Do you believe in the penal subsitution theory of atonement?
- Yes
- No
- I’m not sure
0 voters
Did Jesus pay the penalty for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to?
No
Sonia
Did Jesus pay the penalty for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to?
I think he did pay the penalty of death for us so that we can have the opportunity of life. We still are accountable for our works, we still must repent and receive Jesus as Lord and Savior IMO. I think this is possible postmortem.
Well I’m one who doesn’t think there** is **any “penalty” to be paid— anymore than my children owe me a debt when they are disobedient. What is “owed” by our sins is transformation and correction to make us incapable of those sins. Christ’s death and atonement is part of making that transformation possible.
Ditto.
Nope. Highly recommend Atonement, Justice and Peace, by Darren Snyder Belousek.
I don’t think it’s justifiable for many, many reasons, too numerable to list; mainly it implies that God’s sense of justice is as shallow as it can possibly be - that his justice is purely about cold retribution and not even retribution against the person who carried out the evil but against someone else (who just so happens to be part of God himself; it gives me a headache just thinking about the implications caused by one part of the trinity punishing another part of the trinity for sin!) so that sinners can be seen by God as perfect, despite the fact that he clearly knows that we’re not perfect and that the substitute’s death does nothing in itself to stop us being sinful.
It doesn’t even work if you write it down as a logical formula:
- Humans sin.
- Sin goes against God.
- Humans therefore deserve eternal punishment.
- God gives Jesus the punishment that humans deserve, so they can therefore be seen as clean.
- Yet Jesus doesn’t receive eternal punishment but actually rises three days later.
- So Jesus doesn’t actually take the punishment that humans apparently deserve.
I don’t deny that Jesus paid a penalty and took a punishment but to say that God actually punishes him because ‘he has to punish someone for sin’, even though in itself it does nothing to deal with sin, is bizarre. It implies that punishment isn’t to do with means but is an end in itself, something I generally disagree with.
I also think the PS texts used to back it up are often highly misused, misunderstood and even completely contradict what the writer was actually saying. Although I understand why, I think Isaiah 53 for example - which might possibly be my favourite chapter in the whole Bible - is very often misunderstood. Surely you only need to look at the second half of verse 4 to understand that the prophet couldn’t possibly have been saying that God DID take out his wrath on Jesus?
I hold to the Christus Victor model of atonement by Greg Boyd. Part of what it teaches is that the Father inflicted His wrath on Christ not directly but by allowing evil to have their way with Christ for the greater good of the salvation of the world. What Satan and evil men meant for evil God meant for good. One act two intentions. The wrath of the Father was removed and evil and death was destroyed and defeated.
No, not in the sense that I understand classic penal substitution.
I do think part of what Jesus did was to allow himself to be put in the place that sinful Israel had deserved in rejecting his call to respond to their enemies with love, and that he thus absorbed the penalty with which Rome threatened rebels against their system. I also think his trust is that God would use doing that as part of what would ultimately turn them from the rebellion that brings the consequences, penalties, and coming wrath that results from choices to rebel against God’s way. In that sense, he absorbed that penalty so that they and we might not have to.
But I don’t think of this as making a “payment,” as if it were some kind of objective transaction that automatically exempts us from the penalty or consequences of sin. And I’d really resist the idea that he was paying God some sort of satisfaction that was necessary before God’s merciful nature would be able to forgive the sins of the repentant. While I believe it was God’s will that Jesus lovingly embrace the worst that evil could do to him, I would put the emphasis on saying sinful people (or even ‘Satan’) are the ones who violently crucified Jesus, rather than implying that God did it to meet a need within himself to assuage his own need to take out wrath upon sinners.
Thanks to all who responded and for your votes. I really appreciate it.
The way I see Christ’s sacrifice is that it was a means of delivering us from wrongdoing, and enabling us to overcome wrongdoing and work righteousness.
*I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.*
And concerning enabling grace:
For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)
Some assume that if I believe this, then this entails perfection for all of us. I don’t see that entailment—at least not immediately. Rather, when we repent (have a change of heart and mind) and submit to the authority of Christ, his enabling grace begins to work in us as we enter the door of salvation. Salvation is a process that continues throughout our lives and culminates in maturity (completion) if we remain on the difficult road which leads to life.
The apostle Paul put it this way:
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Php 1:6)
I would put the emphasis on saying sinful people (or even ‘Satan’) are the ones who violently crucified Jesus, rather than implying that God did it to meet a need within himself to assuage his own need to take out wrath upon sinners.
Bob Wilson
I agree with the above but IMO since the bible does say "the wages (penalty) of sin is death and since Jesus said he would suffer and die and be raised on the third day, it appears to me he didn’t die for himself, he died to save us from our sins.
Certainly his death is not the only thing that saves us from our sins but it is part of a process and plan.
Steve,
I think there is consensus that we need to be saved ‘from sin,’ and the death that goes with it, and that Jesus’ death plays a crucial role in delivering us from that. But there are differing views concerning in what way his death delivers us from sin. Some seem to emphasize being delivered from the penalty for sin, rather than actually being rescued from sin (in the sense that Jesus enables us to be “saved” to a greater wholeness in our life and relationship with God). As Paidion shows, the repeated purpose clauses attached to explaining why Jesus died, emphasize that concerning sin, it was to change how we live.
