The Wrath of God

[JonC]

Someone else came up with this claim an another thread. I asked him which Synod or which Papal decree he was referring to and he went strangely quiet. So perhaps you can help me.
I find the claim rather hard to believe since many of the Church Fathers support the Doctrine of Penal Substitution in their writings.

It does rather seem to me that it is your belief that is Roman Catholic. You start off by saying that you believe in nothing but Scripture, and then, when your views are shown to be wrong, you appeal to the Church fathers. I have debated a few Roman Catholics over the years, and that tends to be their tactic.

BTW, Infirmity is not spelled 'infirmaty.' Just saying.

It was not the RCC that came up with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Whoever told you that was wrong. It was the Reformers who came up with the theory in an attempt to reform RCC doctrine (the RCC held a "satisfaction" view focused on merit). The RCC is the Mother of Penal Substitution Theory as the Theory was birthed in the Reformation.

I use my phone mostly. My phone can't spell. I usually catch "Hod" instead of "God", but really font care about the rest. I give the phone a little room.

 

[JonC]

@JonC
I simply have no reason not to understand a penal substitutional atonement from the Scripture.

I understand. But you should realize others are not that way. I am a biblicist when it comes doctrines that are foundational to our faith. I also believe Scripture means what it says (debatable issues being what is not clear in the text of Scripture). So I reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because it is not actually in Scripture. Another issue I have is the fact the Theory is neo-Christianity. While antiquity does not validate doctrine, I just can't accept a fairly new Theory on such an important topic.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It was not the RCC that came up with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I don't know who came up with your 'Penal Substitution Theory' but Penal Substitution is found in the writings of many of the Church fathers until around 600 AD and the rise of Roman Catholicism.

 

[agedman]

I don't know who came up with your 'Penal Substitution Theory' but Penal Substitution is found in the writings of many of the Church fathers until around 600 AD and the rise of Roman Catholicism.

Actually, the "satisfaction" thinking was the predominate theory of the RCC controlled world , however, the formation of the Penal Substitution as presented during the reformation was a home grown creation of that period of time.

Do not forget, my friend, that the reformers were not out to disband the RCC but to reform it. There in your abode, the Episcopal (Church of England) was formed to allow a king to divorce, and the puritans wanted to "purify" it of further RCC practices... well you know the history.

Here are some online sites offered as proof:
https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement
This article also offers the common aspects of arguments against the PSA theory.

History and Theories of Atonement - The Gospel Coalition

 

[JonC]

I don't know who came up with your 'Penal Substitution Theory' but Penal Substitution is found in the writings of many of the Church fathers until around 600 AD and the rise of Roman Catholicism.

The Reformers came up with the idea Christ's death appeased God, that Christ experienced God's wrath.

As far as your "Penal Substitution" minus those false teachings, perhaps it is fine. I don't know.

But the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is far from biblical.

 

[agedman]

I noticed that the Gospel Coalition essay they post uses 1John 4:10 as a proof that Christ had to endure the wrath of God.

The verse does not support that conclusion.

I remark on this because it seems that folks entrenched in the PSA theory will grasp at smoke and call it fire.

There is absolutely no Scripture evidence given in the OT or NT that supports the thinking that God poured out His divine wrath upon the Son. It just doesn't exist.

Along further in 1 John 4 it is recorded:

18There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. The one who fears has not been perfected in love. 19We love because He first loved us.​

If one is to state that God represents the Agape Love, and that each member of the trinity then must also abide in that manner, then it follows that both the Father and the Son demonstrate and are perfect love, and in no need of perfection.

Therefore, because this verse states that "love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment," then it follows that the Father who must reflect divine love toward all members of the trinity as well as the Lord Jesus Christ must, then one cannot punish the other.

It is an impossibility according to this verse.

 

[37818]

I understand. But you should realize others are not that way. I am a biblicist when it comes doctrines that are foundational to our faith. I also believe Scripture means what it says (debatable issues being what is not clear in the text of Scripture). So I reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement because it is not actually in Scripture. Another issue I have is the fact the Theory is neo-Christianity. While antiquity does not validate doctrine, I just can't accept a fairly new Theory on such an important topic.

Penal substitutonal atonement is the meaning I understand from the Biblical texts. Merely claiming those texts do not mean what they describe does not make sense.

 

[agedman]

Penal substitutonal atonement is the meaning I understand from the Biblical texts. Merely claiming those texts do not mean what they describe does not make sense.

Sure it does.
Look at the last post I made. The writer of the essay selected a verse which mentions "propitiation" and then assumes that the wrath of God must certainly have fallen upon the Christ.

The verse has nothing to do with the wrath of God!

In fact, later in that same post I present a further section from the same passage to disprove the wrath thinking.

