Substitutionary Atonement

[kotek]

I thought I would start a thread on this subject because I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject. It was brought up as a part on another thread but that thread is not particularly on THIS subject. I post here what another poster put on that thread.

The Catholic denial of Christ’s death on the cross as substitutionary is the core disconnect between Catholics and Protestants and why Catholics cannot accept the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace (not graces) through faith alone. And what Paul means when he says in 1 Cor. 1:23-24 that Christ crucified is the power and wisdom of God for salvation.

The cross is the wisdom of God because it solved the greatest problem of how He (God) could be just and yet be the justifier of the ungodly (through faith in Jesus alone, Rom. 3:26). It is the power of God because by the cross alone, all the infinite ability of God to save the lost sinner is released from those restrictions which the sin of man imposed (propitiation).

Apart from the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice of Christ the cross is meaningless and powerless. Simply a religious icon. And for this reason Catholics look to salvation as a “process” by which works (other than Christ’s on the cross) must be added, and therefore salvation is completed only at the end of one’s life here on earth. But such a notion is unbiblical and hardly Apostolic.

---

Let me also post here what I believe, I agree with the OP that Christ died on our behalf, that on the Cross Christ carried our sins and bore them to appease God’s wrath against us, on the Cross Christ took our place, Christ took the punishment I deserve for my sins against God, He the Son of God died in my stead. People call this “Penal Substitution” and I wholeheartedly believe this view of the Doctrine of the Atonement. I have read the Holy Scriptures for years and that is how I came to believe this.

 

[Francine_Peters]

I thought I would start a thread on this subject because I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject.

There is no theory of atonement defined as dogma. If you like Substitutionary Atonement, that’s fine. Most Catholics who think about it probably go along with the Satisfaction theory of St. Anselm, which basically goes that Christ pleased the Father by his obedience (even unto death on a cross) more than all of humanity displeased the Father by our disobedience in sin. It’s not a make-or-break thing like the Trinity.

 

[Nita]

Let me also post here what I believe, I agree with the OP that Christ died on our behalf, that on the Cross Christ carried our sins and bore them to appease God’s wrath against us, on the Cross Christ took our place, Christ took the punishment I deserve for my sins against God, He the Son of God died in my stead. People call this “Penal Substitution” and I wholeheartedly believe this view of the Doctrine of the Atonement. I have read the Holy Scriptures for years and that is how I came to believe this.

Re underlined portion.
The biggest problem I see with taking a literal “Penal Substitution” stance is that it is obviously not true.

1. Jesus did die for us, but it does not become a substitute for our death (physical death). Even with faith we must still undergo physical death.
2. Regarding the wrath deserved for our sins. Our sins deserve eternal condemnation in hell (spiritual death). Jesus does not substitute for us in the sense that He takes that punishment for us. He is not undergoing eternal condemnation in hell for our sins.

So, considering the above, would you explain a little better just what the “substitution” consists of in Protestant theology? Thanks.

Nita

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Re underlined portion.
The biggest problem I see with taking a literal “Penal Substitution” stance is that it is obviously not true.

1. Jesus did die for us, but it does not become a substitute for our death (physical death). Even with faith we must still undergo physical death.
2. Regarding the wrath deserved for our sins. Our sins deserve eternal condemnation in hell (spiritual death). Jesus does not substitute for us in the sense that He takes that punishment for us. He is not undergoing eternal condemnation in hell for our sins.

So, considering the above, would you explain a little better just what the “substitution” consists of in Protestant theology? Thanks.

Nita

That is correct. The Penal Substitution model actually introduces grave problems like:

1. How an innocent person could justly be punished by God. It would be no different than if God was a rape victim and instead of punishing the rapist God turns and aborts the child.
2. How God the Father can punish God the Son. This is heresy because it introduces conflict within the Godhead.
3. The New Testament is clear that Jesus died unjustly and the hands of wicked men torturing Him.

 

[kotek]

That is correct. The Penal Substitution model actually introduces grave problems like:

1. How an innocent person could justly be punished by God. It would be no different than if God was a rape victim and instead of punishing the rapist God turns and aborts the child.
2. How God the Father can punish God the Son. This is heresy because it introduces conflict within the Godhead.
3. The New Testament is clear that Jesus died unjustly and the hands of wicked men torturing Him.

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

That is the idea in brief. It’s not like God the Father “forced” Jesus, God the Son to die and take out His wrath on Him, but rather it was out of love for man that the Father sent the Son who went willingly. It was a mutual agreement within the Holy Trinity.

What I am asking here is not how individual posters here feel and think about it but is this particular idea of “Penal Substitution” a concept a Catholic can believe and still be “orthodox”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

That is the idea in brief. It’s not like God the Father “forced” Jesus, God the Son to die and take out His wrath on Him, but rather it was out of love for man that the Father sent the Son who went willingly. It was a mutual agreement within the Holy Trinity.

What I am asking here is not how individual posters here feel and think about it but is this particular idea of “Penal Substitution” a concept a Catholic can believe and still be “orthodox”

No a Catholic cannot believe Penal Substitution and be “orthodox” for the theological as well as moral ramifications (eg imputed grace, innocent person being punished), the Catholic Encyclopedia also says this about the Protestant view:It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

• The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause,** not the result of that satisfaction**.
• The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious [substitutionary] punishment. This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

 

[Nita]

I still don’t understand how the word “substitution” can be used in regards to physical death and the punishment due for sin. Perhaps we just define substitution differently.

If you have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic teaching is given in paragraphs 599-620. I would be very interested to know whether or not it incorporates your understanding of penal substitution.

CCC 615 does use the word substitutes (“Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience”) but not in regard to punishment.

Nita

 

[jpusateri]

I am sorry, it seems so non-sensical. So if I commit a crime, would any court accept it if I were to bring in someone else to do my time in jail or in the electric chair? Is that somehow appeasing God’s sense of “justice”?

Is God a mechanism or process or “force” that needs to have all the right buttons pushed so that “bad things” don’t happen?

Jesus’ sacrifice was an atoning sacrifice. This means that he interceded for us in a dramatic way. In a sense pleading for our salvation to God by putting himself in the way. God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice by raising him from the dead and allowing us to become reconciled to God by BECOMING ONE WITH JESUS. We are saved when we are one in Christ. Since Christ suffered, died and was raised, so shall WE also, if we are one in him.

We become one in Jesus by being baptized into his death and resurrection. We become part of His body, the Church. We eat his Body and drink his Blood and He digests US.

We so identify with Jesus that we act like him, we suffer for others, we give of ourselves, we love til it hurts.

That’s why Jesus sacrifice is effective for us, we are one in him.

 

[Gamera]

This whole topic confuses me greatly. Don’t Catholics and Protestants agree that humanity deserved a tremendous punishment for sin, and God loved us so much that He sent His Son to pay the penalty on our behalf? How is that different than “penal substitution?” What am I missing?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I thought I would start a thread on this subject because I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on this subject…

The Catholic denial of Christ’s death on the cross as substitutionary…

It sounds as though he’s already formed a (false) understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject.

It is indeed Catholic doctrine that by Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, He has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life. I pray these very words daily…

O God, whose only begotten Son, by His life, death, and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal salvation. Grant, we beseech Thee, that while meditating on these mysteries of the most holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that we may both imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Catholicism teaches that “the meritorious cause [of justification] is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[Rom. 5:10] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, [Eph. 2:4] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father,” (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, ch. 7).

Nonetheless, St. Paul never said that Christ died in our stead, but only the he died for us, because of our sins.

So, I reject his conclusion as to what Catholicism teaches. I challenge him to stop listening to what non-Catholics tell him about Catholicism, but seek instead to understand from authentic Catholic sources what Catholicism teaches.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

That is the idea in brief. It’s not like God the Father “forced” Jesus, God the Son to die and take out His wrath on Him, but rather it was out of love for man that the Father sent the Son who went willingly. It was a mutual agreement within the Holy Trinity.

That sounds like the “pact theory”. ​

What I am asking here is not how individual posters here feel and think about it but is this particular idea of “Penal Substitution” a concept a Catholic can believe and still be “orthodox”## I accept it totally - ISTM that some of the objections to it depend for their force upon rejecting monergism. I accept monergism, because I believe that it is a better model of the relation between God activity & ours than the synergistic one, which STM quite wrong; in fact, to imply the error known as “Galatianism” (which appears AFAICS to be the, or a, basis for the doctrine of Marian co-redemption).

And the Penal Substitution theory is far better news. It is also scandalous - just like the Cross. It asks one to believe that God required the Son Whom He loved to take upon Him the full blast of the hatred of God for sin. This strikes me as thoroughly evangelical, evangel-based; & thoroughly Catholic in its implications for the theology of the Eucharist: He drained the cup of the Wrath of JHWH - which is why Christians don’t have to. All that sin can do to man, it was by the Wisdom of God permitted to do to Him. So the will of satan & the Will of God were fulfilled on the same Cross - one holily, one sinfully.

The PST allows Him to be “made sin” for us, to be under God’s curse for us, to be smiitten & afflicted like the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 (see Acts 8); to be “in the breach” as our Mediator, just as Moses was, so that Israel would not be destroyed; to drink the cup that gives us joy after it has been death to Him. It allows Him to be the scapegoat of Numbers, on Whom the sins of Israel are laid.

The other theory by itself is too reasonable - it leaves out the scandal of the Cross, the sheer blasphemy of the idea that God should be put to death by crucifixion & become a curse for the sin of man. Yet that is what we say we believe. It fulfils the Scriptures by contradicting them - the OT says God does not justify the wicked; the Gospel is that He justifies the wicked. The OT knows that He is too pure to behold evil - the NT immerses Him in its very depths. The OT has God punishing the wicked - in the NT, God alone is punished. We do not deserve forgiveness - so, God forgives us. We deserve Hell - so we are given Heaven.

IOW - the PST fits the sort of thing that Christian faith & being seem to be. It fits very snugly with the theological emphases of the NT. And it is so contrary to man’s cleverness, being & works, that only God can take the glory for it. So His Name alone is hallowed - just as the Church has been taught to pray it should be.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The following excerpt from Fr. Leo Trese’s book, The Faith Explained, may be helpful:
To “redeem” means to buy back something that has been lost, or sold, or given away… Christ’s work of redemption was in the form of an act of infinitely perfect love, expressed in the act of infinitely perfect obedience that comprised his whole life upon earth. Christ’s death upon the cross was the climax of this act of obedience; all that went before Calvary, and all that followed after, was part of his sacrifice too.

Whatever God does is of infinite value. Because he was God, the very least of Christ’s suffering was sufficient to satisfy for man’s sin, sufficient to compensate for man’s rejection of God. The least chill suffered by the Infant Jesus in Bethlehem’s cave was enough to pay for all the sins that man could heap upon the other side of the scales… By the very fact that Christ’s suffering and death were so far beyond the price that really needed to be paid for sin, God has made unforgettably plain to us the twin lessons of sin’s infinite evil, and God’s infinite love for us…

For although Christ’s sufferings were sufficient to atone for every human sin, that did not mean that everyone automatically, would be freed from sin. It still would be necessary for each one, individually, to apply to himself the merits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice or, in the case of infants, to have them applied through Baptism by another.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This is pretty much what I believe too, and I’m Catholic. Am I missing something?

The Catholic denial of Christ’s death on the cross as substitutionary is the core disconnect between Catholics and Protestants and why Catholics cannot accept the Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace (not graces) through faith alone. And what Paul means when he says in 1 Cor. 1:23-24 that Christ crucified is the power and wisdom of God for salvation.

The cross is the wisdom of God because it solved the greatest problem of how He (God) could be just and yet be the justifier of the ungodly (through faith in Jesus alone, Rom. 3:26). It is the power of God because by the cross alone, all the infinite ability of God to save the lost sinner is released from those restrictions which the sin of man imposed (propitiation).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The following excerpt from Fr. Leo Trese’s book, The Faith Explained, may be helpful:

To “redeem” means to buy back something that has been lost, or sold, or given away… Christ’s work of redemption was in the form of an act of infinitely perfect love, expressed in the act of infinitely perfect obedience that comprised his whole life upon earth. Christ’s death upon the cross was the climax of this act of obedience; all that went before Calvary, and all that followed after, was part of his sacrifice too.

Whatever God does is of infinite value. Because he was God, the very least of Christ’s suffering was sufficient to satisfy for man’s sin, sufficient to compensate for man’s rejection of God. The least chill suffered by the Infant Jesus in Bethlehem’s cave was enough to pay for all the sins that man could heap upon the other side of the scales… By the very fact that Christ’s suffering and death were so far beyond the price that really needed to be paid for sin, God has made unforgettably plain to us the twin lessons of sin’s infinite evil, and God’s infinite love for us…

For although Christ’s sufferings were sufficient to atone for every human sin, that did not mean that everyone automatically, would be freed from sin. It still would be necessary for each one, individually, to apply to himself the merits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice or, in the case of infants, to have them applied through Baptism by another.

Is it still in print ? Thanks in advance ​

 

[VociMike]

The cross is the wisdom of God because it solved the greatest problem of how He (God) could be just and yet be the justifier of the ungodly (through faith in Jesus alone, Rom. 3:26). It is the power of God because by the cross alone, all the infinite ability of God to save the lost sinner is released from those restrictions which the sin of man imposed (propitiation).

Apart from the substitutionary nature of the sacrifice of Christ the cross is meaningless and powerless.

