Why We Need To Keep Fighting for Penal Substitutionary Atonement

In the ever-changing landscape of theological battle, some things stay  consistent.  Calvinists and Arminians will always be throwing jabs at one another. Credobaptists and Paedobaptists will forever lock horns over who loves their kids more. And you’ll always have a small sect of people who contend that if you use Welches grape juice for communion you’re somehow worse than a Mormon. 

But recently I’ve noticed a disturbing trend: Many people who would otherwise fall within the bounds of protestantism are beginning to question and even deny the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). This seems to be especially true among those who oppose Calvinism. Now, listen, if you’re opposed to Calvinism, I get it. Though I am  a Calvinist, I understand some of it can be difficult. But please don’t allow your hatred of Calvinism to make you deny a central and foundational point of the gospel. The fact that on the cross Jesus was receiving in Himself the punishment due for our sins should not be something we are ever willing to abandon. 

From the moment the first man sinned, he was at war with God. The  relationship between the two was severed, and thus man became the object of God’s divine disfavor and worthy of wrath. However, the message of Scripture does not end with this hopeless estate. The message of the Bible is that there is hope: hope for a restoration of that broken relationship, hope of being redeemed from the lawless condition, hope of salvation. That hope is founded on something called atonement.

The word atonement means to bring two separated parties together. The foundation of the word is simply at-one-ment, i.e. the state of being at one or of being reconciled. Atonement is reconciliation. Thus it is used to denote the effect which flows from the death of Christ. The Bible is clear that it is the death of Christ which brought reconciliation between God and man.

In modern translations, the word is typically translated as ‘reconciliation’, and so though the  ESV uses the word atonement 78 times in the OT, it doesn’t use it at all in the NT. Similarly it is used only once in the King James New Testament, at Romans 5:11. But even though the word is not used, the concept is the foundation of the very Gospel itself. Through the work of Christ on the cross, as atonement has been accomplished. A perfect, completed, final atonement on behalf of everyone who believes. 

Throughout church history, there have been divergent views on how the atonement functioned. That is not to say there are several correct views, some are clearly wrong (even heretical), but there has been division over what happened on the cross. The early church writers spoke of what happened on the cross as a ransom. This makes sense, seeing as the word ransom is used in the New Testament (Mat 20:28, Mk 10:45, 1Tim 2:6). But there is uncertainty about to whom this ransom was paid, with some arguing it was to Satan. Ransom to Satan is certainly not supported in Scripture. Other views include the Recapitulation Theory (Irenaus, 125-202), Moral Example Theory (Peter Abelard, 1079-1142), The Governmental Theory (Hugo Grotius, 1583-1645), Cristus Victor Theory (Gustaf Aulén1879-1977), and others, many of which have vestiges of truth within them. 

Scripture indicates that the atonement is based on some form of payment with words like ‘ransom’, ‘redeem’,  etc being common. Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109) wrote in his book Cur Deus Homo (Why the God Man?) that the cross was not a ransom paid by God to the devil, but a debt paid to God on behalf of mankind. This became known as “Satisfaction Theory” and is the basis of what the Reformers would call ‘Penal Substitution’. The difference is that Anselm’s position was that the payment was to satisfy God’s honor, whereas the reformers were convinced it was to satisfy God’s justice. Penal Substitutionary Atonement says that God’s justice demands a penalty be paid for sin. Every sinner is worthy of God’s judgment, and as Christ was not a sinner, He could therefore act in the place of a substitute and receive in Himself the penalty due them. Through this act of substitution, reconciliation results. 

In 2019, Brian Zhand and Michael Brown engaged in what was called “The Monster God” debate, where they argued over penal substitutionary atonement. Zhand said he believed that if God demanded a payment for sin, and didn’t just forgive sin without payment, that God was not really loving; further he argued that if God punished Christ who was innocent, then God is a moral monster who engaged in some form of cosmic child abuse. He also argued that God does not act in retributive justice but rather in restorative justice.

However, this is where it seems that whole swaths of scripture have to be overlooked, for instance the doctrine of hell, which the Bible describes not as place of being a place of restoration from sin, but punishment for it. Perhaps this is why many of those who deny penal substitution also deny the reality and eternality of hell. 

There are countless places in Scripture which unambiguously teach that Christ was our substitute in this way. For instance,  2 Corinthians 5:21 claims “God made Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us…” So the sinless Christ did not deserve punishment, but took on our sin. Or Isaiah 53, which clearly states that Jesus was punished, not for His sins, but for ours, and furthermore, that it was the God Himself enacting this penalty. No, God cannot merely arbitrarily forgive us, because He can not wink at sin. Sin incurs a wage, and that wage will be paid. 

There are other common arguments against PSA, with some claiming that the Bible teaches ‘Christus Victor’ as opposed to penal substitution. Some assert that the atonement is not about satisfying legal demands but instead it is about the victory of Christ over the powers which hold man in bondage, namely sin, death, and the devil. All of these victories described are true, but the theory is incomplete without penal substitution. Furthermore, they are dependant upon penal substitution to be effective. 

There are many other points we could get into but let me leave you with the following analogy:  Say a man hurts someone and goes to jail. Though the  man he hurt may forgive him relationally, the law still requires a judicial punishment. The only way the legal punishment can go away is if the law is somehow satisfied. When we consider the forgiveness we received from God, it is both relational and judicial. Yes, we come back into a renewed relationship with him, but it goes further than that. We are legally constituted a new man. As Paul tells us: if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). William Lane Craig again points out, “It is indisputable that Paul’s theology is infused with legal terminology and the image of the courtroom.” Sin is a violation of God’s law. That law carries a penalty which must be satisfied. Therefore to provide a true atonement, Christ’s death must have been to pay that penalty in our place. All glory be to God.