Satisfaction vs Penal Substitution

[Philip_B]

The OT god is the one true God, and Christ also. Israel in the wilderness tempted Christ and they that did perished. Christ was the Rock that followed and led the tribes.
They did not know His name as Christ, but we should!

1 Corinthians 10 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
10 And I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,

2 and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea;

3 and all the same spiritual food did eat,

4 and all the same spiritual drink did drink, for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was the Christ;

5 but in the most of them God was not well pleased, for they were strewn in the wilderness,

6 and those things became types of us, for our not passionately desiring evil things, as also these did desire.

7 Neither become ye idolaters, as certain of them, as it hath been written, `The people sat down to eat and to drink, and stood up to play;'

8 neither may we commit whoredom, as certain of them did commit whoredom, and there fell in one day twenty-three thousand;

9 neither may we tempt the Christ, as also certain of them did tempt, and by the serpents did perish;

10 neither murmur ye, as also some of them did murmur, and did perish by the destroyer.

11 And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come,

12 so that he who is thinking to stand -- let him observe, lest he fall.

13 No temptation hath taken you -- except human; and God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are able, but He will make, with the temptation, also the outlet, for your being able to bear [it].

14 Wherefore, my beloved, flee from the idolatry;

Thankyou for sharing that and failing to apprend anything I had said. I am glad you feel that way.

 

[Micah888]

Not sure how that relates to my post.

What you had said was If somebody (me or Our Lord) is punished for my sins, I don't understand how it's at all accurate to say that my sins have been forgiven.

This would imply that all sins were forgiven at the Cross. But that is not what the Bible says. The penalty for sins was paid by Christ at the Cross, but the forgiveness of sins is applied only to those who obey the Gospel (repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ).

If you're attempting to post proof texts, can you show me the part that says God judged Our Lord to be literally guilty of mankind's sins and poured His wrath upon Him accordingly? Thanks!

Sure. We could go to Isaiah 53:5-12 for starters:

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. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all...he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter... for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed... He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied... because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The Bible also says that Christ was made Sin for us, and it also says that He was made a Curse for us. Christ was deemed to be a transgressor (sinner) by God the Father while on the Cross. And God's wrath is clearly revealed against sin:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile... (Rom 1:18;2:8,9)

Since all the sins, evil, and wickedness of mankind was laid upon Christ as the Sin-Bearer, all the wrath of God was also poured out upon Him to satisfy the righteousness and justice of God -- He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.

But for those who do not obey the Gospel, that wrath reverts back to them: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36).

 

[thecolorsblend]

What you had said was If somebody (me or Our Lord) is punished for my sins, I don't understand how it's at all accurate to say that my sins have been forgiven.

This would imply that all sins were forgiven at the Cross. But that is not what the Bible says. The penalty for sins was paid by Christ at the Cross, but the forgiveness of sins is applied only to those who obey the Gospel (repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ).

I'm not sure that you understand Satisfaction Theory. Or PSA. Or the differences between them.

Sure. We could go to Isaiah 53:5-12 for starters:

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. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all...he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter... for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed... He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied... because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The Bible also says that Christ was made Sin for us, and it also says that He was made a Curse for us. Christ was deemed to be a transgressor (sinner) by God the Father while on the Cross. And God's wrath is clearly revealed against sin:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile... (Rom 1:18;2:8,9)

Since all the sins, evil, and wickedness of mankind was laid upon Christ as the Sin-Bearer, all the wrath of God was also poured out upon Him to satisfy the righteousness and justice of God -- He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.

But for those who do not obey the Gospel, that wrath reverts back to them: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36).

See above.

 

[Philip_B]

What you had said was If somebody (me or Our Lord) is punished for my sins, I don't understand how it's at all accurate to say that my sins have been forgiven.

This would imply that all sins were forgiven at the Cross. But that is not what the Bible says. The penalty for sins was paid by Christ at the Cross, but the forgiveness of sins is applied only to those who obey the Gospel (repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ).


