- From the Scots Confession by John Knox, chapter 9:
[We confess t]hat our Lord Jesus offered himself a voluntary sacrifice unto his Father for us, that he suffered contradiction of sinners, that he was wounded and plagued for our transgressions, that he, the clean innocent Lamb of God, was condemned in the presence of an earthly judge, that we should be absolved before the judgment seat of our God; that he suffered not only the cruel death of the cross, which was accursed by the sentence of God; but also that he suffered for a season the wrath of his Father which sinners had deserved.
- From Herman Ridderbos in Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 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 Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Chapter 4:
But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression.
- From Theopedia: The Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement
- Dr. Steve Sullivan: Substitution (.pdf)
- Al Mohler: Why Do They Hate It So? The Doctrine of Substitution (mp3 from this year’s Together for the Gospel Conference.)
- D. A. Carson: Why Is the Doctrine of Penal Substitution Again Coming Under Attack?