Nepaug Bible Church - http://www.nepaugchurch.org - Pastor's Evening Sermon Notes - http://www.nepaugchurch.org/ev/ev20060226.htm

UNDERSTANDING GOD'S WORK AT THE CROSS OF JESUS CHRIST
Part VI: Answering Contemporary Objections To The Theory Of Penal Substitution
(1 John 4:10 et al.)
  1. Introduction
    1. Having concluded Scripture teaches Christ's death accomplished the satisfaction of God's wrath against sin so that God might have mercy on the sinner, we do well to answer objections to this view in many Evangelical circles that cringe at the thought that God could be so much angrier than man might be!
    2. We itemize major contemporary objections listed by S. Lewis Johnson in his chapter, "Behold the Lamb: The Gospel and Substitutionary Atonement" in John H. Armstrong, gen. ed., The Coming Evangelical Crisis, 1996, p. 122-124, and answer them (as follows):
  2. Answering Contemporary Objections To The Theory Of Penal Substitution, 1 John 4:10 et al.
    1. Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology (1953), p. 372 complained that adopting the view that God's wrath was poured out upon His Son at the cross "assumes a schism in the Trinity, a monstrous' idea." (Ibid., Armstrong, p. 122) We answer this critique Biblically as follows:
      1. Berkhof and others have suggested that Christ is presented in the penal substitution role as being the member of the Trinity who wants to save where the Father is the One Who wants to punish sin. This is claimed to make One Person of the Godhead want to punish man while the other wants to save, setting up conflicting motives of love and wrath toward man in the Persons of the Godhead.
      2. However, John 3:16 reveals that the love of God the Father for the world motivated Him to send His Son to intercept His own wrath against the world so that the Father might save the world!
      3. Also, Hebrews 10:5-7 reveals the Son's verbal assent at the incarnation that a better sacrifice was needed to handle man's sins than just the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament levitical system! Thus, the Son Himself was in full agreement with a better sacrifice to handle God's wrath against sin!
      4. Finally, 1 John 4:10 reveals God's love sent His son to be the satisfaction of His wrath in regards to our sins, indicating the Father's love of the sinner and hatred of the sin neatly met at the cross, Psa. 85:10.
    2. Hendrikus Berkhof claims that the idea of punishment for sin, though a common idea in Western Christian orthodoxy since the time of Church Father, Anselm, "is foreign to the NT.'" (Ibid., citing Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith (1973; reprint 1979), p. 305. We answer this objection Biblically as follows:
      1. 2 Corinthians 5:21 clearly states that Christ was made to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. That implies substitution, and since sin is something God hates, this verse also implies Christ was a penal substitute for man as well!
      2. Galatians 3:13 similarly shows Christ was made a curse for us on the cross that we might receive the promise of the Holy Spirit through faith. Since being made a curse under the law brought on the anger of God, the penal substitutionary nature of the cross of Christ is implied strongly in this verse!
      3. Also, Isaiah 53:5-6 picks up the penal substitutionary work of Christ prophetically.
    3. Another objection is that the penal substitution view of the atonement "makes God inferior to people, for people freely forgive, but God cannot do so." (Ibid., Armstrong, p. 123) We answer this objection Biblically as follows:
      1. God, unlike us imperfect and sin-infected people, is perfectly righteous, so He can not and will not let sin go unpunished, cf. Numbers 14:18.
      2. Besides, the penal substitutionary atonement reveals God's great grace; William G. T. Shedd wrote of Christ's work on the cross: "There is mercy in permitting another person to do for the sinner what the sinner is bound to do for himself; and still greater mercy in providing that person; and greater still, in becoming that person.'" (Ibid., citing Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (1952), 2:540) (emphases ours)
Lesson: The penal substitutionary nature of Christ's death does not make God to be a monstrous, divided, heartless God; rather, it mixes His perfect righteousness and perfect love in the highest sense.

Application: (1) May we appreciate the STERLING character of God in coming to accept the penal substitutionary work of Christ's cross, for only with penal substitution is God upheld to be BOTH righteous AND loving. (2) May we then praise the Lord for His great grace to us in the cross of Christ!