Penal Substitution - what does the Bible teach?

[Crucified]

Does the Bible teach that Jesus is the sinner’s substitute?

Does it teach that Christ suffered and died in the place of his people?

Does it teach that he took upon himself their sin, and then suffered the just consequence of that sin?

Does it teach that Jesus experienced the wrath and rejection of his Father in the room and stead of his people?

Does it teach that Christ drank the full cup of God’s judgment for his people’s sake, thereby satisfying justice and quenching the wrath of God on behalf of all those who believe?

What does the Bible teach concerning this issue?

 

[Crucified]

Ok - I guess I will have to narrow my question down and be a little more engaging:

Here is my question: [the revised edition]

What do Catholics believe about penal substitution? Does the Catholic Church teach that Christ suffered under the wrath of God in the place of his people?

I kinda wanted to get some interaction on this topic, because in my opinion - this is the heart of the gospel.

Any comments?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Does the Bible teach that Jesus is the sinner’s substitute?

In the sense of Jesus going out of His way to make right a wrong, yes.

In the sense of Jesus suffering the Father’s wrath in your place, no. (Heresy and Blasphemy)

Click on the link in my signature and scroll to ch2 for a better understanding.

Does it teach that Christ suffered and died in the place of his people?

See above.

Does it teach that he took upon himself their sin, and then suffered the just consequence of that sin?

See above.

Does it teach that Jesus experienced the wrath and rejection of his Father in the room and stead of his people?

*Hell *no. (pun intended)

That is a Protestant heresy and blasphemy. Like a husband beating his wife in place of beating a disobedient child, except way worse.

Does it teach that Christ drank the full cup of God’s judgment for his people’s sake, thereby satisfying justice and quenching the wrath of God on behalf of all those who believe?

No.

What does the Bible teach concerning this issue?

That Christ offered up a life of perfect love and obedience to the Father which was so pleasing in His sight He turned away His wrath and showed mercy.

Ok - I guess I will have to narrow my question down and be a little more engaging:

Here is my question: [the revised edition]

What do Catholics believe about penal substitution? Does the Catholic Church teach that Christ suffered under the wrath of God in the place of his people?

I kinda wanted to get some interaction on this topic, because in my opinion - this is the heart of the gospel.

Any comments?

Catholics reject Penal Substitution on three grounds:
-Heretical (Nestorianism)
-Blasphemous
-Unscriptural

Read ch2 of the link in my signature.

 

[Crucified]

That is a Protestant heresy and blasphemy. Like a husband beating his wife in place of beating a disobedient child, except way worse.

So what does it mean that “It pleased the LORD to crush him.” (Isaiah 53:11) ?? Doesn’t that sound like it was the Father who crushed the Son? It does not say that “It pleased the LORD to have him crushed” but rather “to crush him.”

I read your article - and I find it interesting.

First you defined what you consider to be penal substitution:

That Christ offered up a life of perfect love and obedience to the Father which was so pleasing in His sight He turned away His wrath and showed mercy.

Then in your article - you quote Augustine as saying:

“God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.”

I agree with Augustine, but I am not so sure that you do.

It was the love of God that sent His Son to bear the due penalty for the sin of His people - so that the Law of God might be satisfied and His holiness vindicated. This is the only way possible that God could be both “just and the justifier of the ungodly.”

By the putting away of our sin - we are made “accepted in the beloved” - not so that God would love us - but because God did love us.

I also noticed in your article the following assertion, that when Peter said that “Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree.” according to the article **“this is clearly not literal.” **

Well I would like to ask how one comes to that conclusion.

Why is the first half of the passage non-literal and yet you claim that the second half of the passage is literal?

Please do not be offended - but I honestly do not see any justification for this assertion.

Also I noticed that the article made the following assertion:"and we see in this passages Jesus was not punished by the Father."

I agree with this. However - this does not disprove the point. There are plenty of other passages that expressly teach that it was God the Father who executed the judgement upon His own Son. I have already mentioned Isaiah 53, and so I will leave it at that for now.

But can you please respond with kindness and “season your words with salt?” Name calling often becomes a stumbling block to those who are seeking truth.

 

[Pug]

What do Catholics believe about penal substitution? Does the Catholic Church teach that Christ suffered under the wrath of God in the place of his people?

