Substitutionary Atonement

[Frontline]

The New Testament is often almost disconnected from the Old and seen as the Newer, abrogating revelation rather than the completion or fulfillment of the existing revelation.

I am sorry that we do not see eye to eye on this -

But the New Testament often speaks of events as being “in fulfillment of” what was written in the Old. I am sorry but I am unable to affirm that the New Testament is “almost disconnected from the Old” - this type of hermeneutic often tends to lead into dispensationalism - a branch of theology that is - to say it kindly - highly problematic.

But thank you for the clarification on what was actually meant by that post!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have a small window of time to make some comments now. There doesn’t look to be too many posts, so I should be able to catch up either later today or in a day or so.

I have heard it said that substitutionary atonement [or penal substitution] is “A Protestant heresy” - and that this doctrine has no support in Scripture whatsoever. I have also heard it said that since this doctrine was “invented” by John Calvin, it therefore has no support in Historical Christian thought either.

I for one, believe that both of these are fallacious claims, and would like to begin to discuss this doctrine with our Catholic friends here at CAF. I would like to examine some of the biblical support for the doctrine first - and then once we have all had our fair share of exposition, we can move on to the writings of the ECFs.

My intention here is to lay down some theological propositions to be considered by all who will read the thread - and also to engage respectfully with many (not all, for I am only one man) of the propositions that are set forth by Catholics concerning the atonement of Christ.

There has long been talk on the Atonement in history (and Scripture), but the specific issue of Penal Substitution (I believe) is not part of that heritage. Take this example, Protestants find various quotes of Early Church Fathers praising the sufficiency of Scripture, so they conclude the ECFs taught Sola Scriptura. Looking more closely though, just because an ECF was praising and talking about sufficiency and such does not automatically mean they believed in SS. (I don’t want to derail this into a SS discussion). So, while history and Scripture can talk about the atonement, it doesnt automatically mean the form of atonment was penal sub.

As you probably already know, I have written on this issue in the past, including on my webpage and the MacArthur PenSub thread.

First off - I understand that there are many aspects of the atonement that are valid - and I fully admit that penal substitution is not the only thing that the Bible reveals concerning the crucifixion of Christ. We find also, for example, that the cross was the means by which Jesus triumphed over evil powers - (Col. 2:15), that it offers an inspiring example to those who suffer unjustly - (1 Pet. 2:21-23), and that it brings about a decisive end to our old life of sin - (Rom 6:6). All of these are valid.

While there are multiple facets of the Atonement, I don’t believe Penal Sub is one of them. I don’t see the concept being taught in Scripture, especially in places like the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Justice was not being served at the cross, Jesus was unjustly tried, tortured, and murdered.

Therefore although it is true that the biblical portrayal of the atonement has many facets, the design of this particular thread is to simply discuss whether or not penal substitution is one of them, and whether it has such prominence that it cannot be sidelined.

Please - to all my Catholic friends - let us proceed with respect - “having our speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6) so as to demonstrate to all who read this thread, what it is to walk in the fear of God, the love of Christ, and the peace and patience of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Good. I would agree and say the same thing.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The error is in perceiving the nature of the atonement to be simply a form of vicarious punishment. His atoning sacrifice took the place of our punishment. It is not the same thing to simply say the atonement was merely vacarious punishment. The correct understanding of the atonement is that it was sacrificial in nature:

Peace,
-Robert

This is very important to point out. The key is that when Catholics say “His atoning sacrifice took the place of our punishment” we mean an alternative to punishment took place. The concept of Intercession is that the one Interceding prevented the punishment from being carried out on those deserving of it, it does not mean the Intercessor took that punishment.

Hi Robert -

Well I did admit that the atonement was not “simply” or “merely” or “exclusively” a penal substitution, as I affirm the various other aspects of the cross work of Christ. My position however is that penal substitution is the central aspect of the atonement.

This is what I will seek to establish from Scripture as we begin to deal with particular terms and passages. Be patient with me please, as I am only a student of the Scriptures myself - and continue to learn biblical truth on a daily basis.

