Substitutionary Atonement

[Frontline]

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

In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas defends the idea that Christ suffered ‘willingly’ so as to answer the critics who say that the atonement was the Father forcing the Son to die - this is what he denies when he denies any ‘necessity.’ Aquinas explains that God the Father gave up His Son to suffer in our place, while at the same time Christ suffered willingly:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God’s severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God’s goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this saying, He has delivered him up for us all, and, God has established him as a propitiation by blood through faith.’

(Summa Theologiae, vol. 54 (london: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1965), 3a, question 47, article 3, page 63, citing Romans 11:22; 8:32; 3:25. The italics in the text and brackets are original.)

Aquinas argues that God shows both his severity towards sin and His goodness to His people by paying Himself a debt that we could not pay. This debt was the punishment due to us for our sin against Him, and He paid it by giving His Son ‘as a propitiation’. THe insistence that God in His justice must and will punish sin, and that Christ’s death is a ‘satisfaction’ on our behalf, recurs throughout questions 48 to 50 of the Summa Theologiciae. Here is another example:

‘By sin man contracts a two fold obligation. First he is bound in slavery to sin inasmuch as everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin, and by whatever a man is overcome, of this also he is the slave. Because then, the devile had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was delivered up into the bondage of the devil. Secondly, by sin man was held to the debts of punishment according to divine justice . . . As therefore Christ’s passion provided adequate, and more than adequate satisfaction for man’s sin and debt, his passion was, as it were, the price of punishment by which we are freed from both obligations. Satisfaction offered for oneself or for another resembles the price whereby one ransoms himself from sin and from punishment . . . Now Christ offered satisfaction . . . by giving the greateds of all things, namely himself, for us. For that reason, the passion of Christ is said to be our ransom.’

Ibid., question 48, article 4, page 85, citing John 8:34; 2 Peter 2:19. Italics original.

Here Aquinas argues that our sin leaves us enslaved to the devil and indebted to God and that Christ’s passion was . . . ‘the price of punishment by which we were freed from both.’ Aquinas guards - however - against the notion and misunderstanding that th eprice of punishment was actually paid to the devil on page 87. Rather, it was by paying the debt we owe to God that Christ rescued us from Satan’s bondage. This ammounts to a clear statement of penal substitution: God must punish sin to mainstain divine justice, but Christ suffered in our place and freed us from this debt.

 

[crisco]

In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas defends the idea that Christ suffered ‘willingly’ so as to answer the critics who say that the atonement was the Father forcing the Son to die - this is what he denies when he denies any ‘necessity.’ Aquinas explains that God the Father gave up His Son to suffer in our place, while at the same time Christ suffered willingly:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God’s severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God’s goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this saying, He has delivered him up for us all, and, God has established him as a propitiation by blood through faith.’

(Summa Theologiae, vol. 54 (london: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1965), 3a, question 47, article 3, page 63, citing Romans 11:22; 8:32; 3:25. The italics in the text and brackets are original.)

Aquinas argues that God shows both his severity towards sin and His goodness to His people by paying Himself a debt that we could not pay. This debt was the punishment due to us for our sin against Him, and He paid it by giving His Son ‘as a propitiation’. THe insistence that God in His justice must and will punish sin, and that Christ’s death is a ‘satisfaction’ on our behalf, recurs throughout questions 48 to 50 of the Summa Theologiciae. Here is another example:

‘By sin man contracts a two fold obligation. First he is bound in slavery to sin inasmuch as everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin, and by whatever a man is overcome, of this also he is the slave. Because then, the devile had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was delivered up into the bondage of the devil. Secondly, by sin man was held to the debts of punishment according to divine justice . . . As therefore Christ’s passion provided adequate, and more than adequate satisfaction for man’s sin and debt, his passion was, as it were, the price of punishment by which we are freed from both obligations. Satisfaction offered for oneself or for another resembles the price whereby one ransoms himself from sin and from punishment . . . Now Christ offered satisfaction . . . by giving the greateds of all things, namely himself, for us. For that reason, the passion of Christ is said to be our ransom.’

Ibid., question 48, article 4, page 85, citing John 8:34; 2 Peter 2:19. Italics original.

Here Aquinas argues that our sin leaves us enslaved to the devil and indebted to God and that Christ’s passion was . . . ‘the price of punishment by which we were freed from both.’ Aquinas guards - however - against the notion and misunderstanding that th eprice of punishment was actually paid to the devil on page 87. Rather, it was by paying the debt we owe to God that Christ rescued us from Satan’s bondage. This ammounts to a clear statement of penal substitution: God must punish sin to mainstain divine justice, but Christ suffered in our place and freed us from this debt.

interesting…although the first quote could be taken to imply that God was going to punish us, and that punishment would be eternal such that we could never arrive at a point where we’d been punished sufficiently to rejoin God. Instead God sends his son, and here’s where the quote you offered becomes ambiguous w/r to PS, to satisfy for God…from that quote it is not obvious to me that Aquinas is advocating a stance for PS, especially considering that he’s been arguing for a modified Anselmian satisfaction model all along as the quotes CD provided so obviously indicate.

The second quote does no better - “the price of punishment” does not imply that punishment was endured. It could be that he is referring to the cost of averting punishment (ours).

In the end, I want to go back to my original question of a few posts back. Let me expand my rationale.

We deserve eternal separation from God due to our sinful nature/state and the sins we commit. Therefore, the appropriate penalty for a substitute to bear on our behalf would be identical to that which we deserve (and in fact multiplied by the number of penalties derived from all those who would be saved). Did Jesus endure this penalty? If so, what scripture can be provided to support this notion? Should Jesus not therefore be in hell, condemned with all the non-elect? How can God be split / separated from Himself?

 

[Frontline]

interesting…from that quote it is not obvious to me that Aquinas is advocating a stance for PS,

Catholic Dude’s position is that the atonement is not the punishment due to our sins - but an alternative to punishment. He claims that God could have just forgiven us without demanding a satisfaction of justice. You may not see penal substitution in Aquinas - but it is certainly there in seed form. One thing is clear - God must have His justice satisfied - and this is the foundation of penal substitution. Aquinas agrees with this: “God’s severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God’s goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him.”

Aquinas is not the only - nor the most explicit one who taught such penal substitutionary truths. As I said - I have collected a few very explicit statements about the atonement that can only be true if penal substitution is true.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

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

Catholics do not dispute that Jesus bore our sins on the cross. That aspect of atonement is not in question. Where we part ways with those who believe in substitutional-punishment atonement, is by seeing Christ’s complete submission to the will of the father as the sacrificual act that atones. Properly framed, it is clearly seen that our Redemption arises from an act of God’s love, not from the infliction of God’s wrath. The distorting of the view by improperly seeing Jesus as suffering the specific punishments due to each of the saved causes this clarity to become opaque.

In noting the Catholic reaction to protestant atonement variations on Atonement doctrine, the writers in the Catholic Encyclopedia noted here:

But it may be observed that the truth which they contain is already found in the Catholic theology of the Atonement. That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man’s laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, “making peace through the blood of His Cross”.

I think that perhaps you and Frontline are misunderstanding the Catholic theological viewpoints regarding the Atonement. We are not far apart in most respects. But as it pertains to punishment, we do part ways.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Catholic Dude’s position is that the atonement is not the punishment due to our sins - but an alternative to punishment.

I think perhaps his position is that the Atonement for our sins was not accomplished by Jesus receiving the just punishment we all deserved for our sins (i.e. bearing the just wrath of God), but that Jesus’ complete submission of His Divine will to the will of the Father, and acceptance of an unjust death at the hands of the Romans, was the sacrifice that atoned for our sins and merited redemption.

Frontline:

He claims that God could have just forgiven us without demanding a satisfaction of justice.

In a sense, because of God’s omnipotence this is true.

Frontline:

You may not see penal substitution in Aquinas - but it is certainly there in seed form. One thing is clear - God must have His justice satisfied - and this is the foundation of penal substitution.

