People who hold to Penal Substitution are unfairly criticized because it’s believed that they hold to a violent God. This simply isn’t true. It’s overlooked that Christ was carrying the sins of all His people. That’s a lot of sin! We should expect the suffering to be severe. Especially since it was for only a few hours. Moreover, those who hold to Christus Victor are correct in stressing the compassion of Christ and victory over sin and death. Those who hold to Penal substitution also stress this. For those who hold to Penal Substitution it’s both/and not either/or. In fact Christ was doing a lot of things in His death and resurrection according to those who hold to Penal Substitution. The Christus Victor model is correct but incomplete. Here’s the truth about what those who hold to Penal Substitution believe about the passion of Christ. This is an incomplete list of what the Father and Christ were doing in the suffering, death, and resurrection:
Showing the worst evil was meant by God for good
Rescuing people from final judgment
Showing love and grace for sinners
Taking away condemnation
Removing God’s penal wrath
Forgiving sins
Becoming a ransom
Freeing people from the slavery of sin
Enabling others to live for Christ and not themselves
Securing the resurrection from the dead
Destroying hostility between the races
To gather His sheep from around the world
Giving eternal life to all who trust in Him
Overcoming death thereby freeing people from the fear of death
Calling us to follow His example of love for the Father and others
I agree that positive interpretations can go with a penal view of Christ’s death, which often overlap with competing explanations of his death. But as I’ve said in our dialogue on my page, the undefined semantics make clarifying the differences challenging. I don’t understand what you mean by “carrying” everyone’s sins requires enormous suffering. Do you mean Jesus paid the penalty for all sins? If so, what would that penalty be? Since “carrying” seems ambiguous to me, perhaps you can define what you mean and how it functions (e.g. does "carrying sins in itself change God’s disposition into a more forgiving one toward wickedness?), and share which texts may speak of paying for all sins.
Well, it’s not just the fact that an enormous amount of sins were laid on Christ that caused His suffering justifies His suffering. God had many justifiable reasons for permitting the suffering of Christ. Some are listed above but there are many others. Most likely there are even justifiable reasons that we aren’t aware of. God is God and He knows what is best in each circumstance. He sees all of reality and we don’t. Since there are morally justifiable reasons then it’s not cosmic child abuse when the Father permits the suffering and death of Christ.
I believe that Christ died for His sheep only. They are the ones saved by grace in this lifetime. The goats are cast into the fires of corrective punishment where they are not only punished (destroyed) but also purified and given new life. All through the Bible we see that the penalty for sin is death. This is what the human Christ suffered and died. He paid the price. The great conclusion of the suffering and death of Christ is this:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus - Romans 8:1
To be in Christ means to be in a mystical love union to Him by faith. We are one with Christ. Faith unites us to Christ so that His death becomes our death and His perfection becomes our perfection. Our sins are imputed to Christ as He suffers and dies. His righteousness is imputed to us. We die to the old self and are risen to new life. Christ is our mercy seat where our sins are expiated and God’s wrath is turned away from us or propitiated (Romans 3:25, 1 John 4:10). Death is God’s judicial reaction to sin (death is penal). God ordained that the penalty for sin is death. (Romans 1:32)
By saying that those who experience the Lake of Fire can in essence come out the other end because they can have fully expiated the penalty of their sins, then the death they experience is finite.
If Christ paid for the sins of a a finite number of elect, and the price of their sins is finite, then the value of the work of Christ is therefore finite. [Finite] x [Finite] = Finite
Are you really meaning to say that the work of Christ is finite?
Thanks for clarifying another significant difference in our views on P.S. Saying “Christ died only for his sheep” sounds like the logic of limited atonement that Fuller taught me. But I’ve never been able to find it apparent in the N.T., and I find most N.T. scholars, even who hold P.S. don’t try to defend it. Romans 5 asserts that Christ’s death will make “all men” righteous who are in Adam. So when Paul adds “Christ gave himself as a ransom for all men” (1 Tim. 2:2), would you say that it sounds like he thought Jesus died for all persons? When 1 John 2:2 says “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not only ours, but also the sins of the whole world,” does it sound as if his death brings a saving provision toward all men? Heb. 2:9 adds, “He tasted death for everyone.” And the apostles even speak of enemies of Christ who have left the faith as those “for whom Christ died.” Doesn’t this sound as if they considered Jesus death to be for reprobates?
