Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?

[guanophore]

As a Catholic you do not believe that their is a living prophet in Utah, right?

In a similar way I do not believe that the Catholic Bishop in Vatican City is the earthly representative of God.

In what way is he less of an earthly representative of God than you are?

 

[guanophore]

Did it come directly from Calvin?
Or did he possibly glean it from ECFs like Augustine and others?

continued:

Gleaned, certainly. And this is the major source of the trouble. The gospel is to be RECEIVED from those who are authorized by Christ to transmit it. It is not to be “gleaned” from the pages of books, however holy. Every time a Christian has attempted to “glean” the Gospel from the pages, errors result. The “gleaning” method is insufficient.

 

[lampalm]

In what way is he less of an earthly representative of God than you are?

The Holy Spirit is the “representative”.

 

[lampalm]

What in the world do the two have in common? Actually I’m looking into Orthodoxy right now but to be fair Catholicism has traced their bishopric back to Rome for the last 2,000 years and the papacy has always had a primacy of honor in Christian polity so why would you compare a 19th Century innovation (Mormon prophecy) to a 2,000 year old institution that has a venerable history as a patriarchate?

You (and I) view Mormonism as only innovation. If you were a Mormon (or believed as the Mormons believe), then you would consider Mormonism true.

 

[guanophore]

The Holy Spirit is the “representative”.

You did not answer my question, lampalm. You take issue that the successor of Peter in Rome is less a representative of Christ than you are. Why is that?

Acts 5:3
3 But Peter said, "Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?

In what way does Peter NOT from the HS?

Acts 15:28
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us

How is the HS NOT at work in this magesterial decision?

 

[PRmerger]

The Holy Spirit is the “representative”.

No, lampalm. The Holy Spirit is not “representative” of God, but IS the person of God.

Not sure what your religious denomination is, but would you say that you are a Trinitarian Christian?

 

[Algo1]

This topic is truly fascinating. The more I look into the early writers the more I am finding many of them to be in agreement regarding Anselm’s model of satisfaction with respect to the atonement.

Thomas Aquinas commenting on Hebrews 1:3: Third, there is the guilty state of punishment to which man is turned by his fault; **and to satisfy for this He offered Himself as a victim to God on the altar of the cross. ** St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Chrysostom Baer ( South Bend : St. Augustine ’s Press, 2006), Chapter 1, Lecture 2, #40, p. 22.

** Thomas Aquinas commenting on Hebrews 2:14: ** It must be known, however, that no other satisfaction was fitting. For man was a debtor. However, one can very well make satisfaction for another out of charity. No one, however, can make satisfaction for the whole human nature, since no one has power over it. Nor also was the human race itself able to make satisfaction sufficiently, since the whole race was liable to sin. Nor was also an angel, since that satisfaction is for glory, which exceeds the faculty of the nature of an angel. It was necessary, therefore, that there be a man who had to make satisfaction, and a God, Who alone has power over the whole human race, Who could make satisfaction for the whole human race. Therefore, through the death of God and man, He destroyed him who has the empire of death. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Chrysostom Baer ( South Bend : St. Augustine ’s Press, 2006), Chapter 2, Lecture 4, #143, pp. 69-70.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

We even have a couple of Popes that have elements in their theology that support this view of Substitutionary Atonement.

**Leo the Great (pope 440-461): ** For we were taken up into its own proper self by that Nature (which condescended to those limitations which loving-kindness dictated and which yet incurred no sort of change. We were taken up by that Nature, which destroyed not what was His in what was ours, nor what was ours in what was His; which made the person of the Godhead and of the Manhood so one in Itself that by co-ordination of weakness and power, the flesh could not be rendered inviolable through the Godhead, nor the Godhead passible through the flesh. We were taken up by that Nature, which did not break off the Branch from the common stock of our race, and yet excluded all taint of the sin which has passed upon all men. That is to say, weakness and mortality, which were not sin, but the penalty of sin, were undergone by the Redeemer of the World in the way of punishment, that they might be reckoned as the price of redemption. What therefore in all of us is the heritage of condemnation, is in Christ “the mystery of godliness.” For being free from debt, He gave Himself up to that most cruel creditor, and suffered the hands of Jews to be the devil’s agents in torturing His spotless flesh. Which flesh He willed to be subject to death, even up to His (speedy) resurrection, to this end, that believers in Him might find neither persecution intolerable, nor death terrible, by the remembrance that there was no more doubt about their sharing His glory than there was about His sharing their nature. NPNF2: Vol. XII, Sermon 72- On the Lord’s Resurrection, §II.

