What are the issues with Penal Substitution Theory?

[JonC]

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.

Perhaps I can help your puzzlement (I will try anyway).

Aquinas was clear (without a doubt clear based on the pains that he took to explain his "satisfactory punishment") that he considered the idea one could be punished (simple punishment) for the sins of another to be unjust.

So you are correct that Aquinas believed punishment necessary. But you are wrong that this is the same thing those who hold the Theory of Penal Substitution consider when they use the word.

I won't look it up now (it's on my computer) but if you cannot find where Aquinas discusses "simple punishment" vs. "satisfactory punishment" let me know and I can help. That said, I'm sure you are capable.

Perhaps the best example would be the RCC idea of penance. It is the same (I can't be punished for my father's sins but I can take upon myself a type of punishment in a satisfactory way for his benefit). When it comes to Aquinas simply think "divine penance".

 

[JonC]

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.

Oh, and Martyr may not be relying on Acts. My opinion is that he does simply because he approaches quoting Peter's sermon and his flow of argument is identical. But, while Catholic, he was a learned Christian so perhaps you are correct.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Hey brother. I found the reference on Aquinas of which I spoke. It is found in Summa Theologiae, Article 8. I have it on kindle, but I'm sure it's also online.

This does show the difference I was speaking of earlier (how people look back and see God "punishing" Christ in one's work without considering what they are truly saying (the same rings true with every ECF when we look at the idea of God punishing Jesus to satisfy the demands of divine justice and redeem us by paying our "sin debt". But in a general sense, yes.....we all believe a doctrine that includes penal and substitution elements (and I don't object to that at all because I believe the same).

Here is Aquinas:

"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment, in so far as they are, in some way, one, as stated above (see Article 7) If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sins only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin."

So, is it fair to say that Aquinas, along with all Christians, affirms the “doctrine of penal substitution” because he believed (along with all Christians) that Christ bore our sins, purchased us with His own blood, and by his suffering we are healed

BUT

Denies the “Theory of Penal Substitution” because he taught that Christ did not suffer a “punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal”?

 

[JonC]

I take it that the 'yes' refers to my first question, and 'Genesis 3' to my fourth. That leaves questions 2 & 3.
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.

I agree that Christ is God's eternally begotten Son (and the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world).

But I also believe that the curse came about at a point in time (Genesis) just as I believe that Christ was crucified at a point in time.

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.

Now that (quoted above) is one wild assumption. And the fact remains that they did not endorse the Theory because it had not been presented to them. Either they were stupid or the Theory isn't the "plain teaching of Scripture" because they didn't have it.

BUT I would agree that if the ECF's were products of our way of thinking then they very well may have endorsed that view had it been presented to them. The fact is, however, that we are dealing with very different worldviews - which is my entire point!!!

Those who hold the Theory of Penal Substitution that may have been endorsed by the Early Church had it been presented to the Early Church are reading into Scripture what the Early Church did not read into Scripture. Your "plain teaching of Scripture" was not "plain" to the Early Church because they did not, in fact, endorse the Theory (as you indicated - they hadn't been presented the Theory to endorse).

 

[utilyan]

The bible, Apostles, Jesus, Early Church Fathers. If they wanted to teach "God poured out his wrath on Jesus" They simply would have said so.


Luke 2

22And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY firstborn MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”), 24and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS.”


What sin did Mary commit to be transferred to the two turtledoves?



Leviticus 12

6‘When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. 7‘Then he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female.

 

[JonC]

So one issue could be that the Theory of Penal Substitution is a relatively new theory. As J.I. Packer wrote, the elements were present in that the church and Scripture has always affirmed that Christ suffered at the will of the Father, bore our sins, and it was by Christ's suffering that we are "healed". @Martin Marprelate , who is no biblical slouch, also affirmed that the Early Church was not privy to the Theory (although he has no doubt that many "would have endorsed that had it been presented to them").