Not necessarily. God chose that redemption occur in a manner that also comported with justice. God, the author of all rules is not bound by creation.

Frontline:

Aquinas agrees with this: “God’s severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God’s goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him.”

No. He does not. Nor is this support for the notion of a penal substitution (i.e. literal vicarious punishment). As it is noted in the article linked above:

But St. Thomas and the other medieval masters agree with Abelard in rejecting the notion that this full Satisfaction for sin was absolutely necessary. At the most, they are willing to admit a hypothetical or conditional necessity for the Redemption by the death of Christ. The restoration of fallen man was a work of God’s free mercy and benevolence. And, even on the hypothesis that the loss was to be repaired, this might have been brought about in many and various ways. The sin might have been remitted freely, without any satisfaction at all, or some lesser satisfaction, however imperfect in itself, might have been accepted as sufficient. But on the hypothesis that God as chosen to restore mankind, and at the same time, to require full satisfaction as a condition of pardon and deliverance, nothing less than the Atonement made by one who was God as well as man could suffice as satisfaction for the offense against the Divine Majesty. And in this case Anselm’s argument will hold good. Mankind cannot be restored unless God becomes man to save them.

Frontline:

Aquinas is not the only - nor the most explicit one who taught such penal substitutionary truths. As I said - I have collected a few very explicit statements about the atonement that can only be true if penal substitution is true.

Again, I do not think that the Thomists would concede that their theological understanding of the Atonement amounts to Christ’s receiving our punishment vicariously. Rather, the Thomists see the Atonement as sacrificial in nature, as described in CD’s earlier posts. (Not to belabor the point).

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

…We deserve eternal separation from God due to our sinful nature/state and the sins we commit. Therefore, the appropriate penalty for a substitute to bear on our behalf would be identical to that which we deserve (and in fact multiplied by the number of penalties derived from all those who would be saved). Did Jesus endure this penalty? If so, what scripture can be provided to support this notion? Should Jesus not therefore be in hell, condemned with all the non-elect? How can God be split / separated from Himself?

I think that the Thomists and Scotists both attempted to answer that question, and their theological attempts are both seen and harmonized in the article cited above:

One of the chief questions at issue was the intrinsic adequacy of the satisfaction offered by Christ. On this point the majority, with St. Thomas at their head, maintained that, by reason of the infinite dignity of the Divine Person, the least action or suffering of Christ had an infinite value, so that in itself it would suffice as an adequate satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Scotus and his school, on the other hand, disputed this intrinsic infinitude, and ascribed the all-sufficiency of the satisfaction to the Divine acceptation. As this acceptation was grounded on the infinite dignity of the Divine Person, the difference was not so great as might appear at first sight. But, on this point at any rate the simpler teaching of St. Thomas is more generally accepted by later theologians.

Whether by the least amount of suffering, or by Divine acceptance (or both if these cannot fairly be separated), what is clearly at work is the sacrificial nature of the Divine Second Person’s positive act of conforming His will to the Father’s (as opposed to his work being limited to vicariously bearing the brunt our well-deserved punishment.)

Peace,
-Robert

 

[steve_b]

Ummm . . . you are way off topic.

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

I was responding to you re: “Reformed theology” which you make a strong push for. I think I stayed on point with respect to the topic “substitutionary atonement”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4621678&postcount=83

Re: Calvinism, I never mentioned it.
%between%

 

[Zooey]

Frontline, with due respect, I am seeing a big disconnect between what you say about God and what you say about Jesus.
They are the same, you know.
This is something that happens fairly frequently around here: Someone shows up, and before we know it, this disconnect occurs…In regard to the atonement, this is particularly obvious.
You keep talking about a wrathful God, and all this wrath seems to be on the part of the*** Father***…who would not, you see, be much of a father [IMHO], if he were subject to the kinds of emotional fits & starts, and the:bigyikes: demands for legalities as over against love and grace and mercy, that I see in Reformed thought.
Christ came to set us free from the shackles of the law. In what you have said thus far, I see the law rising up to haunt us all again, because (I repeat) of an improper understanding of the nature of God.
God bless all here.

 

[crisco]

I think that the Thomists and Scotists both attempted to answer that question, and their theological attempts are both seen and harmonized in the article cited above:

Whether by the least amount of suffering, or by Divine acceptance (or both if these cannot fairly be separated), what is clearly at work is the sacrificial nature of the Divine Second Person’s positive act of conforming His will to the Father’s (as opposed to his work being limited to vicariously bearing the brunt our well-deserved punishment.)

Peace,
-Robert

Thanks Robert. I agree, And I see nothing but a sacrificial nature to Christ’s death on the Cross.
It’s the penultimate sacrifice, part OT atonement sacrifice, part Passover sacrifice (God’s wrath was not carried out on the Passover lamb - its blood confirmed the covenantal relationship). As for these OT sacrifices at the Temple, as far as I can tell, the basic mechanism was that the sinner offered something of high value (firstborn, unblemished animal etc) that would restore the convenantal relationship and thus avert punishment. The animal itself is not punished (its the priest who kills it, not God). In the case of Jesus, in a manner analagous to these OT sacrifices, He offers something of infinite value - Himself and His obedience etc, and the value is infinite since He is in fact God. There are more aspects to this of course, but I’m simply hitting one of the major keys.

 

[Frontline]

I was responding to you re: “Reformed theology” which you make a strong push for. I think I stayed on point with respect to the topic “substitutionary atonement”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4621678&postcount=83

Re: Calvinism, I never mentioned it.
%between%

Actually - ‘Calvinism’ is a short hand for the soteriology of ‘Reformed Theology.’ And that is not the topic of the thread.

 

[Frontline]

In a sense, because of God’s omnipotence this is true.

God’s attributes cannot be in conflict - his power cannot overthrow his justice. To be omnipotent does not mean He can overlook sin, for that would be unjust.

Not necessarily. God chose that redemption occur in a manner that also comported with justice.

I understand that you actually believe this - but I don’t see how you can. In your position God does not punish sin - which goes against His promise to punish sin, (He has become a liar) and it goes against the demands of justice, (He has set aside the law). How is justice served in overlooking sin and setting aside His holy law? Has God been bribed by the death of his Son - or Has His justice been satisfied by the death of his Son? I would affirm the latter, while it would be an inconsistency for you to deny the former. This should give you pause and cause you to rethink this issue.

No. He does not. Nor is this support for the notion of a penal substitution (i.e. literal vicarious punishment). As it is noted in the article linked above. Again, I do not think that the Thomists would concede that their theological understanding of the Atonement amounts to Christ’s receiving our punishment vicariously. Rather, the Thomists see the Atonement as sacrificial in nature, as described in CD’s earlier posts. (Not to belabor the point).

We can disagree about what Thomas meant, and this does not make me lose any sleep. I know that the readers of this thread are many- even if they do not leave comments. It will be up to God if He would grant them a heart to understand. Let the readers consider the biblical exegeisis that I have offered, and decide for themselves. I cannot convince anyone, I am only sharing what I have come to know.

Peace to you Robert.

 

[Frontline]

Catholics do not dispute that Jesus bore our sins on the cross. That aspect of atonement is not in question. Where we part ways with those who believe in substitutional-punishment atonement, is by seeing Christ’s complete submission to the will of the father as the sacrificual act that atones. Properly framed, it is clearly seen that our Redemption arises from an act of God’s love, not from the infliction of God’s wrath. The distorting of the view by improperly seeing Jesus as suffering the specific punishments due to each of the saved causes this clarity to become opaque.

I think that perhaps you and Frontline are misunderstanding the Catholic theological viewpoints regarding the Atonement. We are not far apart in most respects. But as it pertains to punishment, we do part ways.

Peace,
-Robert

Robert - it is not what the Catholic Church affirms about the atonement - it is what it denies that puts them at odds with the biblical data.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I havn’t had a big enough window of time lately to get to this, but will make every effort to catch up on your comments tonight.

