Substitutionary Atonement

[Frontline]

Part 6

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).

Galatians 3:13 is a clear reference to Deuteronomy 21:23. We know that the apostles never ripped passages “out of context” and when they quoted Scripture – they expected their readers to go back and read the context – (Acts 17:11).

As a matter of fact – your assertion goes against the common interpretation of the early church fathers – as we read in the writings and controversies of even Augustine. Some men (Faustus) accused Moses of blaspheming Christ for saying that “anyone who is hung on a tree is accursed of God.” It is interesting to note that in defense of Moses, and even Paul for that matter, Augustine never once attempted to disconnect Paul’s application of Deuteronomy 21:23 from its original context. All Augustine established was that Christ bore our punishment because of our sins – not his own, so that Christ became a curse in our place, not in his own place.

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.

You are looking into a historical account that was written in a biographical fashion. You will not find too much in the synoptics – though you will find clear references to God’s wrath – the “cup” in John, and that “forsaking” of Christ on the cross. Before you attempt to refute these short statements – if you wish, I can provide an exposition of relevant passages in John. Then we can deal with the texts head on. Just let me know which way you want to take this discussion.

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

They may have been ‘godly’ but they were not ‘sinless.’

Christ was sinless – and death is the consequences of sins – so how does God allow Christ to die and remain just – and how is it even ontologically possible? It is often objected that if Christ suffered for us and paid for our sins – then we should never suffer. This is a reasonable objection – however – we must understand something about the nature of the suffering of believers.

The nature of the sufferings of believer is not ‘penal’ – for Christ paid that on Calvary. We do not suffer as the penalty of our own sin – Christ paid that already. But rather, the nature of a believer’s suffering is ‘merciful’ – not a condemning fire of wrath, but a refining fire of love. This suffering is actually grace – and is granted by God on the behalf of Christ.

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

Humiliation and shame were all a part of the curse – but cannot exhaust the meaning of Christ becoming a curse for us. I will speak more on this later, in reference to some interesting statements made by Early Church Fathers that were so explicit they cannot be explained away. Just let me know when you want to bring them into the picture - I am collecting statements right now that demonstrate that the EFCs held the doctrine of penal substitution.

 

[Frontline]

Part 7

A dual intention is not PS! One intention was exclusively wicked, the other was exclusively good.

My point exactly! Penal Substitution is the same way. God satisfying His justice by means of His own Son – and Christ willingly taking our punishment upon himself to free us from the curse of the law – is an act of pure goodness.

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.

Again – you are simply recapitulating my earlier statements.

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.

Not necessarily. Christ only took upon himself the sins of his people (Mat. 1:21). His death only paid the penalty of those with whom he is in union. See my other post on the union of Christ and the believer.

So those who end up repenting, and believing on Christ, and them alone, manifest that they have a union with Christ – and thus it is true that their sins – even their sin of consenting to the death of Christ – was paid for by their Savior. If you really think about it – all our sins killed Jesus – not just the sins of those who were there during the historical event.

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.

Please understand me CD – I never said that “God was murdering” anyone. God’s killing of the Israelites was a righteous act of judgment as far as he was concerned. God did – however – use an ungodly nation to perform this righteous deed, and they did not perform it intentionally for God’s purposes. They performed this act out of the wickedness of their own hearts. Though God had a just cause to punish Israel, the Assyrians did not have a just cause in and of themselves. By the Assyrians disregarding the righteous purpose of God, and killing the Israelites in an attempt to accomplish their own wicked purpose – they actually became guilty of murder. This is obviously true, because apart from God’s purpose – they had no legitimate grounds to kill anyone. Therefore – for them – it was an unjust act of malicious murder; even though for God, it was a just act of judgment.

 

[Frontline]

Part 8

God can approve of sending one ungodly nation against another ungodly nation such that they ultimately destroy each other. The case is very different with Jesus who was strictly murdered, something God never approves of (Acts 7:52).

CD – here is where you demonstrate your unwillingness to fairly hear me out. Earlier, you made a comment: “My point is that . . . justice is never served by unjust means.” It is to this assertion that I was answering. So basically, I was arguing conceptually – (establishing the truth of a concept). It is clear that I have established my point, and the have overturned your objection to the concept of God using unjust means (wicked men with wicked motives) – to accomplish His righteous purposes. My point has been demonstrated and secured by Scripture and therefore it cannot be denied.

To simply take the exact details of Isa. 10 and attempt to transfer them over to Christ is to expect too much. The fair question for you to ask is - “OK, now how does this concept relate to Christ?” To this I am happy to give an answer. The events do not correlate one to one – but the concept finds justice in each event. That concept is this: God is able to use an unjust means (wicked men with wicked motives) to accomplish His righteous purposes. He did this in Isa. 10, and He also did this in the crucifixion of Christ. This is the plain testimony of Scripture – to deny this would be to flat out deny what was explicitly spoken by the apostle Peter and the rest of the disciples:

“This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23)!

