Was the death on the cross necessary?

[John Caldwell]

I am not asking for any smoke screens or alternate views of the Atonement. I believe that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (PSA) is a false doctrine. The reason is that there are no passages that state what makes PSA unique among views of the Cross. The problem with these discussions in the past is the abundance of a few people providing verses that do not support PSA with explanations of what the verse “really means”.

This is the basics – the foundation of Scripture. Do not tell me what you believe Scripture implies. If God was able to articulate Christus Victor in the text of Scripture then I would expect God is competent enough to articulate Penal Substitution Theory in the text of Scripture as well.

I am asking a very simple question seeking a very simple response.


What verses state God cannot forgive sinners until He punishes sins?

What verses state that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us?

What verses state that it is just to punish the righteous in place of the guilty?

What verses state that Jesus experienced God’s wrath set aside for sin?

What verses state that Jesus died instead of us dying?

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

No it is not really enough to simply know that Jesus went to the cross. According to John Caldwell, God was not really involved. And that is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, as well as heresy.

It was God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- who designed the plan of salvation even before the foundation of the world. And it was at that time that they saw the Son as the Lamb of God paying for the sins of the world on that cross.

God poured out His wrath against sin directly on the holy soul of Jesus: Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the Man that is my Fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. (Zech 13:7)

The Bible says that Christ was "smitten of God, and afflicted". It was God who was dealing with His own Son, and also who forsook Him temporarily while He was made Sin for us (which is blatantly denied by Caldwell). This was an earth-shaking event, and the whole world was supernaturally dark in the middle of the day while Christ suffered, and bled, and died.

Wicked men were incidental to God's plan of salvation. At the same time God held the Jews responsible for the death of Christ as murderers. But had Christ chosen to, He could have easily thwarted their evil designs. Christ CHOSE to go to the cross, according to God's plan of redemption.

You have analyzed this correctly. Some view a God who is only a helpless spectator, who can only remotely view what is going to take place.

 

[John Caldwell]

Thank you , could you add scripture where I have underlined - just for my own reference. I obviously have a viewpoint already, but must admit I have not heard of penal substitution atonement, just heard of atonement.

@John Caldwell - I wonder if you wouldn’t mind explaining , in a simple way , what it is you believe ( with bible references ) not for the nature of debate, but just so that I can work out exactly what you are both disagreeing on - I am sure you have said the same thing, but obviously I am missing something xx
Sometimes theology is like reading one of the tax letters from the inland revenue ( IRS to you ) you think you have understood what they have said, but in reality you haven’t.

Many thanks xx
Rita

Rita,

I am so sorry that I did not answer this post. I overlooked your request for me to give my position with passages by accident.

I would like for you to test what I believe against Scripture. I suggested you need to do this with PSA, but it is important to do with any doctrine (and to reevaluate our own views constantly). We are human and can make mistakes.

Here is what I believe (with a few corresponding verses):

I believe that while we were enemies of God we were reconciled to Him through Christ’s death and having been reconciled we are saved by His life (Romans 5). Christ died for all so that all men might no longer live for themselves but for Him, who died and rose again on our behalf (2 Corinthians 5; 1 Thessalonians 5). It was God’s predetermined plan that Christ suffer and die at the hands of godless men (Acts 2:23). But God raised Him up on the third day, gaining us victory over sin and death (Colossians 2:15).

Jesus is the "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), dying once for all when He offered up Himself (Hebrews 10; Romans 6). Jesus gave Himself for our sins so He might rescue us from this present evil age (Colossians 1:13). And having become a curse for us He redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3). Jesus Himself is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). He was pierced for our sins, crushed for our iniquities. Men esteemed Him as stricken and afflicted by God, but the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22). For Christ bore our sins in His body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness (1 Peter 2:24).

He had to be made like us in all things (Hebrews 2:17). So He came in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3). And being found in the likeness of men Jesus humbled Himself by becoming obedient even to death (Philippians 2:8). This is why God exalted Him and gave Him a nave above all others – that at His name all will bow and confess that Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father (Philippians 2:9-11).

