Penal Theology and Substitution Theology

[peeteyg]

I am wanting a Catholic perspective on this topic. I think Protestants feel that Jesus died only for the elect who are predestined. This has to do with jesus dying on the cross as a substitute for us. Any comments on this topic?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I am wanting a Catholic perspective on this topic. I think Protestants feel that Jesus died only for the elect who are predestined. This has to do with jesus dying on the cross as a substitute for us. Any comments on this topic?

Hello peeteyg

There is a good discussion on this topic here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=474579

There are a lot of names and writings being discussed that you may be interested in looking at.

God bless you

 

[Contarini]

I think Protestants feel that Jesus died only for the elect who are predestined.

Only five-point Calvinists believe this. While they occupy a central place in the Protestant intellectual tradition (kind of like Thomists in Catholicism), they are very far from the majority.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

I don’t know of a label for how I see this or even if I should be spreading my thoughts around, since they are my own speculation. I spent some years being influenced by Calvinist leaning folks and always found their legally imputed status of righteousness a little bit off-putting. As if God could ever fool himself into seeing me as perfect when I’m not. Wave your hands all you want, but a sinner “covered” by righteousness is still a sinner.

Instead, I think that God really DOES make us perfect before we enter heaven. I think Jesus always intended to become incarnate among us. The crucifixion and death occurred because that is inevitably what happens when perfection comes into contact with sin. Sin HATES perfection. Crucifixion is merely a byproduct of my sin. This is why it is foolish when some nominal christians call Jews “Christ-killers.” Uh, guys? They didn’t kill Jesus, we ALL did. To me, THAT’s the glory of the cross. We chose sin and nailed Christ to the cross, but His love for us is such that in spite of that, he offers us forgiveness and the Grace to have those nasty sinful tendencies removed from us. He didn’t do it to satisfy some internal justice need within the Trinity, He did it because of the effect it would have on US.

To me, none of the Father imagery makes any sense otherwise. I’m a father. When my kids do wrong, I’m not focused on punishing the crime committed, I’m focused on making sure that they understand that it was wrong, comprehend the damage done in doing the wrong thing and cultivating in them the virtue to do what is right rather than what feels good or is easy. Punishment, properly done, is merely a means to that end, not an end in itself. I don’t see why our Heavenly Father would be any different.

So is there a label for the above?

 

[Izdaari]

Only five-point Calvinists believe this. While they occupy a central place in the Protestant intellectual tradition (kind of like Thomists in Catholicism), they are very far from the majority.

Edwin

Right, that belief is characteristic of Calvinists, not of Protestants in general. TULIP is the popular acronym for the five points, or “petals” of Calvinism. That particular petal of the TULIP is the L, for “Limited Atonement”. Calvinists often prefer to call themselves “Reformed” and their distinctive beliefs “the doctrines of Grace”… a little bit arrogantly, since Luther was bigger in the Reformation than Calvin, and Calvinists are by no means the only Christians to emphasize Grace.

Sometimes I think I might be a 4pt Calvinist (TU_IP) aka Amyraldian. Other times, I’m Lutheran (by soteriology, that is - I’ve never formally been a member of a Lutheran church). The difference is a pretty fine distinction, one I can’t grasp at least until I’ve had my coffee.

 

[Izdaari]

I don’t know of a label for how I see this or even if I should be spreading my thoughts around, since they are my own speculation. I spent some years being influenced by Calvinist leaning folks and always found their legally imputed status of righteousness a little bit off-putting. As if God could ever fool himself into seeing me as perfect when I’m not. Wave your hands all you want, but a sinner “covered” by righteousness is still a sinner.

Instead, I think that God really DOES make us perfect before we enter heaven. I think Jesus always intended to become incarnate among us. The crucifixion and death occurred because that is inevitably what happens when perfection comes into contact with sin. Sin HATES perfection. Crucifixion is merely a byproduct of my sin. This is why it is foolish when some nominal christians call Jews “Christ-killers.” Uh, guys? They didn’t kill Jesus, we ALL did. To me, THAT’s the glory of the cross. We chose sin and nailed Christ to the cross, but His love for us is such that in spite of that, he offers us forgiveness and the Grace to have those nasty sinful tendencies removed from us. He didn’t do it to satisfy some internal justice need within the Trinity, He did it because of the effect it would have on US.

To me, none of the Father imagery makes any sense otherwise. I’m a father. When my kids do wrong, I’m not focused on punishing the crime committed, I’m focused on making sure that they understand that it was wrong, comprehend the damage done in doing the wrong thing and cultivating in them the virtue to do what is right rather than what feels good or is easy. Punishment, properly done, is merely a means to that end, not an end in itself. I don’t see why our Heavenly Father would be any different.

So is there a label for the above?

I’m not sure what to call it, but it does articulate pretty well why penal substitutionary atonement doesn’t quite sit right with me. I favor primarily the Christus Victor theory, with some mixture of penal and ransom, a la Athanasius and C.S. Lewis (mainly in his fiction, both in The Chronicles of Narnia and the Perelandra trilogy).

 

[Contarini]

Right, that belief is characteristic of Calvinists, not of Protestants in general. TULIP is the popular acronym for the five points, or “petals” of Calvinism. That particular petal of the TULIP is the L, for “Limited Atonement”. Calvinists often prefer to call themselves “Reformed” and their distinctive beliefs “the doctrines of Grace”… a little bit arrogantly, since Luther was bigger in the Reformation than Calvin,

Yes, his ideas were certainly more original and influential in and of themselves. But Calvin was a synthesizer–he put the Swiss/South German theological emphases (sola scriptura and the belief in the unmediated action of God) together with the Wittenberg theology of sola fide. He did so in an eloquent and (to many people) convincing way, even though he had to paper over some of the joints with fast talking. So in a way he’s the *central *theologian of the Reformation–along with Bullinger perhaps. Behind them stand Bucer and Melanchthon, and behind them stand Luther and Zwingli. The Reformed tradition thus pulls together the teaching of the major Reformers as a whole. Lutherans, in contrast, rejected the Swiss/South German tradition, and were even suspicious of Melanchthon to some extent.

and Calvinists are by no means the only Christians to emphasize Grace.

Certainly. But they define grace in Augustinian terms and see themselves as having drawn out the Augustinian principles to their logical conclusions. I think that this is a very unfortunate and unbalanced theological approach, but it does have its strengths along with its fatal weaknesses.

Edwin

 

[Izdaari]

Yes, his ideas were certainly more original and influential in and of themselves. But Calvin was a synthesizer–he put the Swiss/South German theological emphases (sola scriptura and the belief in the unmediated action of God) together with the Wittenberg theology of sola fide. He did so in an eloquent and (to many people) convincing way, even though he had to paper over some of the joints with fast talking. So in a way he’s the *central *theologian of the Reformation–along with Bullinger perhaps. Behind them stand Bucer and Melanchthon, and behind them stand Luther and Zwingli. The Reformed tradition thus pulls together the teaching of the major Reformers as a whole. Lutherans, in contrast, rejected the Swiss/South German tradition, and were even suspicious of Melanchthon to some extent.

Interesting and informative, thank you.

Obviously I haven’t studied the history of the Reformation as deeply as you have. But I have read some of Luther and some of Calvin (I don’t know if I’ll ever have time to read all of both – they wrote so prolifically) and I have to say, both men make a much better impression on me than most of their followers do.

Certainly. But they define grace in Augustinian terms and see themselves as having drawn out the Augustinian principles to their logical conclusions. I think that this is a very unfortunate and unbalanced theological approach, but it does have its strengths along with its fatal weaknesses.

Right. That’s just what I’d say about it.

 

[Contarini]

Obviously I haven’t studied the history of the Reformation as deeply as you have. But I have read some of Luther and some of Calvin (I don’t know if I’ll ever have time to read all of both – they wrote so prolifically)

I’m not sure if anyone has read all of Luther’s writings. Calvin would be possible, but a lot of work.

Edwin