What texts do you see as equally clearly specifying that Jesus only died for Some people?? Your articulations on this can sound attractive, but I’m most interested in whether the apostles declare a view. Do you think that God is “without partiality” as Paul says. Do you think offering atonement for a limited number of people would not show partiality? If so, how do you understand the nature of God’s love?
The Bible tells us explicitly that Christ died for His sheep:
He didn’t just die for the Jews but the Gentiles as well. All people from the whole world. Not every individual:
In Hebrews 2:9 it is clear that this work was focused on those who will be brought to glory, the sanctified, Jesus’ brothers, those who put their trust in Him, the people (Hebrews 2:10-17)
While I believe that the Bible says, “There is none righteous not one” I don’t believe Romans 5 is teaching this. The many were made sinners and the many will be made righteous. Not every single individual. A quick check in the Lexicons reveals that all can mean all kinds of. Hence 1 Tim. means all kinds of people. Jews as well as Gentiles. Not every single individual. 1 John 2:2 is stating that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of not only Paul’s immediate listeners but the children of God scattered abroad. The whole world. Not every single individual.
God loves all but He gives saving grace to some in this lifetime. Others receive corrective punishment in the next. All make it to heaven.
No I believe that the atonement is infinite in value. I don’t see the connection that this means people must suffer forever. Christ didn’t suffer forever.
By definition, penal substitution means that there must be complete satisfaction of the demands of justice for God to justly forgive sins.
If those who receive punishment eventually go to heaven (and if Christ did not bear their penalty), then they receive a finite amount of punishment that they can individually fully expiate.
Since there are a finite number of persons, and since there is a finite amount of punishment per person, then it follows that a finite price is all that is necessary to pay for their sins.
Let’s go a step further: Sinners do not stop sinning while in hell (because they are fallen, and they continue in conscious existence). The only way they could stop sinning is if the work of Jesus Christ were to set them free from the power of sin. Yet, if the work of Christ is not applicable to them (per Limited Atonement), then they will remain under the power of sin. Therefore they must continue to pay for additional sins for endless ages.
I would think, that from a penal substitution perspective, the only way anyone could be released from hell is because Christ paid for their sins and provides a perfect righteousness. They repent and believe the gospel (while in hell), and God rescues them. Otherwise, hell would be eternal, and there would be no restoration.
When I forgive the sins of my child, how is justice satisfied?
Here are two scenarios:
Susie: (Crying) Daddy, Daddy! Tom pulled the head off my doll! Father: Tom! Come here at once! Bring your toy truck! Now watch. I pull the wheels off your truck as fair payment. There. Justice is done!
(Tom and Sally run off. Both are crying. Both toys are broken.)
Susie: (Crying) Daddy, Daddy! Tom pulled the head off my doll! Father: Tom! Come here at once! Look what you’ve done to Sally’s doll. Look how unhappy you’ve made her. You say you’re sorry and give her a big hug. Then I will help you fix her doll. Either that, or it’s the wooden spoon for your bottom!
(Tom says sorry, and gives Sally a reluctant hug. The father helps Tom fix the doll. Peace is restored. No toys are broken.)
People are made in God’s image. Hence, they are infinite in value and worth. Yes, a finite price for sins is all that is required for a finite number of sins.
There’s no proof for this.
"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matt. 25:46
The synonymous Hebrew and Greek words translated as eternal in passages like the above simply mean a long duration or lasting. Rotherham’s literal translation always translates the words as age abiding. This makes sense. While eternity is a long duration there are other periods of time that are long lasting as well. Being in the belly of a fish for 3 days and 3 nights is a long time. Notice that the passage that describes the time frame of Jonah’s 3 day and 3 night stay in the belly of a fish is the word translated as eternal. The words in Hebrew and Greek simply mean long lasting or a long duration. It doesn’t specify how long. Only that it is a long time period. It doesn’t have to be the same in every instance. The above scripture would be better translated this way:
"And these will go away into long lasting punishment, but the righteous into long lasting life.” - Matt. 25:46
They don’t have to be the same length in each instance. This is especially true because the Greek word for punishment here means corrective punishment. This is not everlasting at all.
kolasis
From kalazo (chastise)
Correction - punishment(2)
The Strongest NASB Exhaustive Concordance
The Greek word for punishment here (Mt. 25:46) is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment.
