John Calvin wrote that Jesus Christ was “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them” (Institutes 2:16.10).
Varying theories of Christ’s atonement.
So, there are three things that constitute the theory of Penal Substitution:
1. Men accumulate transgressions that deserve punishment.
For the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).
2. Christ was made a substitute in the place of sinful men, so that He bore their punishment.
[T]he Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Is 53:6).
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (Gal 3:13).
3. This substitution had the effect of satisfying God’s wrath, so that God exacted justice by literally punishing all the accumulated sin of men in Christ’s place.
But the Lord was pleased to crush Him…if He would render Himself as a guilt offering…As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities. (Is 53:10-11).
The Scriptural proof would seem like enough to settle the matter. So, what’s the big deal?
Well, it some people claim that no one taught this idea, nor seen in in the Scripture, for 1500 years! There are both anti-PSA Protestants and Catholics that make this claim. For the purposes of this article, we will be comparing and contrasting with the Satisfaction theory of atonement, because it is the doctrinal view of Catholicism.
According to Theopedia:
Penal Substitution states that Christ bore the penalty for sin, in place of those sinners united to him by faith. Anselm, by contrast, regarded human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ’s death, the ultimate act of obedience, gives God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ’s surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ’s death is substitutionary in this sense: he pays the honour instead of us. But that substitution is not penal; his death pays our honour not our penalty…For Anselm, Christ obeyed where we should have obeyed; for John Calvin, he was punished where we should have been punished.
So, the key difference is that for Reformed thinkers Christ satisfied the Father by placating His wrath by acting as our substitute, while to Catholics Christ was our substitute for our lack of obedience. In RCC doctrine, by faith in Christ and taking part in the sacramental life of the Church, the merit of Christ (and the Saints with excess merit) is credited to our account, thereby satisfying God’s demand of righteousness on our behalf.
Or, in short, Catholics do not affirm point #3, and instead replace it God’s demand for merit in place of God’s demand for justice.
Now, these are gross generalizations (Reformed thinkers also believe in Christ’s merit being credited to the account of sinners as an essential part of soteriology), but for the sake of space we will stick with them.
Is the Reformed view of PSA justified in the Scripture? Well, we have already showed that. Does the Scripture speak of a treasury of merits? Well, not really. But in RCC theology that does not matter, because of RCC “tradition” attests to it.
So, for the sake of satisfying the wrath of Catholics who claim PSA did not exist for 1500 years of church history, we are going to examine the claim and see if it is true. We are going to use the colors from the three points above to highlight when each separate idea is invoked.
Evidence #1: Cyril of Alexandria’s Lengthy Discussion in Book XII of his Commentary on John
He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. For He became ‘a curse for us’, according to the Scripture: ‘For cursed is everyone’, it is said, ‘that hangeth on a tree.’ And accursed are we all, for we are not able to fulfill the Law of God: ‘For in many things we all stumble’; and very prone to sin is the nature of man. And since, too, the Law of God says: ‘Cursed is he which continueth not in all things that are written in the book of this Law, to do them,’ the curse, then, belongeth unto us, and not to others. For those against whom the transgression of the Law may be charged, and who are very prone to err from its commandments, surely deserve chastisement. Therefore, He That knew no sin was accursed for our sakes, that He might deliver us from the old curse. For all-sufficient was the God Who is above all, so dying for all; and by the death of His own Body, purchasing the redemption of all mankind.
The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law…He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law, that the mouth of all lawlessness might henceforth be stopped, according to the saying of the Psalmist; the Sinless having suffered condemnation for the sin of all (John 19:16–18).
For God’s anger did not cease with Adam’s fall, but He was also provoked by those who after him dishonoured the Creator’s decree; and the denunciation of the Law against transgressors was extended continuously over all. We were, then, accursed and condemned, by the sentence of God, through Adam’s transgression, and through breach of the Law laid down after him; but the Savior wiped out the hand- writing against us, by nailing the title to His Cross, which very clearly pointed to the death upon the Cross which He underwent for the salvation of men, who lay under condemnation. For our sake He paid the penalty for our sins. For though He was One that suffered, yet was He far above any creature, as God, and more precious than the life of all (John 19:19).
Conclusion: All three major points are addressed, including point three which mentions that God’s wrath was satisfied by causing Chris to suffer in man’s place. “God’s anger” was made to cease when “He paid the penalty for our sins.”
Evidence #2: Athanasius’ Letter to Marcellinus
And Psalm 22…They pierced my hands and my feet- what else can that mean except the cross? And Psalms 88 and 69, again speaking in the Lord’s own person, tell us further that He suffered these things, not for His own sake but for ours. Thou has made Thy wrath to rest upon me, says the one; and the other adds, I paid them things I never took. For He did not die as being Himself liable to death: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression, even as Isaiah says, Himself bore our weaknesses. So in Psalm 138 we say, The Lord will make requital for me; and in the 72nd the Spirit says, He shall save the children of the poor and bring the slanderer low, for from the hand of the mighty He has set the poor man free, the needy man whom there was none to help (Letter to Marcellenius).
Conclusion: Athanasius affirms all three key ideas including explicit penal language. Athanasius explores the same idea in On the Incarnation (Chapter 9) but for the sake of space we move on.
Evidence #3: Jerome’s Commentary of Isaiah, excerpts from Chapter 53 (The following are from the Aquinas Study Bible where the original Latin is available. I put it through Google translate.)
He was put to death by God for their sins, who was humbled for us.
For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace [with God] through the blood of His cross… (Sorry, couldn’t resist underlining the penal language in red and making clear that the reference to peace obviously pertains to an dire situation with God, who demands there to be justice.)
[B]ut the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, for our sins, or the Lord delivered him; so that what we could not because of the weakness in their numbers to bear, he would carry for us, which will be offered, because Himself willed it. (It is worth noting that Jerome in exegeting Is 53:6, the purple here is an inferred understanding because it shows that God desired laying onto Christ our iniquity, but there is no explicit mention of His wrath.)
In order to show that I am not purposely taking Jerome out of context, I am going to include the two other explicit theories of atonement I found in my reading of the chapter–the Ransom and Moral Influence theories of atonement:
…so did he suffered is, in will, in order that he might destroy him who had the power of death.
Peter…said, For to this you were called in ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example, that ye should follow His steps.
Conclusion: Jerome in his discussion of Is 53 covers all the essentials of PSA. Christ was specifically “put to death by God,” suffering “for us,” in order to bear what was “owed to us according to our crimes.”
My challenge to Catholics:
Now, there are more examples such as Augustine (Contra Faustum, Book XIV, Chapter 4) Eusebius (in his book Proof of the Gospel), Hilary of Poitiers (who called Jesus “a victim to God the Father” in his homily on Psalm 13), Gregory the Great (Book of Morals, Book III, Chap 26), and Chrysostom (Homilies on Galatians, Gal 3:13) but we’re over 1600 words already so you can click on the links to read up more on them. The point is, can you come up with a few explicit mentions from the Early Church Fathers of the theory of Satisfaction Atonement, including all three points from your own perspective? Further, can you find it in the Scripture?
While the majority of Early Church Fathers ascribed to the ransom and Christus Victor theories, these are not the positions of modern Catholicism. So, it is not up to me to show that the majority of Church Fathers adhered to PSA. They didn’t. However, as we have shown more than a few expressed that Christ died as a substitute to satisfy God’s justice/wrath. Can we find any Church Father adhere to the theory of Satisfaction that the RCC presently espouses? Did a single Church Father say that Christ died as our substitute in order that He would in our place render the works and achieve the merit demanded by God in our place?
And, if not, then who exactly is really safeguarding “true Apostolic tradition?”
There is only one thing we can’t debate: the authority of the Scripture. Men of all persuasions claim that their the ones that preserved Apostolic doctrine which existed from the beginning. Their competing claims make it where we have no real certainty. Who is telling the truth, if anyone?
However, this we know: We can go right to the horse’s mouth and read what the Apostles actually wrote…it’s called the Bible! As long as a doctrine is taught in the Scriptures, then it is true. They “are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:16). And, if there is supposedly anything missing from the Scripture that is necessary to believe to do for salvation, wouldn’t that turn God into a liar?
Perish the thought. May Jesus Christ be praised. Amen.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
As a side note, because the article is so long, it is not my argument that every aspect of the Satisfaction Theory (or any other theory) of atonement is wrong. As far as these things are found in the Scriptures, they are correct. My point is to show that it is hypocritical that Catholics accuse the Reformed of being sola scriptura wackos dreaming up new doctrines, when our doctrine of atonement is both Biblical and traditional, while theirs (though it has Biblical merits) lacks traditional ones.
So, we should not reject every aspect of all the other theories on atonement. However, we would be doing violence to Orthodoxy if we ignore the doctrine of PSA because it is in the Bible and traditionally has been recognized as such.
The Satisfaction theory of atonement, because it is the doctrinal view of Catholicism.
Actually, that’s inaccurate. It is one theory of the atonement. There have been many, and there is not any single, limited view that is “the view of Catholicism” (as you would understand if you had read more than the first paragraph of the linked article). Even some penal conceptions are acceptable to Catholics. It is only certain implications of the later Reformation doctrine, namely that God the Father punished His own son, that are unacceptable to Catholics.
See also The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement by Henry Nutcombe Oxenham, in the public domain.
Did a single Church Father say that Christ died as our substitute in order that He would in our place render the works and achieve the merit demanded by God in our place? And, if not, then who exactly is really safeguarding “true Apostolic tradition?”
I hope you’re having fun pounding on that straw man. 🙂
However, this we know: We can go right to the horse’s mouth and read what the Apostles actually wrote…it’s called the Bible! As long as a doctrine is taught in the Scriptures, then it is true.
What is debatable, of course, are interpretations of Scripture.
To your third point:
This substitution had the effect of satisfying God’s wrath, so that God exacted justice by literally punishing all the accumulated sin of men in Christ’s place.
You are conflating ideas again. That Christ made satisfaction for our sins has been consistently held and taught by the Catholic Church. That “God exacted justice by punishing [Christ]” is a completely different idea, one not supported either by the Scriptures or by any of the patristic quotations you’ve given.
Can you come up with a few explicit mentions from the Early Church Fathers of the theory of Satisfaction Atonement, including all three points from your own perspective? Further, can you find it in the Scripture?
You should read Anselm, who developed that theory; you should not expect to find it fully articulated by anyone earlier. The ransom theory was the prevalent theory in the earlier Fathers. And why, you’ve already quoted all of the Scriptures I would have used.
Peace be with you.
“It is only certain implications of the later Reformation doctrine, namely that God the Father punished His own son, that are unacceptable to Catholics.”
You mean, like the Book of Isaiah literally says, as do the Church Fathers that were quoted. What’s objectionable about something historically taught by the Church?
“I hope you’re having fun pounding on that straw man. :)”
That does not answer the question. Satisfaction is the dominant theory, by your own Church’s admission the others confused. The article says that Satisfaction was historically taught but “unfortunately, at first, and for a long period of theological history, were this truth was somewhat obscured by a strange confusion.”
So, it took 1200 years for the Catholic Church to get it right then, or can you show me where your actual doctrine was taught since the beginning?
“What is debatable, of course, are interpretations of Scripture. ”
Which makes it important that a doctrine never be taught before until some point in the Middle Ages.
“That “God exacted justice by punishing [Christ]” is a completely different idea, one not supported either by the Scriptures or by any of the patristic quotations you’ve given.”
Read the article. I quoted both the Scripture and the interpretations of the ECFs that said exactly that, and color coded it for you so it would be easy to follow.
Please reply to the actual article before making these points, or I will have to nicely ask you not to spam my website (please 🙂 ). You are saying things that have been specifically rebutted, and it if I made my point wrong by all means point it out and show where it is wrong, but don’t repeat claims that have been rebutted. I don’t want readers to think that I concede a given point unless I actually do, and I I have to edit my replies section I will. I honestly don’t want to come off threatening, so please just be more careful in your next reply to actually address the evidence I present.
“You should read Anselm, who developed that theory; you should not expect to find it fully articulated by anyone earlier.”
Why, that’s awfully problematic for your position when you claim to have preserved the same doctrines from the very beginning, and there is a 1,000 year lapse.
Yet, Jerome wrote: “He was put to death by God for their sins, who was humbled for us…For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace [with God] through the blood of His cross…”
It says it right there. Christ was put to death by God, to make peace. You need to come up with an alternate interpretation, or I ask again politely, please not say claims that the idea “that ‘God exacted justice by punishing Chris’ is…not supported…by any of the patristic quotations you’ve given.” Jerome could not have been any more explicit. Show me how he has been presented wrong, or please do not reply with such unsubstantiated claims, or you force me to delete the reply. Please 🙂
You mean, like the Book of Isaiah literally says, as do the Church Fathers that were quoted. What’s objectionable about something historically taught by the Church?
Nothing in Isaiah “literally says” that “God punished Christ for our sins.” I’m sorry, but it “literally” doesn’t. It says:
“we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (v. 4): We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, because he had no form or comeliness, he was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief; because he was despised, and we esteemed him not (vv. 2-3). This does not say that he was “smitten by God.”
“He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities…” (v. 5): All passive voice, not clear who is wounding Him for our transgressions.
“The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” (v. 6): For “surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows” (v. 4): the Lord willed that He should take our sorrows and our sins upon Him.
“It was the will of the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief.” (v. 10) A statement of divine will, not of divine agency. This does not “literally say” that God punished Him for our sins. That reading is contradicted by the remainder of the verse: “When he makes himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.”
Can you show me where your actual doctrine was taught since the beginning?
No single doctrine has been “taught since the beginning.” The Church’s understanding has developed over time, through the work of dozens of theologians. Do you think something can only be true if it was present, fully formed, from the beginning? Certainly this wasn’t the case with the doctrine of the Trinity: Though the raw material was there in Scripture, the precise understanding had to be hammered out over the course of several centuries through the course of rejecting successive heresies.
Which makes it important that a doctrine never be taught before until some point in the Middle Ages.
The doctrine of the Trinity was not fully articulated until after the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. Should we then reject it? (There are actually Evangelical Protestants today who argue just that.)
Read the article. Please reply to the actual article before making these points.
I read your article. I disagreed with it. The patristic quotations do not show any notion of “God exacting justice upon Christ.” They show, in the case of Cyril, that Christ satisfied God’s anger by His sacrifice, by paying the price for our sins. Christ suffered in our place. This is all consistent with the Catholic understandings of the atonement, but nowhere contains any notion of “God [exacting] justice by literally punishing all the accumulated sin of men in Christ’s place.”
In the case of Athanasius, again, he affirms that Christ bore our sins, suffered for us, and satisfied God’s wrath. Where do you find “God exacting justice by punishing Christ”?
Jerome, again, quoting Isaiah almost verbatim, says only that He suffered for us and satisfied God’s wrath, that he willfully took up our sins and carried them for us. As you yourself admit, there is no mention at all here of God’s wrath or God punishing Christ.
The part where you claim Jerome says, “He was put to death by God for their sins, who was humbled for us”: here you are grossly taking the words out of context — which is somewhat excusable, since you’re not actually reading from the Latin. Google’s Latin translator has gotten a lot better over the years (I’m quite impressed), but it mutilated this part pretty badly:
and the meaning is have thought that he was put to death by God for their sins, who was humbled for us, and was crucified with thieves.
What the Latin says:
et est sensus: putauimus eum pro peccatis suis a deo esse percussum, qui humiliatus est propter nos, et cum latronibus crucifixus.
And this is the sense [meaning]: we thought him, for our own sins, to be stricken by God, who has been humiliated on account of us, and with thieves crucified.
