Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[KnightIHSV]

I have been asked by a Presbyterian friend if the Catholic Church teaches “penal substitutionary atonement”: that Jesus died in our place for our sins.

I said yes as that seemed to me to be what I had always been taught as a Catholic.

However, I had an Anglican friend say this was a trap as the Calvinist doctrine of PSA had more twists to it.

Can anyone help?

Thanks as always.

K

 

[Darryl_B]

Yes. It was a trap. Penal Substitution means that Jesus Christ suffered in hell instead of you.

My understanding so far is that this is not Catholic Church teaching. Instead the suffering of Jesus Christ to redeem for sin ended on the cross, in no way extending to the abode of the dead.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Not only the “penal” part, but also the “substitution” part is a trap.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Doctrine of the Atonement” states:

It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But . . . God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

[Another] mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins. Read more]

 

[SonCatcher]

I have been asked by a Presbyterian friend if the Catholic Church teaches “penal substitutionary atonement”: that Jesus died in our place for our sins.

St. Anselm, a Catholic theologian, was its principle advocate. He was not condemned for this view.

Catholics are not required to subscribe to it, however.

 

[katy]

The website calledtocommunion.com/ has a long discussion on this that I am still reading through. Catholic thought is generally not toward penal substitution. Put very short, Jesus made a sacrifice of love. The original lamb’s blood was not a punishment of the lamb and neither was Jesus’.

 

[Darryl_B]

The website calledtocommunion.com/ has a long discussion on this that I am still reading through. Catholic thought is generally not toward penal substitution. Put very short, Jesus made a sacrifice of love. The original lamb’s blood was not a punishment of the lamb and neither was Jesus’.

Throughout the entire transaction I don’t see God exerting any punishment at all. The only suffering Jesus Christ experienced through the whole process was at the hands and “wrath of men”.

 

[Ubenedictus]

St. Anselm, a Catholic theologian, was its principle advocate. He was not condemned for this view.

Catholics are not required to subscribe to it, however.

st Anselm advocated satisfaction not penal substitution. Penal substitution is from calvin.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Penal substitution means that Jesus suffered instead of us. That implies that we could redeem our own sins (without Jesus) if we voluntarily underwent the same sort of punishment. Which is heresy.

If we could not redeem our own sins in this manner, then what, exactly, is being substituted?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have been asked by a Presbyterian friend if the Catholic Church teaches “penal substitutionary atonement”: that Jesus died in our place for our sins.

I said yes as that seemed to me to be what I had always been taught as a Catholic.

However, I had an Anglican friend say this was a trap as the Calvinist doctrine of PSA had more twists to it.

Can anyone help?

Thanks as always.

K

I doubt it was a trap. It was simple misunderstanding.

The Catholic Church teaches the Biblical doctrine of the Atonement, making Satisfaction for sin, where as the Protestant doctrine of the Atonement is not Scriptural, since it teaches Atonement involves the transfer of guilt/punishment to an innocent substitute. See THIS ARTICLE for the basics.

 

[SonCatcher]

st Anselm advocated satisfaction not penal substitution. Penal substitution is from calvin.

It is a subset of the idea. The Presbyterian (Calvinist) would not be able to contradict St. Anselm without undermining his own position.

 

[Michael_Allen]

st Anselm advocated satisfaction not penal substitution. Penal substitution is from calvin.

Hi Ubenedictus

Could you talk a little about the difference between satisfaction and substitution. I always struggle to understand the difference.

P.S. I should say that I’m not sure I see Jesus as satisfying God, or substituting for us, on the cross. Rather I see Jesus as standing in the way of sin, taking it on himself, suffering the consequences of sinful man, and returning it with blessing, transforming the old order of a fallen creation and providing the blueprint for a new one. But I’m still interested in the difference between satisfaction and substitution as that might make be better able to understand (and possibly) accept Anselm’s view of the cross.

God bless +

Michael

 

[KnightIHSV]

Thank you to all of you for this very helpful discussion. I am learning so much.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hi Ubenedictus

Could you talk a little about the difference between satisfaction and substitution. I always struggle to understand the difference.

P.S. I should say that I’m not sure I see Jesus as satisfying God, or substituting for us, on the cross. Rather I see Jesus as standing in the way of sin, taking it on himself, suffering the consequences of sinful man, and returning it with blessing, transforming the old order of a fallen creation and providing the blueprint for a new one. But I’m still interested in the difference between satisfaction and substitution as that might make be better able to understand (and possibly) accept Anselm’s view of the cross.

God bless +

Michael

Satisfaction is understood as damage being done and someone stepping in to fix the damage, restoring honor.

Penal Substitution is understood as a person deserving of the electric chair having the judge transfer this death penalty onto an innocent substitute who takes the electric chair instead.

The PSub view is full of problems, erring Biblically, erring Theologically, and erring Philosophically. The opposite is true for Satisfaction.

Proverbs 16:6 says “Through love and faithfulness, sin is atoned for.” Atonement never involves transferring punishment from the guilty to the innocent, especially when the punishment is hellfire being transferred to Jesus so that Jesus gets damned to hell in your place. That’s just blasphemy.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Satisfaction is understood as damage being done and someone stepping in to fix the damage, restoring honor.

Thanks Catholic Dude.

May I ask how satisfaction was achieved on the cross?

Thanks, and God bless +

Michael

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Thanks Catholic Dude.

May I ask how satisfaction was achieved on the cross?

Thanks, and God bless +

Michael

Catholic Dude may have another answer, but I’d like to chime in that the simple answer is love–Jesus laid down His life in love. One verse was cited just above (Prov 16:6) that supports that answer, but 1 Pet 4:8 also says “love covers a multitude of sins.” Also, there is blood. “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness for sin (Heb 9:22)”. Jesus shed His blood in a Sacrifice of love, which merited for mankind forgiveness of sin. Lastly, it also has to do with the Holy Spirit. Jesus victory on the cross and ascension into heaven prompted the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is He who purifies us from our sin. The Holy Spirit and the Son of God are partners, so to speak, in the redemption of man. But Jesus had to do His part first in His live (incarnation), passion, death and resurrection before the Holy Spirit would come to bring forth the grace of God. The Holy Spirit is sometimes called the Giver of Grace and is by grace that we are saved (through faith and not of works, etc (Eph 2:8)

Good points that show the problem of penal substitution (that I saw on Nick’s blog which has been referenced many times) is that our punishment for sin is eternal separation of God. Jesus could not be separated from God because He is God. Also, He descended to Sheol (hell) for a brief time (see CCC 631-637) to preach to the prisoners who had gone there before Him. But He certainly is not eternally damned as penal substitution would blasphemously suggest. Also, if Jesus had substituted for us we would no longer have the effects of original sin (i.e., we would no longer die a physical death, we wouldn’t have concupiscence, etc). There are just way too many problems with penal substitution, not only biblically, but logically.

 

[Gorgias]

Catholic Dude may have another answer, but I’d like to chime in that the simple answer is love–Jesus laid down His life in love.

True. And let’s not forget that satisfaction is something that given to the aggrieved party (i.e., God); it doesn’t have to come from a third party (i.e., Jesus) – it can come from the person who offends the aggrieved party. So, satisfaction (in general) doesn’t depend on a third party “stepping in to fix the damage”, as Catholic Dude implies. (However, in this particular case, humanity was incapable of sufficiently ‘fixing the damage’, and so Jesus’ sacrifice succeeded where we could never hope to succeed.)

Prayer_Warrior:

Also, there is blood. “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness for sin (Heb 9:22)”. Jesus shed His blood in a Sacrifice of love, which merited for mankind forgiveness of sin.

You can’t use this one, though, (IMHO), without invoking penal substitution: if the only recourse is a shedding of blood, then Jesus’ sacrifice isn’t about satisfaction so much as substitution for the shedding of all of humanity’s blood. Another way to look at it is that, if the shedding of blood is the only possible price that can be paid, then it’s not about the restoration of honor (satisfaction), but about making good on a penal debt.

Moreover, Heb 9:22 makes this claim about blood as being relevant to the (Mosaic) law; I’m not certain that I would assert that this means that Jesus’ blood had to be shed in order for our sins to have been forgiven. (However, the author of Hebrews is making the point that if animal blood could atone for sins under the Law, then by comparison, Jesus’ blood is certainly more efficacious!)