Here we see clearly that God delivered Jesus up to be crucified by wicked men. He did it intentionally – and He did it purposefully. And yet God was just in all He does – even in this act – as Jesus was willing, and the whole purpose was to vindicate justice and redeem chosen sinners from their condemnation. This was a good act of God, rooted in love and grace.

However, here we also see clearly that these men – though they were unwittingly doing God’s bidding – were ‘wicked’ and therefore guilty of murder. They acted not with reference to God’s justice, but rather, they acted out of the maliciousness of their own hearts. They are murderers – who – by their murderous act – actually fulfilled God’s purpose. Therefore God is not guilty of sin, but they are. God accomplished His righteous purpose through the means of unrighteous men. God accomplished His just purpose through the means of unjust men. Can anyone argue with this? Here is another passage: “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” (Acts 4:27-28).

Your only objection now – is to take this concept – and pretend that it is supposed to establish the doctrine of penal substitution all on it’s own. But that is a mistake that you continue to make. These passages were only referenced to refute your assertion that justice can never be served by unjust means. These passages were not referenced to make the whole case for penal substitution. I hope the readers understand this. If they do not – I will surely receive this reply – “These passages do not prove that Christ suffered the penalty for his people’s sins!” This comment would entirely miss the point, and would only demonstrate that the responder is unable to follow the flow of our discussion. He is assuming that every one of my posts is an attempt to fully demonstrate the validity of penal substitution.

I am sorry that this discussion has become so drawn out - as I am now posting 8 part responses. This is a little overwhelming - but I guess it is worth it for the sake of the gospel and all who will read. The best part about this discussion - by far - is the manner in which it is being conducted. I thank you for your kindness and patience. I hope that we will continue in a spirit of grace and love!

 

[steve_b]

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.

Following your comment to its conclusion, If we can’t take any credit for doing good, then we can’t be punished or take any blame for NOT doing good.

That notion is ANTI scriptural.
FL:

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.

It seems you have a contradiction here. If you have to “maintain” and “preserve” and “safeguard” ANYTHING as if it would be lost without your efforts, then it is NOT gift alone but you working at it too.
FL:

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).

I’ve read the thread so far and haven’t seen where the case has been made that Jesus suffered, so we don’t have to suffer, nor was punished so we aren’t punished, etc etc etc.
FL:

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.

32"Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.

33’(Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’
34"And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35")My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." [Mt 18:32…]

Where is the substitution here, penal or otherwise?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Part 8

It’s going to take a bit before I can get to all this.

 

[brownjt]

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!

God sentenced mankind to death due to the fall of Adam and Eve from the temptation of Satan. He sent his son as atonement and to become the “New Adam” and to overcome that sentence and to free mankind from Adam’s fall. Jesus’s willing self-sacrifice to do His father’s will freed us all from the wages of sin which was death IF we choose to follow Christ, etc. Man’s unjust
murder exposed Satan. Ahhhh God said to Satan…you killed someone unjustly - Jesus never deserved it although all men do and certainly those who killed him. They inherited this nature. God’s gut-wrenching act to let a part of Him and us as a human die freed us from the “jail”. It was not a punitive act because He loved us. Much like what we do when we “punish” our kids as opposed to our “enemies” One is done for rehabilitation (jesus death on the cross) and one is done for retribution (final judgement for the wicked). Both are components of justice served

 

[Zooey]

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.

 

[PJM]

Part 4

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 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.”

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.

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

My dear friend in Christ,

It is obvious that you have given the topic much careful and prayerful thought.

However there seems to be signifiant difference in Catholic understanding and your, on the consequences of Christ life, Deat, and Ressurection.

Catholic Theology holds that the Saving action of Christ Death and Ressurection, indeed did account for our sins, a point on which we agree. However the benefits of this act was "Redeemtion was made POSSIBLE, Not that Salvation is assured. The "gates of Heaven were unlocked, but that ALONE does not insure, or assure Salvation without other considerations.

That seems to be the dividing point in our theologies?

God bless,

PJM m.c.

As evidence of this (the short version) read James Chapter two.

 

[brownjt]

My dear friend in Christ,

It is obvious that you have given the topic much careful and prayerful thought.

However there seems to be signifiant difference in Catholic understanding and your, on the consequences of Christ life, Deat, and Ressurection.

Catholic Theology holds that the Saving action of Christ Death and Ressurection, indeed did account for our sins, a point on which we agree. However the benefits of this act was "Redeemtion was made POSSIBLE, Not that Salvation is assured. The "gates of Heaven were unlocked, but that ALONE does not insure, or assure Salvation without other considerations.

That seems to be the dividing point in our theologies?

God bless,

PJM m.c.

As evidence of this (the short version) read James Chapter two.

Interesting because your point is agreed to be baptists as well, The redemption was for all mankind as He became the New Adam. Like you said, it opened the gates of heaven - freed us from the Law of Moses - twas the grace of God that set us free - the Advocate The Holy Spirit descended upon us and is with us till this day touching mens hearts and allowing us to take what is there for us IF we ask and obey.

 

[Frontline]

Correction of 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 Jesus 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 justly” 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 unjustly 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.” This is penal substitution, and the grounds of God’s just judgment.

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 satisfaction of justice; and this is plain as day.

 

[Frontline]

Following your comment to its conclusion, If we can’t take any credit for doing good, then we can’t be punished or take any blame for NOT doing good.

Why is that?

Can you elaborate please?

 

[steve_b]

Why is that?

Can you elaborate please?

As you can see from my comment,

:
:
Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Following your comment to its conclusion, If we can’t take any credit for doing good, then we can’t be punished or take any blame for NOT doing good.

I was responding to your comment that we can’t take any credit for doing good or obeying etc etc.

We have free will. We really DO have the choice to do good OR do bad. We really DO have the choice to obey OR disobey. And we fully participate in the blessings/curses because we really DO participate in the consent for what we do. Otherwise we would be just like a plant, vegatable, or mineral, culpable for NOTHING guilty of NOTHING, incapable of doing right or wrong, and we would NOT need a savior or redeemer. No need for heaven or hell.

 

[cfrancis]

Part 2
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.’

First, would you please direct us to a reference stating this is the Catholic position.
Second, I still don’t fully understand what “penal substitution” means, and, more importantly, what its implications are. Can you please help me here.

 

[crisco]

Dear Frontline,
What was the nature of the punishment, the punishment that we deserved, that according to the PS model, God intsead inflicted on Jesus?

 

[PJM]

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.

There are times when at least sacramental grace is withheld.

CCC #1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God."

Until we turn back to God and “repent and convert” the flow of grace is not “restarted.”

You are correct in that God DOES provide sufficient grace for everyone to freely choose Salvation.

God bless,

PJM m.c.

 

[Frontline]

First, would you please direct us to a reference stating this is the Catholic position.
Second, I still don’t fully understand what “penal substitution” means, and, more importantly, what its implications are. Can you please help me here.

I was referred to an article written by Catholic Dude - you can find it on his website:

catholicdefense.googlepages.com/PenSub.htm

Here are some quotations taken from this article - you can locate them in Appendix 1:

‘Catholics view the Atonement very differently than the classical Protestant view presented in this article. First of all God could have forgiven mankind outright, but God’s plan for forgiving by way of the cross was the most beneficial.’

‘It was accordingly *more fitting *that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good-will.’

Catholic Dude then quotes Thomas Aquinas, and paints an incomplete and therefore distorted picture of his position, by not taking into consideration other explicit statements made in the very same Treatise. Aquinas defends the willingness of Christ in the atonement to put to rest the idea that somehow God forced him to lay down his life. Jesus was not the involuntary sacrifice to propitiate God’s wrath - he was the voluntary sacrifice that was just as eager to fulfill his covenant engagements for the salvation of his people. So respecting the cooperation of Christ - there is no force - or any such type of necessity laid upon him from the Father.

HOWEVER -

When speaking of the nature of the atonement - there certainly is a necessity in the method of it. The necessity is this: God must redeem his people in such a way that His justice is not violated or pushed to the side (or swept under the rug) - but rather satisfied. God cannot save anyone in such a way as to dishonor His own word and character. Therefore - if Christ was to redeem anyone - it could not be by simply performing some foreign good deeds and offering them to God as some ‘alternative’ to justice, but rather he must himself become the means of a true satisfaction of God’s justice - so that sinners could rightfully be released from the curse of the law. In short - Christ had to become a curse and suffer the punishment that we deserved, so that we could be set free. This is what Aquinas taught, along with Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Ceasarea, and many others. They taught nothing of an ‘alternative to punishment,’ but explicitly taught that Christ ‘took our punishment upon himself.’

Penal Substitution teaches that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son, not simply to offer up a perfect sacrifice and persuade the Father to forgive sinners because He is so pleased with the life and death of Christ - but to actually take upon himself the sins of his poeple, and to suffer the just punishment due to those sins. Therefore - Christ willingly bore the sins of his people, and consequently bore the judgment of God that was due to those sins. In this way he freed his people from the curse of the law - and the judment of God “by being made a curse for them” (Gal. 3:13) ‘bearing their iniquities’ (Isa. 53:11) and absorbing the wrath of God in his own body and heart and soul (Lam. 1:12-22).

Praise God for Christ - our penal substitute -

 

[Frontline]

We have free will. We really DO have the choice to do good OR do bad. We really DO have the choice to obey OR disobey. And we fully participate in the blessings/curses because we really DO participate in the consent for what we do. Otherwise we would be just like a plant, vegatable, or mineral, culpable for NOTHING guilty of NOTHING, incapable of doing right or wrong, and we would NOT need a savior or redeemer. No need for heaven or hell.

Ummm . . . you are way off topic.

This thread is not about Calvinism, it is about the atonement.

 

[crisco]

This is what Aquinas taught, along with Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Ceasarea, and many others. They taught nothing of an ‘alternative to punishment,’ but explicitly taught that Christ ‘took our punishment upon himself.’

WOW! Aquinas taught PS??? Could you show me the quote(s)?

 

[cfrancis]

I was referred to an article written by Catholic Dude - you can find it on his website:

catholicdefense.googlepages.com/PenSub.htm

Here are some quotations taken from this article - you can locate them in Appendix 1:

‘Catholics view the Atonement very differently than the classical Protestant view presented in this article. First of all God could have forgiven mankind outright, but God’s plan for forgiving by way of the cross was the most beneficial.’

‘It was accordingly *more fitting *that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good-will.’

Catholic Dude then quotes Thomas Aquinas, and paints an incomplete and therefore distorted picture of his position, by not taking into consideration other explicit statements made in the very same Treatise. Aquinas defends the willingness of Christ in the atonement to put to rest the idea that somehow God forced him to lay down his life. Jesus was not the involuntary sacrifice to propitiate God’s wrath - he was the voluntary sacrifice that was just as eager to fulfill his covenant engagements for the salvation of his people. So respecting the cooperation of Christ - there is no force - or any such type of necessity laid upon him from the Father.

HOWEVER -

When speaking of the nature of the atonement - there certainly is a necessity in the method of it. The necessity is this: God must redeem his people in such a way that His justice is not violated or pushed to the side (or swept under the rug) - but rather satisfied. God cannot save anyone in such a way as to dishonor His own word and character. Therefore - if Christ was to redeem anyone - it could not be by simply performing some foreign good deeds and offering them to God as some ‘alternative’ to justice, but rather he must himself become the means of a true satisfaction of God’s justice - so that sinners could rightfully be released from the curse of the law. In short - Christ had to become a curse and suffer the punishment that we deserved, so that we could be set free. This is what Aquinas taught, along with Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Ceasarea, and many others. They taught nothing of an ‘alternative to punishment,’ but explicitly taught that Christ ‘took our punishment upon himself.’

Thank you for the article, Frontline. I was actually hoping for something from the Catechism or an encyclical; I can’t read the article at work, but will look at it when I get home.

As for your words on atonement, they appear to coincide, generally, with the Church’s position: the cross was where perfect mercy met perfect justice.

Penal Substitution teaches that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son, not simply to offer up a perfect sacrifice and persuade the Father to forgive sinners because He is so pleased with the life and death of Christ - but to actually take upon himself the sins of his poeple, and to suffer the just punishment due to those sins. Therefore - Christ willingly bore the sins of his people, and consequently bore the judgment of God that was due to those sins. In this way he freed his people from the curse of the law - and the judment of God “by being made a curse for them” (Gal. 3:13) ‘bearing their iniquities’ (Isa. 53:11) and absorbing the wrath of God in his own body and heart and soul (Lam. 1:12-22).

Praise God for Christ - our penal substitute -

The above explains Penal Substitution so that I can understand it; thank you.
What, then, are the implications of this?
For instance, what happens when a Christian sins?

 

[Frontline]

The above explains Penal Substitution so that I can understand it; thank you.
What, then, are the implications of this?
For instance, what happens when a Christian sins?

When a Christian sins - he is convicted of the Holy Ghost and driven to repentance and confession of his utter sinfulness and unworthiness. He is brought to a rememberance of what Christ suffered in his place for that very sin. He is made to contemplate the blessed Savior being ‘smitten of God and afflicted’ in his behalf and he inevitably grows in grace and love for God who is so merciful and has demonstrated such a sacrificial love toward him. This inspires the Christian to live a life of obedience and godliness out of sheer gratitude - not out of fear of judgment. This reminds the sinner that though he is unacceptable in himself - he is nevertheless ‘made accepted in the beloved’ and can come to God through Christ alone - simply because of the union that exists between them. He bore our sins and put them away by the death of himself - and we inherit all his righteousness before God, so that because we are in Christ and he is in us - we have peace with God forever. We are caused to love God and serve God freely from the heart and through the spirit - not from the letter of the law.

‘For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Cor. 5:21)!