He is essentially paraphrasing the Isaiah 53:4, which in the Vulgate reads:
… et nos putavimus eum quasi plagatum, percussum a Deo et humiliatum.
Jerome does not say “He was put to death by God for their sins” at all. The next part after this refers him being stricken to leprosy, not to “putting to death.”
Why, that’s awfully problematic for your position when you claim to have preserved the same doctrines from the very beginning, and there is a 1,000 year lapse.
Wait, what? I don’t claim that at all.
It says it right there. Christ was put to death by God …
Actually, no it doesn’t.
Jerome could not have been any more explicit.
If you’re going to make such bold claims about Jerome, you should actually read Jerome.
Peace be with you.
“Nothing in Isaiah “literally says” that “God punished Christ for our sins.” I’m sorry, but it “literally” doesn’t…“we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted” (v. 4): We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, because he had no form or comeliness, he was a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief; because he was despised, and we esteemed him not (vv. 2-3). This does not say that he was “smitten by God…”All passive voice, not clear who is wounding Him for our transgressions.”
“But the Lord was pleased to crush Him” (Is 53:10).
Are you saying that God was not pleased? Are you actually going to stick to the argument that Christ wasn’t smitten by God? It says that the Lord was pleased to crush Him! And, for what it is worth Jerome translated it in the Vulgate to read, “And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity,” so I am not quoting a corrupt Protestant rendering.
“No single doctrine has been “taught since the beginning.””
A lot of them were. The Gospel was taught since the beginning. Original Sin was taught since the beginning. Head coverings were taught since the beginning. I suppose, if you want to be in existential doubt about everything, then of course nothing was taught since the beginning. But, even so, to wait 12 centuries for someone to even vocalize to notion even in passing is a pretty good indication that the teaching is probably not right, or at least is missing something substantial.
“The patristic quotations do not show any notion of “God exacting justice upon Christ.””
Your own words betray you.
“They show, in the case of Cyril, that Christ satisfied God’s anger by His sacrifice, by paying the price for our sins.”
Okay, so if God had anger satisfied by a sacrifice, then that contradicts the link you gave me in your previous article that you claimed represented the Catholic viewpoint. That link said, ” The Father was never angry with Christ. ” (http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/) You just admitted that Cyril communicated an idea that your link, that you claim represented Catholicism, explicitly contradicts.
If you keep moving the goal posts and change your mind about what Catholicism teaches, then of course I can never beat you in an argument, but that doesn’t really matter to me. Because, in effect, you have cut your on viewpoint at the knees and conceded that God substituted His Son in our place so that Christ may bare the wrath that we deserved. That’s PSA. You can call it something else all day, but you just conceded it to me right there.
“Where do you find [in Athanasius] “God exacting justice by punishing Christ”?”
“He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression”
I am sure you are aware, a penalty is “a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.” It is meted out by something called a “criminal justice system.” The word “justice” is there, because the meting out of penalties is the very essence of “exacting justice.”
So if Christ experienced “wrath that was the penalty of our transgression” that literally means that Christ was punished for the sake of justice. Being that you already conceded that God was the one that did it, why are you disagreeing with me on purpose?
“What the Latin says:
et est sensus: putauimus eum pro peccatis suis a deo esse percussum, qui humiliatus est propter nos, et cum latronibus crucifixus.
And this is the sense [meaning]: we thought him, for our own sins, to be stricken by God, who has been humiliated on account of us, and with thieves crucified.”
I think you are correct on this point. He is explaining Is 53:4. The best I can say is that Jerome is explaining the text because he is not quoting it, he understands it to mean that Christ is punished by God, and he does not say that this claim is incorrect.
However, Jerome later explains how he views the situation, which I already quoted:
“For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace [with God] through the blood of His cross…”
This means Christ’s death was a payment for crime. Committed against who? God.
Later, Jerome comments on Is 53:10…perhaps you can clear up the Latin for me. This is what it says on Google Translate:
“but the Lord has wished to clean him from the scourge of God,” (Is 53:10)…God speaks and by Zechariah: “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be dispersed.” That He should suffer, therefore, there was no necessity, but of the will of the Father. And of his, to whom he said himself: “O God, to do Thy will,” I wanted to. whom I have also read: “He was offered, because Himself willed it.”
So, Jerome clearly affirms that in Is 53:4, that Christ was indeed put to death by God, which is why he quotes “I will strike the shepherd,” “O God, to do Thy will,” and “He was offered, because Himself willed it” as evidence for this.
You already conceded early that Christ satisfied God’s anger. So, again, what’s the disagreement here?
You may argue that Jerome is not being specific enough. Can you find anything even close to endorsing satisfaction atonement as Jerome does to PSA? No. That says a lot.
“Wait, what? I don’t claim that at all. ”
You were just defending the notion a little while ago. You care to show me some ECFs coming anywhere as close to endorsing Satisfaction Atonement? Please? I think that the ECFs are explicitly endorsing the notion. Even, if somehow Jerome saying that God struck the Shepherd and other such quotations are not 100.0%, though I think that they are, can you even give me something that is 65% satisfaction atonement?
“If you’re going to make such bold claims about Jerome, you should actually read Jerome.”
I did. I read that whole chapter, not that I have read a ton of other Jerome. Personally I find him to be a legalist in his writings and his bringing to bear of Scripture on the problems of his day usually seems totally out of context whenever I read him. But did he endorse PSA? Yeah.
God bless,
Craig
Are you saying that God was not pleased?
No, I didn’t say that.
Are you actually going to stick to the argument that Christ wasn’t smitten by God?
The text doesn’t say that, either.
It says that the Lord was pleased to crush Him!
Again, this is a statement of divine will, not of divine agency. The construction you are appealing to is not present in the Hebrew. The Hebrew verb used here is חפץ [hapes], translated variously delighted, pleased, willed, or purposed. So yes, the Lord was pleased and he purposed for Christ to suffer. But there is no indication in this verse or elsewhere that God punished Christ.
To wait 12 centuries for someone to even vocalize to notion even in passing is a pretty good indication that the teaching is probably not right, or at least is missing something substantial.
I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.
If God had anger satisfied by a sacrifice, then that contradicts the link you gave me in your previous article that you claimed represented the Catholic viewpoint [that “The Father was never angry with Christ”].
God was angry at sinners and at sin. I think we both agree about that! So by what logic do you presume that God’s wrath being satisfied by the sacrifice of Christ necessarily entails that God was angry at Christ? You are presuming the very point you are trying to prove. When the priests of the Old Testament sacrificed goats to satisfy God’s wrath, do you presume that God was angry at the goat? There is no trace at all in these quotations of the notion that God was angry at Christ or punished Christ. As the numerous sources I have cited, even from Protestants, attest, there is no necessary connection between the atonement being a satisfaction and Christ Himself being the object of wrath or punishment.
If you keep moving the goal posts and change your mind about what Catholicism teaches, then of course I can never beat you in an argument, but that doesn’t really matter to me.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. You are the one insisting that Catholic belief is limited to only one thing (and a caricature of it at that). I have maintained from the beginning of this thread that the Catholic understanding is not limited at all, that the Church does not require only one understanding of the atonement (unlike, apparently, Reformed churches), that it actually can encompass a wide latitude of viewpoints.
Because, in effect, you have cut your on viewpoint at the knees and conceded that God substituted His Son in our place so that Christ may bare the wrath that we deserved. That’s PSA. You can call it something else all day, but you just conceded it to me right there.
You are conflating ideas. It is clear from Scripture, and the Church Fathers have accordingly understood, that (a) Christ bore our sins (Isaiah 53:6, 1 Peter 2:24), that (b) He suffered pain and death for us (e.g. Hebrews 2:9, etc.); that He became our sin offering in His own blood (e.g. Hebrews 9:12) and sacrifice for our sins (e.g. Hebrews 10:12, Ephesians 5:2, 1 Corinthians 5:7); that His sacrifice brought expiation for our sins (e.g. Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, Romans 3:25); that He died as a substitute, the righteous for the unrighteous (e.g. 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 5:6-8); that believers are saved by Him from the wrath of God (e.g. Romans 5:9). All of this is perfectly clear, and it is perfectly consistent with traditional Catholic understandings of the atonement (e.g. the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory). The teaching that Christ died as a substitute does not entail — and not one of these verses teaches — that “God punished Christ.” There is more than one way to understand the atonement. The authors of Scripture and the Church Fathers believed these things for ages without ever conceiving of “God punishing Christ” or “taking out His wrath on His own righteous Son.”
