Confusion on just what is PSA

[JonC]

I would have put this in another thread (I thought @Rebel1 might be interested and wanted to respond with it) but the thread was closed.

It's an older article, but one where both Presbyterians and Baptists took issue with "In Christ Alone" (the worship song) because it contains the words "the wrath of God was satisfied".

This serves to show the difference between what apparently has become PSA in the minds of some and what was PSA.

Some Baptists objected to the idea that God's wrath was poured out on sinners and changed the words. Others objected to changing the words because they affirmed the PSA taught in the song.

But the Presbyterians objected because the words "the wrath of God was satisfied" speaks of Satisfaction Theory and not Penal Substitution Theory. The difference is that Satisfaction/Substitution holds Christ as our substitute satisfying the demands against us (what Luther believed) and not necessarily meeting the exact demands upon us (what Calvin believed).

This is why I've been complaining that Baptists seem to be moving away from specific doctrine and towards a more general definition.....of just about everything. I don't necessarily agree with either view, but it is disheartening that so many can't even distinguish between what was in the past hotly debated.

'Wrath of God' Keeps Popular Worship Song Out of 10,000-Plus Churches

 

[Rebel1]

I would have put this in another thread (I thought @Rebel1 might be interested and wanted to respond with it) but the thread was closed.

It's an older article, but one where both Presbyterians and Baptists took issue with "In Christ Alone" (the worship song) because it contains the words "the wrath of God was satisfied".

This serves to show the difference between what apparently has become PSA in the minds of some and what was PSA.

Some Baptists objected to the idea that God's wrath was poured out on sinners and changed the words. Others objected to changing the words because they affirmed the PSA taught in the song.

But the Presbyterians objected because the words "the wrath of God was satisfied" speaks of Satisfaction Theory and not Penal Substitution Theory. The difference is that Satisfaction/Substitution holds Christ as our substitute satisfying the demands against us (what Luther believed) and not necessarily meeting the exact demands upon us (what Calvin believed).

This is why I've been complaining that Baptists seem to be moving away from specific doctrine and towards a more general definition.....of just about everything. I don't necessarily agree with either view, but it is disheartening that so many can't even distinguish between what was in the past hotly debated.

'Wrath of God' Keeps Popular Worship Song Out of 10,000-Plus Churches

Thanks for this!

 

[agedman]

Even when the recent threads showed the wrath satisfied, some insist that retribution was still necessary.

There is no retribution if there is satisfaction. Satisfaction does not demand retribution, nor does retribution bring satisfaction.



There is no condemnation if there is reconciliation.


Why then are unbelievers condemned?

Not because the need to satisfy some measure of wrath, for that would make the Lake of Fire a place of redemption.

Unbelievers are condemned because THEY never became reconciled to God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So thats why we never sing it! Thanks for explaining it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Like the Prostate test? Oh thanks for reminding me, its checkup time.

 

[Yeshua1]

Even when the recent threads showed the wrath satisfied, some insist that retribution was still necessary.

There is no retribution if there is satisfaction. Satisfaction does not demand retribution, nor does retribution bring satisfaction.



There is no condemnation if there is reconciliation.


Why then are unbelievers condemned?

Not because the need to satisfy some measure of wrath, for that would make the Lake of Fire a place of redemption.

Unbelievers are condemned because THEY never became reconciled to God.

There is wrath of God to be appeased still, and who gets to handle that, you or the messiah who died in your place?

 

[Yeshua1]

Even when the recent threads showed the wrath satisfied, some insist that retribution was still necessary.

There is no retribution if there is satisfaction. Satisfaction does not demand retribution, nor does retribution bring satisfaction.



There is no condemnation if there is reconciliation.


Why then are unbelievers condemned?

Not because the need to satisfy some measure of wrath, for that would make the Lake of Fire a place of redemption.

Unbelievers are condemned because THEY never became reconciled to God.

The lost have already been condemned, for all of us are guilty in Adam before Holy God, and God still has to propitiate His stored up wrath towards sins, so How can death of Jesus do that if he did not suffer our punishment?
Jesus being blameless and sinless loows Him to die in my stead, but he still needs to face what I would before judged and condemned for sins to have it completed!