 

[brownjt]

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 -

Very nicely put - especially with the quotations from the Sacred Scripture. How my baptist and methodist fellow protestants describe the atonement and the redemption is exactly what you said. Why? They quote from the Bible and leave it at that. These are self-explanatory and pearls of wisdom. The term “PS” - I have never heard of. What you said is from the Word of God. I recall that Jesus said something to the effect that God has hidden many things from the wisdom of the wise that only the hearts of the believers can understand.

 

[brownjt]

In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas defends the idea that Christ suffered ‘willingly’ so as to answer the critics who say that the atonement was the Father forcing the Son to die - this is what he denies when he denies any ‘necessity.’ Aquinas explains that God the Father gave up His Son to suffer in our place, while at the same time Christ suffered willingly:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death if it is against his will. Nor did God the Father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God’s severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, He did not spare even His own Son. But it also illustrates God’s goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this saying, He has delivered him up for us all, and, God has established him as a propitiation by blood through faith.’

(Summa Theologiae, vol. 54 (london: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1965), 3a, question 47, article 3, page 63, citing Romans 11:22; 8:32; 3:25. The italics in the text and brackets are original.)

Aquinas argues that God shows both his severity towards sin and His goodness to His people by paying Himself a debt that we could not pay. This debt was the punishment due to us for our sin against Him, and He paid it by giving His Son ‘as a propitiation’. THe insistence that God in His justice must and will punish sin, and that Christ’s death is a ‘satisfaction’ on our behalf, recurs throughout questions 48 to 50 of the Summa Theologiciae. Here is another example:

‘By sin man contracts a two fold obligation. First he is bound in slavery to sin inasmuch as everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin, and by whatever a man is overcome, of this also he is the slave. Because then, the devile had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was delivered up into the bondage of the devil. Secondly, by sin man was held to the debts of punishment according to divine justice . . . As therefore Christ’s passion provided adequate, and more than adequate satisfaction for man’s sin and debt, his passion was, as it were, the price of punishment by which we are freed from both obligations. Satisfaction offered for oneself or for another resembles the price whereby one ransoms himself from sin and from punishment . . . Now Christ offered satisfaction . . . by giving the greateds of all things, namely himself, for us. For that reason, the passion of Christ is said to be our ransom.’

Ibid., question 48, article 4, page 85, citing John 8:34; 2 Peter 2:19. Italics original.

Here Aquinas argues that our sin leaves us enslaved to the devil and indebted to God and that Christ’s passion was . . . ‘the price of punishment by which we were freed from both.’ Aquinas guards - however - against the notion and misunderstanding that th eprice of punishment was actually paid to the devil on page 87. Rather, it was by paying the debt we owe to God that Christ rescued us from Satan’s bondage. This ammounts to a clear statement of penal substitution: God must punish sin to mainstain divine justice, but Christ suffered in our place and freed us from this debt.

It was very clever what God did. Especially after Satan tempted Eve and brought down the fall of Man. We were in jail - convicted by the Law of Moses that God set up - through the subterfuge and the charisma and seduction of Satan. As Jesus was substituted for us and ventured into the Hades for three days, I am sure Satan thought: what a prize! Little did he know that Jesus actions were our “Get out of jail” card. Satan no longer has dominion over souls since the fall The “new” Moses and new “Adam” not only conquered Satan but freed us in the process. Let’s hear an ammmmmeeeeeennnn!

 

[steve_b]

Actually - ‘Calvinism’ is a short hand for the soteriology of ‘Reformed Theology.’ And that is not the topic of the thread.

:doh2:sheesh!!!

As I’ve said I never mentioned Calvin OR Calvinism. But I’m understanding your comment to mean “Reformed theology” and Calvinism are synonymous terms… correct?

Well anyway, You wrote, (emphasisi mine)

:

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).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4617040&postcount=62

And I responded to your post, with the following post … remember?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4621678&postcount=83

As the OP, YOU’RE the one defending substitutionary atonement with “reformed theology” by your own admission. .

