#854 A Theological Objection to Penal Substitution
September 24, 2023Hello Dr. Craig,
I've recently been devoting quite a bit of time learning about the different theories of the atonement. The two ones that I'm familiar with are the Penal Substitution view (that God, demanding justice for our transgressions and yet desiring to be merciful, bore the punishment for our sins in the Person of His Son) and the Christus Victor theory (that mankind lives under the tyranny of Sin and Death, that God offered His Son as a ransom for us, and that in His Resurrection Christ overthrew Sin and Death forever).
I love both of these theories, and hold them both to be fundamentally true facets of the Atonement (as I've seen is also true of you in light of your answers to previous QotWs). However, I've encountered an Orthodox objection to the Penal Substitution theory that's given me pause. Their argument is that the basic salvific economy of Christ accepting the condemnation of men by God in the place of mankind sets up an opposition in purpose between two of the Persons of the Trinity; that one is to be damned and suffer in Hell (albeit temporarily) and that the other is to damn the first and condemn Him. Their argument is, essentially, that by saying that Christ bears the condemnation of the Father on our behalf either we are either saying:
1) The Trinity can be split and oppose itself.
OR
2) The Divine nature of Jesus was not condemned by the Father, but only the Human nature.
The first conclusion is obviously false given the definition of the Trinity, and the second one commits the Nestorian heresy. More than that, the second conclusion actually undermines the nature of the Atonement itself. If Nestor was right in saying that the natures do not experience genuine union (implied by the idea that they can be separated), and the natures did truly separate upon the death of Christ, then all that died to Atone for us was a man. Divinity sacrificed nothing and bore no suffering, which evacuates the Atonement of all significance. The Crucifixion and Resurrection become, in this case, merely metaphors for our salvation, not the means by which it is accomplished. All of these issues are eliminated when one believes that in His death Christ became a ransom to Satan in order to liberate us. The Trinity is united in its purpose here, and Christ's condemnation in full view of His Divinity stands as a condemnation against the power of the Law, Sin and Death.
I would love to hear your rebuttal against their point, because I cannot come up with one myself but I don't with to abandon the Penal Substitution theory if the Atonement.
Thankfully,
Jackson
United States
Dr. craig’s response
A
I share your enthusiasm, Jackson, for a multi-faceted doctrine of the atonement that includes both penal substitutionary and Christus Victor motifs, as well as several others.
It’s distressing that some of our Orthodox brethren object to penal substitution on the grounds you mention, since the doctrine is clearly taught by Scripture. The Christus Victor theory is not an adequate stand-alone theory of the atonement, for it fails to connect with the Old Testament sacrificial system, divine justice, forgiveness of sins, and reconciliation.[1] Fortunately, I don’t see the force of the objection.
Let’s assume that in the councils of eternity the Son voluntarily decided to bear the condemnation for sin that we deserved and that the Father and Holy Spirit concurred in that decision. So all the Trinitarian persons agree that the Son should become our sin-bearer and the Father should act as Judge to impute to him our guilt and condemnation. So this agreed-upon plan is carried out. What’s the problem?
Your friends object that then “The Trinity can be split and oppose itself.” That seems a strange allegation. For the Trinitarian persons all agree, and each one carries out his respective role to achieve the plan of our salvation. There’s no opposition at all. On the contrary, they work cooperatively.
I suspect that behind this objection lies the Orthodox conviction that with respect to the workings of the Trinity the opera ad intra sunt divisa, but the opera ad extra sunt indivisa; that is to say, although the inner workings of the Trinity are distinguishable, the work of the Trinity externally is one. Someone committed to this peculiar doctrine might find it difficult to conceive how the Father and the Son could play such different roles in the economy of salvation.
However that may be, I myself do not believe the doctrine that the external works of the Trinity are one and indivisible. It is certainly not taught in Scripture, is it? Nor can I think of any good theological reason for holding that the works of the Trinitarian persons toward the outside world must be single and indivisible. Indeed, on any theory of the Trinity, the persons carry out different roles. It is the Father who sends the Son, the Son who becomes incarnate and dies on the cross, the Holy Spirit who carries on the work of the Son after his ascension. Certainly all the persons concur in these operations, but they are distinct operations carried out by different persons of the Trinity.
This issue comes up for debate in a four views book on the Trinity edited by Chad McIntosh, in which I am a participating along with Beau Branson, an Orthodox theologian who ascribes to this doctrine concerning the unity of the external operations of the Trinity, and William Hasker, who does not. The book should appear next year.
So there’s no need to address the second alternative you propose. Nonetheless, I should say that it is the person, not the nature of Christ, to whom our sin and guilt are imputed, but that it is with respect to his human nature. That’s the whole purpose of the incarnation, that Christ might assume a human nature, so that he could die as our sin-bearer. Just as the person of Christ dies with respect to his human nature, not his divine nature, so he bears our sins with respect to his human nature, not his divine nature.
- William Lane Craig