Assuming you mean the standard thing by penal substitution, Catholics do not hold to that particular theory. We do believe Christ by his passion on the wood of the cross merited for us justification and he made satisfaction to God the Father for our sins. He is the suffering servant (Isaiah 53) who was pierced for our transgressions. He was an offering for sin and bore our sins. Other words that apply to this scenario are redemption, atonement, sacrifice, reconciliation, etc.

We don’t take these things to mean that if we were doomed to spend eternity in hell, then Jesus spent eternity in hell in our place in a precise correspondence of exact punishments, or like God would only take X pounds of flesh in exchange for X pounds of flesh. Rather, by his obedience (unto death on a cross), the many will be (are) made righteous. He offered himself as a sacrifice without blemish to God. He did it freely and out of love. And the sacrifice was indeed sufficient.

*[W]alk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma.

*I’m not too keen on arguing about this topic, but you did ask what is believed, so I thought you’d like at least one other Catholic to weigh in. (I don’t mean I’m assuming you like to argue…just that I am not all that great at doing what some people want in this type of exchange).

Edit: the word “passion” typically includes that he died on the cross, sorry if that word was unclear.

 

[jmcrae]

Christ was the perfect and blemishless Paschal Lamb offered in sacrifice for our sins.

Jesus was not “punished in our place” although He certainly did take the punishment of a sinner, being accused of blasphemy (a sin) and being crucified in punishment for the sin of blasphemy.

But Jesus took the punishment and changed it into a priestly sacrifice, with Himself as both priest and victim. He used the punishment as an opportunity to make of Himself a sacrifice for our sins.

But Jesus didn’t “take our place” any more than the actual lamb of sacrifice “took the place” of the Jewish people when they were fleeing from Egypt.

A sacrifice is an offering that a priest makes to God. It does not take the place of the priest himself, and it does not take the place of the people for whom the sacrifice is being made.

 

[Crucified]

A sacrifice is an offering that a priest makes to God. It does not take the place of the priest himself, and it does not take the place of the people for whom the sacrifice is being made.

The sacrifice does not “take the place of the priest himself” so that now there is some animal wearing the priestly garments and offering mediatorial sacrifices - and conducting all the worship of the people, being a stuard of the temple ordinances . . . of course not!

But the sacrificed lamb certainly took the condemnation of the priest as well as the people in whose “place” it was sacrificed - no?

Sinners deserve to die - for the wages of sin is death - right?

So if the priest (who is a sinner) and all the people deserve to die for their sins - and yet - they sacrifice a lamb INSTEAD, then does that not teach penal substitution?

Did not the sacrificed animal then - die the death that they should have died?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Does the Bible teach that Jesus is the sinner’s substitute?

Does it teach that Christ suffered and died in the place of his people?

Does it teach that he took upon himself their sin, and then suffered the just consequence of that sin?

Does it teach that Jesus experienced the wrath and rejection of his Father in the room and stead of his people?

Does it teach that Christ drank the full cup of God’s judgment for his people’s sake, thereby satisfying justice and quenching the wrath of God on behalf of all those who believe
What does the Bible teach concerning this issue?

In GALATIANS, Paul says:

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”[e] 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.”[f] 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”[g]
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”[h]), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

 

[jmcrae]

The sacrifice does not “take the place of the priest himself” so that now there is some animal wearing the priestly garments and offering mediatorial sacrifices - and conducting all the worship of the people, being a stuard of the temple ordinances . . . of course not!

But the sacrificed lamb certainly took the condemnation of the priest as well as the people in whose “place” it was sacrificed - no?

Sinners deserve to die - for the wages of sin is death - right?

And we all still die, so obviously, Jesus’ death did not take death away - it is still with us. So, the meaning of this is obviously not that Jesus made death go away, since He did not do that.

So if the priest (who is a sinner) and all the people deserve to die for their sins - and yet - they sacrifice a lamb INSTEAD, then does that not teach penal substitution?

No, since they are all still going to die, anyway.

Did not the sacrificed animal then - die the death that they should have died?

But they all died, anyway, later on.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So what does it mean that “It pleased the LORD to crush him.” (Isaiah 53:11) ?? Doesn’t that sound like it was the Father who crushed the Son? It does not say that “It pleased the LORD to have him crushed” but rather “to crush him.”

OT Prophecy has to be interpreted in light of NT revelation. The Father is not show to be the one inflicting any punishment at all, but it does say He “delivered Christ up” (Rom 8:32) into the hands of wicked men, meaning God knew what they would do but allowed it to happen (Acts 3:13-15).

I read your article - and I find it interesting.

Good.

Then in your article - you quote Augustine as saying:

“God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.”

