Penal Substitution - what does the Bible teach?

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

In YOUR scheme God is directly pouring out his Wrath on Christ, the physical abused by the soldiers is a side show. I nowhere have God as even an accessory to murder and have made it clear God does not engage in evil behavior even indirectly. God does not like sin, but He allows men to sin if He can use it towards a greater good in His plans. That is the Catholic position, which is in direct contrast to the Protestant where God is directly and primarily the one inflicting the real pain.

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

1. 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.

The ram was not an object of wrath nor was any OT sacrifice. Sacrifice was never about God’s wrath building up over time until He found something (eg an animal) to drain it out on.

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?

You are misrepresenting Catholicism, under the plan God chose to forgive us, it most certainly was grounded upon Christ’s work. This plan made use of ransom/satisfaction, and I bring this out in ch2 for the Catholic perspective in the article linked in my signature.

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.

I’m not excluding, I’m stating those aspects are subordinate to God’s mercy & love, otherwise there would be no talk of forgiveness in the first place. Further, you are not including concepts like ransom and justice, because you have an innocent party getting punished which is injustice by definition which is an unacceptable form of ransom.

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

This is a direct misquotation of my words, I never put “base” in quotes as if implying another meaning. God did not have to base forgiveness on the work of Christ, but that is the method in which He chose to base forgiveness off of. God was not forced to ever forgive, nor did God ever have to, nor was there only one specific way He had to forgive. Christ could have came, died, rose, and ascended all in the span of 1 hour if that is how God wanted it to happen.

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.

This is still irrelevant. The original question was why didn’t God save everyone, and I made it clear that is a mystery because God could have chosen everyone to be saved in either of our theologies.

Also, you say Christ fulfilled the Law on behalf of the sinner. If you mean in order for the sinner to be justified Christ kept the whole Law perfectly in place of the sinner (because the sinner was unable to), then I say that is flatly unBiblical.
If you mean Christ fulfilled the Law in the sense the Law (eg Passover Lamb) pointed specifically and only to Christ, then that is fine.
(cont 1 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

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!

You are still misunderstanding, never was Christ’s death unnecessary, that is because God chose that method in His grand salvation plan. And God chose this method because it was the most fitting (keeping in mind ‘fitting’ means there are additional benefits that stem from it).

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?

This reasoning is flawed. I will repeat what I said above: God was not forced to ever forgive, nor did God ever have to, nor was there only one specific way He had to forgive. Christ’s death did accomplish our salvation under the salvation plan God chose to go with.

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.

No it would not have been the most fitting. Jesus could have gone to the barren tundra of Antarctica to die in a gas chamber but that would not have been most fitting for nobody would be around to see it and it would be harder for us to relate. Putting things in a way humans can easily relate to is one of the various benefits of choice of the Cross. We see suffering and it brings us sorrow because of injustice and sin as well as a demonstration of what someone will do to prove their Love. A lot of what I am saying doesn’t make sense to you because to you the Cross was essentially a legal transaction WHILE the Roman AND Jewish injustice was a mere side show.

 

[Crucified]

(cont 2 of 2)A lot of what I am saying doesn’t make sense to you because to you the Cross was essentially a legal transaction WHILE the Roman AND Jewish injustice was a mere side show.

Not so.

Who sent Joseph to Egypt?

God or his wicked brethren?

Who put Jesus on the Cross?

God or wicked men?

You cannot get passed that fact that God was directing the affairs of His own Son’s death. You cannot deny that even in your plan -this makes God - if you would be consistent with your accuasations - an accessory to murder.

Who inflicted Paul with the thorn - Satan; but who sent Satan?

Was Job inflicted by God or by Satan?

Was Job inflicted because he was personally guilty of sin?

These are types of the LORD Jesus.

Whatever you mean by “most fitting” is nonsense.

If God could have devised a way for sin to be forgiven without the satisfaction of divine justice - why would he “choose” to have his Son killed when He did not have to? Give me the reasons for this.

 

[crisco]

Dear Crucified,
Could you show me from scripture:

1. that the mechanism by which the OT sacrifices accomplished their purpose was by penal substitution?
2. that Jesus experienced an eternity in Hell in the place of all (saved/elect) sinners?

 

[Crucified]

Dear Crucified,Could you show me from scripture:1) that the mechanism by which the OT sacrifices accomplished their purpose was by penal substitution? 2) that Jesus experienced an eternity in Hell in the place of all (saved/elect) sinners?

I think you are hard pressed to disprove penal substitution on the basis of the following premises about God’s wrath:

Premise one: The God of the bible actively dispenses wrath/retribution for sin.

From the opening accounts of Genesis, when God deals with the first sin of man by announcing a curse, and consistently throughout later revelation, we are given a picture of a God “who is of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Habakkuk 1:13), a God who says “vengeance is mine, I will repay” (Romans 12:19), a God who does in fact pour out wrath upon the world of sinners, as, for instance, in the universal flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., a God who has the rebel nations “in derision,” who “speaks unto them in his wrath, and vexes them in his sore displeasure,” who sets up his Messiah to “crush them like a potter’s vessel” (from Psalm 2), a God before whom sinners tremble in fear, proclaiming, “the great day of his wrath has come, and who shall be able to stand” (Revelation 6:17). This is a handful of testimonies from an overwhelming supply – in short, it is impossible to read the bible objectively without finding in it a God who does in fact pour out his wrath actively, and who deals out retribution/vengeance for rebellion.