The obvious flaw in this “solution” is that it is not only based on a lie, but it is grotesquely unjust. If we are guilty and Christ is not, then it is a lie to claim that God’s justice has been satisfied by Christ’s death. Do we kill people we know to be innocent to atone for the crimes of those we know to be guilty? This theory paints God as one who, above all else, must keep face. Somebody must die for offenses against him, and he doesn’t much care who it is, or whether the victim is justly chosen. It’s an absurd theory (IMHO ).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The obvious flaw in this “solution” is that it is not only based on a lie, but it is grotesquely unjust. If we are guilty and Christ is not, then it is a lie to claim that God’s justice has been satisfied by Christ’s death. Do we kill people we know to be innocent to atone for the crimes of those we know to be guilty?

The analogy fails, because “most people” are not the sinless & innocent Son of God . There are no true analogies, because this is an act of Divine Righteousness, Divine Wrath, Divine Love, Divine Generosity & Self-Sacrifice. Whereas we are but men, & not God; which is why we need analogies at all.​

Only someone totally without sin can perfectly atone for sin - that’s another paradox. Jesus is “the Perfect Penitent” (as C. Lewis points out) because He is wholly free of any connection to sin. We can’t - because we are sinners. Yet only sinners need atone. So Jesus Who is the Sinless Redeemer, the Servant of God above all others, takes our sin into Himself - & that means taking the burden of the Divine hatred of sin on Himself.

As the Atonement is an act of self-forgetting Love, & God’s Love at that, justice is fulfilled by being transcended. Jesus has freed us from the curse & penalty of the Law, by fulfilling it in Himself - that is through Love; as St. Paul says later on: “…love is the fulfilling of the Law”.

This theory paints God as one who, above all else, must keep face. Somebody must die for offenses against him, and he doesn’t much care who it is,

No - it matters vastly who suffers. Sinners (= us) could not - so He did instead. “Without shedding of blood, there is no remission.” That’s because the Jewish religion was one of sacrifices - animals included. There is nothing haphazard in any of this - it is all part of God’s eternal purpose. What is random to us, is not random to God - that BTW is one of the reasons it is possible for a Christian to believe in evolution.​

Granted, this view of the Atonement can be interpreted in some very sub-Christian senses. But so can any insight into God’s ways. In no way does that make it false. FWIW, I think it’s essential to see the Atonement from as many POVs as possible, because any single way of looking at it is sure to leave much unsaid & much unexpressed. This particular one is a very powerful & effective means of revealing the meaning of the Atonement.

or whether the victim is justly chosen. It’s an absurd theory (IMHO ).

I’m trying - & failing - to see any injustice in it ​

Of course it’s absurd - humanly speaking. So is forgiveness: for that too requires one to be gracious rather than just. We need forgiveness, precisely because we have not a shadow of entitlement to it. Grace is not just - it is more just than justice can be,not less; it goes beyond mere justice, to create righteousness where righteousness is not. God righteously (= justly) justifies the unrighteous, that they may be righteous in His sight - not because they are righteous already. This comes from sheer unmeritable & unmerited grace: our “entitlement” to the benefits of the Cross is our complete and utter lack of anything of the kind. For how can grace be gracious, where there is any basis for God’s mercy in the recipient ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This is pretty much what I believe too, and I’m Catholic. Am I missing something?

That’s three of us ​

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The obvious flaw in this “solution” is that it is not only based on a lie, but it is grotesquely unjust. If we are guilty and Christ is not, then it is a lie to claim that God’s justice has been satisfied by Christ’s death. Do we kill people we know to be innocent to atone for the crimes of those we know to be guilty? This theory paints God as one who, above all else, must keep face. Somebody must die for offenses against him, and he doesn’t much care who it is, or whether the victim is justly chosen. It’s an absurd theory (IMHO ).

I agree the “someone must die” theory is rather bizzare.

The original Nicene-Constantinoplitan Creed states that he was “crucified also for us.” Catholic theologians have used the term “vicarious satisfaction” (satisfactio vicaria). Yet, as St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed regarding the “necessity” of the Incarnation:

A thing is said to be necessary for a certain end in two ways. First, when the end cannot be without it; as food is necessary for the preservation of human life. Secondly, when the end is attained better and more conveniently, as a horse is necessary for a journey. In the first way it was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways. But in the second way it was necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 10): "We shall also show that other ways were not wanting to God, to Whose power all things are equally subject; but that there was not a more fitting way of healing our misery." (Summa Theologica, III, 1, 2)

Since “other ways were not wanting to God” then it follows that the “someone must die” theory is untenable.

