God that father treated him while hanging on that Cross in same fashion as a lost sinner, hence feeling being forsaken by God!
-
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!
What are the issues with Penal Substitution Theory?
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for the reply. I'm still not sure I get your point.
Are you saying God looked upon Christ as a sinner but in reality He wasn't (self deception) or that God treated Jesus as if He were a sinner when in reality He had never sinned (which is an abomination to God)? Or did God literally make Christ, who was righteous, sin (author or cause sin)?
I am saying what the bible affirms, that while upon the Cross, Jesus became sin for us, became the sin bearer, and during that time, God the Father had to forsake and treat Him as being a lost sinner, not due to Him being such, but due to Him suffering in our stead for the sins that we had committed against God!
Would you please point me to the thread where this occurred?
Did Christ become a curse for us? And if so, what exactly was that curse, what does it mean and where did it originate?
I believe the Doctrine of Penal Substitution to be at least as old as any other.
The fact is that until Anselm's book, Cur Deus Homo in the 11th Century, there was no systematic treatment of Penal Substitution, but that the doctrine was widely accepted is shown by quotations from Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Gelasius of Cyzicus (who?) and 'pope' Gregory, all before 600 AD. In the 13th Century, Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, gives support to the doctrine. I gave that quote on another thread just a few weeks ago.
Calvin is the first Protestant to give an extended study to the doctrine, but Luther, in his commentary on Galatians, has a lengthy section on Penal Substitution in his treatment of 3:10-14 in which he endorses it very enthusiastically.
I have the details of all these in front of me and am delighted to type them out if anyone would like to read them. I am pretty sure that you will find that Heinrich Bullinger, who was contemporary with Calvin and wrote almost as voluminously, also endorsed P.S.
Yes. Genesis 3.
You are correct in a way, MM, that until the eleventh century there was no systemic treatment placingvthe Atonement under a philosophy of retributive justice of the ideas that would be articulated as Penal Substitution Theory (Anselm's theory was similar in type, but missed the mark on the "penal" part when applied to redemption by paying a "sin debt". To Anselm the issue was the reversal of dishonor (the restoration of honor that was robbed of God by mankind as a whole). But the Theory does depend on Anselm's contribution.
Of course, all we have to do is consider Abelard to understand that these ideas were theologically developments and influenced by competing worldviews.
As Packer pointed out, the elements of th he Theory were indeed there (throughout history). People saw Scripture explaining penal and substitution elements in the Atonement. But what was lacking? The philosophy that binds these elements together to form the Theory of Penal Substitution.
To illustrate: in the reference you point to Aquinas specifically states why he believes God could not have poured out His wrath due our sins upon Christ. You read the material I'm sure, so what was the reason????
It was because he believed God would have been unjust to punish Jesus with our punishment. Instead he believed Christ bore a punishment by suffering under the hands of the Jews on behalf of mankind. God saw this act and was satisfied. (Read Aquinas' section on "satisfactory punishment" and "simple punishment").
This confusing of ideas is what makes the discussion so difficult, brother. While Aquinas is offered as supporting the Theory it is only superficial (his explanations deny the Theory). And it is true for each reference provided. Martyr holds ideas basic to the theory, but his insistence on the nature of redemption as a representation of the whole of mankind negates the Theory of Penal Substitution. His focus on Christ suffering a physical death to redeem mankind through it may also run contrary to the Theory.
What you have identified, however, is what Christian's have in common. While this is not the Theory of Penal Substitution it is no less important. We all believe Christ died for us, to purchase us, and by His stripes we are healed. We are United in Christ despite our differences.
Reading @Martin Marprelate 's reply there is an important issue to bring up. That is, what makes a view fall within Penal Substitution Theory?
Let’s look at Justin Martyr (who my brother insists held to the Theory of Penal Substitution). What is often presented as proof that Martyr held to Penal Substitution Theory is found in his “Dialogue with Trypho”, where he defends Christian faith to the Jewish mindset (in the quote he relies strongly, if not entirely, on Peter’s sermon in Acts).
Justin Martyr clearly stated “if, then the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet did you not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practice piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be heled, we have done no wrong.”
I agree with everything Martyr has said. I also believe that Christ suffered that the “entire human race might be healed”, which I am pleased to see has not restricted some from leaning on his writings as evidence of their belief. The Father did cause Jesus to suffer. But look at the thought. This is focusing on Peter’s sermon in Acts. “The Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family.” Absolutely. Peter says exactly what Martyr is saying here.
1. Does one have to believe that God had to satisfy the demands of justice in order to forgive, and punished Jesus with the wrath reserved for the sins of men to pay their “sin dept” in order to hold the Theory of Penal Substitution?
2. Or is believing that God caused Christ to suffer, rather than God punished Christ to pay our "sin debt", enough?
3. And lastly, if the explanation of Justin Martyr is enough to classify his view as Penal Substitution Theory - is there anyone in the history of Christianity that does not hold to Penal Substitution Theory?
Edited: To clarify, @Martin Marprelate , maybe our disagreement has nothing to do with Penal Substitution Theory as you would define the theory because of what we have in common. I'm not sure what we would call our differences (that I do not believe God punished Christ to pay our "sin debt") but if you would provide a name for that view then I'll start referring to it in a manner you feel more appropriate.
Let’s look at Justin Martyr (who my brother insists held to the Theory of Penal Substitution). What is often presented as proof that Martyr held to Penal Substitution Theory is found in his “Dialogue with Trypho”, where he defends Christian faith to the Jewish mindset (in the quote he relies strongly, if not entirely, on Peter’s sermon in Acts).
Justin Martyr clearly stated “if, then the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet did you not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practice piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be heled, we have done no wrong.”
I agree with everything Martyr has said. I also believe that Christ suffered that the “entire human race might be healed”, which I am pleased to see has not restricted some from leaning on his writings as evidence of their belief. The Father did cause Jesus to suffer. But look at the thought. This is focusing on Peter’s sermon in Acts. “The Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family.” Absolutely. Peter says exactly what Martyr is saying here.
1. Does one have to believe that God had to satisfy the demands of justice in order to forgive, and punished Jesus with the wrath reserved for the sins of men to pay their “sin dept” in order to hold the Theory of Penal Substitution?
2. Or is believing that God caused Christ to suffer, rather than God punished Christ to pay our "sin debt", enough?
3. And lastly, if the explanation of Justin Martyr is enough to classify his view as Penal Substitution Theory - is there anyone in the history of Christianity that does not hold to Penal Substitution Theory?
Edited: To clarify, @Martin Marprelate , maybe our disagreement has nothing to do with Penal Substitution Theory as you would define the theory because of what we have in common. I'm not sure what we would call our differences (that I do not believe God punished Christ to pay our "sin debt") but if you would provide a name for that view then I'll start referring to it in a manner you feel more appropriate.
Penal substitution.
The crucifixion itself speaks of punishment (beating, flogging, nailing to a cross.)
The horrible cost of our sin. The absolute innocent one suffering in our place.
Adam after his sin said "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."
IOW - its your fault God.
God took him at his word.
The crucifixion itself speaks of punishment (beating, flogging, nailing to a cross.)
The horrible cost of our sin. The absolute innocent one suffering in our place.
Adam after his sin said "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."
IOW - its your fault God.
God took him at his word.
I can agree with this (I think all Christians can)
Would it be fair to say that all Christians have believed the doctrine of penal substitution in that all affirm what the ECF's have in common in respect to the Cross - that God caused Christ's suffering for it "pleased" God to "crush" Him; that Christ bore our sins in His flesh; that God gave Him as a guilt offering; that he died for our iniquities; and that by His stripes we are healed?
If so, could we distinguish theory from doctrine by referring to the theory God had to satisfy the demands of divine justice by punishing sin in order to forgive men, therefore God punished Christ with the wrath due our sins to pay our "sin debt" by refering to it (as many have) as "Calvin's Theory of Penal Substitution"?
If so, could we distinguish theory from doctrine by referring to the theory God had to satisfy the demands of divine justice by punishing sin in order to forgive men, therefore God punished Christ with the wrath due our sins to pay our "sin debt" by refering to it (as many have) as "Calvin's Theory of Penal Substitution"?
I'm game.
BTW and FWIW, I'm not a Calvinist but on the other hand I find fault with Arminianism as well.
But there was a "price" of course.
Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Yea.. I think the "Calvin" part may trouble others. While he developed the theory other Christian's like John Wesley were thrust it forward.
