The Epistemology of Penal Substitution
Step 1: Understanding Reformed Epistemological Criteria
Reformed theology is heavily grounded in Sola Scriptura, meaning that doctrines must be explicitly derived from Scripture rather than from philosophical reasoning or church tradition. Additionally, Reformed epistemology, influenced by thinkers like Alvin Plantinga, maintains that beliefs are justified if they are properly basic (self-evident), logically necessary, or directly derived from divine revelation (i.e., the Bible).
Thus, for PSA to be epistemologically valid under Reformed standards, it must:
Be explicitly taught in Scripture (not merely inferred).
Be logically coherent within the framework of divine justice.
Align with the historical continuity of the biblical witness, especially in how the early Church interpreted the atonement.
Step 2: Does PSA Meet Sola Scriptura?
To be a valid doctrine under Sola Scriptura, PSA must be explicitly taught in the Bible, not just extrapolated from certain passages. The key texts typically cited to support PSA are:
Isaiah 53:5 – “He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities.”
2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin.”
Galatians 3:13 – “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.”
Counterargument: While these passages affirm that Christ suffered for sinners, they do not explicitly state that God poured His wrath onto Jesus as a legal substitute. The texts can be read in other ways, such as Christus Victor (defeating sin and death) or Healing Atonement (restoring fallen humanity).
Moreover, key Reformed doctrines like justification by faith alone are often built on extrapolations of Pauline theology, but PSA relies on a specific interpretation of God’s justice as retributive punishment—which is not explicitly outlined in Scripture.
Thus, PSA fails the strict Sola Scriptura test because it is not explicitly mandated by biblical revelation and can be reasonably contested with alternative atonement models.
Step 3: Does PSA Meet Reformed Epistemology’s Standard for Justification?
Reformed epistemology (as developed by thinkers like Alvin Plantinga) argues that beliefs are justified if they are:
Properly Basic (self-evident or universally held).
Derived from Divine Revelation (directly taught in Scripture).
Logically Necessary (coherent and indispensable to Christian theology).
Is PSA Properly Basic?
A properly basic belief is universally held or self-evident (e.g., “God exists”). PSA does not qualify as properly basic because:
It was not universally held in the early Church. The dominant early view of the atonement was Christus Victor and Recapitulation, not PSA.
No ecumenical council affirmed PSA before the Reformation, and even today, it is rejected by Catholics and Orthodox Christianity.
Thus, PSA fails the “properly basic” test.
Is PSA Derived from Divine Revelation?
As noted earlier, PSA is inferred, not explicitly taught in Scripture.
The Bible speaks of Christ’s suffering, sacrifice, and redemption, but never states that divine justice requires penal substitution.
The early Church did not teach PSA, which suggests that it was not part of the original apostolic revelation.
Thus, PSA fails the divine revelation test.
Is PSA Logically Necessary?
For PSA to be logically necessary, no alternative view of the atonement could sufficiently explain salvation. However:
Christus Victor (Christ defeating sin, death, and the devil) is just as biblical (Hebrews 2:14-15).
Recapitulation (Christ restoring human nature) fits the early Church’s interpretation of Scripture (Romans 5:18-19).
Healing Atonement (Christ’s sacrifice heals and sanctifies) aligns with biblical themes (1 Peter 2:24).
If alternative models can explain atonement without requiring PSA, then PSA is not logically necessary.
Thus, PSA fails the necessity test.
Step 4: Implications—Can Reformed Theology Consistently Accept PSA?
If Reformed theology is consistent with its own epistemological criteria, then PSA should be rejected because:
It is not explicitly revealed in Scripture (fails Sola Scriptura).
It is not a properly basic belief (fails epistemological justification).
It is not logically necessary (alternative models exist).
Thus, PSA does not meet the epistemological standards required for truth or acceptance under Reformed theology’s own principles.
Conclusion: Is PSA Epistemologically Justified?
Under Reformed Sola Scriptura and Reformed epistemology, PSA lacks sufficient justification because:
It is not explicitly biblical (alternative readings exist).
It is not historically universal (the early Church did not teach it).
It is not logically necessary (other valid atonement models exist).
If Reformed theology wishes to be epistemologically consistent, it must either abandon Penal Substitution or modify its epistemological criteria to allow extrabiblical theological development—which contradicts Sola Scriptura.
Final Thought:
If PSA fails the epistemological test of Reformed theology, should it still be considered a binding Christian doctrine? Or is it a later development based on misapplied legal assumptions about divine justice?
It’s concerning to me that growing up in evangelical non-denom circles I was exclusively taught PSA 🥺 and who knows? Maybe everyone didn’t actually believe that because it wasn’t explicit per se but it def seemed to be the assumption. So many doctrines in reformed circles start with a presupposition and use bible verses to proof text it 🫢