The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A Critique of Penal Substitution

First of all thank you so much for your encouraging welcome (yr topic with the 3 questions!)- it is a real blessing for me as is your critique of Penal Substitution…
I confess I have only just skimmed thru it late this evening but enough for me know I shall be use it as an excellent companion to Derek Floods Penal Substitution vs Christus Victus not yet published I believe but can be found on the Internet and downloaded. I have been reading and praying over more tha a year, recommended to me by my parish priest at St Georges, Barcelona. It is a combination of Derek Flood’s book, finding it’'s never too late to read and study the Bible (Bible studies at St George’s), encouragement by our St George’s priest Andrew Tweedy, and many friends, that I came to understand deep in my heart God’s love for all humanity.
I now know in my heart why my brother is such a wonderful person altho he gave up believing in God many years ago. God loves him as He loves everyone, and surely it follows that it is that love that is the driving force in all good people whatever their race, creed , beliefs or absence of belief, and in the end will bring about Universal Reconciliation.

Hi Bob,

Andrew, our Barcelona parish priest at St George`s printed out and gave me a copy of your paper which I have now re-read together with the many replies. I am very much on a learning curve and will be reading more than commenting. I am finding it a real blessing to be here in this Forum.

Having said that I do have a comment!

There can hardly be any greater sin than the denial of Christ and greater examples of God’s forgivenes and love towards the sinner than the meeting between Peter and the resurrected Christ, when, instead of chiding or being wrathful, Christ asks Peter three times “Do you love me?” and, in answer to Peter’s affirmation of his love to Jesus, comes the call “Feed my sheep”. And one could go on with so many examples, as you yrself give that of the father and the prodigal son. And Saul the persecutor becomes Paul co-leader with Peter!!

Also I have to thank Andrew for pointing me to Psalm 103 - fully supporting God’s love and mercy for all humanity.

With a cheer and a prayer!

Michael

Well, I certainly don’t think it means that the Lord really enjoyed seeing His beloved Son suffer in an Edwardian sense.
Possibly it simply means that Yahweh was willing to allow Jesus’s death for the sake of fallen humanity whom He also loved and wished to reconcile to Himself.

I suspect a look at the original language and context there would shed some light on it.

This attachment about the PS was awesome. I’ve rarely read a refutation of it offered so logically and convincingly. thank you!

Also I think the main point (as I see it) turns on whether God uses Christ to receive well deserved punishment or whether Christ’s participation – albeit only as a victim, not as a perpetrator – of our sin/cruelty is crucial. Moltmann was very useful for me here. When he wrote in The Crucified God that Jesus became “brother of the damned” he articulated something I had already intuitively felt. It was by sharing the consequences of our sin, being in the same place we get to when we’ve sinned – that we are ABLE to know we’re loved anyway and thus ABLE to trust him and thus ABLE to turn our lives around. As was pointed out, WE needed that assurance, that reassurance that even in our worst – he was there. It is like God joined an AA group if you like, experiencing the full affects of life-long alcoholism or addiction – and sharing the pain of withdrawal and recovery – although he never took a drink. Seeing him at that meeting, we can know a) he understands and b) we’re not condemned and c) just how much we matter to him! Moreover, as hard as the route is out of hell, we’re never alone. Otherwise despair is way too tempting! We fail so often and even, more horribly, want to fail – that without him always being where we are we’d give up on ourselves in a heartbeat. The ressurection suggests that his love is more powerful than our despair and even though all we do (as Julian of Norwich wrote) is sin, so long as we keep letting him pick us up and repent and keep going we’re going to get there because nothing can separate us from the love of God that is ours through Jesus Christ. Thus my sin just doesn’t have the stamina – endurance, however willed or entrenched, once I fully trust the One’s whose love is always stronger. My sin can’t compete with his Love – and i think that is what the PS misses and what this wonderful critique of it affirms. Exactly, salvation is from sin, not from punishment. That is a critical distinction – and if we are saved from punishment, then must keep on avoiding sin. But i think the point is here that it is not God that punishes us – which again, the PS strongly suggests (if not outright states). It is an ontological point really – sin is its own punishment. It is an act or state or thought or way of being which is against Life/Love and therefore will inevitably and eventually (because the consequences may very well not be immediate) hurt, maim, kill us. Sin hurts us more in a way than the one we sin against. It is like sin is a virus or infection that unless treated, will make us sick – it is not that God ‘does the sickness to us’ any more than if we throw ourselves off a cliff God makes the ground attack us. Punishment may simply be not preventing the outcome of our actions. In the ‘off the cliff’ analogy we may think someone is not suffering for what s/he’s done because they haven’t hit the ground yet. The flight down may even be enjoyable! Our vision of a person’s entire life is truncated. We see only parts of lives and even of our life. If we are indeed immortal beings – then ‘inevitable’ acquires whole new resonance. But trust in Christ makes it possible both to see that we are sitting in sin (because we’re loved and accompanied anyway) and get out of it (because Christ knows away out of hell, a way past the cross and he gave us proof of life beyond the suffering of ‘getting better’ – new life, resurrected life, abundant life. In short, he gives understanding, forgiveness and hope.

