How do you understand substitutionary atonement? Do you believe God PUNISHED Jesus for our sins?
1 Peter 3
21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
It’s even prophesied. Isaiah 53.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced
for our transgressions,
he was crushed
for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. (Not just, you say?)
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Not fair, you say?)
10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, (sounds like you don’t support that decision)
and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, (is this where you get the “child abuse” thing from?)
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
Give me one example (with a link, please) of where the Church of Rome finds fault with the idea of substitutionary atonement. So far, I’ve identified the original source of the complaint in Faustus Socinus, an anti-Trinitarian who denied that Jesus is God. Who in the Roman Catholic Church agrees with him besides you?
We do not believe in imputed righteousness. We believe we are not merely declared righteous but are actually **MADE **righteous.
All right, you see it as more of an internal event. However, Catholics will still be careful to state that, although a believer is formally justified by his works, this righteousness is a gift of God, not something that is merited apart from God. In this sense- pointing here to the fact that righteousness, however you slice it, cannot be merited apart from God- you do indeed believe that righteousness must come from God and not from yourself. And that’s what the idea of imputed righteousness basically states. It’s more of an internal affair and you deny the present reality of it, but it still happens.
You see the soul as totally corrupt after the fall and even after Christ saving death it remains totally corrupt but because of His death, this putrid state is covered by the clean cloth of His righteousness.
Source? I didn’t say that. Who did?
instead of just covering us with His righteousness
Actually, I do fully assent to the concept of the old self dying and being replaced with the new self. The old is gone, my friend; the new has come. It’s just that my idea of imputed righteousness involves its present reality, while yours does not. This idea is expressed at this source:
shepherds-rod.org/1888/chr10.htm
and here it is, starting in Zechariah.
“And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee; is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the Angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying,
Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair miter upon his head. So they set a fair miter upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the Angel of the Lord stood by.”
Notice in the above account that the taking away of the filthy garments is the same as causing the iniquity to pass from the person. And so we find that when Christ covers us with the robe of His own righteousness,
He does not furnish a cloak for sin but takes the sin away. And this shows that the forgiveness of sins is
something more than a mere form, something more than a mere entry in the books of record in heaven, to the effect that the sin has been canceled. The forgiveness of sins is a reality; it is something tangible, something that vitally affects the individual. It actually clears him from guilt, and if he is cleared from guilt, is justified, made righteous, he has certainly undergone a radical change.
He is, indeed, another person, (like I said), for he obtained this righteousness for the remission of sins, in Christ. It was obtained only by putting on Christ. But “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” 2 Cor. 5:17. And so the full and free forgiveness of sins carries with it that wonderful and miraculous change known as the new birth, for a man cannot become a new creature except by a new birth. This is the same as having a new, or a clean, heart.
Got a lithp?
It’s the Protestant doctrine of eternal insecurity. 
