Justin Martyr and Friends - Penal Substitution Theory?

[JonC]

It is sometimes claimed that Justin Martyr held to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (PST). Other's have mentioned in another thread that several people held this view and if you google the topic you will find several sites claiming just about everyone until fairly recently held to PST.

I believe what has occurred is that people have reached back into history to find support where none exists. The danger here is that history itself has become subjective and doctrine shallow. What is happening is that some are dismantling PST to include any mention of substitution and when they find such a mention (which if it is biblical, they will) they claim proof of Penal Substitution, rendering the term utterly meaningless and subjective.

But let's look at the evidence:

Justin Martyr, (AD 100–ca.165)

“Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved. For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.’ And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God.”


What we see is penal (Jesus became a curse) and substitution (for us or for our sins). BUT this is Jesus bearing our sins, NOT facing the punishment we would have faced. It is wrong to claim this as proof Martyr held to Penal Substitution Theory.

As evidence, Martyr continues by describing what he believes this curse to be:


"For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,' confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to your, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ.”

The curse is Christ's physical death at the hands of the Jews (per Martyr). This is all a defense of Christianity in Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Not only is this not PST, but look at the scope here. Jesus is not atoning for the sins of individuals, but for the entire human race.

That said, it was not until the 3rd century that we see the beginnings of a systematic doctrine of salvation. It is safe, I think, to leave Martyr under the broad scope of Christus Victor theory, maybe Ransom Theory, but probably just at his words because even in his "Defense of Christianity" there is not enough of a doctrine to establish a systematic theory.

My conclusion is those who seek antiquity are covering flies in the ointment of their theology. It is dishonest, poor scholarship and an example of people seeing what they want to see. My concern is that this is dangerous as it leads to subjective history and shallow doctrine. And in the end, it really doesn't matter what Martyr believed (it is not something worth a Christian losing his or her integrity over).

 

[JonC]

I've been looking at the evidence presented that the writings of Justin Martyr provide a legitimate statement of penal substitution. The only "evidence" that I can find is what has been provided (in his Dialogue with Trypho, where he says that "The Father of all wished his Christ for the whole human family to take upon him the curses of all, knowing that, after he had been cdrucified and was dead, he would raise him up" and that the "Father caused Him to suffer these things on behalf of the human family". Yet throughout Martyr insists (repeatedly) that "Christ was not cursed by the law".

My conclusion is that the claim Justin Martyr held to Penal Substitution is a result of dishonest investigation. What is said here is, in fact, substitutionary atonement but there is no trace of the belief (stated) of Christ bearing our curse in the legal sense of penal substitution, and certainly no hint of Christ being punished with what would have been our punishment as a payment of our debt.

I apologize for the thread as I thought there would have been more "evidence" to examine, and I think it fair to simply dismiss the claim that Martyr held to Penal Substitution as lazy research and wishful thinking.

As there can be no possible argument for Penal Substitution in Martyr's teaching (unless there are other writings of which I am unaware) I'll put the thread out of it's misery shortly.

Edited: don't want to waste a thread when there are other examples that will probably yield the same interest. So I'm continuing with others @Martin Marprelate mentioned (that are also mentioned on other sites).

 

[JonC]

Eusebius of Caesarea

It is claimed that Eusebius of Caesarea taught Penal Substitution Atonement as evidenced by the following:

“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.”

The problem is that the quote is extracted from a larger text and taken severely out of context to make it fit PST. Certainly we can see substitutionary atonement here (although probably, when we read the entire thing, more ransom theory under a broader Christus Victor theme). Here is what Eusebius wrote:

“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 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,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 souls?”

And later:

“So, as delivered up by the Father, as bruised, as bearing our sins, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter. With this the apostle agrees when he says, "Who spared not his own Son, but delivered him for us all." And it is to impel us to ask why the Father forsook Him, that He says, "Why hast thou forsaken me? "The answer is, to ransom the whole human race, buying them with His precious Blood from their former slavery to their invisible tyrants, the unclean daemons, and the rulers and spirits of evil.”

Again, those who suggest Eusebius of Caesarea held to Penal Substitution have disregarded the author’s writing and extracted a few lines to bring his teaching in line with their own. This falls into the dishonesty or laziness we just discussed with Martyr.