It is for this reason that the Father loves the Son – because he lay down his life to take it up again (John 10:17). The Father has put everything into the hands of the Son (John 3:35). For the Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son (John 5). The Father loved the world by giving His only Son (John 3:16). On the cross God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). He caused the iniquity of us all to fall on His Son, displaying Him publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith Romans 3:25). God loved us and sent Christ to be the propitiation for our sins. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21). He sent His own Son, His Beloved, in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). .

And as through Adam’s transgression mankind was condemned, so also through Christ’s one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men (Romans 5).

I join all those who have gone before in saying NOT "Our punishment was taken by Jesus instead of us" and crying NOT "Oh God, where is your punishment" but in saying "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory" and crying "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" For the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15).

In Christ,

John

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Thanks Enoch, I will add that into my reflection on the matter - that’s answered one of my questions x
So this is more about ‘ who ‘ sent Jesus to the cross - I think I already know where I stand on that, but I will see what else is added x
Rita

The Father, Son, and Spirit Covenant together to save a multitude of sinners in the Son.
2tim1;9
The Father sends the Son [think of gen 22 Abraham, Issac]

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

in 6:37-44
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.



The Son comes to redeem the multitude of sinners, the Children given to Him of the Father
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Jesus was sent to die under the curse of the broken law, and would receive the punishment due to each one of us;
jn1:
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
blood had to be shed; heb9
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


1 Pet2;
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

The necessity of blood atonement. Jesus was sent to be crushed on a cross for the sins of His people, and suffered the Spiritual agony of being made sin for us;2cor5
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

@Anthony D'Arienzo and @John Caldwell - What I am also trying to work out is why it matters if you see this in a different way - isn’t it enough to just know that Jesus went to the cross. ( see my simple faith ) This may seem a dumb question, but I figure that I don’t really care if I look stupid !, lol
Rita

 

[Rita]

Thank you for the posts in response to my earlier questions - much appreciated.
I find myself considering the garden of gethsemane - that part of scripture is just so revealing ‘ not my will but yours ‘. It’s always been a passage that offers so much information, about so many things......
Also I find myself considering the Passover, and release from Egypt , the redemption ( which is something I have been looking at in context of a study I doing on Nehemiah )
I have a feeling I don’t fit neatly into either of your camps- I will consider what has been conveyed x
Rita

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Thank you for the posts in response to my earlier questions - much appreciated.
I find myself considering the garden of gethsemane - that part of scripture is just so revealing ‘ not my will but yours ‘. It’s always been a passage that offers so much information, about so many things......
Also I find myself considering the Passover, and release from Egypt , the redemption ( which is something I have been looking at in context of a study I doing on Nehemiah )
I have a feeling I don’t fit neatly into either of your camps- I will consider what has been conveyed x
Rita

That is fine. You are on the right track.
Consider Jesus as the New Exodus.
The true manna, true tabernacle,living water, our passover, true mediator
Jn6,heb8,jn71cor5,1tim2,hebrews31-6

 

[Rita]

That is fine. You are on the right track.
Consider Jesus as the New Exodus.
The true manna, true tabernacle,living water, our passover, true mediator
Jn6,heb8,jn71cor5,1tim2,hebrews31-6

Yes, I was already there with those things x

 

[John Caldwell]

Thank you for the posts in response to my earlier questions - much appreciated.
I find myself considering the garden of gethsemane - that part of scripture is just so revealing ‘ not my will but yours ‘. It’s always been a passage that offers so much information, about so many things......
Also I find myself considering the Passover, and release from Egypt , the redemption ( which is something I have been looking at in context of a study I doing on Nehemiah )
I have a feeling I don’t fit neatly into either of your camps- I will consider what has been conveyed x
Rita

What I have grown to appreciate about Christus Victor is that it is not a "camp" or theory but an overarching theme. That was hard for me at first because coming out of holding PSA I wanted a precise theory. Looking back that was wrong and humanistic.