 

[JonC]

Penal substitutonal atonement is the meaning I understand from the Biblical texts. Merely claiming those texts do not mean what they describe does not make sense.

I get what you are saying. But I think you are missing my point.

I am not talking about what you believe the text means.

If I show you an ink blot and tell you it is a bat, you will always see a bat in the blot....even if it isn't really there.

What I am talking about is what is actually written. When you read Isaiah 53 you understand it to be Penal Substitution Theory. You see God punishing Jesus instead of us.

BUT the meaning you see is not actually in the text. That is why you are unable to actually find and highlight any verses stating Christ experienced God's wrath, Christ's death appeased God, and Jesus was punished instead of us.

I challenge you to read Scripture as if Penal Substitution Theory was wrong. Once you understand the classic view then you can legitimately compare it with Penal Substitution Theory and see which is biblical.

 

[atpollard]

So lacking any “smoking gun” of WRATH, I am leaning towards these two:

Christus Victor
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.

The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).
​

What I particularly like about the “satisfaction theorem” is that it affirms the scriptural substitution, but places the motivation as one of JUSTICE rather than WRATH. This lines up with the lack of verses about the WRATH of God against Christ.

Since this thread will be closing soon, the quest for the JUSTICE of GOD paid by CHRIST will have to be another quest for another thread.

 

[agedman]

So lacking any “smoking gun” of WRATH, I am leaning towards these two:

Christus Victor
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.

The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).
​

What I particularly like about the “satisfaction theorem” is that it affirms the scriptural substitution, but places the motivation as one of JUSTICE rather than WRATH. This lines up with the lack of verses about the WRATH of God against Christ.

Since this thread will be closing soon, the quest for the JUSTICE of GOD paid by CHRIST will have to be another quest for another thread.

You know I lean heavily upon Christ is Victor.

Why does it have to be one or the other.

We are justified is found in Scriptures and Christ is the victor is also found in Scriptures.

What the early church seems to have done was not spend time trying to fence in the themes and apply labels, but took those themes and praised God that they were redeemed.

 

[agedman]

What I dislike about all theories accept the Victory of Christ.

Each one presents some type of statement that God is owed or must be satisfied.

Dear Readers, an attribute of God is that He is lacking in nothing. He is not a borrower nor a creditor.

The only theory that does not present some type of owing is the Christ is Victor from the original foundational formation of the church.

As such, Christ satisfied by fulfilling the law and prophetic statements of the Messiah.

His work was pleasing to the Father and that pleasing brings acceptance.

He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords, and His kingdom shall never end.

Even so Lord Jesus Come!

 

[atpollard]

God judged our sin in the body of Christ. THAT is Scripture.

Well, I've been posting the verses for days, but if you'd like another

1 Peter 2:24

I hate to be pedantic, but here is 1 Peter 2:24 …

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.​

… could you underline the part of this verse where God JUDGED anything?

I do not believe that this verse supports your claim “THAT is scripture.”

 

[atpollard]

Why does it have to be one or the other.

For me it is not “one or the other”.
I acknowledge the death and resurrection of Christ as Christ the Victorious (grateful and praising what HE has accomplished). The question for me is “Is there MORE to the death and resurrection of Christ?” Not “EITHER/OR” but perhaps an “AND”.

How many things in scripture contain layers of “AND”?

 

[agedman]

For me it is not “one or the other”.
I acknowledge the death and resurrection of Christ as Christ the Victorious (grateful and praising what HE has accomplished). The question for me is “Is there MORE to the death and resurrection of Christ?” Not “EITHER/OR” but perhaps an “AND”.

How many things in scripture contain layers of “AND”?

A very good question!

Once the Victory of Christ is held, then the "and" may be added as the resulting benefit to the believer.

This is also were perhaps the formation of other theories strayed, because they placed the resulting benefits above the focused actions of the Christ?

I think so.

 

[Aaron]

I hate to be pedantic, but here is 1 Peter 2:24 …

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.​

… could you underline the part of this verse where God JUDGED anything?

I do not believe that this verse supports your claim “THAT is scripture.”

Sure.

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

What does it mean to bear our sins?

What is the significance of the Tree?

What are stripes for?

 

[JonC]

So lacking any “smoking gun” of WRATH, I am leaning towards these two:

Christus Victor
Classically, the Christus Victor theory of Atonement is widely considered to be the dominant theory for most of the historical Christian Church. In this theory, Jesus Christ dies in order to defeat the powers of evil (such as sin, death, and the devil) in order to free mankind from their bondage. This is related to the Ransom view with the difference being that there is no payment to the devil or to God. Within the Christus Victor framework, the cross did not pay off anyone but defeated evil thereby setting the human race free.

