Why the Protestant view of the Cross is wrong.

[LtTony]

This constant haggling about trivial exact wording is getting under my skin lately. I agree that many of the Protestant quotes and even some but not all of the founding father quotes are coming very close to crossing the line of both the Bible (which is a subset of tradition) and tradition. I suspect that a good portion of the latter and probably even of the former is due to difficulties in translation and ‘cherry picking’ only the lines that seem to agree with a given position.

This is muddied by the fact that the Catholic teaching isn’t truly given. In this position, as in most dogma, the Church’s position is reflected by scriptures:

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

“so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people.”

(I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to chase down where in the Bible these are . They are from two different translations, but that is ok.)

Therefore the Catholic’s position is that ‘Christ died to save us from our sins.’ To go further is to leave the safety of the Bible and tradition into the realm of speculation. We are free to speculate how Jesus freed us from our sins and we may find some strength from it, but we still have to be careful to recognize it for speculation and we do need to take care that it does not stray into heresy.

(snip)

The only things we can be certain of about the Cross is that ‘Jesus died to save us from our sins’ and that ‘he did so once and for all’. The exact mechanism for that salvation (whether or not he bore our sins directly) is pure speculation and should not be taught as absolute truth. That speculation can be comforting and is generally not a problem unless it either 1) takes the main focus away from the two known facts about this salvation or 2) crosses over the line to heresy in some other way.

With regard to 2) a few of those quotes come close to heresy and depending on the translation, context, etc. may cross it. The one that comes most readily to me is the idea that the Father forsook the Son, literally. The Father and the Son are one; it is not possible for the Father to forsake the Son or to be separated from Him. The heresy here is Arianism and/or its many children.

On the other hand, I just cannot see how this argument can be productive. It seems to me to be ‘straining out gnats’ when the real problem is ‘swallowing camels’. It should be sufficient for us Catholics to say: “Jesus died once and for all to save us from our sins.” Arguing about the details is pointless.

I get what your saying. I’m curious to see where this debate will go, and it interests me, however at the end of the thread the only thing I’m going to put inside my heart is what you just said there.

I believe my heart is like the Temple with an outer court yard. I’ll take what you just said ‘Christ died to save us from our sins.’ into the Temple, and I’ll leave the finer details of this thread in the outer courtyard.

Each have their place and remain surrounded by walls of inclusion, but I want the inner temple sacred and free from all error. For that reason I only take the necessary and pure things into that place. When the earthquakes come, the outer courtyard may lie in ruins but the temple and it’s treasure will remain untouched.

I will only put diamonds in the temple, so only when theology beats itself into a perfect diamond will I take it into the Temple. Until then it will remain in outer purgatory, going through several gates to reach the Temple.

I enjoyed the thoughts expressed in these posts, thank you. Another subject for me to research and contemplate.

 

[SyCarl]

So in other words, the ECF were Protestants? :whacky:

It was the original poster who said penal substitution was a Protestant invention and blasphemous. If that is true, how does it leave these church fathers?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It was the original poster who said penal substitution was a Protestant invention and blasphemous. If that is true, how does it leave these church fathers?

Name a few ECFs who said Jesus endured the Father’s Wrath.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

This constant haggling about trivial exact wording is getting under my skin lately. I agree that many of the Protestant quotes and even some but not all of the founding father quotes are coming very close to crossing the line of both the Bible (which is a subset of tradition) and tradition. I suspect that a good portion of the latter and probably even of the former is due to difficulties in translation and ‘cherry picking’ only the lines that seem to agree with a given position.

This is muddied by the fact that the Catholic teaching isn’t truly given. In this position, as in most dogma, the Church’s position is reflected by scriptures:

“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

“so also Christ died once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people.”

(I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to chase down where in the Bible these are . They are from two different translations, but that is ok.)

Therefore the Catholic’s position is that ‘Christ died to save us from our sins.’ To go further is to leave the safety of the Bible and tradition into the realm of speculation. We are free to speculate how Jesus freed us from our sins and we may find some strength from it, but we still have to be careful to recognize it for speculation and we do need to take care that it does not stray into heresy.

Another example of pious speculation is how we interpret heaven and purgatory. Tradition is very limited about what it says about both, and the Church through private interpretation have extended both. For example the only official teaching about purgatory is that it exists; it is pure speculation to assume that it exists either physically or for a specific time. Many Church Fathers (and Mothers ) speculated about purgatory and quite possibly are wrong about it. Their wrongness about that issue does not make them heretics anymore than their misunderstanding of the age of the Universe.

