- Jun 9, 2017
- 2,300
- 2,102
- 27
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I think the concepts behind PSA are good, but keep in mind that it is an anglo term that not everyone uses.
Upvote
0
Are you parsing that word-by-word? The last line could be uttered by any Catholic here and probably no shortage of non-Catholics.615 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” 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.” Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445 (1850; 433; 411)
That would be a nice change in this thread, actually, since this whole "penal substitution" bit seems to be something Calvin pulled out of his... hat.If we go strictly by what is revealed in the Bible
...5. However, there was more than the blood being shed. The sufferings of Christ during His passion, as well as the offering up of Himself -- body, soul, and spirit -- was the total sacrifice which replaced all previous sacrifices. "He made His soul and offering for sin".
Somebody else tackled this already. All I'll add is I don't see where He's experiencing God's wrath in that passage.6. When Christ suffered on the Cross during those three dark hours, He literally bore the wrath of God against all sins and all evils upon Himself. Hence "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Yes, taketh away.The theological terms are "penal substiutionary atonement" but for those who want the simple truth, John the Baptizer said "Behold the Lamb of God which TAKETH AWAY the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
Based on what you wrote, I don't think I'm the one you need to be debating in this thread.So anyone who denies these truths falsifies the Gospel.
Can you quote me the part where scripture says God's wrath was poured out on Our Lord?2 Corinthians 5.21.
Sir, It seems we don't agree on this. For my thoughts, such as they are, the Scripture verses quoted in different posts would be self-explanatory; but otherwise we should probably conclude that we don't agree.Are you parsing that word-by-word? The last line could be uttered by any Catholic here and probably no shortage of non-Catholics.
As far as the items preceding the last line, nothing in that passage disagree with what I wrote. And one thing I'm becoming concerned about in this thread. By accident or by design, it looks "substitution" is being used interchangeably with "penal substitution". Same thing with atonement.
Catholics do not dispute Our Lord's substitution or His atonement. Indeed, we shout those items from the rooftops.
The "penal" aspect, however... no.
That would be a nice change in this thread, actually, since this whole "penal substitution" bit seems to be something Calvin pulled out of his... hat.
...
Are you sure you disagree with me? Because that's not a bad summary of the Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia which Catholics believe in.
Somebody else tackled this already. All I'll add is I don't see where He's experiencing God's wrath in that passage.
Yes, taketh away.
Based on what you wrote, I don't think I'm the one you need to be debating in this thread.
Can you quote me the part where scripture says God's wrath was poured out on Our Lord?
It looks like the Protestants in this thread are making points against things nobody else is saying. And their citations of scripture either don't support penal substitution or else they might outright contradict penal substitution.
Going beyond that, we're looking at two different models being argued here.
Penal substitution has the Passion as God the Father pouring His wrath downward onto Our Lord as punishment for sins He didn't commit.
The satisfaction theory of atonement, the Catholic view, is Our Lord's Passion as a perfect act of self-sacrificial love offered upward to God the Father as atonement for man's sins.
Both are atonement, both are substitutionary but only one shows Our Lord experiencing God's wrath.
If that's what you want, I'll respect that.but otherwise we should probably conclude that we don't agree.
The whole tenor of Isaiah 53 should answer that question, particularly verse 5:But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.Can you quote me the part where scripture says God's wrath was poured out on Our Lord?
I'll give you A for effort.The whole tenor of Isaiah 53 should answer that question, particularly verse 5:But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
What does this mean? the chastisement [Heb musar] of our peace was upon him
Strong's Concordance
musar: discipline, chastening, correction
Original Word: מוּסָר
Brown-Driver-Briggs
מוּסָר noun masculine Proverbs 15:10discipline (of the moral nature), chastening, correction
2 more severely, chastening, chastisement: a. of God, יהוה ׳מ Proverbs 3:11 chastening of Yahweh;שׁדַּי ׳מ Job 5:17; מוּסָֽרְךָ Isaiah 26:16; שְׁלוֺמֵנוּ עָלָיו׳מ Isaiah 53:5 chastisement of (i.e. leading to) our peace was upon him;
Since the Bible throughout presents the wrath of God against sin and ungodliness, why would anyone question that this "chastisement" was not equivalent to the wrath of God? After all Christ was made "Sin" for us.
But not actually though, you know?Really.
Are you parsing that word-by-word? The last line could be uttered by any Catholic here and probably no shortage of non-Catholics.
As far as the items preceding the last line, nothing in that passage disagree with what I wrote. And one thing I'm becoming concerned about in this thread. By accident or by design, it looks "substitution" is being used interchangeably with "penal substitution". Same thing with atonement.
Catholics do not dispute Our Lord's substitution or His atonement. Indeed, we shout those items from the rooftops.
The "penal" aspect, however... no.
That would be a nice change in this thread, actually, since this whole "penal substitution" bit seems to be something Calvin pulled out of his... hat.
...
Are you sure you disagree with me? Because that's not a bad summary of the Satisfaction theory of atonement - Wikipedia which Catholics believe in.
Somebody else tackled this already. All I'll add is I don't see where He's experiencing God's wrath in that passage.
Yes, taketh away.
Based on what you wrote, I don't think I'm the one you need to be debating in this thread.
Can you quote me the part where scripture says God's wrath was poured out on Our Lord?
It looks like the Protestants in this thread are making points against things nobody else is saying. And their citations of scripture either don't support penal substitution or else they might outright contradict penal substitution.
Going beyond that, we're looking at two different models being argued here.
Penal substitution has the Passion as God the Father pouring His wrath downward onto Our Lord as punishment for sins He didn't commit.
The satisfaction theory of atonement, the Catholic view, is Our Lord's Passion as a perfect act of self-sacrificial love offered upward to God the Father as atonement for man's sins.
Both are atonement, both are substitutionary but only one shows Our Lord experiencing God's wrath.
Ok, I thought your issue was limited atonement but I couldn't tell. So the issue is Penal as opposed God being defrauded his honor. Is that your objection?
With all due respect your arguments are specious. You have dismissed Psalm 22:1 as though it was merely a recollection on the cross, with no real meaning for Christ's intense agony. But Scripture tells us over and over again -- and Christ Himself told us -- that He SUFFERED for our sins. Since His offering was of infinite value, His sufferings were of infinite magnitude. And they are summed up in Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, etc.It's really posts like these that vindicate Catholicism as the true religion of the Bible.
The ten passages your post cites do not say a thing about penal, substitution, or atonement.
- All the suffering that we are liable to in this life, including death itself, is due to God's wrath and curse upon sin (Genesis 3:16-19).
- Those who disobey God merit covenant curse, which includes the anger and displeasure of God bringing about misery for a person and ultimately bringing about the person's death (Deuteronomy 28:15-68, Romans 6:23).
- Many sacrifices in the Old Testament were of a propitiatory and substitutionary nature (Genesis 22, Exodus 12, Leviticus 16, 2 Samuel 24:25). The animals symbolically bore the sin of the people and were killed to satisfy God's wrath.
- Jesus bore our sins in his body - especially on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). In the body of Jesus, God condemned sin (Romans 8:3). Jesus bore the curse from God due to sin (Galatians 3:13).
Discipline comes from Father's love not from wrath. Jesus suffered for our redemption. Jesus' chastisement is the Father's loving discipline applied as correction. What does it correct? Sin, obviously. Whose sins? Human beings' sins. So what is Isaiah 43 teaching? It's teaching what's explained in Hebrews where it is written:The whole tenor of Isaiah 53 should answer that question, particularly verse 5:But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
What does this mean? the chastisement [Heb musar] of our peace was upon him
Strong's Concordance
musar: discipline, chastening, correction
Original Word: מוּסָר
Brown-Driver-Briggs
מוּסָר noun masculine Proverbs 15:10discipline (of the moral nature), chastening, correction
2 more severely, chastening, chastisement: a. of God, יהוה ׳מ Proverbs 3:11 chastening of Yahweh;שׁדַּי ׳מ Job 5:17; מוּסָֽרְךָ Isaiah 26:16; שְׁלוֺמֵנוּ עָלָיו׳מ Isaiah 53:5 chastisement of (i.e. leading to) our peace was upon him;
Since the Bible throughout presents the wrath of God against sin and ungodliness, why would anyone question that this "chastisement" was not equivalent to the wrath of God? After all Christ was made "Sin" for us.
With all due respect your arguments are specious. You have dismissed Psalm 22:1 as though it was merely a recollection on the cross, with no real meaning for Christ's intense agony. But Scripture tells us over and over again -- and Christ Himself told us -- that He SUFFERED for our sins. Since His offering was of infinite value, His sufferings were of infinite magnitude. And they are summed up in Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, etc.
Everyone needs to ask themselves a few pertinent questions to determine whether penal substitutionary atonement is precisely Bible doctrine or not :
1. Is there a divine penalty for sins? [PENAL]
2. Is God's wrath against sin a cosmic fact?
3. Did Christ die for His own sins or for the sins of the world? [SUBSTITUTION]
4. Had Christ not offered Himself voluntarily to become the Lamb of God, would each and every sinner have had to pay the penalty for their sins in eternal Hell?