It should not be in dispute according to Scriptures and logic.The dispute is on who or what is that which is inflicting death and suffering on Him.
And by whom was a beaten, scourged and brutally executed?Christ was beaten, scourged, and brutally executed by crucifixion. I gather satisfaction could have been accomplished without this, but this is what the Father willed and the Son subjected His will to.
It does if you allow for another understanding of the word substitution. In PSA, Christ is the substitute by being "a cosmic punching bag", as ViaCrucis put it. In satisfaction theory, Christ is the substitute by taking on the responsibilty to deal with our sin before the Father, by atoning for our sins in our place, so we don't have to. Both are forms of substitution. It's the penal part which is in dispute, not the substitution part.The language of satisfaction does not fully address the Biblical statements and allusions to substitution.
No one is disputing that. And I'll even admit that Christ did suffer some form of divine chastisement, as a son might be chastised by his father (Isaiah 53:5.10). Again, it's the penal part that's in dispute.The fact is Jesus did suffer a violent torture and death. I gather there could have been a more humane way to accomplish this according to our post modern sensibilities. Let’s deal with the facts first.
My favorite one is the one that Jesus told us.What are your favorite ones and why?
And by Whose will? That is what needs answering. The Father sent the Son right?And by whom was a beaten, scourged and brutally executed?
Which is the default hyperbole. I'll share a piece by Anglican and Evangelical scholar J.I. Packer which hopefully clears this up:It does if you allow for another understanding of the word substitution. In PSA, Christ is the substitute by being "a cosmic punching bag", as ViaCrucis put it.
Christ paid the penalty that's the penal in Penal Substitution Atonement. It is not the PSA view of an angry Father punishing His Son and getting satisfaction for the punishment. But taking up the cross Jesus taking the punishment due us was a pleasing aroma one which redeemed us. That is what Isaiah 53:10 is speaking of. It was the will of the Father that the Son take up the cross and endure what is rightfully our due as we are transgressors of the Law.In satisfaction theory, Christ is the substitute by taking on the responsibilty to deal with our sin before the Father, by atoning for our sins in our place, so we don't have to. Both are forms of substitution. It's the penal part which is in dispute, not the substitution part.
Welcome to Penal Substitution.No one is disputing that. And I'll even admit that Christ did suffer some form of divine chastisement, as a son might be chastised by his father (Isaiah 53:5.10).
Penal as it relates to penalty. You have already established Jesus suffered the penalty due us. So not seeing why the problem with 'penal.'Again, it's the penal part that's in dispute.
You might want to read my post 33 and 49.No one denies that Christ was our substitute, that He bore our death, that He bore our sufferings, that He bore our sin (etc); those things aren't under dispute. The dispute is on who or what is that which is inflicting death and suffering on Him.
-CryptoLutheran
Chastisement is not penalty. God chastising Israel (here in the Person of Christ) has formation and upbringing (and ultimately sanctification and salvation) as its goal, as a father raises his children. Punishment implies a passing of judgement, and inflicting harm on the wrongdoers in order to avenge afflicted. Again, small difference, but just big enough to matter.Welcome to Penal Substitution.
Suffering, even enduring death, for another is not the same as taking the punishment of another. When the Levites bore the iniquities of the people (Leviticus 10:17; Number 18:1.23), were they beining punished or did they take the penalty? No, they did bear the iniquity of the people in the sense that they had the responsibility to atone for the sins of the people by making sacrifices. And for the people, the sacrifice was not a 'substitution' where the animal were punished in their place, since animals were pretty expensive and a valuable resource. This animal was punished, so you don't have to? Yeah, I just lost my source of income and will need to spend years getting it back by raising a new calf, so I feel pretty much punished ...Penal as it relates to penalty. You have already established Jesus suffered the penalty due us. So not seeing why the problem with 'penal.'
You might want to read my posts 33, 49 and 65 because I do agree with your assessment of Penal Substitution.Chastisement is not penalty. God chastising Israel (here in the Person of Christ) has formation and upbringing (and ultimately sanctification and salvation) as its goal, as a father raises his children. Punishment implies a passing of judgement, and inflicting harm on the wrongdoers in order to avenge afflicted. Again, small difference, but just big enough to matter.
Suffering, even enduring death, for another is not the same as taking the punishment of another. When the Levites bore the iniquities of the people (Leviticus 10:17; Number 18:1.23), were they beining punished or did they take the penalty? No, they did bear the iniquity of the people in the sense that they had the responsibility to atone for the sins of the people by making sacrifices. And for the people, the sacrifice was not a 'substitution' where the animal were punished in their place, since animals were pretty expensive and a valuable resource. This animal was punished, so you don't have to? Yeah, I just lost my source of income and will need to spend years getting it back by raising a new calf, so I feel pretty much punished ...
Christ, being the High Priest, bore the iniquities of the people (the whole world) in this sense, and took on the duty to restore communion with God by sacrificing a immaculate sacrifice and victim which he himself provided, i.e. his own Body. This paradigm of satisfaction not punishment fits better with the OT liturgical-sacrificial system, which pointed to Christ.
Actually it is. If someone is taking on the penalty due me, they are undergoing my punishment.Suffering, even enduring death, for another is not the same as taking the punishment of another.
You previously objected Christ as a victim.Christ, being the High Priest, bore the iniquities of the people (the whole world) in this sense, and took on the duty to restore communion with God by sacrificing a immaculate sacrifice and victim which he himself provided, i.e. his own Body. This paradigm of satisfaction not punishment fits better with the OT liturgical-sacrificial system, which pointed to Christ.
You may want to read my posts 33, 49, 65 and 67.Actually it is. If someone is taking on the penalty due me, they are undergoing my punishment.
Christ is the sacrificial Victim, I don't object to that. What I do object to, is the narrow judicial understandig of sacrifice as the transfer of punishment, and nothing else.You previously objected Christ as a victim.
Suffering for a cause ≠ being punished.Actually it is
Perhaps because no theory other than PSA defines substitution.This is going nowhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?