I also believe the Passover important in examining the Cross. It was no accident that Christ died on Passover. This is also a theme throughout Israel's history.

I believe the Passover Lamb foreshadows Christ. This Lamb is slain not to deliver Israel from their sin but to free Israel from the bondage of Egypt. We see this imagery constantly in Scripture.

 

[Rita]

Hi John,
What I meant by ‘ camp ‘ was that I may not hold with all you believe, or all that Anthony believes - I don’t actually follow theologians as such, prefer to weigh things up and discern using scripture and that inner voice of the Holy Spirit x
It doesn’t mean I don’t read things outside of scripture, but I don’t follow any one person x
Rita

 

[John Caldwell]

Hi John,
What I meant by ‘ camp ‘ was that I may not hold with all you believe, or all that Anthony believes - I don’t actually follow theologians as such, prefer to weigh things up and discern using scripture and that inner voice of the Holy Spirit x
It doesn’t mean I don’t read things outside of scripture, but I don’t follow any one person x
Rita

IMHO that is what we all should do. There is always the "human element" as we now see as through a glass (when Paul wrote those words glass was not clear).

But we should treat things we read outside of Scripture as we treat opinions on this board - test them against Scripture.

When you have a chance, and if you are willing, I would love to know where you and I would disagree (not to argue but for my own edification). I know PSA is wrong because it does not measure up to Scripture. But you may see something in my view that also does not measure up. I believe this is what is meant by Iron sharpening Iron. We need others to see what we may miss in our own positions.

 

[Rita]

Once I have thought it all through x
To be honest I have a whole different view about Hell, but there is no way I am going to go down that path on this forum at this moment in time !!
Rita

 

[John Caldwell]

Once I have thought it all through x
To be honest I have a whole different view about Hell, but there is no way I am going to go down that path on this forum at this moment in time !!
Rita

I am actually reevaluating my view on Hell and like you I am not going down that path here. Some see any disagreement with their view or position as a threat and try to censure or defeat anyone who dares question their tradition. There are some things I will (at least for now) work out on my own, prayerfully with Scripture.

 

[Candidus]

That's because you haven't made it clear.

Great deduction Sherlock!

I have not, because what I believe is Biblical, and the issue we are discussing in man-made philosophy that you are passing off as "The Gospel"!

I would say also that by continuing to argue with a wall of a committed heretic that replaces the Gospel with PSA, I am violating Matthew 7:6.

 

[Candidus]

There are two irreconcilable attributes in the heart of God:

1) Justice; which requires that every iniquity be punished exactly according to the crime.

Then there is no "Gospel" for Jesus failed! The EXACT PUNISHMENT and WAGES OF SIN is ETERNAL SEPARATION FROM GOD IN HELL! This just factually has never been accomplished!

2) Mercy; which desires that less than the punishment that is deserved be meted out.

Mercy is not a "desire," it is God withholding what we DESERVE! It is God not needing to be PAID OFF! You cannot have both! God either is merciful and bypasses punishment, or God demands punishment and there is nothing to forgive or be merciful about!

This view of the Psychotic God is like when you pump your gas at the station. You put in your credit card, and after you are done pumping and have paid, the voice on the loudspeaker comes over and says... "I forgive you for stealing my gas! I will have mercy and let you go!"

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Substitution is Not a “Theory of the Atonement”
Penal substitutionary atonement is the hope of sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.
Written by Kevin DeYoung | Monday, March 28, 2016

John Stott’s The Cross of Christ is one of those books every Christian should read. While there are parts I don’t agree with (for example, Stott’s treatment of impassibility), the book as a whole is a masterful treatise on the glories of the cross.

In chapter 7, Stott looks at the four principal New Testament images of salvation.

• The shrine (propitiation)
• The market (redemption)
• The court of law (justification)
• The home (reconciliation)

This beautiful chapter on “The Salvation of Sinners” ends with a masterful summary of the four images (198-99):

First, each highlights a different aspect of our human need. Propitiation underscores the wrath of God upon us, redemption our captivity to sin, justification our guilt, and reconciliation our enmity against God and alienation from him. These metaphors do not flatter us. They expose the magnitude of our need.