Also - please remember that if I make a statement that is proven to be false - I will gladly recant from that statement - but that a single statement that is not true does not invalidate the position that I am attempting to establish. I will treat you likewise. Thanks.

Good. I just wanted to point out that what Robert said (quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia) is that an alternative to punishment took place, not a transfer of punishment. That might sound confusing, so hopefully this distinction is made as we continue to talk. Not realizing this distinction can cause both sides to misunderstand eachother, so I and others will try to be careful.

I will catch up with the rest asap.

 

[cfrancis]

The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement centered around two goats, one of which was sacrificed to the Lord, the other being sent into the desert as a ‘scapegoat’ or more literally, a ‘goat for Azazel.’ No respectable interpreter of the Scriptures would deny the fact that both of these goats are types and shadows of the Lord Jesus, and therefore each teaches us some important aspect of the atonement of Christ. Here, in attempting to establish a foundation for penal substitution – I will focus on the details of the scapegoat.

The instructions for the ritual involving the scapegoat are found in Leviticus 16:20-22:

“And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness” (vv. 20-22).

By laying his hands on the head of the goat and confessing the sins of the people, Aaron, as the representative of all the Israelites, identified with the goat and symbolically transferred the people’s sin to it. Some have denied that this act of identification implies substitution, but such an interpretation is inescapable. For when a person lives who otherwise would have died, and an animal dies who otherwise would have lived – substitution is necessarily entailed.

The goat is sent away to ‘a solitary place’ (literally, ‘a land of cutting off’ v. 22), where without doubt it would be expected to die. But the goats fate has a greater significance: for throughout the book of Leviticus we find that to be excluded, or ‘cut off’, from the camp of Israel was to experience God’s punishment for sin – (Lev. 7:20-27; 4:9-14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5-6, 17-18; 22:3; 23:29).

As the goat is sent away from the people, it is said to ‘bear all their iniquities on itself’ (v 22). Now the meaning of the underlying Hebrew phrase nasa avon depends in part on the subject of the verb. For example, where God is the subject it means ‘to forgive’ (Num. 14:18). Where a sinful person is the subject, it usually means that he bears his own guilt (Lev. 7:18).

However – Leviticus 16:22 is a rather different case, for an animal is the subject of the verb, and the judicial fate of the Israelites is transferred to the animal in such a way that they do not bear it themselves. Therefore – any unbiased reading of this passage will admit that the animal bears the sin and the guilt of the people *in their place, *and they are thereby released from this burden.

Are there any examples in OT where an Israelite who, having partaken of the Day of Atonement, still incurs God’s wrath for a sin committed (or a sin of omission)?

 

[Frontline]

I have a small window of time to make some comments now. There doesn’t look to be too many posts, so I should be able to catch up either later today or in a day or so.

Thank you CD, I appreciate your participation.

So, while history and Scripture can talk about the atonement, it doesn’t automatically mean the form of atonement was penal sub.

I agree. My purpose is not to impose the concept into the Scriptures, but to examine them to see if the Scriptures contain the concept.

While there are multiple facets of the Atonement, I don’t believe Penal Sub is one of them. I don’t see the concept being taught in Scripture, especially in places like the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion. Justice was not being served at the cross, Jesus was unjustly tried, tortured, and murdered.

I respectfully disagree that justice was not being served at the cross. I do agree that at the same time Jesus indeed suffered unjustly at the hands of wicked men. But the question that we have to answer is whether or not these two categories are mutually exclusive. Based upon a number of passages, I would say no. The Scriptures repeatedly demonstrate that one event can have two or more purposes in it – (human and divine) – and those purposes – though they manifest as a single historical event – each have a nature of their own.

For instance – take Joseph and his brethren. Even though what his brothers did was extremely sinful, in selling him into slavery – God is the one who brought it to pass. However, God did not bring it to pass for the purpose of harming Joseph, but for the purpose of doing good, by sending Joseph to Egypt that he might ‘save much people alive’ (Gen. 45:5). So the nature of each purpose is distinguishable – and Scripture makes this very clear – though it all manifested as one historical event. Joseph himself understood this, as he explained this plainly to his brethren – ‘But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive . . . So it was not you who sent me here, but God’ (Gen. 50:20; 45:8).

