Satisfaction vs Penal Substitution

[1213]

So you think that Jesus' declarations of forgiveness in the gospels have no necessary relationship with his coming death which is the climax of the gospels?

I think the climax is that God raised Jesus from the death. It is not death, but life that is the Gospel.

I don’t see Biblical reason to think that the forgiving sins before death was related to death.

 

[redleghunter]

It is not unique to Catholicism. For example, many modern Lutherans with which Luther himself would have strongly disagreed. Same with Zwingli and others.

Not really arguing that point. Arguing the Catholic church appeals to antiquity when it suits her. This is one such case.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Not really arguing that point. Arguing the Catholic church appeals to antiquity when it suits her. This is one such case.

I don't see how.

Disclaimer: I'm too lazy to search for quotations from the Church Fathers which bolster the Catholic viewpoint.

Disclaimers aside, the Church has never said she fully grasped 100% of revelation from the jump. What you see as inconsistency I see as intellectual honesty. I take that kind of learned consideration more seriously. The Church Fathers didn't have the benefit of a millennium and change's worth of prayerful study. I find it unreasonable (and, frankly, implausible) to suggest they should have understood everything from day one.

 

[Oloyedelove]

Unfortunately, I don’t know. Perhaps because people wanted to know evil, and that is why we and they needed this lesson.

No, it's because forgiveness doesn't just come according to the Bible...

 

[Philip_B]

As a shepherd (clergy) I respect your position.

I was just getting at if we are concerned about optics then we water down the Sovereignty of God. He did say...

Isaiah 55: NKJV
6 Seek the Lord while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the Lord,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.

8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

10 “For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
And do not return there,
But water the earth,
And make it bring forth and bud,
That it may give seed to the sower
And bread to the eater,
11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

I don't see what PSA adds to the sovereignty of God. The Good Shepherd was born among the sheep. My concept of the sovereignty of God is not like the motorcades and security details of a President Trump, nor of the splendour and pagentry of Elizabeth Regina, perhaps more like a Papuan Chieften who lives among his people, works with them and for them and knows them all by name.

I don't think any of the atonement theories detract from the sovereignty of God. It may be that PSA has been presented to me by people who saw it as the only option and salvation dependent upon it - but the view of God they painted with it was far more capricious than my experience of faith and love allowed me to accept.

In the end I don't reject it, I just don't embrace it. I find an understanding of Christus Victor makes better sense for me, however I think any theory of atonement only tells part of the story.

Christ, when he rose on high has led a host of captives.

 

[friend of]

Not sure where this would fall into but

Romans 3:24-26

 

[Philip_B]

Not sure where this would fall into but

Romans 3:24-26

Probably most theories

 

[redleghunter]

In the end I don't reject it, I just don't embrace it. I find an understanding of Christus Victor makes better sense for me, however I think any theory of atonement only tells part of the story.

I do know as an Anglican you do not need to hold to PSA as the 39 Articles are not specific on the matter. However, the history of your church taught such from the Homilies in which the 39 Articles say:

35 The Homilies
The second book of homilies contains godly and wholesome teaching which is necessary for these times, as does the first book of homilies published during the reign of Edward VI. We therefore judge that they ought be read diligently and distinctly in the churches by the ministers so that they may be understood by the people.​

Below are excerpts from HOMILY ON THE SALVATION OF MANKIND & Of the Passion: for Good-Friday, parts One and Two.

God sent his only son our Saviour Christ into this world ... and by shedding of his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins, to assuage his wrath and indignation conceived against us ...

... whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ’s body and blood, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied.

[God] hath given his own natural Son ... to be incarnated, and to take our mortal nature upon him, with the infirmities of the same, and in the same nature to suffer most shameful and painful death for our offences, to the intent to justify us, and to restore us to life everlasting: so making us also his dear children ...

And yet, I say, did Christ put himself between GOD'S deserved wrath, and our sin, and rent that obligation wherein we were in danger to GOD, and paid our debt (Colossians 2.14).

Let us know for a certainty, that if the most dearly beloved Son of GOD was thus punished and stricken for the sin which he had not done himself: how much more ought we sore to be stricken for our daily and manifold sins which we commit against GOD,

For if GOD (saith Saint Paul) hath not spared his own Son from pain and punishment, but delivered him for us all unto the death: how should he not give us all other things with him (Romans 8.32)?

... even then did Christ the Son of God, by the appointment of his Father, come down from heaven, to be wounded for our sakes, to be reputed with the wicked, to be condemned unto death, to take upon him the reward of our sins, and to give his Body to be broken on the Crosse for our offences.

Was not this a manifest token of God's great wrath and displeasure towards sin, that he could be pacified by no other means, but only by the sweet and precious blood of his dear Son?​

 

[GingerBeer]

The satisfaction theory of the atonement says that sin creates a debt with God which needs to be repaid in order for mankind to be reconciled to God. By way of analogy, if your friend defrauds you of $500 then a breach in relationship is created. Reconciliation can only happen if the debt is repaid by the offender or if the offended completely forgives the debt. So then, in this view, we must offer something of value to God in order to pay our debt for sin and be reconciled to him.

The underlined text was ignored in what followed it. Try saying "So then, in this view, we must either offer something of value to God in order to pay our debt for sin and be reconciled to him or plead for forgiveness without attempting to repay because there is no repayment possible."

 

[expos4ever]

I find the penal substitution position does not really work. At a common sense level, it makes God appear to be a vindictive tyrant, demanding that someone suffer in order for sin to be forgiven.

But apart from that intuition, I know that respected theologian NT Wright is no fan of penal substitution, at least in its popular form. More later.

 

[bling]

Not sure where this would fall into but

Romans 3:24-26

Here is something to think about to help you address the questions below:

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever, so it takes a lot to show the logic and benefit.

The Crucifixion is described literally by Christ, Paul, Peter, John (in Revelations) and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment.

Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handle the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom.

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” since the same Greek word also means “undisciplined”.

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

God and Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through his veins, but it is I that need to have that blood outside of Christ flowing over me and in me cleansing my heart. I need to feel that blood and know it is cleansing me.

If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize at the time, Christ was on the cross God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent.

Here are some questions I used in my adult Bible class:

Roman 3 starting with Ro. 3:24

1. Prior to Christ going to the cross where some people forgiven of their sins and if so who, how and why?

2. (God “pass over sins” or as in the NIV “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”) so which sins in the past are these?

3. The OT gives lots of severe punishments for sins, so could/did “severe sins” go unpunished? Did God allow/want them to go unpunished? Why have these severe rules and punishments in the law?

4. Where the forgiven sins of those before the cross forgiven the exact same way as those after the cross?

5. If some sins where forgiven before the cross, was the cross needed to forgive sins?

6. From your own experience how hard was/is it for you to forgive the transgressions of your truly repentant child? Was/is there other action you have/had to see to that was harder to do? (What are/was it?)

7. Did you punish or discipline your children? (What would Dr. Dobson say?)

8. From your own experience with your children, if your child correctly accepted your most wise discipline and purely charitable forgiveness; was your relationship with your child better after or before the disobedience?

9. Is disciplining your child a learning maturing growing experience?

10. How could your rebellious/disobedient child stand “justified’ and “righteous” before you even today?

11. Look at the example Christ gives with the prodigal son (Luke 15: 11-32). Who is the kidnapper, what ransom was paid, who was set free, and could the son stand “justified” and/or “righteous” before the father?

12. Rev. 5: 9 “…and with your blood you purchased for God, persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.” Who did Christ pay?

13. What reason would Christ have for paying satan?

14. If God forgives our sins why would they still have to be paid for?

15. If Christ paid for our sins, why do they still need to be forgiven?

16. Atonement (propitiation) sacrifice can be for everyone with the ransom payment being offered but the kidnapper may refuse to accept the sacrifice, so it was made in vain for that kidnapper and the child is not freed?


35. RSV Ro 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, NIV Ro 3:24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. How can we be “justified” like we kept the Law without keeping the Law?

What is the relationship between being justified and being righteous?

36. “Redemption” is an interesting word, so what does it mean here?

37. If we are being paid for and set free: who is hoping us captive, what are we being held from, what is the ransom being paid, who is being paid the ransom (who is the kidnapper), what value/benefit would this ransom have to the kidnapper, and how does “faith” play into this?

38. Verse 25 might help explain “redemption”, but v.25 is not easy to understand, so what does this verse mean?

39. If Paul is conveying the idea of a “ransom” which the context might suggest than it would be in keeping with other times Paul, Peter, Christ, John and the Hebrew writers use the analogy of a ransom in describing atonement or what happened with the crucifixion, so who is being paid off?

40. “sacrifice of atonement”, “atonement cover on the ark of the covenant”, “expiation”, “mercy seat”, “propitiation” and “propitiatory sacrifice”, all refer to what God put forward with Christ, so what was God doing?

41. What are we specifically putting our “faith” in to have this atonement take place or does it take place without involving our faith and some of us just do not receive it?

42. If we do not receive it does it take place for us? Is that similar to God’s Love, forgiveness and mercy?


43. Why are we even involved?

44. Is this to help make God righteous or to show the righteousness God already has?

45. This one little phrase of Paul: “because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins” becomes a thorn in the flesh for most theories of atonement. So what does it mean?

46. What does it mean for God to “pass over sins” or as in the NIV “left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”? Does it mean accumulate them? Roll the sins forward? Forgiving the sins without doing something else that is needed and maybe can be accomplished with the cross?

47. Is God passing over and/or leaving the sins unpunished, mean all sins or just some sins and which ones did He pass over (leave unpunished)?

48. If you go back to the OT and see all the “punishments” there were for sins, does that look like God is passing over them?

49. There is a contrast in V.25 between what we have after the cross and what there was before the cross, so did Christ going to the cross solve the problem moving forward and/or did Christ crucifixion undo God’s passing over sin in the past?

50. If Christ by going to the cross eliminates God’s need to pass over sins than why did God ever pass over sins since “time” is not a factor (Christ went to the cross from the beginning of time), so what effect would Christ have on past sins God passed over?

51. V. 26 How is God shown as being right (fair/just) with Christ going to the cross? Is it fair/just to allow the innocent to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, and the guilty to go free?

52. V. 26 In what way do we become justified while those that were previously pasted over could not be justified?

 

[redleghunter]

I find the penal substitution position does not really work. At a common sense level, it makes God appear to be a vindictive tyrant, demanding that someone suffer in order for sin to be forgiven.

But apart from that intuition, I know that respected theologian NT Wright is no fan of penal substitution, at least in its popular form. More later.

So it's more an optics issue, how others see God, than a doctrinal issue?

 

[Philip_B]

I do know as an Anglican you do not need to hold to PSA as the 39 Articles are not specific on the matter. However, the history of your church taught such from the Homilies in which the 39 Articles say:

35 The Homilies
The second book of homilies contains godly and wholesome teaching which is necessary for these times, as does the first book of homilies published during the reign of Edward VI. We therefore judge that they ought be read diligently and distinctly in the churches by the ministers so that they may be understood by the people.​

Below are excerpts from HOMILY ON THE SALVATION OF MANKIND & Of the Passion: for Good-Friday, parts One and Two.

God sent his only son our Saviour Christ into this world ... and by shedding of his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins, to assuage his wrath and indignation conceived against us ...

... whereas all the world was not able of themselves to pay any part towards their ransom, it pleased our heavenly Father of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ’s body and blood, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied.

[God] hath given his own natural Son ... to be incarnated, and to take our mortal nature upon him, with the infirmities of the same, and in the same nature to suffer most shameful and painful death for our offences, to the intent to justify us, and to restore us to life everlasting: so making us also his dear children ...

And yet, I say, did Christ put himself between GOD'S deserved wrath, and our sin, and rent that obligation wherein we were in danger to GOD, and paid our debt (Colossians 2.14).

Let us know for a certainty, that if the most dearly beloved Son of GOD was thus punished and stricken for the sin which he had not done himself: how much more ought we sore to be stricken for our daily and manifold sins which we commit against GOD,

For if GOD (saith Saint Paul) hath not spared his own Son from pain and punishment, but delivered him for us all unto the death: how should he not give us all other things with him (Romans 8.32)?

... even then did Christ the Son of God, by the appointment of his Father, come down from heaven, to be wounded for our sakes, to be reputed with the wicked, to be condemned unto death, to take upon him the reward of our sins, and to give his Body to be broken on the Crosse for our offences.

Was not this a manifest token of God's great wrath and displeasure towards sin, that he could be pacified by no other means, but only by the sweet and precious blood of his dear Son?​

Thanks @redleghunter for acknowledging my tradition. I did some work on the First Book of Homilies some time back. I have attached the Homily 1.03 as a PDF in more modern English as the Tudor English can be interesting.

Article XI
Of the Justification of Man
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings: Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.​

Of course no-one is going to be accusing Anglicanism of being tidy (though we do like things done decently and in order) any time soon, and typically the Article refers to the Homily of Justification, and so lacking any Homily of that Title we must conclude that the Homily on the Salvation of Humanity is the referred document, and all scholars I have read accept that.

The Homily labours the message that salvation is not by works, good deeds, but rather Justice and Mercy, Sacrifice and Grace, true and lively faith.

Objection.
But here human reason may be astonied (deprived of power), reasoning this way. If a ransom be paid for our redemption, then is it not given us freely. For a prisoner that paid a ransom, is not let go freely, for if they go freely, then they go without ransom: for what is it else to go freely, than to be set at liberty without paying a ransom?
Answer.
This reason is satisfied in this great wisdom. God, in the mystery of our redemption, has so tempered his justice and mercy together, that neither by his justice does he condemn us to the everlasting captivity of the devil and the prison of hell forever without help or mercy; nor by his mercy delivers us free without justice or payment of a just ransom. He has now joined his endless mercy with his most upright and equal justice. His great mercy showed in delivering us from our former captivity, without requiring of any ransom to be paid or amends to be made by us, for that is impossible for us to do. And, where we could not, he provided a ransom for us, the most precious body and blood of his own most dear and best beloved Son Jesus Christ, who besides this ransom, fulfilled the law for us perfectly. So the justice of God and his mercy are bound together, and fulfill the mystery of our redemption.

...

Three things must go together in our justification. In these aforesaid places, the Apostle touches specially three things, which must go together in our justification.

1. On God's part, his great mercy and grace.
2. On Christ’s part, justice, that is the satisfaction of God's justice, or the price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling the law perfectly and completely.
3. On our part a true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by God's working in us.

So in our justification, is not only God's mercy and grace, but also his justice, which the Apostle calls the justice of God, and it consists in paying our ransom, and fulfilling of the law. So the grace of God does not shut out the justice of God in our justification, but only shuts out the justice of our works, being the merits of deserving our justification.​

Can we suggest that the Homily supports a single doctrine of the atonement. My conclusion is that it does not. There are hints of Anselm's satisfaction theory of the atonement. The Early Anglicans were well schooled in the scholastic fathers and Anselm rings through in the Articles and the Homilies. Ransom Theory is also hinted at, and as you have indicated some sense of substitutionary atonement (penal or otherwise) is also evident. There is a sense of the fulfilment of the old covenant with Christ as the lamb of the new covenant being also apparent.

So whilst I take your point, I am not ready to relinquish mine.

 

[expos4ever]

So it's more an optics issue, how others see God, than a doctrinal issue?

I never said anything like this. I merely have pointed out that the standard modern view puts God in the role of a vindictive person who cannot simply forgive, He has to lay the smackdown in someone.

 

[redleghunter]

I never said anything like this. I merely have pointed out that the standard modern view puts God in the role of a vindictive person who cannot simply forgive, He has to lay the smackdown in someone.

That's optics. It's an approach to put something in a better light in the eyes of the post modern masses.

So we adjust and tinker clear Biblical doctrine which also has ancient church support for what we think will be more palatable to the masses.

This is why we have the heresy of Annihilationism infecting the Church today.

 

[Philip_B]

That's optics. It's an approach to put something in a better light in the eyes of the post modern masses.

So we adjust and tinker clear Biblical doctrine which also has ancient church support for what we think will be more palatable to the masses.

This is why we have the heresy of Annihilationism infecting the Church today.

Or does it reflect that each theory of atonement has limitations

 

[expos4ever]

That's optics. It's an approach to put something in a better light in the eyes of the post modern masses.

Not to going get into this because, as I hope to argue in grisly detail, the “standard” penal substitution model is sub-Biblical.

 

[expos4ever]

This is why we have the heresy of Annihilationism infecting the Church today.

There are solid Biblical defences for annihilationism. Not least the fact we annihilationists don’t need to redefine “death” as “everlasting life in torment” when it come ls to “the wages of sin is death”.

 

[expos4ever]

If God was really “punishing” Jesus on the cross, why does Romans 8:3 tell us that is SIN, not Jesus, that is the target of God’s wrath?

 

[redleghunter]

Not to going get into this because, as I hope to argue in grisly detail, the “standard” penal substitution model is sub-Biblical.

If so address the OP.