Featured Penal Substitution - Did Jesus Experience Our Punishment?

I have been trying to work through the idea that on the cross Jesus was paying our individual sin debt by taking upon himself our individual punishment for our individual sins. I emphasize “individual” in order to separate it from the historical church view that on the cross Jesus suffered as an atonement for human sin. I am questioning the origin surrounding our adherence of the Reformed position (here by Reformed I mean product of the Reformation, the Protestant position, as this is also a position held strongly by John Wesley) that Jesus actually took our individual punishments.

This is expressed in many ways. In Calvinistic churches, this is probably most visible in the theological motif of the divine ledger system (were the heavenly courtroom or divine justice takes the place of the OT sacrificial system) and expressed vividly in defenses for limited atonement. In non-Calvinistic churches, this is expressed in the idea that on the cross God was separated from Christ as Jesus took upon himself our sins. Sometimes it is just left as a vague idea (e.g., every sin that I commit adds to the punishment Christ experienced on the cross).

J.I. Packer introduced a lecture with the observation that Reformed theologians “in their zeal to show themselves rational, became rationalistic. Here as elsewhere, methodological rationalism became in the seventeenth century a worm in the Reformed bud, leading in the next two centuries to a large-scale withering of its theological flower.” His charge is that these scholars viewed God’s work of reconciliation to be “exhaustively explicable in terms of a natural theology of divine government, drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought.” (J.I. Packer, “The Logic of Penal Substitution,” 1973).

What I am addressing is this worldview that places the atonement within the scheme of divine justice. I am leaning towards the idea that the theological worldview of the Reformation, heavily influenced by the RCC (in both acceptance and rejection), is the egg through which the worm has hatched. I am questioning why we come to certain conclusions (not necessarily interpretation, but commentary).

If anyone is willing, and I understand if no one is (this is sometimes the case when dealing with tradition), I would like to discuss the issue of Jesus taking our actual punishment individually. I understand that this view is necessary in some’s interpretation of “limited atonement.” I understand the arguments from a heavenly legal courtroom perspective. What I am trying to gather is why exactly we hold this scheme when it is neither itself biblical per se, nor is it necessarily contemporary.

 

Looking at the development of protestant penal substitution theory:

The earliest formal theory is the ransom theory, which reflects the doctrine of the early church in terms of Christ’s atonement reflecting the OT sacrificial motif. The understanding is that Jesus died as a “ransom sacrifice” to redeem us from sin and death. An atonement is made and God’s wrath is turned. This theory developed into a few variants. Origen believed this was a payment to Satan. Others believed it was a payment to death. Cyril of Jerusalem believed it a payment to God with God’s wrath in view. The theory, however, does not need an object to receive payment as it is based on the OT sacrificial system and not a legal courtroom setting.

Irenaeus and Justin Martyr focused on human obedience. The Atonement was interpreted in terms of Christ succeeding where Adam failed and undoing the wrong that Adam did. Instead of taking our punishment, the focus was Jesus’ perfect obedience even to death on the Cross with the reliance on the Father towards resurrection.

Expounding on the ransom theory, Athanasius believed the that God put forth Christ to die not as fallen man’s substitute , but as man’s perfect prototype and Jesus eliminated death through His own death.

Ansalem of Canterbury, an early eleventh century theologian, developed from the ransom theory what has become the foundation of reformed atonement theories. He objected to what the ransom theory had become, that is the idea that a ransom was actually paid to Satan (remember, this was not necessarily original to the theory). Ansalem determined that the atonement was a debt paid on the behalf of sinners. Jesus’ death was substitutionary as he paid honors to the Father in our stead because when honor is taken it must be repaid to avoid punishment.

A couple of centuries later Thomas Aquinas determined that one man can justly take punishment for another if the offender is willing. He concluded that punishment is the moral response to sin and therefore Christ bore a punishment for our sin. Aquinas draws on Christ’s merit as Jesus does penance for us. Thus far, while the theme that Christ was a substitute for us has been fairly consistent in history, the idea that the punishment of the cross was our punishment vicariously exhausted on the Son is foreign to the Church.

A few centuries later Calvin rejected the need to condign merit, and sought to rework satisfaction theory. His solution is that the price paid on the cross is not a general penalty for human sins (the historical definition of Christ “condemning sin in the flesh”) but a specific penalty owed by a specific people individually. Calvin altered Aquinas’ idea of divine penance and changed it to the idea of satisfying divine wrath. Justice demands that God is unwilling or unable to forgive sins without requiring a satisfaction for it. Christ is our substitute, taking on our punishment and satisfying God’s wrath against us.