Whatever – gone on here – sorry! Just loved this explanation. Thank you again Bob for such a well thought through rebuttal to a doctrine that I believe misrepresents both God and Christ! How could God be other than Christ when Christ said, ‘when you see me you see the father’ and at the same time, also said, ‘when you do it for the least of these, you do it for me’. Yahweh, or the I AM, that Christ also claims to be – is with ‘the least of these’ – not just Jesus, the individual. That is one of the most damning (sorry) elements for me in the PS – it seems to separate God and Christ.

xoSasha

Sasha

Bob, can you make that attachment about PST available on the web? I’d like to share it with some friends.

Sasha, thanks, it’s always nice to know kindred spirits who see it similarly.

Brad, you’re welcome to put a link to the attachment on the EU site. I’m unfamiliar with how to put in on the “web.”

Bob, I tried posting the URL for that PDF file on Facebook but it didn’t work. I think people have to log in to this forum before they can view it.

But are you still happy with it after having it critiqued here?

If you are and you gave me permission to post it on the following site jesus-wept.net I’d do it.

But before giving me permission make sure you have a good look my at site because I have not shied away from some very controversial subjects and you might not want your name and article posted there.

I will not be offended if you say no, but will be looking forward to it being posted somewhere on the web.

Perhaps Cindy would post it on her site?

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=543

Not quite sure where she stands on the issue though.

She seems to be more sane than I am.

I’m sorry I’m illiterate about URLs. Please feel free to reproduce it any way you know how. The PS piece continues to be representative of my outlook, and I’m too old to worry about anyone who has a different view. Being posted on your site needn’t imply that we necessarily share the same outlook on everything, but I’m fine if someone assumed that. I see the two pages as outlining unavoidable difficulties with PS, more than specifying the alternative, which I’m still seeking to refine. That’s one reason I’m still comfortable with it.

Thanks Bob. I still might ask Cindy if she will do it though. Some people are quite hostile to what I’ve written on that site, and I’d hate to see such a great little article be maligned because of me.

I need to review this material again, as I recently read a book endorsing universalism using biblical logic that hangs heavily on a penal sub model. I have a few questions for them about various points of their view, and I’ll need some intelligent questions to ask about this component in particular.

Greetings :slight_smile:

I will need to do a lot of review myself –

     I am curious though how PS or the other alternatives put forth here...
  deal with the humanity of Jesus ...   The reason I ask this is because I seem to notice
    an overabundance of mentioning the divinity of Jesus that might seem to minimize
   or reduce the humanity of Jesus...

       Was Jesus a sinner?   well, I will have to find time to think this over too...
    since in the near future I wish to introduce my perspective of what the meaning of sinner is ..
      since at this time I do not use "sin" or "sinner" in my writings ... 
   
     Also I will really be looking forward to the review of Barth .... 

     Just thinking quickly and out loud to myself (to remind me )
       Athanasius makes a very strong position for the complete humanity of Jesus ... 
        and through my own theological research I have come to a tentative position ...
      that Jesus was identical to me as a human --- including my personal autonomous behavior ...
       depending on how one translates sarx in John 1....

      thanks for the 2 page document and the other posts !  really stimulating ...

   all the best !