**Leo the Great (pope 440-461): ** The true birth of Christ, therefore, is confirmed by the true cross; since He is Himself born in our flesh, Who is crucified in our flesh, which, as no sin entered into it, could not have been mortal, unless it had been that of our race. But in order that He might restore life to all, He undertook the cause of all and rendered void the force of the old bond, by paying it for all, because He alone of us all did not owe it: that, as by one man’s guilt all had become sinners, so by one man’s innocence all might become innocent, righteousness being bestowed upon men by Him Who had undertaken man’s nature. NPNF2: Vol. XII, Letter 139, §3.

Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603): Guilt can be extinguished only by a penal offering to justice. But it would contradict the idea of justice, if for the sin of a rational being like man, the death of an irrational animal should be accepted as a sufficient atonement. Hence, a man must be offered as the sacrifice for man; so that a rational victim may be slain for a rational criminal. But how could a man, himself stained with sin, be an offering for sin? Hence a sinless man must be offered. But what man descending in the ordinary course would be free from sin? Hence, the Son of God must be born of a virgin, and become man for us. He assumed our nature without our corruption (culpa). He made himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth (exhibuit) for sinners his own body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, upon grounds of justice. Moralium Libri, Sive Expositio In Librum B. Job, Liber Decimus Septimus, Caput XXX, verse 12, §46, PL 76:32-33.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603) commenting on Job 17:2: But I think that we shall make out these words the better, if we understand them as spoken in the voice of the Head. ** For our Redeemer, in coming for our Redemption, at once did not sin and did ‘undergo bitterness,’ in that being without sin He undertook the punishment of our sin.** See Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, vol. II, Parts 3 and 4, Book XIII, §34 (Oxford: Parker, 1845), p. 106.
Latin text Sed credo quod melius haec verba discutimus, si dicta ex voce capitis sentiamus. Redemptor etenim noster ad redemptionem nostram veniens, et non peccavit, et amaritudinem pertulit, quia poenam culpae nostrae sine culpa suscepit, Moralium Libri, Sive Expositio In Librum B. Job, Liber XIII, Caput XXX, verse 2, §34, PL 75:1032D.

**Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603): ** Yet He, that is equal to the Father by the Divine Nature, came for our sakes to be under stripes in a fleshly nature. Which stripes He would never have undergone, if he had not taken the form of accursed man in the work of their redemption. And unless the first man had transgressed, the second would never have come to the ignominies of the Passion. When then the first man was moved by Satan from the Lord, then the Lord was moved against the second Man. And so Satan then moved the Lord to the affliction of this latter, when the sin of disobedience brought down the first man from the height of uprightness. For if he had not drawn the first Adam by wilful sin into the death of the soul, the second Adam, being without sin, would never have come into the voluntary death of the flesh, and therefore it is with justice said to him of our Redeemer too, Thou movedst Me against him to afflict him without cause. As though it were said in plainer words; ‘Whereas this Man dies not on His own account, but on account of that other, thou didst then move Me to the afflicting of This one, when thou didst withdraw that other from Me by thy cunning persuasions.’ And of Him it is rightly added, without cause. For ‘he was destroyed without cause,’ who was at once weighed to the earth by the avenging of sin, and not defiled by the pollution of sin. He ‘was destroyed without cause,’ Who, being made incarnate, had no sins of His own, **and yet being without offence took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal. ** For it is hence that speaking by the Prophet He says, Then I restored that which I took not away. For that other that was created for Paradise would in his pride have usurped the semblance of the Divine power, yet the Mediator, Who was without guilt, discharged the guilt of that pride. ** It is hence that a Wise Man saith to the Father; Forasmuch then as Thou art righteous Thyself, Thou orderest all things righteously; Thou condemnest Him too that deserveth not to be punished.
27. But we must consider how He is righteous and ordereth all things righteously, if He condemns Him that deserveth not to be pimished. For our Mediator deserved not to be punished for Himself, because He never was guilty of any defilement of sin. But if He had not Himself undertaken a death not due to Him, He would never have freed us from one that was justly due to us. And so whereas ‘The Father is righteous,’ in punishing a righteous man, ‘He ordereth all things righteously,’ in that by these means He justifies all things, ** viz. that for the sake of sinners He condemns Him Who is without sin; that all the Elect might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as He Who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness. ** What then is in that place called ‘being condemned without deserving,’ is here spoken of as being ‘afflicted without cause.’ ** Yet though in respect of Himself He was ‘afflicted without cause,’ in respect of our deeds it was not ‘without cause.’ For the rust of sin could not be cleared away, but by the fire of torment. He then came without sin, Who should submit Himself voluntarily to torment, that the chastisements due to our wickedness might justly loose the parties thereto obnoxious, in that they had unjustly kept Him, Who was free of them. Thus it was both without cause, and not without cause, that He was afflicted, Who had indeed no crimes in Himself, but Who cleansed with His blood the stain of our guilt. See Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, vol. I, Parts I and II, Book III, Chapter 14, §26-27 (Oxford: Parker, 1845), pp. 148-149.

 

[Algo1]

I think it’s interesting that the Orthodox point to the problems they see with Anselm’s doctrine and that it’s this Anselmian Catholic doctrine that opened the door to worse atonement views like penal substitution

It’s true that the Orthodox hate penal substitution. However some of their greatest patriarchs have written quite supportively of it.

Athanasius (297-373): He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses.
Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. and ed. A Religious of C.S.M.V. (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), to which is appended a Letter of St. Athanasius to Marcellinus on the Interpretation of the Psalms, pp. 100-101.

The irony of the above translation is that it is from an E.O Press.

**Athanasius (297-373): He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, **in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all… ** For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. 6. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, “Bring to naught Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” ** NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §20, 1-6.

Athanasius (297-373): And thus much in reply to those without who pile up arguments for themselves. But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes. 2 ** For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have “become a curse,” unless He received the death set for a curse? and that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: “Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.”** NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §25, 1-2.

**Athanasius (297-373): ** All these were theirs through that Savior **Who suffered in our stead. **And verily for their darkness and blindness, He wept. For if they had understood the things which are written in the Psalms, they would not have been so vainly daring against the Savior, the Spirit having said, ‘Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?’ And if they had considered the prophecy of Moses, they would not have hanged Him Who was their Life. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Letters of Athanasius, I. Festal Letters, Letter 10, §5, For 338

Athanasius (297-373): Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all.. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse I, Chapter 13, §60.

Athanasius (297-373): He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a ** substitute,** for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §38, 7.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

Athanasius (297-373): Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 13, §60.
Greek text Τότε μὲν γὰρ ὡς ὑπεύθυνος ὁ κόσμος ἐκρίνετο ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου·**ἄρτι δὲ ὁ Λόγος εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἐδέξατο τὸ κρῖμα, ** καὶ τῷ σώματι παθὼν ὑπὲρ πάν των, σωτηρίαν τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐχαρίσατο. Contra Arianos, Oratio I, §60, PG 26:137-140.

Athanasius (297-373): that, paying the debts in our stead (αϕνθ ϕ ηϑμων τη;ν οϕφειλη;ν αϕποδιδου;∼), NPNF2: Vol. IV, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse II, Chapter 21, §66.

Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320-403): Christ has indeed redeemed us and bought us “free from the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us.” And the teacher of the church immediately adds the way in which Christ bought us and says, “Ye were bought with a price,” “the precious blood of Christ, the lamb without blemish and without spot.” Now if we were bought with the blood, you are not one of the purchased, Mani, for you deny the blood. Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book II and III (Sects 47-80, De Fide) 66. Against Manichaeans, 79,3 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 298.

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386): But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. ** Christ took our sins** in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness. Of no small account was He who died for us; He was not a literal sheep; He was not a mere man; He was more than an Angel; He was God made man. **The transgression of sinners was not so great as the righteousness of Him who died for them; the sin which we committed was not so great as the righteousness which He wrought who laid down His life for us, — who laid it down when He pleased, and took it again when He pleased. ** NPNF2: Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XIII:33.

**Macrina: Thou hast saved us from the curse and from sin, having become both for our sakes. ** St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of St. Macrina, trans. W. K. Lowther Clarke (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1916), p. 55.
Greek text: Σὺ ἐῤῥύσω ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς κατάρας καὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἀμφότερα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γενόμενος. De Vita S. Macrinae, PG 46:984C.

 

[Carlan]

Algo1:
Yes that is what we believe, Christ redeemed ***all ***mankind, however, we as ***individuals ***must accept that redemption. Peace Carlan

 

[Carlan]

A Ransom Payment

In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (cp. Matt. 20:28, NIV). This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for us (cf. John 15:13).

That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. In fact, to pose the question is to stretch the metaphor out of shape. Yet the question was posed nonetheless.

The first suggestion was articulated by the second-century Irenaeus of Lyons. He argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil. Specifically, so the theory goes, Christ was paid as a ransom to the devil to free people’s souls. This was a clever ruse on God’s part, however, for unknown to the devil, Jesus was actually God Himself. Unable to constrain Jesus’ divine soul, the devil was defeated and Christ emerged victorious. This view, known as the “Ransom” or “Classic” theory, was taught consistently by nearly all of the Church Fathers, including Augustine

 

[Carlan]

Substitution or Participation?

There is another dimension to the Atonement that is neglected in the Penal Substitution theory. That is the element of participation: We participate in the sacrifice of Jesus’ death (cf. Heb. 13:11-16).

***Substitution ***implies an “either/or”; ***participation ***implies a “both/and.” Substitution would have me say, “Jesus died, therefore I don’t have to”; participation would have me say, “Jesus died, therefore I must also.” Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14.

 

[Algo1]

More on penal substitution from a Great Eastern Father.

Chrysostom (349-407): For as when (Paul) says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” he does not mean that His essence removing from Its proper glory took upon It the being of an accursed thing, (this not even devils could imagine, nor even the very foolish, nor those deprived of their natural understanding, such impiety as well as madness does it contain,) as (St. Paul) does not say this, but that He, taking upon Himself the curse pronounced against us, leaves us no more under the curse; so also here he (St. John) says that He “was made Flesh,” not by changing His Essence to flesh, but by taking flesh to Himself, His Essence remained untouched. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Homilies on the Gospel according to St. John, Homily 11, §2.

Chrysostom (349-407): What he says, amounts to this nearly. What armed death against the world? The one man’s eating from the tree only. If then death attained so great power from one offense, when it is found that certain received a grace and righteousness out of all proportion to that sin, how shall they still be liable to death? And for this cause, he does not here say” grace,” but “superabundance of grace.” For it was not as much as we must have to do away the sin only, that we received of His grace, but even far more. For we were at once freed from punishment, and put off all iniquity, and were also born again from above (John 3:3) and rose again with the old man buried, and were redeemed, justified, led up to adoption, sanctified, made brothers of the Only-begotten, and joint heirs and of one Body with Him, and counted for His Flesh, and even as a Body with the Head, so were we united unto Him! All these things then Paul calls a “superabundance” of grace, showing that what we received was not a medicine only to countervail the wound, but even health, and comeliness, and honor, and glory and dignities far transcending our natural state. And of these each in itself was enough to do away with death, but when all manifestly run together in one, there is not the least vestige of it left, nor can a shadow of it be seen, so entirely is it done away. As then if any one were to cast a person who owed ten mites (ὀβόλους) into prison, and not the man himself only, but wife and children and servants for his sake; and another were to come and not to pay down the ten mites only, but to give also ten thousand talents of gold, and to lead the prisoner into the king’s courts, and to the throne of the highest power, and were to make him partaker of the highest honor and every kind of magnificence, the creditor would not be able to remember the ten mites; so hath our case been. ** For Christ hath paid down far more than we owe,** yea as much more as the illimitable ocean is than a little drop. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on Romans, Homily 10, Romans 5:12.