 

[agedman]

There is wrath of God to be appeased still, and who gets to handle that, you or the messiah who died in your place?

What, the work of the cross was not sufficient?

God was not pleased?

You are in some manner obligated to do what Christ could not?

What "wrath of God" is still needing to be appeased?

What Scriptures do you declare as proof?

 

[agedman]

The lost have already been condemned, for all of us are guilty in Adam before Holy God, and God still has to propitiate His stored up wrath towards sins, so How can death of Jesus do that if he did not suffer our punishment?
Jesus being blameless and sinless loows Him to die in my stead, but he still needs to face what I would before judged and condemned for sins to have it completed!

What scriptures do you present to support this view?

What Scriptures state that God had to propitiate His stored up wrath toward sins?

Is God actually then controlled by what is or is not "propitiated?"

Where is the Scriptures that support that Christ had to receive retribution?

 

[Yeshua1]

What, the work of the cross was not sufficient?

God was not pleased?

You are in some manner obligated to do what Christ could not?

What "wrath of God" is still needing to be appeased?

What Scriptures do you declare as proof?

God wrath is to be seen the book of revelations against sinners, correct?
And in the GWT judgement, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

What scriptures do you present to support this view?

What Scriptures state that God had to propitiate His stored up wrath toward sins?

Is God actually then controlled by what is or is not "propitiated?"

Where is the Scriptures that support that Christ had to receive retribution?

Sinners are to receive the wrath of god for their violation of His Holy Law, and jesus on the Cross was the One who bore their sins and thus their judgement/punishment!

 

[agedman]

God wrath is to be seen the book of revelations against sinners, correct?
And in the GWT judgement, correct?

You are referring to Revelation 16.

 

[agedman]

Sinners are to receive the wrath of god for their violation of His Holy Law, and jesus on the Cross was the One who bore their sins and thus their judgement/punishment!

If I take the truth of your statement, then I must assume that the crucifixion was in some manner deficient.

For does not the Scripture state that:

ALL have sinned?

Everyone has turned away?

There is none righteous?​

So, then the crucifixion must be deficient for God to still have some unresolved issues.

 

[JonC]

Sinners are to receive the wrath of god for their violation of His Holy Law, and jesus on the Cross was the One who bore their sins and thus their judgement/punishment!

Do you understand why the Calvinists (the Presbyterians) rejected the wording "God's wrath to satisfy" for denying PSA? Do you see the irony that other Calvinists (the Baptists) hold the exact same words as being PSA?

What do you think of the words - "God's wrath to satisfy"? Do you believe those words express the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement? If so, then how do you separate the Satisfaction Theory (which holds that Christ died to satisfy God's wrath against mankind) from the Penal Substitution Theory?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

But the Presbyterians objected because the words "the wrath of God was satisfied" speaks of Satisfaction Theory and not Penal Substitution Theory. The difference is that Satisfaction/Substitution holds Christ as our substitute satisfying the demands against us (what Luther believed) and not necessarily meeting the exact demands upon us (what Calvin believed).

There seems to be some confusion over the term 'satisfaction.' We need to understand that the term is understood by different people in different ways.

To state the blindingly obvious, Anselm (1033-1109), who originated 'Satisfaction Theory' in his book Cur Deus Homo? was a Roman Catholic and a sacramentalist. Anselm believed that human sin has outraged God's honour and majesty. Sin is infinitely serious; so a just satisfaction to God would have to be infinite in value. Therefore Christ Jesus came to earth to live a life of sinless perfection and on the cross offered to God the Father an infinite satisfaction for the outrage of sin.

However, Anselm's theory falls short because although it taught that Christ offered satisfaction for God's outraged majesty etc., He did not suffer the punishment of sin. This, Anselm believed, still had to be expiated by the believer through the sacarments or in Purgatory. Luther would have been familiar with Anselm's theory, but it brought him no peace because it did not seem to meet his need to be right with God. When Luther came to his discovery that the 'Righteousness of God' means the righteousness God supplies to sinners, he also realised that Christ on the cross had satisfied God', not only concerning His outraged honour, but also His outraged justice; that Christ had indeed propitiated God's wrath by Himself paying the penalty due to us. This is absolutely clear in Luther's commentary on Galatians, especially in his extended comments on 3:13. But Luther and many of the Reformers who came after him did not stop using the word 'satisfaction' to describe Christ's atoning work, though they meant something quite different to what Anselm had meant.

