Featured What is Penal Substitution Atonement

"I grant that what they put forward concerning the meaning of the word is true: "hell" is frequently to be understood as "grave." But two reasons militate against their opinion, and readily persuade me to disagree with them. How careless it would have been, when something not at all difficult in itself has been stated with clear and easy words, to indicate it again in words that obscure rather than clarify it! Whenever two expressions for the same thing are used in the same context, the latter ought to be an explanation of the former. But what sort of explanation will it be if one says that "Christ was buried" means that "he descended into hell"? Secondly, it is not likely that a useless repetition of this sort could have crept into this summary, which the chief points of our faith are aptly noted in the fewest possible words. I have no doubt that all who have weighed this matter with some care will readily agree with me.....But we must seek a surer explanation, apart from the Creed, of Christ’s descent into hell. The explanation given to us in God’s Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation. If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No — it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death." (Calvin, Institutes)

Can you discern the difference between Calvin's doctrine and Luther's?

 

No. I am speaking of satisfactory punishment (Christ bearing our sins) rather than retributive punishment (God being wrathful towards Christ). This is the difference in our positions - not types of death but sufficiency of the Cross (what made Christ's sacrifice sufficient).

 

If you truly cannot discern the difference between Luther and Calvin then you have far greater issues than our disagreement here.

Yes, look at what they wrote. Look at the perspectives. Look at what each is saying. Examine how Luther believed Christ satisfied the demands of sin and wrath. Examine how Calvin viewed Christ as our propitiation.

If you cannot understand the difference between the two then I believe it is because you are blinded by your own theological biases. To borrow from Spurgeon, like Horatio Nelson you put the telescope to the blind eye and complain you can't see.

And this is sad because each (Luther and Calvin) have so much to offer - even in areas where they disagreed.

 

On second thought, I'm just going to leave it like this -

If you think Luther believed Christ suffered retributive punishment then you have not read Luther.
If you think Calvin did not believe Christ suffered retributive punishment then you have not read Calvin.
If you believe the distinction to be without a difference, then you have no ground to criticize my position.

 

There is a little dishonesty in your post, but I'm not sure it is intentional (I'm actually not sure you even grasp the distinction to which I'm referring).

You could have done much better in your choice, brother, if you wanted to highlight the penal substitutionary aspects of Luther's view (from the same commentary):

“But because he beareth the sins of the world, his innocence is burdened with the sins and guilt of the whole world. Whatsoever sins I, thou, and we all have done, or shall hereafter, they are Christ’s own sins as verily as if he himself had done them….In these Psalms [41,69] the Holy Ghost speaketh in the person of Christ, and in plain words witnesseth that he had sins. For this testimony is not the voice of an innocent, but of a suffering Christ, which took upon him to bear the person of all sinners, and therefore was made guilty of the sins of the whole world.”

And “To this all the Scripture beareth witness; and we also do confess the same in the articles of the Christian belief, when we say: ‘I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, which suffered, was crucified and died for us.’”

And “Jesus Christ the Son of God died upon the cross, did bear in his body my sin, the law, death, the devil and hell.”

I have never denied this, nor have I said that Luther denied this (as I've affirmed for you on at least several dozen occasions). And this is absolutely penal and it is absolutely substitution. But it is not the retributive punishment Calvin presents in his Institutions. This thread was exploring what is, and what is not, PSA.

And this is my question. Does PSA necessitate the contextual framework of retributive justice (the punishment not being a satisfaction punishment but a retributive punishment)? Is the view (Luther's view) that satisfaction is made on the basis of Christ outweighing by merit (by virtue of his divine nature bearing the sins of the world) the eternal punishment due mankind enough to be considered PSA or does one have to hold to a more specific view (Calvin’s articulation) that satisfaction is the result of retributive punishment poured out on Christ? If it is enough, if it is as @Martin Marprelate presents - a difference without distinction, then is there a name for the more specific PSA that holds God punished Jesus with our punishment (within a context of retributive justice)?

 

No,those are real terms (which I am actually surprised you have no encountered until now). For Luther the punishment was "medicinal", for Aquinas it was "satisfaction punishment", and for Calvin it was "retributive punishment".

A "punishment" can be retributive, but it can also be a penalty, and it can simply mean a rough treatment. Under the context of judicial retribution it does means retributive punishment. But your inability to grasp other meanings to the term serves to illustrate what I mean by being driven by your own presuppositions and theological leanings.

 

You are caught up in the same tradition I was caught up in for decades. The issue is not the penalty of the law but the satisfaction rendered. You can't see past the law and to the nature of Christ on this point. The penalty is death, and Christ paid that penalty.

 

The argument is whether we are saved by the blood of Christ in terms of His Person, Holiness, Divinity and obedience or in terms of retributive punishment inflicted. Are we justified by Christ or by the Law through Him?

@The Biblicist 's remarks reflect tradition influencing interpretation as he elevates divine justice not as descriptive of God but prescriptive, enslaving God and elevating man. And I find it difficult to see his version of PSA as anything but idolatry.

 

My complaint is that you find Christ's suffering and death insufficient except it take the form of retributive punishment. You also ignore the nature of a covenant and this significance in Christ's death.

Ultimately, I do believe you hold on to an essential aspect of the atonement (although it may appear I argue against it). But your doctrine is skewed because you have flattened the Atonement, simplified and compressed it into a singular aspect and placed that idea into a judicial framework foreign to the biblical description of divine justice.

 

Don't be foolish. I never denied Christ's death. I am saying Christ is sufficient (a point you keep denying).

It is one thing to rest in the sufficiency of Christ, another to merely view him as being punished sufficiency or sufficient enough to take our punishment.