Penal Substitutionary Atonement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Per_Crucem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Penal substitution was not new from the Reformation. It was one of several explanations from the early church. Note that there does not have to be just one way atonement was achieved. Several means could be used together.

This paper goes through the beliefs of some in the early church
tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf

I believe that penal substitution was one of the few things dealt with by the reformers that was not actually anathematized by the Council of Trent.
 
Penal substitution was not new from the Reformation. It was one of several explanations from the early church. Note that there does not have to be just one way atonement was achieved. Several means could be used together.

This paper goes through the beliefs of some in the early church
tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf

I believe that penal substitution was one of the few things dealt with by the reformers that was not actually anathematized by the Council of Trent.
Unfortunately, the examples provided in the above link do not show by any stretch that the early church taught the penal substitution theory. They do indicate a substitution theory, which has always been a part of church teaching. However, the distinct understanding put forward by the reformers is exactly that; a theory taught by the reformers, not by the Patristics.
 
Unfortunately, the examples provided in the above link do not show by any stretch that the early church taught the penal substitution theory. They do indicate a substitution theory, which has always been a part of church teaching. However, the distinct understanding put forward by the reformers is exactly that; a theory taught by the reformers, not by the Patristics.
You hit the nail on the head! My fellowship teaches that it was a substitutionary atonement. The theories are simply our minds trying to make sense of it all. I believe each theory does contain some truth and some error
 
You hit the nail on the head! My fellowship teaches that it was a substitutionary atonement. The theories are simply our minds trying to make sense of it all. I believe each theory does contain some truth and some error
Substitution is true; Christ is the New Adam, and substitutes Himself on our behalf; However, it is the legal/penal/punishment part that is in dispute. I agree that there are multiple ways of looking at the atonement. Most of which are biblical and are taught by the fathers. However, the penal substitution view is not one of them.
 
Vicarious Atonement
The word “vicarious” means substitute. Therefore, Christ was a substitute for others in that he took their place and suffered their punishment. It was also a legal act whereby Christ fulfilled the law and lawfully paid the penalty of sin.

Is it biblical to say that Christ took our place and suffered our punishment? Yes it is. First of all, we see vicarious sacrifice in the Old Testament.

Genesis 22:13, “Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son.”

Notice that the ram was offered in place of Isaac. This was a substitutionary sacrifice which is exactly what “vicarious” means. Further, we see a prophecy of the atoning work of Christ in Isaiah. Notice the substitutionary language:

Isaiah 53:4-5, “Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed.”

We see in the above verses in Isaiah that Jesus was prophesied to bear our sorrows, to be smitten of God (which is what is due us, the sinners), and that our chastening fell upon him. What was due to us because of our sinfulness is what fell upon Christ. He was our substitution.

2 Cor. 5:21, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
Rom. 4:25, “He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.”

Jesus was a substitution in that he was made sin on our behalf. Just as the RAM was offered as a substitute for Isaac, Christ was offered in substitution for us. This is why the Bible says he became sin on our behalf, that he was delivered because of our transgressions, that he bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, was pierced for our transgressions, and was crushed for our iniquities.

Jesus did what we could not. He took our place and bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and made propitiation for our sins.

Rom. 3:25, “whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.”
1 John 2:2, “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
1 John 4:10, “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

The word propitiation “properly signifies the removal of wrath by the offering of a gift.” Propitiation properly deals with the wrath of God. The wrath of God is due to the legal requirements of punishing the sinner. Remember, the sinner is someone who has broken the law of God, hence, the legality of punishment; and since Jesus is our propitiation and turns away the lawful wrath of God, we have further evidence that Christ’s sacrifice was to avert God’s righteous wrath against us, the sinners. Since the law of God must be met and cannot be ignored, it is proper that the law be fulfilled. Jesus is the one who fulfilled the law and never sinned (1 Pet. 2:22). But, he bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) and became sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21) thereby suffering the penalty of sin, which is death.

Christ’s death was a legal payment.

In addition to Christ’s atonement being vicarious, it was also legal. Legality deals with the law. Sin is breaking the law of God. When a law is broken, a punishment is incurred. There is no punishment without law, and there is no law without punishment. When a person is sentenced to time in prison, this is done based upon the requirements of the law. The required sentence upon one who breaks the law of God is death.

2 Cor. 1:9, “indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves in order that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead.”

