Penal substitution revisited - help needed

[fineca]

Dear all, there have been a couple of questions here about penal substitution. Here, for example, is a Catholic Answer by James Akin, saying that Catholics don’t believe in penal substitution.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showres…+DESC&start_at

I read the Wikipedia article here and was bothered by the patristic evidence for penal substitution, since all Catholic sources claim it is a Protestant invention from the 16th century. Bob Sungenis calls it a heresy and has written extensively against it. Then here I found more patristic evidence for penal substitution. Looks like it’s clearly an apostolic doctrine (see Gal. 3 for example).

Please help with this problem. Thanks.

 

[RobNY]

A quick look at some of them, and I can make a few preliminary comments.

The first is that some of them don’t seem to speak of penal substitution, except for the person already looking for it. For instance, I would think the Ambrose quote would be excellent for anticipating satisfaction theory, but not quite so much for penal substitution. They emphasize whenever Paul’s a curse for us is quoted, and yet it seems to me to be begging the question-- we’ve not yet established that what Paul says there means penal substitution, but emphasizing it they imply that it does mean that-- but it’s improper to read that meaning back onto Paul, or at least onto the Fathers’ quotations of Paul (at least without good contextual evidence). So, with the Ambrose quote, it would seem to be insufficient.

The second is that they speak of Christ taking up our, “punishment.” We must ascertain what they mean by our, “punishment.” Protestants from the time of Calvin assumed that this meant suffering the torments of hell on the cross. If Protestants are anachronistically reading this onto the Fathers, then it is unjustified. The context of these quotes does not suggest that Christ suffered the torments of hell on the cross. If you saw my posts in the other thread, one of the things I found worst about penal substitution was the idea of Christ suffering the torments of hell on the cross-- the Fathers don’t seem to suggest this. Penal subsitution, without the torments of hell on the cross, becomes a very different thing than the Protestant theories of penal substitution.

This is a good thread fineca, very thought provoking. I have to prepare for class-- I’ll try to come back to this later.

-Rob

 

[fineca]

Thanks very much for the preliminary answer. The Ambrose quote wasn’t too convincing, but the onces quoted in Wikipedia were. Your points were good though. But how are we to understand that Christ took upon himself the curse that was due to us?
Thanks!

 

[RobNY]

Thanks very much for the preliminary answer. The Ambrose quote wasn’t too convincing, but the onces quoted in Wikipedia were. Your points were good though. But how are we to understand that Christ took upon himself the curse that was due to us?
Thanks!

I’m not exactly the fount of wisdom here-- but luckily I do have my theology class today. I’ll talk with my theology professor and see what I can help you with. I haven’t looked at the wikipedia article, I’ll take a look there as well.

It seems to me that we have to understand exactly in what sense, ‘became sin for us,’ and, ‘became a curse for us’ are to be taken-- so you are right on in your question. It seems to me to be rather difficult to base a doctrine off of very difficult to interpret passages. However, I’ll do some homework and get back to you.

-Rob

P.S.-- this seems like a devilish idea, and possibly not very well advised, but this could be helpful. There are few things our Eastern brethren would detest more than reading penal substitution back on to the Fathers. It is possible-- and I say, possible, because I’ve seen some of the posters on the Eastern forums dismiss Protestantism as a Western or Latin problem and because of this refuse to deal with it-- that you could get some rather entertaining and spirited rejoinders from these, usually quite knowledgeable posters. I’d just avoid asking them to interpret Augustine!

-Rob

EDIT: The wiki’s quote of Athanasius seems like a stretch! I recommend reading both Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and Anselm’s Why God Became Man– I read both and don’t recall seeing penal substitution in either. In fact, I found readings against it. I’ll see if I can dredge up those quotes later.

 

[victus]

But how are we to understand that Christ took upon himself the curse that was due to us?
Thanks!

Basically Christ died for our sins.

 

[Contarini]

Dear all, there have been a couple of questions here about penal substitution. Here, for example, is a Catholic Answer by James Akin, saying that Catholics don’t believe in penal substitution.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showres…+DESC&start_at

I read the Wikipedia article here and was bothered by the patristic evidence for penal substitution, since all Catholic sources claim it is a Protestant invention from the 16th century. Bob Sungenis calls it a heresy and has written extensively against it. Then here I found more patristic evidence for penal substitution. Looks like it’s clearly an apostolic doctrine (see Gal. 3 for example).

Please help with this problem. Thanks.

The main problem with penal substitution is that it leaves out the role of Satan. According to the Fathers (particularly the Eastern Fathers and the more Eastern-influenced Westerners–some of the North Africans were more ferocious), God does not literally experience anger and He does not demand the death of anyone. God is always and entirely on the side of life. However, Satan is the minister of death–Athanasius and Origen both use the terms “death” and “Satan” interchangeably. Satan does want to destroy us, and whenever we sin we are placing ourselves under Satan’s power. This, for the Fathers, was how God’s justice came into it–God cannot justly snatch away from Satan Satan’s lawful prey. In the sense that God has established the cosmic order within which Satan operates and according to which Satan has rights over those who sin, it can be said that God’s justice requires our punishment–but only in this indirect sense.