Premise two: The God of the bible actively poured out wrath/retribution upon Christ.

As we see in Isaiah 53, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he has put him to grief” – and why was God pleased to bruise the Son? Because God was making his soul “an offering for sin.” We must acknowledge here that God was actively afflicting his Son – who put Christ to death? Ultimately, it was the Father – and we must further acknowledge that it was because of our sin. The Father was well-pleased to crush the Son, because our sin was upon him. Which is encroaching upon our next point,

Premise three: The God of the bible actively poured out retribution upon Christ in the sinner’s stead.

Hence we read earlier in the chapter, “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities,” and elsewhere, “he made him to be sin for us” (II Corinthians 5:21). So then, if God actively and willingly crushed Christ, and if he did so because of the sins which were upon him, and if he is indeed a God who deals in retribution – in fact is too pure not to deal in wrath and retribution – then any model of the atonement which does not embrace a penal aspect fails to do justice to the character of God as we find it revealed in his word.

If by any means you arrive at a different view of the atonement than that which God graciously allowed the Reformed tradition to argue for so eloquently, then you fail to take seriously certain motifs which are unequivocal and emphatic, and which exist throughout the scope of special revelation. And these motifs, concerning as they do the very nature of the unchangeable God, are to be denied only with very serious and far-reaching consequences.

In sum, if Christ did not satisfy the Father’s righteous wrath against sin, then one of two results must follow: either we cannot be forgiven, or God cannot be just. And to God’s immutable justice, the whole of biblical revelation bears emphatic witness.

It is imperative, for the upcoming generation of Bible believing Christians, that we be aware of any view which fails to do justice to the biblical requisite of penal substitution, by which the Jesus Christ the sinner’s substitute and surety, satisfied the demands of the law and took upon himself the full force of the Father’s just wrath against our sin.

 

[rad]

what eastern orthodox believe…
Re: Why Did Jesus Have to Die For Our Sins???
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2008, 12:46:11 AM » Quote

---

Some words of St. Athanasius to give you one perspective on why Christ had to die:

CHAPTER 7: On the other hand there was the consistency of God’s nature, not to be sacrificed for our profit. Were men, then, to be called upon to repent? But repentance cannot avert the execution of a law; still less can it remedy a fallen nature. We have incurred corruption and need to be restored to the grace of God’s image. None could renew but He Who had created. He alone could (1) recreate all, (2) suffer for all, (3) respect all to the Father.

1. But just as this consequence must needs hold, so, too, on the other side the just claims of God lie against it: that God should appear true to the law He had laid down concerning death. For it were monstrous for God, the Father of truth, to appear a liar for our profit and preservation. 2. So here, once more, what possible course was God to take? To demand repentance of men for their transgression? For this one might pronounce worthy of God; as though, just as from transgression men have become set towards corruption, so from repentance they may once more be set in the way of incorruption. 3. But repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim of God. For He would still be none the more true, if men did not remain in the grasp of death; nor, secondly, does repentance call men back from what is their nature-it merely stays them from acts of sin. 4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?
2. For His it was once more both to bring the corruptible to incorruption, and to maintain intact the just claim of the Father upon all. For being Word of the Father, and above all, He alone of natural fitness was both able to recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be ambassador for all with the Father.

CHAPTER 8: The Word, then, visited that earth in which He was yet always present ; and saw all these evils. He takes a body of our nature, and that of a spotless virgin, in whose womb He makes it His own, wherein to reveal Himself, conquer death, and restore life.

1. For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from us before. For no part of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us. 2. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that before the law was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery-lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought-He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. 3. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father-doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire.

From On the Incarnation of the Word of God, by St. Athanasius the Great of Alexandria
(monachos.net/library/Athanasius_of_Alexandria%2C_On_the_Incarnation_of_the_Word)

 

[crisco]

I think you are hard pressed to disprove penal substitution on the basis of the following premises about God’s wrath:

Premise one: The God of the bible actively dispenses wrath/retribution for sin.

From the opening accounts of Genesis, when God deals with the first sin of man by announcing a curse, and consistently throughout later revelation, we are given a picture of a God “who is of purer eyes than to behold evil” (Habakkuk 1:13), a God who says “vengeance is mine, I will repay” (Romans 12:19), a God who does in fact pour out wrath upon the world of sinners, as, for instance, in the universal flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., a God who has the rebel nations “in derision,” who “speaks unto them in his wrath, and vexes them in his sore displeasure,” who sets up his Messiah to “crush them like a potter’s vessel” (from Psalm 2), a God before whom sinners tremble in fear, proclaiming, “the great day of his wrath has come, and who shall be able to stand” (Revelation 6:17). This is a handful of testimonies from an overwhelming supply – in short, it is impossible to read the bible objectively without finding in it a God who does in fact pour out his wrath actively, and who deals out retribution/vengeance for rebellion.

Premise two: The God of the bible actively poured out wrath/retribution upon Christ.

As we see in Isaiah 53, “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he has put him to grief” – and why was God pleased to bruise the Son? Because God was making his soul “an offering for sin.” We must acknowledge here that God was actively afflicting his Son – who put Christ to death? Ultimately, it was the Father – and we must further acknowledge that it was because of our sin. The Father was well-pleased to crush the Son, because our sin was upon him. Which is encroaching upon our next point,

Premise three: The God of the bible actively poured out retribution upon Christ in the sinner’s stead.

Hence we read earlier in the chapter, “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities,” and elsewhere, “he made him to be sin for us” (II Corinthians 5:21). So then, if God actively and willingly crushed Christ, and if he did so because of the sins which were upon him, and if he is indeed a God who deals in retribution – in fact is too pure not to deal in wrath and retribution – then any model of the atonement which does not embrace a penal aspect fails to do justice to the character of God as we find it revealed in his word.

If by any means you arrive at a different view of the atonement than that which God graciously allowed the Reformed tradition to argue for so eloquently, then you fail to take seriously certain motifs which are unequivocal and emphatic, and which exist throughout the scope of special revelation. And these motifs, concerning as they do the very nature of the unchangeable God, are to be denied only with very serious and far-reaching consequences.

In sum, if Christ did not satisfy the Father’s righteous wrath against sin, then one of two results must follow: either we cannot be forgiven, or God cannot be just. And to God’s immutable justice, the whole of biblical revelation bears emphatic witness.

It is imperative, for the upcoming generation of Bible believing Christians, that we be aware of any view which fails to do justice to the biblical requisite of penal substitution, by which the Jesus Christ the sinner’s substitute and surety, satisfied the demands of the law and took upon himself the full force of the Father’s just wrath against our sin.

Ok, you’ll have to help me out here…but I’m not sure that your answer directly addresses my questions.
Here are my underlying points: For question 1) if Jesus is THE Lamb of God, this suggests that He is a sacrifice of some sort. Of course, the motif of sacrifice is traced back to the Old Covenant, wherein sacrifices were carried out using animals to atone for sin - this meant that the sinner no longer needed to be punished (by death) for his/her sin. The penal sub model would say that the animal is receiving the penalty for the sinner’s sin. An alternative is that the sinner is providing something of value to propitiate God so that the sin is expiated. Where is the scriptural support for the former?

1. IMHO, the penal sub theory needs to prove, among many other things, that Jesus suffered the exact penalty that you or I (and all elect for that matter) would have had to suffer due to the sin in our lives. And what is that penalty? Is it physical death? Well, we all die of course regardless of our inclusion in Christ. Or is it eternal spiritual separation from God - spiritual death post physical death. If the latter, then what scriptural evidence can be brought forth to support this notion?

 

[rad]

Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory…
Quote
PART= 1​

Dear Fathers, Parish Faithful & Friends in Christ,

Over the centuries a particular theory developed in the West as to why Christ had to die on the Cross for our salvation. It is now often referred to as the penal satisfaction theory, and it is traced back to St. Anselm of Canterbury (11th c.). As an early scholastic theologian, Anselm was trying to rationally explain the mystery of our redemption in Christ. The Orthodox theologian, Vladimir Lossky, critical of this theory, describes it thus in speaking of Anselm:

In his work Christian horizons are limited by the drama played between God, who is infinitely
offended by sin, and man, who is unable to satify the impossible demands of vindictive justice.
The drama finds its resolution in the death of Christ, the Son of God, who has become man in
order to substitute Himself for us and to pay our debt to divine justice.

This was later further distorted by many of the Protestant refomers who claimed that God was angry with us and that Christ had to “appease” or “propitiate” Him by His blood. Hence, Jonathon Edward’s “sinners in the hands of an angry God.” The rich imagery of the Scriptures is unfortunately narrowed down to a very legalistic understanding of redemption in Christ. As Lossky further probes this theory, he reveals its many shortcomings:

What becomes of the dispensation of the Holy Spirit here? His part is reduced to that of an
auxillary, an assistant in redemption, causing us to receive Christ’s expiating merit. The final
goal of our union with God is, if not excluded altogether, at least shut out from our sight by
the stern vault of a theological conception built on the ideas of original guilt and its reparation.

There are further “casualties” in this narrowly-focused atonement theory, according to Lossky:

The price of our redemption having been paid in the death of Christ, the resurrection and the
ascension are only a glorious happy end of His work, a kind of apotheosis without direct
relationship to our human destiny. This redemptionist theology, placing all the emphasis
on the passion, seems to take no interest in the triumph of Christ over death. The very
work of the Christ-Redeemer, to which this theology is confined, seems to be truncated,
impoverished, reduced to a change of the divine attitude toward fallen men, unrelated to the
nature of humanity.

Too great a price to pay for a rationalistic theology! Only now, are both Roman Catholic and Protestants taking a serious and critical look at this particular theory of atonement.

The early Church, following the Scriptures, emphasized the victory of Christ over sin, death and the devil in His Cross and Resurrection. He truly “trampled down death by death.” The Church Fathers, beginning with St. Irenaeus of Lyons, were very expressive in their formulation of this aspect of our redemption. So you will not find the “satisfaction theory” in their writings. The language of Scripture is meant to provide a series of images and metaphors that help us understand our redemption in Christ without falling prey to a narrowly-focused rationalism or legalism. “Justification,” “salvation,” “atonement,” “expiation,” “ransom,” “reconciliation,” “sanctification,” “glorification,” “freedom” - these are the many terms borrowed from both the Old Testament and from the Graeco-Roman world to convey the great “mystery of piety.” These images are the many sides of a beautiful diamond that must be viewed from different angles for its true beauty and brilliance to be appreciated.

Ransom is another term that can be misapplied if one is overly-literalistic, or again legalistic, in its application. The following passage from St. Gregory the Theologian is probably the “classic” Orthodox response to any misunderstanding about the use of “ransom” language when referring to the death of Christ. This passage demands a very careful reading, if not multiple readings, to draw out the rich insights of St. Gregory. Basically, he is making it clear that the “ransom” offered by Christ was “paid” neither to the devil nor to God the Father:

 

[rad]

PART =2

We must now consider a problem and a doctrine ofter passed over in silently, which, in my view,
nevertheless needs deep study. The blood shed for us, the most precious and glorious blood of
God, the blood of the Sacrificer and the Sacrifice - why was it shed and to whom was it offered?
We were under the reign of the devil, sold to sin, after we had gained corruption on account of
our sinful desire. If the price of our ransom is paid to him who has us in his power, I ask myself:
Why is such a price to be paid? If it is given to the devil, it is outrageous! The brigand receives
the price of redemption. Not only does he receive it from God, he receives God Himself. For his
violence he demands such a disproportionate ransom that it would be more just for him to set us
free without ransom. But if to the Father, why should that be done? It is not the Father who has
held us as His captives. Morever, why should the blood of His only Son be acceptable to the
Father, who did not wish to accept Isaac, when Abraham offered Him his son as a burnt-offering,
but replaced the human sacrifice with the sacrifice of a ram? Is it not evident that the Father
accepts the sacrifice not becaue He demanded it or had any need for it but by His dispensation?
It was necessary that man should be sanctified by the humanity of God; it was necessary that
He Himself should free us, triumphing over the tyrant by His own strength, and that He should
recall us to Himself by His Son who is the Mediator, who does all for the honor of the Father, to
whom He is obedient in all things. Let the rest of the mystery be venerated silently.

Lossky comments on this passage, thus:

What emerges from the passage we have just quoted is that, for St. Gregory, the idea
of redemption, far from implying the idea of a necessity imposed by vindictive justice, is
rather an expression of the dispensation, whose mystery cannot be adequately
clarified in a series of rational concepts.

The key concept here is the “dispensation” or “divine economy” (from the Gk. oikonomia or God’s “household management”). The Son of God must offer His life as a sacrifice in fulfilment of the Father’s will, by the power of the Holy Spirit, in order for God’s design or saving plan for us to be realized - the abolition of the power of sin and death over us. This is powerfully stated in the Epistle to the Hebrews:

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise
shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death,
that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject
to bondage. (HEB. 2:14-15)

We are not sinners in the hands of an angry God, but sinners in the hands of a loving God: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son … (JN. 3:16) Yet, there is not a drop of sentimentality in this divine love for us. As St. Paul says: “For you were bought at a price,” meaning the “cost” to God in willing His Son to die on our behalf. God’s saving dispensation includes not only our forgivess of sins, but also our glorification with Christ in the Kingdom of Heaven. That is why we never really separate the Cross from the Resurrection and Ascension. There is one unified paschal mystery. Christ is vanquishing sin and death on the Cross: “I call Him King, because I see Him crucified” says St. John Chrysostom. Of course, our sins are forgiven on the Cross because God desired them to be wiped out. That is the true meaning of Christ as our “expiation.” The Cross is the “Mercy Seat” (Gk. hilasterion) on which are sins are wiped away by God, thus revealing His righteousness by restoring us by His faifhfulness to His covenental love.

We know that we are “saved” by the death and resurrection of Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We have been “ransomed” back from slavery to sin and death, because He “paid the price” on our behalf. This fulfilled the love of God for us, and did satisfy a non-existent “wrath” that needed to be appeased. We accept this in faith, without trying to overly penetrate the “mystery of piety.” Let us venerate the mystery in silence as St. Gregory teaches us.

Fr. Steven C. Kostoff
Christ the Savior/Holy Spirit Orthodox Church
christthesavioroca.org

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Not so.

Who sent Joseph to Egypt?

God or his wicked brethren?

Who put Jesus on the Cross?

God or wicked men?

You cannot get passed that fact that God was directing the affairs of His own Son’s death. You cannot deny that even in your plan -this makes God - if you would be consistent with your accuasations - an accessory to murder.

Who inflicted Paul with the thorn - Satan; but who sent Satan?

Was Job inflicted by God or by Satan?

Was Job inflicted because he was personally guilty of sin?

These are types of the LORD Jesus.

Is God the author of sin? THAT is what I am getting at. Catholicism has always consistently and flatly rejected God is the author of sin either directly or indirectly. Some Protestants (including Calvinists and Lutherans) have toyed with this issue that maybe God is the author of sin, which I believe is blasphemous and irresponsible.
God permits man to sin, He never condones it, and He only allows it if He can turn it into a greater good in His plans.

Whatever you mean by “most fitting” is nonsense.

This sentence is totally irresponsible.
You say WHATEVER I mean by that phrase is nonsense, meaning you don’t care what the phrase means, its automatically nonsense.
Most fitting is a term used by Catholic theologians (eg St Thomas) to mean of all possible options, one produces the maximum benefits/advantages/etc.

If God could have devised a way for sin to be forgiven without the satisfaction of divine justice - why would he “choose” to have his Son killed when He did not have to? Give me the reasons for this.

I don’t think I can say it any better than St Thomas:
ST III: 46: Article 1-Article 3
(note esp Article 3)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Dear Crucified,
Could you show me from scripture:

1. that the mechanism by which the OT sacrifices accomplished their purpose was by penal substitution?
2. that Jesus experienced an eternity in Hell in the place of all (saved/elect) sinners?

Good questions.

Ok, you’ll have to help me out here…but I’m not sure that your answer directly addresses my questions.
Here are my underlying points: For question 1) if Jesus is THE Lamb of God, this suggests that He is a sacrifice of some sort. Of course, the motif of sacrifice is traced back to the Old Covenant, wherein sacrifices were carried out using animals to atone for sin - this meant that the sinner no longer needed to be punished (by death) for his/her sin. The penal sub model would say that the animal is receiving the penalty for the sinner’s sin. An alternative is that the sinner is providing something of value to propitiate God so that the sin is expiated. Where is the scriptural support for the former?

I have not seen a direct response to these questions either, and they are solid ones at that. The OT never describes OT sacrifices as objects of wrath, nor does Hebrews hint at such a thing.
Clear examples of a hero turning away God’s wrath by good works (without the hero taking the wrath) are in Deut 9:15-20 (Ps 106:19-23) and Num 25:5-13 (Ps 106:28-31).

Further, Jesus is explicitly called the Passover Lamb, yet the Passover Lamb was not an object of wrath. I wrote briefly about this here.

1. IMHO, the penal sub theory needs to prove, among many other things, that Jesus suffered the exact penalty that you or I (and all elect for that matter) would have had to suffer due to the sin in our lives. And what is that penalty? Is it physical death? Well, we all die of course regardless of our inclusion in Christ. Or is it eternal spiritual separation from God - spiritual death post physical death. If the latter, then what scriptural evidence can be brought forth to support this notion?

Another good and fair objection to raise. The truth is most Protestants have stopped to think about what P-S is saying, and most would be horrified if they knew. Others who know don’t like to talk about it, and only defend it because the untouchable Sola Fide hangs in the balance.
That is why I have been trumpeting this issue everywhere I go. The level of heresy and blasphemy that results from this ‘gospel’ is too great to remain silent on.

 

[crisco]

Good questions.

I have not seen a direct response to these questions either, and they are solid ones at that. The OT never describes OT sacrifices as objects of wrath, nor does Hebrews hint at such a thing.
Clear examples of a hero turning away God’s wrath by good works (without the hero taking the wrath) are in Deut 9:15-20 (Ps 106:19-23) and Num 25:5-13 (Ps 106:28-31).

Further, Jesus is explicitly called the Passover Lamb, yet the Passover Lamb was not an object of wrath. I wrote briefly about this here.

Another good and fair objection to raise. The truth is most Protestants have stopped to think about what P-S is saying, and most would be horrified if they knew. Others who know don’t like to talk about it, and only defend it because the untouchable Sola Fide hangs in the balance.
That is why I have been trumpeting this issue everywhere I go. The level of heresy and blasphemy that results from this ‘gospel’ is too great to remain silent on.

All great points Catholic Dude.
Moreover, my understanding of the OT sacrificial system that prefigures THE sacrifice made by Christ (our High Priest and Lamb) is that it allowed for reconciliation between God and sinner as the sinner offered up something of high value to God. Thus, I fail to see the origin of the idea that it is the offering (in the case of an animal) that is made to endure the penalty of the individual sinner. In fact, in order to accomodate the penal substitution theory, one has to divorce the mechanism underlying non-animal offerings from animal offerings, since the former cannot be made to suffer a penalty, obviously.

 

[Crucified]

I have not seen a direct response to these questions either, and they are solid ones at that. The OT never describes OT sacrifices as objects of wrath, nor does Hebrews hint at such a thing.

Let me say this:

Catholics like to mix two entirely separate issues - they confuse and mix up - being “made in likeness of sinful flesh” and how he “himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree.”

One is speaking of the incarnation, while the other is speaking about the *substitutionary cross work *of Christ.

One is speaking about “the likeness of sinful flesh” the other is speaking about “bearing actual sin in his own body.”

One is speaking about the “being found in fashion as a man” while the other is speaking about “bearing our sins on the tree.”

One is the incarnation - the other is the crucifixion.

The latter is the impossible consequence of the first - for how can one die apart from sin?

In the above passage (Rom. 8:3) we are told that God sent His own Son “in the likeness of sinful [literally “sin’s”] flesh.”

First, it affirms the reality of Christ’s humanity.

Second, inasmuch as that humanity was united to. Godhead, it must be sinless humanity: generated by the Holy Spirit it was pure and holy. This was secured by the fact that though He took flesh from Adam through the Virgin, He was not in Adam’s covenant.

Third, its “likeness” or appearance was after the order of “sin’s flesh”: between Him and sinful men there was no perceptible difference that could be traced: in weariness and exhaustion, sorrow and heaviness, Christ was in all respects “made like unto his brethren.” But toil and sorrow, weakness and pain, came not on Him as the inevitable consequence of the Incarnation, but resulted from His coming here as the Surety of His people.

Christ was personally exempt from all the consequences of Adam’s sin, but officially [in the office he fulfilled] He was subject to them.

Rightly did Mr. J. Inglis point out, “The fact that God sent forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, intimates that He entered into the condition of His people, which, with all its evils, is the consequence of sin. If we find Him poor and despised, hungry and thirsty, subject to toil and fatigue, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, not exempt from the fear of death nor from actual mortality, to say nothing of all else that He endured at the hands of Satan and of man; all these are indubitably the consequences of sin, and He could be exposed to them only as He represented sinners by actually being made sin for them.” (Waymarks, Vol. 10).

How could a sinless man die - when the wages of sin is death?

 

[Crucified]

Is God the author of sin? God permits man to sin, He never condones it, and He only allows it if He can turn it into a greater good in His plans.

God is not the immediate cause of sin - though he is the ultimate cause of ALL THINGS. And so you did not answer my questions.

Who sent Joseph to Egypt?

God or his wicked brethren?

Who put Jesus on the Cross?

God or wicked men?

You cannot get passed that fact that God was directing the affairs of His own Son’s death. You cannot deny that even in your scheme - this makes God - if you would be consistent with your accuasations - an accessory to murder.

Prove that God is not an accessory and that all He did is stand back and watch. Prove that He did not purpose it, govern it, sanction it, and bring it to pass. Please demonstrate this from Scripture and not from mere human conceptual argumentation.

Furthermore - you claim that “foriveness is unconditional” you said it in your own words- and yet why then is not everyone forgiven? Is it because God has chosen in His sovereignty to have mercy upon whomsoever he will - or are those people not forgiven because they have ultimately failed to meet some condition?

What is the Catholic Answer to these questions?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Let me say this:

Catholics like to mix two entirely separate issues - they confuse and mix up - being “made in likeness of sinful flesh” and how he “himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree.”

One is speaking of the incarnation, while the other is speaking about the *substitutionary cross work *of Christ.

You are the one mixing up things here. I, nor anyone I know of, equated “carried our sins in his body on a tree” with “made in the likeness of sinful flesh.” There is overlap, but I never said they were the same. What I was doing was interpreting “made sin” in light of other Scripture, notably Rom 8:3 and 2 Cor 8:9. Further, the full quote is “made in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin”.
2 Cor 8: 9For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich. This is the other passage I mentioned earlier. It is a virtual parallel of 5:21, yet there is no way you could read penal-sub in this one.

One is speaking about “the likeness of sinful flesh” the other is speaking about “bearing actual sin in his own body.”

One is speaking about the “being found in fashion as a man” while the other is speaking about “bearing our sins on the tree.”

One is the incarnation - the other is the crucifixion.

The latter is the impossible consequence of the first - for how can one die apart from sin?

In the above passage (Rom. 8:3) we are told that God sent His own Son “in the likeness of sinful [literally “sin’s”] flesh.”

First, it affirms the reality of Christ’s humanity.

Second, inasmuch as that humanity was united to. Godhead, it must be sinless humanity: generated by the Holy Spirit it was pure and holy. This was secured by the fact that though He took flesh from Adam through the Virgin, He was not in Adam’s covenant.

Third, its “likeness” or appearance was after the order of “sin’s flesh”: between Him and sinful men there was no perceptible difference that could be traced: in weariness and exhaustion, sorrow and heaviness, Christ was in all respects “made like unto his brethren.” But toil and sorrow, weakness and pain, came not on Him as the inevitable consequence of the Incarnation, but resulted from His coming here as the Surety of His people.

I never confused or mixed 1 Pt 2:24 and Rom 8:3. Your point is moot.

Christ was personally exempt from all the consequences of Adam’s sin, but officially [in the office he fulfilled] He was subject to them.

Rightly did Mr. J. Inglis point out, “The fact that God sent forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, intimates that He entered into the condition of His people, which, with all its evils, is the consequence of sin. If we find Him poor and despised, hungry and thirsty, subject to toil and fatigue, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, not exempt from the fear of death nor from actual mortality, to say nothing of all else that He endured at the hands of Satan and of man; all these are indubitably the consequences of sin, and He could be exposed to them only as He represented sinners by actually being made sin for them.” (Waymarks, Vol. 10).

How could a sinless man die - when the wages of sin is death?

I don’t disagree with this at all.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

God is not the immediate cause of sin - though he is the ultimate cause of ALL THINGS. And so you did not answer my questions.

No, I answered your question to the extent possible without going into heresy. God is ultimately in control of everything, yet at the same time He is not the author of sin and is displeased by sin. Evil goes against God’s very nature (eg it is impossible for God to lie).

How God even allowed sin in the first place is a mystery for us, yet we must clearly affirm God does not condone sin, does not engage in it, and only permits it if a greater good can come from it.