Hothosegz,

Did you mean my P.S. paper mentioned Jesus’ divinity in “overabundance”? Can you specify which lines you have in mind? While this paper assumes the traditional view, I didn’t think it much addressed the issue of Jesus’ deity, or argued from it to question P.S. I have addressed such questions of Trinitarian views on several other threads, and take the minority view here that what crucially matters (including to universalists) is that Jesus accurately represents Jesus’ character, rather than hangs on the precise ontological nature of God.

Greetings :slight_smile:

My meaning about the abundance of expressing the divinity of Jesus … was from my impression
of reading all of the posts in this thread… :wink:

  This is not a critique just my impression thus I asked this question ...  

  Also from a post in another thread -- I followed it to James Alison .. which became an unexpected 
     surprise -- concerning the death of Jesus ... 

    [girardianlectionary.net/res/jbw_ch4a_jbw.htm](http://girardianlectionary.net/res/jbw_ch4a_jbw.htm)
  also another link .. sorry for the brevity of this post since I am in a hurry to go outside ...

Really appreciate this Forum very much !   For me after numerous years this Forum and the members
    are Refreshing summer breeze on a hot Summer evening ..  Kudos to everyone for sharing so many
 Invaluable gems, diamonds and rubies...    

    all the best !

quick brief note …

I am attempting to develop a Theological perspective 
    that has 3 main pivotal points for over arching view ..

  The Genesis narrative (1-3)  using narrative since i cannot think of another term at this time

  The Incarnation  (John 1 etc... )

  The Eschaton ... which includes my view of the Grand Dance at the Eschation (Revelation )

     this involves .. no traditional view for said "Fall "  and no Curse either ..
          option to understand said Original Sin --   

      humanity of Jesus along with divinity ... miaphysis...   
           reference my God incarnated as "mud"  since mud evokes emotive feelings concerning it ..
        while Adam was created from "dust" of the earth ... 

       Cross and Atonement need more reflective study ... 

       Grand Dance at Eschaton ... Egalitarian perichoretic koinonia within Trinitarian fellowship
         which should be the "model" for human relationships ...

      Forgiveness, Reconciliation and Restoration ...   

      very sketchy outline ... thus very interested in your paper concerning PS

          all the best !

Bob,

Recently finished your papers on Jesus’ Interpretation of Gehenna, and the critique of penal substitution. Again, both excellent. On the P.S. front, just came across another recent book for my reading list: “Atonement, Justice and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church”, by a professor named Darrin W. Snyder Belousek." He is also critical of P.S. and seems to be within fairly “evangelical” parameters. Here is a blog post he did on Scott McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog. He makes some excellent points in the comments as well. patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/17/justice-and-peace-and-atonement/. Wondering if you or anyone else is familiar with Belousek?

Caleb,

Though I follow Jesus’ Creed, Belousek is new to me. I appreciate the link, and am interested to pursue more on his approach.

I haven’t read all the posts above as I don’t have time at the moment so forgive me if the following is already covered.

Jesus becoming sin was figurative, not literal.

If like that bull a person killed their sin, or like that goat, sent their sin away, the sacrifice was acceptable to God and so forgiveness was granted.

I think the same is true of Jesus death on the cross. If because of Jesus we start putting the old man to death, if we send our sins away, atonement has been made.

Sure, we are not perfect. But we don’t have to be perfect to be accepted by God. (PSA says we have to be perfect. Clearly rubbish. sbcimpact.org/2008/10/23/can-god-look-upon-evil/ ) We only have to trust Jesus, that is enough. God is incredibly kind and gracious. As for worrying about whether we really are trusting Jesus or not, I think that is a non-issue. God talks about future things as if they have already happened. He has reconciled the world to himself (hasn’t literally happened but is as good as done) . That gives me great hope. I’m not concerned about whether or not I will go to hell. I’m just happy that the whole world will be reconciled and that I am apart of that.

Oops, there I go again. Sorry.

When your two page Critique includes all the scripture references, it is twelve pages long. :wink:

Thanks for posting that. I realize it’s been some time since anyone has commented on it, and I did read all the comments.

I’m very comfortable with the things you put forth, and I would say I lean heavily in the same direction.

So…

I would like to ask how the verses speaking of redemption, tie in? How do you understand the concept of redemption; redeemer; redeem?

Thanks for any feedback.