There is a curse upon us because of sin, but that curse is administered by Satan. God comes into it only in the sense that He hands us over to the power of Satan, since by sinning we have freely chosen to be under that power.

On the Cross, Jesus took upon Himself the curse due us, which is death. Jesus came under the power of Satan by dying, but because He was God he was too much for Satan to swallow (St. Gregory of Nyssa liked the image of a fish-hook, and St. Gregory the Great took it up in his sermons on Job). He burst death all to pieces, and thus destroyed the curse that hung over the whole human race. This was prophesied by Isaiah, that God would destroy (on a mountain!) the shroud that was drawn over all peoples, and that He would swallow up death for ever.

This, as I understand it, is the patristic, Biblical, orthodox view of the Atonement.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[fineca]

That sounds like the Christus Victor atonement theory. You didn’t provide any biblical support, however. Anyways, as I understand it the CC doesn’t think the different atonement theories are necessarily incompatible with each other. There are many views and they emphasize different aspects of the atonement. I would love to read a summary of all kinds of different theories with the biblical evidence for each one, and know which are ok in the church’s mind and which are heretical. How about the ransom theory? Ransom to Satan was taught by some Fathers, now it’s rejected, but is it forbidden? How about Ransom to God, or whatever the other Ransom theory is, Jesus does speak about a ransom after all. Anyway the original question was to do with penal substitution. Is there a reliable official church document source saying it’s heretical or condemned? To what extent can we agree with it? How are we to understand the statements of the fathers? What is Catholic substitutionary atonement, how central is it, how to understand it in light of Scripture? What does Is. 53 mean? In what way did Christ take our sins upon himself?

 

[Contarini]

That sounds like the Christus Victor atonement theory.

Basically. Except that it’s a mistake to set “Christus Victor” over against substitution, which is how a lot of people do it.

You didn’t provide any biblical support, however.

No, and I’m not going to. As you read the Bible, ask yourself if this picture doesn’t do justice to what the Bible says. I’m convinced it does.

Anyways, as I understand it the CC doesn’t think the different atonement theories are necessarily incompatible with each other.

I would go farther–I think that the labelling is very misleading. That’s why I tried to summarize what I understand the early Church’s view to be. I don’t think that the above is “one more theory”–I think that what we call “atonement theories” are fragments of what was basically a unity for the early Church. Anselm’s theory is deeply flawed because it tries to account for the necessity of Christ’s death without talking about Satan. That was a horrible mistake.

There are many views and they emphasize different aspects of the atonement.

That’s the conventional, peace-making view. I used to say this too, but I now think it’s a bit of a cop-out.

I would love to read a summary of all kinds of different theories with the biblical evidence for each one, and know which are ok in the church’s mind and which are heretical.

There are plenty of people who will be happy to provide you with such lists–I’ve done it myself on occasion. But what I’m really interested in at this point is for someone to point out what is either erroneous or distorted or missing about the picture I presented above. What Scriptural evidence doesn’t it account for? (I didn’t mention sacrifice, for one thing–a complete account would need to deal prominently with the theme of sacrifice.)

How about the ransom theory?

I thought that was implied in what I said above.

Ransom to Satan was taught by some Fathers, now it’s rejected, but is it forbidden?

I think it was mistakenly rejected, though of course it can be expressed in problematic ways. I don’t think it’s forbidden in Catholicism, but I’m not a Catholic. . . .

How about Ransom to God, or whatever the other Ransom theory is, Jesus does speak about a ransom after all.

Exactly. And I think the ransom must be paid to Satan, because paying a ransom to God makes God into our enemy. It puts God in Satan’s role, which is a very Bad Idea and not just one more innocuous “theory.” One of the problems with most of the Western theories is that they assume that the ransom and the sacrifice are offered to the same person (which obviously would be God, since offering a sacrifice to Satan. . . well, we don’t even want to talk about it! But I think offering a ransom to God, while not as obviously blasphemous, is not too much better in the end.). This has eventually led to a horribly warped understanding of sacrifice as a kind of ransom by which human beings buy God off so He won’t punish them. This has not only distorted Atonement theology and contributed largely to the growth of atheism, but it has also contributed largely to the Protestant/Catholic split because it affects what we mean when we say that the Eucharist is a sacrifice.

Anyway the original question was to do with penal substitution.

