The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
9

Proponents of penal substitution, like Louis Berkhof (ST, 6.2.1), indeed argue that Christ has "removed the penalty of sin" and that therefore "the penal element is removed from death." So why do Christians still die? Two arguments are given: God continues to use death to sanctify his followers and increase their unity with Christ Creation continues to ...


7

Well I am an opponent of penal substitution and can give an answer that I believe is within the bounds of Eastern Orthodox tradition. Note the part where the verse says: "yet we considered him punished by God". This phrase implies that it is wrong to consider him punished by God, which is explicitly what penal substitution teaches in the reformed tradition. ...


7

Reformed theologians who hold to penal substitutionary atonement emphasize a) the divine nature of Christ and the increased capacity for suffering that that implies and b) the intensity of God's wrath against him. Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology (3.2.1.B), writes: [Christ's] capacity for suffering was commensurate with the ideal character of ...


6

The theological term for the concept you are thinking of, namely that Christ was payment for our sins and so took upon Himself the fullness of punishment due to sin, is known as penal substitution (as you identify). Penal substitution is largely originated in the Reform Movement. It is generally agreed that no Church father taught penal substitution, but ...


5

Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, 3.7.6) and Herman Bavinck (Reformed Dogmatics, v3, III.7) are two Reformed theologians who make a number of exegetical arguments from Old Testament passages to defend penal substitution. I'll focus on their treatments of the sin offering and similar sacrifices, on the following points: Significance of blood (Leviticus 17)...


5

The following answer shall be largely influenced by my Roman Catholic faith, so be aware of such a fact while reading. With that said, here we gooooooooo!!! Penal Substitution And Its Failures The problem with the penal substitution theory is that it confuses many points that need distinction in order to understand the nature of Christ's sacrifice. For ...


5

The Wesleyan Arminians recognised the problem implied by your analogy and resolved it by proffering the Governmental Theory of Atonement. Applying it your analogy: Christ has 'made' the payment at the cross, (and he can't unmake the payment - the cost to Him was real), but rather than a completed individual transaction on behalf of each sinner (the penal ...


5

The strongest defenders of penal substitution are going to be conservative Calvinists: that is, those who hold to the "five points" of Calvinism and reject modernist approaches to Scripture. Outside this group, many nonetheless hold to penal substitution, but there is more diversity of opinion. A few examples of conservative Calvinists who hold to penal ...


4

Not all Anglicans have held to Penal Substitution Theory. For example, the nineteenth to early 20th century Anglican bishop Charles Ellicott did not. See his commentary on Galatians 3, for example. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion does not express Penal Substitutionary Atonement. So, if you look at some of the continuing Anglican denominations you ...


4

This question is a bit old, but there is an omission in the only answer. fi11222's answer states that both ransom and penal substitution theories of atonement view God as needing payment of some form. I agree with the description of penal substitution, but I believe the orthodox ransom theory generally teaches that the ransom was paid to death and not God ...


4

This answer is given from the perspective of the "Swedenborgian" or "New Church" denominations that accept the Christian theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772). Swedenborg rejected penal substitution as completely false and contrary to the plain teachings of the Bible. The primary question is: How do opponents of Penal Substitution explain God's ...


4

**Part 1** Those who believe in penal substitution mean something along on the lines of this: that Christ was made to have human nature. This was done in order to take the penalty of the law upon himself for other humans (not for angels) as a substitutionary sacrifice. By suffering on their behalf the wrath of God and just punishments of his law are ...


4

A great place to look for this is Melancthon's Defense of the Augsburg Confession. As we'll see, he does not always use language specific to penal substitution, but the themes of Christ's sacrifice appeasing God's wrath and acting as a forensic substitute for sinners are certainly there. Christ makes satisfaction and his mercy is set against God's wrath: ...


3

Part of the solution here might be to look at the Old Testament sacrifices which Jesus is fulfilling. When an Israelite took his lamb to the temple to be sacrificed, he had no sense that his sacrifice was for all the sins of God's people collectively. The sacrifice was being made for his own sin. Take a look at Leviticus 4, for example. Hebrews ...


