Substitutionary Atonement

[PJM]

Thank you, but I was hoping to get an article specifically addressing substitutionary atonement from a Catholic and Reformed perspective.

My dear friend in Christ,

Your querry about substitutionary atonement is not a part of RCC Theology, but does seemed to be closely linked to the topic of "Justification."

May I suggest you read James Chapter Two, for a summary of Catholic belief?

I have written a paper for our RCIA class, that I will send you if you provide an e-mail address.

Should you wish additional information there are two sitesyou can use:

newadvent.org Look under “J”.

and Google: “The Council of Trent”

The Doctrine of Justification was addressed and defined by this Universal (Catholic) Church Council in chapter six in great detail.

God bless,

PJM m.c.

 

[Frontline]

** Re: Substitutionary Atonement **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 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.

Thank you for your opinions, and your perspectives; I am happy to consider all that your church teaches. However, I am not convinced that the Catholic Church has captured the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, (although I will not debate this issue on this particulat thread) - I will also share with you what the Reformed Church teaches concerning the Gospel of God’s Salvation.

The Reformed faith affirms that Salvation - in each of it’s components are accomplished by God. Salvation is God’s work or Redemption through Jesus Christ the Lord. Moreover, the Reformed Church affirms the biblical distinction between Redemption accomplished, Redemption applied, and Redemption manifested.

Christ accomplishes our redemption - (Heb. 9:12, 15).

The Spirit applies this redemption to our souls by

1. Quickening us from the dead - (the new birth) - (John 3:6; 6:63)
2. Thereby enabling us to ‘see’ Christ and ‘hear’ the gospel - (John 3:3; Proverbs 20:12; Deuteronomy 29:2-4)
3. Thereby causing faith in Christ to be born in our hearts - (Rom. 10:17; 1 John 5:1)
4. By which we receive justification - (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16)
5. And are sealed unto glory - (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30)

Therefore - the Reformed faith affirms that the work of Redemption is the work of God. However, when we are quickened to life, hear the word, believe on Christ, receive justification and peace with God (Rom. 5:1) and are sealed unto glory - we experience all that Christ wrought for us, now being worked in us, in the transformation of our character. This is Redemption manifested.

In other words - once we receive the Holy Spirit - who is the seal of the righteousness of Christ that we received by faith - we then begin to evidence our justification by producing the fruit of the Spirit. However - it is the Spirit’s fruit, not ours. This includes all good works and obedience - the first of which is baptism, where we publicly identify ourselves with Christ and his Church as a declaration and a confirmation that we have been redeemed.

The Reformed Church teaches that only as we maintain these crucial biblical distinctions, do we preserve the integrity of God’s word, and safeguard the glory of God in salvation. We keep grace as grace, and do not confound it with works.

The topic of this thread however - is the nature of the Redemptive work of Christ, and the Redemptive work of Christ is substitutionary in nature (that is the Reformed position).

God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer *for us *the curse and death that was due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. This is penal substitution, and this is the topic of this thread. So now that we have each had a chance to share our respective positions on Salvation - what do you say we get back to point? That would be good - thanks!

 

[Steadfast]

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!

Well, I wasn’t endorsing the view and while I do understand the dangers of Dispensationalism, that really isn’t what is at work here.

What is here is something a bit different, for some Catholics (and some Protestants too, but among many Catholics it seems to approach a kind of “approved hermeneutic”) the four Gospels become the lens through which all the rest of Scripture is read. Unfortunately, when apparent incongruities are discovered, little effort is usually made to seek reconciliation and the Gospel (or the individual RC’s understanding of it) trumps his or her misunderstanding of the offending text. So when, for example, passages having to do with God’s foreordination of the punishment of the wicked are adduced, they are largely ignored in favor of passages seeming to portray Jesus as a loving Savior Who would never send anyone to hell if He could help it (which according to the same soteriology, He may or may not be actually able to do).

Lutherans and other Evangelicals do something similar when they make Sola Fide the lens through which they read the whole Bible with the concomitant that they tend to favor Paul above all others. One significant difference, however, is that a lively awareness of God’s redemption of a people of His own solely by means of grace through faith in the work of Jesus does happen to be the whole point of the Bible and is therefore in fact the proper perspective and approach.

 

[Frontline]

Well, I wasn’t endorsing the view and while I do understand the dangers of Dispensationalism, that really isn’t what is at work here.

What is here is something a bit different, for some Catholics (and some Protestants too, but among many Catholics it seems to approach a kind of “approved hermeneutic”) the four Gospels become the lens through which all the rest of Scripture is read. Unfortunately, when apparent incongruities are discovered, little effort is usually made to seek reconciliation and the Gospel (or the individual RC’s understanding of it) trumps his or her misunderstanding of the offending text. So when, for example, passages having to do with God’s foreordination of the punishment of the wicked are adduced, they are largely ignored in favor of passages seeming to portray Jesus as a loving Savior Who would never send anyone to hell if He could help it (which according to the same soteriology, He may or may not be actually able to do).

Lutherans and other Evangelicals do something similar when they make Sola Fide the lens through which they read the whole Bible with the concomitant that they tend to favor Paul above all others. One significant difference, however, is that a lively awareness of God’s redemption of a people of His own solely by means of grace through faith in the work of Jesus does happen to be the whole point of the Bible and is therefore in fact the proper perspective and approach.

Got it! Thanks for the clarification Steadfast!

 

[Frontline]

**Originally Posted by Catholic Dude: **

"The Protestant system says God is just and cannot just forgive sin, He must punish it…yet that very notion when PS is imposed makes God in need of punishing someone, anyone, as long as someone gets punished God is happy."

Hi CD – I think we are now at the heart of the matter. The justice of God is the entire basis for the doctrine of penal substitution! In fact – I would go so far as say that without penal substitution, many of the other motifs – or aspects of the atonement – lose their strength.

Let me give you an example: **VICTORY **

The Bible teaches that Christ was victorious over evil powers in his death, resurrection and ascension. The question is not whether this was accomplished but rather how was this accomplished?

Perhaps the greatest weapon in the devil’s armory is his power to accuse us before God, a truth that is clearly depicted in Zechariah chapter 3, where we see *‘Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him’ *(v. 1).

How is Satan’s role as the Accuser related to his power?

If Satan’s opposition to the Lord were a matter of mere power, the rebel’s finite resources would equal zero when confronted with infinity! But the Accuser can appeal to justice. He may also indulge in slander, but his true force resides in the rightness of his accusation. We are unclean, unspeakably unclean – as was Joshua – (3:4).

The righteous Judge of all the earth, who can do only right, cannot simply shut His ears and refuse to listen to truth. He cannot simply refuse to listen to the charges that the Accuser brings without completely denying Himself. In other words, the weapon in the devil’s hand is God’s own law, God holy and perfect law – hence the relationship between certain passages of the law and spiritual powers is quite revealing.

Satan’s power lies in an appeal to God’s justice, calling upon Him to do right and punish humanity as ‘we deserve’ (Romans 2:5) – and as God Himself had sworn He would do – (Exodus 34:7; Ezekiel 18:4). Consequently, it is in precisely this way that the New Testament presents the atonement.

In Colossians 2:14-15 the Apostle Paul connects Christ’s triumph to the cross and precisely to the cancellation of the bond of our debt (as defined by the ordinances of the law) when Jesus was crucified. It was then and there where the principalities and powers, the chief of whom is Satan, were ‘disarmed.’ The action clearly concerns judicial claims. Since God can be expected to uphold the rules that He Himself has set, we can also expect that the cancellation was obtained through the payment of the legal debt. This is clearly confirmed by the many ransom sayings that state that the life or blood of Christ was the price that paid to free human beings from bondage.

Thus the biblical connection between Satan’s power and human guilt points to the important to penal substitution as the means by which our guilt is removed and the devil is defeated. God’s response to the devil’s accusation against us is consistent with divine justice. This comes out very clear in a number of passages – though I will only mention two:

1) 1 John 1:9 links the forgiveness of sins not simply with love, but also with justice:

‘If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’

Of course this is not to deny that the Bible elsewhere links forgiveness with God’s love – (Num. 14:19; Ps. 86.5 etc). But here in this passage it is the justice of God that forms the grounds of our confidence before him. This makes sense only with reference to penal substitution, for only if we are convinced that God has justly punished our sins in the person of his Son (condemning our sin in his flesh, Rom. 8:3) can we appeal to his justice as something that would acquit rather than condemn us.

Indeed, to exclude the idea of justice from God’s victory would be to represent God as immoral. It would be impossible to see God’s victory as anything other than a naked exercise of power – God was able to conquer the devil because He is stronger. Satan’s defeat cannot be seen as a good thing unless he deserved it, that is, unless justice required it. The Bible presents it in exactly these moral categories. Though the Bible teaches that the cross was God’s victory over evil, the Reformed faith affirms that in order to see that victory in its biblical fullness and richness, we must take account of its relationship to God’s justice.

(1 of 2) continued . . .

 

[Frontline]

. . . (2 of 2)

**2) ** Romans 3:21-26 teaches that all people are sinners, whether Jew or Gentile, but all may be justified by faith in Jesus Christ. For God, who in the past, had left his people’s sin unpunished, has now demonstrated his justice by punishing their sin in Christ. He was set forth as a ‘sacrifice of atonement’ (lit. ‘a propitiation’, v. 25) turning aside God’s wrath by suffering it himself in the place of his people.

‘God [set Christ] forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.’ [ESV]

Taking into consideration first, the context of this passage – we should note that by the time we come to Romans 3:20, all are under judgment, and doomed to face God’s wrath. By the time we reach 3:27-31, however, Paul is already talking about people being justified! How is it then, that sin and wrath have been dealt with? Whatever else Romans 3:21-26 says, it obviously removed God’s wrath from those who deserve it. Already we are within a hair’s breadth of penal substitution; to complete the argument, we need only to establish that it was by Christ’s death in our place that this was accomplished.

The final element of the argument is found in verse 25, where Paul explicitly highlights Jesus ‘blood’ as the means of redemption, and the parallelism of ‘blood’ and ‘death’ in Romans 5:8-9 makes clear that Jesus’ death is in view. Indeed, the simple fact that Jesus died – in the context of the development of Romans – constitutes an argument for penal substitution because as I noted above, ‘death’ in Romans is understood as the penalty for sin, imposed deliberately by God. The reference to blood therefore functions as a reference to this penalty, which can have been borne only by Christ in the place of his people.

Secondly, Paul has already established in Romans 1:32 that according to ‘God’s righteous decree’ all of us ‘deserve death.’ Thus when we read in Romans 3:26 that God’s wrath has been turned aside in way that demonstrates justice, we cannot continue to assert that the punishment for sin has been overlooked! God must punish sin, and in the death of Christ has done so.

Romans 3:24-25 explicitly teaches that God’s justice was vindicated for all the sins that He – in His divine forbearance – passed over in times past. Therefore He set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood [death]. God did this ‘to declare his righteousness,’ so that he might ‘be just and the justifier in the one who believes in Jesus.’ The idea of vindicated justice cannot be explained away from this passage without doing serious harm to the integrity of God’s word. This is the Reformed position – and I understand that you may very well disagree with us. However, if you do, can you please give me a proper contextual and theological interpretation to this passage please?

Thank you so much for your patience, and God bless you CD!!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

As I said, I was finishing up my response. The two posts above were what you sent me via PM, but when I responded it said your PM box was full.

 

[PJM]

Thank you for your opinions, and your perspectives; I am happy to consider all that your church teaches. However, I am not convinced that the Catholic Church has captured the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, (although I will not debate this issue on this particulat thread) - I will also share with you what the Reformed Church teaches concerning the Gospel of God’s Salvation.

That my dear friend in Christ is a facinating perspective.

Please allow me to ask a couple of questions.

How old is your church?

What is your understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Bible?

Who did your bible translation and what qualified them to do so?

I beg your patience as I am not firmilar with the “Reformed Church.”

It is good to recohonize that the Bible was written by Catholics and until about 1600, with the publication of the KJV, was the only bible widely in use. The entire New Testament was written by Catholic Apostles who actually knew Jesus first hand, or knew prople who did.

The Reformed faith affirms that Salvation - in each of it’s components are accomplished by God. Salvation is God’s work or Redemption through Jesus Christ the Lord. Moreover, the Reformed Church affirms the biblical distinction between Redemption accomplished, Redemption applied, and Redemption manifested.

Christ accomplishes our redemption - (Heb. 9:12, 15).

The Spirit applies this redemption to our souls by

1. Quickening us from the dead - (the new birth) - (John 3:6; 6:63)

Please expalin this term. Again It is new to me.

1. Thereby enabling us to ‘see’ Christ and ‘hear’ the gospel - (John 3:3; Proverbs 20:12; Deuteronomy 29:2-4)

1. Thereby causing faith in Christ to be born in our hearts - (Rom. 10:17; 1 John 5:1)

1. By which we receive justification - (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16)

1. And are sealed unto glory - (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13, 14; 4:30)

Therefore - the Reformed faith affirms that the work of Redemption is the work of God. However, when we are quickened to life, hear the word, believe on Christ, receive justification and peace with God (Rom. 5:1) and are sealed unto glory - we experience all that Christ wrought for us, now being worked in us, in the transformation of our character. This is Redemption manifested.

So, if I understand you correctly, and you have done an excellent job in stating your position; you hold the position that “in essence”

“One is justified by faith alone, through the merit’s of Jesus Christ?”

In other words - once we receive the Holy Spirit - who is the seal of the righteousness of Christ that we received by faith - we then begin to evidence our justification by producing the fruit of the Spirit. However - it is the Spirit’s fruit, not ours. This includes all good works and obedience - the first of which is baptism, where we publicly identify ourselves with Christ and his Church as a declaration and a confirmation that we have been redeemed.

So you believe that Baptism and works are necessary for Salvation. That too is the position of theRCC.