Chrysostom (349-407): For if it was not through any liability to it that He died the former death, **save only for the sin of others, ** much less will He die again now that He hath done that sin away. And this he says in the Epistle to the Hebrews also, “But now once,” he says, “in the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (Hebrews 9:26-28.) And he both points out the power of the life that is according to God, and also the strength of sin. For with regard to the life according to God, he showeth that Christ shall die no more. With regard to sin, that if it brought about the death even of the Sinless, how can it do otherwise than be the ruin of those that are subject to it? NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on Romans, Homily 11, Romans 6:10.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

Chrysostom (349-407): [3.] But first it is worth while to hear what those who are infected with the Manichaean doctrines say here, who are both enemies to the truth and war against their own salvation. What then do these allege? By death here, they say, Paul means nothing else than our being in sin; and by resurrection, our being delivered from our sins. Seest thou how nothing is weaker than error? And how it is taken by its own wings, and needs not the warfare from without, but by itself it is pierced through? Consider, for instance, these men, how they too have pierced themselves through by their own statements. Since if this be death, and Christ did not take a body, as ye suppose, and yet died, He was in sin according to you. For I indeed say that He took unto Himself a body and His death, I say, was that of the flesh; but thou denying this, wilt be compelled to affirm the other. But if He was in sin, how saith He, “Which of you convinceth Me of sin?” and “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me?” (John 8:46; 14:30.) and again, “Thus it becometh Us to fulfill all righteousness?” (Matthew 3:15.) Nay, how did He at all die for sinners, if Himself were in sin? For he who dies for sinners ought himself to be without sin. Since if he himself also sin, how shall he die for other sinners? But if for others’ sins He died, He died being without sin: and if being without sin He died, He died — not the death of sin; for how could He being without sin? — but the death of the body **Wherefore also Paul did not simply say, “He died,” but added, “for our sins:” **both forcing these heretics against their will to the confession of His bodily death, and signifying also by this that before death He was without sin: for he that dies for others’ sins, it followeth must himself be without sin.
** Neither was he content with this, but added, “according to the Scriptures:” hereby both again making his argument credible, and intimating what kind of death he was speaking of: since it is the death of the body which the Scriptures everywhere proclaim. For, “they pierced My hands and My feet,” (Psalm 21:18.) saith He, and, “they shall look on Him Whom they pierced.” (John 19:37. Zechariah 12:10.) And many other instances, too not to name all one by one, partly in words and partly in types, one may see in them stored up, setting forth His slaughter in the flesh and that ** He was slain for our sins. For, “for the sins of my people,” saith one, “is He come to death: “and, the Lord delivered Him up for our sins: “and, “He was wounded for our transgressions.” (Isaiah 53) But if thou dost not endure the Old Testament, hear John crying out and declaring both, as well His slaughter in the body as the cause of it: thus, “Behold,” saith he, “the Lamb of God, Who taketh away the sin of the world:” (John 1:29.) and Paul saying, “For Him Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him:” (2 Corinthians 5:21.) and again, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us:” (Galatians 3:13.) and again, “having put off from himself principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them;” (Colossians 2:15.) and ten thousand other sayings to show what happened at His death in the body, and because of our sins. Yea, and Christ Himself saith, “for your sakes I sanctify Myself” and, “now the prince of this world hath been condemned;” showing that having no sin he was slain. NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 38, §3.