I agree with Augustine, but I am not so sure that you do.

It was the love of God that sent His Son to bear the due penalty for the sin of His people - so that the Law of God might be satisfied and His holiness vindicated. This is the only way possible that God could be both “just and the justifier of the ungodly.”

You are misunderstanding the quote, the “merciful love” is behind the forgiveness, not the emptying of wrath on an innocent. You admit this in your comment here, that you don’t believe God can forgive a sin unless punishment is inflicted, that is contrary to the quote. Your interpretation of "the only way possible that God could be both “just and the justifier” is not what Paul meant.

By the putting away of our sin - we are made “accepted in the beloved” - not so that God would love us - but because God did love us.

I can agree with this on the surface, but not as far as Pen-Sub is concerned.

I also noticed in your article the following assertion, that when Peter said that “Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree.” according to the article **“this is clearly not literal.” **

Well I would like to ask how one comes to that conclusion.

Sin is not a black blob that can be moved around or carried, thus He cannot literally have it “in His body.”

Why is the first half of the passage non-literal and yet you claim that the second half of the passage is literal?

Please do not be offended - but I honestly do not see any justification for this assertion.

All I’m saying is the idea of carrying sin “in your body” is figurative, just like “made sin” is figurative for you cannot literally make someone into a blob of sin.

Also I noticed that the article made the following assertion:"and we see in this passages Jesus was not punished by the Father."

I agree with this. However - this does not disprove the point. There are plenty of other passages that expressly teach that it was God the Father who executed the judgement upon His own Son. I have already mentioned Isaiah 53, and so I will leave it at that for now.

How can you agree with that? The whole point of Penal Sub is that instead of God the Father damning the sinner in hell, He turned and drained that wrath upon His Beloved Son.

We must use the NT as our guide, and the Gospels (especially) and the Epistles are very clear God the Father was not inflicting wrath or punishment on Jesus. All we see in the NT is wicked men physically torturing Christ.

But can you please respond with kindness and “season your words with salt?” Name calling often becomes a stumbling block to those who are seeking truth.

Sure, I apologize if I offended. I don’t see where I name called.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Christ was the perfect and blemishless Paschal Lamb offered in sacrifice for our sins.

Jesus was not “punished in our place” although He certainly did take the punishment of a sinner, being accused of blasphemy (a sin) and being crucified in punishment for the sin of blasphemy.

But Jesus took the punishment and changed it into a priestly sacrifice, with Himself as both priest and victim. He used the punishment as an opportunity to make of Himself a sacrifice for our sins.

But Jesus didn’t “take our place” any more than the actual lamb of sacrifice “took the place” of the Jewish people when they were fleeing from Egypt.

A sacrifice is an offering that a priest makes to God. It does not take the place of the priest himself, and it does not take the place of the people for whom the sacrifice is being made.

This is very important and good that you pointed this out.
The OT sacrifices were NOT at all demonstrations of Penal Sub, wrath was not turned upon the animal and the animal killed in our place. On top of that, people too poor to afford an animal could bring a grain offering, which would be illogical if penal sub were the point.

 

[spoiltvictorian]

BOOM! I think I get it now…

Christ was the High Priest offering Himself up for us. Immediately eternal life was secured for the elect past and future. Our temporal lives are still forfeit because Christ did not die for every sin. If he did, we would all be assumed like Mary. In fact, if Mary was sinless she must have been assumed or else it would have been a transgression of God’s justice.

Wow! Or am I completely wrong here?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

BOOM! I think I get it now…
Christ was the High Priest offering Himself up for us. Immediately eternal life was secured for the elect past and future.

Picture it as if Christ was a seed offering Himself up by being planted and rising as a new life-giving Vine. Every branch (us) ingrafted into the Vine receives His Life.

Our temporal lives are still forfeit because Christ did not die for every sin.

Christ died for all sin, and transformed death from something to be feared to something that makes way for new life (Resurrected bodies).

If he did, we would all be assumed like Mary. In fact, if Mary was sinless she must have been assumed or else it would have been a transgression of God’s justice.

Christ was sinless and He was able to die, so that argument doesn’t entirely work. But your second sentence’s logic is correct in so far as it was ‘fitting’ (best of all possible options) for God to Assume Her.

Wow! Or am I completely wrong here?

You are on the right track.

