The Real Reason Many Reject Penal Substitutionary Atonement - by Phil Cotnoir

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------------

After we read this article we were dismayed to find no biblical arguments. In fact, we found no Bible verses or references at all. So we asked the author for some biblically-based commentary. He first recommended an article by Derek Rishmawy, which we had already critiqued back in August. It had very little in terms of biblical documentation.

When we pressed farther for a biblically documented article, he referred us to Thomas Schreiner's article, which we critiqued here. He also referred us to Geoffrey Butler's article, critiqued here.

Sadly, none of these articles provided us with the needed biblical documentation. When the Bible was quoted, it was most often to bolster ancillary ideas. When the moment came to document the key claim, Bible documentation disappeared.

We supply our biblical reasons for rejecting PSA in the links above, but we take a deeper dive here. To summarize:

• The Father did not punish Jesus for our sin because the Blood alone is enough to appease the Father's wrath.
• The Father did not forsake the Son. Jesus quoted Psalm 22:1 because it's a messianic Psalm. Jesus was not bemoaning His abandonment, He was pointing to the Psalm as being fulfilled right at that moment.
• Jesus did not die so we wouldn't have to. We must die too.
• Jesus death was not atoning, it was propitiating. 
• Jesus did not pay for sin, He paid for us.

The reader is encouraged to read our links and come to his own conclusion. 

------------------------

Ever since Bible College almost 20 years ago (gasp!), I have wondered why there is so much argument and furor over “theories of the atonement.” I remember seeing an essay in the student paper that questioned penal substitutionary atonement (hereafter PSA) and put forward an argument for Christus Victor. It revealed a clear aversion to PSA and this mystified me. Why, I wondered, would someone be so motivated to deny something which seems to be the plain teaching of the Bible? (An honest question. Why someone would disagree with the author's doctrine should be taken as an opportunity to learn as opposed to digging in one's heals.) 

Over the years I came to better understand the issues at stake, but I admit I still had trouble making it make sense. I could understand why some progressive Christians refused to believe in a God who poured out wrath and judgment (due to liberal theology’s allergy to descriptions of God that went against the grain of respectable modern moral sensibilities), but then what about those who had no problem with those parts of the Bible but who still seemed to have so much animus against PSA? (Perhaps the author might consult with someone who has a differing opinion and find out why that person believes something else.)

I recently heard Derek Rishmawy make a comment on an episode of the Mere Fidelity podcast that struck me as an excellent answer to that question.

Here is the point he made: penal substitutionary atonement gets pulled out of shape and distorted when the categories of classical theism are not there. The prevalence of modernist metaphysics throughout the 20th century gave us a strange mix: conservatives held onto supernaturalism (like the virgin birth and the resurrection) but unwittingly lost the doctrinal substructure that served to keep PSA in its proper shape. Rishmawy observed that many conservatives in the 20th century (and into the 21st) were defending what they rightly thought of as a doctrinal core (PSA), but doing it in ways that would be contrary to earlier advocates in the tradition who had certain doctrines in place that protected them against the severe distortions. The most obvious stabilizing doctrine would be a classical view of the Trinity. He added that “substitution is an extraordinarily powerful doctrine that, without the right machinery around it, creates severe shearing forces in preaching that that can go wrong.” (We would heartily agree, but for different reasons. PSA relies on other doctrines to make sense, and those doctrines rely on PSA to make sense. Should one of these doctrines come into question, it would bring with it a cascade of questions.

Let's illustrate. PSA connects with the idea that the Father turned His back on Jesus at the Cross. If Jesus was substitutionary, it seems to make sense that a Holy God must react with aversion. Another example is the idea that Jesus paid for our sin, which would mean His death was substitutionary, a transaction of sorts. A third example would be that the OT sacrifices must have been punished as substitutes because Jesus was punished by the Father.

Let's boldly consider the extreme possibility. What if none of these ideas are true? Is this possible that these Calvinistic/Reformed doctrines might all be false or mistaken? Yes, it is. And in fact, we have posted many articles examining these doctrines and have concluded that many of these doctrines misrepresent salvation, the Trinity, or the the faith.

This of course is a serious charge. We do not make it lightly. Our study has yielded these conclusions, often after decades of believing these doctrines ourselves. We are not Bible scholars, but we think the matters of faith and doctrine do not require advanced degrees.)

This seems quite right to me, like a key piece of the puzzle going right into its place. This insight explains some of the dynamics at play in these discussions and debates. For instance, without a clear understanding of the inseparable operations of the one triune God, then there is no guardrail to keep a preacher from describing the cross as the Father over here pouring his wrath out on the innocent and reticent Son over there, introducing a firm separation between Father and Son, as if they were not together fulfilling the plan of redemption they drew up before the foundation of the world. And without divine impassibility—the idea the God is without passions—then any talk of the wrath or punishment of God conjures images of uncontrolled anger or passionate revenge. But this is not the way to understand the wrath of God.

