Penal Substitution

[Andrewn]

How is Penal Substitution different from the Satisfaction Theory of atonement?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Nutshell- A brief summary usually written by somebody with a bias (in this case, me)

PSA- God considers Our Lord literally juridically guilty of our sins and punishes Him accordingly; justice is served vicariously, no forgiveness is granted to anybody

STA- Our Lord offered a perfect sacrifice on the cross; it was pleasing to God, who offers forgiveness of sins to those who join themselves to Our Lord's sacrifice and suffering

 

[thecolorsblend]

Not that you asked but a semi-companion theory to STA is Christus Victor, which I find is usually most appealing to Protestants but sometimes you find the odd traditional Christian who believes in CV.

 

[crossnote]

PSA- God considers Our Lord literally juridically guilty of our sins and punishes Him accordingly; justice is served vicariously, no forgiveness is granted to anybody

Doesn't sound very 'substitutionary'.

but sometimes you find the odd traditional Christian who believes in CV.

As a Prot, I hold to both. Gustaf Aulén explained it well.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Doesn't sound very 'substitutionary'.

You caught the part where I said justice was served vicariously, yes?

 

[Andrewn]

PSA- God considers Our Lord literally juridically guilty of our sins and punishes Him accordingly; justice is served vicariously, no forgiveness is granted to anybody

STA- Our Lord offered a perfect sacrifice on the cross; it was pleasing to God, who offers forgiveness of sins to those who join themselves to Our Lord's sacrifice and suffering

The more I read about these, the less distinction I see.

1) How is PSA not grant forgiveness to anybody when the definition of atonement is granting forgiveness?! What's the point in atonement, then?

2) STA is based on God being angry at humanity and unable to forgive people without smelling blood. Is it the same for PSA?

3) Which theory do you personally prefer? And Why?

 

[hedrick]

I believe originally STA said that God’s honor was offended by sin and he had to punish us, while PSA says God’s justice requires punishment. They are related, but seem to have slightly different motivations.

In my opinion, both deny Jesus’ definition of the Gospel, which is about God’s forgiveness.

 

[thecolorsblend]

1) How is PSA not grant forgiveness to anybody when the definition of atonement is granting forgiveness?! What's the point in atonement, then?

Atonement is reparation for wrong or injury. Under the PSA model, atonement is made by God the Father vicariously punishing Our Lord for sins He did not commit.

The sins are still punished under the PSA paradigm. Nothing has been forgiven. Our Lord is (illogically) regarded as juridically guilty of our sins and punished accordingly. In essence, the debt has been paid rather than forgiven.

2) STA is based on God being angry at humanity and unable to forgive people without smelling blood. Is it the same for PSA?

I see your point about my earlier posts not being super clear on this subject.

Tim Staples does a pretty good job of explaining what Catholics believe concerning the forgiveness of sins.

3) Which theory do you personally prefer? And Why?

See above.

 

[hedrick]

Incidentally, I prefer what some have called "participation," described in Rom 6 and Calvin's Institutes.

 

[Andrewn]

Not that you asked but a semi-companion theory to STA is Christus Victor, which I find is usually most appealing to Protestants but sometimes you find the odd traditional Christian who believes in CV.

I like the video you posted. Actually, as the video you posted explains, most Protestants believe in PSA and most Catholics believe in STA. I think most EO believe in the Ransom theory or CV. PSA sounds to me like human sacrifice and I'm glad to learn that the Catholic Catechumen condemns this theory. I think it has been a stumbling block for a lot of new believers and non-believers when it is presented them as essential and standard Christianity.

STA- Our Lord offered a perfect sacrifice on the cross; it was pleasing to God, who offers forgiveness of sins to those who join themselves to Our Lord's sacrifice and suffering

I still couldn't understand how God's wrath or honor was satisfied according to this theory. Fortunately, I found Quinn’s modified version of the substitution model, which explains it best:

"Christ’s life and death persuade God to be lenient rather than severe in his treatment of human sinners. Just because the supererogatory goodness in Christ’s life and his voluntary submission to suffering and death are a sacrifice that is enormously pleasing to God, their effect is to forestall the severe but just demand for reparation and not to make the reparation that would be demanded in their absence. They function not to remove a debt of punishment that human sinners owe by paying it, but to persuade God to remit or cancel the debt." (1994: 298)

 

[Andrewn]

In my opinion, both deny Jesus’ definition of the Gospel, which is about God’s forgiveness.

I agree.

Incidentally, I prefer what some have called "participation," described in Rom 6 and Calvin's Institutes.

Participation explains how we achieve redemption through the Lord's death and sacrifice. It explains the importance of baptism. But I'm not sure how it explains the necessity of Jesus' death for redemption.

Some time ago, I read Athanasius' On The Incarnation. It seems to support the Recapitulation theory plus some sort of Satisfaction, perhaps, resulting in reconciliation. The God-man Jesus, as a representative of both Divinity and humanity through his sinless life, sacrificial death, and victorious resurrection conquered the evil in the world that clung to him. Obviously, CV and the Ransom theory are not far from these thoughts either. It's like a combination of everything, but this is only my interpretation and I haven't read the book recently.

What do you think?

 

[hedrick]

I

Some time ago, I read Athanasius' On The Incarnation. It seems to support the Recapitulation theory plus some sort of Satisfaction, perhaps, resulting in reconciliation. The God-man Jesus, as a representative of both Divinity and humanity through his sinless life, sacrificial death, and victorious resurrection conquered the evil in the world that clung to him. Obviously, CV and the Ransom theory are not far from these thoughts either. It's like a combination of everything, but this is only my interpretation and I haven't read the book recently.

What do you think?

I haven't read Athanasius' treatment. If it works because we are united to Christ, then it's participation applied to his whole life rather than just his death and resurrection. Calvin's treatment includes this, and has resulted in one of the Reformed themes: that Christ's atonement includes both his active obedience and his passive obedience. Active obedience means his obedience throughout his life. For Calvin, this works because of the "fellowship of righteousness" established by our union with Christ. (I'm not so sure that later Reformed writers retained the sense of participation. I believe it turned into pure imputation for many.) Calvin sees his whole life as significant, but focuses on his death.

I'm willing to include both versions, but I think the NT references to participation involve primarily his death and resurrection.

Your paragraph is ambiguous as to whether recapitulation works because of our participation or whether Christ is seen as our Federal head, and his work is imputed to us (to use later terminology).

 

[thecolorsblend]

PSA sounds to me like human sacrifice and I'm glad to learn that the Catholic Catechumen condemns this theory. I think it has been a stumbling block for a lot of new believers and non-believers when it is presented them as essential and standard Christianity.

I've heard non-believers question PSA. They suggest that it is a barrier to the Christian faith for them. I'm not sure if I completely buy that. But still, if not for their skepticism, I might never have questioned PSA myself.

 

[Andrewn]

Your paragraph is ambiguous as to whether recapitulation works because of our participation or whether Christ is seen as our Federal head, and his work is imputed to us (to use later terminology).

Because of our nature's participation. Athanasius definitely did not mention anything about imputation and vicarious atonement, as far as I remember.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

How is Penal Substitution different from the Satisfaction Theory of atonement?

I typically just look up "Theories of the Atonement".

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison


Salvation in Christianity - Wikipedia

 

[bling]

3) Which theory do you personally prefer? And Why?

I've heard non-believers question PSA. They suggest that it is barrier to the Christian faith for them. I'm not sure if I completely buy that. But still, if not for their skepticism, I might never have questioned PSA myself.

Incidentally, I prefer what some have called "participation," described in Rom 6 and Calvin's Institutes.

Atonement is a huge topic, but at least you are aware of just some of the issues there are with some of the popular theories of atonement. These theories do the following:

1. They make God out to be blood thirsty?

2. God is seen as being extremely wrathful toward His children?

3. All leave out man’s part in the atonement process, but do try to inject it someway?

4. They show universal atonement, which has to be illogically explained away to be for only those saved?

5. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and the Hebrew writer explain Jesus going to the cross as literally being a ransom payment, yet the theories do a poor job explaining how these theories are ransom/kidnap scenario (the Ransom Theory of Atonement also does a poor job).

6. A rebellious disobedient child of a wonderful parent not only needs forgiveness, but fair/just Loving discipline conducted if at all possible, with the Parent (this is for best results), yet these theories only show forgiveness and not how atonement is a fair/just loving disciplining of the sinner.

7. It makes God out to be weak needing something like Christ going to the cross to forgive or accept the sinner and/or there is this “cosmic law” God has to obey.