 

[Crucified]

OT Prophecy has to be interpreted in light of NT revelation. The Father is not show to be the one inflicting any punishment at all, but it does say He “delivered Christ up” (Rom 8:32) into the hands of wicked men, meaning God knew what they would do but allowed it to happen (Acts 3:13-15)…

I know what the New Testament says - but how do you take the words “It pleased the LORD to crush him” and interpret them by the words “He delivered him up?”

Those are two different aspects of the sacrifice. There is an aspect where Christ was delivered up by his Father - and an aspect where Christ was delivered up to his Father. Just as there is an aspect in which he was punished by wicked men and was punished for wicked men. Therefore these two truths are not mutually exclusive - for he was punished for God and was punished by God.

To take only one of these to the exclusion of the others is to turn the milti-faceted diamond of God’s revelation into a two dimentional drawing with no depth and no mystery.

Are you familiar with typology?

You are misunderstanding the quote, the “merciful love” is behind the forgiveness, not the emptying of wrath on an innocent. You admit this in your comment here, that you don’t believe God can forgive a sin unless punishment is inflicted, that is contrary to the quote. Your interpretation of "the only way possible that God could be both “just and the justifier” is not what Paul meant.

I understood the quote very well.

Man cannot be reconciled to God until sin has been dealt with and put away. Mercy provided the remedy. So mercy was not the fruit of redemption - but the root of redemption.

I make the distinction between:

Redemption purposed
Redemption accomplished
Redemption applied

Sin is not a black blob that can be moved around or carried, thus He cannot literally have it “in His body.” All I’m saying is the idea of carrying sin “in your body” is figurative, just like “made sin” is figurative for you cannot literally make someone into a blob of sin.

When I say literal - I do not necessarily mean that it is manifestly physical. The spiritual is far more literal than the physical - and the legal imputation of our sin to Christ was a spiritually literal event. I know that you reject my position - so can you offer me an alternative interpretation of Christ being “made sin.” ??

How can you agree with that? The whole point of Penal Sub is that instead of God the Father damning the sinner in hell, He turned and drained that wrath upon His Beloved Son.

I agree with the fact that “that passage” did not mention that it was the Father who executed judgement upon the Son.

I also asserted that there are other passages of Scripture that demonstrate this truth - Isa. 53:11 was one of them.

Sure, I apologize if I offended.

Thank you - it is not a comfortable feeling to be labeled a heretic by virtue of what you believe - when what you believe hasn’t been refuted by the word of God.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Thank you - it is not a comfortable feeling to be labeled a heretic by virtue of what you believe - when what you believe hasn’t been refuted by the word of God.

**Actually, since you are a Protestant, many things you believe are refuted by the Word of God, but you won’t receive sound doctrine.

However, going back to your original question, our faith should be in Jesus Himself, and not in a theory about how He saves us.

The two are quite different.**

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I know what the New Testament says - but how do you take the words “It pleased the LORD to crush him” and interpret them by the words “He delivered him up?”

It means God would send Jesus and turn the evil that would be done to Him around into a perfect sacrifice. God was pleased (in terms of His overall plan of salvation) for this to happen, He was not pleased in sin, hate, murder, etc against Jesus.

Twisting that passage is no different from a JW twisting “The Father is greater than I” into a heretical notion.

Those are two different aspects of the sacrifice. There is an aspect where Christ was delivered up by his Father - and an aspect where Christ was delivered up to his Father. Just as there is an aspect in which he was punished by wicked men and was punished for wicked men. Therefore these two truths are not mutually exclusive - for he was punished for God and was punished by God.

He was not “punished by God” in any direct sense, the only actual pain inflicted was physical and came sinfully by wicked men. Pen-Sub teaches God punished Jesus in a direct and immediate sense, but that is pure blasphemy.

To take only one of these to the exclusion of the others is to turn the milti-faceted diamond of God’s revelation into a two dimentional drawing with no depth and no mystery.

Are you familiar with typology?

I’m not stripping away any dimensions, I’m simply saying there are acceptable and unacceptable views that can be given. Penal-Sub is unacceptable.

I understood the quote very well.

Man cannot be reconciled to God until sin has been dealt with and put away. Mercy provided the remedy. So mercy was not the fruit of redemption - but the root of redemption.

I make the distinction between:

Redemption purposed
Redemption accomplished
Redemption applied

When Protestants say “sin has been dealt with and put away” they mean Penal Substitution, they mean God had to punish something, anything, even His own Son, because sin cannot go unpunished. That is the polar opposite of that quote of my article and unBiblical.
True forgiveness is unconditional, that is the Biblical and Catholic position. If God pushed Jesus in your place then He didn’t actually forgive you, it would be like Jesus paying off a $200 debt and saying God forgave the debt. That is not forgiveness.