And that is the question I thought I was answering. If by “penal substitution” you mean that Jesus takes upon Himself the punishment of our sins, then that is clearly Biblical and orthodox as long as you stipulate that Satan is the one exacting the punishment. If “penal substitution” means that God’s justice demands that *someone *be punished, and Jesus dies instead of us (in contrast to the patristic and medieval theories, including Anselm’s, in which Jesus acts as one of us rather than “instead of” us), with God essentially pretending that Jesus is sinful when He really isn’t (with the corollary that in justification God pretends we are righteous when we are not, making the whole work of salvation a piece of legal trickery to appease the “justice” of God), then it is a very unorthodox theory indeed, to put it mildly.

How are we to understand the statements of the fathers?

As I said above.

What does Is. 53 mean? In what way did Christ take our sins upon himself?

Isn’t that what I addressed?

Jesus took our sins upon himself in the sense that he handed Himself over to the power of death on our behalf. You may think I’m wrong, but how can you say that I didn’t address the question?

Edwin

 

[Linkowski]

He became the substitute for the sinner did He not??

1 Peter 2:24 KJV 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Did he not suffer in the sinner’s place…

He said, "I Thirst"

Luke 16:24 KJV 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

He said…

Matthew 27:46 KJV 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

That was the only time He did not address the Father as Father…He was separated from God for that time…

ALSO…

Matthew 27:45 KJV 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Parallel…

Matthew 22:13 KJV 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Jesus took my punishment and I received His righteousness imputed to me through repentant faith - all by the grace of God.

Romans 5:1 NAS95 1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

 

[Contarini]

He became the substitute for the sinner did He not??

Yes, although He could only do this because He was fully human and so one of us. So I’d call Him a “representative” more than a substitute.

Did he not suffer in the sinner’s place…

Absolutely

He said, "I Thirst"

Luke 16:24 KJV 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

If you are trying to show that Jesus suffered the torments of hell, it won’t work. That kind of analogical argument cannot be used to prove a doctrine. Just because He said “I thirst” is not enough to make a connection to the rich man in hell, unless you can show grounds for this elsewhere.

Although I like the idea that He took on Himself the sufferings of those in hell and thus redeemed everyone. I like it, but I can’t quite buy it.

He said…

Matthew 27:46 KJV 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

That was the only time He did not address the Father as Father…He was separated from God for that time…

I don’t disagree with that, but I disagree with the theological context in which many Protestants try to place it.

ALSO…

Matthew 27:45 KJV 45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Parallel…

Matthew 22:13 KJV 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Again, parallels cannot be proof.

Jesus took my punishment and I received His righteousness imputed to me through repentant faith - all by the grace of God.

Romans 5:1 NAS95 1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

This does not say that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. In fact no passage in Scripture says this.

Christ did take on our sins (or rather the consequence of our sins, which is death–and yes, that included separation from the Father in some sense), and we do take on His righteousness. But the frigid and unnatural fiction of “imputation” is not necessary. Scripture does not speak of one person’s qualities being imputed to another–that is an unfortunate invention of Dr. Luther! Scripture does speak of Abraham’s faith being imputed as righteousness, but that’s quite different.

Edwin

 

[Linkowski]

Yes, although He could only do this because He was fully human and so one of us. So I’d call Him a “representative” more than a substitute.

Absolutely

If you are trying to show that Jesus suffered the torments of hell, it won’t work. That kind of analogical argument cannot be used to prove a doctrine. Just because He said “I thirst” is not enough to make a connection to the rich man in hell, unless you can show grounds for this elsewhere.

Although I like the idea that He took on Himself the sufferings of those in hell and thus redeemed everyone. I like it, but I can’t quite buy it.

I don’t disagree with that, but I disagree with the theological context in which many Protestants try to place it.

Again, parallels cannot be proof.

This does not say that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. In fact no passage in Scripture says this.

Christ did take on our sins (or rather the consequence of our sins, which is death–and yes, that included separation from the Father in some sense), and we do take on His righteousness. But the frigid and unnatural fiction of “imputation” is not necessary. Scripture does not speak of one person’s qualities being imputed to another–that is an unfortunate invention of Dr. Luther! Scripture does speak of Abraham’s faith being imputed as righteousness, but that’s quite different.

Edwin

The reason for the protest against this clear idea of scripture is that the CC does not like the forensic pardoning of sinners…justification, which is to “declare one righteous”…at least, in the context of Romans, that is exactly what it is talking about…talk of all being guilty…

Romans 3:19 KJV 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Talk of condemnation and justification - charges…

Romans 8:33-34 KJV 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

(by the way - Condemnation is not a process…neither is justification in the context here)

And, ofcourse, LAW

Romans 3:20 KJV 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Imputation as well…all legal terms…but, the CC does not want to admit this clear context of where the word “justification” lies and tries to say that the same context of this word in Romans is the same as James 2.

We are justified (declared righteous) by the Father…we are made holy (sanctified) by the Spirit…

Romans 7:1-6 NAS95 1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?