Maybe just using the doctrine of penal substitution to refer to the Christian teaching that we were purchased with the precious blood of Christ and the Theory of Penal Substitution to refer to Calvin's view this was accomplished by God punishing Jesus to pay our "sin debt" to satisfy His justice and redeem man would be better.
If so, all Christians can rally around the doctrine of penal substitution even while a majority reject the Theory. Maybe this will lend clarity.
I tend to agree. What were the quantitative and qualitative depths of His suffering? - We may never know even on the other side.
Just God becoming man is eternally beyond our comprehension, I think.
I'm a bit puzzled by this. Here are my quotations from Aquinas:
'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death against his will. Nor did God the father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, 'He did not spare his own Son.' But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this, saying, 'He has delivered him for us all,' and 'God has established him [Christ] as a propitiation by his blood through faith.'
[Quest. 47, art 3. Italics and square brackets in the original, underlining mine]
And
'By sin man contracts a twofold obligation. First, he is bound in slavery to sin inasmuch as 'everyone who sins is a slave of sin, and by whatever a man is overcome, of this also he is the slave. Because then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was delivered into the bondage of the devil. Secondly, by sin man was held to the debt of punishment according to divine justice......
As therefore Christ's passion provided adequate, and more than adequate satisfaction for man's sin and debt, his passion was as it were the price of punishment by which we are freed from both obligations. satisfaction offered for oneself or for another resembles the price whereby one ransoms himself from sin and from punishment.....Now Christ offered satisfaction.....by giving the greatest of all things, namely himself, for us. For that reason, the passion of Christ is said to be our ransom.'
[Quest. 48, art 4. Italics in the original, underlining mine]
Moreover, right at the end of Question 47, Aquinas writes: Reply to Objection 3: Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father willed it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently Christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice. Nevertheless, whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, but likewise to God and to the State; just as he who kills himself, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that David condemned to death the man who "did not fear to lay hands upon the Lord's anointed," even though he (Saul) had requested it, as related 2 Kings 1:5-14.
Here Aquinas is saying that although God the Father willed the passion of Christ, that did not excuse those who killed Him. In this Aquinas is in line with Acts 4:26-28. But in the extracts above it is clear that he believes that God 'was unwilling to remit sin without punishment' and that Christ took that punishment upon Himself.
You are quite wrong IMO to suppose that Justin Martyr is relying on Acts 2. He is dealing with Trypho's objection to the Messiah being hung upon a tree and is relying on Galatians 3:10-14 and the associated O.T. verses. Here is a longer extract:
Trypho recognizes that the Christ must suffer, but he cannot bring himself to believe that He would be crucified, since the OT law teaches that anyone crucified is under God's curse (Deut. 21:23):
'Then Trypho remarked, "Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover I do admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of [Nun] was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law' [Sect. 89]
Justin begins by assuring Trypho that Christ was not cursed for His own sins: 'Though a curse lies in the law against persons that are crucified, yet no curse rests on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved' [sect. 94]
'For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, "Cursed is everyone that coninueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this........But if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes' [sect 95]
Then Justin reaches the crux of his argument, where he explains that the reason why our Lord was crucified is that the curse which rested on us for our sin was transferred to Him.
'If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?' [sect 95, emphases added]
This amounts to a clear statement of penal substitution. Although Christ was innocent, He bore the curse due to sinful humanity, enduring in His death the punishment due to us. Several others of the ECFs explain this doctrine on the basis of the 'curse' vocabulary of Gal. 3:13 and Deut, 21:23, including Eusebius of Caesarea ('Proof of the Gospel, bk.10, ch.1) and Hilary of Poitiers (Homily on Psalm 53, sect. 13).
You will (or should) be aware that in all our discussions I have never quoted Calvin. I am therefore not happy to refer to Penal Substitution as 'Calvin's Theory.'
The definition that I have used throughout our discussions and quoted any number of times is this: 'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.' I have no doubt that Justin and many other ECFs would have endorsed that had it been presented to them. Those who deny the doctrine have tended to be Roman Catholic ritualists and/or schoolmen, Socinians and modern-day liberals.
Martin Marprelate said:
I take it that the 'yes' refers to my first question, and 'Genesis 3' to my fourth. That leaves questions 2 & 3.JonC said:
However, I think that Christ becoming a curse for us originates a lot further back than Genesis 3. Try Titus 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:20.
- Status