In the Reformed faith, we see no tension in the concept that one historical event can have multiple purposes behind it – and that each of those purposes can have a nature of their own. This is certainly how we see the crucifixion of Christ. And yet, because I only have so many words per post, I cannot give a full demonstration of my point.

Only allow me to say this:

As Peter was preaching the gospel to the ‘men of Israel’ in Acts chapter 2, he makes it a point to keep his gospel balanced – (revealing the whole counsel of God). Peter reminded the men that although they were guilty because they had ‘crucified and killed [Christ] by the hands of lawless men,’ Jesus was nevertheless at the same time ‘delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God’ (v. 23). This same point is again reaffirmed in Acts chapter 4, where we read – ‘for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place’ (v. 27-28).

Clearly then, it is the Reformed position that although Jesus was unjustly murdered at the hands of lawless men – at the same time his murder was nevertheless predestined and brought to pass by God Himself who intentionally delivered him up. And yet we wouldn’t want to charge God with injustice, would we? Certainly not. Therefore we also affirm that while a human injustice was certainly being committed, God Himself was, at the same time, actually satisfying a higher divine justice through the same event – the death of His dear Son. So that even as men were breaking the law of God – God Himself was fulfilling the law by the same act.

As John Piper soundly put it, “God did not just overcome evil at the cross. He made evil serve the overcoming of evil. He made evil commit suicide in doing its worst evil.”

I just wanted to point out that what Robert said (quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia) is that an alternative to punishment took place, not a transfer of punishment.

If this is the Catholic position – then I will consider it further – though I cannot make any promises. As we move along in this discussion, I am hoping to demonstrate that the Reformed position captures the nature of the atonement in the clearest light – and certainly I will seek to demonstrate that this light is Holy Scripture – the highest counsel of God’s revelation.

Thank you CD – for your contributions!

 

[Frontline]

Are there any examples in OT where an Israelite who, having partaken of the Day of Atonement, still incurs God’s wrath for a sin committed (or a sin of omission)?

Good point - and well taken. I do understand what is being implied, however, we must always remember that the sacrificial system is only typical and serves to set forth certain principles that find their full development in Christ. In other words, the question of efficacy remains vitally connected to the question of application. Therefore this is a particular facet that necessitates a full discussion on the extent of the atonement - not the nature thereof.

The author of Hebrews makes a related point to yours - I believe - in chapter 4 of his epistle. He warns his readers about falling into the same predicament as the children of Israel did - (being delivered from Egypt, and yet perishing in the wilderness for their unbelief).

This point, as I see it, is still more concerned with the doctrine of eternal security *as a result of * penal substitution - and not penal substitution itself. And although I affirm both, my purpose in this thread is to examine the biblical data concerning penal substitution alone. Again - this has to do with the nature of the atonement - not the extent - nor the effect thereof.

Thank you for your question cfrancis!

 

[Zooey]

This is very important to point out. The key is that when Catholics say “His atoning sacrifice took the place of our punishment” we mean an alternative to punishment took place. The concept of Intercession is that the one Interceding prevented the punishment from being carried out on those deserving of it, it does not mean the Intercessor took that punishment.

Good. I just wanted to point out that what Robert said (quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia) is that an alternative to punishment took place, not a transfer of punishment. That might sound confusing, so hopefully this distinction is made as we continue to talk. Not realizing this distinction can cause both sides to misunderstand eachother, so I and others will try to be careful.

I will catch up with the rest asap.

This seems to me to be an important point…This is where I think a lot of misunderstandings may arise. Because there is a difference between the two.
I have become more & more convinced with time & study, that God is not a God Who hands out punishment. God teaches, He disciplines, He draws us to Him with love & winsome care. He does not punish.
Therefore, I cannot accept the concept of penal substitution. To me, it tells something that is:nope: not true about the God of the Bible.
Zooey tiphat: Methodist-in-residence:wave: ).

