Sinclair Ferguson: Penal Substitution

[StJames37]

And if they did not teach it, then the Holy Scriptures (which they wrote), also do not teach the idea! Reformed types have at best some ambiguous passages, into which they can read this innovative and horrible doctrine. Penal Substitution, especially, is a slander against God. It makes the problem - no longer ours - but rather it says that the problem was with God himself: he could not accept us unless he could wrathfully slaughter and punish his Son.

[StJames37]

I've come more and more to see Penal Substitution as horrific, and frankly, a blasphemy. The fact that it was utterly absent and unmentioned until Anselm invented the Satisfaction theory in the 11th century. The Reformers took this and infused it with a more harsh and legal understanding in the Penal Substitution theory. I reason that if both Satisfaction and Penal Substitution were utterly absent from the Christian world - Both East and West - then the Apostles could not have taught it!

[StJames37]

I used to be a staunch Calvinist Presbyterian and have listened to many sermons by this guy, Sinclair Ferguson. I also read one of his books. However, I've now converted to Orthodoxy. This was due in large part to a personal study of ancient Church history from an objective point of view. I stopped simply accepting what Reformed types said the Fathers taught, and investigated them for myself. When I did this, I found that virtually everything in Protestantism is a late Western innovation!

[brendos444]

Christus Victor is the historical motif that the church has throught about the atonement. Penal substitution was a Western innovation thanks mostly to Anselm of Canterbury. It's funny how these reformed types just hate Christus Victor. That Christ would actually give himself over to death, not as punishment, but because he loves us. Christ is risen, trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life! Christ is Victor not victim!

[ajl22586]

I don't know who this fool is, but I highly suggest he read Girard's Violence and the Sacred to find out how completely wrong the concept of so-called Penal Substitution really is.

God did not require any sacrifice for the sins of humanity - He exposes Himself as fully non-violent throughout the Gospels. Christ was rejected by humanity and freely accepted that, not as a result of God's "wrath" but to conquer death and reveal that God always sides with the victim (through the Resurrection).

[KabaneTheChristian]

@ajl22586

He should also read Finlan's "Problems with Atonement".