Punishing and atoning: a new critique of penal substitution
- Brent G. Kyle
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
The doctrine of penal substitution claims that it was good (or required) for God to punish in response to human sin, and that Christ received this punishment in our stead. I argue that this doctrine’s central factual claim—that Christ was punished by God—is mistaken. In order to punish someone, one must at least believe the recipient is responsible for an offense. But God surely did not believe the innocent Christ was responsible for an offense, let alone the offense of human sin. So, the central factual claim is mistaken. In the final section, I show that this critique of penal substitution does not apply to the closely-related Anselmian satisfaction theory.
- Anselm (1962). Cur Deus Homo. In St. Anselm: Monologium; an appendix on behalf of the fool by Gaunilo; and Cur Deus Homo (2nd ed., Sidney Norton Deane, Trans.). LaSalle, IL: Open Court Publishing.
- Barnett R. (1977) Restitution: A new paradigm of criminal justice. Ethics 87: 279–301 CrossRef
- Boonin D. (2008) The problem of punishment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRef
- Calvin, J. (1977). Institutes of the Christian religion (Vol. 1, F. W. Battles, Trans.). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
- Crisp O. (2008) The logic of penal substitution revisited. In: Tidball D., Hilborn D., Thacker J. (eds) The atonement debate: Papers from the London symposium on the atonement. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, pp 208–227
- Crisp O. (2009) Original sin and atonement. In: Flint T., Rea M. (eds) The Oxford handbook of philosophical theology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 430–451 CrossRef
- De Brès G. (1689) The confession of faith, of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. Printed by the Widow of Steven Swart, Amsterdam
- Dickens C. (1992) A tale of two cities. Random House, New York
- Emigrant online: News for the global Irish community (2002). Wexford: Unusual Sanction for Lateness. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://www.emigrant.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11504&Itemid=25.
- Gendin S. (1967) The meaning of ‘Punishment’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 28: 235–240 CrossRef
- Grensted L. W. (1920) A short history of the doctrine of atonement. The University Press, Manchester
- Horowitz, D. (2001/2010). Ten reasons why reparations for Blacks is a bad idea for Blacks—and racist, too! (pp. 364–366). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Originally posted on frontpagemag.com, January 3, 2001, (Reprinted from Boonin and Oddie, what’s wrong? Applied ethicists and their critics).
- Lewis D. (1997) Do we believe in penal substitution?. Philosophical Papers 36: 203–209 CrossRef
- Packer J. I. (1974) What did the cross achieve? The logic of penal substitution. Tyndale Bulletin 25: 3–45
- Péry, A. (1963). Heidelberg catechism with commentary. Philadelphia: United Church Press.
- Porter S. (2002) Rethinking the logic of penal substitution. In: Craig W. L. (eds) Philosophy of religion: A reader and guide. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp 596–608
- Porter S. (2004) Swinburnian atonement and the doctrine of penal substitution. Faith and Philosophy 21: 228–241 CrossRef
- Quinton A. M. (1954) On punishment. Analysis 14: 133–142 CrossRef
- Swinburne R. (1989) Responsibility and atonement. Oxford University Press, Oxford CrossRef
- The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (1998). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Torrance T. (1992) The mediation of Christ. T&T Clark, Edinburgh
- Punishing and atoning: a new critique of penal substitution
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Volume 74, Issue 2 , pp 201-218
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Penal substitution
- Satisfaction theory
- Brent G. Kyle (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, United States Air Force Academy, HQ USAFA/DFPY, 2354 Fairchild Drive, USAF Academy, CO, 80840, USA