The only things we can be certain of about the Cross is that ‘Jesus died to save us from our sins’ and that ‘he did so once and for all’. The exact mechanism for that salvation (whether or not he bore our sins directly) is pure speculation and should not be taught as absolute truth. That speculation can be comforting and is generally not a problem unless it either 1) takes the main focus away from the two known facts about this salvation or 2) crosses over the line to heresy in some other way.

With regard to 2) a few of those quotes come close to heresy and depending on the translation, context, etc. may cross it. The one that comes most readily to me is the idea that the Father forsook the Son, literally. The Father and the Son are one; it is not possible for the Father to forsake the Son or to be separated from Him. The heresy here is Arianism and/or its many children.

On the other hand, I just cannot see how this argument can be productive. It seems to me to be ‘straining out gnats’ when the real problem is ‘swallowing camels’. It should be sufficient for us Catholics to say: “Jesus died once and for all to save us from our sins.” Arguing about the details is pointless.

Good post Tony the Mad.

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m getting a little bit confused about the definitions here so could someone tell me if I have this correct?

Jesus paid the price to redeem us. So we are in effect kidnapped and there is a cost for our release. Jesus paid the price on the cross and we are all released free to go but we can choose to stay with our kidnapper instead (salvation as opposed to redemption). Penal substitution seems to be suggesting that it was an exchange of persons. We are released and Jesus becomes in fact the kidnapped who then suffers all the suffering we would have received before escaping.

 

[SyCarl]

Name a few ECFs who said Jesus endured the Father’s Wrath.

The ones I previously quoted all refer to Jesus taking our punishment or chastisement, paying a death that was owed, becoming a curse or taking our curse etc… So if punishment or chastisement involves wrath they appear to have said it,

However Christ’s atonement can have more than one aspect so the various theories can all be part of the atonement. Penal substitution does not deny that the satisfaction theory, the Jesus Victorus theory, the governmental theory can also be included in the atonement.

Has the Catholic Church infallibly defined the atonement?

 

[joe371]

The ones I previously quoted all refer to Jesus taking our punishment or chastisement, paying a death that was owed, becoming a curse or taking our curse etc… So if punishment or chastisement involves wrath they appear to have said it,

However Christ’s atonement can have more than one aspect so the various theories can all be part of the atonement. Penal substitution does not deny that the satisfaction theory, the Jesus Victorus theory, the governmental theory can also be included in the atonement.

Has the Catholic Church infallibly defined the atonement?

Carl, do you believe that God sends us to hell or that we send ourselves to hell, upon our demise, based on what God reveals to each and everyone of us in terms of how we lived here on earth?

 

[joe371]

The ones I previously quoted all refer to Jesus taking our punishment or chastisement, paying a death that was owed, becoming a curse or taking our curse etc… So if punishment or chastisement involves wrath they appear to have said it,

Do you believe that the divine Father punished with wrath, the divine, incarnate Son, due to the fact that the incarnate Son, Who did not sin, yet became sin?

 

[hn160]

Most people don’t realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that’s must be what Jesus endured in their place! http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/sick.gif

Catholics should be aware of this so as to better be able to share the faith (and defend it) with them. This doctrine of Penal Substitution was invented in order to support the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.

Consider the following quotes from well known Protestant (mostly Calvinist) authors:

• At 3 o’clock that dark Friday afternoon, the Father turned His face away and the ancient, eternal fellowship between Father and Son was broken as divine wrath rained down like a million Soddoms and Gomorrah’s. In the terror and agony of it all, Jesus cried, *“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” *(Thabiti Anyabwile, What does it mean for the Father to Forsake the Son? Part 3)
• We should remember that Christ’s suffering in His human nature, as He hung on the cross those six hours, was not primarily physical, but mental and spiritual. When He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” **He was literally suffering the pangs of hell. For that is essentially what hell is, separation from God, separation from everything that is good and desirable. Such suffering is beyond our comprehension. But since He suffered as a divine-human person, His suffering was a just equivalent for all that His people would have suffered in an eternity in hell. (**Boettner, Loraine. “The Reformed Faith.” Chapter 3.)
• The penalty of the divine law is said to be eternal death. Therefore if Christ suffered the penalty of the law He must have suffered death eternal; or, as others say, He must have endured the same kind of sufferings as those who are cast off from God and die eternally are called upon to suffer. (Hodge, Charles. “Systematic Theology.” Vol. 2, Part 3, Ch 6, Sec 3)
• So then, gaze at the heavenly picture of Christ, who descended into hell for your sake and was forsaken by God as one eternally damned when he spoke the words on the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani!” - “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” In that picture your hell is defeated and your uncertain election is made sure. (Luther, Martin. “Treatise on Preparing to Die.”)
• “What prevents us from seeing God is our heart. Our impurity. But Jesus had no impurity. And Thomas said He was pure in heart. So obviously He had some, some experience of the beauty of the Father. Until that moment that my sin was placed upon Him. And the one who was pure was pure no more. And God cursed Him. It was if there was a cry from Heaven – excuse my language but I can be no more accurate than to say – it was as if Jesus heard the words ‘God damn you’, because that’s what it meant to be cursed, to be damned, to be under the anathema of the Father. As I said I don’t understand that, but I know that it’s true.” (R.C. Sproul. Together for the Gospel. April 17, 2008. Louisville, KY. Session V - The Curse Motif of the Atonement. Minute 55:01)
• “Hell is all about echoing faintly the glory of Calvary. That’s the meaning of hell in this room right now. To help you feel in some emotional measure the magnificence of what Christ did for you when he bore not only your eternal suffering, but millions of people’s eternal suffering when His Father put our curse on Him. What a Saviour is echoed in the flames of hell. So that’s what I mean when I say hell is an echo of the glory of God, and an echo of the Savior’s sufferings, and therefore an echo of the infinite love of God for our souls.” (John Piper. Resolved Conference 2008. Session 8 – The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell. Min 40:00)

There are more quotes like this, but this should be enough to get people to stop and realize what exactly is being said.

**Now the big question is: **Does the Bible EVER say that Jesus endured the Wrath of the Father? NO! It is unbiblical and even blasphemy to suggest Jesus suffered the Father’s Wrath. Look high, look low, and you’ll NEVER find this taught in Scripture.

To understand the heart of salvation, THE CROSS, one must actually study the Bible on the matter and not blindly follow theologians:
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: "Atonement" according to Scripture - More Problems with Penal Substitution

I am beginning to believe that some Catholics that post here do not know what they are talking about and just like to be heard

 

[joe371]

I am beginning to believe that some Catholics that post here do not know what they are talking about and just like to be heard

Perhaps showing him where he is wrong, if you believe him to be wrong, is the better way to go, as opposed to just leaving a rather off-topic comment?

 

[ricofall]

 

[Nicea325]

It was the original poster who said penal substitution was a Protestant invention and blasphemous. If that is true, how does it leave these church fathers?

In the Catholic Church. Remember my brother…everything must be read in its proper context.

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps showing him where he is wrong, if you believe him to be wrong, is the better way to go, as opposed to just leaving a rather off-topic comment?

Not speaking for hn, but right off there seems a lack of specificity. The OP titles the thread “Why the Protestant View of the Cross is Wrong”, when he is actually talking about a particular view of atonement without attaching it to a particular communion. In short, the problem is the word protestant. Even “some protestants” doesn’t really help.

Lutherans, for example, tend to lean toward St. Anselm, and satisfaction. My understanding is that Calvinists do, too, though I wouldn’t be so bold as to speak for them.
And that’s the point. I frankly don’t know which communions hold to penal substitution. Maybe the OP, or SyCarl can help us with that.

Jon

 

[joe371]

Not speaking for hn, but right off there seems a lack of specificity. The OP titles the thread “Why the Protestant View of the Cross is Wrong”, when he is actually talking about a particular view of atonement without attaching it to a particular communion. In short, the problem is the word protestant. Even “some protestants” doesn’t really help.

Lutherans, for example, tend to lean toward St. Anselm, and satisfaction. My understanding is that Calvinists do, too, though I wouldn’t be so bold as to speak for them.
And that’s the point. I frankly don’t know which communions hold to penal substitution. Maybe the OP, or SyCarl can help us with that.

Jon

Good point Jon. You know, I do not believe the CC has spoken definitively i.e. infallibly on the subject of atonement. I will have to look into that…Man, I hope hn does not think I was being flippant. When I post something I like to dig in and get to the bottom of things, in terms of establishing a consensus. That was all I meant…

Actually I just checked the CCC:

"For our sake God made him to be sin"
Man’s sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404
603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.407… 615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.“443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445616 It is love "to the end"446** that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. **He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

 

[joe371]

Not speaking for hn, but right off there seems a lack of specificity. The OP titles the thread “Why the Protestant View of the Cross is Wrong”, when he is actually talking about a particular view of atonement without attaching it to a particular communion. In short, the problem is the word protestant. Even “some protestants” doesn’t really help.

Lutherans, for example, tend to lean toward St. Anselm, and satisfaction. My understanding is that Calvinists do, too, though I wouldn’t be so bold as to speak for them.
And that’s the point. I frankly don’t know which communions hold to penal substitution. Maybe the OP, or SyCarl can help us with that.

Jon

OP said: "Most people don’t realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that’s must be what Jesus endured in their place!"

The CCC does not say penal substitution, but it does say “substitution”. I do not know of anyone who believes that Jesus endure hell fire. Actually, I believe Jesus suffered in a worse way due to the fact that He became sin.

CCC - 615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

 

[JonNC]

=joe371;10809237]OP said: "Most people don’t realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that’s must be what Jesus endured in their place!"

Well, there we are, Joe. I thought Calvinists were more in line with Satisfaction. the OP thinks “Penal Substitution”. I’m willing to wait, 1) for a Calvinist to tell us what they believe, and 2) for someone who believes it to explain “Penal Substitution”

CCC - 615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

Amen.

Jon

 

[SyCarl]

OP said: "Most people don’t realize that there are different views of the Atonement out there. Most Protestants (not all), especially Calvinists, believe in a form of Atonement called Penal Substitution. This view teaches that Jesus received the punishment the sinner deserved. Well, if the sinner deserves hellfire, then that’s must be what Jesus endured in their place!"

The CCC does not say penal substitution, but it does say “substitution”. I do not know of anyone who believes that Jesus endure hell fire. Actually, I believe Jesus suffered in a worse way due to the fact that He became sin.

CCC - 615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

I am no expert but I think that many Protestants accept that the atonement can have multiple components. One of them is bearing our punishment. A question is what punishment. God promised Adam death and Jesus accepted that. I think when trying to look at things quantitatively and qualitatively that we have to consider that Jesus is perfect and both God and man. Being infinite any punishment would be of infinite value.

For information, the Westminster Confession of Faith, an historical confession accepted by much of the Reformed tradition does not really speak in terms of Hell or punishment.

IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil it endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body was crucified, and died was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.

V. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for those whom the Father has given unto Him.

Chapter 8

and

III. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them;[7] and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

Chapter 11

Living Faith is a standard adopted by the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

3.4.2 Christ died for our sins.
The innocent one bore our condemnation on the cross.
He suffered and was put to death
for the sin of the world.
3.4.3 God’s reconciling act in Jesus Christ is a mystery
which the Scriptures describe as
the sacrifice of a lamb,
a shepherd’s life given for his sheep,
atonement by a priest.
It is also the innocent dying for the guilty,
the ransom of a slave,
payment of a debt,
and victory over the powers of evil.
Such expressions interpret the love of God
revealing the gravity, cost, and sure achievement
of our Lord’s work.
Yet that love we cannot fully explain.
God’s grace, received by faith alone,
pardons and justifies,
redeems and reconciles us.

 

[joe371]

I am no expert but I think that many Protestants accept that the atonement can have multiple components. One of them is bearing our punishment. A question is what punishment. God promised Adam death and Jesus accepted that. I think when trying to look at things quantitatively and qualitatively that we have to consider that Jesus is perfect and both God and man. **Being infinite any punishment would be of infinite value.
**

Could you flesh out that part in bold? Or, would the punishment, absorbed by the infinite second Person of the Holy Trinity, be commensurate with the finite sins of mankind? I think we are entering an area that is beyond my understanding.

 

[joe371]

Well, there we are, Joe. I thought Calvinists were more in line with Satisfaction. the OP thinks “Penal Substitution”. I’m willing to wait, 1) for a Calvinist to tell us what they believe, and 2) for someone who believes it to explain “Penal Substitution”
Jon

CCC - 615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

“Satisfaction.” :yup: I think CatholicDude is simply saying that Jesus did not have to endure hell-fire when He became sin on our behalf.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf…

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Not speaking for hn, but right off there seems a lack of specificity. The OP titles the thread “Why the Protestant View of the Cross is Wrong”, when he is actually talking about a particular view of atonement without attaching it to a particular communion. In short, the problem is the word protestant. Even “some protestants” doesn’t really help.

Lutherans, for example, tend to lean toward St. Anselm, and satisfaction. My understanding is that Calvinists do, too, though I wouldn’t be so bold as to speak for them.

Calvinists for sure hold to PSub. Lutherans technically do, but they don’t have a systematic enough theology to recognize it. Many other Protestants do so unconsciously, but they literally don’t think beyond “Jesus died for me” and what it means. A small number of Protestants don’t believe in PSub, but that’s not historic “true” Protestantism.

“Satisfaction.” :yup: I think CatholicDude is simply saying that Jesus did not have to endure hell-fire when He became sin on our behalf.

Correct. Jesus did not endure the Father’s Wrath in our place. He made Satisfaction, meaning He made reparation for our sins.