Here is a possible sequence of steps to summarize this process:

Modern metaphysical assumptions seep into theology —> classical trinitarian theism is revised —> loss of doctrines like divine impassibility and inseparable operations —> PSA language gets pulled out of shape by many of its proponents —> people react against the distortions of PSA by energetically rejecting PSA and pursuing alternative understandings of the atonement. (It seems that the author believes that rejecting PSA is a result of error creeping in. This is his first reason some people reject the doctrine.)

This would explain the strong overlap between those who reject classical theism and those who reject PSA, of which John Mark Comer would be one obvious example. Without the former, the latter is too easily distorted into absurdity (”cosmic child abuse”). So a twofold dynamic happens: proponents of PSA who haven’t got a firm grasp on classical theism tend to present it in distorted ways since they lack that doctrinal framework, and those who have rejected classical theism have a hard time conceiving of PSA without it quickly devolving into something grotesque, making it easier for them to reject PSA. 

The parallel track that runs alongside this, mentioned above, is the rejection of wrath and judgment as fitting for God, a hallmark of liberal theology. Even the great evangelical stalwart John Stott seemed to be affected by the sense that it was not respectable, and perhaps unthinkable, to claim that God would pour out his wrath in judgment for all eternity. Stott’s case was mild — preferring annihilationism to the idea of eternal judgment. But the same impulse has pulled many a Christian to rethink PSA on the grounds that the idea that God’s wrath against sin must be satisfied is beyond the pale. (This is the author's second reason people reject the doctrine.)

Even without a thoroughgoing classical trinitarianism, the best exegetes ("Best exegetes" probably means those scholars who agree with the author.)

throughout the 20th century always managed to avoid serious problems in their description of the atonement by sticking close to the text of the Bible and letting their preaching and teaching reflect the overall balanced emphasis of the Scriptures. This is a point that D.A. Carson has made repeatedly, and it is worth bearing in mind: it is not enough to find something true that the Bible affirms and then proclaim it from the rooftops. There is a matrix of truths that are all interconnected, and the careful student of the Scriptures pays attention to the relative emphasis and the context of those truths as found in the whole Bible.

Talk of the various theories of the atonement seems to me to start the whole conversation off on the wrong foot. (What are those various theories?)

Let us rather seek to understand and rightly represent the multifaceted glory of the atonement. Wonder of wonders—our God has reconciled us to himself through the cross! And how? Let me count the ways, for the Scriptures unfold and tease out multiple threads of wondrous truth about this singular moment in history. One of these, among others, is the idea that in our place condemned he stood, becoming sin for us, bearing the punishment our sins deserved, that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. Our triune God planned and accomplished this for the fame of his name among the nations, and because he loves us. He redeemed us from the curse of sin, becoming a curse for us; he ransomed us, buying us with a price; he defeated the powers of darkness, triumphing over them and disarming them. Yes and amen.

The insight from Rishmawy is helpful because it reminds us that our theology is a complex matrix of interrelated truths. And there are some, it must be said, that are foundational, load-bearing truths. They keep the whole superstructure balanced and strong in ways that are not immediately obvious. And once they are removed or compromised, the whole building may not immediately fall down, but it may sway and wobble and buckle in unhealthy ways. I think this is what we’ve seen with popular-level representations of PSA, with lamentable results in driving people away from any kind of penal substitutionary element in their understanding of the atonement. The answer to overcorrections and pendulum swings, however, is careful and loving attention to the holy Scriptures.



5 thoughts on “The Real Reason Many Reject Penal Substitutionary Atonement”
rich3dd4b5dc50a
December 1, 2025 at 9:36 am


Um, do you have a biblical case for this doctrine? Where in the Bible does it tell us these things? That would be helpful if you would quote it.
Reply
Phil Cotnoir
December 1, 2025 at 10:07 am


Hey there. Thanks for the comment. I didn’t intend to make a case for penal substitutionary atonement in this piece — that would be a much bigger undertaking. I would suggest taking a look at Rishmawy’s article over at TGC:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/comer-penal-substitution/

Blessings,
Phil
Reply
rich3dd4b5dc50a
December 1, 2025 at 11:20 am


I read the link. That fellow also quotes no Scripture in support of the doctrine. He does supply a few Scripture links, but they also do not speak to the doctrine. Can you point me to someone else who is willing to make a Scriptural case? I appreciate it.

Phil Cotnoir
December 1, 2025 at 1:11 pm


Alright my friend, here is a more in-depth Biblical case for PSA by an esteemed NT Scholar (Tom Schreiner). The gist of the Biblical argument is that the OT sacrificial system (and the Day of Atonement most of all, in Lev. 16), as well as Isa.53, are clearly based on penal substitutionary atonement (properly defined); and the NT picks up on this to speak of what the cross accomplishes (in Romans, Galatians, 1 Peter, and other places).

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/substitutionary-atonement/

Another one:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/appeasement-of-a-monster-god-a-historical-and-biblical-analysis-of-penal-substitutionary-atonement/

rich3dd4b5dc50a
December 1, 2025 at 6:15 pm


Much better, thank you.