Not of the popular sort where God needs a victim for His wrath and Christ diverts that wrath onto Himself. But there are other penal atonement theories that don’t involve mere substitution, and penal sub theories that don’t involve schisming the intentions of God, as well as other atonement theories that aren’t penal of course – I tend to think all the ones that make logical sense are true. 
So I voted both yes and no. 
Yes, Jesus paid the penalty for our sins, and yes He did it so that we wouldn’t have to pay at least some kinds of penalties, among other important reasons for the Passion. No, I don’t believe Jesus convinced the Father not to be wrathy against us, nor that Jesus satisfied some overarching notion of justice that the Father was obliged to punish us for although He didn’t want to.
As Paidion shows, the repeated purpose clauses attached to explaining why Jesus died, emphasize that concerning sin, it was to change how we live.
Bob Wilson
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am
Bob,
Yes i agree with Paidion but also “forgiveness” is mentioned many times and i think that is due to the atonement. Forgiveness accomplishes what? Probably it does relieve the forgiven one from some type of penalty resulting from his transgressions. As you know there are many theories about the atonement because the nature of it is never precisely explained.
I really like (and I’ve seen a few on here mention the same passage in relation to PS) looking at the cross partly in respect to the passage in Genesis 15, where God makes a covenant with Abraham and arranges it so that the covenant is entirely self-fulfilling. I was actually preaching a few months ago in my church on Philippians 2:1-11, mainly in relation to God’s humility, and brought this passage up. A lot of people didn’t seem to be aware of it and seemed amazed at the context behind it, although I didn’t mention that such a passage does, in a way, imply universal reconciliation.
Perhaps not as often as you think, and perhaps not at all in connection with Jesus’ sacrifice.
The verb “ἀφιημι” (aphiāmi) occurs 863 times in the New Testament. Here is how the NKJV translates it in the four gospels:
-
“Leave, left” 52 times. Also “neglected”, “forsook”, “laying aside”, and “undone” which could be translated as “left”, for a total of 55 times.
-
“Forgive, forgiven” 44 times.
-
“Let, allow, permit” 29 times.
-
“Send away” 1 time. Also “yielded up”, “cried out” which could be translated as “send away” in some form, for a total of 3 times.
In my opinion, many of the times the word is translated as “forgive”, it might actually mean “leave” or “forsake” or “send away” the verb “to free from” or “deliver from”.
The word “ἀφεσις” (aphesis) occurs 16 times in the New Testament. The NKJV translates it as “forgiveness” 6 times, “remission” 9 times, and “liberty” 2 times.
Consider Luke 4:18, a passage which Jesus read from Isaiah:
The captives didn’t need forgiveness; they needed liberty. The oppressed didn’t need forgiveness; they needed to be set free from oppression.
I do not say that “ἀφεσις” never means “forgiveness”, but I suspect that usually in the New Testament it refers to “leaving” or “forsaking” or “freedom” from" or “deliverance from” or “sending away”.
Consider these passages which contain the word, and ask yourself whether or not “the ἀφεσις of sins” could mean “the forsaking of sins” or “deliverance from sins” or “the sending away of sins”.
Mt 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the ἀφεσις of sins.
Mr 1:4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the ἀφεσις of sins.
Lu 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation to His people By the ἀφεσις of their sins,
Lu 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the ἀφεσις of sins,
Lu 24:47 "and that repentance and ἀφεσις of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the ἀφεσις of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Ac 10:43 “To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive ἀφεσις of sins.”
Ac 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the ἀφεσις of sins;
Ac 26:18 ‘to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive ἀφεσις of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’
Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the ἀφεσις of sins, according to the riches of His grace
Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, ἀφεσις of sins.
Certainly John the Baptizer did not preach “forgiveness of sin” (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). When you read the accounts of what he did preach, there was not a single word about forgiveness.
Also, Jesus forgave several people while He still walked this earth. How was this possible if his death was required in order for them to be forgiven?
Did Jesus pay the penalty of our sins? I think the answer to that question is a ‘yes’, but I think the critical
component that atonement theory attempt to address is the object of the atonement; or the payee.
Saying that God is so vengeful that He must have His ‘pound of flesh’ before He can be satisfied
seems to imply that He is less righteous and forgiving than He demands us to be; indeed than we are in actuality!
Classic penal substitution atonement always sort of nagged at me in the back of my mind, even growing up
when I pretty much just blindly accepted the more complicated doctrines I was taught.
In my opinion it has so many internal problems and inconsistencies that it would be virtually impossible
for me to believe in it at the present time.
In a recent discussion on atonement, a friend wrote:
Any thoughts on this?
Sonia
I don’t know, Sonia. I don’t remember if Steve’s been here or not, but he’d be the one to ask. [tag]alecforbes[/tag]
Interesting points your friend made, Sonia. 
I received a book I had ordered a few weeks ago, George MacDonald’s Challenging Theology of the Atonement Suffering and Death by Miho Yamaguchi, PhD but haven’t cracked it yet… It’s pretty short so I’ll read it in the next day or so and comment after that so I’m not shooting from the hip.