William Barclay Greek scholar in A Spiritual Autobiography. pages 65 - 67
kolasis
correction, punishment, penalty
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon
It’s punishment but it’s corrective punishment. It’s both/and not either/or. Corrective and penal. Also, the Bible is full of God’s punishments as being corrective. Even in cases where He destroys He recreates and makes new. When a loving person punishes someone it’s to penalize but it’s to also correct.
The wrath Christ suffered was penal but it was also disciplinary:
Hebrews 5:8-9
Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered
and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Christ swallowed up all the penal wrath of His sheep. All we receive now is mercy and discipline. We drink from Christ’s cup of suffering. God corrects those He loves (Pr. 3:11-12). He loves everybody. Therefore He will correct everybody.
Well thanks for sorting this out for us, Cole. PSA has perplexed some of the finest theological minds in history, but you’ve nailed it. Of course it’s fine that Christ suffered intensely, as it was only for a few hours - Jeez, I’d say he got off pretty lightly .
Sure, we’re all sheep and agree Christ died for his sheep. But (1) I’d think that you would need texts which specify this as meaning “some” people, in order to have any match for repeated texts that assert that it means he died for “all people.” Your only argument is that all might mean ‘all (kinds of) people.’ Have you read Talbott or De Rose’s case that the Bible’s all Never means some among various groupings (but always means all, even when used hyperbolically)? You can’t just assert that lexicons prove you right without laying out the texts. What texts show that Paul uses pas this way?
(2) Your view on Romans 5 sounds novel to me. You say concerning the many or all “made sinners,” that this means “not every single individual.” I can see that then that the parallel "all or “the many” for whom Christ died could refer to a limited part of mankind. But you then will need to define and support this notion that Adam’s sinfulness is only applicable to some. Can you clarify your view?
(3) What do you think 2 Peter 2:1 means in saying that Christ’s heretical enemies “deny the sovereign Lord who bought them”? I still don’t get how your understanding would not be the essence of divine “partiality” which Paul rules out.
You paint a pretty, innocent picture of humanity. Not everyone is that “innocent.” What if we change the details of your scenario a bit. What if it were Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler standing before God on the last day, and they say, “All the atrocities that I committed, I’d do it again if I had the chance.” Then it is not all dolls and toy trucks any more. (I admit, I’m not playing fair by painting the opposite end of the spectrum, but you weren’t playing fair either by painting a scenario of innocent kids).
Now, one of the reasons why I have been oscillating back and forth between considering God sadistic and repenting for the past 6 years is because, even though I understand that my friends and family have thoughts that are just as bad as my thoughts, yet they are “decent people.” They have been kind and compassionate. They are unbelievers. I look at them while they offer me the shirt off their back, and imagine God pouring his wrath out on them, and I am angered. Why would God be so cruel??!! Maybe you are right. Maybe penal substitution is part of the problem. I’ve got some homework to do. I’ll go back and re-read Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge and John Murray again on the subject now that I have learned a bit of what the non-penal view is about. Who should I read on the classical theory side?
Thomas More: Lord, Lord, Henry cut off my head! God: Did he indeed? Well, we’ll soon fix that. I’ll boil him in oil. That will restore harmony to the universe. Thomas More: Ummm. How will boiling Henry fix my head? And look. I’m sorry for being difficult, but I’m still really, really upset with Henry! Hurting him doesn’t make me feel any better. Strangely, I think it makes me feel worse. God: You feel worse? What if I chop off his legs and boil him in oil? Will that fix your head, make you feel better, and restore harmony to the universe? Thomas More: Ermmm… No?
**God:**You’re hard to please. What do you want? Thomas More: I loved Henry, you know. We were friends. Things got so messy, with Catherine and all… Can I see him? Can I give him a hug and tell him it’s alright? That I forgive him? I want to be friends again. I know it could take some time. Henry’s a proud man, and he was a king, once. God: (smiling) I can see why they made you a saint…
Punishment does not restore harmony. It does not fix what’s broken. In fact, it creates even more disharmony. This is not to say that punishment is bad or unnecessary, but it’s good only inasmuch as it leads, in the end, to the restoration of right relationships. This is why vengeance belongs to God. He alone is wise enough to wield it.