Second, all four images emphasize that the saving initiative was taken by God in his love. It is he who has propitiated his own wrath, redeemed us from our miserable bondage, declared us righteous in his sight and reconciled us to himself.

Stott shows that texts like 1 John 4:10; Luke 1:68; Rom. 8:33; and 2 Cor. 5:18 teach this precious truth.

Third, all four images plainly teach that God’s saving work was achieved through the bloodshedding, that is, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.

Again, Stott reminds us of the most important texts that make this point: Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:9;Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:20.

The chapter concludes with a much needed word for our day. Everyone who marginalizes penal substitution by calling it a “theory,” everyone who minimizes this doctrine by making it just one aspect of the atonement, everyone who shies away from this teaching in a misguided effort to rescue the love of God, everyone who undermines this essential truth by refusing to declare it confidently in plain, unambiguous terms, should pay careful attention to this concluding paragraph:

So substitution is not a “theory of the atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.





“So substitution is not a “theory of the atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.”

Is there more than one thing to say about the atonement? Absolutely. Are there a variety of implications and applications that can be drawn from the cross of Christ? Of course. But none of them make sense if Christ did not die in our place to assuage the wrath of God. Penal substitution is not a theory – one suggested idea that may or may not be true. Penal substitutionary atonement is the hope of sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.

Kevin DeYoung has been the Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan since 2004. Kevin blogs at the Gospel Coalition; this article is used with his permission.

 

[Candidus]

Substitution is Not a “Theory of the Atonement”
Penal substitutionary atonement is the hope of sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.
Written by Kevin DeYoung | Monday, March 28, 2016

John Stott’s The Cross of Christ is one of those books every Christian should read. While there are parts I don’t agree with (for example, Stott’s treatment of impassibility), the book as a whole is a masterful treatise on the glories of the cross.

In chapter 7, Stott looks at the four principal New Testament images of salvation.

• 
  
  
  • The shrine (propitiation)
  • The market (redemption)
  • The court of law (justification)
  • The home (reconciliation)

This beautiful chapter on “The Salvation of Sinners” ends with a masterful summary of the four images (198-99):

First, each highlights a different aspect of our human need. Propitiation underscores the wrath of God upon us, redemption our captivity to sin, justification our guilt, and reconciliation our enmity against God and alienation from him. These metaphors do not flatter us. They expose the magnitude of our need.

Second, all four images emphasize that the saving initiative was taken by God in his love. It is he who has propitiated his own wrath, redeemed us from our miserable bondage, declared us righteous in his sight and reconciled us to himself.

Stott shows that texts like 1 John 4:10; Luke 1:68; Rom. 8:33; and 2 Cor. 5:18 teach this precious truth.

Third, all four images plainly teach that God’s saving work was achieved through the bloodshedding, that is, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.

Again, Stott reminds us of the most important texts that make this point: Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:9;Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:20.

The chapter concludes with a much needed word for our day. Everyone who marginalizes penal substitution by calling it a “theory,” everyone who minimizes this doctrine by making it just one aspect of the atonement, everyone who shies away from this teaching in a misguided effort to rescue the love of God, everyone who undermines this essential truth by refusing to declare it confidently in plain, unambiguous terms, should pay careful attention to this concluding paragraph:

So substitution is not a “theory of the atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.





“So substitution is not a “theory of the atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.”

Is there more than one thing to say about the atonement? Absolutely. Are there a variety of implications and applications that can be drawn from the cross of Christ? Of course. But none of them make sense if Christ did not die in our place to assuage the wrath of God. Penal substitution is not a theory – one suggested idea that may or may not be true. Penal substitutionary atonement is the hope of sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.

Kevin DeYoung has been the Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan since 2004. Kevin blogs at the Gospel Coalition; this article is used with his permission.

Tossing the Elephant again! I am not here to argue with "Guru's" that you have elevated to Super-Spiritual status! If you cannot find the Doctrine in your Bible, then the Fool-osophy of some writer is not an argument.