Here is A.W. Pink explaining why he used the term Satisfaction of Christ rather than 'Atonement.' He is discussing the O.T. sacifices:

"Just as the sins of the offerer were imputed to the victim, so the excellency of the victim was ascribed to the offerer. Fourth, that something more was effected by these offerings than an atonement being made for sins — a satisfaction was offered to God’s holiness and justice. This leads us to call attention to the title for this book, and here we cannot do better than give below a digest from Dr. Hodge’s able comments on this point: — During the latter part of the nineteenth century the word “Atonement” became commonly employed to express that which Christ wrought for the salvation of His people. But before then, the term used since the days of Anselm (1274 [sic. He means 1074]), and habitually employed by all the Reformers, was “Satisfaction.” The older term is much to be preferred, first, because the word “Atonement” is ambiguous . In the Old Testament it is used for an Hebrew word which signifies “to cover by making expiation.” In the New Testament it occurs but once, Romans 5:11, and there it is given as the rendering for a Greek word meaning “reconciliation.” But reconciliation is the effect of the sin-expiating and God-propitiating work of Christ. On the other hand, the word “Satisfaction” is not ambiguous. It always signifies that complete work which Christ did in order to secure the salvation of His people, as that work stands related to the will and nature of God.

Again: the word “Atonement” is too limited in its signification for the purpose assigned to it. It does not express all that Scripture declares Christ did in order to meet the complete demands of God’s law. It properly signifies the expiation of sin, and nothing more. It points to that which Christ rendered to the justice of God, in vicariously bearing the penalty due the sins of His people; but it does not include that vicarious obedience which Christ rendered to the precepts of the law, which obedience is imputed to all of the elect. On the other hand, the term “Satisfaction” naturally includes both of these. “As the demands of the law upon sinful men are both preceptive and penal-the condition of life being ‘do this and live,’ while the penalty denounced upon disobedience is, ‘the soul that sinneth it shall die’ — it follows that any work which shall fully satisfy the demands of the Divine law in behalf of men must include (1) that obedience which the law demands as the condition of life, and (2) that suffering which it demands as the penalty of sin.”

[Taken from CHAPTER - THE ATONEMENT — INTRODUCTION Pink's book, The Satisfaction of Christ, is one of the best expositions of Penal Substitution that I know of]

 

[JonC]

There seems to be some confusion over the term 'satisfaction.' We need to understand that the term is understood by different people in different ways.

To state the blindingly obvious, Anselm (1033-1109), who originated 'Satisfaction Theory' in his book Cur Deus Homo? was a Roman Catholic and a sacramentalist. Anselm believed that human sin has outraged God's honour and majesty. Sin is infinitely serious; so a just satisfaction to God would have to be infinite in value. Therefore Christ Jesus came to earth to live a life of sinless perfection and on the cross offered to God the Father an infinite satisfaction for the outrage of sin.

However, Anselm's theory falls short because although it taught that Christ offered satisfaction for God's outraged majesty etc., He did not suffer the punishment of sin. This, Anselm believed, still had to be expiated by the believer through the sacarments or in Purgatory. Luther would have been familiar with Anselm's theory, but it brought him no peace because it did not seem to meet his need to be right with God. When Luther came to his discovery that the 'Righteousness of God' means the righteousness God supplies to sinners, he also realised that Christ on the cross had satisfied God', not only concerning His outraged honour, but also His outraged justice; that Christ had indeed propitiated God's wrath by Himself paying the penalty due to us. This is absolutely clear in Luther's commentary on Galatians, especially in his extended comments on 3:13. But Luther and many of the Reformers who came after him did not stop using the word 'satisfaction' to describe Christ's atoning work, though they meant something quite different to what Anselm had meant.