Paul tells us that we had a “sentence of death.” This sentence is due to our breaking the law of God. Therefore, we were legally guilty before God because we broke his law. Furthermore, when Jesus was on the cross, he said “It is finished!” (John 19:30). In Greek it is, “tetelistai,” and it was a legal term.

“The sixth word or saying that Jesus spoke from the cross was the single Greek word tetelestai which means ‘It is finished.’ Papyri receipts for taxes have been recovered with the word tetelestai written across them, meaning “paid in full.” This word on Jesus’ lips was significant. When He said, “It is finished” (not “I am finished”), He meant His redemptive work was completed. He had been made sin for people (2 Cor. 5:21) and had suffered the penalty of God’s justice which sin deserved.”

Jesus knew the culture, and he specifically used that word “tetelestai,” which was used in legal statements in ancient Israel when a legal debt had been fully paid. Why was this necessary legally? Because sin only has power because of the law (legality) of God. The law has a punishment, and the punishment is death.

1 Cor. 15:56, “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.”

Rom. 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

The whole atoning work of Christ was a legal action where Jesus substituted himself for sinners and paid the legal requirement of the punishment of sin–death.
 
Unfortunately, the examples provided in the above link do not show by any stretch that the early church taught the penal substitution theory. They do indicate a substitution theory, which has always been a part of church teaching. However, the distinct understanding put forward by the reformers is exactly that; a theory taught by the reformers, not by the Patristics.
I wasn’t home for my first post so I posted the link to the article. These are from my own reading.
Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.
Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm
. The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the Manichæans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ’s humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment.
Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm
For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt.
Augustine (Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html
Surely that He might redeem us from death, the Lord came to die, and the impoverishment and punishments of our flesh He underwent in His own Body; Who before He came to the stock of the Cross, suffered Himself to be bound, to be spit on, to be mocked and to be beaten with blows on His cheek.
Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 4, Book 17, Paragraph 54
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book17.html
And so whereas ‘The Father is righteous,’ in punishing a righteous man, ‘He ordereth all things righteously,’ in that by these means He justifies all things, viz. that for the sake of sinners He condemns Him Who is without sin; that all the Elect might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as He Who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness. …For the rust of sin could not be cleared away, but by the fire of torment, He then came without sin, Who should submit Himself voluntarily to torment, that the chastisements due to our wickedness might justly loose the parties thereto obnoxious
Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 1, Part 1, Book 3, Paragraph 27
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book03.html
For he makes a wide distinction between “commandments” and “ordinances.” He either then means “faith,” calling that an “ordinance,” (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means “precept,” such as Christ gave, when He said, “But I say unto you, that you are not to be angry at all. That is to say, If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’And again, The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?’ or, who hath brought. Him again from the dead?’ Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines”
John Chrysostom (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/230105.htm
It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others.
John Chrysostom (Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.html
And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us.
Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 10, Chapter 1)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.htm
." This He suffered "being made a curse for us; and making himself sin for our sakes."And then "He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,"and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. And after all this when He had offered such a wondrous offering and choice victim to the Father, and sacrificed for the salvation of us all, He delivered a memorial to us to offer to God continually instead of a sacrifice
Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

I hope the links are still good since it has been a while since I read these.
 
Substitution does not necessarily mean penal substitution. And substitution is not ‘replacement.’ Christ is our substitute, but not our replacement. He is our representative, the one through whom we can give ourselves to God. If he ‘replaced’ us, and was ‘punished instead of us,’ why do I have to be ‘crucified with Christ’?
 
Substitution does not necessarily mean penal substitution. And substitution is not ‘replacement.’ Christ is our substitute, but not our replacement. He is our representative, the one through whom we can give ourselves to God. If he ‘replaced’ us, and was ‘punished instead of us,’ why do I have to be ‘crucified with Christ’?
Exactly. Christ died for us, not instead of us.
 
Substitution does not necessarily mean penal substitution. And substitution is not ‘replacement.’ Christ is our substitute, but not our replacement. He is our representative, the one through whom we can give ourselves to God. If he ‘replaced’ us, and was ‘punished instead of us,’ why do I have to be ‘crucified with Christ’?
Did I write replacement in my long post? If so I did not mean like you are describing.
 