Protestants believe God could not outright forgive sin, Jesus had to be sent.
Catholics believe God could outright forgive a sin, Jesus did not have to be sent but it was the most fitting of all options.

When I say literal - I do not necessarily mean that it is manifestly physical. The spiritual is far more literal than the physical - and the legal imputation of our sin to Christ was a spiritually literal event. I know that you reject my position - so can you offer me an alternative interpretation of Christ being “made sin.” ??

There is no passage in Scripture that says our sins were “legally imputed” to Christ.

The phrase “made sin” means made a sin offering and there are two solid proofs for this. Rom 8:3 says Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,” which means “made sin” in 2 Cor 5:21 means Jesus took on human nature and became a sin offering. Also, the OT often uses the SAME Hebrew word for “sin” and “sin offering,” even in the same context. For example:
Lev 4: 28Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
The words in red above are the SAME Hebrew word in each case. Church Fathers like St Augustine also said “made sin” means “sin offering.”

Further, if you compare 2 Cor 8:9 with 5:21 there is a virtual parallel, yet 8:9 clearly means Christ took on human nature and took on the role of a servant. Protestants read way too much into 2 Cor 5:21, not to mention their interpretation does not fit the context. (same for 1 Pt 2:24)

I agree with the fact that “that passage” did not mention that it was the Father who executed judgement upon the Son.

I also asserted that there are other passages of Scripture that demonstrate this truth - Isa. 53:11 was one of them.

You wont find any NT passages (esp the Gospel accounts) “demonstrating that truth.” Is 53 must be interpreted in light of the NT, and in the NT we don’t see the Father dumping His Wrath on Jesus.

Thank you - it is not a comfortable feeling to be labeled a heretic by virtue of what you believe - when what you believe hasn’t been refuted by the word of God.

I’ve been in this discussion numerous times so I know what to expect in terms of arguments. I’m not saying you are believing this intentionally, but it is blasphemous to suggest the Father unleashed His Wrath on Jesus as well as the heresy (a variation of Nestorianism).

 

[Crucified]

It means God would send Jesus and turn the evil that would be done to Him around into a perfect sacrifice. God was pleased (in terms of His overall plan of salvation) for this to happen.

Why is that? If God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked – then why would he take pleasure in the death of His own Son? Was this death necessary?

He was not “punished by God” in any direct sense, the only actual pain inflicted was physical and came sinfully by wicked men. Pen-Sub teaches God punished Jesus in a direct and immediate sense, but that is pure blasphemy.

You can call it blasphemy all you want – but until you deal directly with the fact that the text does NOT say – “It pleased the LORD to have him crushed” but rather says – “It pleased the LORD to crush him” – you have not invalidated my position. All you have done is pit one passage against another; something that Jehovah’s witnesses are infamous for.

It is also very clear from Zechariah 13:7 that it was the LORD who brought execution upon Christ. God called for the glittering sword of Divine Justice to smite his own Son - “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” Are you saying that because God is here smiting his Son – that He is committing murder?

And even if you would say that God is not doing the execution Himself (to which I disagree) – you are still not free from contradiction and inconsistency – because in order for you to be consistent - you would have to say that God is guilty of conspiracy and is an accessory to murder.

And would you also dare to deny that Christ is speaking in Lamentations chapter 1:12-14 ??

“Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the LORD hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger. From above hath he sent fire into my bones, and it prevaileth against them: he hath spread a net for my feet, he hath turned me back: he hath made me desolate and faint all the day. The yoke of my transgressions is bound by his hand: they are wreathed, and come up upon my neck: he hath made my strength to fall, the Lord hath delivered me into their hands, from whom I am not able to rise up.”

And what about Genesis 22 – when the Bible typologically sets forth the truth that it was the Father [Abraham] who killed His own Son [Isaac]??

True forgiveness is unconditional, that is the Biblical and Catholic position. If God punished Jesus in your place then He didn’t actually forgive you, it would be like Jesus paying off a $200 debt and saying God forgave the debt. That is not forgiveness.

Forgiveness is not the only aspect of redemption. Have you forgotten about the aspects of Ransom and Satisfaction? Again you are highlighting one aspect of Redemption to the exclusion of others. Anyways though – I do not see the conflict between penal substitution and sinners being forgiven. Why is it so inconceivable to say that I am forgiven simply because someone paid my debt?

