Justin Martyr and Friends - Penal Substitution Theory?

[Yeshua1]

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.

Did calvin state and hold that Jesus tasted spiritual death, and had to go to Hell and get born again, as WoF teach? I think that he really held to Jesus experiencing in full the same way sinners lost will suffer in hell due to their sins instead!

 

[JonC]

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.

Brother, I am right here. Talk with me, ignore me, but please don't talk about me (that's poor form).

I am not ignoring that the consequence of sin is death, that God laid our sins upon Him, that He bore our sins, that He was made as sinful flesh, ect. If you have a question about my view of this aspect then please don't hesitate to ask me about the verse in question.

 

[JonC]

Did calvin state and hold that Jesus tasted spiritual death, and had to go to Hell and get born again, as WoF teach? I think that he really held to Jesus experiencing in full the same way sinners lost will suffer in hell due to their sins instead!

Not get born again. Calvin taught that it was necessary that Jesus descend into Hell as this is what we would have experienced as a physical death but that Christ overcame death.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not get born again. Calvin taught that it was necessary that Jesus descend into Hell as this is what we would have experienced as a physical death but that Christ overcame death.

I disagree with him on THAT specific point!

 

[JonC]

I disagree with him on THAT specific point!

I know. It seems the more we move away from Calvin the weaker PSA becomes. What you are saying seems to be that Christ suffered in a way that satisfied the demands of God's justice against us. Rather than standing in our stead and taking the stroke meant for us, He suffered in a unique way (not the punishment we would have suffered, but something that was sufficient).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I disagree with him on THAT specific point!

'He descended into hell' goes right back to the so-called Apostles Creed. It's based on a misunderstanding of 1 Peter 3:19. Calvin should have known better.

However, I'll throw out a question for anyone who may care to answer: why did the Lord Jesus refuse the 'wine mingled with myrrh' in Mark 15:23? He took it later on (Mark 15:36; John 19:28-30) to fulfil the prophecy of Psalm 22:15.

 

[JonC]

'He descended into hell' goes right back to the so-called Apostles Creed. It's based on a misunderstanding of 1 Peter 3:19. Calvin should have known better.

However, I'll throw out a question for anyone who may care to answer: why did the Lord Jesus refuse the 'wine mingled with myrrh' in Mark 15:23? He took it later on (Mark 15:36; John 19:28-30) to fulfil the prophecy of Psalm 22:15.

It was more than this. The doctrine worked with Calvin’s theology of substitution within a judicial framework. In his Institutes he acknowledges this descent into Hell was not used in the churches but defends the importance of the doctrine to “the sum of our redemption: if it is left out, much of the benefit of Christ’s death will be lost”. This descent, to Calvin, is the expression of the spiritual torment Christ experienced vicariously for us all as we cannot be saved from a fate Christ never suffered (Calvin, Institutes, Bk 2 Ch 16).

I agree with F.F. Bruce on the “wine mingled with myrrh” issue (I don't have the reference with me, but it was in his commentary on John). It was provided to dull the senses, i.e. as a mercy to relieve agony. If this is correct, then the substance would be a temptation or a concession to the flesh (not the Father’s will but the Son’s, so to speak).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It was more than this. The doctrine worked with Calvin’s theology of substitution within a judicial framework. In his Institutes he acknowledges this descent into Hell was not used in the churches but defends the importance of the doctrine to “the sum of our redemption: if it is left out, much of the benefit of Christ’s death will be lost”. This descent, to Calvin, is the expression of the spiritual torment Christ experienced vicariously for us all as we cannot be saved from a fate Christ never suffered (Calvin, Institutes, Bk 2 Ch 16).

There's a ton of stuff I disagree with Calvin about. I'm not a Presbyterian, nor a paedobaptist and I wouldn't have burned Servitus. Calvin is right on penal substitution but wrong on Christ's descent to hell. The cross was His hell.

I agree with F.F. Bruce on the “wine mingled with myrrh” issue (I don't have the reference with me, but it was in his commentary on John). It was provided to dull the senses, i.e. as a mercy to relieve agony. If this is correct, then the substance would be a temptation or a concession to the flesh (not the Father’s will but the Son’s, so to speak).

If Christ does not have to bear the full weight of the Father's wrath against sin and sinners, why would He refuse an analgesic? No, the cup He must drink is the cup that the Father's has given Him:

'In the hand of the LORD is a cup
full of foaming wine mixed with spices;
He pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth
Drink it down to the very dregs' (Psalm 71:8).

'Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem,
You who have drunk from the hand of the LORD
The cup of His wrath,
And who have drained to its dregs
The goblet that makes men stagger' (Isaiah 51:17).

The Lord Jesus drank the cup of the Lord's wrath, and drank it down to its dregs. As our Substitute, He must suffer the righteous judgement of God against sin, and there are no analgesics in hell.

I have not forgotten that I have promised to open a new thread on the Biblical evidence for Penal Substitution. I should be able to make a start very shortly.

 

[JonC]

There's a ton of stuff I disagree with Calvin about. I'm not a Presbyterian, nor a paedobaptist and I wouldn't have burned Servitus. Calvin is right on penal substitution but wrong on Christ's descent to hell. The cross was His hell.

If Christ does not have to bear the full weight of the Father's wrath against sin and sinners, why would He refuse an analgesic? No, the cup He must drink is the cup that the Father's has given Him:

'In the hand of the LORD is a cup
full of foaming wine mixed with spices;
He pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth
Drink it down to the very dregs' (Psalm 71:8).

'Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem,
You who have drunk from the hand of the LORD
The cup of His wrath,
And who have drained to its dregs
The goblet that makes men stagger' (Isaiah 51:17).

The Lord Jesus drank the cup of the Lord's wrath, and drank it down to its dregs. As our Substitute, He must suffer the righteous judgement of God against sin, and there are no analgesics in hell.

I have not forgotten that I have promised to open a new thread on the Biblical evidence for Penal Substitution. I should be able to make a start very shortly.

I also appreciate Calvin while not holding to all of his beliefs.

In regards to Christ's refusal, He did not come to do His will but the will of the Father. We don't need to theorize as this is no different from Christ refusing to make concession for the flesh in other passages.

I understand the significance PSA may assign the verse, but the verse itself does not support the theory. That said, I look forward to discussing the passages you believe support the theory.

Until then, take care.

BTW - how did your presentation on Luther go?

 

[Yeshua1]

I know. It seems the more we move away from Calvin the weaker PSA becomes. What you are saying seems to be that Christ suffered in a way that satisfied the demands of God's justice against us. Rather than standing in our stead and taking the stroke meant for us, He suffered in a unique way (not the punishment we would have suffered, but something that was sufficient).

No, rather that Jesus experienced while upon the Cross exactly same thing that a sinner will when forced to endure the wrath of God for their own sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

'He descended into hell' goes right back to the so-called Apostles Creed. It's based on a misunderstanding of 1 Peter 3:19. Calvin should have known better.

However, I'll throw out a question for anyone who may care to answer: why did the Lord Jesus refuse the 'wine mingled with myrrh' in Mark 15:23? He took it later on (Mark 15:36; John 19:28-30) to fulfil the prophecy of Psalm 22:15.

Just shows to us that he was not an Apostle, but was still someone gifted as a theologian!

 

[Yeshua1]

There's a ton of stuff I disagree with Calvin about. I'm not a Presbyterian, nor a paedobaptist and I wouldn't have burned Servitus. Calvin is right on penal substitution but wrong on Christ's descent to hell. The cross was His hell.

If Christ does not have to bear the full weight of the Father's wrath against sin and sinners, why would He refuse an analgesic? No, the cup He must drink is the cup that the Father's has given Him:

'In the hand of the LORD is a cup
full of foaming wine mixed with spices;
He pours it out, and all the wicked of the earth
Drink it down to the very dregs' (Psalm 71:8).

'Awake, awake! Rise up, O Jerusalem,
You who have drunk from the hand of the LORD
The cup of His wrath,
And who have drained to its dregs
The goblet that makes men stagger' (Isaiah 51:17).

The Lord Jesus drank the cup of the Lord's wrath, and drank it down to its dregs. As our Substitute, He must suffer the righteous judgement of God against sin, and there are no analgesics in hell.

I have not forgotten that I have promised to open a new thread on the Biblical evidence for Penal Substitution. I should be able to make a start very shortly.

There is much that happened on the Cross that we will not really understand this side of eternity, as we cannot grasp just what Jesus suffered in our stead fully, as he was sinless and also God! Also, we cannot fathom just what it meant for the Trinity to have to endure separation and judgement upon the Son Himself!

 

[JonC]

No, rather that Jesus experienced while upon the Cross exactly same thing that a sinner will when forced to endure the wrath of God for their own sins!

Exactly the same thing? You mean Hell (the "second death", damnation, spiritual death) as this is what they will experience.

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly the same thing? You mean Hell (the "second death", damnation, spiritual death) as this is what they will experience.

That is the great mystery, as He who is sinless and is also God would experience the same wrath and separation from the father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgement.

 

[JonC]

That is the great mystery, as He who is sinless and is also God would experience the same wrath and separation from the father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgement.

It is only a mystery to you because you believe it yet cannot find one place in Scripture stating that Jesus experienced the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment. The mystery will go away when you stick to Scripture alone as your authority, but so also will that doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is only a mystery to you because you believe it yet cannot find one place in Scripture stating that Jesus experienced the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment. The mystery will go away when you stick to Scripture alone as your authority, but so also will that doctrine.

That doctrine though is taught in the scriptures!

 

[JonC]

That doctrine though is taught in the scriptures!

Provide a verse stating that Jesus experienced "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment".

 

[Yeshua1]

Provide a verse stating that Jesus experienced "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment".

Jesus was not just quoting the scripture while he experienced separation for a time while bearing the wrath of God for our sins!

 

[JonC]

Jesus was not just quoting the scripture while he experienced separation for a time while bearing the wrath of God for our sins!

I agree. He was fulfilling Scripture. The passage you find inapplicable prophesied the Cross.

And this doesn't change the fact you have failed to provide a passage stating that Jesus experienced "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment".

Back to the OP - the type of substitution you are referring to (God punishing Jesus with "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment" )was foreign to Christianity until Calvin's articulation. None of the early church writings, that we know of, presents this type of framework to the Atonement. That said, your entire soteriological view hinges on this relatively new theory. If it is this important, it seems that at one passage would plainly state what you believe to be true.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. He was fulfilling Scripture. The passage you find inapplicable prophesied the Cross.

And this doesn't change the fact you have failed to provide a passage stating that Jesus experienced "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment".

Back to the OP - the type of substitution you are referring to (God punishing Jesus with "the same wrath and separation from the Father while upon the Cross as lost sinners will in the final judgment" )was foreign to Christianity until Calvin's articulation. None of the early church writings, that we know of, presents this type of framework to the Atonement. That said, your entire soteriological view hinges on this relatively new theory. If it is this important, it seems that at one passage would plainly state what you believe to be true.

Isaiah 53 Plainly does do that!