Theological Term of the Week: Penal Substitution

penal substitution
The doctrine that states that “God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin”;1 also called substitutionary atonement or Christus Vicarious.

• From Scripture:

Surely he has borne our griefs 

and carried our sorrows; 

yet we esteemed him stricken, 

smitten by God, and afflicted.

But he was pierced for our transgressions; 

he was crushed for our iniquities; 

upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, 

and with his wounds we are healed. 

All we like sheep have gone astray; 

we have turned—every one—to his own way; 

and the Lord has laid on him 

the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:4-6).

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” … Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree” (Galatians 3:10, 13).

• From Paul: An Outline of His Theology by Herman Ridderbos, page 190: 

[T]he substitutionary character of Christ’s death on the cross … recurs time and again in Paul’s epistles, when it is said that Christ “died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:14); or “died for us” and “gave himself up for our sins” (Rom. 5:6, 8; 14:15; 1 Thess. 5:10; Rom. 4:25; 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20). To be sure, the expression “for us” in itself does not yet signify “in our place; it indicates that the death of Christ has taken place “in our favor.” Nevertheless, the substitutionary significance of these expressions cannot be doubted. And it is corroborated by such expressions as that in 2 Corinthians 5:21: God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us; cf. Romans 8:3 and Galatians 3:13, where it is said that Christ has become a curse for us. In these passages the thought of the substitutionary (atoning) sacrifice is unmistakable, a thought that is enunciated in almost so many words when the phrase “One died for all’ is explained by the words “so then all have died’ (2 Cor. 5:14). Even is one could give certain passages taken by themselves another sense, the whole complex of the pronouncements mentioned above can allow no doubt to remains as to the “atoning,” substitutionary character of Jesus’ death, and every effort to detract from it readily does wrong to the most fundamental segments of Paul’s gospel.

• From Systematic Theology by Robert Letham, page 559-560:

Penal substitution is to be seen in connection with union with Christ. Union sets substitution and representation in a fuller context. Christ is our substitute. He took our place throughout his life and ministry, the cross, his resurrection, and his ascension… .

As both substitute and representative, Christ is distinct from those who benefit from what he did. A substitute is another person that the one he replaces. While his actions are legally those of the ones he represents, a representative is distance from them too. With union, we are taken a stage further; all Christ did and does we do, since we are one with him. The “otherness” of a substitute or representative is in eclipse. Because of the union between us and Christ, his actions are ours.

Learn more:

1. R. C. Sproul: Jesus Our Substitute
2. Ligonier Ministries: Penal Substitution
3. Tom Schreiner: Substitutionary Atonement
4. Jarvis Williams: What Is Penal Substitution?
5. J. I. Packer: What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution and Penal Substitution Revisited
6. D. A. Carson: The Atonement Under Fire

Related terms:

• definite atonement
• propitiation
• union with Christ

1Pierced for Our Trangressions by Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach, page 21.

 Filed under Salvation

---

Do you have a a theological term you’d like to see featured as a Theological Term of the Week? Email your suggestion using the contact button in the navigation bar above. 

Clicking on the Theological Terms button above the header will take you to an alphabetical list of all the theological terms.

Theological Term of the Week: Pelagianism

Pelagianism
A heresy condemned by two church councils. Pelagianism teaches that humankind is naturally able to do good, or, to put it another way, “that the human will [is] capable of spiritual good without the aid of God’s grace.”1 

• Scripture that argues against Pelagianism:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

[15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [16] And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. [17] For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:12–19 ESV)

[A]s it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” (Romans 3:10-12 ESV)

• From the Belgic Confession: 

Article 15: The Doctrine of Original Sin 

We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race. 

It is a corruption of all nature—an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother’s womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God’s sight that it is enough to condemn the human race, and it is not abolished or wholly uprooted even by baptism, seeing that sin constantly boils forth as though from a contaminated spring.

Nevertheless, it is not imputed to God’s children for their condemnation but is forgiven by his grace and mercy—not to put them to sleep but so that the awareness of this corruption might often make believers groan as they long to be set free from the “body of this death.”

Therefore we reject the error of the Pelagians who say that this sin is nothing else than a matter of imitation.

• From Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof, pages 256-7:

Pelagius takes his starting point in the natural ability of man. His fundamental proposition is: God has commanded man to do that which is good; hence the latter must have the ability to do it. This means that man has a free will in the absolute sense of the word, so that it is possible for him to decide for or against that which is good, and also to do the good as well as the evil. The decision is not dependent on any moral character in man, for the will is entirely indeterminate. Whether a man will do good or evil simply depends on his free and independent will. From this it follows, of course, that there is no such thing as a moral development of the individual. Good and evil are located in the separate actions of man. From this fundamental position the doctrinal teaching of Pelagius respecting sin naturally follows. Sin consists only in the separate acts of the will. There is no such thing as a sinful nature, neither are there sinful dispositions. Sin is always a deliberate choice of evil by a will which is perfectly free, and can just as well choose and follow the good. But if this is so, then the conclusion inevitably follows that Adam was not created in a state of positive holiness, but in a state of moral equilibrium. His condition was one of moral neutrality. He was neither good nor bad, and therefore had no moral character; but he chose the course of evil, and thus became sinful. Inasmuch as sin consists only in separate acts of the will, the idea of its propagation by procreation is absurd. A sinful nature, if such a thing should exist, might be passed on from father to son, but sinful acts cannot be so propagated. This is in the nature of the case an impossibility. Adam was the first sinner, but his sin was in no sense passed on to his descendants. There is no such thing as original sin. Children are born in a state of neutrality, beginning exactly where Adam began, except that they are handicapped by the evil examples which they see round about them. Their future course must be determined by their own free choice. The universality of sin is admitted, because all experience testifies to it. It is due to imitation and to the habit of sinning that is gradually formed. Strictly speaking, there are, on the Pelagian standpoint, no sinners, but only separate sinful acts. This makes a religious conception of the history of the race utterly impossible.

Learn more:

1. Got Questions: What is Pelagianism?
2. Monergism.com: Comparing Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism and Augustinianism
3. Sam Storms: 10 Things You Should Know about Pelagius and Pelagianism
4. Stephen Nichols: 3 Types of Theology
5. R. C. Sproul: The Pelagian Controversy
6. Gerald Bray: Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy

Related terms:

• Augustinianism
• federal headship
• heresy
• original sin
• Pelagius
• semi-Pelagianism

1 From The Christian Faith by Michael Horton, page 999.

 Filed under Defective Theology and Salvation

---

Do you have a a theological term you’d like to see featured as a Theological Term of the Week? Email your suggestion using the contact button in the navigation bar above. 

Clicking on the Theological Terms button above the header will take you to an alphabetical list of all the theological terms.

Theological Term of the Week: Passive Obedience of Christ

passive obedience of Christ
“Christ’s suffering the penalty of sin and death on behalf of his people”;1 his payment “of the penalty of sin by His suffering and death, and thus discharging the debt of all His people”;2 also called penal obedience. 

• From scripture:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us…. (Romans 8:3 ESV)

• From the 1689 London Baptist Confesstion: 

Chapter 11: Of Justification

1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.

• From Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof:

Christ as Mediator also entered the penal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty in our stead. His passive obedience consisted in His paying the penalty of sin by His sufferings and death, and thus discharging the debt of all His people. The sufferings of Christ, which have already been described, did not come upon Him accidentally, nor as the result of purely natural circumstances. They were judicially laid upon Him as our representative, and were therefore really penal sufferings. The redemptive value of these sufferings results from the following facts: They were borne by a divine person who, only in virtue of His deity, could bear the penalty through to the end and thus obtain freedom from it. In view of the infinite value of the person who undertook to pay the price and to bear the curse, they satisfied the justice of God essentially and intensively. They were strictly moral sufferings, because Christ took them upon Himself voluntarily, and was perfectly innocent and holy in bearing them.

The passive obedience of Christ stands out prominently in such passages as the following: Isa. 53:6; Rom. 4:25; I Pet. 2:24; 3:18; I John 2:2, while His active obedience is taught in such passages at Matt. 3:15; 5:17,18; John 15:10; Gal. 4:4,5; Heb. 10:7-9, in connection with the passages which teach us that Christ is our righteousness, Rom. 10:4; II Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9; and that He secured for us eternal life, the adoption of sons, and an eternal inheritance, Gal. 3:13,14; 4:4,5; Eph. 1:3-12; 5:25-27. Arminians are willing to admit that Christ, by His passive obedience merited for us the forgiveness of sins, but refuse to grant that He also merited for us positive acceptance with God, the adoption of children, and everlasting life.

Learn more:

1. Simply Put: Active and Passive Obedience of Christ
2. Justin Taylor: What’s the Difference Between the Active and the Passive Obedience of Christ?
3. Louis Berkhof: Christ’s Active and Passive Obedience
4. Nicholas Needham: Obedient Unto Death

Related terms:

• active obedience of Christ
• imputation
• justification
• penal substitution

1 From The Christian Faith by Michael Horton, page 999.

2 From Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof.

 Filed under Salvation

---

Do you have a a theological term you’d like to see featured as a Theological Term of the Week? Email your suggestion using the contact button in the navigation bar above. 

Clicking on the Theological Terms button above the header will take you to an alphabetical list of all the theological terms.