Chrysostom (349-407): If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and **transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, ** (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation ; and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us therefore presume, because though outraged He bears it with long-suffering; but rather for this very reason be full of remorse. NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 11, §6.

continued:

 

[Carlan]

Penal Substitution declares that salvation must be earned by perfect, perpetual obedience;5 the Scriptures declare that God saves us “in accordance with his pleasure and will” (Eph. 1:5, NIV).
Penal Substitution declares that “God must visit sin with punishment”;6 the Scriptures declare that God “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities” (Psa. 103:10, NIV).
Penal Substitution declares that in the Atonement, God is reconciled to humankind;7 the Scriptures declare rather that humankind is reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18,19; Col. 1:20).
Penal Substitution declares that Christ dies instead of the sinner; the Scriptures declare that sinners must die with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14).

Peace, Carlan

 

[Algo1]

Chrysostom (349-407): And what hath He done? “Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He hath both well achieved mighty things, and besides, hath suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself, ** “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. ** “For cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13.) For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, saith, “Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8.) For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on thee. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dieth for sinners; and not dieth only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dieth] only, but thereby freely bestoweth upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that “we might become the righteousness of God in Him;”) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? ‘For the righteous,’ saith he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ ** Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. ** For he said not “made” [Him] a sinner, but “sin;” not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but “that had not even known sin ; that we” also “might become,” he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, “righteousness,” and, “the righteousness of God.” For this is [the righteousness] “of God” when we are justified not by works, (in which case it Were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is “the righteousness of God.” NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 11, §5.

Chrysostom (349-407): For he makes a wide distinction between ‘commandments’ and ‘ordinances.’ He either then means ‘faith,’ calling that an ‘ordinance,’ (for by faith alone He saved us, ἀπὸ γὰρ πίστεως μόνης ἔσωσεν· PG 62:39) or he means ‘precept,’ such as Christ gave, when He said, ‘But I say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.’ (Matthew 5:22.) That is to say, ‘If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’ (Romans 10:6-9.) And again, ‘The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?’ or, who hath ‘brought. Him again from the dead?’ Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty (καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκολάσθη, PG 62:40), and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians, Homly 5, Ephesians 2:13-15. See PG 62:39-40.

Chrysostom (349-407): For as when (Paul) says, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” he does not mean that His essence removing from Its proper glory took upon It the being of an accursed thing, (this not even devils could imagine, nor even the very foolish, nor those deprived of their natural understanding, such impiety as well as madness does it contain,) as (St. Paul) does not say this, but that He, taking upon Himself the curse pronounced against us, leaves us no more under the curse; so also here he (St. John) says that He “was made Flesh,” not by changing His Essence to flesh, but by taking flesh to Himself, His Essence remained untouched. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 11, §2.

continued:

 

[Algo1]

Chrysostom (349-407): In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in the things that are written in the book of the Law.” (Deuteronomy 27:26.) To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22.) And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3, v. 13.
Greek text: Καὶ μὴν ἑτέρᾳ κατάρᾳ ὁ λαὸς ὑπεύθυνος ἦν τῇ λεγούσῃ· Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς, ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου. Καὶ τί τοῦτο; Ὁ μὲν γὰρ λαὸς ὑπεύθυνος ἦν· οὐ γὰρ ἐνέμεινεν, οὐδὲ ἦν τις ὁ πεπληρωκὼς τὸν νόμον ἅπαντα. Ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ἑτέραν κατάραν ταύτης ἠλλάξατο τὴν λέγουσαν· Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου. Ἐπεὶ οὖν καὶ ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου ἐπικατάρατος, καὶ ὁ τὸν νόμον παραβαίνων ἐπικατάρατος, μέλλοντα δὲ ἐκείνην λύειν 61.653 τὴν κατάραν ὑπεύθυνον οὐκ ἔδει γενέσθαι αὐτῆς, δεῖ δὲ δέξασθαι κατάραν ἀντ’ ἐκείνης, τοιαύτην ἐδέξατο, καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς ἐκείνην ἔλυσε. Καὶ καθάπερ τινὸς καταδικασθέντος ἀποθανεῖν, ἕτερος ἀνεύθυνος ἑλόμενος θανεῖν ὑπὲρ ἐκείνου, ἐξαρπάζει τῆς τιμωρίας αὐτόν· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἐποίησεν. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οὐχ ὑπέκειτο κατάρᾳ τῇ τῆς παραβάσεως, ἀνεδέξατο ὁ Χριστὸς ἀντʼ ἐκείνης ταύτην, ἵνα λύσῃ τὴν ἐκείνων· Ἁμαρτίαν γὰρ οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ δόλος εὑρέθη ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ. In Epistolam Ad Galatas Commentarius, Caput III, v. 13, PG 61:652-653.

