What are the issues with Penal Substitution Theory?

Perhaps I can help your puzzlement (I will try anyway).

Aquinas was clear (without a doubt clear based on the pains that he took to explain his "satisfactory punishment") that he considered the idea one could be punished (simple punishment) for the sins of another to be unjust.

So you are correct that Aquinas believed punishment necessary. But you are wrong that this is the same thing those who hold the Theory of Penal Substitution consider when they use the word.

I won't look it up now (it's on my computer) but if you cannot find where Aquinas discusses "simple punishment" vs. "satisfactory punishment" let me know and I can help. That said, I'm sure you are capable.

Perhaps the best example would be the RCC idea of penance. It is the same (I can't be punished for my father's sins but I can take upon myself a type of punishment in a satisfactory way for his benefit). When it comes to Aquinas simply think "divine penance".

 

Oh, and Martyr may not be relying on Acts. My opinion is that he does simply because he approaches quoting Peter's sermon and his flow of argument is identical. But, while Catholic, he was a learned Christian so perhaps you are correct.

 

@Martin Marprelate

Hey brother. I found the reference on Aquinas of which I spoke. It is found in Summa Theologiae, Article 8. I have it on kindle, but I'm sure it's also online.

This does show the difference I was speaking of earlier (how people look back and see God "punishing" Christ in one's work without considering what they are truly saying (the same rings true with every ECF when we look at the idea of God punishing Jesus to satisfy the demands of divine justice and redeem us by paying our "sin debt". But in a general sense, yes.....we all believe a doctrine that includes penal and substitution elements (and I don't object to that at all because I believe the same).

Here is Aquinas:

"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment, in so far as they are, in some way, one, as stated above (see Article 7) If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sins only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin."

So, is it fair to say that Aquinas, along with all Christians, affirms the “doctrine of penal substitution” because he believed (along with all Christians) that Christ bore our sins, purchased us with His own blood, and by his suffering we are healed

BUT

Denies the “Theory of Penal Substitution” because he taught that Christ did not suffer a “punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal”?

 

I agree that Christ is God's eternally begotten Son (and the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world).

But I also believe that the curse came about at a point in time (Genesis) just as I believe that Christ was crucified at a point in time.

Now that (quoted above) is one wild assumption. And the fact remains that they did not endorse the Theory because it had not been presented to them. Either they were stupid or the Theory isn't the "plain teaching of Scripture" because they didn't have it.

BUT I would agree that if the ECF's were products of our way of thinking then they very well may have endorsed that view had it been presented to them. The fact is, however, that we are dealing with very different worldviews - which is my entire point!!!

Those who hold the Theory of Penal Substitution that may have been endorsed by the Early Church had it been presented to the Early Church are reading into Scripture what the Early Church did not read into Scripture. Your "plain teaching of Scripture" was not "plain" to the Early Church because they did not, in fact, endorse the Theory (as you indicated - they hadn't been presented the Theory to endorse).

 

So one issue could be that the Theory of Penal Substitution is a relatively new theory. As J.I. Packer wrote, the elements were present in that the church and Scripture has always affirmed that Christ suffered at the will of the Father, bore our sins, and it was by Christ's suffering that we are "healed". @Martin Marprelate , who is no biblical slouch, also affirmed that the Early Church was not privy to the Theory (although he has no doubt that many "would have endorsed that had it been presented to them").

Where are we left? The Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement is a theory, a process of theological development that was not present throughout the history of the Church. It is not the "plain teaching of Scripture" (which is actually an insult towards any who disagree with the Theory) because, while affirming those aspects that would be systematically developed into the theory, earlier Christians did not arrive at the Theory through reading Scripture.

Does this mean the Theory is wrong? No. Antiquity does not make right. But that it took so long to be developed does mean we should be cautious. And it means that we owe it to ourselves and our faith to examine exactly why it was not developed earlier. The reason is, I believe, that they simply did not think in terms of Western philosophy. So @Martin Marprelate may be correct, and maybe (I'd even say probably) if the ECF's were a product of post-Reformation Protestant culture they may have endorsed the Theory had it been presented to them. BUT the fact is they did not have the Theory so we will never truly know.

All we can do is look at how it developed and what was different between "us and them". The Scripture is the same. The worldview is not. We have to justify what we bring into the reading.

Hopefully we will be able to try again to see how the Theory of Penal Substitution (and other theories) developed out of the doctrines that Scripture teach concerning Christ bearing our sin and the Father offering His Son as a guilt offering. I think that would be the most interesting part of the conversation.

 

Again, Brother, there is no need for insults. You have, most likely by accident I'm sure, descended to ad hominem.

If I misjudged your statement it was to your credit. I was extending to you a measure of objectivity. Here is what you said:

The truth, of course, is that many Christian's have held ideas of the Atonement contrary to the Theory of Penal Substitution. Anabaptist theology denies the Theory. All early Christian's denied the Theory (they held a different, and contrary, view of divine forgiveness). Luther technically held a position just to the left (or right) of the Theory.

The closest to the Theory is Aquinas, as you have shown by your belief he held to Penal Substitution Theory. Aquinas' position is the RCC view. So at least I hope you see why I find it difficult to follow you thoughts (Aquinas held the Theory/ Catholics reject the Theory / Aquinas was a Catholic whose ideas formed the RCC view). Any "mistakes" on my part were honest. You did not have to insult me.

I took your comments to mean that you believed many ECF's would have endorced that had it been presented to them. It was an honest comment on my part (that was how I read your words)..

You seem to be a good man and Christian, but throughout the thread the subject seems to have brought out a hatefulness in your replies. I hope one day we can explore the topic in a Christian manner, in one where a defense of a Christian theory is not based in un-christlike insults and ad hominem but an objective examination of both Scripture and the issues involved. I really do believe this could be an interesting topic.

You may object, but we are brothers in Christ. If we insult each other we insult Christ. I have strong beliefs concerning this topic as well. But I do not believe it appropriate to result to insults to "prove my point". I hope you understand my position here. "Iron sharpening iron" is the opposite of defending one's theory via insulting a one who opposes the view. For one, it invalidates your view to the other person. But more importantly, it is the opposite of the Christ-like attitude we are to have towards one another.

 

It is painfully obvious that this topic cannot be discussed in a Christ-like manner and I have no desire to be the cause of another's sin, I will go ahead and close the thread (at the request of its author - me).

The dialogue is here for others to see and evaluate. Reference are here. Ignore the insults and poor demeanor exhibited here - this is common on "hot topics" (even though it shouldn't be). Most of us have been guilty at some time or another.

If this "defense" of the Penal Substitution Theory is to continue it may on another persons thread.

Thanks to all of you who have contributed.

 

Thread is closed.