One of the push back arguments against Penal Substitution is that it is making God dependent upon something. Why should we say that God “has to punish sin.” God does not have to do anything at all, he is sovereign isn’t he? The accusation here is that Penal Substitution would compromise God’s aseity. God is compelled to act.
It’s a little bit ironic that when you look at those who have aligned themselves against penal substitution that they also tend to be suspicious of classical theism criticising concepts like aseity and impassibility, seeing them as going against a loving God. There’s a leaning towards Open Theism and the God who suffers. Continue reading