Here is A.W. Pink explaining why he used the term Satisfaction of Christ rather than 'Atonement.' He is discussing the O.T. sacifices:

"Just as the sins of the offerer were imputed to the victim, so the excellency of the victim was ascribed to the offerer. Fourth, that something more was effected by these offerings than an atonement being made for sins — a satisfaction was offered to God’s holiness and justice. This leads us to call attention to the title for this book, and here we cannot do better than give below a digest from Dr. Hodge’s able comments on this point: — During the latter part of the nineteenth century the word “Atonement” became commonly employed to express that which Christ wrought for the salvation of His people. But before then, the term used since the days of Anselm (1274 [sic. He means 1074]), and habitually employed by all the Reformers, was “Satisfaction.” The older term is much to be preferred, first, because the word “Atonement” is ambiguous . In the Old Testament it is used for an Hebrew word which signifies “to cover by making expiation.” In the New Testament it occurs but once, Romans 5:11, and there it is given as the rendering for a Greek word meaning “reconciliation.” But reconciliation is the effect of the sin-expiating and God-propitiating work of Christ. On the other hand, the word “Satisfaction” is not ambiguous. It always signifies that complete work which Christ did in order to secure the salvation of His people, as that work stands related to the will and nature of God.

Again: the word “Atonement” is too limited in its signification for the purpose assigned to it. It does not express all that Scripture declares Christ did in order to meet the complete demands of God’s law. It properly signifies the expiation of sin, and nothing more. It points to that which Christ rendered to the justice of God, in vicariously bearing the penalty due the sins of His people; but it does not include that vicarious obedience which Christ rendered to the precepts of the law, which obedience is imputed to all of the elect. On the other hand, the term “Satisfaction” naturally includes both of these. “As the demands of the law upon sinful men are both preceptive and penal-the condition of life being ‘do this and live,’ while the penalty denounced upon disobedience is, ‘the soul that sinneth it shall die’ — it follows that any work which shall fully satisfy the demands of the Divine law in behalf of men must include (1) that obedience which the law demands as the condition of life, and (2) that suffering which it demands as the penalty of sin.”

[Taken from CHAPTER - THE ATONEMENT — INTRODUCTION Pink's book, The Satisfaction of Christ, is one of the best expositions of Penal Substitution that I know of]

You are right that these words do need to be examined. Words are merely symbols that express ideas, and often people assume they represent the same ideas they would ascribe to these symbols. It is interesting, I believe, that examining the teachings of Martin Luther we rarely (if ever) find him using the word "atonement". Yet he expresses a meaning of atonement very clearly. It is in these ideas that we need to look - what people believed and intended their statements to convey.

Take "punishment" for example. Thomas Aquinas refined Substitution Theology (Satisfaction) to state specifically that it was the will of God to punish Christ. The idea was that what Christ experienced satisfied the demands of wrath against mankind. Aquinas was very clear, however, in pointing out that this punishment is a "satisfactory punishment" (rather than a punishment for sin - what Aquinas called "simple punishment"). It was a suffering/punishment Christ experienced in order to satisfy the demands against mankind, achieved by virtue of Christ's merit outweighing the wrath and sin against mankind.

We see this theory expressed by Luther when he wrote that the cross was Christ "outweighing the wrath and sin against us" by virtue of His divinity and merit. Christ bore our sins in His flesh and was punished for us.

Compare this to Calvin's Penal Substitution Theory. The primary difference is the context (here, retributive justice where God must extract a payment for a debt caused by sinful actions in order that justice be satisfied). This reaches directly to Anselm's theory. What changes is "satisfactory punishment" is no longer satisfactory. The reason is that divine justice (per Calvin) requires the exercise of simple punishment. Christ bore our sins in His flesh and was punished for our sins.

So here we have two ideas expressed the same way - Christ bore our sins, took upon Himself the wrath due man and was punished for us. Is this Penal Substitution Theory? It could be because this is what Calvin taught. Is this Satisfaction/Substitution Theory? It could be because this is what Luther and Aquinas (who strongly denied the possibility of PSA) taught.

 

[JonC]

However, Anselm's theory falls short because although it taught that Christ offered satisfaction for God's outraged majesty etc., He did not suffer the punishment of sin. This, Anselm believed, still had to be expiated by the believer through the sacarments or in Purgatory. Luther would have been familiar with Anselm's theory, but it brought him no peace because it did not seem to meet his need to be right with God. When Luther came to his discovery that the 'Righteousness of God' means the righteousness God supplies to sinners, he also realised that Christ on the cross had satisfied God', not only concerning His outraged honour, but also His outraged justice; that Christ had indeed propitiated God's wrath by Himself paying the penalty due to us. This is absolutely clear in Luther's commentary on Galatians, especially in his extended comments on 3:13. But Luther and many of the Reformers who came after him did not stop using the word 'satisfaction' to describe Christ's atoning work, though they meant something quite different to what Anselm had meant.

