I\u2019ve suggested that the use of \u201cpenal substitution\u201d is being used to carry too much weight in the atonement wars going on today. What I\u2019m arguing for, and will in my book, is that we need a bigger and better category to express what we believe. So, today: Why I think penal substitution as a categorical term for a theory for the atonement is not enough: I\u2019ve suggested that the use of \u201cpenal substitution\u201d is being used to carry too much weight in the atonement wars going on today. What I\u2019m arguing for, and will in my book, is that we need a bigger and better category to express what we believe. So, today: Why I think penal substitution as a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1744],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-atonement"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nNow let\u2019s look at what is said when one says \u201cMy theory of the atonement is penal substitution<\/em>.\u201d Or, to test a person, to ask, \u201cDo you believe in penal substitution?\u201d I\u2019ve been asked this numerous times; no one has ever asked me if I believe in the ransom theory. Ever. No one has ever asked me if I believe in a representative theory of atonement, either. What is about these two terms \u201cpenal\u201d and \u201csubstitution\u201d?
\nHere is what one is saying by using those terms: the atonement takes place at the cross; the cross is the place where God vented his wrath against sin; the cross is the place where God in Christ assumed the punishment for sin; the cross is the place where Christ substituted for my sins; the cross is the place where Christ was punished for the sins of the world (or, if you so think, the elect). The use of these terms suggests that it is stating atonement takes place on the cross (no resurrection, no Pentecost) and that is fundamentally about propitiating the wrath of God against sin. To clarify \u2014 I\u2019m not suggesting for one second that those who believe in penal substitution do not think there is saving significance in the resurrection or in Pentecost; I\u2019m suggesting the terms being used do not naturally convey those events as well. I\u2019ve rarely heard anyone speak of a \u201cvicarious\u201d or \u201csubstitutionary\u201d resurrection \u2014 though I think orthodoxy believes in such.
\nIt is, in other words, this set of terms deals with not just substitution, but a restricted kind of substitution: a penal kind<\/em> of substitution. This is too narrow, I am suggesting, to carry the load of what we (who are orthodox) believe occurs in the atonement.
\nFor most who adopt this theory there is assumed a double imputation \u2014 of our sins to Christ and of Christ\u2019s righteousness (perfect obedience to the Torah\/will of God) to us. Because there is inherent to this theory a double imputation, it will not be fair to the view to argue that it is only about retributive justice or about punitive justice, which is exactly what critics of penal substitution as an adequate model for atonement often do, and they do so because the terms being used are \u201cpenal\u201d and \u201csubstitution.\u201d The critics are mistaken in this criticism when it comes to the best thinkers who speak of penal substitution, like John Stott or Leon Morris or JI Packer, whose study long ago is still the best. But, there is an inadequacy in restricting ourselves to this set of terms for framing what the atonement is all about.
\nI\u2019m persuaded that the penal substitution folks are not listening to this point, and it is an important point that needs to be heard: many are hung up as much by the framing of the theory in these two words (\u201cpenal\u201d as modifying \u201csubstitution\u201d) as they are by some repulsive sense that God\u2019s punishing of his Son somehow can take care of another\u2019s problem or that the Father\u2019s wrath results in sanctioning violence.
\nSo, I\u2019d like to get an audience on this one point at least: Do we understand what a theory looks like when we describe it with just these, and only these, two terms? It looks like it is about nothing but a substitution that was entirely penal. It looks like retributive justice only. It looks like atonement is nothing more than God venting his wrath; it looks like nothing more than God\u2019s retribution against sin. That is what it looks like \u2014 at least to many. And, if we embrace those terms and we want to make our theory clear, then I am asking us to use terms that make our whole theory clear. I am asking we find a nice comprehensive term for all we believe occurred in the atoning work of God.<\/em>
\nTo me, restricting ourselves to \u201cpenal substitution\u201d is like restricting one\u2019s view of ecclesiology to one\u2019s theory of authority, and one could imagine other such analogies being used.
\nI\u2019m working alongside many other emerging thinkers and some of them have a lot of issues when it comes to penal substitution, but many of them are reacting to a bad image and to bad explanations and to an inadequate theory that is fostered by the overuse of the terms \u201cpenal substitution.\u201d I\u2019m with them in this. We all need to use our terms more carefully. If you ask some of us if we believe in penal substitution, and you make it sound like that is the whole theory, you are likely to get a non-commital response rather than a denial. (Some deny it, to be sure.)
\nSo let\u2019s also think together about how an \u201cimage\u201d speaks: if these are the two terms we bandy about when we talk about what we believe, and I used to do this myself, then we are creating an image of atonement as something that settles justice [God\u2019s just retribution against sin] \u2014 the image, as it is often used, is not being used to say something positive about the atonement, even though I know full well that many who use these terms do have in mind many other good things. Like forgiveness and reconciliation and justification and a lot of other good things.
\nLet me ask if the image conveyed by penal substitution excites those good things? I don\u2019t think it does.
\nNow let\u2019s also admit that our churches are filled with folks who have embraced the gospel that Jesus died for my sins (understood in terms of guilt) and that in so believing or accepting that gospel the problem has been taken care of \u2014 and they need not get any further than that. I am suggesting that a reduced gospel emerges from a reduced atonement theory.
\nWhat I want to say is not that this theory is wrong, dead-wrong, or anything like that for any theory of the atonement must deal with the issue of God\u2019s just justice with respect to sin; what I want to say is that the atonement is so much more than this. And, if it is so much more than this<\/em>, then it follows that using \u201cpenal substitution\u201d as our guiding term is inadequate and misleads others. At the least, it does not provide enough information to explain what one really believes occurs in the atonement.
\nBut, I\u2019ll say more so it is clear how I think about these terms as a defining instrument for our theory of atonement: because this is the category used by so many, it defines atonement into its category<\/em> and actually damages the other biblical images for what God does in his atoning work. Using this category leads us to think of atonement in just these terms, and before long we have no room for the other theories. In other words, we need to give some value to what is called the \u201clinguistic turn.\u201d If we use this category, we turn atonement into this theory.
\nTell-tale evidence for this is to ask someone to construct an \u201cevangelistic\u201d method in light of ransom theory and see what you get: I\u2019m willing to contend that 90% of those who do this will end up by turning ransom theory (which is a theory about liberation and justice) into penal substitution. I could go on. I\u2019ve seen very few penal types who could describe Anselm\u2019s satisfaction theory without turning satisfaction into penal substitution. (And they are not the same.) What I\u2019m saying here is that penal substitution, when used as the sole defining instrument, will inevitably shape how we see everything else.
\nFor goodness sake, let\u2019s use all the images for atonement so the story will become grander that we can imagine! The atonement, friends, is a banquet, and we need to sample each course as it comes along.
\nBTW: For the sensitive ones about this expression \u201catonement wars.\u201d The penal substitution types are fighting for penal substitution; some feminists, with others, contend penal subst is divine child abuse; some Abelardians think all this talk about violence is theologically erroneous; some social justice types think anything more than ransom as justice-establishment misses the whole point. There\u2019s a lot of chat about this nowadays.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"