I will be responding to this blog post: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/morningoffering/2017/07/heresy-penal-substitution-2/
PSA = the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary AtonementThe heretical doctrine of penal substitution was completely absent from the Church for over 1,000 years, and was only introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century.
"And Psalms 88 and 69, again speaking in the Lord’s own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. Thou has made Thy wrath to rest upon me, says the one; and the other adds, I paid them things I never took. For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses." (Letter to Marcellinus)
This, I think, shows that something suspiciously like PSA was present even in early times; which is not surprising, since Scripture teaches it.
“The major problem with this teaching can be seen in the fact that had Christ died for our sins against God the Father, thus causing a division of God, with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity laid waste, with God pitted against God.”
The objection seems to be that PSA makes the Father to be hostile to the Son, which could never happen given their perfect unity.
But this objection is readily answered. For, it is not that the Father ever hated his Beloved Son. Rather, the Father declared His Son legally guilty when he imputed our sins to him. And the Son was punished for our sins in his human nature, in his body and his soul. But in this both the Father and the Son willed in perfect unity. Therefore, there is neither disunity nor any hatred within the Trinity on PSA. That is, this objection fails.
“This heretical doctrine divides God by implying that Christ isn’t fully God.”
Since it is part of PSA that only one who is both truly God and truly man could pay for our sins, this would be an important objection - that is, if it can be established. But, it cannot be. It seems that it presupposes the previous objection, since, if there were disunity within the Trinity (such as if the Father ceased to love the Son), then the Son would not be fully God, since there cannot ever fail to be unity between those who are fully God. But since we have shown that PSA does not imply any disunity within the Trinity or any animosity between the Father or the Son, this objection does not work.
“It also suggests that there is a higher force than God, thus making, God Himself ruled by a “higher force”. In other words, God has no choice but to punish. By this notion, justice forces God to respond to our sin with His wrath, with love becoming secondary.”
Interestingly, not all proponents of PSA (such as Hugo Grotius) think that the Father has to punish the Son for our sins in order to pardon us, but that this was the most fitting way to forgive us.
Moreover, even for those who say that God did have to do this the objection poses no problem. For it is in virtue of the Divine Nature of the Father that he must punish our sins: because God is just. This is not something external to the Trinity, but it is in virtue of their Divine Nature that they must see sin punished.
It is not clear why it would be a problem if God’s love was secondary (in what sense?) to God’s justice. So this part of the objection does not so much as get off the ground. Moreover, it is not stated how God’s love is made secondary to his justice if God must punish sin. PSA, I think, does not commit one to saying that this is the case, for God, out of his love, has freed us from liability to punishment for our sins, since the Son has willingly borne them on our part.
“A close examination of the prophets and the Psalms of David, reveal that the word “justice” is linked to the concept of “mercy.” Justice is not penal in nature, but refers to a show of kindness and deliverance to those who are suffering oppression. It means that God’s justice destroys our oppressors, which in this case is sin, death, and even the power of Satan’s oppression.”
A close examination of Scripture will show that God’s justice is essentially retributive. This is seen in the Mosaic Law, in the Psalms, and in the Prophets. This is not to say that our author is entirely wrong, but that he implies a false dichotomy: God’s justice is either retributive or it is something else. It can be both. God, in giving what, say, David’s enemies deserve (retribution) may also save David and free him from oppression.
As a matter of fact, that Christ’s sufferings are penal in nature is made clear in Isaiah 53. Moreover, that he is punished in our stead frees us from God’s wrath insofar as we are united to Christ, as John’s Gospel makes clear. And thus being made God’s sons, we are freed from the dark spiritual forces, sin, and death.
This last point brings up an important point. PSA is not an exhaustive theory of how we are saved or the entire work of Christ. PSA is consistent with certain articulations of Christus Victor and Moral Governance theory (to name just two).
“To look upon propitiation in the classical pagan sense, we are forced to view our God as some sort of angry deity needing to be appeased by a blood sacrifice. This is completely different than the Old Testament view of a loving God whose Mercy Seat covered the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the ten commandments. While the law given to us by God demanded perfection and revealed our shortcomings, the Mercy Seat covered our failure to live up to the Ten Commandments.”
PSA does not take its cue from paganism. Rather, it takes into account Scripture. Note, too, that Scripture clearly says that Christ is a sacrifice. He is also the priest who offers up this sacrifice, and he offers it up to the Father. He is called a propitiatory sacrifice by John. He is said to bear our sins in his body. The punishment for our peace was upon him. In this way God can justly be favorable toward us.
All of this was foreshadowed in the Mosaic Law, in which “there was no forgiveness without the shedding of blood”. And these were efficacious insofar as they pointed toward Christ. It was by means of these sacrifices, as by types pointing toward Christ, that the thrice holy God would dwell with Israel.
“The Western churches would have us believe that God was angry over our sins, but the death of His Son caused Him to change His mind, and decide to love us. Yet the Scriptures tell us God is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16) from the very beginning, and is unchanging (Mal 3:6) and doesn’t change His mind (Num 23:19).”
To be sure some proponents of penal substitution will have a problem overcoming this objection, but this is not true across the board. It is poor form, therefore, not to acknowledge that most proponents of PSA have also held that God is timeless and unchanging.
Also, PSA does not say that God first hates us and then, after Christ died, decides to love us. PSA, rather, says that since God loves us (whether we take this to mean all humans or only the elect) he predestined Christ to die for their sins.