8. They do not fit what went on with minor sins (unintentional sins) being atoned for (Lev.5).

9. They do not explain the contrast between those forgiven before and after the cross Ro. 3:25.

10. They have no reason for why these explanations are left out of the Christ Crucified sermons given in the New Testament.

11. They do not fit, what the new convert can/should experience when coming to the realization they caused Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered (being crucified with Christ).

12. All will give illogical the interpretations of verses and words in scripture, like (My God, My God why have you forsaken me) and the English word “for”.

13. They have or say: God forgives our sins 100% and Christ paid for our sins 100%, but that is contradicting the scriptural understanding of “paying” and “forgiving”, since if it truly “forgiven” there is nothing to be paid. It also cheapens sin.

14. The atonement sacrifice losses its significance by being rolled up with the death burial and resurrection.

15. We have Peter in Acts 2 giving a wonderful “Christ Crucified” sermon, yet there is no mention of Christ being our substitute or the cross “satisfying” God in some way and that is not presented in other sermons in scripture.

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever so it is not easy to explain and I is much easier for the Christian to experience atonement than it is to explain atonement.

To truly understand we need to go through every Old and New Testament verse concerning the atonement process and Christ’s crucifixion. I like to start with Lev. 5, but find great understanding in Ro. 3:25, but there is Godly logic in what happened.

Try just this small part of it:

There is this unbelievable huge “ransom payment” being made: Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews all describe it as an actual ransom scenario and not just “like a ransom scenario”. And we can all agree on: the payment being Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder, the Payer being God/Christ, the child being set free (sinners going to God), but have a problem with: “Who is the kidnapper”? If there is no kidnapper than the ransom scenario does not fit, so who is the kidnapper?

Some people try to make God the receiver of the payment, which calls God the kidnapper of His own children which is crazy.

Some people say satan is the kidnapper, but that would mean God is paying satan when God has the power to safely take anything from satan and it would be wrong for God to pay His satan.

Some say it is an intangible like death, evil, sin, or nothing, but you would not pay a huge payment to an intangible?

There is one very likely kidnapper and that is the person holding a child back from entering the Kingdom to be with God. When we go to the nonbeliever, we are not trying to convince them of an idea, a book, a doctrine or theology, but to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified (which is described as the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom payment (Jesus Christ) there is a child released to go to the Father, but if the nonbeliever refuses to accept Jesus Christ and Him crucified a child is kept out of the Kingdom. Does this all sounds very much like a kidnapping scenario?

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I typically just look up "Theories of the Atonement".

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D Morrison

Very insightful. I would've led with that if I'd known it was out.

I accept STA, obviously. But I must tell you, the Governmental Theory in Methodism has a certain logic to it that I find interesting. Not persuasive, you understand. But interesting.

 

[Andrewn]

There is a lot more to say about this, but this is an introduction.

There is a lot that I agree with you about. It looks like you and I may be getting to the similar conclusions. Go on .

 

[bling]

There is a lot that I agree with you about. It looks like you and I may be getting to the similar conclusions. Go on .

I have been over this hundreds of times in posts on CF and did not keep all of them and have taught this topic many of times to adult Bible classes and one on one. I have never found a written support for my ideas, so I am thinking about writing my own book, so please feel free to be very challenging of my ideas. I have always had a problem with all the atonement theories, but did not dig into them until I was in a deep discussion with four Muslims and could not help, but agree with their logic reasoning and conclusions, but they were just pointing out the huge weaknesses in all the popular theories of atonement.

I have not solved the problem of where to begin the explanation, but it might be best to go back to the Jewish understanding of atonement, learned from actually individually personally going through the atonement process. Christians lack this experience and instead have developed preconceived ideas of atonement from poor theories.

Lev.4 starts atonement off giving details of what the priest must do, which you should read and understand, but Lev.5 gets into more detail about the individual, so please read Lev. 5 with much thought. I find people with pet theories of atonement skip Lev. 5 all together and might go to Lev. 16, but the day of atonement has some lite symbolic references to Christ, Lev 5 is a closer representation. I will discuss Lev. 16 if you want any time, but it takes some explaining of what and why it was needed by itself. Please read Lev. 5 before going further.

Atonement is much more then the sacrifice itself, it is a process which we can see from the Old Testament examples of the atonement process.

We can start with Lev. 5: 3 or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; 4 or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— 5 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. 6 As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin. … 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

Lev. 5 is talking about some really minor sins almost accidental sins and very much unintentional sins, there is no atonement process at this time for major sins, intentional direct disobedience toward God (these require banishment or death of the sinner).

The atonement process includes confessing, securing an good offering, personally bringing the offering to the priests at the temple altar, the priest has to offer it correctly and after the atonement process is correctly completed the sinner’s sins will be forgiven.

Note also the relationship between the sinner and the offering, the offering is “as a penalty for the sin” and not a replacement for the sinner. The idea of “penalty” is a “punishment” for the sinner, yet punishment of your child is better translated “disciplining”.

Reading all of Lev. 5: we have a lamb, two doves and a bag of flour all being an atoning sacrifice for the exact same sin, but vary with the wealth of the sinner, yet God does not consider the wealthy person of great value then the poor person, so what is happening? We can only conclude there is an attempt to equalize the hardship on the sinner (penalty/punishment/discipline). In fact, this might be the main factor in the atonement process at least Lev. 5. God is not only forgiving the sins, but seeing to the discipling of the sinner (like any Loving parent tries to do if possible). The problem is it can only be done for minor sins at this time.

Please notice there is an “and” just before “they will be forgiven”, suggesting a separate action, so the forgiveness is not part of the atonement process, but comes afterwards (this will be discussed more later).

Do you see the benefit for the Jewish people (nothing really to help God out here) going through this atonement process? That rich person had to water, feed, hang on to a lamb, he is not the shepherd of for hours waiting in line to get to the priest and the poor person may have skipped meals to get that bag of flour. They are going to be more careful in the future and those around them will not want to go through the same thing. Yes, they can experience worship, forgiveness, and fellowship.

We should be able to extrapolate up from extremely minor sins to rebellious disobedience directly against God, but that is a huge leap, so the hardship on the sinner will have to be horrendous, the sacrifice of much greater value (penalty for the sinner), and this will take a much greater Priest.

Please think up some questions to ask me.

 

[hedrick]

I just ran into a very unusual theory of the atonement. The summary is brief enough that it's easiest just to quote it here. I'm quoting from a summary written by someone else, but the originator is Richard Beck.

"The disgust mechanism dictates many human affairs: how we treat the disabled, the disfigured, the “colored,” the GLBT, the “[profanity filter won't accept his disgusting term for promiscuous]”—each is deemed disgusting. Jesus’ own people had enshrined disgust in religiopolitical laws, castigating as “unclean” anyone who was paralyzed, disabled, mentally ill, leprous, or menstruating. Not only were these people disgusting, they were contagious—whatever sin caused them to be unclean could be spread. As a result, they could not worship in the Temple—in fact, they could not even be touched; if they were, the one who had touched them needed to go through a ritual bath to become clean again.

"The power of the atonement begins with the incarnation, in which the perfectly “clean” God enters into the “unclean” body of Jesus of Nazareth. Even in this act, a disgust boundary is crossed. Then, in his life, Jesus repeatedly violated those boundaries, touching lepers and blind men and menstruating women. And ultimately, in his death, Jesus becomes the object of disgust. Virtually every aspect of Jesus’ death on the cross was disgusting and in violation of Hebrew purity laws—public nakedness, shedding of blood, broken bones, hanging on a tree, and the onset of the Sabbath.

"In Jesus, God stepped over the boundaries; God made the disgusting sacred; God overturned the conventional wisdom of purity and brought those who were “unclean” into the bosom of his love. The wall between clean and unclean fell, and that means all of the walls that separate people also fell. As Paul wrote, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”7 God removed the boundary of socio-moral disgust by himself crossing that boundary."

[Jones, Tony. Did God Kill Jesus? (pp. 198-199). HarperOne.]

Jones doesn't adopt this as his primary model. But he notes that it makes good sense out of both the OT purity code and Jesus' own approach to people. I agree. I don't know that this alone is a sufficient model of the atonement, but I think it describes at least part of what was going on.

I have in the past suggested a more generalized model that is related. To deal with our estrangement from God, God joined us on our side, accepting the kind of thing that those on our side all too often have to accept. By joining us in our broken world, he removes the isolation between us. Beck is describing the same thing, but in much more pointed terms.