If your argument is cutting and pasting other people, who will believe for you at the Judgement?

 

[Candidus]

Substitution is Not a “Theory of the Atonement”
Penal substitutionary atonement is the hope of sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.
Written by Kevin DeYoung | Monday, March 28, 2016

John Stott’s The Cross of Christ is one of those books every Christian should read. While there are parts I don’t agree with (for example, Stott’s treatment of impassibility), the book as a whole is a masterful treatise on the glories of the cross.

In chapter 7, Stott looks at the four principal New Testament images of salvation.

• 
  
  
  • The shrine (propitiation)
  • The market (redemption)
  • The court of law (justification)
  • The home (reconciliation)

This beautiful chapter on “The Salvation of Sinners” ends with a masterful summary of the four images (198-99):

First, each highlights a different aspect of our human need. Propitiation underscores the wrath of God upon us, redemption our captivity to sin, justification our guilt, and reconciliation our enmity against God and alienation from him. These metaphors do not flatter us. They expose the magnitude of our need.

Second, all four images emphasize that the saving initiative was taken by God in his love. It is he who has propitiated his own wrath, redeemed us from our miserable bondage, declared us righteous in his sight and reconciled us to himself.

Stott shows that texts like 1 John 4:10; Luke 1:68; Rom. 8:33; and 2 Cor. 5:18 teach this precious truth.

Third, all four images plainly teach that God’s saving work was achieved through the bloodshedding, that is, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.

Again, Stott reminds us of the most important texts that make this point: Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:9;Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:20.

The chapter concludes with a much needed word for our day. Everyone who marginalizes penal substitution by calling it a “theory,” everyone who minimizes this doctrine by making it just one aspect of the atonement, everyone who shies away from this teaching in a misguided effort to rescue the love of God, everyone who undermines this essential truth by refusing to declare it confidently in plain, unambiguous terms, should pay careful attention to this concluding paragraph:

So substitution is not a “theory of the atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.





“So substitution is not a “theory of the atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.”

Is there more than one thing to say about the atonement? Absolutely. Are there a variety of implications and applications that can be drawn from the cross of Christ? Of course. But none of them make sense if Christ did not die in our place to assuage the wrath of God. Penal substitution is not a theory – one suggested idea that may or may not be true. Penal substitutionary atonement is the hope of sinners, the heart of the gospel, and the good news without which all other news regarding the cross is null and void.

Kevin DeYoung has been the Senior Pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan since 2004. Kevin blogs at the Gospel Coalition; this article is used with his permission.

Scott's book, while a good overview of many theories- leaves us wanting, for he never gives us a coherent view of the Atonement. In his criticism of the Moral Influence Theory, Anselmic Satisfaction and the Ransom Theory, he leaves us with a vacuum that is left unfilled in his criticism.

That was the review I wrote in the back after reading it. Since the 1940's, it is quite normal for theologians to not take a firm Atonement Theory, but to blast holes in what they see, and leave you asking... "OK, these one's are wrong... then what is right"? This they evade because if they commit, someone can do what they did to theirs and pick them apart just as convincingly.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

From Aw.Pink on the atonement;

1. THE ATONEMENT WAS NECESSITATED BY THE WILL OF GOD Unless this be our starting point we are certain to err. God’s Word implicitly declares that He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” ( Ephesians 1:11). The whole extent of this passage contains a revelation of God’s eternal counsels concerning His own people. It takes us back before the foundation of the world to the time when He chose them in Christ. While it makes known that it was in love He predestinated them unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto Himself, it at once adds, that this purpose was “according to the good pleasure of his will ” (v. 5).It is in Christ that we have “redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (v. 7), yet right after we are told, “Having made known unto us the mystery of his will , according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself” (v. 9).



Law requires conformity to its precepts. The more perfect a law, the greater the obligations to respect it. Given a law which is “holy and just and good” ( Romans 7:12), and obedience to it becomes imperative. For God to repeal or even suspend it would be tantamount to acknowledging there was some defect in it. This could never be. Therefore, creatures made under that law must, of necessity, render obedience to it. In case of their failure, then, before it were possible to justify them, that is, pronounce them righteous, up to the required standard, another must fulfill that law on their behalf, and his righteousness or obedience be imputed to their account. This has actually been done. Christ was “made under the law” ( Galatians 4:4), “fulfilled” it ( Matthew 5:17), and His obedience has been placed to the legal credit of all His people ( Romans 5:19), so that they are now made “the righteousness of God in him” ( 2 Corinthians 5:21).

The law not only requires obedience to its precepts, but demands the punishment of its transgressors. Its invariable sentence is “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” ( Ezekiel 18:4). Inasmuch as God Himself declared this, and He “cannot lie,” it inevitably ensues that wherever sin is found, death with all that it includes, must certainly follow. The Lord has expressly affirmed that He “will by no means clear the guilty” ( Exodus 34:7). The only way of escape for law’s transgressors is for Another to suffer the penalty in their stead. Under the regime which God has instituted, were He to pardon without satisfaction made to His broken law by a Substitute being paid sin’s wages, then, God would not only trample upon His own law, but disregard His solemn threatening, and Scripture says “He cannot deny himself” ( 2 Timothy 2:13). Therefore did God Himself provide that wondrous sacrifice upon which the righteous penalty of the law fell.

To understand aright the work of Redemption, it is all-important that we should hold correct views of the law of God under which man has transgressed, and the state into which he, by rebellion, has fallen. The law of God points out the duty of man, requiring from him that which is right and just. It cannot be altered in the least degree to exact more or less. It is therefore an unalterable rule of righteousness. This law necessarily implies, as essential to it, a sanction and a penalty — a penalty exactly fitted to the magnitude of the crime in transgressing it. Every creature who is under this law is bound by infinite obligations to obey it, without the slightest deviation from it throughout the whole of his existence. But by transgressing it, man has righteously incurred its penalty and fallen under its curse: “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” ( Galatians 3:10).

Now the curse under which sinners have fallen, cannot be removed nor the transgressor released until full satisfaction has been made to it. Such satisfaction the sinner himself is utterly unable to render: “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight” ( Romans 3:20).

Because the law of God is an unalterable expression of His will and moral character, neither its demands nor threatenings can be abated. The authority of the law must be maintained. To pardon without a satisfaction would be acting contrary to law. This insuperable barrier in the way of the sinner’s deliverance is what underlies the relative necessity for the Mediator and Deliverer.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

part two
pt2-

In order for the curse of the law to be removed from him who had incurred its anathema, it must fall upon another who is made a curse in his stead. It is at this point the amazing riches of Divine grace have been displayed. Not only was the Christ of God “made under the law,” not only did He render perfect obedience to its precepts, but in addition — O wonder of wonders — He was “made a curse for us” ( Galatians 3:13). Him did God Himself foreordain to be “a propitiation through faith in His blood to declare His righteousness... that He might be [not merely “merciful,” but] just , and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” ( Romans 3:25,26). 3. THE ATONEMENT WAS NECESSITATED BY SIN In asserting that the Atonement was necessitated by sin, let it not be supposed for a moment that the entrance of sin into this world was a calamity unanticipated by the Creator, and that the Atonement is His means of remedying a defect in His handiwork. Far, far from it. So far from man’s fall being unforseen by God, the Lamb was “foreordained before the foundation of the world” ( 1 Peter 1:19,20).

The tragedy of Eden was no unlooked — for catastrophe, but foreknown and permitted by God for His own wise reasons. No, we employ the term used in this third heading in the sense of a conditional necessity. As we sought to show in the previous chapter, the ultimate reason and motive of all God’s acts are found within Himself, and that reason and motive is ever His own glory. But “glory” is manifested excellency, therefore God magnifies His manifestative glory by the exercise and exhibition of His manifold perfections.