The Reformed Church teaches that only as we maintain these crucial biblical distinctions, do we preserve the integrity of God’s word, and safeguard the glory of God in salvation. We keep grace as grace, and do not confound it with works.

Why is that?

The topic of this thread however - is the nature of the Redemptive work of Christ, and the Redemptive work of Christ is substitutionary in nature (that is the Reformed position).

What exactly does this mean?

God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer *for us *the curse and death that was due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. This is penal substitution, and this is the topic of this thread. So now that we have each had a chance to share our respective positions on Salvation - what do you say we get back to point? That would be good - thanks!

This last statement seems to say that you believe that the Sacrifice of Christ is all that is necessary for salvation?

As for getting back on topic, as I have indicated, I can find NO RCC theology in support of your question.

What else can I do for you?

God bless,
PJM m.c.

 

[Zooey]

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.

I do grasp your point; I just:nope: don’t agree with you. I probably understand your illustration better than almost anybody here: I am alive and talking to you all, because someone (my father:byzsoc: ) died saving my life.
The problem is, I think, that your whole argument is based on a distortion of what God is really like. Combined with the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, this view is ] destined to cause false conclusions about the atonement…

 

[Frontline]

As I said, I was finishing up my response. The two posts above were what you sent me via PM, but when I responded it said your PM box was full.

Sorry about that - I cleared my PM box, but you did not respond to me in the length of a day - so I figured you meant for me to post it on this thread. So I did - but I shortened it, and removed one part (you know which one).

I see now that you have responded to me via PM - so I will respond to you on the thread - if you do not mind. I think that it would be good to put out on the table for all to read.

Thank you and God bless!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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).

I don’t think you can impose the notion of being removed from the covenant onto a goat. A goat is not a human, so cutting off is of no real meaning in terms of covenant. Goats were killed for food and sacrifice already, so the notion that being sent in the wilderness is worse than the average goats fate doesn’t make sense. Next, I looked up that “solitary place” word and it is unique, it only occurs once in the Bible. The root of that word is Gazar, but of the 13 times it is used it has a variety of meanings not at all restricted to death and I didn’t see any clear references to being cut off from the covenant. It can simply mean separated from the main bunch with no further connotations (eg Hab 3:17). It is not the main word used for cutting off from the covenant. Further, the word for “wilderness” is Midbar in Hebrew, used about 250 times, and simply means wilderness.

Also, how would you define Jesus being “cut off,” what does that mean to you?

This is because your illustration is very similar to a common objection in liberal Protestantism as well.

It all depends on what the “common objection” is.

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.

My point is you can suffer “for” someone without it equating to PS. A father “suffers for” the well being of his family every day when he goes to work to make a living.

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.

I don’t believe this is correct if it is in the context of PS. For it would mean Jesus stepped into the electric chair in place of the guilty. It can work in the sense of someone is in trouble and you take the burden upon yourself to help them, for example taking the burden and suffering of an extra job to help a friend out of debt.

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.

I don’t follow. There is nothing substitutionary in the Protestant sense about Is 53:4 and Mat 8:17 because it would mean Jesus had to become infected with the diseases. Instead, it simply is a poetic way of saying Jesus is the source of healing and ‘took away’ the disease.

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.

But it would mean in Mat 8:17 that Jesus was taking the diseases upon Himself, that is clearly false.

The context of these verses indeed have Peter encouraging his hearers to ‘bear up under the pain of unjust suffering’ (2:19),

Yes, and thus that is how you must understand Is 53 because Peter quotes much of it in that very same context. Peter carries this theme elsewhere in his Epistle (see esp ch3).

The exemplary significance of Jesus’ death cannot, however, account for all of the teaching in the passage. Take for example verse 25…This alludes to Isa. 53:6

The point is not so much “exemplary” as it is that method is what is meritorious in God’s sight. What is meritorious in God’s sight is enduring unjust suffering for God’s sake (1 Pt 2:20b).

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 context (2:18ff) is not PS. The context is unjust suffering, being mistreated, not about being justly tortured. Christ is the meritorious cause of our forgiveness, He merited the graces so we could be healed.

(cont 1 of 3)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 3)

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.

Two problems. You are ripping these passages out of Peter’s theme: “if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.” This is not a PS situation.
Second, I am not denying a notion of substitution, I’m denying the specific notion of Penal Substitution. Remember, I say the case with Jesus was alternative to punishment rather than a transfer of punishment. Remember Phineas who turned away God’s wrath by doing what was pleasing in God’s sight, he explicitly made atonement and turned away God’s wrath.

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). I believe that is a misreading of Gal 3:13, the correct understanding is that crucifixion was the most humiliating way to die (Phil 2:8), not that Jesus was literally under God’s displeasure or literally cursed (which is impossible).

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.