I suspect Pink was referring to comments like this:

When we hear that Christ was made a curse for us, let us believe it with joy and assurance. By faith Christ changes places with us. He gets our sins, we get His holiness....Holy Writ does not say that Christ was under the curse. It says directly that Christ was made a curse. In II Corinthians 5:21 Paul writes: "For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Although this and similar passages may be properly explained by saying that Christ was made a sacrifice for the curse and for sin, yet in my judgment it is better to leave these passages stand as they read: Christ was made sin itself; Christ was made the curse itself. When a sinner gets wise to himself he does not only feel miserable, he feels like misery personified; he does not only feel like a sinner, he feels like sin itself.

To finish with this verse: All evils would have overwhelmed us, as they shall overwhelm the unbelievers forever, if Christ had not become the great transgressor and guilty bearer of all our sins. The sins of the world got Him down for a moment. They came around Him like water. Of Christ, the Old Testament Prophet complained: "Thy fierce wrath goeth over me; thy terrors have cut me off." (Psalm 88 16.) By Christ's salvation we have been delivered from the terrors of God to a life of eternal felicity."

And he is right that this separates Luther from Anselm. The problem, however, is that the substitution view of Anselm had been refined long before Martin Luther was born.

What changed was that Jesus took our place and became sin for us - He stood as guilty. This, however, still does not equate to PSA. I say this because Aquinas believed the same while denying PSA. Aquinas taught that Jesus became sin for us and bearing our sins was punished for us - in our place. The difference being Christ outweighed the wrath and sin against us. We see the exact same thing in Luther - who said that Jesus bore our sins, took our place, was punished for our sins, Christ "outweighing the wrath and sin against us".

The difference may not be in what Christ did but in what one pictures the Father doing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I suspect Pink was referring

For clarification, the references to Luther were my words, not Pink's.

 

[JonC]

For clarification, the references to Luther were my words, not Pink's.

OK, thanks. I misunderstood.

But it is a good observation on how two people can use identical statements or words to mean different things.

At one time I would have taken statements that Christ bore our sins, took upon Himself the wrath we deserved and was punished on the Cross for us as PSA. But here I am taking these words from Thomas Aquinas, who denied very strongly the possibility that Christ being punished for our sins was "simple punishment for sin" and instead viewed it as "satisfactory punishment" (he adopted a different framework than Calvin).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

OK, thanks. I misunderstood.

But it is a good observation on how two people can use identical statements or words to mean different things.

At one time I would have taken statements that Christ bore our sins, took upon Himself the wrath we deserved and was punished on the Cross for us as PSA. But here I am taking these words from Thomas Aquinas, who denied very strongly the possibility that Christ being punished for our sins was "simple punishment for sin" and instead viewed it as "satisfactory punishment" (he adopted a different framework than Calvin).

I would not expect to see Anselm or Aquinas supporting Penal Substitution, simply because they were Roman Catholics. Sacramentalism came into the Church very early, but took (perhaps) its biggest leap forward with the Cluniac Revival and the Hildebrandine Reforms of the 11th Century. Christ on the cross was diminished; Christ in the sacraments exalted.

Therefore there will be a tremendous difference in understanding between Anselm, Lombard and Aquinas on the one hand and Luther, Calvin and the Puritans on the other, simply because of their different understanding of Justification. If justification is a legal announcement by God that we are righteous on the grounds of Christ's satisfaction for sins, then He must have taken upon Himself God's curse upon sin and sinners, otherwise we must still be under it.

The reason that I have kept going with the issue of PSA is that it is so closely aligned with Justification. N.T. Wright, for example, who denies PST, also denies the Protestant understanding of justification and salvation by grace alone through faith alone (I cannot claim to have read all Wright voluminous works, but that is my understanding from what I have read). It is IMO inevitable. What Christ has not done for us we must do for ourselves or perish. But, praise God, Christ has done it all!