Wondrously has God used sin as an occasion for displaying His own attributes. He has employed it as a dark background from which has shone forth the more resplendently the beauties of His wisdom, His holiness, His faithfulness, His grace. Thus He has made the very wrath of man to “praise him” ( Psalm 76:10). God is ineffably holy. As such, He is absolutely free from every vestige of moral pollution. He delights in whatever is pure, and therefore He hates whatever is impure: “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” ( Habakkuk 1:13).

Now sin is directly opposed to the holiness of God, for it is essentially impure, filthy, abominable; therefore is it the object of His unceasing detestation. How then shall God’s abhorrence of sin be manifested but by His punishment of it?

The Atonement relatively necessitated by sin is obvious from other considerations. Had the creature never fallen, he had never merited sin’s wages. Had he never transgressed against God’s law, no satisfaction had been required for its outraged honor. Sin being obnoxious to both the nature and the law of God renders those who have committed it subject to His displeasure. Again; sin is a grievous dishonor to the manifested glory of God ( Romans 3:22), a direct insult offered to the high Majesty of Heaven, and were sin pardoned without an adequate satisfaction, it would be tantamount to saying that God may be insulted with impunity. But if the holiness of God requires that sin shall be punished, if the law of God requires a satisfaction should be rendered its honor, how can its transgressors possibly escape? Sin has imposed a gulf between the thrice holy One and those who have rebelled against Him ( Isaiah 59:2). Man is utterly incapable of filling up that gulf or of passing over it.

Well might Job exclaim, “For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any Daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both” ( 9:32,33).

Ah, a “Daysman,” a Mediator , one able to come “betwixt,” is what was so urgently required. And what the terrible condition of fallen sinners needed, the matchless grace of God freely provided. Christ is the Divine answer to the Devil’s overthrow of our first parents. And in Christ, and by Christ, every attribute of God has been glorified and every requirement of His law satisfied. Through the incarnation, life and death, of His blessed Son, God has shown to all created intelligences what a terrible thing sin is, what a dreadful breach it had made between Himself and His creatures, how impartial is His justice, what an ocean of love is in His heart to promote the happiness of His people, and above all, He has secured and advanced His own manifestative glory by the honoring of all His attributes. Through the Atonement God has been vindicated.

But let the final thought of our chapter be this: it was sin which required the Atonement. Let each truly Christian reader make it individual: it was my sins that brought down the eternal Son of God to this world of darkness and death. Had there been no other sinner on earth but me, Christ had certainly come here. Yes, it was my dreadful and excuseless sins which caused the Lord of glory to become “the Man of Sorrows.” It was my sins which required the Beloved of the Father to descend into such unfathomable depth of shame and suffering. It was for me the ineffably Holy One was “made a curse.” It was for me He endured the Cross, suffered separation from God, and tasted the bitterness of death. O may the realization of this make me hate sin , and cry daily to God for complete deliverance from it. May the realization of grace so amazing constrain me to live only for Him “who loved me and gave Himself for me” ( Galatians 2:20).

 

[John Caldwell]

Scott's book, while a good overview of many theories- leaves us wanting, for he never gives us a coherent view of the Atonement. In his criticism of the Moral Influence Theory, Anselmic Satisfaction and the Ransom Theory, he leaves us with a vacuum that is left unfilled in his criticism.

That was the review I wrote in the back after reading it. Since the 1940's, it is quite normal for theologians to not take a firm Atonement Theory, but to blast holes in what they see, and leave you asking... "OK, these one's are wrong... then what is right"? This they evade because if they commit, someone can do what they did to theirs and pick them apart just as convincingly.

The problem with Penal Substitution Theory is that it is entirely foreign to Scripture. It is a philosophical theory developed in the 16th century. Other theories may be flawed but at least they are centered on Scripture rather than philosophy.

Penal Substitution Theory has just enough Scripture to make it dangerous as the less mature (spiritually mature) Christian may be deceived by the heresy and build upon it - theory built upon theory and worshipped as if it were the gospel itself.

That is the danger of these heresies. They are 90% Scripture. They are exposed by asking their disciples to quote from Scripture the remaining 10%.