Chrysostom (349-407) on Hebrews 9:28. “So Christ was once offered.”: By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. **But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing.
** And what is [the meaning of] “He bare the sins”? Just as in the Oblation we bear up our sins and say, “Whether we have sinned voluntarily or involuntarily, do Thou forgive,” that is, we make mention of them first, and then ask for their forgiveness. So also was it done here. Where has Christ done this? Hear Himself saying, “And for their sakes I sanctify Myself.” (John 17:19) ** Lo! He bore the sins. He took them from men, and bore them to the Father; ** not that He might determine anything against them [mankind], but that He might forgive them. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Epistle to the Hebrews, Homly 17.

 

[Algo1]

This is truly amazing. Bellarmine (no friend of Calvin) actually admitted the following:

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): “…because he satisfied the Father for us, and gives and communicates that satisfaction to us, when he justifies us, so that he can be called our satisfaction and righteousness, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. For trans., see Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Vol. 2 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1992), XVI.iii.3, p. 134.
Latin text: quoniam satisfecit Patri pro nobis, et eam satisfactionem ita nobis donat et communicat, quum nos justificat, ut nostra satisfactio et justitia dici posit. …ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus. Roberti Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, De Controversiis, Tomus Quartus, Pars Prima, De Justificatione (Neapoli: Apud Josephum Giuliano, 1858), Liber II, Caput 10, p. 523.

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): And in this way, it were not absurd, if any one should say that the righteousness and merits of Christ are imputed unto us, when they are given and applied unto us, as if we ourselves had satisfied God. For translation, see The Works of John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, General Considerations, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, Third printing, 1977), vol. V, p. 56
Latin text: Et hoc modo non esset absurdum, si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi justitiam et merita; cum nobis donentur et applicentur; ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus.
Roberti Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, De Controversiis, Tomus Quartus, Pars Prima, De Justificatione (Neapoli: Apud Josephum Giuliano, 1858), Liber II, Caput 10, p. 523.

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): By reason of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain-glory, it is the safest course to repose our whole trust in the mercy and kindness or grace of God alone. For translation, see The Works of John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, General Considerations, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, Third printing, 1977), vol. V, p. 32.
Latin text: Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae, et periculum inanis gloriae tutissimum est. fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia et benignitate reponere. Roberti Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, De Controversiis, Tomus Quartus, Pars Prima, De Justificatione (Neapoli: Apud Josephum Giuliano, 1858), Liber V, Caput 7, Propositio 3, p. 615.

Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621): If the Pope should err by enjoining vices and forbidding virtues, the Church would be bound to believe vices to be good, and virtues to be evil, unless she would be willing to sin against conscience.
For translation, see William John Hall, The Doctrine of Purgatory and the Practice of Praying for the Dead (London: Henry Wix, 1843), p. 400.
Latin text: Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes, teneretur ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, et virtutes malas, nisi vellet conscientiam peccare. Roberti Bellarmini, Opera Omnia, De Controversiis, Tomus Primus, De Romano Pontifice (Neapoli: Apud Josephum Giuliano, 1856), Liber Quartus, Caput 5, p. 484.