“He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression”
Christ voluntarily bearing our sins and their penalties is not tantamount to “God punishing Christ for our sins.”
I am sure you are aware, a penalty is “a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.” It is meted out by something called a “criminal justice system.” The word “justice” is there, because the meting out of penalties is the very essence of “exacting justice.”
Cute.
So if Christ experienced “wrath that was the penalty of our transgression” that literally means that Christ was punished for the sake of justice.
But it does not mean that God punished Christ.
Being that you already conceded that God was the one that did it…
I did not.
The best I can say is that Jerome is explaining the text because he is not quoting it, he understands it to mean that Christ is punished by God, and he does not say that this claim is incorrect.
As in the Scripture itself, it says only that “we thought Him stricken by God.” That’s all. There is nothing of “Christ being punished by God.”
This means Christ’s death was a payment for crime. Committed against who? God.
Neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers follow your legal terminology of “crime” and “punishment.” As the sources I have quoted explained, this juridical language of Calvin’s legal training and understanding. But in fact, the tradition satisfaction theory of the atonement is exactly that Christ made satisfaction to God. There is a key distinction here you are glossing over.
So, Jerome clearly affirms that in Is 53:4, that Christ was indeed put to death by God, which is why he quotes “I will strike the shepherd,” “O God, to do Thy will,” and “He was offered, because Himself willed it” as evidence for this.
No, Jerome doesn’t say that. The construction in Zephaniah is imperative: “Sword, strike my shepherd.” Yes, the Lord willed this, as Scripture repeatedly affirms. No, it is nowhere taught that “God punished Christ,” and this understanding cannot be inferred from Jerome.
You already conceded early that Christ satisfied God’s anger. So, again, what’s the disagreement here?
There is a fundamental difference between Christ making satisfaction for God’s anger and God punishing His righteous Son.
Can you find anything even close to endorsing satisfaction atonement as Jerome does to PSA?
In fact, what Jerome teaches is an understanding of Christ offering satisfaction.
You were just defending the notion a little while ago.
You’ve completely lost me. You accused that “[I] claim [the Church] have preserved the same doctrines from the very beginning.” That is a misrepresentation, as I’ve explained elsewhere.
I did [read Jerome]. I read that whole chapter, not that I have read a ton of other Jerome.
You didn’t. Your read a garbled machine translation, in which a fair portion came out as garbage. Though the Google translator has gotten a lot better, Latin is really not a language that lends itself to being translated by a machine.
But did he endorse PSA? Yeah.
You are determined to read “PSA” in any mention at all of satisfaction or wrath or punishment. But that doctrine makes very specific claims and a key distinction from other similar understandings: that God punished Christ, in the legal sense, for our sins. Now, I have repeatedly cited the work of scholars, including Protestant ones, who maintain that the early Church Fathers, including these specific ones, had no notion of “penal substitution.” You have not been able to demonstrate otherwise from your limited analysis of these few quotes. Do you know better than these scholars? Do you think you can, from picking a few quotes and running them through Google Translate, find something that these scholars didn’t find through extended and focused efforts?
Peace be with you.
“Me: It says that the Lord was pleased to crush Him!
You: Again, this is a statement of divine will, not of divine agency.”
Jerome, who knew Hebrew better than you and me, translated it: “And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity [et Dominus voluit conterere eum in infirmitate].” It does not say that the Lord was please that He was bruised. It says the Lord was pleased TO BRUISE HIM. That’s not my private interpetation, the word “to” is in the translation, and one verified by Jerome’s commentary where he lists other Scripture which credit God for striking the Shepherd.
So, do you reject that the Lord was pleased to bruise Him?
“I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.”
The satisfaction construction, where it speaks of atonement as Christ accomplishing righteousness on our behalf instead of paying a debt, is missing for more than 1000 years of Church History. This is a good indication that the theory is at least lacking some crucial elements.
“So by what logic do you presume that God’s wrath being satisfied by the sacrifice of Christnecessarily entails that God was angry at Christ?”
You yourself said, “They show, in the case of Cyril, that Christ satisfied God’s anger by His sacrifice, by paying the price for our sins.”
Let me ask you then, how was His anger satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice? Please explain in your own words.
“When the priests of the Old Testament sacrificed goats to satisfy God’s wrath, do you presume that God was angry at the goat? There is no trace at all in these quotations of the notion that God was angry at Christ or punished Christ.”
But this is a strawman. I started out the article stating my terms. First, I quoted Calvin: “Christ is “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them.”
In my own words, I wrote: “This substitution had the effect of satisfying God’s wrath, so that God exacted justice by literally punishing all the accumulated sin of men in Christ’s place.”
I never said, nor did Calvin, that God was literally angry at Christ. Christ acted as a substitute to take the punishment of God’s wrath for His anger at us. He was angry at us and poured that anger out on Christ in or place. “For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. ”
I don’t think you are even sure what you disagree with anymore.
“Me: That’s PSA. You can call it something else all day, but you just conceded it to me right there.
You are conflating ideas. It is clear from Scripture, and the Church Fathers have accordingly understood, that (a) Christ bore our sins (Isaiah 53:6, 1 Peter 2:24), that (b) He suffered pain and death for us (e.g. Hebrews 2:9, etc.); that He became our sin offering in His own blood (e.g. Hebrews 9:12) and sacrifice for our sins (e.g. Hebrews 10:12, Ephesians 5:2, 1 Corinthians 5:7); that His sacrifice brought expiation for our sins (e.g. Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, Romans 3:25); that He died as a substitute, the righteous for the unrighteous (e.g. 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 5:6-8); that believers are saved by Him from the wrath of God (e.g. Romans 5:9).”
Good. And I will add that He bore specifically in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgressions. Do you agree with that?
“Cute.”
Actually, it is sad that I would have to actually prove to you that penal language is being used, being that it should have been obvious.
“But it does not mean that God punished Christ.”
No, it means Christ acted as a substitute, bearing the punishment for men. Being that the Lord knew that this would bring salvation to many, the Lord was pleased to crush Him.
“Neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers follow your legal terminology of “crime” and “punishment.””
I am sure you are aware that “penalty” comes from the word “penal,” right? You are aware that I quoted Jerome, in the article you keep responding to, used the word “crime,” right? Are you aware that these things would invalidate what I just quoted you saying?
“Me: So, Jerome clearly affirms that in Is 53:4, that Christ was indeed put to death by God, which is why he quotes “I will strike the shepherd,” “O God, to do Thy will,” and “He was offered, because Himself willed it” as evidence for this.”
“You: No, Jerome doesn’t say that. The construction in Zephaniah is imperative: “Sword, strike my shepherd.” Yes, the Lord willed this, as Scripture repeatedly affirms. No, it is nowhere taught that “God punished Christ,” and this understanding cannot be inferred from Jerome.”
You ignored Jerome’s 3 other quotes that show his obvious vantage point. “I [as in God] will strike the shepherd.” This is huge to gloss over because it directly attributes God as the “striker.”
“In fact, what Jerome teaches is an understanding of Christ offering satisfaction.”
Other than the fact that he uses penal language (“crimes”), he says God was the one who struck our shepherd, and he mentions nothing of Christ having been righteous satisfying God’s demand for righteousness (not that this is untrue, but he simply does not emphasize it.)
“You didn’t. Your read a garbled machine translation, in which a fair portion came out as garbage. Though the Google translator has gotten a lot better, Latin is really not a language that lends itself to being translated by a machine.”