Eusebius appears to hold to the idea that the Cross ransomed the whole human race from evil. And this is not done by God punishing Jesus with what will be the punishment of the lost at Judgment, but rather by Jesus’ physical sufferings at the hands of men. This seems to be a common theme (the sufficiency is in the blood, not the punishment of lost men).

 

[Yeshua1]

Eusebius of Caesarea

It is claimed that Eusebius of Caesarea taught Penal Substitution Atonement as evidenced by the following:

“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.”

The problem is that the quote is extracted from a larger text and taken severely out of context to make it fit PST. Certainly we can see substitutionary atonement here (although probably, when we read the entire thing, more ransom theory under a broader Christus Victor theme). Here is what Eusebius wrote:

“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 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,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 souls?”

And later:

“So, as delivered up by the Father, as bruised, as bearing our sins, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter. With this the apostle agrees when he says, "Who spared not his own Son, but delivered him for us all." And it is to impel us to ask why the Father forsook Him, that He says, "Why hast thou forsaken me? "The answer is, to ransom the whole human race, buying them with His precious Blood from their former slavery to their invisible tyrants, the unclean daemons, and the rulers and spirits of evil.”

Again, those who suggest Eusebius of Caesarea held to Penal Substitution have disregarded the author’s writing and extracted a few lines to bring his teaching in line with their own. This falls into the dishonesty or laziness we just discussed with Martyr.

Eusebius appears to hold to the idea that the Cross ransomed the whole human race from evil. And this is not done by God punishing Jesus with what will be the punishment of the lost at Judgment, but rather by Jesus’ physical sufferings at the hands of men. This seems to be a common theme (the sufficiency is in the blood, not the punishment of lost men).

Bottom lime question on this is how did Jesus and the Apostles view the Cross? As that would be penal substitution, no doubt!

 

[JonC]

Bottom lime question on this is how did Jesus and the Apostles view the Cross? As that would be penal substitution, no doubt!

No. The topic is what these men believed as evidenced by their writings (and it is not Penal Substitution).

If the topic were what Jesus and the apostles TAUGHT as evidenced in the Bible then we still would not be able to prove PST as we would be restricted to Scripture.

When we decide to discuss what extra biblical ideas you thought Jesus and the Apostles believed then your post may mean something. But even then one has to wonder why, if they thought penal substitution was so important they did not write it into scripture.

But again that's another thread. If you want to start the thread then start it but don't hijack this one.

 

[JonC]

Well, thus far what has been demonstrated here is not only that neither Justin Martyr or Eusebius held to Penal Substitution Theology but that claims to the contrary are based on partial quotes taken out of context while ignoring what is truly stated. On another thread this was shown true of Martin Luther as well. So time to move on.

Athanasius

@Yeshua1 provided this link on another site, but I've also seen it elsewhere. https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf

The author states that Athanasius was an “explicit promotor of penal substitution” and offers this proof:

“’Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.’

Athanasius also said, ‘The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice’.

But look at what is actually said:

1. Christ took a body like our own because our bodies were liable to the corruption of death.

2. Christ surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father.

3. He did this so that in His death all might die and the law of death be abolished.

4. Why? Because having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it [death] was thereafter voided of its power for men.

5. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection.

6. The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death.

7. Yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die.

8. For this reason, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all

9. Itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well by the resurrection.

10. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice.


Really???? This is what PSA teaches? I'm not even sure we need to go through this one to disprove it as false. But....open for discussion.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Athanasius also said, ‘The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice’.

This is a duplicate post, so I am duplicating my answer.

It would be good to finish the quotation off properly since you appear to have ended it in mid-sentence. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of an equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in His death all that was required.

Both penal and substitutionary elements seem to be present.

I have no time (or inclination) to deal with all these various church fathers as I have to get on with my own work. I will try to deal with Justin Martyr if time permits. However, even if you could show that none of these people believed in Penal Substitution (which you can't), it would not phase me. The Scriptures clearly show it, and that is sufficient for me.

One other point, particularly with reference to Eusebius. It is entirely possible to believe in Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, even Moral Influence--they can all be found in the Scriptures-- while still believing in Penal Substitution. They are no mutually exclusive. But to deny Penal Substitution is to miss the central purpose of the cross. 'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

 

[JonC]

This is a duplicate post, so I am duplicating my answer.

It would be good to finish the quotation off properly since you appear to have ended it in mid-sentence. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of an equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in His death all that was required.

Both penal and substitutionary elements seem to be present.

I have no time (or inclination) to deal with all these various church fathers as I have to get on with my own work. I will try to deal with Justin Martyr if time permits. However, even if you could show that none of these people believed in Penal Substitution (which you can't), it would not phase me. The Scriptures clearly show it, and that is sufficient for me.

One other point, particularly with reference to Eusebius. It is entirely possible to believe in Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, even Moral Influence--they can all be found in the Scriptures-- while still believing in Penal Substitution. They are no mutually exclusive. But to deny Penal Substitution is to miss the central purpose of the cross. 'That He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus.'

You still don't understand.

No one is claiming substitution and punishment nonexistent in those writings. I don't know how else to explain it.

Just because something has hydrogen and oxygen doesn't mean it is water.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God.”


What we see is penal (Jesus became a curse) and substitution (for us or for our sins). BUT this is Jesus bearing our sins, NOT facing the punishment we would have faced. It is wrong to claim this as proof Martyr held to Penal Substitution Theory.

First of all, I disagree that Justin does not see Christ facing the punishment that we would have faced. '....to take upon Him the curses of all.' That seems tolerably clear to me. The curse that was upon me is taken by Him. But Justin is not writing a Systematic Theology; he is witnessing to a non-Christian and ranging quite briefly over a number of topics. What he has here does not contradict PSA and that is all that one can reasonably expect.

 

[JonC]

First of all, I disagree that Justin does not see Christ facing the punishment that we would have faced. '....to take upon Him the curses of all.' That seems tolerably clear to me. The curse that was upon me is taken by Him. But Justin is not writing a Systematic Theology; he is witnessing to a non-Christian and ranging quite briefly over a number of topics. What he has here does not contradict PSA and that is all that one can reasonably expect.

He does see Christ as facing the punishment we would have faced in terms of a physical death. He even states this (very clearly) when addressing exactly what this "curse" is Jesus became. AND he holds this as corporate and not individual (for the human race, not a punishment for sins of individual people but a physical death suffered at the hands of the Jews for the human race).

It goes back to definition. Does the punishment mean a physical death or a spiritual one? Does the punishment mean our punishment (individually) or is it for the entire human race.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Once again you appear to have missed out part of your quotation from Eusebius. I will take the liberty of adding it.

It is claimed that Eusebius of Caesarea taught Penal Substitution Atonement as evidenced by the following:

“ And the Lamb of God ....was chastised on our behalf, 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.”

'This is an unequivocal statement of penal substitution. Like Justin Martyr, Eusebius employs the vocabulary of God's 'cures,' taken from Galatians 3:13, arguing that the Lord Jesus was 'made a curse for us.' He also expresses the same truth in a different way, using the vocabulary of 'penalty'-- The Lord Jesus 'suffered a penalty which He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins.' Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

Once again you appear to have missed out part of your quotation from Eusebius. I will take the liberty of adding it.

“ And the Lamb of God ....was chastised on our behalf, 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.”

'This is an unequivocal statement of penal substitution. Like Justin Martyr, Eusebius employs the vocabulary of God's 'cures,' taken from Galatians 3:13, arguing that the Lord Jesus was 'made a curse for us.' He also expresses the same truth in a different way, using the vocabulary of 'penalty'-- The Lord Jesus 'suffered a penalty which He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins.' Penal Substitution.

Once again you missed the fact I have said repeatedly (over and over and over again) that penal and substitution aspects are present in their doctrine and in Scripture. I cannot understand why you can't grasp that.

What I am arguing is the difference in how they viewed the Cross as being the grounds of this satisfaction. Do you agree with Eusebius that the "price of our souls" was Christ's physical death or do you believe that Christ also suffered the punishment we would have suffered in the form of a spiritual death (or separation from God)? Do you agree with Athanasius, that Christ offered a penal sacrifice by taking on human body to offer? Do you agree with Luther than the sufficiency was in the merit of the blood outweighing our sin and wrath?