Was not the paying of my debt an act of forgiveness itself?

Am I not forgiven by virtue of the fact that I no longer have to pay?

And yet Jesus did more than forgive me – but he also satisfied divine justice so that the law of God would be fulfilled – not set aside. God’s standard was not nullified by the death of Christ – but fulfilled, and made honorable.

Please tell me how God – who is a righteous judge – could simply forgive a murderer for his crime and still be just. Isn’t justice one of God’s attributes?

Catholics believe God could outright forgive a sin, Jesus did not have to be sent

Why didn’t God just forgive everyone then?

Why have his Son suffer such a horrifying death unnecessarily?

it was the most fitting of all options.

How can an unnecessary death be “the most fitting of all options” ??

If God could just forgive everyone – why the death of Christ?

There is no passage in Scripture that says our sins were “legally imputed” to Christ.

There is no passage in Scripture that says, “Jesus is God” either – so what is your point?

But Peter says that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the tree – and this interprets the Old Testament prophecy – “My righteous servant will justify many for he shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53).

Rom 8:3 says Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,” which means “made sin” in 2 Cor 5:21 means Jesus took on human nature and became “a sin offering.”

That is eisegesis if I have ever seen it!

How do you import that into the text?

The OT often uses the SAME Hebrew word for “sin” and “sin offering,” even in the same context.

Oh – so what happened to interpreting the Old by the New?

Now you are interpreting the New by the Old.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why is that?

Why was God pleased that His plans are successful?

If God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked – then why would he take pleasure in the death of His own Son? Was this death necessary?

You are ripping things out of context. The “no pleasure in the death of the wicked” is in reference to unrepentant sinners and not relevant here.
God does not “take pleasure” in evil/sin in the sense that they are fun or enjoyable (God is repulsed by evil and sin). He only can be said to “take pleasure” in evil/sin in so far as He turns it around to fit in His plans

He was not “punished by God” in any direct sense, the only actual pain inflicted was physical and came sinfully by wicked men. Pen-Sub teaches God punished Jesus in a direct and immediate sense, but that is pure blasphemy.

You can call it blasphemy all you want – but until you deal directly with the fact that the text does NOT say – “It pleased the LORD to have him crushed” but rather says – “It pleased the LORD to crush him” – you have not invalidated my position. All you have done is pit one passage against another; something that Jehovah’s witnesses are infamous for.

You’re playing the JW here because you wont look at all the evidence. My argument is simple, let the NT revelation dictate how the OT prophecy unfolds. My position is built upon the great minds in Christian history (eg St Augustine and St Thomas), your position has all the makings of sever theological error (eg wrath between the Persons of the Trinity).

It is also very clear from Zechariah 13:7 that it was the LORD who brought execution upon Christ. God called for the glittering sword of Divine Justice to smite his own Son - “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” Are you saying that because God is here smiting his Son – that He is committing murder?

When you look at this very passage referenced in the NT it is talking about when the Soldiers came for Jesus and the Apostles got terrified and ran off. You wont find a passage in the NT where God the Father strikes Jesus. God didn’t call for injustice on His Son, you have got to realize that.

And even if you would say that God is not doing the execution Himself (to which I disagree) – you are still not free from contradiction and inconsistency – because in order for you to be consistent - you would have to say that God is guilty of conspiracy and is an accessory to murder.

Show where in the NT God is doing the execution Himself. That is the key to P-Sub, yet we nowhere see anything along those lines, nothing along the lines of a hellish fire coming up and consuming a damned Jesus.

The Catholic position is that God allowed the sinful acts of men to play right into His plan. If you are advocating God directly murdered Jesus or was a conspirator, that is blasphemy for God is not the author of sin, even indirectly.

Read the first few chapters of Acts as well as other places, its is clear it is the Romans and Jews to blame, who set up a crooked charges and who murdered Jesus, and contrast that to how God raised Jesus from the dead.Acts 3: 13The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead.

Lk 18: 31Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again.” There is a clear contrast between the innocent (God) and the guilty (Jews, Romans). It is absolutely astonishing that the real meaning of the cross, which was about God pouring out His wrath on Jesus, is nowhere hinted here or elsewhere.