Perhaps so, but I read as much as I was able to. You said, go read Jerome. I did as best as I can. I can’t go learn a whole dead language to do it.
“You are determined to read “PSA” in any mention at all ofsatisfaction or wrath or punishment.”
Yes, because that’s what it means, your strawmen aside.
“God punished Christ, in the legal sense, for our sins.”
Yes, in our place.
So, do you reject that the Lord was pleased to bruise Him?
I’ll say one final time, there’s nothing in the Hebrew, in the Latin, or even in the English that necessarily makes God the actor in “punishing” Christ. Are you really hanging your whole, entire theology on a single particle (“to”) that isn’t even present in any of the original languages?
The satisfaction construction, where it speaks of atonement as Christ accomplishing righteousness on our behalf instead of paying a debt, is missing for more than 1000 years of Church History. This is a good indication that the theory is at least lacking some crucial elements.
No, nothing was “missing.” The Church’s understanding developed. The seeds of understanding Christ’s atonement as a satisfaction are evident in Scripture and in the texts you have cited here. Likewise, the understanding of “penal substitutionary atonement” developed. You are welcome to see the seeds of it here. But none of these texts articulates that doctrine in all its points and demands; none of these texts actually say “God punished Christ for our sins.”
Let me ask you then, how was His anger satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice?
“In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins.” You’ve already read that. Are you arguing just to argue?
I never said, nor did Calvin, that God was literally angry at Christ. Christ acted as a substitute to take the punishment of God’s wrath for His anger at us. He was angry at us and poured that anger out on Christ in or place.
You are quibbling over words. You understand that God poured out His wrath on Christ. That He wasn’t angry at Christ, but expressed His wrath not only on an innocent man, but on one he wasn’t even angry at, makes God all the more monstrous in your doctrine.
Good. And I will add that He bore specifically in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgressions. Do you agree with that?
No, I don’t, and none of these Scriptures teach that. You are doing what you’ve been doing all along: attempting to “bootstrap” one more thing onto the Scriptural and patristic understanding.
I am sure you are aware that “penalty” comes from the word “penal,” right?
You are aware that I quoted Jerome, in the article you keep responding to, used the word “crime,” right? Are you aware that these things would invalidate what I just quoted you saying?
Are you aware — again — that you did not actually read Jerome? Jerome did not write in English. He did not use the word “crime.” What you read is a poor machine translation of Jerome, one that does not understand context or diction and only does basic dictionary lookups for vocabulary. Jerome does not use legal terminology. Calvin was a lawyer; Jerome was a rhetorician and scholar. You are, again, hanging your whole interpretation on single words that are not even there, not on whole arguments and not on what the texts actually say.
The Latin word Jerome used, where the machine translated “crime,” is scelus — which is not a legal term at all, but a term of moral condemnation, translated variously an evil deed; a wicked, heinous, or impious action. It is, according to Lewis & Short’s Latin Dictionary, one of the most widely respected Latin lexicons, “the strongest general term for a morally bad act or quality.”
You ignored Jerome’s 3 other quotes that show his obvious vantage point. “I [as in God] will strike the shepherd.” This is huge to gloss over because it directly attributes God as the “striker.”
And you ignored Jerome’s whole context. Jesus Himself, of course, placed the quote from Zechariah in the first person (cf. Matt 26:31, Mark 14:27) — so you should not read into this some “obvious vantage point” on the part of Jerome of God’s agency in punishing Christ, especially when it contradicts his argument in the whole rest of the passage. I translated a bit more of the surrounding context:
A few things to note from this: Though Jerome certainly emphasizes that it was the will of God that Christ should suffer, he equally emphasizes the willful self-offering of Christ as a sacrifice for us, in accord with the will of the Father. There is no trace at all of the intention you are determined to read into this, of God the Father punishing Christ for our sins. Jerome affirms the self-offering of Christ, according to the timeless Catholic understanding, as declared in the Roman Breviary.
He mentions nothing of Christ having been righteous satisfying God’s demand for righteousness.
This specific theological understanding about “satisfying God’s demand for righteousness” is a later development, the full flowering of Anselm’s “satisfaction theory.” But the understanding that Christ was a sacrifice for our sins that satisfied God’s wrath is an inherently biblical teaching and certainly Jerome’s understanding here.
Yes, because that’s what it means, your strawmen aside.
You are, again, determined to read Calvin’s juridical understanding about “crime” and “punishment” into any mention at all of satisfaction or wrath, but this is not at all the biblical understanding. I challenge again: When the priests of the Old Testament offered sacrifices to make satisfaction for sins, is there any element at all of “penal substitution”? Is the goat or ram intended as “penal substitute”? Is the animal receiving punishment that should be due to sinful Is it being punished by death on the altar instead of sinful men? Is God pouring our His wrath on the defenseless animal? The authors of the New Testament and the Church Fathers understood Christ as a the ultimate sacrifice for our sins (Hebrews 10:12), the priestly sacrifice, in line with the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, to end all the sacrifices. When the Church Fathers wrote of sacrifice or satisfaction or atonement, this is the understanding they expressed.
This is not a “straw man”: this is the clear biblical understanding of the Old Covenant sacrifices and Christ’s fulfillment of them. The doctrine you are espousing seeks to re-cast Christ’s sacrifice as one of penal substitution, as He being punished by the penalty due for our sins. You insist that there is no other way to understand language about sacrifice and satisfaction than by “penal substitution,” that the mere mention of those terms necessarily demands a “penal substitute,” and that any use of those terms by either Scripture or the Church Fathers must necessarily convey that understanding. But it’s clear — unless you want to argue that every sacrifice of the Old Testament was also a “penal substitute” and an object of God’s wrath — that there is nothing about such language that necessarily conveys that understanding at all.
And the bottom line, which you have continually ignored: you insist that you are finding doctrines taught by the Church Fathers that numerous scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, have determined are not there. This makes your entire argument suspect. You are “finding” these doctrines in a few words or phrases of a few quotes, taken out of context and even butchered by machine translation. You are not a scholar, and lack the knowledge, expertise, and especially the investment (seeing that you’ve only cherry-picked a few quotes and not devoted years of your life to systematic study of the Church Fathers) to assert your opinion against the conclusions others who do. I am not claiming that I do, either; but I have the humility and integrity to respect the opinions of experts, and to base my arguments on something more than my own bald opinion. You say you have experts who disagree with mine. You ought to appeal to them.
Most important: you are unable or unwilling to see any distinction between “penal substitution” and other, earlier ideas about satisfaction. Amusingly, you are on one hand accusing that Catholic ideas about “satisfaction” were a late novelty, while on the other asserting that these same ideas which you are finding in the Church Fathers are not the Catholic idea but the even later Protestant idea! This renders this entire discussion meaningless, if, as you’re accused me of doing, we cannot even agree on what we are arguing about. I suppose, if you are content to gloss over differences to the degree you are, then I will be also. I can’t afford to spend any more time on this.
“I can’t afford to spend any more time on this.”
So, I will reply in order to defend the interpretations in the article and to show how you have purposely ignored not only the Scripture, but some very clear expositions of the Scripture quoted in the article.
Why you ignore these things Because they violate your presuppositions. But I thank you for replying at such length and laying bare that this is what your replies amount to, because it solidifies the conclusions here which brings glory to God, because it is a faithful interpretation of the Scripture. Perhaps you will meditate over it and come to realize how obstinate you have been in your reading of our long departed Christian brothers and the Bible itself.
“Me: So, do you reject that the Lord was pleased to bruise Him?
You: I’ll say one final time, there’s nothing in the Hebrew, in the Latin, or even in the English that necessarily makes God the actor in “punishing” Christ.”
It does not answer the question, which of course you ignore, God was pleased to crush Him and that God struck the shepherd, both clearly in the Scripture and interpreted by the ECFs to mean what Calvin so many years later concurred with them about.
I do wonder, why is it so difficult to say, “Well, yes God was pleased to crush Him.” Is it because when I pointed out that the RSVCE Bible’s rendering obscure the clearer, and mroe Protestant rendering that the Latin of the Vulgate preserves?
