The doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement (I’ll use PSA) has come under fire over the past few years. For the most part, I do appreciate the tenor of the conversation. I am a firm believer in responsibility of evangelicals seeking to listen to and have honest charitable dialogue with those who disagree. Van Til used to says that apologetics should be done in the spirit of humble boldness, we shouldn't give an inch on truth, but always be ready to buy the next cup of coffee. I think that that is a good rule, not just for apologetics, but in all dialogue.
When it comes to discussing theological matters with Christians from different traditions, we run into problems surrounding language. The fact that most interlocutors are using the same Bible and much of the same vocabulary while at the same time holding to differing definitions and interpretive schemes, has muddied up the waters a bit. Navigating the discussion is incredibly difficult. It’s entirely possible that one side could speak in such a way that puts listeners on the other side at ease, while maintaining no real and substantial agreement on the issues at hand.
A good example is the ongoing PSA discussion in Ontario over the past year. I feel like I'm trying my best to understand everything as well as the next guy. But it's especially challenging when you listen to Bruxy Cavey speak to individuals in his camp and his students and then listen to how he tries to translate all that in a conversation with Paul Carter. I don't pretend to hold the decoder ring, but I am doing my best to interpret Cavey in an intellectually honest way. In his interview with Paul Carter and in a number of other places, Bruxy claims to affirm the “S” but not the “P” of PSA. That is, he wishes to view the cross of Christ as, in some way, substitutionary in nature, but recoils at the idea of Christ coming under the active wrath of the Father.
Confusion abounds. Many well-meaning pastors and theologians seeking partnership in the gospel and desiring charitable Christian dialogue (which is a good and godly thing) are not immune to misunderstanding especially when there is such an overlap in vocabulary. I’m not interested in giving anything like an exhaustive critique of Bruxy Cavey’s understanding of the atonement. A lot of ink has been spilled already. I mostly just want to focus on this one question: Is it really possible to agree on the “S” and not the “P” of PSA? Is it possible to say that Jesus was my substitute and yet not to also hold that his death satisfied the wrath of God that was against us?
“S” of a Different Kind
The more I thought about the question the more firmly I had to answer, “No!” How could Jesus truly take our place as a substitute and yet avoid the wrath of God that was against us? What was our place that Jesus assumed, if not inherently sinful and meriting the wrath of God? It seems that this is what the“for” means in Paul’s summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:3, “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.”
Prior to our salvation, the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that our biggest problem is that we are sinners and stand condemned before a holy God. There is a coming day of wrath in which God will judge the world in justice (Act. 17:31). All of us are unable to escape the reach of sin (Rom. 3:9). We are children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and the wrath of God is against us (Rom. 1:18). If Jesus is truly to stand in our place he must stand here; he must stand somehow condemned in our place and under the wrath of God that is against us. But this requires accepting not only the “S” but the “P” as well.
John Murray puts it this way:
The antipathy to the doctrine of propitiation as the propitiating of divine wrath rests, however, upon failure to appreciate what the atonement is. The atonement is that which meets the exigencies of holiness and justice. The wrath of God is the inevitable reaction of the divine holiness against sin. Sin is the contradiction of the perfection of God and he cannot but recoil against that which is the contradiction of himself. Such recoil is his holy indignation. "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18). The judgment of God upon sin is essentially his wrath. If we are to believe that the atonement is God's vicarious dealing with the judgment upon sin, it is absolutely necessary to hold that it is the vicarious endurance of that in which this judgment is epitomized. To deny propitiation is to undermine the nature of the atonement as the vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin. In a word, it is to deny substitutionary atonement. [1]
However, instead of denying substitution Bruxy wants to affirm it. He does so by saying that our sin was placed on Christ, but then claiming that in this way it is simply cleansed from us. This is to reduce the atonement to expiation only and purge away all language of propitiation and wrath. Jesus sucks the venom from our infected bodies and then dies himself. It almost sounds convincing, but what’s lacking is the central godward dynamic of sin. He is our substitute, but not before God.
As creatures made in his image, our standing is primarily before God. There is a godward orientation to all of life. Either we will love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength by seeking his glory in all things or we will fail and seek our own glory, count God nothing, and seek our happiness in created things. Every thought, action, and relationship is deeply theological in nature. I like to refer to this as the covenantal context of our world. Older theologians used to speak of the principle of coram Deo. All of life was thought to be lived out before the very face of God, so that accountable to him in everything. This means that all of our sin is ultimately and primarily against God. There is a vertical and intensely personal nature to sin. Whenever we sin it is always God who is, as Carson reminds us, the most offended party. [2]
What does this have to do with the atonement? If Jesus suffered only the inevitable fate of a man who has sucked the venom from a snakebite, it doesn’t seem to satisfy the need for the personal godward dynamic of substitution. Wrath gets reduced to something like a cement truck that’s lost control. It’s barreling down the hill toward us, but in the nick of time Jesus pushes us out of the way and takes the hit—just another victim of gravity. There’s a substitution of sorts, but Jesus doesn’t take our place before God. The point is not that the Father is some maniac behind the wheel of a cement truck. Rather, this is an impersonal view of God’s wrath—a tacit form of deism. Judgement is not merely the inevitable moral consequence of our bad behaviour—an impersonal natural principle only indirectly related to God, like bad karma. This idea of wrath, of course, is nothing new. Dodd put forth the same idea years ago.