This is problematic logic for that is now how Peter builds. You have Peter shifting meaning mid thought, which I reject. What is more problematic is you have Peter’s theme being how Jesus is someone we should and must emulate as Christians, yet you have Peter saying Jesus endured PS when PS is not something Christians emulate.

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.

His going out of his way to please God is my point, and this was meritorious and made atonement. Whether the good work was specifically suffering unjustly is not an issue.

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,

I’m not saying reject the rest of Scripture, I’m saying the Gospel accounts should be the primary place we look because they are best accounts of what happened at the cross. It would be quite odd if the most important teaching of the Cross, PS, was not actually highlighted in the crucifixion accounts.

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.

The problem with this response is that I am not dividing these into two distinct concepts. I say they are one and the same. The fact we don’t see the “active action” of God pouring out His wrath on Jesus in the NT supports my claim.

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

I’m sure you will not be surprised, but I still don’t find your arguments from Scripture convincing.
I believe my strongest case rests in the fact the actual historical unfolding of the OT, which is the NT, does not paint a PS picture.

Certainly CD – the death of Jesus did involve sinful acts …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.

Yes, I disagree because PS is supposedly founded upon justice, when the Crucifixion was undeniably an injustice.

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).

Yes. God frequently allows men to suffer unjustly that their genuine love may show through and thus Glorify Him.

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).

You are misreading “condemn sin in the flesh.” You are reading that phrase in the sense that God was very angry and required a punching bag and Jesus’ body was that punching bag. Rather, what that means is Jesus turned suffering and death on their head, and stripped them of their power, now they are to be used to conform the Christian to His Image rather than instill fear.

(cont 2 of 3)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(con 3 of 3)

This must have been accomplished justly though – because the God of providence could not justly allow a sinless man to suffer.

Actually He could, and this is confirmed by the fact godly men end up suffering all through Scripture.

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.

The phrase “became a curse for us” does not mean Jesus was literally cursed, it means He was made to endure humiliation.

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.

A dual intention is not PS! One intention was exclusively wicked, the other was exclusively good. God allowed Joseph to suffer because God would turn that sin into a greater good in the future. The sin of the brothers was repugnant in God’s eyes. The shock of the Gospel was that the very men who murdered Jesus were offered forgiveness (Acts 3:26), something very odd if PS was the driving force. It would mean the very people who killed Jesus were actually simply punishing their sin of murder in Jesus at that moment. :whacky:

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.

Great. We agree here. Now I hope that you realize that God permitting sin cannot be seen as God simultaneously actively punishing Christ.

My point is that . . . justice is never served by unjust means, it simply is against God’s nature.

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.

Ahh, but God was not using an unjust means! That is where your argument goes wrong. God was not murdering the ungodly Israelites, Jesus was murdered.

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).

Clearly – you can see that the Assyrians were not committing a righteous act – but were intentionally set against Israel for their harm.

God demonstrates that though He is committing no injustice –

Your argument fails on the fact the dual destruction was both fully within the bounds of justice, both were wicked and could justly be punished for their own sins. God can approve of sending one ungodly nation against another ungodly nation such that they ultimately destroy eachother. The case is very different with Jesus who was strictly murdered, something God never approves of (Acts 7:52).

I believe that I have already demonstrated that this is not necessarily true. See comment above.

The only way your argument can be true is if you deny what happened to Jesus was murder. But I don’t think you can deny that without a whole host of problems taking its place.

 

[steve_b]

Yes - and Christ could not have died - unless he took upon himself our sin. I think you will agree with this, as you alluded to 1 Pet. 2:24 below. But might I ask, who executes judgment on sin? Is it not God Himself?

**I believe that it can safely be deduced from a host of Scriptures: for example - “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” (Romans 1:18) “Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” (Romans 2:5). **

Also - Isaiah 13:9-11, "Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger, to make the land a desolation and to destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light. I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant, and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless."

The literal rendering is ‘the land of cutting off’ which is a separation from the camp of Israel. As I noted, this certainly denotes a death, as is implied by ‘separation’ and is the equivilent to experiencing 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).

If Jesus bore it ALL (punishment for sin of EVERYONE) , there should be no punishment levied for sin against ANYBODY … correct?

There shouldn’t even be any talk of punishment post life,death and resurrection of Jesus if subsrtitutionary atonement as described so far, is true.

 

[Frontline]

Part 1
Catholic Dude:

This is the response to the last PM you sent me.:

The Bible teaches that Christ was victorious over evil powers…how was this accomplished?

In short, by overcoming evil with good. PS doesn’t answer how Christ was victorious over evil powers.

Our position is that it did not and could not happen apart from the justice of God and the satisfaction of His holy law. This is – in our perspective – what the Bible clearly teaches.
Catholic Dude:

But the Accuser can appeal to justice.