“Are you really hanging your whole, entire theology on a single particle (“to”) that isn’t even present in any of the original languages?”
Yes, because that’s how the Church universally understood it to mean. Interestingly enough, Jewish translators (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Isaiah53.html), Eastern Orthodox translators of the LXX (http://www.greekorthodox.org.au/general/resources/publications/articledetails.php?page=187&article_id=30), RCC translators of the Vulgate (http://vulgate.org/ot/isaiah_53.htm), not to say Protestant scholars, which means everyone of esteem, agrees this is how it is rendered. The fact you stick to your guns that this is not what it means at all reminds me of Jehovah’s Witnesses, that hold to the most suspect, inconsistent renderings because they do not like the ramifications of even a single verse when it is translated properly.
“No, nothing was “missing.” The Church’s understanding developed.”
Because they can make it up as the go along I suppose innovating entirely new categories to understand things.
“none of these texts actually say “God punished Christ for our sins.””
Jerome wrote: “He was put to death by God for their sins, who was humbled for us.” If your argument is that “Jerome is just paraphrasing Is 53:4,” well that settles it to. It shows that Jerome thought the Bible said what you say none of these texts actually say.
“You are quibbling over words. You understand that God poured out His wrath on Christ. That He wasn’t angry at Christ, but expressed His wrath not only on an innocent man, but on one he wasn’t even angry at, makes God all the more monstrous in your doctrine.”
You are the one impugning God and saying if God felt this way or that way He is bad. I am just saying what it says God done. If you disagree with it, then that’s another issue.
“Me: Good. And I will add that He bore specifically in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgressions. Do you agree with that?”
“You: No, I don’t, and none of these Scriptures teach that.”
Checkmate. I suspected you were just being obstinate and disagreeing with me on purpose, so I asked you to agree or disagree with the above. If you were paying attention, I essentially quoted Athanasius word for word:
“[He] bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression[s].”
Interesting. I make transgression a plural and put in the word He, and now you disagree with Athanasius. You not interested in all what the ECFs really thought and feel. I can readily admit there are a few that never thought of Penal Substitution and ascribed to different ideas. But you, against all evidence, maintain that Penal Substitution is an innovation and that my understanding of the ECFs is incorrect…even to the point that when I quote right back at you the ECF, you presuming it is just me talking disagree.
I think I have proved my point.
May God bless you in your studies, I hope you pray as I do that He may lead you into all truth and that you may believe not what you or I want, but His truth. I pray this every day for myself.
Craig
The fact you stick to your guns that this is not what it means…
I never said the translation was incorrect. I said that the phrase doesn’t have the meaning you want to impose on it. Yes, “God was pleased to crush Him.” That’s what it says. But was God the agent in crushing Him? This is a statement of God’s will, not His agency. Did God will and intend for Christ to be crushed? Of course. Was He pleased by it? Yes. Did God Himself come down and whup his own Son, to punish Him for our sins? That is what you are arguing.
Because they can make it up as the go along I suppose innovating entirely new categories to understand things.
Like the Trinity?
Jerome wrote: “He was put to death by God for their sins, who was humbled for us.”
No, he didn’t. Have you forgotten that you just agreed with me?
Against all evidence, you maintain that Penal Substitution is an innovation and that my understanding of the ECFs is incorrect…even to the point that when I quote right back at you the ECF, you presuming it is just me talking disagree. … I think I have proved my point.
Of the passages you’ve quoted, that one from Athanasius probably does come closest to teaching a “penal” conception of the atonement. I have never said that the Reformers “made it up out of whole cloth,” but rather that just as the Catholic conceptions of the atonement, the understanding developed. Yes, Calvin in particular came to an innovative understanding, inspired by his own legal background. Does such an understanding have any precedents? Perhaps. But did any of the Church Fathers have a full, developed understanding of “penal substitutionary atonement” as Calvin articulated it? Of course not.
Yes, Athanasius says — and no, he’s not the only one — that Christ bore the wrath that was our punishment, etc. And that is indeed a valid biblical understanding; forgive my disputatiousness. God was wrathful at sinners, and death, separation from God, was to be our punishment. Christ made satisfaction for God’s wrath, and Himself bore that punishment. But the essential point of your theory that not even Athanasius argues is that God punished Christ for our sins. Athansius emphasizes, as does Jerome and every other Father, as does Scripture, that Christ gave Himself up for us willingly (Ephesians 5:2). Every verse of Scripture that refers to Christ’s sacrifice makes Him the agent, Him the priest making an offering of Himself (Hebrew 10:12). Yes, the Father willed this; but against Scripture, you take the agency from Christ and make the atonement a brutal, wrathful murder and not the act of total love it was.
His peace be with you as well.
“I never said the translation was incorrect. I said that the phrase doesn’t have the meaning you want to impose on it.”
Well, there are translators on all sides that would agree with me and disagree with you, which is at least suggestive that my reasoning is justified.
“Yes, “God was pleased to crush Him.” That’s what it says. But was God the agent in crushing Him?..Did God Himself come down and whup his own Son, to punish Him for our sins? That is what you are arguing.”
Have you ever heard, “Who killed Christ? We did. Our sins put Him on the cross.”
This, of course is true. Was I literally there hammering a nail through Christ’s hand? No, a Roman guy who I don’t know 2,000 years ago did.
So no one says that God literally went on Earth and whooped His Son. Men crushed Jesus. God willed that the men would crush Jesus to do His will, which pleased Him. It appears your opposition is not only against the infamous strawman, but a patently ridiculous one.
For example, Clement appears to paraphrase the LXX rendering of Is 53:10: “And the Lord is pleased to purify him by stripes” (1 Clement, Chap 16).
Obviously the idea is intact. THe Lord is happy with Jesus’ chastisement for reasons we already know (he bore that chastisement in our place). No one is claiming that God Himself made the stripes on Jesus back, or that God Himself crushed Him. Rather, as Jerome said, “[B]ut the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all, for our sins, or the Lord delivered him [to the men to be punished].” God’s role is in the delivering of Christ.
Likewise, Calvin never makes the claim you would like to pretend he does. He says that Christ “sustain[ed] and suffer[ed] all the punishment” in the place of transgressors. How is this really, at all, different then any of the men I quoted? It isn’t. Your whole argument is against a figment of your imagination, that the Reformed position is that God literally went on Earth and punished Christ personally. I clearly laid out my own definition of penal atonement and quoted Calvin’s. You need to address these points or not address them at all.
“Did God will and intend for Christ to be crushed? Of course. Was He pleased by it? Yes.”
Let’s continue. Did God strike the shepherd, yes or no?
“Like the Trinity?”
It’s not a new category, it is in the Scripture.
“No, he didn’t. Have you forgotten that you just agreed with me?”
In my response, my point was that you were correct that Jerome was paraphrasing, but his paraphrase and interpretation (and translation int he vulgate) of Is 53:10 shows that this is where he was coming from.
“You: Of the passages you’ve quoted, that one from Athanasius probably does come closest to teaching a “penal” conception of the atonement.”
So much so that you disagree with Athanasius? I was expecting a mea culpa, something along the lines of, “You know what, I got so carried away arguing with you, I became more concerned with winning the argument than being objective with the facts. I am sorry.”
God bless,
Craig
Men crushed Jesus. God willed that the men would crush Jesus to do His will, which pleased Him. It appears your opposition is not only against the infamous strawman, but a patently ridiculous one.
I would agree with this statements, as would most Catholics. So it appears that you are not understanding what it is that I’m opposing.
How is this really, at all, different then any of the men I quoted? It isn’t.
The difference is a fine one. I have given you articles that explain it, and you continue to deny there is one.
[The Trinity] is not a new category, it is in the Scripture.
If the category (the finite definition) exists in Scripture, why did it take several generations of Christians to work it out?
His paraphrase and interpretation (and translation int he vulgate) of Is 53:10 shows that this is where he was coming from.