And would you also dare to deny that Christ is speaking in Lamentations chapter 1:12-14
“Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith the LORD hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger. From above hath he sent fire into my bones, and it prevaileth against them: he hath spread a net for my feet, he hath turned me back: he hath made me desolate and faint all the day. The yoke of my transgressions is bound by his hand: they are wreathed, and come up upon my neck: he hath made my strength to fall, the Lord hath delivered me into their hands, from whom I am not able to rise up.”

This is talking about an actual sinner (nation) suffering for ther actual sins, so any allusions to Christ must be qualified.

And what about Genesis 22 – when the Bible typologically sets forth the truth that it was the Father [Abraham] who killed His own Son [Isaac]

Again, there is some allusion to but not a one to one carry over. No wrath was being poured upon Issac, he was not actually killed, it was not an act of murder, etc.

Forgiveness is not the only aspect of redemption. Have you forgotten about the aspects of Ransom and Satisfaction? Again you are highlighting one aspect of Redemption to the exclusion of others.

Those other aspects do not turn the “forgiveness” into a paid-debt. If a debt is paid then the debt isnt forgiven, if I owe you money and someone pays you that money, you cannot say you forgave me.

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

I do not see the conflict between penal substitution and sinners being forgiven. Why is it so inconceivable to say that I am forgiven simply because someone paid my debt?

Was not the paying of my debt an act of forgiveness itself?

Am I not forgiven by virtue of the fact that I no longer have to pay?

P-Sub says Jesus endured the punishment of hellfire in an equivalent manner for what the sinner should have had to endure in hell. If the sin is punished it aint forgiven, and it is blasphemy to suggest God demands blood regardless of who spills it as long as it is spilled.

Do you understand what forgiveness means?
If you owe me $20, and I forgive you, you owe me $0.
If you owe me $20, and someone pays that debt, you owe me $0.
Are you really going to argue there is no substantive difference between these two situation? Forgive means you drop the charges, otherwise forgiveness means nothing. If someone deserves to be punched, and you forgive them, that means you don’t punch anyone, it does not mean you look for someone else to punch so you don’t have to punch the original person.

This is a perfect example of the morally and theologically twisted thinking and gymnastics that Sola Fide is forced to embrace.

And yet Jesus did more than forgive me – but he also satisfied divine justice so that the law of God would be fulfilled – not set aside. God’s standard was not nullified by the death of Christ – but fulfilled, and made honorable.

God’s standard says sinners deserve hellfire, you are saying forgiveness means Jesus endured the equivalent of hellfire in their place. That is not forgiveness in any proper use of the term. There is nothing honorable about punishing an innocent party and thinking that it somehow satisfies Divine integrity.

Please tell me how God – who is a righteous judge – could simply forgive a murderer for his crime and still be just. Isn’t justice one of God’s attributes?

Yes it is one of His attributes, but there is nothing just about punishing an innocent party. You think you are arguing that you are the one uphoding God’s justice while I am ignoring it, but the fact is your definition of “justice” is quite wrong.

I think any forgiveness of God stems ultimately from His mercy so the attribute of justice must be under that. The fact He allows sin in the first place and allowed Adam to live for even a split second after sinning proves this. So justice comes in insofar as God can impose parameters for how that mercy is dispenced (eg making satisfaction, giving an apology, etc). When it comes to Christ’s satisfaction, God was pleased at the complete self-giving and He would base forgiveness off of that.

Why didn’t God just forgive everyone then?

This does not logically flow from my comments, but none the less is an question which no Christian fully understands. Even those under the Penal Substitution model believe God could have saved everyone.

Why have his Son suffer such a horrifying death unnecessarily?

It was only unnecessary in so far as God could have forgiven in another way. It was certainly necessary in so far as God wanted forgiveness to occur in this manner.

For example, lets say I wanted to sell something but the manner of payment is left open. It is unnecessary that I specifically choose dollars, or euros, I could choose sand or fur or whatever. However, if the system I establish or am under deals in dollars, it is necessary that I deal in dollars.

In the case of Christ, His task was perfect obedience, regardless of what circumstances or consequences He would face for this obedience.

How can an unnecessary death be “the most fitting of all options” ??

If God could just forgive everyone – why the death of Christ?

See my above comments on the issue of ‘necessary’.
In my payment example, it is more fitting that dollars be used as payment rather than dirt, thought technically dirt could have been a valid option.

It was most fitting that Christ suffer the way He did for various reasons. A few reasons are: it showed in very ‘human’ terms just how much God loved us, the Passion instills sorrow in our hearts for our sins, it is an perfect example of how we should live for God, etc, etc. These ‘bonuses’ would not happen if Christ only received a slap in the face or if His death was sudden and painless, so that is the sense in which “most fitting” is to be understood.

