K
Kliska
Guest
The OT, in many places, points right to this, including Abraham and Isaac. This is also a reason why only Jesus, God the Son, can be the atonement and still be raised, He must be God and man.
- Status
The OT, in many places, points right to this, including Abraham and Isaac. This is also a reason why only Jesus, God the Son, can be the atonement and still be raised, He must be God and man.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Ugh…
There is no forgiveness of sin without confessing them. There is no such thing as future sins being already forgiven. That is the equivalent of a “carte blanche” for sinning and the biggest shame for the Gospel.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Don’t put words in my statement please. He took on all sins which include the future. If His sacrifice does not cover the sins of the future then we are in trouble.
Yes we have to repent of such sins we commit today and tomorrow.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Relevant, but it doesn’t prove your point…
Yes, but this is an assertion of the effects of Christ’s actions, not the mechanism by which it happens; it demonstrates substitution, but not penal substitution.
As above; the effects of substitution – Christ bears our sins – but satisfaction meets this explanation as well. As explained by others, above, your quotation of Augustine demonstrates that the ‘sin’ Christ bore was death.
I’m not certain that this helps you at all; in fact, it hurts your case! Penal substitution claims that God’s punishment actually was exerted… upon Jesus. In Romans 3:25, Paul claims that past sins were unpunished, and then later, there wasn’t punishment, but atonement.
Again, per your Augustine citation, ‘sin’ is death:
So, unless by saying ‘sin’, Paul meant Jesus was ‘deserving punishment’ (which is simply untenable!), what he’s really saying here is that Jesus died. We agree on this. What he isn’t saying here is that Jesus was punished.
This is precisely the argument that Augustine is making in Contra Faustus – that the ‘curse’ is death itself!
It would seem that your citations fail to demonstrate what you think they demonstrate…
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Well I am sorry you feel that way. It wasn’t my goal to convince anyone. Just like when a Catholic post a verse to prove a certain doctrine taught by the RCC. Either person will agree with the interpretation or not.Relevant, but it doesn’t prove your point…
Yes, but this is an assertion of the effects of Christ’s actions, not the mechanism by which it happens; it demonstrates substitution, but not penal substitution.
As above; the effects of substitution – Christ bears our sins – but satisfaction meets this explanation as well. As explained by others, above, your quotation of Augustine demonstrates that the ‘sin’ Christ bore was death.
I’m not certain that this helps you at all; in fact, it hurts your case! Penal substitution claims that God’s punishment actually was exerted… upon Jesus. In Romans 3:25, Paul claims that past sins were unpunished, and then later, there wasn’t punishment, but atonement.
Again, per your Augustine citation, ‘sin’ is death:
So, unless by saying ‘sin’, Paul meant Jesus was ‘deserving punishment’ (which is simply untenable!), what he’s really saying here is that Jesus died. We agree on this. What he isn’t saying here is that Jesus was punished.
This is precisely the argument that Augustine is making in Contra Faustus – that the ‘curse’ is death itself!
It would seem that your citations fail to demonstrate what you think they demonstrate…
G
Gorgias
Guest
LOL! It’s a shame that, having quoted Augustine to us, you’re unable to mount a defense of your point (which stands in contradiction to Augustine).
True enough. Yet, aren’t we called “to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope”? If we cannot give an explanation – but rather, only quote Scripture and then express sorrow that others don’t see it as we do – are we really doing what Peter advised us to do?It wasn’t my goal to convince anyone… Either person will agree with the interpretation or not.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Gorgias,LOL! It’s a shame that, having quoted Augustine to us, you’re unable to mount a defense of your point (which stands in contradiction to Augustine).
True enough. Yet, aren’t we called “to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope”? If we cannot give an explanation – but rather, only quote Scripture and then express sorrow that others don’t see it as we do – are we really doing what Peter advised us to do?
It goes like this
Me-show me where God said Mary is sinless in Scripture
You-it is not in Scripture but rather Tradition
Me-That does not help your point
You-I believe what the RCC teaches
Me-I do not.
Etc, etc, etc
Now those answer are merely an example and in no way express your true answers but you get my point correct?
Which post did I quote Augustine? Someone else quoted him.
Did you read post #25?
G
Gorgias
Guest
My mistake! I confused you and SyCarl.Which post did I quote Augustine? Someone else quoted him.
The thing is… that’s not what’s going on here. I’m not relying on Tradition, but rather, am pointing out that your Scripture references don’t say what you think they do. I’m appropriating an Augustinian interpretation of Scripture to aid my case; still, this isn’t merely an appeal to authority (i.e., “what the Catholic Church teaches”), but rather, an exegesis of Scripture.
In fact, I did; and I was going to mount a point-by-point refutation of your interpretation of these verses, but it seemed that others had already done so.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
As I stated earlier in the thread, penal, ranson, etc are all theories. My view of PSA will differ from a Calvinist. My view of substitutionary atonement will surely differ from your view as well.My mistake! I confused you and SyCarl.
