What is Penal Substitution Atonement

[JonC]

Thanks, but can you point me to the post where you quote Calvin taking issue with what Luther wrote, please? That will be very helpful. There's no need to quote in full; just point me to the post number. Thanks!

"I grant that what they put forward concerning the meaning of the word is true: "hell" is frequently to be understood as "grave." But two reasons militate against their opinion, and readily persuade me to disagree with them. How careless it would have been, when something not at all difficult in itself has been stated with clear and easy words, to indicate it again in words that obscure rather than clarify it! Whenever two expressions for the same thing are used in the same context, the latter ought to be an explanation of the former. But what sort of explanation will it be if one says that "Christ was buried" means that "he descended into hell"? Secondly, it is not likely that a useless repetition of this sort could have crept into this summary, which the chief points of our faith are aptly noted in the fewest possible words. I have no doubt that all who have weighed this matter with some care will readily agree with me.....But we must seek a surer explanation, apart from the Creed, of Christ’s descent into hell. The explanation given to us in God’s Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation. If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No — it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death." (Calvin, Institutes)

Can you discern the difference between Calvin's doctrine and Luther's?

 

[The Biblicist]

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.......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.

Now, unless you are playing word games, you are asserting that the atonement was "penal" and that Christ suffered the one and only sentence for sin which is "death" and "on our behalf" thus penal substitutionary atonement! Unless you are playing word games that is what your words seem to be conveying. Correct!

Are you playing some kind of word game on the word "death"? spiritual and physical death are merely beginning stages of eternal death. Are you attempting to dissect death and claim that Christ suffered simply the physical aspect on the cross? If so, then he did not suffer death in its biblical sense or in any satisfying sense of its Biblical meaning or application to us as a penalty.

 

[JonC]

Now, unless you are playing word games, you are asserting that the atonement was "penal" and that Christ suffered the one and only sentence for sin which is "death" and "on our behalf" thus penal substitutionary atonement! Unless you are playing word games that is what your words seem to be conveying. Correct!

Are you playing some kind of word game on the word "death"? spiritual and physical death are merely beginning stages of eternal death. Are you attempting to dissect death and claim that Christ suffered simply the physical aspect on the cross? If so, then he did not suffer death in its biblical sense or in any satisfying sense of its Biblical meaning or application to us as a penalty.

No. I am speaking of satisfactory punishment (Christ bearing our sins) rather than retributive punishment (God being wrathful towards Christ). This is the difference in our positions - not types of death but sufficiency of the Cross (what made Christ's sacrifice sufficient).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So you have no quotation where calvin actually takes issue with Luther on this question. Thank you for almost admitting this.
Let's look at what they wrote:

For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree: but because, according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are all sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon a cross; therefore it behoveth Him that He should become a transgressor, and (As Isaiah saith) "be reckoned with the transgressors."'

If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No — it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death."

Bear in mind that Luther was not writing a systematic theology, he was commenting on Galatians 3:13. He had no reason to dwell at huge length on the question of PSA. Grant that and the two quotes sit together quite well. Calvin adds some details, but they are not opposed to what Luther writes; they just add more details. But both agree that Christ was made "Guilty of death and everlasting damnation" and that He must suffer the penalty due to malefactors.

 

[JonC]

So you have no quotation where calvin actually takes issue with Luther on this question. Thank you for almost admitting this.
Let's look at what they wrote:

Bear in mind that Luther was not writing a systematic theology, he was commenting on Galatians 3:13. He had no reason to dwell at huge length on the question of PSA. Grant that and the two quotes sit together quite well. Calvin adds some details, but they are not opposed to what Luther writes; they just add more details. But both agree that Christ was made "Guilty of death and everlasting damnation" and that He must suffer the penalty due to malefactors.

If you truly cannot discern the difference between Luther and Calvin then you have far greater issues than our disagreement here.

Yes, look at what they wrote. Look at the perspectives. Look at what each is saying. Examine how Luther believed Christ satisfied the demands of sin and wrath. Examine how Calvin viewed Christ as our propitiation.

If you cannot understand the difference between the two then I believe it is because you are blinded by your own theological biases. To borrow from Spurgeon, like Horatio Nelson you put the telescope to the blind eye and complain you can't see.