Where are we left? The Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement is a theory, a process of theological development that was not present throughout the history of the Church. It is not the "plain teaching of Scripture" (which is actually an insult towards any who disagree with the Theory) because, while affirming those aspects that would be systematically developed into the theory, earlier Christians did not arrive at the Theory through reading Scripture.

Does this mean the Theory is wrong? No. Antiquity does not make right. But that it took so long to be developed does mean we should be cautious. And it means that we owe it to ourselves and our faith to examine exactly why it was not developed earlier. The reason is, I believe, that they simply did not think in terms of Western philosophy. So @Martin Marprelate may be correct, and maybe (I'd even say probably) if the ECF's were a product of post-Reformation Protestant culture they may have endorsed the Theory had it been presented to them. BUT the fact is they did not have the Theory so we will never truly know.

All we can do is look at how it developed and what was different between "us and them". The Scripture is the same. The worldview is not. We have to justify what we bring into the reading.

Hopefully we will be able to try again to see how the Theory of Penal Substitution (and other theories) developed out of the doctrines that Scripture teach concerning Christ bearing our sin and the Father offering His Son as a guilt offering. I think that would be the most interesting part of the conversation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate , who is no biblical slouch, also affirmed that the Early Church was not privy to the Theory (although he has no doubt that many "would have endorsed that had it been presented to them").

I made no such comment. Please read my posts #45 and #59. If your comprehension skills are so bad that you cannot reconcile them, all you have to do is ask and I will explain.
BUT DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I DID NOT SAY.

 

[JonC]

I made no such comment. Please read my posts #45 and #59. If your comprehension skills are so bad that you cannot reconcile them, all you have to do is ask and I will explain.
BUT DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I DID NOT SAY.

Again, Brother, there is no need for insults. You have, most likely by accident I'm sure, descended to ad hominem.

If I misjudged your statement it was to your credit. I was extending to you a measure of objectivity. Here is what you said:

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.

The truth, of course, is that many Christian's have held ideas of the Atonement contrary to the Theory of Penal Substitution. Anabaptist theology denies the Theory. All early Christian's denied the Theory (they held a different, and contrary, view of divine forgiveness). Luther technically held a position just to the left (or right) of the Theory.

The closest to the Theory is Aquinas, as you have shown by your belief he held to Penal Substitution Theory. Aquinas' position is the RCC view. So at least I hope you see why I find it difficult to follow you thoughts (Aquinas held the Theory/ Catholics reject the Theory / Aquinas was a Catholic whose ideas formed the RCC view). Any "mistakes" on my part were honest. You did not have to insult me.

I have no doubt that Justin and many other ECFs would have endorsed that had it been presented to them.

I took your comments to mean that you believed many ECF's would have endorced that had it been presented to them. It was an honest comment on my part (that was how I read your words)..

You seem to be a good man and Christian, but throughout the thread the subject seems to have brought out a hatefulness in your replies. I hope one day we can explore the topic in a Christian manner, in one where a defense of a Christian theory is not based in un-christlike insults and ad hominem but an objective examination of both Scripture and the issues involved. I really do believe this could be an interesting topic.

You may object, but we are brothers in Christ. If we insult each other we insult Christ. I have strong beliefs concerning this topic as well. But I do not believe it appropriate to result to insults to "prove my point". I hope you understand my position here. "Iron sharpening iron" is the opposite of defending one's theory via insulting a one who opposes the view. For one, it invalidates your view to the other person. But more importantly, it is the opposite of the Christ-like attitude we are to have towards one another.

 

[JonC]

It is painfully obvious that this topic cannot be discussed in a Christ-like manner and I have no desire to be the cause of another's sin, I will go ahead and close the thread (at the request of its author - me).

The dialogue is here for others to see and evaluate. Reference are here. Ignore the insults and poor demeanor exhibited here - this is common on "hot topics" (even though it shouldn't be). Most of us have been guilty at some time or another.

If this "defense" of the Penal Substitution Theory is to continue it may on another persons thread.

Thanks to all of you who have contributed.

 

[JonC]

Thread is closed.