Historically, I understand how Calvin came to his conclusions. But we are not in his shoes. I do not understand why we automatically divert to reformed catholic doctrine as an explanation of the atonement, or why we find it necessary to view the atonement through a sixteenth century or contemporary lens rather than a first century lens (or at least try). Why do we take for granted Calvin’s conclusions (even John Wesley strongly held to Calvin’s interpretation here) when centuries of Church history did not?

 

I was reincarnated.

I couldn't get into my old account, so I started a new one. You know me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You have covered a lot of ground, so I may have missed something. But I believe that I agree with you, insofar as I can tell, completely.

At one time I would have considered myself Reformational/Classical Arminian. I moved towards Calvinism because of certain truths of scripture, but I have realized that Calvinism and Arminianism share a deep theological kinship. Calvin’s rework of Aquinas’ theory of atonement is one error that transcends their division. I don't think many realize just how far their model is from the OT sacrificial theme and from the first thousand years of Church theology. But the Doctrines of Grace do fit better when we allow Scripture to define our terms.

I realized that the doctrines that drew me to Calvinism (the doctrines of grace) were not actually at home within the system. I can tell you my favorite word when I considered myself Reformed was "mystery" (said with a great sense of awe). When I started questioning the judicial view and started looking at the atonement by allowing Scripture explain the terms, much of that "mystery" changed to understanding as revealed in God's Word.

 

I am familiar with the “myth of the myth” theory. For quite some time my goal was to work towards a PhD in church history. I love the topic. Unfortunately, too many take for granted what is easily disproved.

I agree that it is poor scholarship to attribute penal substitution to Anselm. In truth, I am unaware of any scholar who has done so, but you are right that Anselm did not invent penal substitution theory.

Anselm, like the centuries of scholars before him, did not look upon Christ as taking our punishment. Anselm viewed mankind as taking from God a sense of honor which must be restored or God’s wrath visited upon men. He believed that men could not render to God more than what was due to him, and the satisfaction due God is greater than all created beings are capable of doing. God therefore had to make satisfaction for himself. In Anselm’s view, Christ’s death is substitutional but that substitution is not penal. I am actually amazed that people publish books assuming otherwise when we have overwhelming evidence of Anselm’s teachings (I suppose it sells, and most are not going to bother to read Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. on the topic….in general we are too lazy for that when we can get our theology handed to us).

Even Thomas Aquinas (pretty much the last link towards Calvin’s theory) refuses to go as far as penal substitution (divine penance may seem close, but when you understand the consequences involved in that wrath actually being punishment for our sin the divide is of eternal significance). But substitution, and even penal aspects in terms of Aquinas, does not make "penal substitution theory."

Perhaps you would do better to develop an appreciation of the Early Church Fathers instead of strawmen authors, even if they are endorsed by well known evangelicals. Penal Substitution does not mean merely that Jesus died in our place.

Penal Substitution states that Christ bore the penalty for our sin in place of those sinners who are by faith redeemed. Can you name a theologian before the fifteenth century that even suggested Jesus bore the penalty for our sins (our punishment)?

 

Oh….reading my post I need to point out something. The first part sounds to me arrogant, and I apologize if it is perceived that way as it was not my intent. What I mean to convey is that I love the topic of Church history, I wanted to make a career within the topic, and I find the development of theology throughout the centuries both enlightening and fascinating. My goal was to pursue post-graduate work but time and money ran out. I am under no delusion of having some sort of enlightenment or above average intellegence (hence my distrust of “truths” based on human reasoning merely supplemented with scripture…when it comes to doctrine I am a bit more “sola scriptura” than some would allow). And thankfully, lest I should forget my place, God gave me a wonderful wife to remind me of my flaws.

 

Hey Icon – it’s been awhile.
I’m going to butt in a moment because this is exactly what I was speaking of.