Bruxy is concerned about how many in the the reformed camp "spatially locate" the Father as standing apart from Christ and pouring out his wrath. He says it's better to say that God was in Christ (2 Cor. 5:19). This is absolutely true. The reality is that, when it comes to the cross, the doctrines of the atonement, the incarnation, and the Trinity seem to reach the greatest heights of mystery. God was in Christ. The Father was never more pleased with Jesus. Yet in another sense Christ was positionally located in—meaning he stood in or was a substitute in—the place of sinners (1 Pet. 3:18). That means that, while God was in Christ, in some sense he was also against him in another because this is the inevitable and necessary position of God in relation to sin.
The godward dimension, is central to the Bible’s conception of God, man, and sin. Without it there may be substitution, but it’s a substitution of different kind. But if Jesus is truly our substitute then he must assume our place before God on the vertical plane and be more than a victim of some faceless impersonal principle. If he is our substitute, in the full sense of the word, he must also bear our penalty.
“P” of a Different Kind
It’s only in the highly qualified sense of substitution above that Cavey is able to affirm some form of penal aspect in the atonement. Again, in his interview with Paul Carter, he says:
I agree, a lot depends on what someone means by “Penal” in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. If someone says that the penalty for sin is death, and Jesus died for our sin, therefore he has taken the just penalty upon himself – if that’s what they mean by PSA than I’m right with them. In that sense, I affirm PSA. But you and I know that many Christians go beyond that, and equate PSA with God actively outpouring his wrath upon Jesus, as though God had to vent his wrath somewhere so it wouldn’t fall on us. That’s the version of PSA I do not think can be supported biblically. It says too much and goes too far beyond what it written.
In light of Bruxy’s teaching elsewhere, this statement means little more than that Jesus suffered in some way because of sin, but in no way implies that he was on the receiving end of the Father’s wrath. The impersonal natural consequence of sin crushed Jesus at the cross, not the Father. Sometimes Bruxy will speak of Christ becoming a curse, bearing wrath, even being damned, but it's important for us to remember that for him none of this comes from the Father—there is no godward dimension. There is a penal aspect alright, but it’s a “P” of a different kind. Yet this was later lauded as a point of substantial agreement:
“Therefore I register concern with Bruxy’s reticence to use that particular phrase, but his use of parallel phrases meaning substantially the same thing and drawn faithfully from Holy Scripture places him well beyond any rational accusation of heresy.” Paul Carter concludes, “There are many published definitions of PSA that Bruxy could affirm without reservation.” Carter then goes on to give Thomas Schreiner’s definition of PSA as an example:
I define penal substitutionary as follows: The Father, because of his love for human beings, sent his Son (who offered himself willingly and gladly) to satisfy God’s justice, so that Christ took the place of sinners. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both God’s holiness and love are manifested.
This is pretty mystifying! However, perhaps Bruxy could sign off on Schreiner’s definition, but only after stripping it out of context and reworking each phrase so as to fit it into an entirely new theological framework. He can claim that Christ “took the place of sinners” by taking their sin. He can even speak of Christ suffering the penalty of death, but all of this seems like nothing other than adventures in redefining terms. At the end of it all, instead of getting down to theological brass tacks, it will succeed in little more than publishing a new theological dictionary. The reason being is that there is no substantial agreement, but only a formal one. We happen to be using the same terms, but meaning very different things. The reason is that there is a God sized hole in Bruxy’s understanding of wrath, substitution, and atonement.
Underlying everything there seems to be this vital connection between the substitutionary and penal aspects of the atonement. You can’t accept one and deny the other so easily. Bruxy is on the horns of the dilemma. He must either maintain his position that Christ did not bear the full penalty for our sins before God, and thus deny the full substitutionary nature of the atonement, or he must hold to the substitutionary nature of the atonement and affirm a more godward understanding of the wrath that Christ suffered. He can’t have it both ways. Full substitution requires the full endurance of the penalty for our sins.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because, beyond being a mere theory of how the atonement works, PSA is what brings all the various aspects of the atonement together into a coherent whole. The gospel is more than PSA, but it is certainly not less. This is true because PSA lies at the very heart of the gospel, “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures” (1Cor. 15:3).
In all this, I'm seeking to do my best to be charitable and make sense out of everything I've listened to and read. I'm hoping to push the conversation on in a healthy direction and it's my hope that this article will help us get to the bottom of the issues between us.
Until all reach maturity (Col. 1:28-29)
[1] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (1955; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 28-29.
[2] D. A. Carson, Scandalous: The Cross and Resurrection of Jesus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 60-66.