 

[Frontline]

I have become more & more convinced with time & study, that God is not a God Who hands out punishment. God teaches, He disciplines, He draws us to Him with love & winsome care. He does not punish. Therefore, I cannot accept the concept of penal substitution. To me, it tells something that is not true about the God of the Bible.

Hi Zooey! Thank you for the comment.

I appreciate that this is how you feel, but at the same time, I am unable to relate to your mind-set. First off - I am unable to understand the distinction that you have made in that God disciplines, but *‘He does not punish.’ *Can you elaborate for me please?

If your distinction is between that which God does with His children, as opposed to that which God does with the wicked - then I have to wonder what you believe about the Bible’s teaching concerning the final judgment. In other words - are you saying that dicipline has a loving element to it - and punishment does not? If this is your meaning - then I would not entirely disagree with you - (Heb. 12:5-11). I would have to disagree with your assertion that God disciplines His children and does not punish the wicked.

This makes me wonder: Do you reject the idea of hell - the place that Jesus said the wicked will experience ‘everlasting punishment’ (Mat. 25:46) ?

Still - I am not so sure that you can hold a theological or even logical consistency with what Scripture plainly teaches concerning sin and the justice of God. I do hope, however, that you will continue to read this thread, and perhaps - *Lord willing *- you will come to discover something about certain attributes of God that you seem to have overlooked in your studies.

Blessings to you Zooey!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Because of space limits and to avoid having to make people read long quotes, I am singling out the key ideas/concepts to respond to without leaving anything important out.

Finally, kipper can refer to the averting of God’s wrath. This meaning is apparent in several Old Testament texts. For example, Numbers 25… … Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel…

So - in summary, I believe that I have established that the term kipper can relate to forgiveness, cleansing, ransom, and the averting of God’s wrath.

Yes, and in all four of the examples you gave, none of them required Pen-Sub! Phinehas is one of my personal favorites (Ps 106:30f), for he turned away God’s wrath yet did not have to suffer that wrath himself! This fits the Catholic model of “alternative to punishment” rather than the PS model of “transfer of punishment.” It is clear that Phinehas in Num 25 foreshadows Jesus.

Let us turn then, to the heart of Leviticus 16 and consider the rituals of the Day of Atonement:
… … I will focus on the details of the scapegoat.

…By laying his hands on the head of the goat and confessing the sins of the people, Aaron, as the representative of all the Israelites, identified with the goat and symbolically transferred the people’s sin to it. Some have denied that this act of identification implies substitution, but such an interpretation is inescapable. …

The goat is sent away to ‘a solitary place’ (literally, ‘a land of cutting off’ v. 22), where without doubt it would be expected to die. But the goats fate has a greater significance: for throughout the book of Leviticus we find that to be excluded, or ‘cut off’, from the camp of Israel was to experience God’s punishment for sin …

Good, this is a key passage we should be looking to, the Day of Atonement. Yet, this passage does not teach a notion of penal substitution. I do not deny a substitution via laying hands and transfering sin, but in this case the sins were “taken away” by means of the goat walking/carrying them away. This is not PS.
The fact the goat was left out in the desert cannot be stretched, the text/details say nothing about the purpose or fate of sending it out (eg to die or to receive punishment/wrath/etc). The fact such details are absent (eg stoning the goat, lightning striking the goat, etc) hurts the PS argument.

Penal Substitution is so obviously at the heart of Isaiah 53 that I will now begin to develop the doctrine from this glorious portion of Scripture.

I believe all OT prophecies must be primarily understood in how they unfold in the NT. Thus, we need to let the NT dictate how Is 53 unfolds.

First of all – as is clear from even a cursory reading of the chapter – the Servant (Jesus Christ) is explicitly said to suffer ‘for’ others…

Again, distinguish between “alternative to” and “transfer of” punishment. A father adopting a family and “suffering for” them means he works to sustain them, thus this notion is not restricted to punishment.

…the Servant suffered willingly and deliberately, not as a passive victim of the actions of others. This is made clear by the change to the active voice in verse 4a from the passive language in the surrounding context. In verses 4-5 this Servant makes it clear that taking sins upon him self is his act.

It is noteworthy that Is 53:4 is actually quoted in Matt 8:16f, and nothing to do with PS. That right there is needs to be considered and given pause.

As for suffering willingly and deliberately, you are correct in so far as Jesus knew He was going to suffer and was not forced or surprised. He did suffer as a “passive victim of the actions of others” because they were the ones who inflicted the harm.

The same emphasis on the Servant’s active participation is clear from verse 12, where the Lord promises to exalt the Servant because of his own initiative in giving himself up to die:
“Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; for he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

Yes Jesus willingly suffered and died, that is not an issue. The part of bore the sins should be interpreted in light of NT revelation where this is referenced in 1 Pt 2:18-24, the method is not at all PS. The part about “numbered with the transgressors” is in reference to being humiliated by being numbered among the true criminals (eg crucified between two theives, Mk 15:27f quotes Is 53:12).

(cont 1 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

Thirdly – and most importantly – it is God Himself who acts to lay the people’s sins upon the Servant and to punish him. This is clear from Isaiah 53:6, the same passage that I quote in my signature! This is an indisputable point, by virtue of the emphatic placement of ‘the LORD’ in the Hebrew word order:

“The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

This is where we start really disagreeing. I do not see this as saying “to punish” but instead to suffer for those sins in the sense of Phinehas turning away God’s wrath by doing good, so Jesus does good (life of perfect obedience) and turns away God’s wrath. The Gospel accounts don’t show God’s wrath being poured out on Jesus, only an unjust murder.

A similar grammatical construction is used in verse 10, which contains an even more explicit statement about the Lord’s role in the Servant’s suffering:

“Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.”

Please note (John7) that the text says - “It was the will of the LORD to crush him” - NOT - “to have him crushed.”

This is to be understood in the sense God foreordained the Cross, not in the sense God was the one unleashing Wrath. St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine teach this passage means God allowed these men to take Jesus away and harm him, and that is what Rom 8:32 and Acts 2:23f confirm.

Lastly – the suffering Servant is himself sinless and righteous. … But immediately then this raises the question:
‘If he is innocent, then why should he suffer in this way?’

Because Jesus was the epitome of love your neighbor, bless and don’t curse, don’t retaliate. There is a long tradition of God’s servants being treated unjustly by people who didn’t want to change their ways.

One possible answer is that Isaiah wants to hold the Servant up as a victim of injustice. In terms of the way he was treated by sinful humanity, he certainly was a victim, but this cannot be the whole story.

True.

For as I already mentioned – ‘it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief’ – and we dare not charge God with injustice! Thus the juxtaposition of the Servant’s innocence and God’s determination that he should suffer, focuses our question: ‘For what sins might God justly visit this judicial sentence upon him?’ Clearly not his own!

You are reading “judicial sentence” into the text. God wasn’t dumping His wrath on Jesus, the pain inflicted was by men acting wickedly.

The answer is found in the following verses, and confirms my first point – the Servant suffered not for his own sin, but for the sins of others: ‘he will bear their iniquities’ (v 11), ‘he bore the sins of many’ (v 12)! Therefore God acted justly in condemning the Servant for the sins of others – the sins the Servant willingly bore.

This is penal substitution.

No. Using the NT as a guide, the notion of PS in Is 53 does not unfold. For example, 1 Peter 2:18ff quotes and directly alludes to Is 53:5,6,7,9…HERE is where you interpret the OT in light o of the NT…yet 2:18ff is nothing to do with PS. It would be quite astonishing if the “true meaning of the cross” (PS) was never once directly indicated in the NT, even in passages which directly quote Is 53.

So, thusfar, in terms of clear NT demonstrations of PS, you have not shown any. In OT foreshadowings like Phinehas and the Scapegoat, again, no PS to show for it. I’ve looked into this issue for at least a year now and had many discussions with Calvinists on it. When it comes to making a fair and honest case from Scripture, without preconceived notions, I don’t believe PS has a good case.

You are correct on a number of things, but there are points where I don’t believe the Bible (esp NT) vindicates your claims.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I respectfully disagree that justice was not being served at the cross. I do agree that at the same time Jesus indeed suffered unjustly at the hands of wicked men. But the question that we have to answer is whether or not these two categories are mutually exclusive. Based upon a number of passages, I would say no. The Scriptures repeatedly demonstrate that one event can have two or more purposes in it – (human and divine) – and those purposes – though they manifest as a single historical event – each have a nature of their own.

Having multiple facets or purposes is not the same as enacting justice via injustice, that cannot be done. The End does not justify the Means, injustice cannot be used to bring about justice.

The men had no grounds to kill Jesus, it was pure murder. Murder is a sin, and thus repugnant to God.

For instance – take Joseph and his brethren. Even though what his brothers did was extremely sinful, in selling him into slavery – God is the one who brought it to pass. However, God did not bring it to pass for the purpose of harming Joseph, but for the purpose of doing good, by sending Joseph to Egypt that he might ‘save much people alive’ (Gen. 45:5). So the nature of each purpose is distinguishable – and Scripture makes this very clear – though it all manifested as one historical event. Joseph himself understood this, as he explained this plainly to his brethren – ‘But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive . . . So it was not you who sent me here, but God’ (Gen. 50:20; 45:8).

But this is not equivalent to the PS situation. Here God never approved of the sin, justice was not being served when men harmed God’s servant Joseph. God permitted the evil because God only allows evil if He can turn it around into a greater good in the future. Thus, this was permitted by God, God was never out to hurt Joseph, in order that God could turn evil on its head and apply it to His Grand Plan.

In the Reformed faith, we see no tension in the concept that one historical event can have multiple purposes behind it – and that each of those purposes can have a nature of their own. This is certainly how we see the crucifixion of Christ. And yet, because I only have so many words per post, I cannot give a full demonstration of my point.

My point is not that there is only one understanding or facet to any given event, my point is that there are understandings that are incompatible. Justice is never served by unjust means, it simply is against God’s nature.

Only allow me to say this:

As Peter was preaching the gospel to the ‘men of Israel’ in Acts chapter 2, he makes it a point to keep his gospel balanced – (revealing the whole counsel of God). Peter reminded the men that although they were guilty because they had ‘crucified and killed [Christ] by the hands of lawless men,’ Jesus was nevertheless at the same time ‘delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God’ (v. 23). This same point is again reaffirmed in Acts chapter 4, where we read – ‘for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place’ (v. 27-28).

That’s just it though, nowhere is PS necessitated here. The Catholic understanding of God allowing the sin but not being behind it fits just fine. And like Joseph, God lets the sin happen so that He can turn it on its head, not as a means of enacting justice.

Clearly then, it is the Reformed position that although Jesus was unjustly murdered at the hands of lawless men – at the same time his murder was nevertheless predestined and brought to pass by God Himself who intentionally delivered him up. And yet we wouldn’t want to charge God with injustice, would we? Certainly not. Therefore we also affirm that while a human injustice was certainly being committed, God Himself was, at the same time, actually satisfying a higher divine justice through the same event – the death of His dear Son. So that even as men were breaking the law of God – God Himself was fulfilling the law by the same act.

No. We do not “also affirm” divine justice was being served because it would mean God was justly using sinful means to further His plans. Murder and Punishment are opposed to eachother, a Judge cannot employ murder to enact a just punishment.

As John Piper soundly put it, “God did not just overcome evil at the cross. He made evil serve the overcoming of evil. He made evil commit suicide in doing its worst evil.”

I totally agree, and yet my view does not include PS. The whole point of the Resurrection was because God would not allow a righteous man to remain dead. The Bible says of Jesus, “death could not keep a hold of him.” The Son was not the Father’s whipping boy, as if God had no option by to drain His wrath on someone, anyone, even His Beloved Son, as long as it was drained.

If this is the Catholic position – then I will consider it further – though I cannot make any promises. As we move along in this discussion, I am hoping to demonstrate that the Reformed position captures the nature of the atonement in the clearest light – and certainly I will seek to demonstrate that this light is Holy Scripture – the highest counsel of God’s revelation.

Thank you CD – for your contributions!

Thank you too. I would just point out that Phinehas turned away God’s wrath and made atonement without himself receiving the wrath, so there is already a proven Biblical precedent for the Catholic “alternative to punishment.”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This seems to me to be an important point…This is where I think a lot of misunderstandings may arise. Because there is a difference between the two.
I have become more & more convinced with time & study, that God is not a God Who hands out punishment. God teaches, He disciplines, He draws us to Him with love & winsome care. He does not punish.
Therefore, I cannot accept the concept of penal substitution. To me, it tells something that is:nope: not true about the God of the Bible.
Zooey tiphat: Methodist-in-residence:wave: ).

I know what you are saying, but I think you said it wrong.
God certainly does punish, that is a clear teaching of Scripture. What God does not do is transfer guilt punishment, especially not on any legal/judicial grounds (which PS is grounded upon), and especially not on an innocent party.
If someone deserves the death penalty for a sin, it makes no sense in terms of law/justice to have someone else take the death penalty for them. It defeats the purpose of law and cannot fit a sense of justice. Further, there is no room for forgiveness, for if the punishment is inflicted it makes no sense to say someone was forgiven. Lastly, in a strictly legal context, forgiveness is strictly impossible, the law can only condemn or vindicate, not forgive.

 

[brkn1]

I know what you are saying, but I think you said it wrong.
God certainly does punish, that is a clear teaching of Scripture. What God does not do is transfer guilt punishment, especially not on any legal/judicial grounds (which PS is grounded upon), and especially not on an innocent party.
If someone deserves the death penalty for a sin, it makes no sense in terms of law/justice to have someone else take the death penalty for them. It defeats the purpose of law and cannot fit a sense of justice. Further, there is no room for forgiveness, for if the punishment is inflicted it makes no sense to say someone was forgiven. Lastly, in a strictly legal context, forgiveness is strictly impossible, the law can only condemn or vindicate, not forgive.

A kinsman redeemer, such as Boaz, could legally pay the price to redeem his kin’s property etc., even if he did not have to do so.
The sense of justice you mentioned seems made up.
When Zacharias prophesied by the Holy Spirit, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people.”, your “sense of justice” will be “defeated”; since His people do not “deserve” redemption by the standards you seem to present.

 

[Zooey]

Hi Zooey! Thank you for the comment.

I appreciate that this is how you feel, but at the same time, I am unable to relate to your mind-set. First off - I am unable to understand the distinction that you have made in that God disciplines, but *‘He does not punish.’ *Can you elaborate for me please?

God disciplines; He does not punish.
Punishment is a negative act. It teaches nothing; it only expresses the anger of the actor.
Discipline is teaching; it is making disciples. Teaching (even if it is painful at the time) is redemptive. It produces disciples, who are more & more “transformed into His image”.

If your distinction is between that which God does with His children, as opposed to that which God does with the wicked - then I have to wonder what you believe about the Bible’s teaching concerning the final judgment. In other words - are you saying that dicipline has a loving element to it - and punishment does not? If this is your meaning - then I would not entirely disagree with you - (Heb. 12:5-11). I would have to disagree with your assertion that God disciplines His children and does not punish the wicked.

God does not send people to hell. They go to hell because they would rather suffer an eternity with the devil, than to serve God.
Hell is not a punishment; it is God’s gift of free will, carried to its logical extreme. If someone will not love the Creator of the universe freely, that Creator will allow him the final, tragic choice to refuse His love.

This makes me wonder: Do you reject the idea of hell - the place that Jesus said the wicked will experience ‘everlasting punishment’ (Mat. 25:46) ?

No. Hell is real. But those in hell are punishing themselves, by their own rebellion. Satan is punishing them, because he hates them as much as he hates everyone & everything else.
God loves & weeps over every lost soul. If only one person in all history would have loved God in Jesus Christ, suffering on the cross of Calvary, Christ would have sacrificed Himself to save that one person. But it was a sacrifice. It was not a substitutionary punishment. It was God’s greatest gift of love: He sacrificed Himself in the Person of His only Son, to show us how much He loves us. To offer us the chance to be His disciples.

Still - I am not so sure that you can hold a theological or even logical consistency with what Scripture plainly teaches concerning sin and the justice of God. I do hope, however, that you will continue to read this thread, and perhaps - *Lord willing *- you will come to discover something about certain attributes of God that you seem to have overlooked in your studies.

Blessings to you Zooey!

God is a God who is just. But the nature, the essence of this just God is not, thank God!, justice; His essential nature is LOVE!!!

 

[brkn1]

How do those who disagree that Jesus bore our sin on the Cross explain these two verses?

(Romans 4:24,25) “But for us also, to whom it (righteousness) shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”

 

[Zooey]

I know what you are saying, but I think you said it wrong.
God certainly does punish, that is a clear teaching of Scripture. What God does not do is transfer guilt punishment, especially not on any legal/judicial grounds (which PS is grounded upon), and especially not on an innocent party.

God disciplines us. He disciples us.
We punish ourselves when we choose, freely, to turn away from Him. When we refuse to love God, we are punished by our own foolishness, and our arrogance.
But you are right: God does NOT act as a lawyer. He acts as the Divine Lover of our souls.
PS underestimates the love of the One Who is Love.

If someone deserves the death penalty for a sin, it makes no sense in terms of law/justice to have someone else take the death penalty for them. It defeats the purpose of law and cannot fit a sense of justice. Further, there is no room for forgiveness, for if the punishment is inflicted it makes no sense to say someone was forgiven. Lastly, in a strictly legal context, forgiveness is strictly impossible, the law can only condemn or vindicate, not forgive.

:sad_yes: I have come to see quite clearly that PS is fixed upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God. It assumes that He is a lawyer, looking for a legal loophole.
I see God as a loving Father, Who is willing to do anyhting to express His love.
If God’s essential were justice, as PS seems to imply, we would all be lost for eternity. That would have been no sacrifice on the cross of Calvary. Jesus Christ, God Himself in the flesh, performs the ultimate act of love for His beloved: He steps out and sacrifices Himself for her.
Christ laid down His life for His bride…out of sheer, immeasurable, everlasting love.

 

[zaffiroborant]

A kinsman redeemer, such as Boaz, could legally pay the price to redeem his kin’s property etc., even if he did not have to do so.

That sounds more like ransom than penal substitution.

 

[Zooey]

A kinsman redeemer, such as Boaz, could legally pay the price to redeem his kin’s property etc., even if he did not have to do so.
The sense of justice you mentioned seems made up.
When Zacharias prophesied by the Holy Spirit, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people.”, your “sense of justice” will be “defeated”; since His people do not “deserve” redemption by the standards you seem to present.

Of course, we do not deserve redemption!! I know that** I** do not deserve redemption.
Christ redeemed us anyway.
**:extrahappy::extrahappy:He’s like that.:extrahappy: :extrahappy: **

 

[Zooey]

A kinsman redeemer, such as Boaz, could legally pay the price to redeem his kin’s property etc., even if he did not have to do so.
The sense of justice you mentioned seems made up.
When Zacharias prophesied by the Holy Spirit, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people.”, your “sense of justice” will be “defeated”; since His people do not “deserve” redemption by the standards you seem to present.

That sounds more like ransom than penal substitution.

Yes!!:yup:
If those who believe in PS would only read the book of the prophet Hosea…Now, that is what the love of God is like!!

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is an interesting topic about which I am admittedly a little ignorant. Does anyone know of good, concise articles articulating this position? From the Reformed or Catholic standpoint?

My searches turned up nothing. Maybe this is also called something by a different name?