Satisfaction vs Penal Substitution

[redleghunter]

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”.

No they have to redefine everlasting.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

And Who exactly carried the penalty?

 

[St_Worm2]

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?

Hi Expos4ever, if "sin" itself was the sole target of God's wrath, surely there must have been a way to insure that His Son was not pierced by that 'arrow' too. But He was the One who suffered for it and for us all.

Isaiah 53
4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?​

--David

 

[thecolorsblend]

I've read critiques of Satisfaction Theory, most of which were written by evangelicals, and I can't shake the suspicion that a big proportion of the evangelicals' opposition to Satisfaction Theory comes down a sly interjection of anti-Catholicism. "Well, that's what the Catholics believe so we have to be different."

This appears to be less of an issue with mainstream Protestantism but with this strain of evangelicalism it's hard to miss the assumption that because Catholics believe something, it must be wrong ipso facto. Or at least highly suspect.

A bizarre hermeneutic, to say the least.

 

[St_Worm2]

I've read critiques of Satisfaction Theory, most of which were written by evangelicals, and I can't shake the suspicion that a big proportion of the evangelicals' opposition to Satisfaction Theory comes down a sly interjection of anti-Catholicism. "Well, that's what the Catholics believe so we have to be different."

This appears to be less of an issue with mainstream Protestantism but with this strain of evangelicalism it's hard to miss the assumption that because Catholics believe something, it must be wrong ipso facto. Or at least highly suspect.

A bizarre hermeneutic, to say the least.

Hi TCB, that's possible I suppose, but then how do you account for the VAST majority of the Christian faith (85-90% of it, in fact), where the beliefs of conservative Catholics and the beliefs of conservative Protestants (or "Evangelicals") stand in perfect harmony with one another?

Rather than some degree of anti-Catholic bias, I think this has far more to do with what evangelicals believe the Bible teaches about this subject (just like it does in the other places that we find differences in the two faiths).

Yours and His,
David

 

[thecolorsblend]

Rather than some degree of anti-Catholic bias, I think this has far more to do with what evangelicals believe the Bible teaches about this subject (just like it does in the other places that we find differences in the two faiths).

Oh? Show me in the Bible (because I know Protestants love that expression) where it says God poured His wrath upon Christ and Christ was considered juridically guilty by God of mankind's sins.

Pro-Tip- Nobody else in this thread has managed to do it.

 

[St_Worm2]

Oh? Show me in the Bible (because I know Protestants love that expression) where it says God poured His wrath upon Christ and Christ was considered juridically guilty by God of mankind's sins.

Pro-Tip- Nobody else in this thread has managed to do it.

Hi again TCB, the "correctness" of the evangelical exegesis is not what's in view here (though we can certainly debate that in another thread if you'd like to), rather, this is all about what WE believe the Bible says/teaches.

The fact of the matter is this, what the RCC believes is not what's important to us ... what we believe the Bible teaches is ... so we would never choose to intentionally misinterpret what we believe the Bible teaches just to take a poke at the RCC (or for any other reason, quite frankly)

Now I don't want to burst you bubble, cause what you guys have to say is important to us .. but you are no where close to being 'that' important to us

Yours and His,
David

 

[thecolorsblend]

Hi again TCB, the "correctness" of the evangelical exegesis is not what's in view here (though we can certainly debate that in another thread if you'd like to), rather, this is all about what we BELIEVE the Bible says/teaches.

The fact of the matter is this, what the RCC believes is not what's important to us ... what we believe the Bible teaches is ... so we would never choose to intentionally misinterpret what we believe the Bible teaches just to take a poke at the RCC (or for any other reason, quite frankly)

...

Okay, let's try again.

Show me in the Bible (because I know Protestants love that expression) where it says God poured His wrath upon Christ and Christ was considered juridically guilty by God of mankind's sins.

Have at it.

 

[St_Worm2]

...

Okay, let's try again.

Have at it.

No, no, let me try again *(concerning your claim of an anti-Catholic bias, which is specifically what my last couple of posts have been addressing .. alone)*,

...the "correctness" of the evangelical exegesis is not what's in view here (though we can certainly debate that in another thread if you'd like to), rather, this is all about what we BELIEVE the Bible says/teaches.

The fact of the matter is this, what the RCC believes is not what's important to us ... what we believe the Bible teaches is ... so we would never choose to intentionally misinterpret what we believe the Bible teaches just to take a poke at the RCC (or for any other reason, quite frankly)

Now I don't want to burst you bubble, cause what you guys have to say is important to us .. but you are no where close to being 'that' important to us ​

 

[thecolorsblend]

No, no, let me try again *(concerning your claim of an anti-Catholic bias, which is specifically what my last couple of posts have been addressing .. alone)*,

...the "correctness" of the evangelical exegesis is not what's in view here (though we can certainly debate that in another thread if you'd like to), rather, this is all about what we BELIEVE the Bible says/teaches.

The fact of the matter is this, what the RCC believes is not what's important to us ... what we believe the Bible teaches is ... so we would never choose to intentionally misinterpret what we believe the Bible teaches just to take a poke at the RCC (or for any other reason, quite frankly)

Now I don't want to burst you bubble, cause what you guys have to say is important to us .. but you are no where close to being 'that' important to us

It's okay, nobody else could find those passages in the Bible either. Your efforts at dodging that point are as creative as they are transparent.

 

[St_Worm2]

Choosing not to play TCB, but nice try

 

[redleghunter]

I've read critiques of Satisfaction Theory, most of which were written by evangelicals, and I can't shake the suspicion that a big proportion of the evangelicals' opposition to Satisfaction Theory comes down a sly interjection of anti-Catholicism. "Well, that's what the Catholics believe so we have to be different."

This appears to be less of an issue with mainstream Protestantism but with this strain of evangelicalism it's hard to miss the assumption that because Catholics believe something, it must be wrong ipso facto. Or at least highly suspect.

A bizarre hermeneutic, to say the least.

Don't think that is the case as this Evangelical actually quoted both East and West church fathers understanding of penal substitution.

Nothing wrong with Satisfaction theory. It's Biblical, it's historic, but incomplete. That's the point.

I understand why people and even theologians steer clear of PSA. It's not popular according to human sensibilities.

Just as eternal damnation is bad for post modern optics.

Don't think anyone here really wants to admit Jesus had to suffer and die for us as as such took the penalty we deserve. It's just terrible for hu-mans to think the Father allowed this suffering to happen. That He would not receive such punishment as a satisfaction for His wrath.

But Isaiah 53 is clear, that's the model no matter what we may think how awful it is.

Reminds me of...(just two chapters after the Suffering Servant)

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.

A little more reading of the OT is in order for all Christians. We really learn YHWH is serious about what He says and will do it.

 

[redleghunter]

Oh? Show me in the Bible (because I know Protestants love that expression) where it says God poured His wrath upon Christ and Christ was considered juridically guilty by God of mankind's sins.

Pro-Tip- Nobody else in this thread has managed to do it.

You miss this:

Satisfaction vs Penal Substitution

And this?

Isaiah 53: NKJV
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

Why do you think Mel Gibson made a movie about this?

 

[redleghunter]

It's okay, nobody else could find those passages in the Bible either. Your efforts at dodging that point are as creative as they are transparent.

It's been demonstrated. Several times.

When you were shown Biblical and church father support for PSA, you shifted to the Cardinal Newman doctrinal development and ignored the ancient attestation.

Then reentering the conversation failing on both above, decided to introduce a fabricated assertion evangelicals push PSA because it is opposed to RCC teachings (which evolved over time). Then put the false qualifier that Protestants don't hold to PSA which shows some lack of historical knowledge.

The OP is Presbyterian. Which means he is Protestant. I also posted that the Anglicans at least the conservative ones still hold to PSA by quoting their own homilies. That refutes your notion old line Prots don't hold to the doctrine. However, like the RCC many elements within Protestant churches are changing their minds on PSA because it's apparently bad optics in a post modern world as is eternal damnation. Meaning they don't want outsiders or even their flock to get the impression that The Father is a "terrible meanie."

And you started this all by calling PSA a heresy perhaps due to not knowing the clear Biblical evidence and early church teachings.

The only move you have left with me is to either tell me Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus as Bishop Spong and many other liberal theologians believe, or you have an iron clad exegesis which refutes the plain words of the prophecy.

I guess you could also refute these scholars while you are at it too.

 

[thecolorsblend]

4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;

I should begin by saying that a great many commentators see this section of Isaiah as a dual commentary on both Israel and the then coming Messiah, as you know. A lot of flowery, poetic language is used which might not be intended as strictly literal in its aims. Applicability to Christ should, their thinking goes, not be assumed to be necessarily intentional. Or even wholly appropriate.

Having said all of that, I'm undecided, personally, on whether I subscribe to that school of thought. The reasons for that are too lengthy to go into here. It's sufficient, however, to say that if the above passage is assumed to refer to Our Lord, this does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.

For your convenience I've bolded the more important set of words. Isaiah is saying that people will consider Christ to have been punished by God... implying that they will be mistaken in that assumption.

Fitting in your case, yes?

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;

This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.

And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

This idiomatic language describes Christ's suffering. Does it follow then that He is being judged literally guilty of our sins and punished by God the Father? I don't think so.

Bearing iniquity and bearing guilt are not the same thing.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

I'm not seeing anything in there which hasn't already been addressed or else which disagrees with Satisfaction Theory.

When you were shown Biblical and church father support for PSA, you shifted to the Cardinal Newman doctrinal development and ignored the ancient attestation.

I said words to the effect that I was feeling too lazy to review Church Fathers' writings for alternate points of view. I implicitly conceded the point to you so as to move on to the bigger issue of asserting doctrinal development. The ultimate goal for doing so was to rise above the weeds and explain how my Church came about accepting Satisfaction Theory, directing the conversation to more productive areas.

Obviously that wasn't the right thing to do. I base that on the fact that you seem to think that was an evasion on my part.

So allow me to say that the dominant view among the Church Fathers which I reviewed is something akin to Ransom Theory, which is already closely related to Substitution Theory.

"The Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction."
Irenaeus

"From the first transgression of the first man, the whole human race, being born in the shackles of sin, was the property of the devil who had conquered it. After all, if we hadn't been held in captivity, we wouldn't have needed a redeemer…. So he came to the captives not having been captured himself. He came to redeem the captives, having in himself not a trace of the captivity, that is to say, of iniquity, but bringing the price for us in his moral flesh."
Augustine of Hippo

Other names are Athanasius, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and probably others too.

Then put the false qualifier that Protestants don't hold to PSA which shows some lack of historical knowledge.

See above.

That refutes your notion old line Prots don't hold to the doctrine.

I have seen Protestants affirm Satisfaction Theory. If they do so at variance with the official teachings of their own ecclesial communities, my respect for them will have gone up.

And you started this all by calling PSA a heresy

I was right about that, incidentally.

The only move you have left with me is to either tell me Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus as Bishop Spong

As above, I'm not prepared to sign my name to that school of thought. I am familiar with those arguments but, again as above, I have a great many reservations about them. I'm not prepared to say that they're right or that they're wrong at this time.

 

[redleghunter]

Having said all of that, I'm undecided, personally, on whether I subscribe to that school of thought. The reasons for that are too lengthy to go into here. It's sufficient, however, to say that if the above passage is assumed to refer to Our Lord, this does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.

As I mentioned earlier there is nothing in contention with Satisfaction theory and PSA. Satisfaction is just an incomplete view. It begs the question...what exactly is being satisfied?

Isaiah is saying that people will consider Christ to have been punished by God... implying that they will be mistaken in that assumption.

Fitting in your case, yes?

Meaning people would know this to be true. Again, God's words do not return to Him empty. However, the following verses confirm the prophecy that the Suffering Servant would be the sacrifice for our sins.

This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.

Did not indicate such but you should address this:

"The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,"

Again begs the question. Why was this chastisement upon Him? For our peace. Peace from what? God's just wrath.

This is a Hebrew prophecy. As such know the prophecy within the context of the Law.

This idiomatic language describes Christ's suffering. Does it follow then that He is being judged literally guilty of our sins and punished by God the Father.


Bearing iniquity and bearing guilt are not the same thing.

More than that if one studies Torah.

"And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

This is basic propitiation language.

hilastērion

relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation

1. used of the cover of the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies, which was sprinkled with the blood of the expiatory victim on the annual day of atonement (this rite signifying that the life of the people, the loss of which they had merited by their sins, was offered to God in the blood as the life of the victim, and that God by this ceremony was appeased and their sins expiated); hence the lid of expiation, the propitiatory
   
2. an expiatory sacrifice
   
3. a expiatory victim
   

hilasmos

1. an appeasing, propitiating
   
   
2. the means of appeasing, a propitiation
   

hilaskomai

1. to render one's self, to appease, conciliate to one's self
   
   1. to become propitious, be placated or appeased
      
      
   2. to be propitious, be gracious, be merciful
      
2. to expiate, make propitiation for
   

Once again begging the question...what exactly is being appeased?

I'm not seeing anything in there which hasn't already been addressed or else which doesn't disagree with Satisfaction Theory

I bolded but will do it again:

For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
[...]
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
[...]
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.

So allow me to say that the dominant view among the Church Fathers which I reviewed is something akin to Ransom Theory, which is already closely related to Substitution Theory.

Both are orthodox but incomplete as the following fathers point out:

Eusebius of Caesarea
Chrysostom
Augustine
Hilary of Poitiers
Cyril of Jerusalem

I would caution calling them heretics for their promotion of PSA.

They do seem to answer the question...that what is being satisfied is the wrath of God against the sinner.

Other names are Athanasius, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and probably others too.

Don't doubt it. Show me where they condemn PSA as heresy.

I was right about that, incidentall

Again if you want to call the following ECFs heretics have at it. Just don't say it out loud at a Knights of Columbus meeting.
Eusebius of Caesarea
Chrysostom
Augustine
Hilary of Poitiers
Cyril of Jerusalem

As above, I'm not prepared to sign my name to that school of thought. I am familiar with those arguments but, again as above, I have a great many reservations about them. I'm not prepared to say that they're right or that they're wrong at this time.

I'm glad you are not on board with that school of thought. Most of them deny the Deity of Christ and His Bodily resurrection.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I should begin by saying that a great many commentators see this section of Isaiah as a dual commentary on both Israel and the then coming Messiah, as you know. A lot of flowery, poetic language is used which might not be intended as strictly literal in its aims. Applicability to Christ should, their thinking goes, not be assumed to be necessarily intentional. Or even wholly appropriate.

Having said all of that, I'm undecided, personally, on whether I subscribe to that school of thought. The reasons for that are too lengthy to go into here. It's sufficient, however, to say that if the above passage is assumed to refer to Our Lord,

Are you actually saying that Is. 53 need not be referring to the Lord Jesus, but may refer to Israel instead? If so, how (even if RCs may be so liberal) can you do so even as a RC?

And likewise, do you really allow that "flowery, poetic language" such as "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" (Isaiah 53:5-6) does not necessarily refer to God laying our guilt upon Christ and of Him bearing our sins in His own body, becomes sin as it were, and the Lord literally suffering for our sins?

this does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.

No, not as the OP describes it, but as also described, the objective question is why the Lord would be inclined/pleased to bruise/break the Lord, and make His souls an offering for sin, as per penal, versus merely a substitution (though it was that as well)?

I do usually get into this debate, and certainly all the 3k+ souls saved in Acts 2 did not know the precise differences btwn the two when they trusted the Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. I do not subscribe to the idea that Christ had to suffer in Hell, or the equivalent of eternal torment, but that after doing everything Right, He took responsibility for everything we (not just the Elect) did wrong, and paid the price for our forgiveness with His sinless shed blood, which He purchased the church with (and the Lord's supper is to declare).

This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.
...This does not disagree with Satisfaction Theory.

I do not think the argument was that it did.

redleghunter said: ↑ And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

This idiomatic language describes Christ's suffering. Does it follow then that He is being judged literally guilty of our sins and punished by God the Father? I don't think so.
Bearing iniquity and bearing guilt are not the same thing.

So this is merely describing Christ's suffering? And He is not being punished for sins? No, for rather than describing Christ's suffering, as some other parts do, it is describing the why of Christ's suffering. And surely the Lord was fulfilling the role of the scapegoat of Leviticus 16 as well as being the unblemished atonement in Is. 53. And thus Christ,

"his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree," "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit," (1 Peter 2:24; 3:18)

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)
And you did not not explain how God can lay upon Christ iniquity of all without bearing their guilt, by imputation though not as actually guilty.

This may not to disagree with Satisfaction Theory, but RLH is arguing it does not go far enough. As far as i understand it, in Anselmian substitutionary atonement Christ suffers for us thereby restoring to God the honor sin took away (that to sin is for man "not to render his due to God," Cur Deus Homo, Book I, XI), thus saving believers from punishment ("The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow," Cur Deus Homo Bk 1 Ch 8).

Whereas in penal substitution Christ is punished instead of us, satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. (cf. Romans 3:25; 6:23) Both theories affirm the substitutionary and vicarious nature of the atonement, but penal substitution means the punishment for sin required the blood atonement of Christ.

I have seen Protestants affirm Satisfaction Theory. If they do so at variance with the official teachings of their own ecclesial communities, my respect for them will have gone up.

Broadly speaking, did not Martin Luther> But it depends how precise the definitions are. Some excerpts:

SBC [largest Prot denom]: Christ "honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin."

• First London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1646: Those that have union with Christ, are justified from all their sins by the blood of Christ, which justification is a gracious and full acquittance of a guilty sinner from all sin, by God, through the satisfaction that Christ hath made by His death for all their sins, and this applied (in manifestation of it) through faith.
• Articles of Religion of Methodism, 1784, 1808: Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile us to His Father, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.
• United Methodist Confession of Faith: We believe God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. The offering Christ freely made on the cross is the perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, redeeming man from all sin, so that no other satisfaction is required.
• Westminster Confession of Faith: Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
• The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto Him.
• Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
• National Association of Evangelicals: We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

redleghunter said: ↑ And you started this all by calling PSA a heresy

I was right about that, incidentally.

Nonsense. The church who decrees so is heretical.

 

[Philip_B]

I think the discussion would improve if we all stopped dropping H bombs.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Whereas in penal substitution Christ is punished instead of us, satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.

Forgiving= is when the offended foregoes what's justly due from the offender- Somehow that definition of substitution doesn't square with forgiveness.

 

[redleghunter]

Forgiving= is when the offended foregoes what's justly due from the offender- Somehow that definition of substitution doesn't square with forgiveness.

Who are you modifying above? Us as the fallen or Christ.

If us then your point would be Christ did not have to bear the cross for us.

If Christ then you miss the point. It was He who knew no sin who became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21)