Sorry for the long post, but this is one of my ‘favourite topics.’
I heard and evangelical thank Jesus the other day for taking on all of God’s wrath and punishment on the cross at Calvary, so we didn’t have to. I was a little puzzled by his words, because this seems to go along with the objection I’ve heard quite often from Atheists, who characterize God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who killed his own son (Jesus) on the cross. They have the mindset that Jesus was sacrificed against his will in order to fulfill the requirements of his sadistic father.
Well, he was postulating what the atheists reject, and they are right to reject it.
As Itwin points out (in post #3), this is the theory often called
‘Penal Substitutionary Atonement’ (PSA). It is brilliantly criticised in the following meme (which I saved on my computer):
I first saw it on Facebook a while back, and the woman who posted it (let’s call her Wendy) said that her atheist brother-in-law had posted this. She found the meme silly but when you stop to think, and consider the context, it really isn’t.
Wendy’s Catholic, her brother-in-law atheist. I don’t know if he was Catholic at one time, but this meme perfectly describes Reformed soteriology. According to Calvin, when Christ offered himself on the Cross (and descended into Hell), Christ underwent a ‘switch’ or a ‘transfer of penalty’ (
as Kim Fabricius points out). We find it disturbingly described in
this blasphemous talk by R.C. Sproul: «Jesus was the ultimate obscenity» (4.46-4.50). «The one who was pure was pure no more… And God cursed him. It was if there was a cry from Heaven, excuse my language but I can be no more accurate then to say, ‘God damn you.’ Because that’s what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father…» (6.27-7.04).
As mentioned above, this is the PSA theory, and if that is the context to which the meme points, then this meme is to the point. If Calvin’s theory of a ‘transfer of penalty’ is correct, then the resurrection IS a deal breaker. But if we read St. Paul, we see that he actually sees Christ as a representative, offering himself as a gift to God, not as a replacement onto which God can inflict punishment. And then the resurrection becomes rather the seal of the deal.
The Reformed or Calvinist idea is a self-contradiction it is the theory that Christ was punished with an infinite, yet finite, punishment. Which is obviously self-contradictionary. Calvin tried to present himself as part of the Anselmian tradition, yet he contradicted one of its most crucial points.
Anselm’s theory of satisfaction doesn’t day that Christ was punished as if he was guilty. This position is often called ‘Anselmian,’ but you won’t find it in his writings. It was not Anselm’s position. What he said was
aut poena aut satisfaction, ‘either punishment or satisfaction.’ That means a crime (and in this case, sin) can be atoned for
either by the punishment of the guilty person(s)
or by satisfaction made either by the guilty person(s) or, if that is not possible, a representative of the guilty person(s). Thus Christ is the representative, not the ‘replacement.’
But Calvin, on the other hand, added to this the idea of a ‘transfer of penalty,’ thus rejecting the very core of the Anselmian idea, i.e. that a wrongdoing could be atoned for
either by punishment of the wrongdoer
or by satisfaction made by the wrongdoer or a representative.
Aut poena aut satisfaction, ‘either punishment or satisfaction.’ Note the either/or. This, unfortunately, can be said of Luther, too. Fortunately his idea never made it into the confessions. At least not in his
Small Catechism. It is neither found in
Confessio Augustana.
Read Paul Fiddes’ book
Past Event and Present Salvation: The Christian Idea of Atonement (Westminster/John Knox Press 1989), especially chapter five, ‘The demands of justice’ (pp.83-111). The whole chapter can be
read on Google Books. Read the entire chapter. He writes (p.97-98): Anselm rejects a view of ‘penal substitution’; Christ is not punished in our place, but releases us
from punishment
through satisfaction. When, however, later on in the Reformation period, the Roman view of criminal law as a supreme principle had been re-established in society, replacing feudal law, there could be no alternative to punishment if the law were infringed. The only satisfaction that could be offered to outraged justice
was punishment. When Calvin built a theory of atonement upon the principle of divine justice, he therefore concluded that ‘the guilt, which held us liable to punishment, was transferred to the head of the Son of God’. God’s law had been infringed through human sin, and so penatly must be inflicted upon offenders in orders to maintain the moral order of the universe. The Calvinist idea, which is described in the opening post, is NOT Anselmian, and it is certainly not biblical. Christ was NOT the victim of the Father’s wrath. The way he atoned for our transgressions was that he offered God satisfaction; he gave God something that surpassed the punishment. He gave himself as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, an ongoing sacrifice (cf. 1John 2:2, Heb 7:24-25, 8:1-3) that we may partake of in faith, and through the sacraments (especially the Eucharist).
In fact, our participation makes absolutely no sense if Christ is our ‘replacement.’ If Christ died on the cross so that we didn’t have to, why are we «crucified with Christ»?