St. Anselm of Cantebury’s work Cur Deus Homo (Why God became Man), takes up the question: “what necessity and cause God, who is omnipotent, should have assumed the littleness and weakness of human nature for the sake of its renewal?” I have only read parts, but I think it touches upon the question of “justice” that you described above. His theory is said to be a “juristic theory of satisfaction.”

As was stated earlier, the fathers of the Catholic Church have offered various theories of Christ’s satisfaction, which remain to this day in the field of speculative theology.

For more see Catholic Encyclopedia - Redemption

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is it still in print ? Thanks in advance ​

I think have an earlier edition, but here’s a link to the 3rd edition, updated version taking into account Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church …

The Faith Explained
by Fr. Leo Trese

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/643sm.jpg

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This whole topic confuses me greatly. Don’t Catholics and Protestants agree that humanity deserved a tremendous punishment for sin, and God loved us so much that He sent His Son to pay the penalty on our behalf? How is that different than “penal substitution?” What am I missing?

The merits of Christ’s Passion and Death made the forgiveness of all sins possible, however it is important to recognize the distinction between Protestants and Catholics here.

Here is an example I came up with of how Catholics see the atonement and how Protestants see it:Lets say a group of kids crash the family car, the Father is upset about this and needs to spank the kids…but the mother steps in…

-Protestants would say the mother would have to receive the equivalent beating that the children deserved and thus the Father would be satisfied.

-Catholics on the other hand reject that notion because the Father could never act in such a way towards His wife. Rather, the wife stepped in and spent all day in a hot-sweaty kitchen to prepare the Father a nice multi-course home cooked meal. The Father was so pleased at this act that He in turn decided not to discipline the children, only requiring a simple apology.
It is important to note how each side sees the atonement. Catholics reject the “penal substitution”.

I accept it totally - ISTM that some of the objections to it depend for their force upon rejecting monergism…

No it isnt an issue over monergism but rather one about the character of God. In Penal substitution God punishes an innocent party, worse yet His own Son. That is unacceptable, unBiblical and heretical. It goes right along with Protestant teaching of God declaring someone righteous whom He knows is actually unrighteous.

And the Penal Substitution theory is far better news. It is also scandalous - just like the Cross. It asks one to believe that God required the Son Whom He loved to take upon Him the full blast of the hatred of God for sin. This strikes me as thoroughly evangelical, evangel-based; & thoroughly Catholic… …

That is nothing short of blasphemy and heresy for the Father to unleash wrath on the Son, it is disharmony in the Godhead by definition.

The PST allows Him to be “made sin” for us, to be under God’s curse for us, to be smiitten & afflicted like the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 (see Acts 8); to be “in the breach” as our Mediator, just as Moses was, so that Israel would not be destroyed; to drink the cup that gives us joy after it has been death to Him. It allows Him to be the scapegoat of Numbers, on Whom the sins of Israel are laid.

The New Testament is clear Jesus was unjustly tortured at the hands of wicked men, not a whipping boy for the Father.

The other theory by itself is too reasonable - it leaves out the scandal of the Cross, the sheer blasphemy of the idea that God should be put to death by crucifixion & become a curse for the sin of man. Yet that is what we say we believe.

“Too reasonable”? I totally disagree because you need to look at this from the backdrop of the Incarnation, the fact God became man…is that “too reasonable”? certainly not.

The fact God did not send a legion of angels to save His Son but instead let wicked men do what they did, just like they did to the rest of the prophets? That is very scandalous.

It fulfils the Scriptures by contradicting them - the OT says God does not justify the wicked; the Gospel is that He justifies the wicked

That is a misreading of those verses and to say there is a “contradiction” means the Scriptures are at odds with them self, which Catholics reject.

The OT knows that He is too pure to behold evil - the NT immerses Him in its very depths. The OT has God punishing the wicked - in the NT, God alone is punished. We do not deserve forgiveness - so, God forgives us. We deserve Hell - so we are given Heaven.

We deserve hell so Jesus underwent hell for us? As for the intolerant God of the OT, the fact is the real punishment which is hellfire was preached by Jesus in the NT.

PST has multiple theological ramifications including the false teaching that salvation cannot be lost and that righteousness is imputed, as well as the scandalous concept that it means Jesus prepaid for your sin so that all that is left is for you to carry it out.

IOW - the PST fits the sort of thing that Christian faith & being seem to be. It fits very snugly with the theological emphases of the NT. And it is so contrary to man’s cleverness, being & works, that only God can take the glory for it. So His Name alone is hallowed - just as the Church has been taught to pray it should be.

I respectfully disagree with the premise that if it doesnt sound right or doesnt make sense then that must be the better or correct approach.