Penal substitution revisited - help needed

[fineca]

By the way Akin has written a good article about Righteousness and Merit and there he talks about the legal/judicial declaration of righteousness and says Catholics have no problem with it. If you haven’t read it go to EWTN libraries, it’s there.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I decided to go through each of those quotes myself, I also included a link to the full text (ie context of the quotes). I have been very busy so I have only been able to comment on the first 3 quotes. (Also in regards to penal-sub I made a thread here, post 10-11 show one of many reasons why penal-sub is heretical/abominable)

1) JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 100-165), Dialogue with Trypho
This is a bad quote if you read the context (the chapters are very short) and especially if you check the previous and next chapters (here and here): First the immediate context:And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. **If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognise Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours.**But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men…
This is not the protestant understanding of the atonement at all. First of all the protestant understanding doesnt require you to do things like “observe His commandments”. Further it goes onto say how evil will be punished, yet penal-sub says nothing can get you punished after you have faith.

Now the previous chapters:Then I replied, “Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved.2314
Note the last footnote, it quotes Gal 3:13, yet Justin is clear Jesus didnt really become a curse. This goes against penal substitution. Next chapter:“For the statement in the law, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. And you clearly see that this has come to pass.
Again, this cant be penal substitution because Justin is clear Christ wasnt under God’s wrath.

2) EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (c. 275-339), Proof of the Gospel
I couldnt find this quote online, but given there is a “…” after they quote 2 Cor 5 makes me suspicious. Ill look around some more.
(cont 1 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

3) HILARY OF POITIERS (c. 300-368), Homily on Psalm 53 (54)
First of all this is a very weak quote in favor of penal substitution, it doesnt prove it at all (eg it nowhere says Christ was made to be the “curse”). Here is what the protestant provided:It was from this curse that our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed us, when, as the Apostle says: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made curse for us, for it is written: cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree[Gal. 3:13]. Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed.
If you read this carefully you will see the “curse” is being killed on a cross, not literally taking on sins. Further it talks of the “offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God” indicating this was a sacrifice not which the Father unleashes wrath (penal sub), but that the Son freely gives up and the Father is pleased at such a loving act.

I tracked down this quote (here), the context shows this quote to be weaker than it is already, the very next words are:Now of this sacrifice mention is made in another passage of the Psalms: Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared for Me; that is, by offering to God the Father, Who refused the legal sacrifices, the acceptable offering of the body which He received. Of which offering the holy Apostle thus speaks: For this He did once for all when He offered Himself up, securing complete salvation for the human race by the offering of this holy, perfect victim.
14. Then He gives thanks to God the Father for the accomplishment of all these acts: I will give thanks unto Thy name, O Lord, for it is good, for Thou hast delivered Me out of all affliction. He has assigned to each clause its strict fulfilment. Thus at the beginning He had said: *Save Me, O God, by Thy name; *after the prayers had been heard it was right that there should follow a corresponding ascription of thanks, in order that confession might be made to His name by Whose name He had prayed to be saved, and that inasmuch as He had asked for help against the strangers that rose up against Him, He might set on record that He had received it in the burst of joy expressed in the words: Thou hast delivered Me out of all affliction.
This actually supports the Catholic notion of propitiation of Christ the spotless lamb being offered up to the Father in His body. On the flip side, penal substitution makes Christ to be deserving of the wrath of God. Further in paragraph 14 it is clear the Father wasnt behind this punishment, rather it was men who killed Christ, it was the Father who rescues Jesus in the end.

Im busy now but hope to get to the rest asap. I highly doubt any Church Fathers believed in penal substitution. So far 2 of the quotes are clearly untrue.

 

[jpusateri]

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

Now that’s funny. God beat me to it!

If the penalty is eternal death, Jesus would have to pay it. Period.

If he did not pay THAT price, it isn’t penal substitution.