As long as I am alive…I can be charged with a crime…but not if I am dead! JURISDICTION - Another legal term…

2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; **but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. **4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were **made to die to the Law **through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Released from the penalty of the law…sin cannot be counted against us…

Romans 4:8 NAS95 8 “BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.”

Justified! Dead to the law…now, I may freely live by the law…not to be saved…BUT BECAUSE I AM.

God Help Us All…

PS - Justified is a past event for the believer…

Romans 5:1 NAS95 1 Therefore, **having been **justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Romans 5:9 NAS95 9 Much more then, **having now been **justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Romans 6:7 NAS95 7 for he who **has died **is freed from sin.

1 Corinthians 6:11 NAS95 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

[fineca]

Great - I asked to understand the Catholic teaching on the atonement and now I’m caught up in a fight between a Calvinist and an Episcopalian, it seems to me

 

[Linkowski]

Great - I asked to understand the Catholic teaching on the atonement and now I’m caught up in a fight between a Calvinist and an Episcopalian, it seems to me

They are all interrelated and must be explained together in concert.

The curious thing is “Have you read my entire posting and do you see the obvious”?

 

[fineca]

Yes I read your post but I wasn’t starting a justification debate here. Have you read Robert Sungenis’ Not By Faith Alone? Have you seen the obvious? How about James Akin’s Salvation Controversy? If you had, you’d probably know that justification isn’t merely a past event in the life of the believer and that it is not merely a legal/judicial but primarily a familial thing
Indeed we have the Spirit of the Father and we cry, Abba! If we live according to the flesh we’ll die, if we live according to the Spirit we’ll live
Goodnight! (it’s 11.30 pm here I’m sure you’re having breakfast or dinner there

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Im going over those quotes now. From what I can see most of them are pretty weak claims. Ill post what other info I write up asap.

 

[jpusateri]

If Jesus suffered our punishment in our place, why is he not still in Hell eternally?

That IS what we teach the fate of sinners is, no?

 

[Linkowski]

Yes I read your post but I wasn’t starting a justification debate here. Have you read Robert Sungenis’ Not By Faith Alone? Have you seen the obvious? How about James Akin’s Salvation Controversy? If you had, you’d probably know that justification isn’t merely a past event in the life of the believer and that it is not merely a legal/judicial but primarily a familial thing
Indeed we have the Spirit of the Father and we cry, Abba! If we live according to the flesh we’ll die, if we live according to the Spirit we’ll live
Goodnight! (it’s 11.30 pm here I’m sure you’re having breakfast or dinner there

If you want to say Jimmy Akin is honestly interpreting scripture, that’s fine. If anyone is trying to understand the truth, it is one who has almost returned to the Catholic Chruch three times…someone who has given up a deaconship at a church as well as many other ministries because his church was espousing antinomianism (I’m saved…so I can do whatever I want!!) I am telling you of myself. I have not been completely set in my ways…the last time that I almost returned to the church was 2 weeks ago But, my studies compel me and tell me that what Mr. Akin says is not proper interpretation…If you read the first couple of pages on the “Bridging the Faith Alone Gap”, me and Mr. Akin discuss this very thing…I received very little response, especially in terms of scriptural support…my studies at that time showed it to be very obvious what the scriptures say. I did read Salvation Controversy by the way, and at that time, the interpretation of James 2 was quite strange to me. I do not have the book anymore.

God Help Us All.

 

[Linkowski]

If Jesus suffered our punishment in our place, why is he not still in Hell eternally?

That IS what we teach the fate of sinners is, no?

Christ is God and infinite in nature…you are making him a man.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you want to say Jimmy Akin is honestly interpreting scripture, that’s fine. If anyone is trying to understand the truth, it is one who has almost returned to the Catholic Chruch three times…someone who has given up a deaconship at a church as well as many other ministries because his church was espousing antinomianism (I’m saved…so I can do whatever I want!!) I am telling you of myself. I have not been completely set in my ways…the last time that I almost returned to the church was 2 weeks ago But, my studies compel me and tell me that what Mr. Akin says is not proper interpretation…If you read the first couple of pages on the “Bridging the Faith Alone Gap”, me and Mr. Akin discuss this very thing…I received very little response, especially in terms of scriptural support…my studies at that time showed it to be very obvious what the scriptures say. I did read Salvation Controversy by the way, and at that time, the interpretation of James 2 was quite strange to me. I do not have the book anymore.

God Help Us All.

Perhaps you could provide a link, Link, to the place where you had an exchange with Jimmy Akin.

I have reviewed the thread which I started entitled, “Bridging the Faith Alone Divide” in this forum, and I do not see any participation by Mr. Akin there.

 

[fineca]

How about Sungenis’ Not By Faith Alone? He deals with James 2 pretty extensively there. Happy Divine Mercy Sunday!