Do you remember saying the following? (emphasis mine)

:

As we move along in this discussion, I am hoping to demonstrate that the Reformed position captures the nature of the atonement in the clearest light – and certainly I will seek to demonstrate that this light is Holy Scripture – the highest counsel of God’s revelation.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4606750&postcount=25

Therefore, I’m the one staying on track and It appears you’ve lost track of your own position

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

Then we are at a stand still because I don’t believe the Scriptures teach the atonement was a legal exchange of guilt and punishment.

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.

That word for “accuser” is also translated “satan” and appears about 25 times in the OT. It most often is not used as ‘accuser’ but more as troublemaker/tempter (eg Job 1:8-12). In Zech 3 I take the same meaning, with no indication the phrase is used or strictly understood in a legal sense of accusing them of sin before God.

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.

You totally misunderstood what I said. A strictly legal situation knows no such thing as forgiveness, it is impossible by definition. I already talked about this passage, so I don’t know why you quoted it. Forbearance is a purely merciful act and does not belong in a strictly legal context.

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.

Satan’s weapons are fear and temptation, inciting people to become enslaved to sin. I don’t believe God has to legally justify Himself or could be put in a legal corner by Satan.

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.’

We should be afraid of death because it represents both the unknown and an unnatural end to things. None of this is about “Satan’s weapon, the law,” it’s about God’s justice in leaving someone in bondage or mercifully freeing them.

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.

I didn’t mean ransom to the devil, I mean Satan has no room to speak, ever. His actions, like tempting, are purely based on God’s permission, not an inherent right of Satan. As for justice being satisfied, that does not require PS, you got to realize that.

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.

Some “un-related good deed”? Where does that come from? Christ’s perfect obedience is the most relevant and very related deed, demonstrating the perfect sorrow for offending God which we should all have. And “justice” was not set aside if satisfaction was made, the “justice” of turning around and dumping His Wrath on Jesus isn’t justice and there is no such (sane) legal code in history that operates on such a principle. To drive this into a strictly legal situation demolishes mercy and forgiveness at its core, which were the foundation of the Atonement. The very fact God let Adam live after the sin rather than strike Him dead was the greatest act of sweeping sin under the rug in the history of the universe…according to your logic above.

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

He never was a “legitimate accuser” beyond a purely gratuitous sense as in Job where God permits Satan to tempt and challenge.

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.

He violated strict justice by the very fact He passed over sin in the first place and let the guilty live on by extending their life.

(cont, many posts long)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

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).

Woa there, lets see the very next verse: 8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. 9 "O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes,"** he said, “then let the Lord go with us**. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.”
There is Jesus in His Advocate Role again. Notice, Moses’ status carrys weight in God’s sight, his requests God is pleased to hear. The idea that Ex 34:6-9 is the strict justice you are looking for is simply not there.

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].

Nowhere does the passage indicate God dumped his wrath on the nearest animal to buy some legal time. Nowhere does it say the animal was killed as a sacrifice. (I don’t even see where an animal was explicitly killed.)

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.

Christ is the meritorious cause, under the plan of salvation God chose to go with. The driving cause was pure mercy. God could have chosen to forgive in any number of ways, the plan to become Incarnate and die on the Cross was simply the most fitting of all plans.

The Catholic position claims that God ‘could have just forgiven sinner’ without sending his son to die.

Yes, that is the Omnipotent Merciful God we worship. If you don’t believe that God could have outright forgiven, then “God is Love” and mercy are totally obliterated.

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.

Most fitting means of all options, some are better than others and even means one option was the best. For example, Jesus could have been born in Antartica away from all to see and died on a cross there with the same result…but that would not be the most fitting. Christ could have died suddenly at the hands of the Romans, but again not the most fitting way. That is what people like St Thomas mean by “most fitting.” The passage you quote is only true under the pre-set (most fitting) conditions God established.