Who sent Joseph to Egypt?

God or his wicked brethren?

Both, though it was only a sin on the brother’s part:Gen 50:15 When Joseph’s brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?” 16 So they sent word to Joseph, saying, “Your father left these instructions before he died: 17 ‘This is what you are to say to Joseph:** I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.**’ Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father.” When their message came to him, Joseph wept. 18 His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. “We are your slaves,” they said.
19 But Joseph said to them, “Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. 21 So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.
This passage makes it clear the brothers alone are guilty of selling Joseph as a slave, but it also shows God allowed that sin to play into His plans which would bring about a greater good.

Who put Jesus on the Cross?

God or wicked men?

God knew what men would do with His Son and allowed it.
It was men who did the actual murder, God was wholly innocent. The Bible is unequivocally clear in every time the issue is mentioned it is men who are said to have murdered Jesus, one example: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.”

You cannot get passed that fact that God was directing the affairs of His own Son’s death. You cannot deny that even in your scheme - this makes God - if you would be consistent with your accuasations - an accessory to murder.

False. My view is very different from yours. The Penal Substituion view has God immediately and directly pouring out His wrath on Jesus. In that view God’s unleashed wrath is the real pain Jesus endures, the physical tortures by men were nothing compared to it.

Taking the broad and overall picture that God is ultimately in control of everything in the universe, only in that sense is God an “accessory,” but at that point God is an “accessory” to every single sin in history. (I put “accessory” in quotes because I affirm God to be acting of purer motives than we can even conceive of and affirm sin is against His nature)1 Jn 1:5 God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

Prove that God is not an accessory and that all He did is stand back and watch. Prove that He did not purpose it, govern it, sanction it, and bring it to pass. Please demonstrate this from Scripture and not from mere human conceptual argumentation.

Open up your Bible! Turn to every single time the issue is mentioned, ESPECIALLY the Gospel accounts. Nowhere do we see God pouring out His wrath on Jesus, in each case it is men who are inflicting the torture and murder. God only purposed this in so far as He allowed this to happen in His grand plan, it was not an accident or surprise.

You on the other hand have the “real meaning” of the cross a situation where God’s wrath was poured out on Christ, something the Bible is utterly silent upon. You have zero room here. The Bible is clear the extent of Christ’s suffering: Physical torture and physical death at the hands of men.Mat 10: 28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Wicked men can only kill the body, and that is all they did to Christ, as Catholics teach. Penal Sub requires the soul to be destroyed in hell, which only God can do and Protestants blasphemously say happened to Christ.

Furthermore - you claim that “foriveness is unconditional” you said it in your own words- and yet why then is not everyone forgiven? Is it because God has chosen in His sovereignty to have mercy upon whomsoever he will - or are those people not forgiven because they have ultimately failed to meet some condition?

You keep bringing up this irrelevant issue. Even YOU admit God could have saved/forgiven everyone.
NOBODY INCLUDING YOURSELF KNOWS THAT ANSWER.
IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MAIN SUBJECT of HOW forgiveness occurrs (eg by Penal Sub or not).

What is the Catholic Answer to these questions?

I have given you answers to everything you have asked to the best of my ability. You on the otherhand have avoided quite a bit of our questions (eg crisco).

 

[Crucified]

No, I answered your question to the extent possible without going into heresy. God is ultimately in control of everything, yet at the same time He is not the author of sin and is displeased by sin. Evil goes against God’s very nature (eg it is impossible for God to lie).How God even allowed sin in the first place is a mystery for us, yet we must clearly affirm God does not condone sin, does not engage in it, and only permits it if a greater good can come from it.

I agree with everything that you say here and it does not change my point.

Both, though it was only a sin on the brother’s part

I agree with that statement. God brought it to pass, and yet God is not guilty of any type of sin - because His motives were of pure grace “to save much peoples alive.”

God knew what men would do with His Son and allowed it…

This is my whole point. I am not here trying to convince you that God had sinful motives; but I only wish to establish the fact the same event taking place - had two different outcomes. God purposed it and brought it to pass - “You did not send me here - but God brought me.” - and yet the brothers of Joseph were not interested in fulfilling God’s will, but were only inclined toward evil and Joseph’s harm. To them it was sin - but to God, the same exact event, was not sin.

False. My view is very different from yours. The Penal Substituion view has God immediately and directly pouring out His wrath on Jesus. In that view God’s unleashed wrath is the real pain Jesus endures, the physical tortures by men were nothing compared to it. Open up your Bible! Turn to every single time the issue is mentioned, ESPECIALLY the Gospel accounts. Nowhere do we SEE God pouring out His wrath on Jesus, in each case it is men who are inflicting the torture and murder.

I can assure you that there is much mystery surrounding this issue - and I refuse to rationalize the crucifixion. But was there not a full three hours of complete blackness that covered the whole scene? So in those hours - we are at a loss to what was actually taking place. And even if it was not dark - penal substitution is strictly spiritual and cannot be “seen” with an historical eye.

You keep bringing up this irrelevant issue. Even YOU admit God could have saved/forgiven everyone. NOBODY INCLUDING YOURSELF KNOWS THAT ANSWER. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE MAIN SUBJECT of HOW forgiveness occurrs (eg by Penal Sub or not).

