Jesus did not pay eternal penalty of hell?

[Oren]

This is an interesting question. Somebody said, that Jesus did not go to hell for eternity, so He did not ‘pay the penalty’ so to speak. In that, He didn’t take our punishment, ie eternal Hell, but only paid the ‘death penalty’. As in the wages of sin is death. So what is the answer to that question? I think it may be a person who believes people just are destroyed after death if they are not ‘saved’ and don’t go to Hell.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The idea that Jesus paid our penalty (penal substitution) is a Protestant error. He didn’t. He made an eternal and everlasting sacrifice, a sacrifice which was perfect do to His perfect sinlesness. This sacrifice atoned for our sins. Using the word “paid” creates misconceptions.

 

[RyanL]

From Robert Sungenis’ response to Dr. Horton:

…This issue brings up another major difference between the Protestant and Catholic views of the Atonement. Luther and Calvin believed that, since justification was a purely legal enterprise, this meant that Christ had to suffer the equivalent of the legal punishment of the elect in order to redeem them. In other words, Christ had to suffer the precise punishment they would have sustained in Hell, whatever that punishment is.

           Although no Father or medieval theologian                  had ever entertained the idea that the statement in the Apostles                  Creed that Christ descended into hell meant more than a release                  of detained saints, the Reformers saw in the descent an opportunity                  to buttress their forensic understanding of justification. They                  interpreted the descent as the infliction of the torments of hell                  on Christ in order to make a full legal payment for sin. **Nicolas                  of Cusa** (1400-1464) and **Pico della Mirandola** (1463-1494)                  were the first to introduce the idea that Christ sustained agony                  in the descent into hell. **Martin Luther** held that Christ,                  as God and man, literally entered hell to sustain God's wrath,                  suffering the tortures of the damned.

           **John Calvin** used these concepts                  and was the first to produce the full-blown interpretation that                  Christ assumed the legal guilt of the sin for the elect and was                  justly punished with the torments of eternal damnation. He writes:

           " But we must seek a surer explanation,                  apart from the Creed, of Christ's descent into hell...If Christ                  had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual.                  No-it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity                  of God's vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just                  judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with                  the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death....By these                  words he means that Christ was put in place of evildoers as surety                  and pledge-submitting himself even as the accused-to bear and                  suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained...No                  wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he                  suffered the death that God in his wrath had inflicted upon the                  wicked!" INT 2:16:10.

           Suffice it to say, this is a thoroughly                  unbiblical understanding of the Atonement. Christ did not suffer                  the equivalent of an eternity in Hell. He suffered and died only,                  and this was sufficient to appease the wrath of God so that grace                  could be offered to mankind.

            For more information on this, see my book                  *Not By Bread Alone*, "The Nature of Christ's Sacrifice,"                  pages 37-56, and "Appendix 5, A Critique of Protestant Views                  of Penal Substitution," pages 333-342...

Sungenis may have his differences with Catholic Answers, but Not By Bread Alone is an orthodox book that I would recommend to anyone who would be willing to read a 700+ page book on one subject.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Fidelis]

RyanL:

From Robert Sungenis’ response to Dr. Horton:

Sungenis may have his differences with Catholic Answers, but Not By Bread Alone is an orthodox book that I would recommend to anyone who would be willing to read a 700+ page book on one subject.

God Bless,
RyanL

I’m thinking you meant Sungenis equally imposing book “Not By Faith Alone,” that you referenced in your quote. (“Not By Bread Alone” is about the Eucharist) Regardless, NBFA an excellent recommendation. If you’re not ready to tackle the 700+ tome, Sungenis has a 200+ “summation” in “How Do I Get To Heaven.”

 

[LSK]

Oren:

This is an interesting question. Somebody said, that Jesus did not go to hell for eternity, so He did not ‘pay the penalty’ so to speak. In that, He didn’t take our punishment, ie eternal Hell, but only paid the ‘death penalty’. As in the wages of sin is death. So what is the answer to that question? I think it may be a person who believes people just are destroyed after death if they are not ‘saved’ and don’t go to Hell.

Jesus didn’t have to - He is God and with God all things are possible.

 

[RyanL]

Fidelis:

I’m thinking you meant Sungenis equally imposing book “Not By Faith Alone,” that you referenced in your quote. (“Not By Bread Alone” is about the Eucharist) Regardless, NBFA an excellent recommendation. If you’re not ready to tackle the 700+ tome, Sungenis has a 200+ “summation” in “How Do I Get To Heaven.”

Nope. I agree that NBFA is all about justification/sanctification/salvation, but NBBA was where he drew from on this topic. See the bottom of his quote.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Fidelis]

RyanL:

Nope. I agree that NBFA is all about justification/sanctification/salvation, but NBBA was where he drew from on this topic. See the bottom of his quote.

God Bless,
RyanL

Shows how observant I am!