2:24). Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory - A Sad Substitute. #5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory. The clearest New Testament support for a fully penal view of the atonement would be 2 Corinthians 5.21 and Galatians 3.13, although many parts of Isaiah 53 are susceptible of similar interpretation. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the view that Christ was a legal substitute for us on the cross and that he bore the penalty for our sins that is due to us. The penal substitution theory of atonement in particular has precipitated a great deal . The social and political climate of the times encouraged a juridical understanding of atonement. The proposal that appears to best match what Scripture portrays is the penal substitution theory.
This question is a bit old, but there is an omission in the only answer. 427-454), she explains the difference between a "penal" view of the atonement and a "substitutionary" view of the atonement. The Orthodox Church was challenged by a proponent of PSA for not using the Bible to defend its stance on atonement and opposition to PSA. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one"; from this it came to denote the action by which such reconciliation was effected, e.g. Penal substitution, simply put, is the theory that Christ was punished on the Cross with the punishment with which we deserved to be punished. In the narrower sense it is taken to mean the reparation of an insult.
A Progressive perspective on Atonement. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity; however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his . In this article, we offer up several reasons-reasons related to the nature of divine justice and somatic death-for thinking that a version of Anselm's Satisfaction theory of atonement is not only a viable, but preferable, Protestant theory of . Additionally, quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21, they believe Jesus literally took on our sins. In many ways, the model for Substitutionary Atonement is a courtroom. A lot of the ideas in the Penal-Substitution Theory of Atonement certainly lends itself to the individualism we see in current Christendom and leads to even more theological innovation when taken as the sole basis of Atonement Theology. What I was shocked to find is that penal substitutionary theories of the atonement, satisfaction theories of the atonement, these are all in the church fathers along with ransom and Christus Victor. For Stump's Aquinas, God does not require satisfaction or punishment for human sin, and the function of satisfaction is remedial, not juridical or penal. The penal view says that Christ is our substitute IN penalty. Ott distinguishes between full value atonement and incomplete value. The penal substitution theory (which is a refinement of the Anselmian satisfaction theory developed by the Protestant Reformers, especially John Calvin [1509—1564], and is often treated together . Second, the aim is different: in the satisfaction theory, judgement is averted; in penal substitution, judgement is absorbed. See also Simon Gathercole, "The Cross and Substitutionary Atonement," SBET 21/2 (Fall 2003):152-65. The two main theories are Penal Substitinary atonement, and Christus victor. I agree with Scot McKnight that completely removing Penal Substitutionary Atonement from our conversation of the atonement is not possible.
The Penal Substitution view makes it seem like the real issue in need of resolution is a legal matter in the heavenly realms between God's holy wrath and our sin. Atonement theology has long been considered a standard teaching of the Church. As the Protestant Reformation began, the medieval concepts of satisfaction and honor were replaced with thoughts of law and justice. God, in his holiness and justice, will curse and punish sin. Of all the atonement theologies, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross. True. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) teaches that sin creates a breach in relationship with God because God is holy and God hates sin. Part two of my book is a survey of the principal theories of the atonement which have been offered down through history. So the Penal Substitution theory is wrong. According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God's perfect justice demands some form of atonement for . Unless we understand the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, we will not understand why Christ died. God, in his holiness and justice, will curse and punish sin. Christ's sacrifice alone removes both penalty and guilt, and it alone . The penal substitution theory (which is a refinement of the Anselmian satisfaction theory developed by the Protestant Reformers, especially John Calvin [1509—1564], and is often treated together . The Penal Theory . Pushing backward beyond the penal substitution atonement theory we reach back all the way to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033 - 1109). This theory is very personal.
The atonement is "penal" in that Christ bore "the punishment" and vengeance due for our sins.". It is theological commonplace to identify Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement as a progenitor of the penal substitution theory (PST) of atonement common especially in certain strands of Reformed theology, and rightly so: satisfaction theory and PST exhibit fundamental Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a development of the Reformation. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. In 1931, a theologian named Gustav Aulen published a book about the atonement called Christus Victor, a book that challenged the historic doctrine of atonement sometimes called "penal substitution" or the "satisfaction."In it, Aulen argued that Christ did not die to appease God's wrath for the sins we have committed, but that Christ died to defeat sin, death, and the power of evil in .