Hi SyCarl,

I spent some time looking at the links you gave. It seemed you may have had a point in favor of Penal substitution, so I looked more closely at them.
I wasn’t home for my first post so I posted the link to the article. These are from my own reading.

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 4)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

Augustine (Contra Faustum Book 14, Chapter 7)
newadvent.org/fathers/140614.htm

Augustine (Expositions of the Book of Psalms, Psalm 51)
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LI.html

Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 2, Part 4, Book 17, Paragraph 54
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book17.html

Gregory the Great (An Exposition on the Book of the Blessed Job, Volume 1, Part 1, Book 3, Paragraph 27
lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoralia/Book03.html

John Chrysostom (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 5)
newadvent.org/fathers/230105.htm

John Chrysostom (Commentary on Galatians, Chapter 3
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.iii.html

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 10, Chapter 1)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_12_book10.htm

Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstratio Envangelica, Book 1, Chapter 10)
tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_de_03_book1.htm

I hope the links are still good since it has been a while since I read these.
I only finished Gregory and Augustine, and I think it is clear that they saw that Christ died in our place as fulfillment of the curse of physical death upon us as a result of original sin.

However, that being said, it isn’t so clear that they believe that the torture undergone by Christ in His Crucifixion was part of this “penal substitution”.

What the Catholic Church believes is that Christ led a perfect life of obedience, that even led to death on the Cross. Thus His perfect obedience is a propiation because it was what the Father wanted in the first place from us. God doesn’t want punishment but obedience.

peace
steve
 
Did I write replacement in my long post? If so I did not mean like you are describing.
You might not have used the word ‘replacement,’ but you said this:
Vicarious Atonement
The word “vicarious” means substitute. Therefore, Christ was a substitute for others in that he took their place and suffered their punishment. It was also a legal act whereby Christ fulfilled the law and lawfully paid the penalty of sin.
Christ did not ‘take our place’ or ‘suffer our punishment.’ He was not punished as if he was guilty. He atoned for it by making satisfaction - by giving God that which we are called to give; himself, in thanksgiving and adoration, for us, on behalf of us, not ‘instead of us.’

When St. Anselm talks of satisfaction this is what he means. Aut poena aut satisfactio, ‘either punishment or satisfaction.’ Not both.
 
You might not have used the word ‘replacement,’ but you said this:

Christ did not ‘take our place’ or ‘suffer our punishment.’ He was not punished as if he was guilty. He atoned for it by making satisfaction - by giving God that which we are called to give; himself, in thanksgiving and adoration, for us, on behalf of us, not ‘instead of us.’

When St. Anselm talks of satisfaction this is what he means. Aut poena aut satisfactio, ‘either punishment or satisfaction.’ Not both.
Christ died in our place. He paid the ultimate price.
 
You might not have used the word ‘replacement,’ but you said this:

Christ did not ‘take our place’ or ‘suffer our punishment.’ He was not punished as if he was guilty. He atoned for it by making satisfaction - by giving God that which we are called to give; himself, in thanksgiving and adoration, for us, on behalf of us, not ‘instead of us.’

When St. Anselm talks of satisfaction this is what he means. Aut poena aut satisfactio, ‘either punishment or satisfaction.’ Not both.
What is our punishment for sin? Death or rather eternal “death.” When a sacrifice was performed in the OT, that sacrifice did not forgive theirs sins but merely God kept His wrath from them. Correct?

Jesus became our sin. He took all the sins of the world( past, present and future) and became to utlimate sacrifice on our behalf. He took on our death and then was resurrected to conquer that death for us. He took on our punishment that we deserve because you and I can never atone for such sins.
 
What is our punishment for sin? Death or rather eternal “death.” When a sacrifice was performed in the OT, that sacrifice did not forgive theirs sins but merely God kept His wrath from them. Correct?