3

If I may crudely summarize, Gustaf Aulén's argument in Chapter 6 of Christus Victor is: Martin Luther clearly valued the Christus Victor theme The Christus Victor and substitutionary models of atonement are fundamentally contradictory Therefore, any references to "satisfaction" or Christ bearing God's wrath on behalf of humanity must be understood in light ...


3

This is certainly a challenging question. I'll rely on the writings of two prominent reformed theologians, Louis Berkhof and Charles Hodge, who are strong supporters of this doctrine. It's important to note, for reasons that will become clear, that they defend their position in the face of arguments made by opponents who believe in a just God. Those who ...


2

When the sinner is condemned and dies because "the wages of sin is death", the punishment is eternal because he is not able to provide a righteous life. The difference is, though Jesus took on our sins to become "sin for us" and was condemned to death, God raised Him up again because He never sinned Himself. Having never sinned, He - the second member of ...


2

Christ “died” for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). The punishment the law required for our sins was not the whippings on His back or Hell, but death. Jesus’ substitutionary death perfectly fulfilled the offering requirements of the OT. When the Jews of ancient Israel brought their offerings to God for their sins, the priest did not have the sinners wait for eternity ...


2

It is the same difference as there is in modern law between a civil lawsuit and a penal lawsuit. Ransom theory treats the enmity between God and men as if it were a civil lawsuit, i.e. a legal contention which can only be resolved through the payment of damages, here a "ransom". Men owe God a ransom (damages) in order to compensate for their sins (which of ...


2

The 'penal' in penal substitution is based on the idea that sin brings about punishment under the curse of the law. The curse of Adam's sin is death, which is a punishment. Punishment = the curse under the law for sin. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” (...


2

Theory suggests that Calvin's strong support for and writings about penal substitution was tied to his work in the legal system (as a lawyer). The concept is definitely a parallel. [Christ] made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been ...


2

This answer is based on the theology and Bible interpretations written by the Christian theologian Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), which are accepted in the "New Church" or Swedenborgian denominations. Swedenborg and the various Swedenborgian denominations explicitly reject substitutionary atonement theories such as Anselm's Satisfaction theory of atonement ...


2

See the parables of the Lost Coin and the Lost Sheep: Or what woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ (Luke 15: 8-9) ...


2

This article directly refutes Gustav Aulen (by name) by citing Luther: https://guardthedeposit.com/2013/03/martin-luther-atonement-penal-substitution/ The article quotes "a passage from Luther’s Second Sermon on Luke 24:36-47, where the theology of penal substitution comes through clearly:" But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to ...


2

Off the top of my mind, there are two passages upon which the belief of individual satisfaction can be based. One is from Paul's letter to the Romans, v 6:10 [RSV]: While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man—though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows ...


2

I haven't taken a look at the other question yet, but after reading your question, my knee-jerk reaction was, "whaaaat?" The word "pardon" does not exist in LDS doctrine outside of the "Unpardonable Sin." The one and only person who can issue a "pardon" is Jesus Christ Himself. Per D&C 64:10... I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of ...


2

N - Assume that the total number of people who will ever live (besides Jesus) is N, a finite number. ω - Assume that redeeming the smallest sin costs an infinite amount, equal to omega, the hyper-real number. E - Assume that the most evil person who ever lived committed a number of sins equal to E. Given that our lives are finite, the number of sins that can ...


2

As one who believes in the teaching of penal substitution, I would simply point to what the Bible says about it in Romans chapter 5. It would be good if you could read the entire chapter first, in order to grasp the significance of these bits I am going to extrapolate. Verse 10 - “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his ...


1

Hard to choose, but probably Martin Luther. Your linked answer has the clearest example, from Luther's Works, Volume 26 (Lectures on Galatians Ch. 1-4). He sent His Son into the world, heaped all the sins of men upon Him, and said to Him: "Be Peter the denier; Paul the persecutor, blasphemer, and assaulter; David the adulterer; the sinner who ate the ...


1

My answer... I believe that a believer in Christ still physically dies for the same reason all believers still have a sin nature as well as the reason why Satan has not yet been cast into the lake of fire. What appears to us as Gods delays are in reality His greater blessing. He purposes all things in His time for a reason, which we at first may not ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible