Here’s the last in this series, summarising responses to objections to the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement that relate to aspects of the Christian life:-

1. ‘Penal substitution fails to address the issues of political and social sin and cosmic evil’

Penal substitution seems occupied with the salvation of the individual but fails to address the need for reconciliation between peoples divided by political, ethnic, economic and social barriers. Nor does it provide for the redemption of the entire cosmos from its fallen state.…

Continuing this series that summarises (in order to commend) material within Jeffrey, Ovey & Sach’s book Pierced for our Transgressions, we reach those objections that assert that the doctrine of penal substitionary atonement violates the principle of justice:-

1. ‘It is unjust to punish an innocent person, even if he is willing to be punished’

According to Tom Smail, ‘the penal substitution theory…must answer the question: How can it be just to punish a righteous man for the sins of many unrighteous people?’…

According to Jeffery, Ovey & Sach, the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is sometimes objected to on cultural grounds. Here’s a summary:-

1. ‘Penal substitution is a culturally-determined construct, not a biblical one’

Critics suggest, for example, that it is heavily conditioned by a Roman view of criminal law, and by the pre-occupation in the Western world with guilt-and-punishment ideas about justice.

Response: the fact that penal substitution has been believed and taught over the past two thousand years in many different social and political contexts cast considerable doubt on this objection.…