Why Is the Notion of Penal Substitution So Controversial?

Dr. Craig talks about why the theory of penal substitutionary atonement tends to be controversial.

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[elbow_patches]

hands up if you had to google what penal substitution even meant...

[benzle]

I think it's controversial because it's based on violent retribution, something Christ (who is the perfect revelation of the Father) flat out rejected. And, there doesn't seem to be any forgiveness. For example, if the court demands a $1 million dollar fine to be paid but the guilty party can't pay it, and then a third party steps in & pays the fine on behalf of the guilty, the court did not forgive the debt, it received the money.

[LanceVanTine]

Brilliant as always! Thanks for the explanation, Dr. Craig. God bless!

[toomanymarys]

Because men don't want to believe that their sin has real consequences and a real payment that must be made for it.

[js-spbz]

This must be over my head because it still doesn't make sense to me.

[walkitoff]

Q: Why is the notion of penal substitution so controversial?  
A: Because it's not forgiveness.

[seektruth]

“Yet he himself bore our sicknesses, and he carried our pains; but we in turn regarded him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds. We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished him for the iniquity of us all.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭53‬:‭4‬-‭6‬ ‭CSB‬‬

[elgatofelix]

Last time I was this early it was still "only 2 weeks to flatten muh curve"

[dylansaus]

I think the issue comes when people say it all comes down to PSA, while it could be argued the life, death and ressurection are more than that.
For He descended into Hades to take captivity captive.

[emanuelkournianos]

"Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—
    the Lord detests them both!"
Proverbs 17:15

"When Jesus SAW their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
Mark 2:5-7

No Penal Substitution here! Jesus freely forgave this man's sin and he was made righteous.

In the same way,

"What do you want me to do for you?” Jesus asked him.
The blind man said,
“Rabbi, I want to see.”
"Go, ” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road!"
Mark 10:51-52

No Penal Substitution here!

There was real removal of sins and real removal of blindness!

Jesus did not impute sight to this man and impute blindness to himself!

When we repent we are made righteous not just declared or imputed to be righteous legally!

Jesus, who was innocent, was not made a guilty sinner by His Father God!

"Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent—
    the Lord detests them both!"
Proverbs 17:15

Jesus went on to die and raise again in order to defeat death, sin, and the devil!

"Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death!"
Hebrews 2:14-15

"Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem!"
Luke 24:45-47

 The Apostle Paul says,

"First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds!"
Acts 26:20

Christ is risen!
Jesus Christ conquers!
IC XC NIKA

[markgeraty]

The main controversial point is that there was no idea of 'penal substitution' as articulated by modern Protestants before it was invented in the 16th century. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It is a narrow reading of Isaiah and misapplication and cherry picking of the NT.

[huynhngocnamgiang]

There's 2 things normal people hate to hear the most: 1) that they are sinners and 2) that a sinner can be saved without any good work.
A Pharisee at heart doesn't accept the idea that they are imperfect. They think they're perfect, so they don't accept the imperfect to be saved.

[lindajohnson]

One way to wrap our heads around the wrath of God, is to remember that his anger is never just being in a snit. It's anger over a righteous claim against us. And realize that all the time he is wrathful, He is simultaneously, lovingly sending Jesus to bear our sin, so that justice may be perfectly satisfied, so that we, with whom He is angry, won't have to bear his righteous anger forever. He is also giving us a share of joys of this life, and bearing with us patiently, striving with us, and drawing us to His Son.

I just know it helps me to counterbalance the wrath of God against sin with all the things that He does for us in love. This is no capricious anger, that he might fly off the handle and do just anything. The more we reflect on how good He is, the more justifiable His anger at us will seem to us, and we won't be as easily victimized by accusations against Him.

[Soli_Deo_Gloria_.]

Because men feel that they have it in them to make it on their own. Essentially building the proverbial spiritual Tower of Babel...

[formerfundienowfree]

I think the atonement is about total surrender to the will of God which is love. God doesn't need violence to show his love. Jesus exemplified the demonstration of perfect love against the worst possible evil. The gospel is about the kingdom of God and how love surpasses everything even the worst evil. The idea of human blood sacrifice cannot stand on its own without context. Without context it is violent and meaningless. Some people are only capable of understanding love. Love is the universal language that reaches everybody no matter what culture they were raised in or what their intellectual level is.

[matthewbateman]

Are 'penal substitution' and 'substitutionary atonement' two phrases for the same thing? Or do they refer to two separate things.

[tamaking]

Penal substitution ? It sounds like some sort of sex change !! But joking aside, anyone on the receiving end of a court sentence, I am sure would be very willing to accept any merciful release that the judge can legally make possible.

[dodgetruck]

Because the doctrine makes God the Father pour out His wrath on Jesus. God is love, not wrath.

[TheRootedWord]

2:12 I hate to say Dr. Craig is wrong, but this time he is. Two Craigs disagreeing. God having wrath against a person does not necessitate his need to account for his actions in order to be reconciled to that person. God has done nothing to warrant fault from that person. There is nothing to literally "reconcile" for from God's actions. And if you are taking "reconcile" to be a form of negotiations, then that begs the question even stronger. If God can negotiate in order to facilitate reconciliation, then there is no need for penal substitution. Indeed, the reconciliation is due to our own actions and not God's. We are the ones who must make the move to be reconciled to God, for God has made the first move in sending out his ambassadors to announce that reconciliation is a possibility and that it will only be accepted through the empathy in the Crucifixion and that empathy evoked in you as you gaze on Christ who was crucified. However, taking Ezekiel 33 into account, the reconciliation happens through stopping your wickedness and making recompense for the damage done. The death of Christ was at its core the Empathy of God and meant to evoke empathy in us that we might feel obligated to reconcile with God in light of the results of sin in its horrific state. What am I talking about? That the truly terrorizing nature of sin was demonstrated in the betrayal, arrest, beatings, and crucifixion of Jesus, because exactly that he was the only innocent one to walk the Earth in all of history. This made sin the most vile it has ever been, yet Christ voluntarily suffered those things, fully aware. And it is this empathy evoked in us who are forgiven purely on the choice of the Father to forgive (see the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant for a parallel to the reconciliation God offers to us). If we do not live in the gratefulness of the Father's unwarranted act of mercy to forgive, then he may call in our debt. But notice there was no penal substitution in place of the servant whose debt was forgiven. This would have been the ideal place for Jesus to teach on penal substitution had it been true. He teaches something very different though, which is more in line with Ezekiel 33.

[alexanderderus]

Craig seems to have a pretty serious mis-understanding of Gods wrath and of Gods impassibility. To believe God is angered as we are at injustice is to stand in opposition to the mind of the ancient church and all we know about God’s essence. This new understanding of God’s character leads to terrifying new ideas of the atonement 😔