The thing is… that’s not what’s going on here. I’m not relying on Tradition, but rather, am pointing out that your Scripture references don’t say what you think they do. I’m appropriating an Augustinian interpretation of Scripture to aid my case; still, this isn’t merely an appeal to authority (i.e., “what the Catholic Church teaches”), but rather, an exegesis of Scripture.
In fact, I did; and I was going to mount a point-by-point refutation of your interpretation of these verses, but it seemed that others had already done so.
It is ok that we disagree. A theory is just that.
I backed up my belief in the theory with Scripture. You do not subscribe to the theory and you believe the Scripture tells another story. I am ok with that if you are.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Hi all, interesting discussion.
I’m quite surprised that nobody has touched on what I believe is the most pertinent interpretation of Christ’s death, namely, as a liturgical sacrifice. Jesus is presented as the Passover Lamb whose sacrifice takes away sin. Now, the lamb was not itself guilty (in fact, it was supposed to be perfect, without blemish) nor did the ritual or biblical ordinances consider the lamb guilty, and so I don’t think a strictly penal substitutionary atonement theory works.
I’m quite surprised that nobody has touched on what I believe is the most pertinent interpretation of Christ’s death, namely, as a liturgical sacrifice. Jesus is presented as the Passover Lamb whose sacrifice takes away sin. Now, the lamb was not itself guilty (in fact, it was supposed to be perfect, without blemish) nor did the ritual or biblical ordinances consider the lamb guilty, and so I don’t think a strictly penal substitutionary atonement theory works.
K
Kliska
Guest
When this gets debated I always feel that we go to narrow, as in the idea that Jesus’ sacrifice only encompassed X, and we ignore Y and Z. It is not, as I see in scripture, an either/or situation, as His sacrifice is linked and fulfills multiple sacrifices and types we see in the OT. In essence how can it be said only to accomplish one narrow “thing” when we see that it accomplishes every “thing.”
On a side note, it also reminds me of Aslan discussing something similar in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe;
“It means that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.”
On a side note, it also reminds me of Aslan discussing something similar in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe;
“It means that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards.”
K
KjetilK
Guest
Well, that can mean one of (at least) two things: that the Lord punished him for our sake, or that he bore the consequences of our sins, or that he lived in our condition. Furthermore, why assume that the Hebrew Masoretic Text (which I assume your translation is based on) is the one who are true to the Hebrew original? The Masoretic Text dates back to the 9th century AD. Why not assume that the Septuagint, which is about 800 years older, is the one true to the original? The Septuagint says, in this translation (NETS, New English Translation of the Septuagint): “All we like sheep have gone astray; a man has strayed in his own way, and the Lord gave him over to our sins.” (Isa 53:6) That can just mean that he was killed by us, ‘given over to our sins.’ And: “…And he bore the sins of many.” (Isa 53:12) This can, as before, simply mean that he bore the consequences of our sins, or that he lived in our condition. Anyway, see below for my more principled comment.
I see nothing in this text that would even be possible to interpret in the way you do. He atoned for our sins, yes. He wasn’t punished for them. Atonement can be done either through punishment or through satisfaction.
As I’ve already pointed out, the Greek word hamartia can mean either sin or sin offering. He did not ‘become sin.’ He became a sin offering.
And what is the curse here? Physical death. See Deut 21:22-23. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that he was punished in our stead. Again, for my principled comments, see below.
Nothing in this text says anything about he being punished for our sins.
We see here that there are different ways of interpreting these verses. But the question is: Why should I do as you do, and choose an interpretation that involves a logical self-contradiction? If the punishment for our sins is eternal damnation, then Christ – to actually take on that punishment – had to be eternally damned. Being dead three days is not the same as being eternally damed. One cannot just say that ‘well, he was stronger.’ Because the point there is that he was punished so that we didn’t have to. But if he rose after three days he wasn’t punished eternally, and thus did not take on our punishment.
But if we do not see it as him taking on our punishment but – as St. Anselm said – giving himself as an offering, a satisfaction, for us, for sins, then no self-contradiction is involved. Christ, our representative, gave God that which we are called to do – that which man has always been called to do since creation – himself, in thanks and adoration.
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
Post # 25 goes into more detail if you wish to scroll back. I do not have the time for a longer response until later on. Have a great day and God bless!
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
That is where penal substitution breaks down. It attempts to prove penal substitution by referring back to the OT sacrifice of animals. However, when we actually examine the OT and Jewish understanding of those sacrifices, it doesn’t prove PS at all. Rather, it contradicts it.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yes, there is no indication in the OT, or in Jewish rituals, that, say, the Paschal Lamb was ‘punished’ or that the lamb offered for sins on Yom Kippur was ‘punished.’
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
Indeed. In the Bible, “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). The victim slain in sacrifice was not the vicarious recipient of divine punishment, but the symbol of the loving dedication of the life of the person making the sacrifice. This sacrificial dedication is the means by which the sinner is made at one with God. Such is the biblical meaning of expiation and the proper context in which to interpret St. Paul’s teaching on the sacrifice of Christ.
K
Kliska
Guest
However, you clearly see the laying on of sin onto the sacrifice. If no such step were needed, we wouldn’t have God commanding it, after all, there were “sin offerings” involved. You can’t pick one single sacrifice or offering in the OT, as one must see Jesus as fulfilling multiple sacrifices (and filing several roles such as high priest and sacrifice all at the same time). There is layer upon layer present.
We are being taught a very important lesson so that we will not be doomed to repeat it; for sin comes death.
We are being taught a very important lesson so that we will not be doomed to repeat it; for sin comes death.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Aidan,
You keep pointing people back to your post #25, so I’m guessing you want us to engage you on your assertions there…
You keep pointing people back to your post #25, so I’m guessing you want us to engage you on your assertions there…
Fair enough – I think we all agree that ‘substitution’ is the name of the game; the point of disagreement isn’t on ‘substitution’ but on the question of ‘punishment’ or ‘satisfaction’…
This is a logical error. ‘Substitution’ does not necessarily imply ‘punishment’.
Again, this is highly interpretative and requires us to willfully ignore those passages in which even Christ declares that His sacrifice is one of love – and not one of a simple business transaction. God is our Father, declares Jesus – not our creditor.
Let’s be fair – ‘vicarious sacrifice’ doesn’t prove ‘penal substitution’…
Notice that Isaac wasn’t being punished, and neither was the ram.
Again, satisfaction meets these conditions, too. You’re not proving your point here…
Here, I’ll rely on assertions already made in this thread: Augustine’s claim that the ‘sin’ here is ‘death’ itself. Therefore, yes, Christ took on death in his body for us; yet, that doesn’t prove penal substitution. Also, we’ve got (Kliska’s, I think) unrefuted assertion, which (I would agree) completely demolishes penal substitution: if the punishment is merely ‘eternal death’, then Christ’s sacrifice does not fit the bill: He was dead only three days. Moreover, if ‘eternal death’ is all that is required, and ‘substitution’ suffices, then any (redeemed) human who gives his life for another fulfills God’s justice. (Here’s a thought experiment for you: suppose I get baptized; therefore, I am bought at a price, and no longer under the punishment of sin. Imagine I immediately give up my life for a non-believer (an atheist, let’s say). Does my sacrifice atone for the atheist and guarantee him heaven? Under the notion of ‘penal substitution’, it does, yet that’s antithetical to Christian belief.)
I’m going to defer a discussion on the value of this definition, and instead just go right to demonstrating that it refutes your position. “The offering of a gift” implies satisfaction, not punishment. The ‘offering’ here is the substitution, not the adequacy of the punishment. If you were to have defined propitiation as “the removal of wrath by the replacement of an equivalent item”, then you’d have a leg to stand on (except that it would be an untenable definition). As it is, the notion that the ‘offering’ was ‘sufficient punishment’ is what sinks you here. Remember God’s own words: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”.
True, but this only speaks to the fact that Jesus’ sacrifice was efficacious – it doesn’t imply that it it was efficacious because it fulfilled God’s justice.
Be careful here – you’ve already quoted Scripture (Romans 3:25) that refutes this: God Himself chooses not to punish us, knowing beforehand what Jesus will do. Your citation of Romans shows us that God does not require that His law “cannot be ignores”, since this is precisely what He does!
Your conclusion is unsupported, for the reasons I’ve outlined above.
You keep making this assertion, but without attribution.
Yes, but it does not follow that the punishment must be enforced. See Jesus’ response to the woman caught in adultery. He doesn’t assert that she’s innocent; just that He does not condemn her to the legal punishment. Yet again, we see that your argument is refuted in Scripture.
Can you please provide a reference that proves that this is the proper interpretation of this word? I’m willing to grant that it can be used in this way, but not that it must be interpreted thusly. You see, “telos” speaks to purpose or goal; to be “tetelestai” is to have accomplished one’s purpose. This is the same word Jesus uses when He tells us “be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” – the word ‘perfect’ here is really the adjectival form of telos (just as tetelestai is a verbal form of telos). If it must be interpreted as “paid in full”, what support do you have for this claim?
A
aidanbradypop
Guest
K
KjetilK
Guest
I think I was the one to make that point. And the point is that saying Christ took our punishment, yet didn’t (because he wasn’t dead for all eternity), involves a self-contradiction. And we know that if an idea entails a self-contradiction, the idea in question is false.
Indeed. As Anselm said, aut poena aut satisfactio, “either punishment or satisfaction.” Not both.
- Status