Featured Penal Substitution - Did Jesus Experience Our Punishment?

I can't always follow it either...Frown

And, Icon, I know that we don't agree on everything. For one, our view of covenants are not the same. But I do want you to know that I appreciate your insight. You, along with several others, have helped me work through things over the past decade.

Oh...another thought that goes along with this is that we focus so much on Christ's death in atonement, I wonder how much we focus on the Incarnation as a whole (perhaps "it is finished" also has as much if not more to do with reconciliation than a payment rendered). Just a thought. Something in agedman's comments made me think in those terms. That and I've been reading a bit more of Demonstratio Evangelica. I am growing to appreciate the focus Eusebius has on Christ's work as a whole in the work of redemption.

 

Brother, there are some issues with your comments here and I just want to address in an overview fashion instead as you are right that this is on another thread.

When the Early Church Fathers spoke of a "ransom sacrifice" or even a "ransom paid," this did not automatically mean a ransom paid to Satan. In its basic form, it is a ransom payment in terms of being an exchange for us (with the Early Church Fathers, an exchange specifically to purchase us from the bondage of sin). Origen taught it was paid to the Devil. Some taught it was paid to "death." Cyril thought it was paid to God. Others, however, left it as a purchase without an object receiving payment. You are making the mistake of taking the views of these people and analyzing them within a Reformed context (as you indicate, you are a child of the reformation with a an inclination to accept the explanations of Reformers and Puritans). This does not work when looking into the views of people outside your theological framework. You end up, as you have, placing their words in your own context.
I also reject Aquinas' position. If you will recall, it was Anselm who objected to the view a ransom had been paid to the devil (although this is not "ransom theory," it is A "ransom theory"). Aquinas worked off of Anselm's satisfaction theory and refined it by essentially replacing "honor" with "merit." He developed some theories and added some doctrines that Calvin maintained when he ultimately reformed Aquinas' theory.

But just to be clear. You are saying that God must, because of divine justice, demand and receive payment in full before he is able to forgive sin. Forgiveness with retribution is unjust. And we are to forgive as we have been forgiven. Do you realize that nowhere in scripture is this stated. Like most of your assertions on this thread, you are leaning on explanation and not scripture.

Just to be clear from the other thread. You are saying that on the cross Jesus took our punishment. He died the "second death," was "separated from God," was "spiritually dead," on our behalf. The Father viewed his Son as evil (for he has too pure eyes to look on evil) and punished him. Jesus experienced our punishment - the second death, i.e., an eternal state of torment as death and Hades is cast into Hell at the final judgment.

Just to be clear. You are saying that it would be unjust for God to punish the righteous (after all Scripture calls this an "abomination to God") so God imputed our sin on Jesus so that he could punish him in our stead.

And just to be clear, you sincerely see no reliance on your own (or Reformed/Puritan) reasoning and explanation, but you think that the Bible actually says these things. You don't see any problems with your position insofar as it denies other passages (i.e., the divinity of Christ, the immutability of God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.).

And just to be clear, you expect me to believe that when questioned you go to Scripture rather than commentary?

 

I do agree with you that not all church fathers who held to ransom theology believed that this was a ransom paid to Satan, if that is what you are speaking of. I disagree with you that this theory (or at least the movement from a moral influence aspect to a focus on Christ as a ransom sacrifice) originated with Origen. Many of these aspects coexisted as each spoke truth of the atonement, but emphasized different aspects. You have to remember, Cyril and Clement also held to ransom theory, but they did not believe that this was ransom paid to Satan. The difference that is important here is not where they differed, but that none of them held the view that on the cross God punished Jesus with the “second death.” Anyway, my “history lesson” was just to correct your idea of why exactly I had used Aquinas as an example.

Yes, hence the atonement and not penal substitution. You do realize that your view is placing Divine Justice as the overriding attribute and principle of God’s work, don’t you? Yet you still violate that justice by insisting that God punished Jesus unjustly, or that God punished Jesus only after making him “guilty” by imputing our sin onto him (PST), or that God punished the Righteous for the wicked. This is all an abomination. So how does the bible actually remedy the situation? It doesn’t, that’s a false situation to begin with because the Father offered the Son as a guilt offering, not a substitute to receive our punishment.

Your statement that Jesus died spiritually, experienced the second death and was separated from God testifies to the fact that you have to (at least for logic’s sake) believe that at the very least God considered Jesus to be evil (he treated him as if he had sinned). This, brother, is heresy purified by reasoning, not Scripture.