No, actually being bought with a price does not suggest a payment was in fact due. This was one thing that stood out when looking at pre-Reformation atonement theories. The ransom theory in general viewed a purchase but not an object to receive payment. Some held a more specific view, a purchase from Satan, or death, or God. But the point is it was always within the OT sacrificial system. It was a purchase, not a debt payment. It would be an error to assume the purchase to be our sin debt. Going forward, Anslem taught we were purchased in terms of making satisfaction, but it was still not a debt paid in the form of penal substitution. Aquinas taught it was a payment in the form of penance, but not a payment due. It is not until Calvin that we get the notion that the purchase price was the payment due. You are not looking at scripture within its own context.

Again, you have left scripture behind and ventured into explanation. You are examining the issue within a sixteenth century worldview, not a biblical one. The rest of the post continues in this mode. “Everyone limits the atonement” is a false statement because everyone does not use the judicial system motif to understand the atonement. Many use the OT sacrificial system and view it as foreshadowing our redemption. The scope of the atonement is primarily a discussion between Reformed kindred – Calvinists and Arminianians. In reality, the scope of the atonement does not have anything to do with men. Biblically, it is the Father offering the Son as a guilt offering for humanity, and the Son laying down his own life and bearing sin in the flesh for humanity. It isn’t “God atoned for these sins, or these people, and not these sins or these people.” That misses the who meaning of atonement.

Have you ever wondered why you cannot say that God forgives men in the normal sense of the word? You can say that divine justice has to be satisfied, so on the cross God demanded payment in full for those being saved, and Jesus paid that debt in full. Then and only then, with payment received, did God forgive our debt. Yet the meaning of forgiveness is to pardon a debt, to dismiss what is legitimately owed. This is not what God does within the Reformed scheme.

Have you ever noticed the hoops that are there when you start defending the idea that Jesus suffered our punishment for our sin? Our punishment is the spiritual death, the second death (the future judgment when death and Hades is cast into Hell). You, however, say that this is what Jesus suffered. He died spiritually. Separated from God. But all of scripture cries out against this….Jesus is God. What the Bible says about the nature of God it says about Jesus. Here’s where most just cry out “mystery!” But it’s no mystery. You’ve ripped out the atonement, brought it into a sixteenth century worldview, and worked out a theology around it.

I don’t know if agedman takes this to be a blank slate, and I don’t intend to speak for him. But his statement is correct and does not mean a blank slate at all. The doctrines of grace are more intact within scripture than they are within the false dichotomy between God the Father and God the Son that the Reformation created.

Agedman and I may disagree here, but all have been given such light (John is very clear on that point). But all reject Christ because we are fallen men. God, however, draws some to himself. For my part, while I reject TULIP I do affirm the Five Points of Calvinism (as expressed at the Synod of Dort) so we do have quite a bit in common. But your conclusion here is not out of scripture but your own presuppositions and what you theology has read into scripture.

You will find nowhere in the Bible a passage stating that Jesus experienced our punishment for our individual Sin/sins on the cross. You can’t say that it is “implied” because it is also absent from church doctrine for centuries.

​

 

I'm actually asking why you allow Rome & the Reformation to dictate your view. That's why I am showing you how penal substitution evolved. It is not the view of the early church but a modification of RCC doctrine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A reference where they actually denounce what they had taught and stated a penal substitution belief would do. You can't say they were close enough. Even Aquinas falls short of penal sub. Can you even provide one quote of actual penal sub.?

(Sorry for the abbreviations - I'm in a blind and will get back to this later )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Brother, no one is denying substitutionary atonement. Heck, no one is even denying that Jesus suffered for us to purchase with his own blood. But this is not penal substitution. That little difference you speak of (the notion that on the cross Jesus suffered our punishment) is a huge difference. It is a redefinition. Until Calvin the atonement was seen as a guilt offering which bought us in some form. Through all the theories this remained. a propitiation, an atonement - not a purchase in terms of paying our sin debt by taking on our punishment.

And no, that is not why we had the Reformation. Churches throughout history have rejected not only the RCC view but also the Reformed modification of that view. We need to be a bit more honest. It is one thing to say your view is right. It is another to say it is biblical and has existed in some undeveloped form all along. Penal Substitution is not seen before the sixteenth century, and it is an arrogant error to suggest the Church held the view just undeveloped. The closest is Aquinas, but his actual position denies penal substitution atonement. Augustine's position denies penal sub. Cyril of Jerusalem's position denies penal sub. Every theory before Calvin denies penal sub. You can't simply denounce the fact that penal substitution did not exist for over a thousand years by saying substitutionary aspects did. That is a poorly played shell game and it's dishonest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk