Featured Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Some have voiced objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement which I think deserve to be answered. For example:

OBJECTION #1:If Christ died “instead of us” why do we still die?

ANSWER: Christ did not die "instead of us" but rather died to pay our sins instead of us dying to pay our sins. His death removes the sting of our physical death and eventually destroys death over our bodies.

OBJECTION #2: If Christ's death substituted for the penalty for the sins of the world, then the whole world should be saved (as Universalists believe).

ANSWER: Arminians answer this by stating it is conditionally applied, while Calvinist interpret "world" to mean all human beings without distinction of gender, race or class.

OBJECTION #3: What judge would knowingly punish an innocent volunteer while releasing a criminal, and call it justice? There is no justice in that. Justice is in punishing the guilty rather than the innocent, as God declared to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7. Grace is in showing mercy to even the guilty. Did God merely need to see innocent blood shed to appease his anger at a guilty world? This makes God into a rather psychotic deity, a wrathful god whose anger could be appeased only by the sight of some special blood. It turns the mercy of God into a magical mystery.

ANSWER: Christ willing took upon the position as a substititute in order to redeem His people from their sins. That is an act of love. Their sins were legally imputed to him (2 Cor. 5:21) and he was "MADE TO BE SIN" and therefore could justly suffer for sin as a willing legal substitute.

OBJECTION #4: Another big problem with the substitutionary view: The theory sets up a mechanical process, by which God has received a supposedly just payment for the “debt” owed to him. By that theory, Christ has paid off our debt. We no longer need mercy or grace from God – he owes us life, because our lives have been “ransomed.” We need no longer ask for forgiveness because all sins have already been wiped out and paid for. Salvation then would not be a gift of God, but a contractual right owed to us because of the payment that has been made. If our sins are already paid for, why should we continue to ask for forgiveness? The result of such thinking is the Calvinistic, “Once Saved, Always Saved,” which has the effect of saying that the financial transaction for our souls has been completed, and even faith becomes only subsequent to our salvation. Remission of sins is an act of God’s grace, not a legal contract resulting from Christ’s payment.

ANSWER: It is not a "mechanical" process but a "legal" process. Moreover, the entire salvation of the whole person is not instantaneous, but a past, present and future application. Therefore, the mercy and grace of God are necessary in the progressive application. We don't need to ask forgiveness in order to be resaved each time we sin, but we ask forgiveness in order to progress in our own EXPERIENCE of salvation. The failure to ask stunts our growth but does not elimate our salvation because it has been paid in full, as all our sins were future when Christ paid for them, and therefore if he paid for any he had to pay for all (Rom. 4:7-8).

OBJECTION #5: The animals sacrificed under the law were not substitutes for the sins of Israel. They were symbols. Just as you call them, they were foreshadowings. They actually did not take away sin either, else salvation could have come through the law rather than through grace. So Paul said: "The blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin." There is no salvation in the law. Salvation is by grace. The true efficacy of sacrifice is in acceding to the mercy and grace of God.

ANSWER: They were not literal substitutes for "the sins" of Israel but were symbolic of Christ as the substitute for Israel and their sins. Hence as symbols "shadow" (Heb. 10:1) they could never literally remove sins (Heb. 10:4) but the antitype which was the object of faith both then and now (Heb. 4:2) could and did remove sins (Acts 10:43). The law was never designed to save or grant life but designed to lead the offerers and keepers of the law to Christ for remission of sins by faith (Gal. 3:19-22).

OBJECTION #6: Christ died as our representative. He showed the penalty that is rightfully due to all of us. He showed us the true horror of sin. He shows us the flesh, displayed in its mortality, the suffering due because of sin. His sacrifice covers our sins by God’s grace, because God counts faith as righteousness, and grants forgiveness to those who ask it.

ANSWER: An "example" theory cannot save anyone as none can follow His example as it requires a sinless human to satisfy both the righteousness of the Law and a qualified sacrifice to atone for sin - thus a lamb without spot or blemish. God does not count "faith" as righteousness but only counts "faith" which has for its sole and only object the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ as righteousness (Rom. 4:22-25). Abraham believed IN the gospel (Gal. 3:6-8) rather than just believed or had faith. God justifies the "ungodly" not the "godly" as this theory demands.

 

Exactly!:thumbs::thumbs:

 

Oh, so God is the author of confusion and he simply provides a smorgasboard dinner table for your to pick and choose!

What you are saying is absolutely false! The atonement is not multiplex options but is singular in truth. To even suggest a plethora of options is to accuse God to be the author of confusion.

To deny the penal substitutionary atonement is to deny the essence of the gospel itself and to preach an entirely "another gospel." And yes, I will defend that statement with anyone on this forum, whether they be a Bible student, Phd. or Moderator.

The Ransom theory/Christus Victor, and the Moral influence theory with all their mixtures are all false theories that deny the gospel of Jesus Christ. It does not take a genius to see clearly that it is the LAW of God that defines sin and its condemnation, and there is simply no other view that satisfies the justice of God against sin, and there is no other theory that satisfies the righteousness of God for entrance into heaven. True justification by faith does not "make void the law" but rather "establishes the law" and none of the other theories can do that or even attempt to do that (Rom. 3:31).


Answer me these questions:

1. What defines both sin and its judgement?

2. What defines the standard of God's righteousness?

3. What theory of the atonement explains justification in regard to both sin and righteousness so that the law is not made void but rather "establishes the Law"?

4. What must Christ provide in His Person and Work that "establishes the Law" rather than ignore or make "void" its demands?

5. Can YOU in your own person and works "establish the law" so as not to make "void" its standard or judgements???

6. Why must all the types of Christ and the cross require shedding of blood to the extent the life is completely taken - death (which is the penalty of sin) if the cross was not absolutely essential for our salvation?

7. Why are such bloody types joined with redemptive langauge "for sins" "for cleansing" if Christ is mere exemplory, or if shedding of his blood unto death on the cross is not absoluely essential for our forgiveness of sin?


PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT may harmonize with some aspects of other theories, but penal substtitutionary cannot be omitted or denied without completely and utterly destroying and perverting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

The use of Biblical language means NOTHING, unless and except those Biblical terms are given Biblical meaning. So it is not the "sound" of any preacher or message that makes it true, it is the DEFINITION of their words that either make it false or true.

 

DHK is not a Calvinist and yet believes in penal substitutionary atonement.
This post has not addresssed the EXTENT or APPLICATION of the atonement other than to say it was substitutionary and penal. If you believe the application is available to all men without exception OR all men without distinction does not affect what I am speaking about. You are introducing a subject foreign to this post. I am not addressing whether or not the atonement is universal or limited.

Now, the moderators should rebuke you, as you are the one now introducing the Calvinism versus Arminian element into this debate. This is not a debate about universal or limited atonement as there are men on both sides that believe in penal substitutionary atonement.

I am talking about "satisfaction" of the Law not about general or limited atonement. You can believe in conditional atonement and still believe in penal substitutionary atonement. If you don't understand that, you don't need to be in this debate, but need to listen and learn.

 

We don't agree on a lot but we sure do on this:thumbsup: