What is Penal Substitution?

Welcome back, hope you enjoyed a break from this 'atonement' exploration. Back to the meat!

Let me begin my critique of the Penal Substitution view of atonement by saying that one of the (if not the single) greatest distinction between itself and Christus Victor is emphasis. The Christus Victor model of the atonement places its emphasis on Christ’s victory over ‘hostile forces’ and through this victory he reconciles all of creation to himself. In this way we are among the first fruits to experience the new creation, and so Christ’s substitution for mans ‘sin’ is incorporated into the overall scheme of Christus Victor. The Penal Substitution on the other hand places all its emphasis on Christ’s penal substituting work of the cross on man’s behalf to reconcile man to himself. In this view the atonement is a separate work of God from the incarnation, the resurrection, the on going work of the Spirit and the eschatology. In other words, the Penal Substitution places all its emphasis on Christ’s death as a sin offering in which Christ paid the penalty that was due me (via God’s wrath) because of my sin, and so he substituted himself in my place. Victory over the hostile forces i.e. the devil and demonic realm, not to mention the question of ‘what of the rest of the cosmos?’ etc, hardly receives a foot note among this view – but I’ll get to that in a moment.

Let me also reiterate that I believe this view of the atonement is best understood within a much grander scheme – that of the Christus Victor – and that it hardly captures the biblical motif of the atonement except perhaps in a very narrow sense. Having said that, I must conclude this introduction by commending the Penal Substitution for its commitment to biblical exegesis (in that narrow sense), its emphatic acknowledgment of the seriousness of sin, the holiness of God and the work of Christ on the cross as a substitution for mankind.

The Penal Substitution In Point Form: Here I have reworded and broadened the outline I borrowed from J.I. Packer’s book, In My Place Condemned He Stood, in my May 5th blog. Nearly every book which one might pick up on the Penal Substitution atonement vary from one another (often ever so slightly) and this is why my outline is broad, that I may reach the ‘essence’ of the view without having to nit-pick over every minor difference of opinion.

1. God is holy and just.
2. Humans are sinful by their disobedience to Gods holy law.
3. Gods’ holy and just nature requires ‘a kill’ (capital punishment) of those who break his laws in order to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (i.e. satisfy his wrath).
4. God is also love. He became a man so that he may die in the place of humans as a substitute so that the he could take our just penalty (i.e. the wrath of God could be poured out on him instead of us).
5. God then places on us the righteousness of Christ, while at the same time placing on Christ the sin of humankind – the great exchange.

Although this view is very logical and seems biblical through and through, there are at least two major 'beefs' I have with it as a scheme which I’ll return to in my next blog. For now, let me provide, in the briefest of fashions, the history of the development of this view.

Tertullian:
The Penal Substation theory has its roots in the penance and merits systems conjured up by a church Father name Tertullian [Christus Victor p.81 - all page referrences are from this book]. Because of the penalty due us as a result of sin we must do ‘penance’ in order to escape the eternal penalty. Related to this are merits (good works). As long as you keep the commands of the law you have no need to do penance. However, Tertullian says, it is possible to store up for yourself a ‘superfluous’ amount of merits by going ‘above and beyond the call of duty (law)’ such as choosing to live celibate, fasting, and the ultimate merit – martyrdom.

Cyprian:
Later on a church leader named Cyprian adopted Tertullians ‘penance and merits’ idea, especially including ‘superfluous merits’, and expanded it to include a new idea, that it was possible, says Cyprian, to transfer such ‘superfluous merits’ from one person onto another. Think of your moral life as a bank account: when you sin your account drops into the negative and you ‘owe’ the bank, when you keep the law (i.e. merits) your account remains in the positive, and when you earn a superfluous amount of merits you’ve now stored extra merits in a savings account which can be transferred to your regular account or even transferred to another persons account anytime. Cyprian then applied this concept to Christ: since Christ was innocent and yet still died a martyr’s death (the ultimate superfluous act) the ‘merit’ or ‘good work’ of Christ could be transferred upon the rest of the human race [p. 82].

Anselm and the Reformers:
Anselm is unequivocally recognized as the first person to systemize this view (Aulen refers to it as the ‘Penal’ or ‘Latin’ theory [p.1]) which, until then (1033-1109), had not become the dominate view of atonement (over Christus Victor). This view was then expanded further and given a ‘legal’ twist by the reformers and took on the title “Penal Substitution” as we know it today (in its various forms) [p.129].

So now we have sketched the ‘essence’ of the Penal Substitution system and accompanied it with a brief survey (hardly doing any justice to it unfortunately) of it’s developed thought and history. With this in mind, what are some of the criticism levied against the Penal Substitution view? And if its system is found ‘wanting’, will it survive reform?

???

Derek

Food for thought: Is satisfaction of God’s wrath necessary for God to forgive sin?