• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Penal Substitution Theory

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
On another thread I posted Anselm's Satisfaction Theory and Aquinas' modification of that theory into Substitution Theory.

Substitution Theory is the Roman Catholic understanding of the Atonement. Here Substitution is representative and addresses original sin. However specific sins committed by individuals were left to each individual to address (penance).

This system became the catalyst for the Reformation as Aquinas' Substitution Theory paved the way for a works based religious system.

Martin Luther observed abuses in the form of indulgences. John Calvin recognized and rejected the implications that men could merit individual forgiveness based on this penance system.

The major issue Calvin had with Aquinas' theory is that Substitution Theory did not address specific individual sins.

Calvin's solution was to revise Aquinas' theory to include paying a specific penalty for individual sins, thereby nullifying the Roman Catholic penance system.

This involved a few important changes to Aquinas' theory. Calvin changed representative substitution to individual substitution, satisfactory punishment to simple punishment, and applied this to specific sins committed by individual people (see Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion).

Calvin's view is called the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement after its unique form of substitution.

TGC defines the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement Penal as meaning that Christ died in the place of sinners, taking upon himself the penalty and punishment they deserved.

A major shift from traditional theories is that God, in the role of judge, became the one punishing Christ.

Where Aquinas viewed Christ as dying for original sin and individual sins being forgiven through penance, Calvin believed that actual sins cannot be forgiven. Instead sins must be punished, and it is only through punishment that sins can be forgive (this is based on Aquinas' work Summa Theologiae).

While the Christus Victor/ Ransom Theory is the primary theory within Christian history, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is the most popular theory among evangelicals.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Substitution Theory is the Roman Catholic understanding of the Atonement.
Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; . . ." Romans 5:8, ". . . while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . ."?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; . . ." Romans 5:8, ". . . while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . ."?
Yes. All of the theories we have discussed affirm those verses (they are not unique to the Penal Substitution Theory).

Calvin's revision of the Roman Catholic understanding of Atonement (Substitution Theory) was a move that addressed specific sins of individuals. While I do not believe Penal Substitution Theory correct it was a move from a works based system.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Yes. All of the theories we have discussed affirm those verses (they are not unique to the Penal Substitution Theory).
What has Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:8; have to do with baptismal regeneration and transubstantiationism?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
What has Romans 6:23 and Romans 5:8; have to do with baptismal regeneration and transubstantiationism?
Interpretation. Calvin reformed Aquinas' view to incorporate specific sins. Aquinas did not hold that view.

Transubstantiationism is an interpretation of a specific verse as well.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Interpretation. Calvin reformed Aquinas' view to incorporate specific sins. Aquinas did not hold that view.

Transubstantiationism is an interpretation of a specific verse as well.
Theories here exploring nothing.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Theories here exploring nothing.
I guess that's up the each person.

You asked how those verses in Romans supported baptismal regeneration and transubstantiationism.

They don't. And that is not how the theory uses those verses.

For example.....how does "Jesus wept" support the Resurrection? It doesn't. That doesn't mean we reject the passage stating "Jesus wept".


Now, here you are talking about Calvin's modification of Aquinas' theory (the development of Penal Substitution Theory).

I agree that Penal Substitution Theory is better in ways than Substitution Theory.


But transubstantiationism is not a part of Substitution Theory (Augustine even defended transubstantiationism). It is a doctrine Catholics believe. But it is not a part of Substitution Theory.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@37818 ,

Working off of your point regarding baptismal regeneration (I take it you are discussing what Calvin kept and what he modified):

Substitution Theory deals with mankind and the issue of original sin. Calvin expanded this to specific individual sins. So we are looking at two very different things by the time we get to baptism.


Calvin rightly concluded that Aquinas' theory paved the way for a works based system in the form of indulgences and penance. Calvin added specific sins committed by individuals to Substitution Theory and, as you point out with regeneration, this produces a different outcome.

Calvin did keep the foundation of Substitution Theory (as Aquinas worked out in Summa Theologiae) but reworked it in such a way as to resemble a law court. One criticism was that Calvin resorted to a legalism absent Christianity. BUT I find Calvinist conclusions (if applied to specific sins) a logical outgrowth if Substitution Theory.

Unfortunately Calvin did not adequately defend Aquinas' base arguments (neither did Aquinas, IMHO) when developing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and instead carried them over from his Roman Catholic upbringing. I say this is unfortunate because it would be interesting to read how some of those ideas were defended. The closest we can get is Summa Theologiae as Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion carries them over as presuppositions adequately established.


One issue is Aquinas' conclusion that the moral response for a crime is punishment. The problem here is that it excluded motivation and is often discounted today in practice. Another issue is the defence of punishment and its ultimate goal. As stated it simply becomes a need placed on God in the same way Anselm viewed Adam as harming God via robbery.


Consider contemporary issues. A man enters the Capitol on Jan 6. This is criminal trespass. If the judicial system of Penal Substitution Theory is correct then justice demands the man be punished regardless of motive, regardless of perception, regardless of the actions or invitation of others. The moral response to a crime is punishment and the criminal has established a type of debt that must be resolved.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I was thinking baptismal regeneration
manly against RCC.
I agree baptismal regeneration is incorrect.

But this was not a difference between Calvin and Aquinas (both Catholics and Presbyterians hold a form of "baptismal regeneration", although I believe that the truest form is with the CoC denomination).

Consider the Presbyterian position:

The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), Q. 91: "How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? A: "The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in the one who administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in those who by faith receive them."


The Roman Catholic form was very similar, only pertaining to original sin and not specific sins.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
@37818

I was thinking about your post and sacraments vs ordinances.

Calvinists hold to sacraments (as described in the Westminster Confession in my last post). Baptists do not (Baptists hold to church ordinances).

The difference is the act being a vehicle for God's grace.

But it struck me as odd that Baptists sometimes becomes more dogmatic about who performs an ordinance than Calvinists about the effectuation of sacraments.

Calvinists and Baptists are worlds apart when it comes to baptism. I think we are closer in regard to Communion (although I am not 100% sure that Luther was incorrect).
 
Top