There is no passage in Scripture that says our sins were “legally imputed” to Christ.

There is no passage in Scripture that says, “Jesus is God” either – so what is your point?

I’m not sure why you would make that argument (btw the Bible does say Jesus is God). According to Sola Scriptura you have to have Scriptural support for a major claim like that.

But Peter says that Jesus bore our sins in his body on the tree – and this interprets the Old Testament prophecy – “My righteous servant will justify many for he shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53).

The term “impute” does not appear here, much less the notion of legally imputed.

That is eisegesis if I have ever seen it!

How do you import that into the text?

I’m letting Scripture interpret Scripture: I showed how “made sin” and “sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin” fit. You, on the otherhand, believe “made sin” means sin was imputed to Christ and the Father punished in Christ, which has no root in any other Scripture.

Oh – so what happened to interpreting the Old by the New?
Now you are interpreting the New by the Old.

That applies to prophecy, which is shrouded in mystery in the OT until revealed in the NT. You are confusing that with how people write and use idioms and shorthand and playing on words and such. Paul knew how to write in such a way as to conjure up images from OT passages.

 

[Crucified]

If you are advocating God directly murdered Jesus or was a conspirator, that is blasphemy for God is not the author of sin, even indirectly. Read the first few chapters of Acts as well as other places, its is clear it is the Romans and Jews to blame, who set up a crooked charges and who murdered Jesus, and contrast that to how God raised Jesus from the dead.

God did not murder Jesus first of all – but He did have His hand in all that took place. Thank you for referring me to Acts where we see in chapters 2 and 4 that it was God’s eternal purpose to deliver His Son into the hands of these wicked men. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain . . . both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.” (2:23; 4:28)

Again – when you claim that I make God a murderer for sacrificing His Son – you only show your inconsistency. For in your scheme, you would have to hold God to be an “accessory” to murder. If your position can escape all charges of conspiracy and accessory to murder - then you have no consistent basis upon which to accuse me. Please be consistent.

No wrath was being poured upon Issac, he was not actually killed

That is because the type switched to the ram in the thicket. However the point was well taken by Abraham, and it was two fold.

1. God would provide a substitute and sacrifice it Himself in the room and stead of sinners who are condemned to die, and
2. That substitute would be God’s own Son.

Do not be thrown off that Christ appears twice in the type – this is typical of typology (pun intended)! Remember that Christ was both Noah AND the Ark.

Do you understand what forgiveness means?

Yes – and do you know what ransom means? It means that there is a price that is paid IN ORDER FOR one to be released. But what a useless term and concept - since the “forgiveness” of God is unconditional and not grounded upon the cross-work of Christ.

Did Christ ransom us - or did God just forgive us?

The problem comes in when you single out once aspect of Redemption to the exclusion of others. This rids all mystery from Redemption and turns it into rationalism, which in theological History is the heretical hermeneutic of Socinius.

When it comes to Christ’s satisfaction, God was pleased at the complete self-giving and He would “base” forgiveness off of that.

So he would “base” forgiveness on the death of Christ – and yet the death of Christ is not the “grounds” of forgiveness?

Even those under the Penal Substitution model believe God could have saved everyone.

Yes – God could have saved all men without exception – but not because God does away with Justice in order to forgive sinners – but by establishing Justice and fulfilling the Law by Christ on behalf of those whom He intends to save.

It was only unnecessary in so far as God could have forgiven in another way. It was certainly necessary in so far as God wanted forgiveness to occur in this manner.

But why would God want forgiveness to occur on the “basis” of the death of His Son – if this was not at all necessary for God to pardon the guilty? What a cruelty you have devised here; making the death of the blessed Son of God an unnecessary event!

What kind of a Father would allow His Son to die such a horrifying death for no necessary reason at all? You think that we teach blasphemy – but look at what you are saying! You are saying that,

1. Christ’s death did not actually accomplish our redemption because 2) It was not even necessary for our redemption.

Wow - this is what the Catholic Church actually teaches?

It was most fitting that Christ suffer the way He did for various reasons. A few reasons are: it showed in very ‘human’ terms just how much God loved us.

That doesn’t make any sense at all. If God could have just forgiven us our sins – wouldn’t that be the most fitting way for Him to demonstrate His love for us? Why add such a horrific and unnecessary element to the equation when it was not even necessary? I am speechless at your assertions.