You just told me one who condemns the just is an abomination to God. The second death is the final judgment for the condemned, not the righteous. And you have told me that the Father punished the Son with our punishment which is the second death. Are you saying, then, that the Father punished the Just (and is therefore guilty)…or are you saying that the Father acted justly (and Jesus was therefore wicked)? The solution, my friend, is not found in penal substitution. God is both Just and the Justifier not because he created a situation where he could punish the righteous for sins uncommitted, but because of the self-sacrificial love through which He bore our sins and redeemed us - because that price was not experiencing our punishment and the second death but it was the precious blood of Jesus Christ - the blood of God. You don't need more than that, brother. You don't have to add more to that text to reason it out.

Now , I know that many deny that Jesus experienced death for us as God. This seems a difficult (I really don't know why) topic, and many Reformed theologians deny this is possible because God can't die. (to be fair, this was determined long before the reformation, but it is an important part of reformed theology). The immutability of God that prevents him from actually being angry (as Calvin explains, God's "anger" is merely how we understand because God does not actually get angry....that would be us controlling God) also prevents him from suffering and dying. The Atonement was a payment, a business transaction, pure and simple. I don't know if you accept all of that cognitively, but your theology of the Cross does.

Bottom line is that you can’t have it both ways, brother. At least penal substitution theory is clear about imputed sin (I have to give them that), but you are not. You can’t say, BTW, that God punished sin because that makes absolutely no sense. Sins are manifestations of our sinfulness (which I believe Christ bore in the flesh in order to reconcile man to himself). But to say, for illustration, that God punished that time I lied by condemning Jesus to Hell (the second death) is jumping through metaphysical hoops to hold on to a theory that is contrary not only to the historical view, not only to the contemporary majority view (depending, of course, on who you’d consider “Christian”), but it is contrary to Scripture.

Instead of crossing two threads, why not just continue this on your thread?

 

Martin has brought it to my attention that I've falsely accused him of believing that God looked upon Jesus as sin/evil. The issue is that I attributed to him as holding the doctrine of imputed sin, that the Father imputed our sin on Jesus (and his righteousness on us) and considered Jesus to be sin for us. Martin is right, and I do sincerely apologize. This was not an intentional mistake.

I am trying to work through this issue for my benefit, exploring your comments, and refining my own. During this time I assumed that Martin held to penal substitution theory (specifically Reformed penal substitution theory) as a whole. I do not like it when people make assumptions regarding my beliefs, and I understand his issue with the assumptions that I have made. Sometimes we make connections that are not always there. Anyway, I am sorry, Martin, for the error on my part.

 

Brother, I do not know why you believe my intent so evil. I am starting to suspect this a defense, but will afford you the benefit of the doubt.

To be clear - the reason for the accusation against me is that Martin believes I have somehow denied that he holds to the Reformed Penal Substitution Theory because of my comments earlier (my apology).

I apologized for assuming that Martin believed that the Father imputed our sin on Jesus and viewed the Son as guilty (as sin) and then punished Jesus in our stead. I commented that believe this scheme is present in Reformed Penal Substitution Theory. Now Martin has brought it to my attention that he feels slighted as I have implied he does not hold to Penal Substitution Theory when indeed it is a theory he holds dear and essential.

What Martin, and maybe others, may need to understand is that these theories carry with them a spectrum of belief. Origen, Justin Martyr, Cyril, and Augustine shared a theory to a great extent, but none of them believed exactly the same. We should not get caught up in claiming a name for our individual theories - they may be less descriptive than we think.

I do sincerely apologize if Martin felt slighted by my words. I did not mean anything negative by them at all. I do not doubt that Martin holds to a penal substitution view, I don't even doubt he is of Reformed persuasion (Reformed meaning of the Reformation, remember PST was John Wesley's staunch position as well).

To avoid a future misunderstanding - I do not know, when I speak of Reformed, that Martin is "Calvinistic." I did not mean "reformed" in that way.

But no, Martin, I do not question that you hold to Penal Substitution theory and I apologize if you understood my comments to indicate otherwise.

 

I do disagree with you, and hopefully when you return you will be willing to engage via Scripture those texts.
I would not call you a fool. Insofar as ignorance, I suppose we are all ignorant to some things and in certain areas. I am ignorant as to how you would defend your view via scripture, for example. But that's why we engage in these dialogues.

And again, I apologize if you feel I made a false allegation. I admit I did when I assumed you held to imputed sin, but I am not certain that I spoke falsely regarding that doctrine being a part of PST (although I grant there are variants of views). Still, I apologize if that has offended you.

I am, brother, retired military. Sometimes I do not realize the emotional inferences some can take from this type of dialogue. For the future, it may help to know that I typically try to deal just with doctrines and scripture on these types of issues. I do not mean anything to be directed at another person personally, unless it's specifically indicated, as I don't even know you. I do not mean any of our conversations to be outside the scope of Christian brotherly love.