It \texplains well why Jesus had to die <\/b>\u2013 other theories like Moral Theory gloss over need for Jesus death if just about Him being someone we can morally emulate.<\/li>\r\n<li><b>You could argue that thought C Victor view opens it out, Penal substitution is still at the heart of the cross<\/b> and CV cannot deny that.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\n<h3>Against the Theory<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><b>There is more to say about the atonement than what is encapsulated in Penal substitution<\/b> (e.g. Christus Victor view).<\/li>\r\n<li><b>It focuses purely on his death and some say its emphasis is brutal<\/b> &#8211; rather than focusing on loving nature of God.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\n<p style=\"margin-left: 1.27cm;\">(Modern day radical feminist theologians Joan Carlson Brown and Rebecca\r\nParker have gone so far as to speak of \u201cdivine child abuse,\u201d and\r\nto argue that the model\u2019s image of Jesus voluntarily submitting to\r\ninnocent suffering contributes to the victimisation of women \u2013 As\r\nKim Fabricius says \u2013 \u201chow can the Spirit-anointed Jesus of\r\nNazareth, who rejected the way of violence and vengeance, have a\r\nviolent and vengeful Father?\u201d). \r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><b>Some would say that Bible passages have been misconstrued to fit this view<\/b> \u2013 in below U tube clip Joshua Tongol has some key\r\n\texamples (esp Isaiah 53 showing that the portrayal of Jesus is one of meekness not violence).<\/li>\r\n<li><b>It depends on certain cultural frameworks<\/b> \u2013 legal language of reformation i.e. it finds its expression in Calvin (1509-64) who was\r\n\ta lawyer and uses legal language added to Anselms theory. Calvin\u2019s\r\n\tdoctrine requires the additional idea of the \u201ctransfer of penalty\u201d\r\n\t\u2013 and this theory \u201crequires the addition of an Anselmian view of\r\n\tdebt repayment and a Roman view of criminal law\u201d (Paul\r\n\tFiddes in Kim Fabricius article below). However you could counter\r\n\tthis argument by saying that Paul used lots of references to\r\n\t\u2018the law\u2019 so could argue not just Calvin\u2019s language (see\r\n\t\u2018against the theory).<\/li>\r\n<li><b>The use of \u2018paying our debt\u2019 \u2013 there is a problem with this analogy<\/b> \u2013 you can\u2019t follow it through to some examples e.g\r\n\tif someone murdered you can\u2019t repay that debt like a fine; its already been done!<\/li>\r\n<li><b>This theory comes across as Old testament understanding of God and \u2018eye for an eye\u2019<\/b> but this is different to the message Jesus\r\n\tportrayed (prodigal son example of true justice rather than retribution)<\/li>\r\n<li>Even if Penal S view has its truth many would say<b> the emphasis is still too much on the wrath of God and not his love. <\/b>Mennonite\r\n\tTheologian Ted Grimsrud \u201cGod does not come in wrath in the end. God comes in suffering, persevering love. Justice for this God is\r\n\tabout healing, not about retribution.\u201d(page 92 Belousek).<\/li>\r\n<li><b>This\ttheory is based on the Reformation theory, before that, for many centuries there was a completely different view of the cross<\/b>. How do we account for that?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\n<h3>Catalysts for change in Church History<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><b>The Reformation<\/b> \u2013 Calvin, some say, emphasised the \u2018legal language\u2019 of Penal Sub and its theory.<\/li>\r\n<li><b>The Christus Victor view<\/b> in the 1950\u2019s<\/li>\r\n<li><b>More recently there has been big controversy in evangelical circles<\/b>.\r\n\tParticularly since Steve Chalk brought his book out \u2018the\r\n\tlost message of Jesus\u2019 (2003). John Piper (a key supporter of the\r\n\ttheory) in many ways reacted by bringing out \u201cPierced for our\r\n\ttransgressions: rediscovering the glory of penal substitution\u201d.\r\n\tThis has made the whole thing come up again and really brought\r\n\tdivides in evangelical circles on the issue.<\/li>\r\n<li>Some say that in recent years people have used penal substitution to back\r\n\tup wrong uses of violence (see in Tom Wright You tube clip about Apartheid).<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\n<h3>Contemporary Relevance to the Christian faith of this doctrine<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n\t<li><b>Contemporary people who took this view<\/b>\u2013 Dietrich Bonheoffer, John F McCarthur, Mark Dever (Belousek 90), J I Packer, John Stott, John Piper.<\/li>\r\n<li><b>The debate has become so strong in recent years that even the BBC produced something on it- <\/b> 2007 by Jeffrey John<\/li>\r\n<li><b>Book the Shack<\/b> \u2013 shocked readers because it \u201csays nothing of how we may be saved from the sin that pollutes us\u201d (Boesek 2011:93)<\/li>\r\n<li>Song \u2013 \u201cNothing But the Blood of Jesus\u201d (Thanks for that John!)<\/li>\r\n<li>Song by P P Bliss,\r\n<br><i>\u201cBearing shame and scoffing rude<br\/>\r\nIn my place condemned he stood,<br\/>\r\nSealed my pardon with his blood-<br\/>\r\nHallelujah! What a Saviour!\u201d<\/i><\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n\r\n<h3>Bibliography<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<p>Book &#8211; Atonement, Justice and Peace by D W S Belousek (2011)<\/p>\r\n\r\n<p>Kim Fabricius entry <a href=\"http:\/\/www.faith-theology.com\/2006\/08\/ten-propositions-on-penal-substitution.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">http:\/\/www.faith-theology.com\/2006\/08\/ten-propositions-on-penal-substitution.html<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p>YOUTUBE:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3>Piper supporting Penal Substitution<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<p>First Clip: See 1:53 mins<\/p>\r\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=reou1YxFGQM&amp;feature=fvsr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=reou1YxFGQM<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n<p>Second Clip: See 2:27 mins<\/p>\r\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=tMGElPFR-4U\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=tMGElPFR-4U<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n<h3>YouTube \u2013 Joshua Tongol Contemporary Preacher on the subject<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<p>(he includes clips explaining many of the \u2018against\u2019 bits on the theory which I outlined above so instead of saying them we could use his clip)<\/p>\r\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=7gb1akUaNig\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=7gb1akUaNig<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n<h3>BBC Website \u2013 Jeffrey John debates against Penal Substitution<\/h3>\r\n\r\n<p>(non Christian chap arguing the case)<\/p>\r\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/religion\/religions\/christianity\/beliefs\/whydidjesusdie_1.shtml\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/religion\/religions\/christianity\/beliefs\/whydidjesusdie_1.shtml<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A short explanation of the Penal Substitution Theory These are just some notes a friend of mine took many years ago during our lectures. So they are not an extended explanation but just a brief overview. Penal (that Christ satisfied the penalty of the law, as the righteousness of the Father demanded) substitution (that he [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7474,"parent":1147,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"spay_email":""},"categories":[225,307],"tags":[272,304],"folder":[102],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4593"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4593\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1147"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7474"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4593"},{"taxonomy":"folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/folder?post=4593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}