I showed you the Latin. You continue to insist that “Jerome wrote ‘He was put to death by God …'” But Jerome wrote nothing of the sort.
So much so that you disagree with Athanasius?
Who said that I disagreed with Athanasius? I disagree with the doctrines you are reading into him.
I was expecting a mea culpa, something along the lines of, “You know what, I got so carried away arguing with you, I became more concerned with winning the argument than being objective with the facts. I am sorry.”
I don’t concede anything but the fact that there are early “penal” understandings in the doctrines of some Church Fathers — certainly not the full, developed, Reformed doctrine that you want to read into them, and not the notion of “God punishing Christ for our sins.” I did ask for your forgiveness for my disputatious tone.
Peace be with you.
“I would agree with this statements, as would most Catholics. So it appears that you are not understanding what it is that I’m opposing.”
I don’t think you understand what you are opposing, it is not as if I didn’t quote my authority, state my terms using my own words, used Biblical citations for my terms, color coded them, and then super-imposed the color coding on top of my ECF quotes.
“If the category (the finite definition) exists in Scripture, why did it take several generations of Christians to work it out?”
Simply because they had to respond to new generations of people making up wrong stuff about it.
“I showed you the Latin.”
Actually, I did and quoted the translation from a Catholic website. You tend to go onto long, irrelevant asides, probably because if you actually confront what was said it would disprove your point.
I mean, how many replies are we up to now, and you are still not sure exactly what stated in the article you actually object to?
“Who said that I disagreed with Athanasius? I disagree with the doctrines you are reading into him.”
I quoted him pretty much ad verbatim and asked if you agreed. You replied, “No, I don’t, and none of these Scriptures teach that.”
So, God as my witness that you are not being truthful in one way or another, I am waiting for a mea culpa, even if it is just in your heart 🙂
God bless,
Craig
You are kind of being a jerk now, so I’m just going to stop this.
I never used the word jerk, and nor do I think I am being one. You have obviously contradicted your own position, argued against one no one posed, and now you are angry that I pointed it out. Why, I don’t know.
You accused me of being untruthful, of ot even understanding what I was arguing, of contradicting my own position, and of arguing just for the sake of arguing. I have never once impugned your motives, yet you’ve done so to me repeatedly. I’m done.
“You accused me of being untruthful, of ot even understanding what I was arguing, of contradicting my own position, and of arguing just for the sake of arguing. I have never once impugned your motives, yet you’ve done so to me repeatedly.”
I am sorry you are offended, but the truth hurts sometimes. You disagreed with Athanasius, and when you found out it was him, you agreed with him. How can one honestly explain that? You argue me tooth and nail that my position is that God the Father whooped His Son, and in the clearest terms possible, I never argued this view nor did I fail to very specifically define my terms from the onset.
So, I am sorry if you feel that any of this is mean, but what I just said are facts. And if you don’t like the facts, then there really is not much I can do about that.
God bless,
Craig
Again, I’m done. So long.
We want you to stay, I am not offending by what you have done, it is just important in an intellectually honest conversation that we are accurate with the truth and honest when we have not done our best to convey it.
God bless,
Craig
And you demand apologies when I’ve already apologized. You are effectively gloating, and trust me, brother, you have no reason to.
You don’t have to apologize to me, I even said if your mea culpa is between you and God, that’s what counts. But God is judge between you and me He knows our motives. I have made two accusations you do not like (1. concerning Athanasius, 2. concerning you misunderstanding Penal Substitution) and on both counts my accusations are demonstrably true and not false. So, I am not gloating, just because you do something that is wrong and then fail to owe up to it when called to task, it doesn’t make me any better.
I am concerned about the truth. I happily concede any point when I am shown to be wrong, as I have here, as I do on the ShamelessPopery website, as by God’s grace I will do everywhere, at every time.
If you are getting defensive simply because you feel that your contradictions expose the fallacious nature of your belief systems, then the fault is with your logic and beliefs. Evaluate your beliefs, test them with the Scriptures, and see what you find.
God bless,
Craig
You’re an %%%hole.
Again I am always ready to forgive. I know it is tough sometimes, life has its frustrations. But we are talking about the things of God, let others know that we are His followers by how we love one another.
Your attitude contradicts your words to me. Despite your words, you have shown a complete unwillingness to admit where you have legitimately been shown to be wrong, or even admit the possibility that you might be wrong. You have “won” your arguments by sheer insistence. Congratulations. You’ve been me into submission.
Well, I honestly don’t think so, and I have refrained from the lurid name calling you have employed. Quite simply, I never countered an argument you never made, as you have done with me concerning “God whooping His own Son.” Further, I never rejected what Athanasius wrote, then said that Athanasius was not wrong. You did.
I may disagree with tons of your other points, and there may be some legitimate grounds for disagreement, but the previous two things are illegitimate and honestly don’t find a place in any form in my replies.
God bless,
Craig
Fine, whatever. Enjoy your trophy.
I don’t enjoy any of this. I pray that the grace of God may be in your life. Print out your reply and show it to your elders, your priest, whatever. You’re liable to make mistakes as am I. But, we have a great savior and in Him and Him alone there is forgiveness, and His Holy Spirit will empower you to live righteously and not sin.
God bless,
Craig
I pray grace and revelation for you, too. Peace be with you.
Thank you, I do appreciate that.
I saw your latest post and was referred back to this one. And then waded through the comments…oh dear…
From the comments, it became clear (if I’m reading you right) that you do not think God hates Christ at any point, which would ring false for Catholics. There is also no mention of Christ suffering in hell, something else I think would be problematic.
So, not having to worry about those, there is the matter (as you stated) of how the demands of justice resulting for our sins are satisfied (if I can use that word..). Your position, is that Christ suffers what we should have suffered (some would say this means suffering in hell, but this never came up, so perhaps you could clarify). Whereas a Catholic position (I will follow Aquinas as I understand him, as the Catholic doctrine in this is not defined on every point) is that Christ pleases God by his meritorious actions, culminating in the Cross. Christ’s supreme act of love pleases God more than our sinful actions are hateful to him, and thus satisfaction is made.
Before I go much further, it seems the passage from Cyril agrees with either of these understandings. Athanasius, indeed seems to agree more with you. And we’ll leave Jerome aside for now.
One point of interest: When Thomas is speaking of Christ effecting our salvation by means of merit (III, Q. 48, a. 1), he points to this beatitude as the basis for Christ meriting salvation: “Blessed are those who suffer on account of righteousness/justice, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Maybe, just maybe, Thomas is saying that it is in suffering the due penalty that he merits at all. And then…maybe we all agree? I recommend reading the passage I cited, as I’d like to hear what you think.
Thank you for searching these mysteries.
Give me to the morning at least. I think that Protestants do not reject the positive aspect of the Satisfaction. After all, Christ’s fulfillment of the Law does satisfy a desire for due righteousness on behalf of men. However, the need for their to be a penalty paid for sin so that wrath may be extinguished is lacking in the Satisfaction model, but obviously held in regard by more than a few Church Fathers. Hence, the Satisfaction model is not the issue, but rather the rejection of Penal Substitution.
Let me read Aquinas for more detail. As for Hell, if Christ is infinite and paid a finite penalty not due to Him, and men who are finite pay an infinite penalty in length, I do not see how this is unfair. Christ, the infinite, suffering for any finite period of time logically undoes infinite damnation. I am unsure what the controversy is.
God bless,
Craig
I just read it. I am not the best at understanding the Summa, though I can follow his commentaries. He appears to endorse the Satisfaction view, but he does not invoke Christ’s fulfillment of the Law as do THeodore of Heraclea and Athanasius have done, both of whom also spoke of CHrist paying the penalty for sins of His CHurch, something that Aquinas does not speak of.
As I said previously, I am confused as to why precisely the RCC rejects Penal Substitution, as it has traditional and Biblical support while the Satisfaction model is at best can be inferred from the Biblical text. this is why, I believe, none of the ECFs taught it. It just wasn’t found clearly enough in the Scriptures.