And this is sad because each (Luther and Calvin) have so much to offer - even in areas where they disagreed.

 

[JonC]

So you have no quotation where calvin actually takes issue with Luther on this question. Thank you for almost admitting this.
Let's look at what they wrote:

Bear in mind that Luther was not writing a systematic theology, he was commenting on Galatians 3:13. He had no reason to dwell at huge length on the question of PSA. Grant that and the two quotes sit together quite well. Calvin adds some details, but they are not opposed to what Luther writes; they just add more details. But both agree that Christ was made "Guilty of death and everlasting damnation" and that He must suffer the penalty due to malefactors.

On second thought, I'm just going to leave it like this -

If you think Luther believed Christ suffered retributive punishment then you have not read Luther.
If you think Calvin did not believe Christ suffered retributive punishment then you have not read Calvin.
If you believe the distinction to be without a difference, then you have no ground to criticize my position.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On second thought, I'm just going to leave it like this -

If you think Luther believed Christ suffered retributive punishment then you have not read Luther.
If you think Calvin did not believe Christ suffered retributive punishment then you have not read Calvin.

I'm quite happy to let people here make up their own minds. Here's the Luther quote again:

'For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree: but because, according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are all sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon a cross; therefore it behoveth Him that He should become a transgressor, and (As Isaiah saith) "be reckoned with the transgressors."'

Penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

I'm quite happy to let people here make up their own minds. Here's the Luther quote again:

'For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree: but because, according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are all sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon a cross; therefore it behoveth Him that He should become a transgressor, and (As Isaiah saith) "be reckoned with the transgressors."'

Penal substitution.

There is a little dishonesty in your post, but I'm not sure it is intentional (I'm actually not sure you even grasp the distinction to which I'm referring).

You could have done much better in your choice, brother, if you wanted to highlight the penal substitutionary aspects of Luther's view (from the same commentary):

“But because he beareth the sins of the world, his innocence is burdened with the sins and guilt of the whole world. Whatsoever sins I, thou, and we all have done, or shall hereafter, they are Christ’s own sins as verily as if he himself had done them….In these Psalms [41,69] the Holy Ghost speaketh in the person of Christ, and in plain words witnesseth that he had sins. For this testimony is not the voice of an innocent, but of a suffering Christ, which took upon him to bear the person of all sinners, and therefore was made guilty of the sins of the whole world.”

And “To this all the Scripture beareth witness; and we also do confess the same in the articles of the Christian belief, when we say: ‘I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, which suffered, was crucified and died for us.’”

And “Jesus Christ the Son of God died upon the cross, did bear in his body my sin, the law, death, the devil and hell.”

I have never denied this, nor have I said that Luther denied this (as I've affirmed for you on at least several dozen occasions). And this is absolutely penal and it is absolutely substitution. But it is not the retributive punishment Calvin presents in his Institutions. This thread was exploring what is, and what is not, PSA.

And this is my question. Does PSA necessitate the contextual framework of retributive justice (the punishment not being a satisfaction punishment but a retributive punishment)? Is the view (Luther's view) that satisfaction is made on the basis of Christ outweighing by merit (by virtue of his divine nature bearing the sins of the world) the eternal punishment due mankind enough to be considered PSA or does one have to hold to a more specific view (Calvin’s articulation) that satisfaction is the result of retributive punishment poured out on Christ? If it is enough, if it is as @Martin Marprelate presents - a difference without distinction, then is there a name for the more specific PSA that holds God punished Jesus with our punishment (within a context of retributive justice)?

 

[The Biblicist]

No. I am speaking of satisfactory punishment (Christ bearing our sins) rather than retributive punishment (God being wrathful towards Christ). This is the difference in our positions - not types of death but sufficiency of the Cross (what made Christ's sacrifice sufficient).

So it is word games - words empty of their true meaning! Your view is oxymoronic for several good solid reasons. It is absurd to speak about "satisfactory punishment" when the Law prescribes only one kind of punishment that satisfies justice - death in its biblical sense and meaning you deny Christ sufffered. It is equally absurd to speak of "retributive" punishment when the ONLY legally defined punishment is "death." Death in its Biblical sense and meaning is the ONLY satisfaction possible.There are no options as demanded by your view. Third, the wrath of God is against sinners and the substitute for sinners must be personally sinless to qualify in their behalf and yet at the same time be the legal object of God's wrath or else he is no substitution atonement at all. You deny he was legally made to be sin thus your view is just another false doctrine as your view logically repudiates any kind of just and Biblical view of atonement.

I am through with this discussion. I think the readers will be able to discern what is true and false.

 

[JonC]

So it is word games - words empty of their true meaning! Your view is oxymoronic for several good solid reasons. It is absurd to speak about "satisfactory punishment" when the Law prescribes only one kind of punishment that satisfies justice - death in its biblical sense and meaning. Second, the wrath of God is against sinners and the substitute for sinners must be personally sinless to qualify in their behalf and yet at the same time be the legal object of God's wrath or else he is no substitution at all.

Last, your words are nothing but contradictions as illustrated below:

No,those are real terms (which I am actually surprised you have no encountered until now). For Luther the punishment was "medicinal", for Aquinas it was "satisfaction punishment", and for Calvin it was "retributive punishment".

A "punishment" can be retributive, but it can also be a penalty, and it can simply mean a rough treatment. Under the context of judicial retribution it does means retributive punishment. But your inability to grasp other meanings to the term serves to illustrate what I mean by being driven by your own presuppositions and theological leanings.

 

[The Biblicist]

No,those are real terms (which I am actually surprised you have never encountered until now). For Luther the punishment was "medicinal", for Aquinas it was "satisfaction punishment", and for Calvin it was "retributive punishment".

A "punishment" can be retributive, but it can also be a penalty, and it can simply mean a rough treatment. Under the context of judicial retribution it does means retributive punishment. But your inability to grasp other meanings to the term serves to illustrate what I mean by being driven by your own presuppositions and theological leanings.

The basis for death is JUSTICE or due to LAW. It is not retributive as in revenge. It is a "penalty" for violation of LAW! It is not "medicinal" as that is absurd. Justice equals satisfaction. You are so caught up in traditions that you can't see the forest for the tree of tradition squarely up against your nose.

 

[JonC]

The basis for death is JUSTICE or due to LAW. It is not retributive as in revenge. It is a "penalty" for violation of LAW! It is not "medicinal" as that is absurd. Justice equals satisfaction. You are so caught up in traditions that you can't see the forest for the tree of tradition squarely up against your nose.

You are caught up in the same tradition I was caught up in for decades. The issue is not the penalty of the law but the satisfaction rendered. You can't see past the law and to the nature of Christ on this point. The penalty is death, and Christ paid that penalty.

 

[The Biblicist]

TO THE READERS:

False doctrines are usually the consequence of the failure to properly interpret the scriptures. That involves the proper understanding and defining of Biblical terms. The issue in this debate is about SATISFACTION for sin. Any kind of theory about "satisfaction" that does not equal JUSTICE is a false theory. At minimum SATISFACTION must equal JUSTICE and JUSTICE must equal the Legal penalty as defined by law. Here is where Jon's view, Luther's view and Christus Victorius view all fail.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are caught up in the same tradition I was caught up in for decades. The issue is not the penalty of the law but the satisfaction rendered. You can't see past the law and to the nature of Christ on this point.

Any view that fails to meet the Justice required by Law is anti-christ as Christ is the author of the Law.

 

[JonC]

TO THE READERS:

False doctrines are usually the consequence of the failure to properly interpret the scriptures. That involves the proper understanding and defining of Biblical terms. The issue in this debate is about SATISFACTION for sin. Any kind of theory about "satisfaction" that does not equal JUSTICE is a false theory. At minimum SATISFACTION must equal JUSTICE and JUSTICE must equal the Legal penalty as defined by law. Here is where Jon's view, Luther's view and Christus Victorius view all fail.

The argument is whether we are saved by the blood of Christ in terms of His Person, Holiness, Divinity and obedience or in terms of retributive punishment inflicted. Are we justified by Christ or by the Law through Him?

@The Biblicist 's remarks reflect tradition influencing interpretation as he elevates divine justice not as descriptive of God but prescriptive, enslaving God and elevating man. And I find it difficult to see his version of PSA as anything but idolatry.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Law and Grace are not enemies. The author of Grace is the same author of Law and He is not the author of confusion. Those who pit law against grace are simply confused. Those who pit God (Christ) against law are confused. The whole Law with regard to PRINCIPLE is inseparable from the nature of God as that principle is "love" and God "IS LOVE."

To claim that the LAW GIVER would define sufficiency with regard to the Law's penalty for sin as something less than equal to JUSTICE is oxymoronic as it makes God the author of confusion. JUSTICE can only be defined by LAW or else we are speaking of something different than JUSTICE as justice has no meaning, no relevancy apart from LAW. Sin is defined by Law (1 Jn. 3:6) and so is the JUST consequences of sin. Satisfaction is a meaningless term in God's Word if it is defined or interpreted anything LESS than equal to JUSTICE. Where there is no JUSTICE served there is no atonement at all.

 

[The Biblicist]

The argument is whether we are saved by the blood of Christ in terms of His Person, Holiness, Divinity and obedience or in terms of retributive punishment inflicted. Are we justified by Christ or by the Law through Him?

This is an absolute false dichotomy! The very term "blood" demands DEATH according to JUSTICE due to sin. Christ's obedience alone saves NNE! An atonement consisting of only Christ's obedience is no atonement. Atonement demands LEGAL SATISFACTION against sin. Jon's view repudiates "LEGAL" satisfaction for some kind of non-biblical satisfaction. The mere righteousness of Christ saves no one but that is the essence of his view. It leads to a false gospel "another gospel" as it repudiates the LEGAL satisfaction essential for Biblical substitutionary atonement. Substitution is meaningless, unless the substitute is both RIGHTEOUS and LEGALLY accountable for the consequences of sin. Jon's view repudiates any Biblical atonement.

 

[The Biblicist]

If Jon's view were correct, what we should have in Old Testament Typology is just the presentation of a lamb without spot or blemish as a LIVING sacrifice! Death should not be a factor if satisfaction is based solely upon the righteous Person and works of Christ. His view makes death unnecessary other than just to fulfill a type as his definition of satisfaction is based upon righteousness and the person of Christ. His view repudiates that Christ suffered death as sinners suffer death and therefore repudiates Christ's death was really substitutionary as there is no substitution for death in his view, that is, for death as defined in Scripture or suffered by sinners.

 

[JonC]

The Law and Grace are not enemies. The author of Grace is the same author of Law and He is not the author of confusion. Those who pit law against grace are simply confused. Those who pit God (Christ) against law are confused. The whole Law with regard to PRINCIPLE is inseparable from the nature of God as that principle is "love" and God "IS LOVE."

To claim that the LAW GIVER would define sufficiency with regard to the Law's penalty for sin as something less than equal to JUSTICE is oxymoronic as it makes God the author of confusion. JUSTICE can only be defined by LAW or else we are speaking of something different than JUSTICE as justice has no meaning, no relevancy apart from LAW. Sin is defined by Law (1 Jn. 3:6) and so is the JUST consequences of sin. Satisfaction is a meaningless term in God's Word if it is defined or interpreted anything LESS than equal to JUSTICE. Where there is no JUSTICE served there is no atonement at all.

My complaint is that you find Christ's suffering and death insufficient except it take the form of retributive punishment. You also ignore the nature of a covenant and this significance in Christ's death.

Ultimately, I do believe you hold on to an essential aspect of the atonement (although it may appear I argue against it). But your doctrine is skewed because you have flattened the Atonement, simplified and compressed it into a singular aspect and placed that idea into a judicial framework foreign to the biblical description of divine justice.

 

[JonC]

If Jon's view were correct, what we should have in Old Testament Typology is just the presentation of a lamb without spot or blemish as a LIVING sacrifice! Death should not be a factor if satisfaction is based solely upon the righteous Person and works of Christ. His view makes death unnecessary other than just to fulfill a type as his definition of satisfaction is based upon righteousness and the person of Christ. His view repudiates that Christ suffered death as sinners suffer death and therefore repudiates Christ's death was really substitutionary as there is no substitution for death in his view as death is defined in Scripture or suffered by sinners.

Don't be foolish. I never denied Christ's death. I am saying Christ is sufficient (a point you keep denying).

It is one thing to rest in the sufficiency of Christ, another to merely view him as being punished sufficiency or sufficient enough to take our punishment.