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

I never denied Scripture uses legal terminology, what I deny is the notion of exclusively legal. The Jewish legal system was elastic and broad and not based on the western notion of strict justice. There was no sense in the Torah in which someone was ‘legally righteous’ while at the same time being ‘morally unrighteous’, the two worlds greatly overlapped where as Protestants strictly separate them. So when Protestants read God is “just and justifier” they see it as a purely legal status, where as for Paul it extended to personal/inherent integrity (hence the connection of righteousness and faithfulness, a connection which makes zero sense in a strictly legal context; Rom 1:17; Heb 10:36ff).

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.’

I’m placing ‘justice’ in the sense it was understood in the Bible, an elastic concept which is in no way at odds with gratuitous forgiveness. You’re imposing a western notion of strict justice back onto the Bible but coming out with a incoherent ‘solution.’

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.

I will see what you have to say, but thusfar it has been the same stuff I have heard many times by other Protestants.

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont)

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.

I don’t obeject to any of this, though I would point out the impossibility of you saying this and yet holding to a strictly legal view of justification.

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.

The notion of imputing is that of transferring! It is the assigning of an alien status to someone which doesn’t hold that status intrinsically. And your understanding of Rom 4, Gal 3, and 2 Cor 5 is botched, no offense. Nowhere does the Bible talk of imputing an alien righteousness onto another, that is another discussion, but I’d be happy to go there.

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).

I can agree with this analogy (assuming it is a static situation, because things can change in a marriage), but I don’t believe one of the spouses can receive the death penalty in place of the other. In terms of paying a debt, this is very similar to the Catholic view of satisfaction where Christ’s perfect obedience acts as the “payment.” Also, I don’t think imputation works here, for example sharing a bank account is not imputation nor is sharing a debt.

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.

I think imputation is the wrong concept here, if two become one they are sharing debt or sharing a bank account that is not imputation.
Also, I don’t believe guilt in the criminal sense can be imputed to another with any true sense of justice. Whether the other willingly or not undergoes the death penalty in place of the other is irrelevant.

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.

This is not correct. The Hebrew word for “cutting off” in the sense of removal from the covenant is “Karath,” it is a different word than the one used for the scapegoat (“Gazerah” with the root of “Gazar”). They are different words, so your argument doesn’t work. There is a common term for “cutting off” for violating the covenant, Karath, and was used plenty in Leviticus, but it was not used in Lev 16 (ie where the scapegoat is mentioned).

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.’

Christ could only suffer physical death, that’s it. If you are going to suggest He could undergo a spiritual death (as you describe above), which is what ‘cutting off’ requires, it is a form of Nestorianism (heresy).

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont, about 3 more to go)

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.”

The passage was not intending to convey death, you read that into it. The “cutting off” you are arguing for is a different word, as I showed above.

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.”

Died a physical death only or also a “spiritual” one?
I hope you mean physical death only.

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.

But I deny that this “substitution” works in a legal penal sense. The child and fire example is not legal. Christ didn’t jump into the path of the bullet, His Father turned the gun to His head.

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.

And my point is that such a legal substitution doesn’t fit any sane definition of ‘justice’. To say that the law is only concerned about the death penalty being inflicted, regardless of who gets it, as long as someone dies, is absurd justice…yet this is what you are proposing.

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.”

The mistake you are making is claiming there are TWO parallel themes going on in 1 Pt 2, I deny that. There is no indication he is shifting themes, or has another theme going right along side. You want that to be the case, but the passage says nothing of the sort.
And I do still deny the murder of Jesus was a simultaneously just and unjust event for that is illogical and unjust. I deny murder is an acceptable means by bringing out justice.

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.”

You’ve got to be kidding me. Peter is not transitioning or changing the subject:23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
Peter is NOT changing the subject, rather Peter is saying Jesus did not retaliate and calmly suffered TRUSTING that God would protect him and punish the evildoers. That is what this verse is saying, that is what the context as a whole is saying, and that is what the rest of 1st Peter is saying.

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 would be very surprised if an ECF spoke of Jesus as receiving the Father’s Wrath in our place or spoke of it in a sense of imputing guilt to Christ. If they spoke of ‘punishment’ in the sense someone takes a burden upon themself to correct the problem, rather than a strictly legal guilt punishment, that is not a problem for me.

(cont)