Featured What is Penal Substitution Atonement

Then stick around because I can top that one blindfolded.

As illustration. Since Luther holds the same position as I (on this topic...in fact, I've been using Luther's words verbatim) I thought comparing him with Calvin would highlight the difference of which I speak. It comes out very plainly as Luther taught Christ's blood outweighed sin and wrath by virtue of merit rather than Calvin's view of retributive justice where it is God collecting a punishment due that satisfies those demands. I don't mean that we hold Luther or Calvin as authorities, but just to show the difference in our views.

I have answered EVERY question asked of me by Sola Scdriptura. If I've missed one, then go ahead and ask. YOU refuse to do so regarding the one question that distinguishes PSA from Substitution/Satisfaction. I offered before and I'm offering now - "to the Word". What part of my doctrine of the atonement to you believe is not Scripture?

Then I will ask one more time (and I'm sure you'll just give me verses we agree on about penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement....but who knows....maybe you've been bit by the "honest bug"). Please provide the passage that states God punished Jesus with the punishment that the lost will receive at Judgment.

 

Which you read as an offer of salvation apart from Christ?

The whole point was that the man couldn't do this. He was not blameless under the Law. He knew the Law but was not reckoned as righteous under the Law.

There is not even one law that could impart life. Not one. Salvation is grace through faith and not of works of the law....period.

 

Here is a good explanation of my view of the atonement. It comes from Isaiah 53:

He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 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. 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. 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. 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? His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

I simply do not see a need to add to what is said here "God punished Jesus with the punishment the wicked will experience at Judgment". I don't see a need to add "God withdrew from Jesus on the cross in such a way that He experienced hell for 3 hours". I don't see the need to add a 15th century construct of retributive justice. I think Scripture sufficient.

 

Not per Scripture. Scripture tells us that it was given to show us our unrighteousness. Salvation is bringing us out of sin. Sin is violation of God's law.

Those who meet the requirement of the Law are righteous and not in need of saving. The Law tells us there are none, but it doesn't reach back towards this none to save some.

 

No, I don't want to go through the defining thing again. Let's just be very clear, please:

Yes or no: Do you believe that PSA includes the belief that God punished Jesus with what wold have been our punishment at Judgment?

 

You have misunderstood. I am saying that the purpose of the law was to increase sin and that Christ took away the charge of debt against us by having nailed it to the cross.

And no, I'm not denying that Christ suffered the punishment due mankind for sin - which is death. I absolutely affirm this. You are wrong here, yet your error may simply be a misunderstanding due to my assumption we all realized that we were discussing views within orthodox Christianity. Again, to correct your misunderstanding - I am not denying that Christ suffered death, which is the penalty of sin, on our behalf as He bore our transgressions in His flesh.

 

Nope. This thread was asking for a definition. You chimed in on my reply to Y1 (and that was his definition). I've been asking if this was your definition of PSA (if it necessitates the idea of God punishing Jesus with what would have been our punishment). You have never really answered my question.

Then I will reword it.

We both agree the Lord has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Do you believe it proper and necessary, under PSA, to add that passage the idea God punished Jesus with the punishment reserved for us because of the sins He bore on our behalf thereby satisfying the demands of the law? And if so, do you believe it also implies the addition that God separated from Jesus as a part of this punishment or judgment as we would have been separated at Judgment?

Or, to put it another way, do you understand the difference between the view (for example, held by Luther) that the atonement contained penal and substitutionary aspects in that God laid upon Christ our sins, the merit of Christ's blood outweighing sin and wrath compared with the view (Calvin, for example) that wrath was satisfied by being poured out on Christ as God punished Him with what would have been our punishment? Do you see the difference? Do you believe they are both PSA? If so, what do you call the difference (historically the first has been called Substitution, or Satisfaction, and the latter PSA....but I'm willing to deal with your definitions)?

Your post, @Martin Marprelate , goes back to the intent of this thread.

Does PSA incorporate many "theories of atonement" or is it less general in nature? You have claimed that Justin Martyr (who viewed Christ's death in terms of rescuing the human race from sin and death) and Luther (who viewed the physical death of Christ as satisfying the demands against us by outweighing sin and wrath) as being PSA. I agree that they both hold penal and substitutionary aspects (I believe this inherit in atonement).

But we also have Calvin, who believed that it was necessary that Christ descend into Hell in order to experience that punishment that was due to us. @Yeshua1 has pointed out that this could be satisfactory in nature (rather than our actual punishment) by having Christ suffer what we would have suffered in a separation from God (without diminishing His deity or breaking the Trinity) for 3 hours on the Cross.

There is a difference between Christ bearing our sins and God being wrathful to the Jesus. Where the traditional position has the Father offering the Son along the lines of Abraham offering Isaac (not punishment in terms of judicial retribution or being wrathful [what Aquinas referred to as "simple punishment"], but a "satisfactory punishment", Calvin's position (what is commonly referred to as PSA) has God punishing Jesus with a judicial punishment that was due our sins and thus satisfying the demands of the Law.

If all of these views are, as you earlier claimed, PSA then what do you call the version that holds God looked upon Christ with wrath (God was wrathful towards Christ), as a sinner, and punished Him with the punishment that was due us at Judgment? Do you believe this form of PSA, or do you reject it's additions to Scripture?

 

Yes. And both references have been provided (Calvin's argument in Institutes against an atonement apart from Christ's descent into Hell; Luther's argument of meritorious satisfaction). This is not the place to revisit old ground. I am asking you - if a man believes Christ's death satisfied the demands against us by outweighing sin and wrath through Christ's divinity and perfection instead of by God punishing Christ with our punishment, is this still PSA (regardless of who holds it)?

 

I do believe that, but not from Isaiah 53, which does not mention it specifically, but from the verses mentioned in post #114[/QUOTE]
I absolutely agree. But, like Luther, I disagree that God separated from Jesus as part of this punishment or judgment.The difference is not really the separation issue, but the type of punishment we are dealing with. When we look at Luther's view (he did not come up with it, it was a preexisting view) Jesus died bearing the sins of mankind, died taking on sinful flesh, but not as being punished by God with our punishment. There is a difference.