Why Against Penal Substitution?

[arapahoepark]

Why are so many against the doctrine of penal substitution? I bring this up as I was just reading McKnight's Jesus and His Death and he seeks to minimize PSA in favor of a CV view as the center. He has the audacity to say Paul never says how the atonement worked! Granted, he put forth a nice little theology of CV that can fit nicely with PSA (eat the meat spit out the bones).
Why are those who advocate CV against PSA, yet those who argue for the latter don't deny the former? Are these academics ashamed? Do they want to make the Gospel palatable?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

McKnight's Jesus and His Death and he seeks to minimize PSA in favor of a CV

More context is needed, please.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Why are so many against the doctrine of penal substitution?

Short answer: they try to argue that it is contra to orthodox christology.

Long answer: ask Jacob (Baroque Norseman).

 

[MW]

The liberal answer is that penal substitution brings wrath to the fore, and the idea of a God of wrath and vengeance is claimed to be primitive and petty. The desire is to emphasise the love and magnanimity of God as the heart of the Christian message. The problem with the liberal view is that it makes God unloving of Himself and His own glory. It effectively makes the Almighty an idolatrous father who will do anything to appease the wilful and obstinate rebellion of his so-called children, and was even willing to make an example of His own dear Son to demonstrate this "love." Pitiful!

 

[RamistThomist]

Why are so many against the doctrine of penal substitution?

Short answer: they try to argue that it is contra to orthodox christology.

Long answer: ask Jacob (Baroque Norseman).

Different people have different rejections of it. Liberals don't believe that God could be mean. Eastern Orthodox have a certain Patristic ontology that doesn't allow for it. They will say that PSA "cuts" off the human nature of Jesus from his divine nature. If you accept their ontology, that can be a problem. A Covenantalist ontology, on the other hand, finds language in Scripture that is replete with cutting off, Isaiah 53. "Cutting off" is specifically covenantal language. Messiah suffered the abandonment of God. He even said so. EO thought really hem-haws on that (and Isaiah 53).

To the degree that Jesus disarmed the powers (Colossians 2), I have no problem with CV. The problems with CV is that it really doesn't say what happens to me vis-a-vis Christ's atonement. In that case, was it really necessary that Christ die? Michael Horton does a wonderful job on this in Lord and Servant.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

While I agree that there are other reasons why people reject Penal Substitution than simply the issue of the wrath of God, I think that it is the far and away "winner" for rejecting it on a popular level.

I've been reflecting on this a lot lately because James White recently debated a fellow who left the Reformed faith (one could argue he never quite understood it on a number of points). He kept rejecting the Biblical view of God on the basis that there was no discernible way in which the God of Scripture could be viewed as "good" under the view.

I'm increasingly convinced that one of the biggest pitfalls that people fall into theologically is their belief that God's ways are not higher than their own. They're convinced that, if they get enough data, they can view a topic with the same clarity and understanding as God sees a particular issue. Consequently, they ought to (as far as they're concerned) be able to look at a situation and come to a conclusion about whether a particular doctrine seems good to them or not. If it seems to be "not good" then, whatever else God could be, He can't be that.

Penal substitution opens up a huge can of worms for this kind of thinking. I know it seems odd that people would ultimately reject a view because they don't consider God's ways beyond understanding but it really does sort of come down to that issue in so many cases.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The liberal answer is that penal substitution brings wrath to the fore, and the idea of a God of wrath and vengeance is claimed to be primitive and petty. The desire is to emphasise the love and magnanimity of God as the heart of the Christian message. The problem with the liberal view is that it makes God unloving of Himself and His own glory. It effectively makes the Almighty an idolatrous father who will do anything to appease the wilful and obstinate rebellion of his so-called children, and was even willing to make an example of His own dear Son to demonstrate this "love." Pitiful!

Well said, sir. In their attempts to make God kinder and gentler, they have actually rendered him a monster in that he would kill his own Son for no good reason.

 

[Claudiu]

The liberal answer is that penal substitution brings wrath to the fore, and the idea of a God of wrath and vengeance is claimed to be primitive and petty. The desire is to emphasise the love and magnanimity of God as the heart of the Christian message. The problem with the liberal view is that it makes God unloving of Himself and His own glory. It effectively makes the Almighty an idolatrous father who will do anything to appease the wilful and obstinate rebellion of his so-called children, and was even willing to make an example of His own dear Son to demonstrate this "love." Pitiful!

Well said, sir. In their attempts to make God kinder and gentler, they have actually rendered him a monster in that he would kill his own Son for no good reason.

And I would add that they divorce the Old Testament from the New, creating a great discontinuity between the two. In effect, they create some kind of historic schizophrenia with God's dealing with people in history (wrathful in the Old, and loving in the New). I find it inconsistent overall.

 

[py3ak]

While I agree that there are other reasons why people reject Penal Substitution than simply the issue of the wrath of God, I think that it is the far and away "winner" for rejecting it on a popular level.

I've been reflecting on this a lot lately because James White recently debated a fellow who left the Reformed faith (one could argue he never quite understood it on a number of points). He kept rejecting the Biblical view of God on the basis that there was no discernible way in which the God of Scripture could be viewed as "good" under the view.

I'm increasingly convinced that one of the biggest pitfalls that people fall into theologically is their belief that God's ways are not higher than their own. They're convinced that, if they get enough data, they can view a topic with the same clarity and understanding as God sees a particular issue. Consequently, they ought to (as far as they're concerned) be able to look at a situation and come to a conclusion about whether a particular doctrine seems good to them or not. If it seems to be "not good" then, whatever else God could be, He can't be that.

Penal substitution opens up a huge can of worms for this kind of thinking. I know it seems odd that people would ultimately reject a view because they don't consider God's ways beyond understanding but it really does sort of come down to that issue in so many cases.

Well observed, Rich. It seems an apt illustration of those mentioned by Calvin who seek something greater than God's will, something which does not exist, and so fail to find what does.

 

[RamistThomist]

One of the latest fads today in postmodern theology and philosophy is trying to do theology without the spectre of "violence."

 

[MW]

I'm increasingly convinced that one of the biggest pitfalls that people fall into theologically is their belief that God's ways are not higher than their own. They're convinced that, if they get enough data, they can view a topic with the same clarity and understanding as God sees a particular issue. Consequently, they ought to (as far as they're concerned) be able to look at a situation and come to a conclusion about whether a particular doctrine seems good to them or not. If it seems to be "not good" then, whatever else God could be, He can't be that.

Well noted, Rich! An unrenewed mind, in part or in whole, is reflecting the kind of God an unrenewed sinner, in part or in whole, would prefer to have and serve.