God so ordered the world that the prodigal son was punished for his sins. ie. A month or two in hell, in the pig-sty. God’s punishment did not fix what was broken, but it did bring the stupid boy to his senses. The healing of his relationship with his father took time, and no doubt many more tears were shed, but punishment had done its good work. Harmony was restored, and justice done. (Interestingly, the older brother didn’t want this sort of justice. He wanted his brother to pay back what he owed, eye for eye.)
The best thing I’ve read on this is one of George MacDonald’s Unspoken Sermons, entitled *Justice. *
No, there are sheep and there are goats. The Bible is clear on this. (Matthew 25) All through the Bible we see the words world and all not being used to refer to every single individual. The Lexicons take the texts of scripture and how the words are used to come to their definitions. Luke 2:1 (all the world should be registered) does not envisage the entire population of the planet taking part in a Roman census. Matt. 3:5-6 (all Judea) does not mean to suggest that every single man, woman, and child in Judea without exception went out and was baptized by John, especially since Luke 7:30 explicitly says that the Pharisees and lawyers were not baptized by him. Acts 2:17 (I will pour out my Spirit on all people) does not mean that everyone in the world was given the Holy Spirit at the first Pentecost. The list could go on.
Matthew 26 shows that Jesus’ death is equated to that of the Passover lamb. Yet the Passover lamb in Exodus 12 was not sacrificed for the Egyptians but only for God’s chosen. The sole purpose and use of the lamb was to provide Passover cover and Passover nourishment for the people whose number and needs it matched, and once that was achieved, it was not available for anything or anyone else. It was chosen for God’s chosen people. Christ is said to be our Passover Lamb. He is not only for the Jews though but the Gentiles as well. All people. The whole world. God is no respecter of persons in the sense of race or nationality. He still has a chosen people in this lifetime chosen by grace though.
The Bible speaks of a universal love that God has for everybody. There is however a special dimension to God’s love. The fact that God loved Jacob and hated Esau proves this point. Here we are seeing a love/hate contrast that shows God loves some more than others. Jesus spoke of this when He said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26). Jesus is not saying have an attitude of hostility towards them. What He is saying is that we ought to love Him above all others.
This doesn’t mean that all won’t eventually be saved. Only that God has a special love for some before all make it to heaven. We also see this special love in this scripture:
This passage corresponds with the command to show special love to believers:
God has a chosen people in this lifetime who are saved by grace. The goats undergo the corrective punishment in hell. In the meantime let us love like God and show love to everyone - ESPECIALLY Christians.
I appreciate your faithful efforts to defend an interesting blend of Calvinist exegesis and universalism. But your Gospel citations of ‘all’ does Not show that Paul ever uses “all” to mean “some of each group.” They are just perfect examples of what I and de Rose acknowledged as hyperbolic all’s, and thus don’t answer Talbott and de Rose’s analysis of the meaning of pas. You seem to argue that familiar references to sheep and goats shows that Christ only died for one of these distinct categories, but since Parry and Talbott so convincingly show that God makes sheep out of the goats that he ‘hates,’ it cannot follow from this temporal distinction that Jesus didn’t die for them, or that God loves some people more than others.
I find your assertion that Penal Substitution is about God loving some persons more than others especially problematic for our attitude toward God and others. Your references to our obligation to those we are in relationship with, or that God is especially Savior of believers do not declare any thing about God loving them more. And taking Paul’s reference to hating Esau so literally that it distinguishes who Christ loves or died for seems to ignore the context as well as Talbott and Parry’s exegesis that Paul’s point is that God effectively loves and saves the very ones who are now in this position of rejection. With Tabott I am convinced that if God doesn’t equally love all, such that he totally loves those I love, then his love for me would be be unworthy of the love that seeks our best.
The Bible repeatedly and explicitly declares that Jesus died for “all persons,” even specifying that this category is parallel to the category that shares in Adam’s sin (Rom. 5). It specifically tells us that those who rejected Christ are those who have been "bought’ by him (2 Pet 2:1). It appears to me that you have not responded to this evidence, or you’ve offered nothing that explains these texts away, or offers equally clear language that limits who Jesus died for.
.