Again - this was your argument - and I have every right to refute it. You brought this concept of forgiveness into the discussion on more than one occasion - so why are you now trying to evade my questions. Was it not you who said : “True forgiveness is unconditional, that is the Biblical and Catholic position. Protestants believe God could not outright forgive sin, Catholics believe God could outright forgive a sin.” ??

So my question stands.

If forgiveness is unconditional, why then is not everyone forgiven? Is it because God has chosen in His sovereignty to have mercy upon whomsoever he will - OR - are those people not forgiven because they have ultimately failed to meet some condition?

I have given you answers to everything you have asked to the best of my ability. You on the otherhand have avoided quite a bit of OUR questions (eg crisco).

Catholic Dude, you and I are in a discussion - and I am not obligated to speak to everyone who has a comment to make. This causes disorganization of thought - and is an advantage this forum purposely employs. I on the otherhand prefer to continue learning more from you about certain details of the Catholic position on the atonement, and unconditional forgiveness and the like. I would like to know my options - if as you say - penal substitution is not true - what are my other options?

However, you can expect me to employ the same canons of scrutiny upon the position that you would persuade me of - and should not become frustrated. If you reject my position for a certain reason - then you should have a fortified explanation for why the same objection you gave me is not applicable to the position you hold. If you cannot demonstrate this - then I will have no reason to embrace catholicism. You are the expert! Will you discuss the details of this position that you would have the world embrace?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I agree with everything that you say here and it does not change my point.

Good. But that means you have no room to say God performed the injustice of pouring out His wrath on innocent Jesus.

I agree with that statement. God brought it to pass, and yet God is not guilty of any type of sin - because His motives were of pure grace “to save much peoples alive.”

Ok, then God permitting the murder of His son is not a sin on His part and was thus not about God putting Jesus through hell.

This is my whole point. I am not here trying to convince you that God had sinful motives; but I only wish to establish the fact the same event taking place - had two different outcomes. God purposed it and brought it to pass - “You did not send me here - but God brought me.” - and yet the brothers of Joseph were not interested in fulfilling God’s will, but were only inclined toward evil and Joseph’s harm. To them it was sin - but to God, the same exact event, was not sin.

Amen. To the Jews it was the murder of Jesus, to God it was the perfect sacrifice (‘obedience unto death’).

I can assure you that there is much mystery surrounding this issue - and I refuse to rationalize the crucifixion. But was there not a full three hours of complete blackness that covered the whole scene? So in those hours - we are at a loss to what was actually taking place. And even if it was not dark - penal substitution is strictly spiritual and cannot be “seen” with an historical eye.

Do you REALIZE what you are saying?
The real meaning of the cross was not visible, it was invisible, so invisible the Gospel writers didnt see it.
This is pure grasping at straws. This is the deafening silence of this Gospel lesson of God pouring out His wrath on Jesus.

(the earth went dark for a very clear reason: humans murdered the King of the Universe)

Again - this was your argument - and I have every right to refute it. You brought this concept of forgiveness into the discussion on more than one occasion - so why are you now trying to evade my questions. Was it not you who said : “True forgiveness is unconditional, that is the Biblical and Catholic position. Protestants believe God could not outright forgive sin, Catholics believe God could outright forgive a sin.” ??

So my question stands.

If forgiveness is unconditional, why then is not everyone forgiven? Is it because God has chosen in His sovereignty to have mercy upon whomsoever he will - OR - are those people not forgiven because they have ultimately failed to meet some condition?

You are mixing the application of ‘unconditional’. I meant unconditional in so far as God did not have to send Jesus. I contrasted this to your position that stated the only way God could forgive was if an innocent person was damned. Under the path God chose to take, sending Jesus, in that plan are conditions and one of them is faith. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2), and made it possible for all me to be forgiven, but not everyone accepted the offer (eg parable of the sower in Lk 8, Acts 7:51; 2 Cor 6:1).

Catholic Dude, you and I are in a discussion - and I am not obligated to speak to everyone who has a comment to make. This causes disorganization of thought - and is an advantage this forum purposely employs. I on the otherhand prefer to continue learning more from you about certain details of the Catholic position on the atonement, and unconditional forgiveness and the like. I would like to know my options - if as you say - penal substitution is not true - what are my other options?

I only mentioned crisco because crisco mentioned similar things I mentioned but did not get an answer for. Your ‘other options’ are to take a look an honest look at Sola Fide (including its closely associated doctrines like Pen-Sub, OSAS, etc) and see whether the Bible really supports it. I am a Catholic because I try to stick with Scripture as close as possible and take all the evidence into account. Are you really comfortable with Pen-Sub after what you just said above about it being an invisible event and the closest evidence you have is the earth went dark?

However, you can expect me to employ the same canons of scrutiny upon the position that you would persuade me of - and should not become frustrated. If you reject my position for a certain reason - then you should have a fortified explanation for why the same objection you gave me is not applicable to the position you hold. If you cannot demonstrate this - then I will have no reason to embrace catholicism. You are the expert! Will you discuss the details of this position that you would have the world embrace?

Again, I have responded to the best of my ability. I am not trying to avoid anything or mislead. If you have further questions, I will do my best to clarify or find an answer, or even admit I don’t know.