Not really. Creatures have no room to speak, much less the Father of Lies.

Actually – He is called the “Accuser of the brethren” for that very reason, and I have also demonstrated this from Zech 3, to which you gave no response.
Catholic Dude:

In other words, the weapon in the devil’s hand is God’s own law

If this was about a strictly legal battle, then God would have no grounds at all to forgive. We say the law is “blind” we mean it is totally impartial and can only condemn the guilty and vindicate the non-guilty, there is no room for “forgiving” the guilty. So if that is your argument, Satan won because then God’s hands are tied.

This would certainly be the case without Penal Substitution. But God set forth Christ as a propitiation by his blood to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:25-26). Not only this, but I have demonstrated this plainly from Colossians 2:14, 15 as well.
Catholic Dude:

The triumph over satan was that Christ’s merits stripped Satan of his weapons and fully exposing him as the father of lies.

Satan’s strongest weapon – as I have pointed out – is the law of God that rightfully condemns us for our sins. I agree that ‘Christ’s merits stripped Satan of his weapons’ by fulfilling the law on our behalf and suffering the penalty that our sins concurred.
Catholic Dude:

The biggest weapon of satan was the fear of death, which Christ turned from something to be feared into a step in the salvation process! Heb 2:14f.

Why should we be afraid of death except that we ‘deserve death’ (Rom. 2:5) ? And why do we deserve death? Because the law of God condemns us for our trespasses and sins. So clearly Satan’s strongest weapon is actually the law of God – which rightfully condemns us for our sin – and thus the effects of this fact – leave us with a ‘fear of death.’
Catholic Dude:

God doesn’t owe the devil anything, ever.

I never said that the ransom is paid to the devil. Rather the ransom is paid to God. He is the Lawgiver, and the Executioner of all who violate His justice. Therefore unless a ransom is paid – in order that justice might be satisfied, and His righteousness vindicated, we are doomed to perish. God cannot violate His own justice.

 

[Frontline]

Part 2
Catholic Dude:

In 1 Jn 2:1, it says Christ is our Advocate, if we trust in Him then He will appeal to the Father to forgive us. Christ merited the status of Advocate through perfect obedience. Picture this, a King is about to have a criminal executed, but someone in the kingdom did an extraordinarily heroic act, which pleased the king and gave that man some high standing in the Kingdom. The hero in his position can stand in the presence of the King and ask the King to show mercy on the criminal, which the King gladly does in honor of the Hero. That is how Christ’s role is to be seen.

The advocacy of Christ is a truth that I affirm. But in his advocacy – Christ has satisfied the demands of the law that were violated by those who were to be executed. He did not just do some un-related good deed, and gain such a favor with God that He could persuade the Just God to set aside His justice. Though I respect that this is how you see the atonement – I respectfully disagree. This would mean that Christ has merited God’s injustice – which could never be, for it would turn the atonement into an immoral act of sweeping justice under the rug, simply because another man did good deeds. Unless we have a place taking; a substitution; a legal imputation; a legal exchange – there can be only a violation of divine justice. This ‘persuasion’ doctrine is no solution at all – but rather; it is only another crime – of which the Holy God of the Universe is made to be intimately involved. This should give you serious pause, and cause you to re-think this position.
Catholic Dude:

Satan’s defeat cannot be seen as a good thing unless he deserved it

Of course Satan deserved it, he was wicked.

Not Satan’s defeat as a sinful and wicked creature, but his fall as a legitimate Accuser.
Catholic Dude:

Also, this [Romans 3:25-26] is a very important passage for Protestants, but I believe they badly misunderstand it. The main reason why is because they miss one key phrase: “in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.” The “forbearance of God” was a pure act of mercy and has no business in the courtroom. When Adam sinned, God in His justice could have struck Adam dead on the spot. But in God’s “forbearance” His mercy, He left Adam and the rest live to give them a chance to repent and provide hope in a future Messiah.

If God simply ‘passed over sins’ and did not intend to vindicate His justice by the death of Christ – then He is violating His own word. God said that He is merciful, ‘keeping mercy for thousands,’ but also made it perfectly clear that His mercy would not be accomplished by the casting away of His law, but in a fulfilling of it’s demands. Look how God – in the same breath – establishes this fact: “The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty” (Exodus 34:6-7).

God did not just forgive Adam, but ‘slew an animal’ [pointing to the satisfaction of Christ] and ‘clothed them with the skins thereof’ [pointing to the gift of Christ’s righteousness by imputation]. Christ is the cause of God forgiving anyone; and if this is so – then it proves that men cannot be forgiven apart from the sacrifice of Christ. The Catholic position claims that God ‘could have just forgiven sinner’ without sending his son to die. They claim that the only reason that Christ came, was because this way was ‘the most fitting.’ I find this unbiblical – as we see our Savior in the garden praying fervently – “Father – if it be possible - let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." (Mat. 26:39) In other words – “If there is any other way, please Father, let us do it another way!” Heaven was silent in it’s response.