Jesus became our sin. He took all the sins of the world( past, present and future) and became to utlimate sacrifice on our behalf. He took on our death and then was resurrected to conquer that death for us. He took on our punishment that we deserve because you and I can never atone for such sins.
I beg to differ. I believe He became a sin offering, which is only figuratively sin. The fact of living a perfect life of obedience, one that led to utmost humiliation and suffering on a cross, was the propitiation which the Father desired and the Son wished to offer on our behalf.
His Blood is a representation of the depth of His obedience.
That is what can be the basis of our being forgiven of our sins.
Jesus’s obedience far outweighs any of our sins. However, we must be part of His Body, His Church, for any of this to be applicable to us.
peace
steve
 
I beg to differ. I believe He became a sin offering, which is only figuratively sin. The fact of living a perfect life of obedience, one that led to utmost humiliation and suffering on a cross, was the propitiation which the Father desired and the Son wished to offer on our behalf.
His Blood is a representation of the depth of His obedience.
That is what can be the basis of our being forgiven of our sins.
Jesus’s obedience far outweighs any of our sins. However, we must be part of His Body, His Church, for any of this to be applicable to us.
peace
steve
You do not have to beg in order to differ:p
 
What is our punishment for sin? Death or rather eternal “death.” When a sacrifice was performed in the OT, that sacrifice did not forgive theirs sins but merely God kept His wrath from them. Correct?

Jesus became our sin. He took all the sins of the world( past, present and future) and became to utlimate sacrifice on our behalf. He took on our death and then was resurrected to conquer that death for us. He took on our punishment that we deserve because you and I can never atone for such sins.
If Jesus took our punishment and made a ‘swap,’ then he should have stayed dead. I remember seeing a meme a while back. It might have been here on CAF, or on Facebook, but it said something like ‘If Jesus died for our sins, but came back, wouldn’t that be a deal breaker’?

The question is silly, but when you take the theory that Christ took the punishment that was due for us, it is not silly. According to John Calvin, when Christ offered himself on the Cross (and descended into Hell), Christ underwent a ‘switch’ or a ‘transfer of penalty.’ In such a context, the resurrection IS a deal breaker.

But if we read St. Paul, we see that he actually sees Christ as a representative, offering himself as a gift to God, not as a replacement onto which God can inflict punishment. And then the resurrection becomes rather the seal of the deal.

And no, Jesus did not ‘become sin.’ The Greek word ‘hamartia’ can mean both sin and sin offering. The sin offering is not sin itself. We do not offer our sins. We offer gifts. And Christ offered the gift we should have offered, the offering we were called to offer: his own life, as our representative.
 
If Jesus took our punishment and made a ‘swap,’ then he should have stayed dead. I remember seeing a meme a while back. It might have been here on CAF, or on Facebook, but it said something like ‘If Jesus died for our sins, but came back, wouldn’t that be a deal breaker’?

The question is silly, but when you take the theory that Christ took the punishment that was due for us, it is not silly. According to John Calvin, when Christ offered himself on the Cross (and descended into Hell), Christ underwent a ‘switch’ or a ‘transfer of penalty.’ In such a context, the resurrection IS a deal breaker.

But if we read St. Paul, we see that he actually sees Christ as a representative, offering himself as a gift to God, not as a replacement onto which God can inflict punishment. And then the resurrection becomes rather the seal of the deal.

And no, Jesus did not ‘become sin.’ The Greek word ‘hamartia’ can mean both sin and sin offering. The sin offering is not sin itself. We do not offer our sins. We offer gifts. And Christ offered the gift we should have offered, the offering we were called to offer: his own life, as our representative.
Agree to disagree and live to fight another battle?🙂
 
If Jesus took our punishment and made a ‘swap,’ then he should have stayed dead. I remember seeing a meme a while back. It might have been here on CAF, or on Facebook, but it said something like ‘If Jesus died for our sins, but came back, wouldn’t that be a deal breaker’?

The question is silly, but when you take the theory that Christ took the punishment that was due for us, it is not silly. According to John Calvin, when Christ offered himself on the Cross (and descended into Hell), Christ underwent a ‘switch’ or a ‘transfer of penalty.’ In such a context, the resurrection IS a deal breaker.

But if we read St. Paul, we see that he actually sees Christ as a representative, offering himself as a gift to God, not as a replacement onto which God can inflict punishment. And then the resurrection becomes rather the seal of the deal.

And no, Jesus did not ‘become sin.’ The Greek word ‘hamartia’ can mean both sin and sin offering. The sin offering is not sin itself. We do not offer our sins. We offer gifts. And Christ offered the gift we should have offered, the offering we were called to offer: his own life, as our representative.
Relevant Scripture

Isaiah 53:6 - “the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

Isaiah 53:12 - “yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.”

Romans 3:25 - “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood–to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”

2 Corinthians 5:21 - “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Galatians 3:13 - “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us – for it is written, Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.”

Hebrews 10:1-4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top