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
There are several approaches to the Doctrine of Atonement. A couple of years back a group in Australia challenged the appointment of a Bishop because they argued that she failed to meet the doctrinal standard required, notably that she did not accept the doctrine of Penal Substitution. One of the sitting Bishops challenged this proposition, arguing that it was not a doctrine to be required of Anglicans to be believed. Ultimately all the Bishops concurred on this matter, and as it transpired one of the Bishops held the doctrine, and one held that it was an acceptable approach. More than twenty did not accept it personally and had some misgivings about the doctrine. Generally they felt that the idea of atonement expressed by Anselm in Cur Deus Homo was not a doctrine of Penal Substitution, but rather an expression of the love of God standing for us and in solidarity with us to conquer sin and death. It ultimately recognises the dialogue between love and justice expressed in the mystery of the atonement. My first problem with Penal Substitutionary Atonement is that it presents God as capricious, and being prepared to essentially choose to put his own Son to death for the satisfaction of his own requirements. My second problem is that it has no sense of victory, but rather a cosmology that is humanity centric rather than God centric, and the rhetoric of law rises above the rhetoric of grace. I offended by the idea that God picks me over and above his own Son. The third problem is that very often the Doctrine of Penal Substitutionary atonement has only ancillary use for the Incarnation and the Resurrection is simply a post script. I would prefer to say that in Christ death is swallowed up in victory. I am inclined to think that those who hold to such a view of God are almost certainly well meaning, however have not yet grasped that it is more about love than it is about law. If you read the Nicene Creed with eyes wide open, I believe we find a much broader canvas, and Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, are tied very strongly together. My experience tells me that in talking to advocates of Penal Substitution it is probably best to start by understanding their view of the Incarnation.
Coming from an Orthodox background I look at the crucifix perhaps a little differently. Jesus went willingly to the cross. He laid down His life of His own accord, out of love for all of mankind. I think the concept of "the Father's wrath being poured upon Him" is a more modern idea(Anselm, Spurgeon)He who is without sin let us see the effects of sin on our lives, on the cross. His sacrifice did fulfill all sacrifical laws as the ultimate payment for sin. His Divine nature was never separated from the Trinity but He did truly die,descend into hell, and bodily rise again on the third day. He truly understands each and every problem we can have. That's my basic understanding...
Anyone who is on Christian Forums might be interested in this thread https://www.christianforums.com/threads/what-is-your-view-of-atonement.7980517/ I tend towards Christus Victor and do have problems with penal substitution.
That may be true, but that does not make Anselm the guilty party. People use Paul to back up this position, however that does not make Paul the guilty party. The thesis of Anslem is that we owe are all to God, and the moment we sin we owe something that we can not repay for we have nothing that we do not already owe to God, so God became man that man might repay that which without God their was no ability to repay. Hence the title Cur Deus Homo. If you are determined to make of that Penal Substitution, you will, but that is by no means the only possible. I personally feel that Anselm is entriely consistent with Christus Victor.
Interesting thread topic. I really like Aulen's definition of what the cross accomplishes: deliverance from sin, death and the Devil and from God's wrath and judgement which he got from Martin Luther. However I do have a problem with his version of the Christus Victor theory about the relationship between God's love and justice. For Aulen God’s love triumphs over God's justice which surely puts two Divine attributes in conflict? It would also seem to be in conflict with Isaiah 1:27 "Zion shall be redeemed by justice". Are there versions of Christus Victor that avoids this problem? For myself I do see the difficulties with penal substitution but ultimately I'm convinced the idea is scriptural and therefore I must believe it despite its difficulties (if we only believe what makes sense to us how do we renew our minds and grow in understanding?). I find the Passover pretty compelling evidence for PS since Jesus is directly called our Paschal lamb (1 Cor 5:7). In Exodus God himself passed over Egypt (Ex 12:12), The purpose of God's passing over was to execute his judgement on the sins of Egypt which Israel also partook in (Ezek 20:4-10) and the death of the passover lamb must surely be considered substitutional since by it's death it preserved the life of the firstborn? Not to go into too much detail but I would struggle to see how Isaiah 53 makes sense if it's not teaching a form of penal substitution. Or the passages about Christ hanging on a tree (a sign of being cursed by God) Or how Christ's mental agony over the cup (if it's not the cup of God's wrath what is it?)
I disagree with PSA as it's often stated, but recognise that there is a consequence to sin (penal), Christ experienced that consequence for us (substitution) but on a voluntary basis. This is one of those instances when you can't separate Christ form the Trinity. In Trinitarian terms God gave himself upon the cross, and bore our consequences (punishment) upon himself. To tread the "cosmic child abuse" path is to misunderstand the threefold nature of God.
Hello Paul. Your position seems awfully close to Patripassianism, the belief that God the Father actually suffered and died on the cross. The Church has never taught that God the Father "gave Himself upon the cross," or "bore our punishment Himself." From the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) website: Some third-century theologians developed a heretical doctrine referred to as “patripassionism” (“suffering of the Father”). This is a heresy that refused to accept a Trinitarian conception of God—three divine Persons united in a single divine Essence or Nature—but tended to identify the Father and the Son, so that it could be affirmed that both the Father and the Son suffered on the Cross (“He who is called Father and Son [they hold] is one and the same, not one from the other, but He from Himself, called by name Father and Son according to the figure of the times…”—Hippolytus, “Refutation of all Heresies,” 9:10). In reaction to this threat posed to Orthodox Trinitarian theology, the Church condemned “patripassionism” and affirmed that only the Son suffered and died on the Cross.
Though at the same time I get what Paul is saying. I don't think it is patripassianism, just an emphasis that this is God the Most High we are talking about, so while it is the Son being sent to death it isn't God sending something created for that purpose to do it. It is God himself that dies on the cross.
Yes, and thanks for the defences. I was careful to use the word "God" in the context of the Trinity rather than referring to the Father. However, this is only to emphasise that Jesus was not"punished" by the Father, but rather the collective divine will of the Godhead acted in perfect concert. But I do accept that the divine Son did not suffer death though the human Son did. My main point is that there was no wrath directed at Jesus, but at sin itself.
Though the divine Son did suffer through the human Son, not directly due to intrinsic qualities but through qualities translated from the human Son?