 

[Frontline]

Part 3
Catholic Dude:

God did this ‘to declare his righteousness,’ so that he might ‘be just and the justifier in the one who believes in Jesus.’

Protestants read “just and justifier” they think it means God was LEGALLY entitled (‘justified’) in declaring the sinner righteous because Jesus’ death gave a legal grounds for God to go through with His plans. This “righteousness/justice” is NOT to be understood in the sense of a legal grounds to act.

Of course it is. The terminology of the Scriptures is heavily legal; The idea of God being a judge, with a law, and a punishment, the terms justify, condemn, guilty, advocate, ect. These are all legal terms, and so why do Protestants receive lashes for understanding the atonement in a ‘legal light’? It is Scripture that puts it in such a category – not Protestants.
Catholic Dude:

I have constantly maintained that the Reformed desire to preserve God’s justice is misguided by the fact PS is seen as an acceptable “solution.” It is as if God was an executioner and said “someone has to die today, I don’t care who as long as someone dies” and proceeds to point the gun at Christ’s head and says “justice is served.” WHERE? Where is “justice served” by putting a gun to Christ’s head? I honestly don’t see where “justice” fits in this equation at all, it is a false “solution.”

CD- I don’t believe that your appeal to justice is valid for two reasons: First, you are not concerned with maintaining justice in your own redemptive scheme, but rather the setting aside of it – or more accurately speaking – the additional violation of it. Therefore you really have no grounds to object to another theological system for being somehow ‘unjust.’

Secondly – and most importantly, you seem to forget about the doctrine of union. This is God’s solution to your objection. To see why penal substitution is not a travesty of justice, we would need to discuss the implications of this particular doctrine. Therefore I will explain it the best I can. Please be patient with me.

The main idea of the doctrine of union with Christ is that the believer is not separate from Christ – an unrelated third party. He is in us, and we are in him. It is easy to understate the significance of our union with Christ, for it is not visible but spiritual – it is an eternal union of election in the purpose of God, which is revealed and experienced in time by faith. The fact that it is spiritual doesn’t mean that it is not real. The ‘spiritual’ in ‘spiritual union’ means that it is God’s Holy Spirit who creates the union between Christ and believers; it does not imply that this union has no real consequences. Our justification, our adoption as God’s children, and our present reigning with Christ in the heavenly places (Rom. 3:26-28; 5:1; Eph. 1:3, 5; 2:6) are all real, even though spiritual and invisible, being perceived in the present only by faith.

The doctrine of penal substitution thus does not propose a transfer of guilt between unrelated persons. It asserts that guilt is transferred to Christ from those who are united to him. In fact, ‘transfer’ may not even be the best term, since it could imply a separation between distinct persons. Instead, it may be better to say that our sins were ‘imputed’ (‘reckoned’ or ‘credited’ to use the vocabulary of Rom. 4 and Gal. 3; see also 2 Cor. 5:19) to Christ, while his righteousness is imputed to us. That Christ bore our sins willingly furthers the point: he was not forced or coerced into this union with us, but entered into it voluntarily. Luther uses the analogy of a marriage between two people, one of them a debtor. The other knows that legal union will bring debt upon himself, but in love nonetheless, willingly enters into the marriage. The analogy is not perfect, for Christ dies not merely share our debt, offering to pay it with us. Rather he pays it for us. Therefore it should be added that this man is a rich man, who –because he is married to his bride, pays her debt on his own, using only that which he earned without her. Either way – I think that you get the concept – that marriage is intended to be illustrative of the costly love of Christ shown in the way in which he entered into such a union with his people (Eph 5:25-26).

In summary – your objection rests on a claim that our guilt cannot be imputed to Christ, which is in turn grounded on the assumption that we are entirely separate and distinct from him. But the reality is that believers are united to Christ by his Spirit. The imputation of our guilt to Christ does not violate justice, because he willingly consents to a real, spiritual identification with his people. In short, this objection to penal substitution arises from a failure to understand the significance of union with Christ.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I never said that the ransom is paid to the devil. Rather the ransom is paid to God. He is the Lawgiver, and the Executioner of all who violate His justice. Therefore unless a ransom is paid – in order that justice might be satisfied, and His righteousness vindicated, we are doomed to perish. God cannot violate His own justice.

God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

However, he didn’t create robots.

We must choose his grace or reject it.

He does not withhold his grace from us.