Sure. We could go to Isaiah 53:5-12 for starters:

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. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all...he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter... for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed... He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied... because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The Bible also says that Christ was made Sin for us, and it also says that He was made a Curse for us. Christ was deemed to be a transgressor (sinner) by God the Father while on the Cross. And God's wrath is clearly revealed against sin:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness... But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile... (Rom 1:18;2:8,9)

Since all the sins, evil, and wickedness of mankind was laid upon Christ as the Sin-Bearer, all the wrath of God was also poured out upon Him to satisfy the righteousness and justice of God -- He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.

But for those who do not obey the Gospel, that wrath reverts back to them: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (John 3:36).

It seems as if this is partly satisfaction theory of the atonement and partly substitutionary atonement penal or not, which is ok as neither is a complete description of the mystery of God's amazing love for us.

 

[bling]

All "theories" of the atonement, even those presented in Scripture, are instances of using examples from human experience to describe something that is outside of and beyond human experience, and which are thus truly inexplicable and indescribable.

All "atonement theories" are wrong, but, as analogies, capture a certain element of truth. The problem that we have run into is that many have forgotten this fact, and have turned these analogies into absolute descriptions of reality. And even worse, many have taken one analogy, turned it into an absolute description of reality, and made it the lens through which they see everything. (I have been in that boat before, and I understand the difficulty with seeing things any other way.)

For the most part we agree up to here, but just because everyone has been wrong so far does not mean there is not a right answer.

We were not literally kidnapped by Satan or by Death, and thus Christ's death and resurrection are not a literal "ransom". But it makes for a good analogy..

Christ is extremely careful with His words and does not say: My cruel torture, humiliation and murder is “like” a ransom payment, but says it was a ransom payment. Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all convey the idea of a literal ransom payment.

The problem people have is assuming the payment had to be made to God, satan or some intangible like sin or death.

God is not an undeserving kidnapper taking a ransom payment and the payment of His son’s torture, humiliation and murder would have no personal value to him. God is also not holding His own children captive (that would be totally illogical) and God personally would have preferred (like Christ) that the blood of Christ continue flowing through His veins.

If satan is the kidnapper it would be flat out wrong for God to make any payment to him, since God could just as easily and safely taken anything He wants from satan, so no need for a payment.

If Christ went through all this for some intangible like death or sin that is also extremely illogical since death and sin cannot be paid.

All these alternatives present the idea of universal atonement since humans have no involvement in some kind of controlling choice in the matter. We like to through “faith” into the requirement but the ransom was paid without faith being needed.

There is another undeserving individual in the process of atonement and that is the rebellious disobedient sinner himself and that individual sinner is holding back a child who can inter the kingdom where God and Christ are. The sinner as a sinner cannot inter the kingdom, since all must come as children.

The question can be asked is God’s Love and Christ’s Love great enough to pay a huge ransom to undeserving kidnapper who will accept the payment or refuse the payment and if they accept what happened with the cross because of their sins and to discipline them for their sins, than the child is released.

We tend to again “assume” the word “for” means in this scenario “instead of” but of the thousand times the two Greek words for “for” are use in scripture does it ever mean “instead of”?

The Greek word for “for” means like we say the gift is for you. This crucifixion was done as a ransom payment to you or you can say Christ died for you.

God did not literally lose us, and someone did not literally find us and place us into a lost and found, and Christ did not literally pay them to get us back ("redeem"). But it makes for a good analogy.

When we sin we inter a “lost state” (we are not heaven bound). Christ literally offered to pay us with His blood to go to the father not as a big time sinner, but as a new person starting as a child.

We did not literally commit a crime and then receive a sentence in a literal courtroom, and Christ did not literally offer to take the punishment instead. But that makes for a good analogy.

Very true!!! It would be totally unjust and unfair to punish the innocent (especially have God punishing the innocent to allow the guilty to go free, so as the very best Loving parent, God can easily forgive His rebellious disobedient children, but as a wonderful parent he needs to see to our being disciplined if at all possible. Ro. 3:25 suggest God prior to the cross did not see to the fair just disciplining of Children who sought His forgiveness and repented, but with the cross there was a way to fairly/justly discipline His forgiven children and still have them live, we see that in Acts 2:37 when 3000 that day had the worst possible experience they could have described as a death blow to their heart (sever disciplining), which you can also experience.

And many others.

The reality is that we cannot truly comprehend or describe what salvation fundamentally is. We can only frame it in terms that that we already understand, and that is what we see both in Scripture and in the historical Christian dialogue. We know that Christ saves us, but we cannot fathom how or why that works. We can enter into it and experience it, and the more we do that the more we will come to know (the way we know a person, not a fact) what that is, even if we do not understand it.

I fully agree atonement is much better experienced then discussed, but it is all there in scripture. Start with Lev. 5 because the Jews of the first century in and around Jerusalem at least would have experienced atonement for minor sins and could extrapolate t atonement for rebellious sins. Read every scripture on atonement without starting with preconceived assumptions since it all fits together.

 

[bling]

And yet Scripture uses the word "ransom". To say that all of this is analogy is to miss the spiritual reality of what is presented.

Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Tim 2:6)

Strong's Concordance
antilutron: a ransom
Original Word: ἀντίλυτρον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: antilutron
Phonetic Spelling: (an-til'-oo-tron)
Short Definition: a ransom
Definition: a ransom.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 487: ἀντίλυτρον

ἀντίλυτρον, ἀντιλυτρου, τό, what is given in exchange for another as the price of his redemption, ransom: 1 Timothy 2:6. (An uncertain translator in Psalm 48:9 (); the Orphica lith. 587; (cf.Winer's Grammar, 25).)

read my post above 45

 

[bling]

To try to rephrase the point being made by @thecolorsblend :

Forgiveness means that the person doing the forgiving has come to terms with the fact that he isn't getting anything back as payment and no longer requires a payment. If he still requires a payment, just from somebody else, then it is not forgiveness. It is only forgiveness if the forgiver receives no payment from anyone.

Totally agree!!!
Christ did not make a payment in full to God because than there would be nothing to forgive. God forgave it all and Christ provided a way for us to be fairly justly disciplined with the cross. Forgiveness and disciplining go together.

 

[redleghunter]

Mostly the fact that it's heretical. Otherwise it's a dandy system.

Is your opinion PSA is a 16th century creation of the Reformers?

Apparently not:

Eusebius of Caesarea
And Aquila is in exact agreement with Symmachus. With regard first to the words which are apparently said in the Person of our Saviour: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee," you will notice in Symmachus they are not so rendered, but thus: "Heal my soul, even if I have sinned against thee." And He speaks thus, since He shares our sins. So it is said: "And the Lord hath laid on him our iniquities, and he bears our sins." Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, (467) became a curse on our behalf:

"Whom, though he knew no sin, God made sin for our sake, giving him as redemption for all, that we might become the righteousness of God in him."

[...]

But since being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh, the words quoted are rightly used. And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us, He says these words, adding further on in the same Psalm: "Thou hast (b) protected me because of my innocence," clearly shewing the impeccability of the Lamb of God. And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: "Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?" And by the rule that "if one member suffer all the members suffer with it," so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of (c) sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, (d) and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our |196 souls? And so the oracle says in our person: "By his stripes we were healed," and "The Lord delivered him for our sins," with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, "I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, (468) for I have sinned against thee," and can cry that they who plot against Him, not men only but invisible daemons as well, when they see the surpassing power of His Holy Name and title, by means of which He filled the world full of Christians a little after, think that they will be able to extinguish it, if they plot His death. This is what is proved by His saying: "My enemies have spoken evil of me, saying, When shall he die and his name perish?"

- Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica, X.1

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 10

Chrysostom
In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law. Deuteronomy 27:26To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:9;1 Peter 2:22 And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 3 on Galatians (Chrysostom)

Augustine

“This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, chap. 7)

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV (Augustine)

Hilary of Poitiers
“He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned.” (On the Trinity, Book One, chap. 13)

He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned. He suffered as man to the utmost that He might put powers to shame. For Scripture had foretold that He Who is God should die; that the victory and triumph of them that trust in Him lay in the fact that He, Who is immortal and cannot be overcome by death, was to die that mortals might gain eternity.

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book I (Hilary of Poitiers)

Cyril of Jerusalem
If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?…Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save?…Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also…These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die.There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness.--St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII

CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 13 (Cyril of Jerusalem)

I think that covers East and West.

 

[Philip_B]

Is your opinion PSA is a 16th century creation of the Reformers?

Apparently not:

Eusebius of Caesarea
And Aquila is in exact agreement with Symmachus. With regard first to the words which are apparently said in the Person of our Saviour: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee," you will notice in Symmachus they are not so rendered, but thus: "Heal my soul, even if I have sinned against thee." And He speaks thus, since He shares our sins. So it is said: "And the Lord hath laid on him our iniquities, and he bears our sins." Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, (467) became a curse on our behalf:

"Whom, though he knew no sin, God made sin for our sake, giving him as redemption for all, that we might become the righteousness of God in him."

[...]

But since being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh, the words quoted are rightly used. And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us, He says these words, adding further on in the same Psalm: "Thou hast (b) protected me because of my innocence," clearly shewing the impeccability of the Lamb of God. And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: "Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?" And by the rule that "if one member suffer all the members suffer with it," so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of (c) sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, (d) and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our |196 souls? And so the oracle says in our person: "By his stripes we were healed," and "The Lord delivered him for our sins," with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, "I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, (468) for I have sinned against thee," and can cry that they who plot against Him, not men only but invisible daemons as well, when they see the surpassing power of His Holy Name and title, by means of which He filled the world full of Christians a little after, think that they will be able to extinguish it, if they plot His death. This is what is proved by His saying: "My enemies have spoken evil of me, saying, When shall he die and his name perish?"

- Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica, X.1

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 10

Chrysostom
In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law. Deuteronomy 27:26To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:9;1 Peter 2:22 And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 3 on Galatians (Chrysostom)

Augustine

“This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, chap. 7)

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV (Augustine)

Hilary of Poitiers
“He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned.” (On the Trinity, Book One, chap. 13)

He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned. He suffered as man to the utmost that He might put powers to shame. For Scripture had foretold that He Who is God should die; that the victory and triumph of them that trust in Him lay in the fact that He, Who is immortal and cannot be overcome by death, was to die that mortals might gain eternity.

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book I (Hilary of Poitiers)

Cyril of Jerusalem
If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?…Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save?…Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also…These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die.There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness.--St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII

CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 13 (Cyril of Jerusalem)

I think that covers East and West.

I don't want to weigh in heavily, however I think that the 'for us' of the Fathers can sit in a range of theories of the atonement, and do not outrightly embrace penal substitutionary atonement in they way that it has been preached at me. I think the notions of ransom, satisfaction, and yes even Christus victor, can all embrace some sense of substitutionary atonement without needing the embrace the terrifying concept of God the monster caring more for his creation than for his own Son.

Chrysostom from memory picked up something of the notion of the Samaritan Restorer as part of a view of the atonement. I general I think the fathers were a little more fluid rather than nailing themselves to a single doctrine of the atonement, which is probably the case that I put earlier. That is probably the problem I have a lot of those who embrace penal substitutionary atonement is that it is presented as the only model on the lot, which I just don't think is correct.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Is your opinion PSA is a 16th century creation of the Reformers?

Apparently not:

Eusebius of Caesarea
And Aquila is in exact agreement with Symmachus. With regard first to the words which are apparently said in the Person of our Saviour: "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee," you will notice in Symmachus they are not so rendered, but thus: "Heal my soul, even if I have sinned against thee." And He speaks thus, since He shares our sins. So it is said: "And the Lord hath laid on him our iniquities, and he bears our sins." Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, (467) became a curse on our behalf:

"Whom, though he knew no sin, God made sin for our sake, giving him as redemption for all, that we might become the righteousness of God in him."

[...]

But since being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh, the words quoted are rightly used. And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us, He says these words, adding further on in the same Psalm: "Thou hast (b) protected me because of my innocence," clearly shewing the impeccability of the Lamb of God. And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: "Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?" And by the rule that "if one member suffer all the members suffer with it," so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of (c) sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, (d) and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our |196 souls? And so the oracle says in our person: "By his stripes we were healed," and "The Lord delivered him for our sins," with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, "I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, (468) for I have sinned against thee," and can cry that they who plot against Him, not men only but invisible daemons as well, when they see the surpassing power of His Holy Name and title, by means of which He filled the world full of Christians a little after, think that they will be able to extinguish it, if they plot His death. This is what is proved by His saying: "My enemies have spoken evil of me, saying, When shall he die and his name perish?"

- Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstratio Evangelica, X.1

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 10

Chrysostom
In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law. Deuteronomy 27:26To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:9;1 Peter 2:22 And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 3 on Galatians (Chrysostom)

Augustine

“This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, chap. 7)

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV (Augustine)

Hilary of Poitiers
“He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned.” (On the Trinity, Book One, chap. 13)

He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned. He suffered as man to the utmost that He might put powers to shame. For Scripture had foretold that He Who is God should die; that the victory and triumph of them that trust in Him lay in the fact that He, Who is immortal and cannot be overcome by death, was to die that mortals might gain eternity.

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book I (Hilary of Poitiers)

Cyril of Jerusalem
If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?…Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save?…Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also…These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die.There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness.--St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII

CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 13 (Cyril of Jerusalem)

I think that covers East and West.

The Catholic understanding of atonement and Substitution Theory was primarily developed by Aquinas centuries after the Church fathers you quote... a fact which I don’t think anybody has intentionally denied in this discussion.

My understanding is that Aquinas began with the Ransom Theory that had a lot of cachet in his time and refined it into a more developed and accurate doctrine.

 

[Knee V]

@redleghunter
Substitutionary Atonement and Penal Substitutionary Atonement are not the same thing, and there is a difference. If Christ takes upon Himself the curse of sin instead of us, it is only "penal" if that curse is specifically a punishment. If that curse were, say, the natural consequences of sin, then Christ taking upon Himself that curse would be substitution, but not penal substitution.

 

[Oloyedelove]

This is the way I think of sin, the sinner and God.
Imagine a man that has a problem with stooling, he just keeps staining himself with poo over and over again. You can keep cleaning the stain as many times you like but he will keep staining himself. Now God is holy in this scenario he is clean and can not not afford to get himself stained with this man's dirt. The problem with the man is not that he stools but that there is something wrong with his system that just keeps making him dirt himself. Since he will continue in that state forever, that means God can not have anything to do with him forever. But because God loves the man, he came and cleanse the stain already on him and then heals his system that was faulty. Now man's system is no longer faulty, and he has been cleansed, he can now draw near to God. Sin(nature) is the fault in man that makes him commit sin(act) over and over again. Christ came and remedied our dual problem by forgiving our sins and delivering us from the power of sin. So it's not really anger of God or any such thing, it's just our sins that separates us from him.

 

[Oloyedelove]

God said that the day Adam ate forbidden fruit he would die. Sin itself is a killer. Sin itself wants to rule over us.
Sin can only be conquered by death.

Because God's wrath needed to be satisfied.
Dying of old age would never have happened with Jesus. He never sinned, so He never would have died.
If He had been shot with an arrow, and died that way that would not have satisfied God's wrath. Isaiah 53:11

Because God is holy. God hates sin and will not allow it in His Presence.

With that said I do prefer PSA to the satisfaction theory as it does explain more. Especially concerning your 4th point.

I believe the scripture teaches PSA

 

[Oloyedelove]

The scripture clearly teaches PSA not just the way it's explained by OP

 

[Oloyedelove]

To give a more comprehensive answer, the New Testament makes it clear that God forgives our sins. Right there that calls PSA into question.

Under a PSA rubric, God isn't forgiving my sins at all. Somebody Else is simply taking my punishment for me. That's not forgiveness; it's debt-consolidation.

Satisfaction Theory allows for forgiveness. Our Lord made a perfect sacrifice which was pleasing to God. Joining my will to His sacrifice allows my sins to be forgiven. And this is true forgiveness. God is being gracious in the purest sense of the word by forgiving my sins.

More broadly, I fail to see the justice in forcing punishment for sins I committed onto somebody else. It doesn't scan. I don't especially want to be punished for my sins and Our Lord being punished for them seems like a mockery of God's perfect justice.

Satisfaction Theory allows for Our Lord to die for my sins in a sacrificial way as opposed to a penal way. It preserves God's perfect justice while nevertheless making clear that I am a sinner who has sinned.

Beyond all that, I don't see where in Our Lord's Passion the wrath of God is poured out onto Him. He clearly experiences the wrath of men. That much is clear. But God didn't try Our Lord; Israel did. God didn't allow Him to be crucified; Pilate did. God didn't nail Him to the cross; Roman soldiers did. The wrath of men which Our Lord experienced is so clear as to be self-evident in sacred scripture. The wrath of God which Our Lord is alleged by some to have experienced is, shall we say, less clear in sacred scripture.

Bottom line? If somebody (me or Our Lord) is punished for my sins, I don't understand how it's at all accurate to say that my sins have been forgiven. Because they haven't been forgiven. They have/will be punished. Whether I take the punishment for them or whether Our Lord has, the transaction is not "forgiveness".

PSA is heretical.

The scripture teaches that the soul that sin must die, throughout the scripture forgiveness of sin doesn't come just bcoz we tell God to forgive us. If that's the case God would have just told Adam, okay I know u did wrong but it's alright you're forgiven.
Go read Leviticus and you will discover sin had to be taken away. Why do you think animals were offered for sin?
The man that brings the animal must lay his hand on the animal as a substitute, that's so clear in scripture. The animal dies in his place that's how forgiveness is procured. Now Christ is the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the whole world. Why do you think the gentiles have to be involved in condemning Christ bcoz he is sacrificed as the offering of the whole human race.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Why do you think the gentiles have to be involved in condemning Christ bcoz he is sacrificed as the offering of the whole human race.

It’s hard to tell if you agree with me or disagree with me.

 

[Oloyedelove]

I just want to remind that Jesus had right to forgive sins before his death. That is one reason why people wanted to kill him.


The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

On basis of that, sacrifice was not necessary, or needed in the common sense.

He exercised that right based on what he was going to do for humanity. Tell me why he didn't use that right in the garden of Eden.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The scripture clearly teaches PSA not just the way it's explained by OP

The OP and I disagree on the atonement, that much is true. However, to the OP’s credit, that is a correct explanation of PSA. In fact, that’s the understanding of PSA I’ve seen through out the Protestant world.

 

[Oloyedelove]

To try to rephrase the point being made by @thecolorsblend :

Forgiveness means that the person doing the forgiving has come to terms with the fact that he isn't getting anything back as payment and no longer requires a payment. If he still requires a payment, just from somebody else, then it is not forgiveness. It is only forgiveness if the forgiver receives no payment from anyone.

So what did Christ do on the cross then, if the person that's owed needs no payment?

 

[Oloyedelove]

The OP and I disagree on the atonement, that much is true. However, to the OP’s credit, that is a correct explanation of PSA. In fact, that’s the understanding of PSA I’ve seen through out the Protestant world.

Then I disagree with both views..