Confusion on just what is PSA

[agedman]

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!

Perhaps then there is misunderstanding that the Law did not demand retribution, but as Romans 3 states:

19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

​

Paul is not presenting that the law had some legal demand that was to be met by the suffering of Christ.

Rather, Paul presents that the law had two significant purposes.

It makes man aware that they have sinned. That those "under the law" have not hope of redemption.

Next, it is that tool of God just as the prophets were to testify and witness to the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To what end, what conclusion.

As Paul again states, that God may demonstrate through Christ being both the just (one) and the justifier (one who makes others just) God's ability and authority. That the Law is not demanding retribution or satisfaction, but is a witness along with all the prophets.

Too often, in my opinion, the "legal" demands are not properly matched with the statements of Scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

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]

ANY valid theology of the Cross has to deal with the truth that God is Holy, and He indeed has wrath stored up for the day of judgement against all sins!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

As Martin pointed out here though, Luther and Calvin BOTH would affirmed the truth of Jesus death in our stead as being suffering the wrath of God for our sins!Calvin and him expressed it a bit differently, but essentially same!

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

When one removes PST from the atonement of Christ, hard pressed to see exactly on what basis God can now freely forgive and accept lost sinners.

 

[Yeshua1]

Perhaps then there is misunderstanding that the Law did not demand retribution, but as Romans 3 states:

19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
21But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

​

Paul is not presenting that the law had some legal demand that was to be met by the suffering of Christ.

Rather, Paul presents that the law had two significant purposes.

It makes man aware that they have sinned. That those "under the law" have not hope of redemption.

Next, it is that tool of God just as the prophets were to testify and witness to the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

To what end, what conclusion.

As Paul again states, that God may demonstrate through Christ being both the just (one) and the justifier (one who makes others just) God's ability and authority. That the Law is not demanding retribution or satisfaction, but is a witness along with all the prophets.

Too often, in my opinion, the "legal" demands are not properly matched with the statements of Scriptures.

Except that breaking of the law brought death and judgement, and there is indeed stored up wrath of God for sins commited, and against sinners lost in their sins. Wrath not as we would have, but due to Him being Holy.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

One ties it into Sacramentalism, and the PST just scriptures!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Perhaps then there is misunderstanding that the Law did not demand retribution

The argument of Romans 3 finds its origins in Romans 2:12-13. 'For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law , and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.' Of course, Paul goes on from there to show that Gentiles have the work of the law written on their hearts and no one does actually 'do' the law, and that Jew and Gentile alike 'under sin' (3:9) and guilty before God (3:19).

Therefore the law cannot save us (because we can't keep it) but it can point us to Christ when we realise our inability to please God through our works. But that does not mean that the broken law does not condemn us which is why we need a Saviour.

I'm sorry this is so brief, but I don't have time to plough through the whole of Romans. But 'Sin is lawlessness' and 'The wages of sin is death.'

 

[Yeshua1]

The argument of Romans 3 finds its origins in Romans 2:12-13. 'For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law , and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.' Of course, Paul goes on from there to show that Gentiles have the work of the law written on their hearts and no one does actually 'do' the law, and that Jew and Gentile alike 'under sin' (3:9) and guilty before God (3:19).

Therefore the law cannot save us (because we can't keep it) but it can point us to Christ when we realise our inability to please God through our works. But that does not mean that the broken law does not condemn us which is why we need a Saviour.

I'm sorry this is so brief, but I don't have time to plough through the whole of Romans. But 'Sin is lawlessness' and 'The wages of sin is death.'

And the soul that sins must die, so we all agree that someone has to taste death to pay for sins committed, and we also know God indeed has divine wrath towards sins due to Him being Holy and Just!

 

[agedman]

Except that breaking of the law brought death and judgement, and there is indeed stored up wrath of God for sins commited, and against sinners lost in their sins. Wrath not as we would have, but due to Him being Holy.

Except your statement cannot be conformed to what Paul said in Romans 3.

 

[Yeshua1]

Except your statement cannot be conformed to what Paul said in Romans 3.

So God has no wrath for sins/sinners?

 

[JonC]

One ties it into Sacramentalism, and the PST just scriptures!

No, that is not it at all.

Think about it Y1.

Why would traditional Calvinists reject the wording "God's wrath to satisfy" because it denied PSA?

Why would Calvinistic Baptists view the exact same phrase as affirming PSA?

It has nothing to to with "Sacramentalism".

Aquinas believed that Jesus bore our sins and took the wrath that we deserved upon Himself as God punished Him for our sins. But Aquinas strongly rejected the idea of punishment that PSA depends upon when he clarified this punishment was "satisfactory punishment" and not "simple punishment" for sins.

Do you understand how a person could say that Jesus bore our sins, God's wrath fell upon Him, He was punished for our iniquity and by His stripes we are healed without affirming PSA? That's the question. Do you understand the distinction between Substitution Atonement theories?

 

[agedman]

The argument of Romans 3 finds its origins in Romans 2:12-13. 'For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law , and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.' Of course, Paul goes on from there to show that Gentiles have the work of the law written on their hearts and no one does actually 'do' the law, and that Jew and Gentile alike 'under sin' (3:9) and guilty before God (3:19).

Therefore the law cannot save us (because we can't keep it) but it can point us to Christ when we realise our inability to please God through our works. But that does not mean that the broken law does not condemn us which is why we need a Saviour.

I'm sorry this is so brief, but I don't have time to plough through the whole of Romans. But 'Sin is lawlessness' and 'The wages of sin is death.'

Romans 2 certainly precedes Romans 3.

Therefore, what I posted concerning Romans 3 was accurate.

There is nothing that I posted that you refuted bringing up Romans 2. Rather, the passages actually reinforces my statements of Romans 3.

All (including believers) suffer the WAGES of sin - death, however believers pass from death to life by putting on immortality and the death is “swallowed up in victory.” (1 Corinthians 15:54).

 

[agedman]

So God has no wrath for sins/sinners?

If as you contend all the wrath of God was poured out upon Christ, then your contention that God’s wrath is stored up to be poured out on sinners presents The Lord Jesus Christ as insufficient.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that is not it at all.

Think about it Y1.

Why would traditional Calvinists reject the wording "God's wrath to satisfy" because it denied PSA?

Why would Calvinistic Baptists view the exact same phrase as affirming PSA?

It has nothing to to with "Sacramentalism".

Aquinas believed that Jesus bore our sins and took the wrath that we deserved upon Himself as God punished Him for our sins. But Aquinas strongly rejected the idea of punishment that PSA depends upon when he clarified this punishment was "satisfactory punishment" and not "simple punishment" for sins.

Do you understand how a person could say that Jesus bore our sins, God's wrath fell upon Him, He was punished for our iniquity and by His stripes we are healed without affirming PSA? That's the question. Do you understand the distinction between Substitution Atonement theories?

I do, and will say again, when and how does the wrath of God poured out by a Holy God as a judgement for sin occur in your understanding?

 

[Yeshua1]

If as you contend all the wrath of God was poured out upon Christ, then your contention that God’s wrath is stored up to be poured out on sinners presents The Lord Jesus Christ as insufficient.

the death of Jesus was intend to appease JUST the wrath of God towards those sinners intended to get saved by the Cross!

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that is not it at all.

Think about it Y1.

Why would traditional Calvinists reject the wording "God's wrath to satisfy" because it denied PSA?

Why would Calvinistic Baptists view the exact same phrase as affirming PSA?

It has nothing to to with "Sacramentalism".

Aquinas believed that Jesus bore our sins and took the wrath that we deserved upon Himself as God punished Him for our sins. But Aquinas strongly rejected the idea of punishment that PSA depends upon when he clarified this punishment was "satisfactory punishment" and not "simple punishment" for sins.

Do you understand how a person could say that Jesus bore our sins, God's wrath fell upon Him, He was punished for our iniquity and by His stripes we are healed without affirming PSA? That's the question. Do you understand the distinction between Substitution Atonement theories?

Interesting article here!
turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/04/response-to-bryan-cross-on-penal.html

 

[agedman]

I do, and will say again, when and how does the wrath of God poured out by a Holy God as a judgement for sin occur in your understanding?

First, you must document that the “wrath of God poured out by a Holy God as judgement for sin” occurred at the crucifixion.

If you only assume such without Scripture support, then no matter what is presented will conform to your thinking, for the thinking is based solely upon opinion.

Second, should you decide to attend to the Scriptures and not to opinion, then there is foundational tools from which to align the heart and mind.

Third, your question has been answered, repeatedly, and you have not refuted it other then restating your opinion.

 

[agedman]

the death of Jesus was intend to appease JUST the wrath of God towards those sinners intended to get saved by the Cross!

Oh, no!

The death achieved far more.

Again, your lack of Scripture support displays opinion and not fact.

 

[JonC]

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!

"Justification" is another one of those words that cause division based on definition. This is true not only with N.T. Wright's view. Some see it as a "perfect law keeping" attributed to man. Some as Christ's righteousness beyond the Law. Others view it as a covenantal righteousness (I side with this view) in Christ based on the New Covenant.

I think that much depends on the context that we provide. If salvation comes from divine justice as retributive justice then Christ's righteousness was accomplished through the Law. If it comes from a righteousness apart from the Law, to which the law points, then this righteousness is not centered on divine justice at all. And then you have Wright's view, the Anabaptist view, Denny Weaver's view, etc.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh, no!

The death achieved far more.

Again, your lack of Scripture support displays opinion and not fact.

It accomplished what was intended, for just the elect of God!