 

[Frontline]

Part 4

I looked up that “solitary place” word and it only occurs once in the Bible. The root of that word is Gazar, but of the 13 times it is used it has a variety of meanings not at all restricted to death and I didn’t see any clear references to being cut off from the covenant.

The references I gave were legitimate. The Bible uses this term in certain instances to demonstrate the ‘cutting off’ of an individual ‘from his people’ Le. 7:20. Being ‘cut off from the people’ is to experience a separation from the covenant community and benefits, which is precisely what death is – it is a separation. Physical death is when the soul separates from the body. Spiritual death is when the soul separates from the Spirit of God. Eternal death is the eternal separation from God’s favor and goodness. Death is separation. Death is a ‘cutting off.’ The fact that these ‘unclean’ persons were ‘cut off from the people’ clearly demonstrates that they experience what we could term ‘a living death.’ This nonetheless, does not take away from the realness of this death (separation). It may not be physical – but it is nonetheless – real. Whether all these instances are proven to demonstrate a permanent separation is besides the point – as even Christ was not permanently dead – but rose again on the third day!

It can simply mean separated from the main bunch with no further connotations (eg Hab 3:17).

It certainly “can mean that” – but it does not necessarily mean that. It is obvious that it does not mean that in this case, especially by virtue of the fact that the passage says that “the goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself.” Therefore it is clear that the illustration was meant to convey a death – for “the wages of sin is death” – not – “the wages of sin is being separated from the main bunch with no further connotations.”

Also, how would you define Jesus being “cut off,” what does that mean to you?

It means he actually died. The passage says – “he was cut off from the land of the living” (Isaiah 53:8). It does not mean that he was simply “separated from the main bunch with no further connotations.”

My point is you can suffer “for” someone without it equating to PS.

I admitted this. But I also made the point that these two meanings are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance – as I said before – 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 don’t believe this is correct if it is in the context of PS. For it would mean Jesus stepped into the electric chair in place of the guilty.

This is exactly my point – He suffered in our place.

 

[Frontline]

Part 5

Two problems. You are ripping these passages out of Peter’s theme: “if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.” This is not a PS situation.

I am not ripping anything out of the theme. I am giving credence to the fullness of the meaning here. Peter is encouraging us to “suffer for doing good” which is exactly what Jesus did. Peter is encouraging us to “suffer unjustly” which is exactly what he did. You again are taking the atonement and forcing it into a mutually exclusive category. You want to make it be either “Jesus died unjustly” or “Jesus died unjustly” so that you can affirm the former and deny the latter. But the fact is – both of these statements are true! Though – God was just in punishing Christ for our sins – Christ still suffered at the hands of unjust men who had no real right to be the means of his punishment. Therefore – Christ was indeed crucified unjustly! But this does not take away from the fact that he also – at the same time – suffered justly in our place because “he bore our sins in his own body on the tree.”

Again – you limit the Scriptures by not recognizing the duality of the death of Christ. This is something that Peter understood, so he was able to tell us to follow Christ’s example in suffering at the hands of unjust men for doing good – and at the same time – let it be known that even though he was suffering justly on account of wicked men, he “continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” This changes the subject from the unjust act of men, to the just judgment of God. Peter makes a smooth transition – and he moves on to explain what he means about God “judging justly.” In his very next words we read: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.”

Second, I am not denying a notion of substitution, I’m denying the specific notion of Penal Substitution. Remember, I say the case with Jesus was alternative to punishment rather than a transfer of punishment.

I understand your position – but you have not established it at all. And what is more, is in my study of the early fathers, I find the doctrine of penal substitution clearly in their writings. They spoke nothing of an “alternative” but rather use the same explicit terms that I use. They taught that Christ was punished on our behalf, and in our place. I have come across some very clear statements by some prominent fathers, and they are in no way even close to your position.

I have to ask CD – you aren’t one of those people who claim that penal substitution is a Protestant invention are you? You do understand that John Calvin is not the originator of this doctrine right?

Remember Phinehas who turned away God’s wrath by doing what was pleasing in God’s sight, he explicitly made atonement and turned away God’s wrath. His going out of his way to please God is my point, and this was meritorious and made atonement. Whether the good work was specifically suffering unjustly is not an issue.

Also – remember this. God’s wrath was satisfied by the death of the offender – not by the “good deed” of Phinehas. If Phinehas did any other ‘good deed’ than put that man to death – God’s wrath would not have been turned away. This hurts your position and overturns the objection that Protestants teach that “God must punish” – because clearly – we are correct. No sin goes unpunished . . . ever. God’s wrath is not diverted by foreign and unrelated goodness – it must be satisfied by justice. In the case of Phinehas and in the case of Christ – God’s wrath was satisfied by the death of the offender. Read my comments below on union with Christ – before you respond to this; so that you do not think that I am claiming that Christ was guilty in himself.