Gustaf Aulen argued that this theory of the Atonement is the most consistently held theory for church history, especially in the early church up until the 12th century before Anslem’s satisfaction theory came along. He writes that “the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.” 2 He calls this theory the “classic” theory of the Atonement. While some will say that Christus Victor is compatible with other theories of the Atonement, others argue that it is not. Though I have found that most theologians believe that Christus Victor is true, even if it is not for them the primary theory of Christ’s death.

The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
In the 12th century, Anselm of Canterbury proposed a satisfaction theory for the Atonement. In this theory, Jesus Christ’s death is understood as a death to satisfy the justice of God. Satisfaction here means restitution, the mending of what was broken, and the paying back of a debt. In this theory, Anselm emphasizes the justice of God and claims that sin is an injustice that must be balanced. Anselm’s satisfaction theory says essentially that Jesus Christ died in order to pay back the injustice of human sin and to satisfy the justice of God.

This theory was developed in reaction to the historical dominance of the Ransom theory, that God paid the devil with Christ’s death. Anselm saw that this theory was logically flawed, because what does God owe satan? Therefore, in contrast with the Ransom theory, Anselm taught that it is humanity who owes a debt to God, not God to satan. Our debt, in this theory, is that of injustice. Our injustices have stolen from the justice of God and therefore must be paid back. Satisfaction theory then postulates that Jesus Christ pays pack God in His death on the cross to God. This is the first Atonement theory to bring up the notion that God is acted upon by the Atonement (i.e. that Jesus satisfies God).
​

What I particularly like about the “satisfaction theorem” is that it affirms the scriptural substitution, but places the motivation as one of JUSTICE rather than WRATH. This lines up with the lack of verses about the WRATH of God against Christ.

Since this thread will be closing soon, the quest for the JUSTICE of GOD paid by CHRIST will have to be another quest for another thread.

I agree that satisfaction is much more biblical than Penal Substitution Theory.

I have a couple of questions:

Why do you believe the reason Christ died was to satisfy God's justice?

If Christ's death did satisfy God's justice, then why do we die?

 

[atpollard]

If Christ's death did satisfy God's justice, then why do we die

That’s a good question.

I would need to look at scripture more closely, but my initial “gut feeling” has to do with glorification. The STUFF we are made of just isn’t good enough for the presence of God. Even Jesus was transformed into better STUFF at his death and His original flesh was sinless.

On the other hand, there is also the mercy factor … imagine being stuck alive in a fallen world until Christ returned to bring you home. 2000 years stuck behind enemy lines and hated, waiting to be recalled home.

Romans 14:7-9 [NASB95]

For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.​

 

[atpollard]

Why do you believe the reason Christ died was to satisfy God's justice?

2 Corinthians 5:20-21 [NASB95]
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

• Jesus BECAME sin … our sin … so sin was not merely “forgiven”, it was CRUCIFIED.

Romans 3:25 [NASB95] whom 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;
Hebrews 2:17 [NASB95] Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
1 John 2:2 [NASB95] and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for [those of] the whole world.
1 John 4:10 [NASB95] In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation (Merriam-Webster):
1: the act of gaining or regaining the favor or goodwill of someone or something

The crucifixion (death) of our sin was the propitiation … act of gaining or regaining the favor or goodwill of God.

WRATH made sense, but lacked SCRIPTURE that actually SAID so and violates the “punish innocent” prohibition in scripture. JUSTICE also makes sense and violates no prohibition (since it is God satisfying a characteristic of God).

I have no idea if it has SCRIPTURE to support it as TRUE, only that so far it was not “anti-biblical” (which is a better start than WRATH).

It is also clear that God did more than simply FORGIVE sin. Christ forgave sin without killing anyone. Words like “became sin” and “propitiation” indicate more than … “sorry” & “you are forgiven” … happened.


PS. Less “THE reason” and more like “another reason” (if that makes sense). Christus Victor is THE REASON.

 

[37818]

I get what you are saying. But I think you are missing my point.

I am not talking about what you believe the text means.

If I show you an ink blot and tell you it is a bat, you will always see a bat in the blot....even if it isn't really there.

What I am talking about is what is actually written. When you read Isaiah 53 you understand it to be Penal Substitution Theory. You see God punishing Jesus instead of us.

BUT the meaning you see is not actually in the text. That is why you are unable to actually find and highlight any verses stating Christ experienced God's wrath, Christ's death appeased God, and Jesus was punished instead of us.

I challenge you to read Scripture as if Penal Substitution Theory was wrong. Once you understand the classic view then you can legitimately compare it with Penal Substitution Theory and see which is biblical.

The fact is, Christ's atonement and suffering is in lieu of the sinner's deserved penal suffering being substitutional. What Christ did in a moment in time on behalf of the sinner which the sinner would otherwise bear for eternity. I only care with is Biblically true. It is a Biblical penal substitutional atonement. To say it is not what it is, is irrational