 

[JonC]

Once again you appear to have missed out part of your quotation from Eusebius. I will take the liberty of adding it.

“ And the Lamb of God ....was chastised on our behalf, 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 to clarify, I DID NOT leave this out. You are imagining I reject penal and substitutionary aspects in these writings.

Looking at the doctrines of others as if they are a smorgasbord of ideas from which you can choose a couple of your liking to define their teaching is dishonest.

All I am pointing out is that each of these men taught that Christ satisfied the demands of the Law, became a curse for us, ect. in a way other than God punishing Him with the punishment we would experience at Judgment.

 

[JonC]

As a side note - Origen's version of the Ransom Theory falls squarely in @Martin Marprelate 's definition of penal substitution (God redeemed us from Satan who punished Jesus but let us go).

When we take PSA so liberally, it really becomes meaningless.

 

[JonC]

T.F. Torrance distinguished between the historical view of substitution and PSA by referring to the former as "Total Substitution Atonement" (others have used terms like Ontological Substitution and Medicinal Substitution).

I think "ontological" suits Scripture the best, but this is a different type of substitution that I am not sure using the word "substitution" is helpful (this view doesn't substitute Christ for us in terms of taking our punishment in our stead but rather looks at substitution in terms of His righteousness for our unrighteousness).

 

[Yeshua1]

T.F. Torrance distinguished between the historical view of substitution and PSA by referring to the former as "Total Substitution Atonement" (others have used terms like Ontological Substitution and Medicinal Substitution).

I think "ontological" suits Scripture the best, but this is a different type of substitution that I am not sure using the word "substitution" is helpful (this view doesn't substitute Christ for us in terms of taking our punishment in our stead but rather looks at substitution in terms of His righteousness for our unrighteousness).

PST is required though , as there must be a price paid to God, as there is a real sin debt obligation owed to Him, and one MUSTsuffer the wrath of God that is directed towards that!

 

[JonC]

PST is required though , as there must be a price paid to God, as there is a real sin debt obligation owed to Him, and one MUSTsuffer the wrath of God that is directed towards that!

I understand this is what you believe.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

PST is required though , as there must be a price paid to God, as there is a real sin debt obligation owed to Him, and one MUSTsuffer the wrath of God that is directed towards that!

A.W. Pink wrote:
During the latter part of the 19th Century the word "Atonement" became commonly employed to express that which Christ wrought for the salvation of His people. But before then, the term.....habitually employed by all the Reformers was "satisfaction." The older term is to be much preferred, first, because the word "Atonement" is ambiguous. In the O.T. it is used for a Hebrew word which signifies "to cover by making expiation." In the N.T. it occurs but once [in the KJV], Romans 5:11, and there it is given as the rendering for a Greek word meaning "reconciliation." But reconciliation is the effect of the sin-expiating and God-propitiating work of Christ. On the other hand, the word "Satisfaction" is not ambiguous. It always signifies that complete work which Christ did in order to secure the salvation of His people, as that work stands related to the will and nature of God.
Again: the word "Atonement" is too limited in its signification for the purpose assigned to it. It does not express all that Scripture declares Christ did in order to meet the complete demands of God's law. It properly signifies the expiation of sin, and nothing more. It points to that which Christ rendered to the justice of God in vicariously bearing the penalty due to the sins of His people; but it does not include that vicarious obedience which Christ rendered to the precepts of the law, which obedience is imputed to all of the elect. On the other hand, "Satisfaction" naturally includes both of these. "As the demands of the law upon sinful men are both perceptive and penal-- the condition of life being 'Do this and live,' while the penalty denounced upon disobedience is 'the soul that sinneth it shall die'-- it follows that any work that shall satisfy the demands of the Divine law in behalf of men must include (1) that obedience which the law demands as the condition of life, and (2) that suffering which it demands as the penalty of sin." (A.A. Hodge).

 

[JonC]

A.W. Pink wrote:
During the latter part of the 19th Century the word "Atonement" became commonly employed to express that which Christ wrought for the salvation of His people. But before then, the term.....habitually employed by all the Reformers was "satisfaction." The older term is to be much preferred, first, because the word "Atonement" is ambiguous. In the O.T. it is used for a Hebrew word which signifies "to cover by making expiation." In the N.T. it occurs but once [in the KJV], Romans 5:11, and there it is given as the rendering for a Greek word meaning "reconciliation." But reconciliation is the effect of the sin-expiating and God-propitiating work of Christ. On the other hand, the word "Satisfaction" is not ambiguous. It always signifies that complete work which Christ did in order to secure the salvation of His people, as that work stands related to the will and nature of God.
Again: the word "Atonement" is too limited in its signification for the purpose assigned to it. It does not express all that Scripture declares Christ did in order to meet the complete demands of God's law. It properly signifies the expiation of sin, and nothing more. It points to that which Christ rendered to the justice of God in vicariously bearing the penalty due to the sins of His people; but it does not include that vicarious obedience which Christ rendered to the precepts of the law, which obedience is imputed to all of the elect. On the other hand, "Satisfaction" naturally includes both of these. "As the demands of the law upon sinful men are both perceptive and penal-- the condition of life being 'Do this and live,' while the penalty denounced upon disobedience is 'the soul that sinneth it shall die'-- it follows that any work that shall satisfy the demands of the Divine law in behalf of men must include (1) that obedience which the law demands as the condition of life, and (2) that suffering which it demands as the penalty of sin." (A.A. Hodge).

Insofar as the Reformers go, I agree with Pink that "satisfaction" is a better choice. Even with Penal Substitution the actual substitution is not exactly the consequences of our sins - vicariously removed (we still die) or damnation experienced. Plus it works well from Aquinas....perhaps Augustine....forward (it has somewhat a consistency in that some divine attribute must be mended from suffering loss).

I think with Calvin substitution may be a good choice as he viewed Christ as descending into Hell because that would have been our fate (in his Institutions this is why he finds such a doctrine necessary). But even here "satisfaction" can help maintain some common ground.

I lean more towards the early view and think the framework of divine justice has done more harm than good (to the biblical narrative), but I appreciate that people will endeavor to contextualize such ideas in a way they find meaningful. In fact, despite my leaning I often find it difficult not to presuppose penal substitution (it resonates with my denominational tradition). What I hope is that some will start to see the differences between these interpretations and genuinely strive to understand other viewpoints within orthodox Christianity. Christianity as a whole has too rich a history to forget by ignoring these differences.

 

[Yeshua1]

A.W. Pink wrote:
During the latter part of the 19th Century the word "Atonement" became commonly employed to express that which Christ wrought for the salvation of His people. But before then, the term.....habitually employed by all the Reformers was "satisfaction." The older term is to be much preferred, first, because the word "Atonement" is ambiguous. In the O.T. it is used for a Hebrew word which signifies "to cover by making expiation." In the N.T. it occurs but once [in the KJV], Romans 5:11, and there it is given as the rendering for a Greek word meaning "reconciliation." But reconciliation is the effect of the sin-expiating and God-propitiating work of Christ. On the other hand, the word "Satisfaction" is not ambiguous. It always signifies that complete work which Christ did in order to secure the salvation of His people, as that work stands related to the will and nature of God.
Again: the word "Atonement" is too limited in its signification for the purpose assigned to it. It does not express all that Scripture declares Christ did in order to meet the complete demands of God's law. It properly signifies the expiation of sin, and nothing more. It points to that which Christ rendered to the justice of God in vicariously bearing the penalty due to the sins of His people; but it does not include that vicarious obedience which Christ rendered to the precepts of the law, which obedience is imputed to all of the elect. On the other hand, "Satisfaction" naturally includes both of these. "As the demands of the law upon sinful men are both perceptive and penal-- the condition of life being 'Do this and live,' while the penalty denounced upon disobedience is 'the soul that sinneth it shall die'-- it follows that any work that shall satisfy the demands of the Divine law in behalf of men must include (1) that obedience which the law demands as the condition of life, and (2) that suffering which it demands as the penalty of sin." (A.A. Hodge).

JonC seems to be taking the one aspect and part of Satisifaction, as it regards the life of jesus in Obedience is wha is the merit the father bestows upon when we are saved, but still seems to be balking at vicarious suffering, in the sense of really indeed taking in full the very wrath of God towards all lost sinners, as they themselves will be atoning for their own sins in as paying their sin debt in full themselves owed to God.