A
Anglicanus_Rex
Guest
What do you understand penal substitution to be teaching?
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
A
Anglicanus_Rex
Guest
So you wouldn’t hold that Christ bore the punishment for sins in place of us bearing the punishment for our sins?
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, of course we do. We just do not see it as a penal substitution. If it were, then he would have been in hell under the wrath of God for an eternity.
Instead, in some mystical way I do not understand, he bore our sins in his body in such a way that he became the propitiation/expiation for our sins without becoming the substitute for us in the penalty of hell.
A
Anglicanus_Rex
Guest
Aside from the Scriptures, that Christ bore the penalty of sin on our behalf is ample in the fathers. Of course, it’s not the only meaning of the atonement. It certainly encompasses a number of things.
I’ve never heard it as suffering in hell. Rather that Christ bore the wrath of God (in a way we really don’t understand), which is due for the transgression of the law.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, this is the Catholic position. But he bore it in such a way that he has not become a substitute for our penalty eternally.
A
Anglicanus_Rex
Guest
Could you clarify? Not sure what the difference is between paying the penalty for our sins vs. paying our penalty eternally?
A
alwayswill
Guest
No, that is either a non sequitur or strawman
Those that that believe Penal Substitution was one of aspects of the Atonement do not believe that it required that Christ would be in hell under the wrath of God for an eternity.
Can you please provide any sources that the doctrine of Penal Substitution requires that Christ would have been in hell under the wrath of God for an eternity.
Thank you
G
guanophore
Guest
calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/
I think it is a non-sequitur. If Christ substituted Himself to pay our penalty, what benefit is there if it was only the temporal penalty and not the eternal?
But that is not the only problem with Penal Substitution. It is the perspective-looking at it from the point of view of satisfying wrath rather than love.
K
Kliska
Guest
The case is presented as; if our punishment for sin is eternal damnation, it can’t be said that He was a penal substitution in that He was not eternal damned hence He didn’t have the same punishment laid on Him as we would. It would be like someone receiving a life sentence and instead of serving that sentence in their place, it is wiped out without being served by anyone.
A
Anglicanus_Rex
Guest
Hence why the Christ had to be fully man and fully God. Fully man to suffer the temporal, fully God to bear the weight of divine punishment. As an offering for sin, being that God is infinite, the payment for sin is infinite. So would say St. Anselm.
That assumes it isn’t both.
I
In_His_Grace
Guest
In regards to Penal Substitution I see the following as a major dilemma against this view of the Atonement. How are we to understand one member of the Trinity (the Father) being wrathful towards, pouring out His wrath on, another member of the Trinity (the Son), when they are, along with the Holy Spirit, one and the same God? Can God be truly angry with God? Can God actually punish God? Wouldn’t this view destroy the Trinity, the Godhead? Thoughts?
In His Grace
In His Grace
A
Anglicanus_Rex
Guest
The answer to that mystery will be made known once we can answer the mystery of the Trinity. All atonement theories have to wrestle with that question, not just penal substitution.
I
In_His_Grace
Guest
God is mystery indeed, beautiful, wonderful, glorious mystery. I’m not Catholic but the Catholic view of the atonement seems the most reasonable to me. LOVE
In His Grace
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes good point. Either one is imbalanced without the other.
T
Tomyris
Guest
I have never heard anyone say anything about Jesus spending eternity in hell. Where did you get this from? Someone else asked for the source, but it seems you did not reply.
Often I admire how fair your posting is. This remark is beneath you.
It is also untrue.
What has been explained to me is that there is limited atonement because if there was unlimited atonement, all would be saved. The benefits are only applied to some. Thus, it is limited. There is power to save all, but not all are saved.
G
guanophore
Guest
Thanks alwayswill, I do need to be more precise. It is the absence of the Beatific Vision. It is a separation from the eternal state of fellowship for which we were created.
We can work off the link you provided:
ReformedView:
The “punishment we ought to suffer for our sins” is eternal damnation.
ReformedView:
The punishment that was ours based on our sin is eternal damnation.
ReformedView:
“some form of atonement”? Jesus is the perfect form of atonement? This concept of humanity is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught, but in this context, that is irrelevant, since even the correct concept does not provide an adequate “form of atonement for sin”.
ReformedView:
This seems to be expressing some doubt, which is appropriate, since the penalty is eternal damnation.
ReformedView:
I think this statement may be consistent with Catholic theology. We do not really understand the mystery of how it is that Jesus’ sacrifice is all sufficient, while at the same time, He does not serve our punishment of an eternity in hell.
ReformedView:
Catholics will agree that there are references in Scripture to the Suffering Servant being the expiation of our sins. By His stripes, we are healed. But we don’t see this as penal substitution because Jesus does not take our place for an eternity in hell, which is our just punishment.
ReformedView:
All Catholic scriptures, written by, for, and about Catholics, none of whom believed the modern concept of “penal substitution”.
G
guanophore
Guest
You hit that nail on the head, IHG. The concept of penal substitution I was taught by the Southern Baptists is a denial of the divine perichoresis
A
alwayswill
Guest
We also have to declare that certain aspects of the Atonement are a mystery.
But those that hold to the penal substation (aka Substitutionary or Vicarious Atonement) component do NOT believe it requires the punishment of eternity in hell.
Author Wayne Grudem explains it this way
“Jesus was able to bear all the wrath of God against our sin and to bear it to the end. No mere man could ever have done this, but by virtue of the union of divine and human natures in himself, Jesus was able to bear all the wrath of God against sin and bear it to the end…when Christ’s sufferings at last came to an end on the cross, it showed that he had borne the full measure of God’s wrath against sin and there was no penalty left to pay.”
Robert A. Peterson writes
“He suffered the equivalent of eternal punishment … When Jesus endured the wrath due sinful humanity, it was as the incarnate God-man; when by virtue of his human nature he suffered separation from his Father’s love, it was as the eternal Son of God who had become human … because of the infinite dignity of Christ’s person, his sufferings, though finite in duration, were of infinite weight on the scales of divine justice (much as his righteousness, though displayed during his incarnation over a finite period, is of infinite weight). As God incarnate, Jesus was capable of suffering in six hours on the cross what we can suffer only over an infinite period of time”
J
josie_L
Guest
You are conflating redemption with salvation, Jesus did indeed redeem the whole world (sinners past, present and future) via the cross, but not all accepted this free gift/pass out of jail (bondage/punishment for sin), hence, not all were or are going to be saved.
- Status