H
Henning
Guest
I don’t know how pervasive ‘penal substitution’ is within the various protestant denominations but it’s a doctrine rejected by CC. Here’s a bit from Wikipedia on ‘Penal Substitution’.Maybe someone else here can comment, but I’ve never read anything that even remotely refers to Christ’s crucifixion as punishment or the wrath of God.
**Most of that passage is speaking of others’ treatment of Christ and what He would have to endure from the hands of man, not God. **
And in quating Christ’s crucifixion to the wrath of God you are completely missing the whole reason for Christ’s giving His life for you.
Can you tell us if you have had influence in the interpretation you are relating here? For example, obviously as Catholics we rely on the Catechism and other Deposits of Faith to guide us. Who or what is guiding you in your interpretation of The Passion?
“**Penal substitution **is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, especially associated with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment”
"Broadly speaking, Martin Luther followed Anselm, thus remaining mainly in the “Latin” model identified by Gustaf Aulén. However, he held that Christ’s atoning work encompassed both his active and passive obedience to the law: as the perfectly innocent God-man, he fulfilled the law perfectly during his life AND he, in his death on the cross, bore the eternal punishment that all men deserved for their breaking the law. Unlike Anselm, Luther thus combines both satisfaction and punishment