- Joined
- Jun 19, 2023
- Messages
- 726
- Reaction score
- 1,245
- Points
- 93
- Age
- 46
- Location
- Canada
- Faith
- Reformed (URCNA)
- Country
- Canada
- Marital status
- Married
- Politics
- Kingdom of God
I appreciate that, thank you.
It is perhaps inevitable that disagreement will exist over the definition and meaning of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA), even if one cites a renowned and well respected scholar like Leon Morris, The Atonement: Its Meaning and Significance (InterVarsity Press, 1983). So, instead of futile attempts to convince the world that this or that understanding of the doctrine should be accepted, let it suffice that the definition and meaning of PSA in any conversation involving me shall be defended as the following:
- Penal substitutionary atonement is the theological doctrine that Christ bore the punishment for sin (penal) in the place of us believers (substitutionary), satisfying divine justice and cleansing us of the guilt and stain of sin, thereby reconciling us and God (atonement).
Since you have underlined the parts which hold your interest, I will address each of them. (I have left them in place.)
1. "In the simplest possible terms, the biblical doctrine of penal substitution holds that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross takes the place of the punishment we ought to suffer for our sins."
I don't know what the founder and CEO of the Got Questions? web site, Shea Michael Houdmann (Rabey 2022), happens to believe regarding the doctrine of PSA but that sentence you quoted struck me as terribly confused and leaves a lot to be desired. As it stands, I can't agree with it because it doesn't appear to make sense. I would provide the following corrections:
1. It is Jesus who is the substitute, not his sacrifice. God made Jesus, not his sacrifice, to be sin for us.
2. As our substitute, he took the place of the elect, not the place of the punishment which our sins are due. He took our place, not our punishment's place.
3. Jesus did not take the place of our punishment—whatever that means—but rather bore in his body, as our substitute, the punishment our sins were due.
2. "As a result, God’s justice is satisfied and those who accept Christ can be forgiven and reconciled to God."
I agree with the first underlined part. Christ's atoning sacrifice was both propitiatory and expiatory for the elect because it satisfied divine justice through penal substitution.
And I could almost agree with the second underlined part, but unfortunately it (a) muddies the waters of the interplay between divine eternity and human temporality and (b) reflects a reductionistic gospel presentation that equates salvation with a punctiliar verbal profession or intellectual assent, devoid of repentance, regeneration, sanctification, or enduring faith. I understand that Houdmann and other staff at Got Questions? don't hold such a reductionist view of the gospel, but that's what the average reader can infer from their less than careful language.
Here is how I would express the point that I believe they're trying to make: "Since Christ's atoning sacrifice was both propitiatory and expiatory, satisfying divine justice through penal substitution, all those for whom Christ died will experience the forgiveness purchased by his blood." This forgiveness is not bestowed on the basis of a mere decision or verbal assent; it is applied through union with Christ by grace alone through faith alone, a faith that is the product of divine regeneration and necessarily accompanied by repentance, sanctification, and perseverance.
3. "According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God's perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin."
Again, less than careful language, making it difficult for me to concur. I would have highlighted the same thing as a problem.
God's perfect justice demands that full payment be made for the debt owed for sin. It does not demand atonement—which, through the cross of Christ, is a matter of electing love and grace. A debt for sin is owed and full payment must be made. Those for whom Christ died have had their debt paid in full. All else must pay it themselves.
(I might be willing to say that the pactum salutis demands atonement for sin, but that is strictly an intratrinitarian covenant. The picture is something like this: "The sheep will be your portion," the Father says to the Son, "but it will require your atoning sacrifice on their behalf." And the Son agrees.)
4. "Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated or satisfied God's requirement for justice. God's mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty."
Allows? What are they trying to say here? Look, I'm just a high school dropout and a truck driver, and yet even I can express this stuff with more theological and grammatical care than they have.
Sorry, that's rude. I know. But I am frustrated.
I would change that first underlined part as follows (thus indicating what I disagree with): "It is the grace and mercy of divine love that sent Jesus to bear the punishment due for the sins of the elect, an atoning sacrifice that was both propitiatory and expiatory through penal substitution for all those in him." In love, God made him to be sin and a curse for us, that we might be the righteousness of God and redeemed from the curse of the law, and all for the glory of his grace and justice.
And that was the last of your underlined sections.
Last edited:
