B
brkn1
Guest
Then the question becomes, “What was ransomed and how was it ransomed?”.
If Jesus payed the price or penalty for our sin, then He was the “substitute penalty payer”.
- Status
If Jesus payed the price or penalty for our sin, then He was the “substitute penalty payer”.
B
brkn1
Guest
Atonement is an Old Testament word that has to do with the past method that God gave the Israelites “to cover” their sin, based on what His Son Jesus would later do to actually remit sin by His one Sacrifice Offering on the Cross. The atoning sacrifices of the Mosaic law could not take away sin, except “in credit” against the time when Jesus would actually remove the sin of those who, by the gift of Faith, believe in “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”
The Judaic sacrifices could “never take away sins:…” (Heb. 10:4,11-14) . They just covered until the actual one Sacrifice of Jesus.
There is one “atonement” in the NT, which must be a mistranslation for our being “reconciled”, which was mentioned earlier in that Roman chapter 5.
Atonement, as a covering, was no longer necessary after the actual one Sacrifice. That Sacrifice is where the OT and the NT gets divided.
The Judaic sacrifices could “never take away sins:…” (Heb. 10:4,11-14) . They just covered until the actual one Sacrifice of Jesus.
There is one “atonement” in the NT, which must be a mistranslation for our being “reconciled”, which was mentioned earlier in that Roman chapter 5.
Atonement, as a covering, was no longer necessary after the actual one Sacrifice. That Sacrifice is where the OT and the NT gets divided.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
Col 1
24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
From the catechism:
1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:40
1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42
J
John7
Guest
yea here’s a short Catholic article
and a wiki aritcle with links at bottom
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution
hope that’s what you’re looking for
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Thank you, but I was hoping to get an article specifically addressing substitutionary atonement from a Catholic and Reformed perspective.
C
cfrancis
Guest
O, too, do not possess a firm understanding of this topic.
What are the implications of Substitutionary Atonement?
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
I don’t know if that term is used by Catholics.Thank you, but I was hoping to get an article specifically addressing substitutionary atonement from a Catholic and Reformed perspective.
I may be wrong, but I believe it is exclusive to Calvinist thought.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Indeed, I found more that use the term “penal substitution.”
One point I read said something to the effect of: if Christ took the punishment that we deserved, wouldn’t He have taken on eternal separation from God? Is that not the consequence of sin? Perhaps Frontline could offer the Calvinist position on that.
B
brkn1
Guest
Paul will receive a reward for his obeying God’s will in suffering much for the church.
There is nothing lacking in what Christ did for us, it was lacking in Paul. Christ did it all and it was in Christ that Paul obeyed God.
NO man can redeem himself or his brother from the penalty of sin. Jesus did that completely “by Himself”, by His one Sacrifice.
(Psalm 49:7) “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:”
(Psalm 49:15) “But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.”
Redemption is God’s Work, not man’s.
P
PJM
Guest
** Re: Substitutionary Atonement **
As an informed, practcing Roman Catholic, who has some knowledge of the bible, and what the RCC teaches and holds as truth, I simply cannot buy into this Protestant philosophy / theology, that Christ Reemdemtive sacrifice was sufficient on it’s own merit’s to gain us 'salvation." Reedention" yes; “Salvation” No!
The argument as presented, seems to me to be very similar to “Justification by Faith Alone.” Which of course we Catholics do not, and cannot accept.
The effects of Christ birth, live, death and Ressurection did not, does not by itself result in Personal Salvation. No, these extreme acts of unfathomable love, only (if I dare use such a word in this context) only, Unlocked the gates of Heaven, which had been locked from the time of Adam and Eve and the very “Orgin” of sin.
A quick review of John Chapter three proves my point. Chrsitians are quick to point out the wonderous Love of God in John 3:16,
but overlook John 3:5 and 3:31, which tell us that IN ADDITION to the Sacrifice of Christ we MUST BE Baptized and follow His Commandments. All this comes is the same biblical chapter!
Additionally John 23: 23 tells everyone (no exceptions permitted):
"19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.** If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”**
This “power / obligation” is to be fulfilled by His Church:
Mt. 16:"13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ** And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”**
As many of you no doubt know the terms to “bind” and to “loose,”
were legally binding rabbbitical terms, enforceable at law. Words do have meanings, and the words of Jesus clear and precise meaning.
It is my prayerful hope that this post is helpfull to some?
God’s blessings be with you,
PJM m.c.
As an informed, practcing Roman Catholic, who has some knowledge of the bible, and what the RCC teaches and holds as truth, I simply cannot buy into this Protestant philosophy / theology, that Christ Reemdemtive sacrifice was sufficient on it’s own merit’s to gain us 'salvation." Reedention" yes; “Salvation” No!
The argument as presented, seems to me to be very similar to “Justification by Faith Alone.” Which of course we Catholics do not, and cannot accept.
The effects of Christ birth, live, death and Ressurection did not, does not by itself result in Personal Salvation. No, these extreme acts of unfathomable love, only (if I dare use such a word in this context) only, Unlocked the gates of Heaven, which had been locked from the time of Adam and Eve and the very “Orgin” of sin.
A quick review of John Chapter three proves my point. Chrsitians are quick to point out the wonderous Love of God in John 3:16,
but overlook John 3:5 and 3:31, which tell us that IN ADDITION to the Sacrifice of Christ we MUST BE Baptized and follow His Commandments. All this comes is the same biblical chapter!
Additionally John 23: 23 tells everyone (no exceptions permitted):
"19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.** If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”**
This “power / obligation” is to be fulfilled by His Church:
Mt. 16:"13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. ** And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”**
As many of you no doubt know the terms to “bind” and to “loose,”
were legally binding rabbbitical terms, enforceable at law. Words do have meanings, and the words of Jesus clear and precise meaning.
It is my prayerful hope that this post is helpfull to some?
God’s blessings be with you,
PJM m.c.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
That’s not what the bible says.
I can tell you what is lacking in Christ’s suffering- our cooperation.
Col 1
24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,
F
Frontline
Guest
I respect that CD – as I will also be as brief as possible due to time and space restrictions as well.
At this point, I was not exactly attempting to establish penal substitution; I was only laying a foundation for the meaning of atonement. You do agree that one facet of atonement is ‘turning away the wrath of God’ and that was all I was demonstrating.
I am not so sure about that. The implications of the place to where the goat was assigned are strong. The goat was sent to ‘a solitary place’ or literally – to ‘the land of cutting off’ – which clearly refers to death – ‘and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken’ (Isa. 53:8).
Again – to be exiled, or ‘separated’ from the camp of Israel is equivalent to experiencing a ‘death’ and is consistently shown to be in consequence to God’s judgment on sin – (Lev. 7:20-27; 4:9-14; 18:29; 19:8; 20:3, 5-6, 17-18; 22:3; 23:29).
I do too. We have not yet had a chance to examine the apostolic witness.
I am still pondering over your atonement proposition – and I have not discounted you entirely. But I still feel that your line of reasoning does not necessarily follow. This is because your illustration is very similar to a common objection in liberal Protestantism as well.
In fact, R.N. Whybray objects to this argument in claiming that the Hebrew preposition min, translated ‘for’ in Isaiah 53:5 (‘he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities’), implies the Servant suffered ‘because of’ the sins of the people. This, he says, does not imply substitution.
As Morna Hooker explains in her analysis of Whybray’s view, ‘it could be said of the Jews who perished in the Holocaust, that they were wounded because of Hitler’s transgression, crushed as a result of his iniquities,’ but this would not imply that they suffered instead of him.
Although Whybray is correct that min can mean ‘because of,’ he is mistaken to think that such a meaning undermines a substitutionary view of the Servant’s suffering. For instance, If a child strays too close to a bonfire despite being warned of the danger, and his mother leaps forward to rescue him from danger and is burned herself, she certainly suffers ‘because of’ his disobedience. Yet at the same time, her suffering would be substitutionary – she suffers in his place, and the disobedient child is thereby spared. It would be completely acceptable for Isaiah to convey this notion of substitution in this way, and as I already pointed out, his emphatic use of pronouns confirms this is what he has in mind.
I understand your point, however I do not agree that Matthew’s observation is entirely separate from a contemplation of the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross. In Matthew 8:17, Matthew quoted from Isaiah 53:4, this is true. However all commentators agree that diseases, griefs, and iniquities were seen as inter-related in the Old Testament – (Psalm 103:3). This is because the root cause of all sickness and suffering was sin. By removing the effects of sin, that is, sickness, Jesus was demonstrating his ability to deal with the ultimate cause—sin itself.
Therefore, the Reformed faith understands that Jesus’ healings pointed forward to his work on the cross by beginning the conquest of sin’s effects (cf. Matt. 27:27–31 with Isa. 53:4–5). Matthew quoted from Isaiah 53 to show that in Jesus’ works of physical healing and bringing forgiveness for sin, he was fulfilling the visible signs that the prophets attributed to the promised Messiah.
The event recorded in Matthew 9:6 also carried the concept of Jesus’ forgiving sin, and yet was demonstrated by his healing the man of the palsy! So although Matthew did not elaborate or theologize upon Jesus’ substitutionary death, Reformed Christians see clearly the inter-connection of the two, recognizing also that prophecy often has stages of fulfillment. We are content then, with the fact that the work of theology was left for the apostle Paul, who undoubtedly taught substitutionary atonement.
(Part 1 of 4)
F
Frontline
Guest
I am familiar with your position on this text, and I can only agree in part.
The context of these verses indeed have Peter encouraging his hearers to ‘bear up under the pain of unjust suffering’ (2:19), and to this end, he sets forth Jesus as an example to follow in verses 21-23a: ‘To this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten.’
The exemplary significance of Jesus’ death cannot, however, account for all of the teaching in the passage. Take for example verse 25, ‘For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.’ This alludes to Isa. 53:6 (‘We all like sheep have gone astray’), and presents Jesus not as an example whose sufferings we should imitate, but as a Savior (‘Shepherd and Overseer’) from whose sufferings we benefit.
The ‘for’ at the start of verse 25 points us back to the preceding verse as the basis for this reconciliation with God: ‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed’ (v. 24).
Here the doctrine of penal substitution is clear.
The phrase ‘ he bore our sins’ alludes to Isa. 53:12 (‘he bore the sin of many’). Clearly, the echo of Isaiah 53:5 in the phrase ‘by his wounds you have been healed’ highlights the substitutionary nature of his death – he suffered in order that we might not.
Peter drives his message home still further though, by stating that Jesus ‘bore our sins in his own body on the tree xylon]’ (v. 24). As can be demonstrated by a quick reference to Galatians, this is a distinctive way of referring to the crucifixion of Christ and evokes Deuteronomy 21:23, ‘anyone who is hung on a tree [LXX *xylon] is under God’s curse’, and establishes that at the cross Christ bore God’s curse in the place of his people (cf. Gal. 3:13).
Thus 1 Peter 2:21-25, having begun by setting forth Christ’s sufferings as an example to encourage persecuted Christians who suffer unjustly, moves onto the ultimate grounds of our hope: the atoning efficacy of his death. Christ bore our sin, guilt and punishment, suffering in our place under the curse of God, that we might be saved.
(Part 2 of 4)
F
Frontline
Guest
CD, I do not, for one, see how Phinehas ‘suffered’ at all - in order that God’s wrath might be turned away by his doing good. And furthermore, the doctrine of penal substitution is not limited to the exposition of the gospel accounts. Reformed scholars take into consideration the whole of Scripture, something that John Calvin consistently taught – ‘tota scriptura.’ Therefore, we must not conclude anything based upon the gospel accounts alone, but must take into consideration every passage that speaks of what took place at the cross.
I think that you are combining the idea of ‘delivering him over’ which can be understood as a passive act of God (though it is still deliberate), and the ‘pouring out of God’s wrath’ which would be an active action of God. You are discounting the latter truth by an affirmation of the former truth. In other words – you are forcing these two concepts into mutually exclusive categories – something that the Scriptures do not necessitate, nor in this case – allow.
Thank you for your respectful interaction with me, I really do appreciate it. I am sorry that your past discussions with Calvinists have not convinced you, and have led you to believe that we base the doctrine on preconceived notions. I however, disagree, as I see clearly in the Scriptures the doctrine of penal substitution: Christ suffered in our place, so that we do not suffer the just punishment of God due to our sins. I will develop this a bit more, if I am permitted – as I have not dealt with a host of passages and some important theological concepts. Thank you so far!
(Part 3 of 4)
F
Frontline
Guest
Certainly CD – the death of Jesus did involve sinful acts by other human beings, such as the violence of the Roman soldiers and the Jewish Sanhedrin, and the cowardice of Pontius Pilate (Mark 14:65; 15:1-20), which the Bible views as reprehensible (e.g. Acts 7:52). However – at the same time – God chose to use these wicked deeds to accomplish his righteous purposes. You agree with this concept, though you disagree with penal substitution. You seem to believe that the righteous (just) purpose that God was accomplishing was allowing Christ to suffer so that the Father might be so pleased that He would be moved to forgive sins (plus all the other benefits which Aquinas listed – most of which I do not deny).
We believe, however, that the righteous (just) purpose that God was accomplishing in allowing Christ to suffer was to ‘condemn sin in his flesh’ (Romans 8:3) so that those for whom he suffered would be ‘redeemed from the curse of the law’ (Gal. 3:13). This must have been accomplished justly though – because the God of providence could not justly allow a sinless man to suffer. Christ had to ‘become a curse for us’ and this took place by his deliberate willingness to take upon himself the sins of all his people. If this transaction was not real – then God could not allow Christ to suffer and still be just – and technically – Christ could not have died, for death is the effect of sin.
No, but the concept of dual intention – each having a nature of it’s own certainly is – and that is why I used the example of Joseph.
Please understand that I do not assert that God ever ‘approves of sin’ either in Joseph’s case or in the case of Christ. Though men have the ability to sin – they never have the right to sin. And God can see to it that they are stopped in their tracks – or He can choose to allow it – in order that He might accomplish His righteous purposes. You and I agree on this – though we do not always agree with what the purpose of God actually is in each case.
I am sorry, but I disagree with this statement. The Bible clearly demonstrates otherwise, as is seen from Isaiah chapter 10. In fact, Isa. 10 is the record of how God sent an ungodly nation (Assyria) against His own people Israel as the just punishment for their sin and rebellion against Him.
“Oh, Assyria, the rod of my anger;
the staff in their hands is my fury!
Against a godless nation I send him,
and against the people of my wrath I command him,
to take spoil and seize plunder,
and to tread them down like the mud of the streets.” (vv. 5-6)
However – the text also reveals that God was determined to turn around and judge the Assyrians after He used them for His just purposes. The reason that God can use them justly, and then judge them for their personal injustice is because there were dual intentions in the very same act. The Assyrians were malicious in there attack on Israel, while God was acting in complete righteousness (justly judging and punishing them for the overall good of his covenant people).
“But he does not so intend,
and his heart does not so think;
but it is in his heart to destroy,
and to cut off nations not a few;
for he says:
“Are not my commanders all kings?
Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
As my hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols,
whose carved images were greater than those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols
as I have done to Samaria and her images?” (vv. 7-11).
Clearly – you can see that the Assyrians were not committing a righteous act – but were intentionally set against Israel for their harm. This was unjust – and God was determined to judge them for it after He used them for His own righteous purposes:
“When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes. For he says:
‘By the strength of my hand I have done it,
and by my wisdom, for I have understanding;
I remove the boundaries of peoples,
and plunder their treasures;
like a bull I bring down those who sit on thrones.
My hand has found like a nest
the wealth of the peoples;
and as one gathers eggs that have been forsaken,
so I have gathered all the earth;
and there was none that moved a wing
or opened the mouth or chirped.’
Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it,
or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it?
As if a rod should wield him who lifts it,
or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood!” (vv. 12-15)
God demonstrates that though He is committing no injustice – it is actually He Himself who actively ‘hews the axe’ of wicked men, and ‘wields the saw’ of evil people. This was my whole point.
I believe that I have already demonstrated that this is not necessarily true. See comment above.
(4 of 4)
P
PJM
Guest
Reply: Our friend Chesterton did a great job explaining Jesus (who too is God) position.
In order to clairify Isaiah and Jesus; the Old testament and the New Testament, it might be good to look at what are there “most common roles?”
Now I am making this extremely brief, but the most common role of the Old Testament are to provide historical data, and second to provide prophecy of what was to come.Teaching and the “law” stem from the Commandments.
The primary role of the New Testament is to fullfill prophecy, and to improve, indeed to make **perfect **teachings and understandings presented in the OT and in the practcies of the people at the time of Christ visitation on earth.
Therefore Jesus who is God must alway’s trump what is in the OT.
“I came to fullfill the law, not to adbandon it.” and “I Am the Way, the Tuuth and The Light.” "If you wish to come after me, take up your cross and follow Me. " and “If you love Me you will keep My Commandments.”
Isaiah, was a prophet, a great one, whose major role was to forcast the comming of the Savior.
Indeed everything in the bible is the **inspired Word (“breathed” sounds like you mean dictated? If that is your understanding, it’s incorrect. I’m not quite sure of what you mean?) **of God. Read John Chapter 1:1-9. “And the Word was God.”
God bless you,
PJM m.c.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Frontline, your pm box is full so I cant send anything. Im also working on the 4 part response of yours.
Z
Zooey
Guest
:yup: :clapping:
http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/1.gif I am trying to figure out how Hitler got into this discussion…
But that’s NOT penal substitution! That’s the mother sacrificing herself for her child
That’s love. Its not a punishment of the mother for something the child did…
:nope: Not unless you divorce Paul from the rest of the canon of Scripture. Not unless you, in fact, divorce Paul from himself.
F
Frontline
Guest
You are absolutely right. I was not trying to paint a picture that teaches penal substitution; I was only trying to paint a picture that would illustrate that there can be a substitutionary element even when we understand that the suffering of the mother was due to the disobedience of another. If you kept my argument intact, and connected to the concept I was actually developing - which was based upon the Hebrew preposition min - which is translated ‘for’ - you would be able to grasp the concept that there is no incompatibility between understanding that ‘for’ can mean both ‘because of’ and ‘instead of.’ This is all I was establishing.
- Status