With the clarifications you gave, again it is becoming hard to see what is repugnant in your view. I do not think penal substitution is itself rejected by the Catholic Church, but other views associated with it. I will go through a couple of these:
1. Limited atonement, that Christ only died for the elect. The Church has condemned this view and teaches that Christ died for all men, and that he merits for all men (Thomas holds that he earned infinite merit due to the dignity of his person; Scotists and Suarezians hold that it was finite but enough for all humanity). Now you say that Christ by his suffering “undoes infinite damnation”, and so that gets you out of the limited atonement problem. (Please do clarify if I misunderstand you.)
2. Christ suffers our punishment in our place. This would be problematic for Catholics if it meant Christ suffers the pains of hell and separation from God, which are indeed the just punishment of our sin, in addition to suffering and death. Again, as you do not seem to hold that Christ suffers exactly what our sins deserve (hell and separation from God), so I see nothing wrong with your view.
It may be worth going over some other aspects that could have problems lurking in them. If you understand God’s wrath as his will that the injustice done to him be set aright, I don’t see any problem in this (I could see people imagining something far more senseless when they hear “God’s wrath”, and so rejecting it).
There are so many other questions and fine points to pursue here… I do want to say that I think the love of Christ is more pleasing to God than the suffering of Christ, or that the suffering of Christ is only pleasing to God in virtue of the love to which it is joined (for indeed, “we have redemption through his blood”). Psalm 51 speaks about how God does not care for sacrifices, but “a contrite heart”, and then he will accept sacrifices. Augustine too speaks of how every visible sacrifice is a sign of an invisible sacrifice. It seems the pure will of Christ, his love, needs to at the center of this–united with the value of the suffering.
Thank you again.
“1. Limited atonement, that Christ only died for the elect. The Church has condemned this view and teaches that Christ died for all men, and that he merits for all men (Thomas holds that he earned infinite merit due to the dignity of his person; Scotists and Suarezians hold that it was finite but enough for all humanity). Now you say that Christ by his suffering “undoes infinite damnation”, and so that gets you out of the limited atonement problem. (Please do clarify if I misunderstand you.)”
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the connection between limited atonement and penal substitution? Christ could pay the penalty for all men, but it is only efficacious by faith.
However, I do personally ascribe to limited atonement because I think it is clearly Biblical and not rejected by tradition. I wrote about the topic here: http://christianreformedtheology.com/2015/07/01/a-biblical-and-traditional-defense-of-limited-atonement/
“2. Christ suffers our punishment in our place. This would be problematic for Catholics if it meant Christ suffers the pains of hell and separation from God, which are indeed the just punishment of our sin, in addition to suffering and death.”
I don’t have a well formulated opinion on this, as the Scripture does not go into detail concerning precisely what Christ’s pains were, other than the physical and some element of the spiritual. It is my presumption when Jesus says, “My God my God, why have you forsaken me,” that He was in effect, forsaken. Concerning the “pains of Hell,” I am not exactly sure what Hell feels like in which to categorically say that Christ was not acquainted with the physical or emotional pain. We do know that Christ went to “the spirits in prison,” so he might have actually visited the place for a temporary time, though obviously He does not experience Hell for an eternity. Perhaps, the eternal One for a finite period of time experienced Hellish torments?
Again, not knowing precisely what Hell feels like, how can we say one way or the other. If Hell is literally burning, then we can all agree that Jesus did not experience this sensation.
“Again, as you do not seem to hold that Christ suffers exactly what our sins deserve (hell and separation from God), so I see nothing wrong with your view.”
My position is that Christ suffered the penalty due to sinners in their place. This I believe is explicit in the Scripture and upheld by tradition. As for additional details, I cannot speculate on matters the Scripture is not specific about.
“There are so many other questions and fine points to pursue here… I do want to say that I think the love of Christ is more pleasing to God than the suffering of Christ, or that the suffering of Christ is only pleasing to God in virtue of the love to which it is joined (for indeed, “we have redemption through his blood”). Psalm 51 speaks about how God does not care for sacrifices, but “a contrite heart”, and then he will accept sacrifices. Augustine too speaks of how every visible sacrifice is a sign of an invisible sacrifice. It seems the pure will of Christ, his love, needs to at the center of this–united with the value of the suffering.”
I definitely do not disagree with the sentiment here but I am sure you;d agree that this would not be a “solid basis” for the theory of Satisfaction. Satisfaction, is to me, half of the puzzle. We need both halves, which is why the “great exchange” is a nice little synopsis of what I believe is the whole picture.
God bless,
Craig
Question: At some point I think you referred me to a blog post that show how Augustine held penal substitution, but I lost hold of it. Could you post that again?
I looked up the Contra Faustum text cited here, and found something that I do not think supports your position necessarily. Just looking at paragraphs 3 and 4 of Book XIV, Augustine is very clear that death is called sin on account of being the punishment of sin, and that Christ is said to be under the curse of sin, but only inasmuch as he suffers death–its punishment–and that this is the only sense in which he suffers the curse of sin.
I referred you to a blog post that spoke of Augustine being AGAINST Penal Substitution. That is here: http://www.thepoorinspirit.com/post/117552605096/st-augustine-and-penal-substitutionary-atonement
In Contra Faustum XIV Par 6 I believe there is a penal element that is explicit:
” And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.”
We also have Augustine saying Christ became specifically our sin:
“He does not say, as some incorrect copies read, He who knew no sin did sin for us, as if Christ had Himself sinned for our sakes; but he says, Him who knew no sin, that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, has made to be sin for us, that is, has made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified, that though sin was not in Him, yet that in a certain sense He died to sin, by dying in the flesh which was the likeness of sin; and that although He Himself had never lived the old life of sin, yet by His resurrection He typified our new life springing up out of the old death in sin” (Chapter 41, Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love).
Max, on a different note, what is your view on the aseity of Christ? I was reading Hilary of Poitiers On Synods and read the following:
“60. To declare the Son to be incapable of birth is the height of impiety. God would no longer be One: for the nature of the one Unborn God demands that we should confess that God is one. Since therefore God is one, there cannot be two incapable of birth: because God is one (although both the Father is God and the Son of God is God) for the very reason that incapability of birth is the only quality that can belong to one Person only. The Son is God for the very reason that He derives His birth from that essence which cannot be born. Therefore our holy faith rejects the idea that the Son is incapable of birth in order to predicate one God incapable of birth and consequently one God, and in order to embrace the Only-begotten nature, begotten from the unborn essence, in the one name of the Unborn God. For the Head of all things is the Son: but the Head of the Son is God. And to one God through this stepping-stone and by this confession all things are referred, since the whole world takes its beginning from Him to whom God Himself is the beginning.”
I don’t like the idea that it says that Christ is “born.” It essentially says that Christ’s “Godness” is dependent upon or rather, transferred from the Father to the Son. I think the reason he argues this because he believes if Christ had aseity, it would make Him a separate God, which is obviously heresy.
However, if Christ is “uncreated” in time but essentially created by the Father (i.e. “born”) outside of time in eternity, this seems to me semi-arianism. Comments?
Even the paragraph you quoted, as far as I can tell, avoids all the things that seem problematic in PSA, for it clarifies in what manner Christ “is sin”. Thank you for the article! I hadn’t look at it before.
The Son is not created, certainly. But he is begotten of the Father from all ages, certainly. Begotten and born are equivalent. I can’t remember where, but there are patristic homilies that speak of Jesus’ double birth: one from all eternity, and one in time. Another equivalent term is generation, and the Fathers (especially Nazianzen) speak in terms of this.
So the question isn’t about aseity: the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated. But there is an order, such that the Father is unbegotten and the Son is begotten, one God. Things get stranger when you read certain Eastern fathers that call the Father “cause” of the Son, but by it they do not mean more than we mean by origin or principle.
As for Arians and semi-Arians, the key term is homoousios (consubstantial/one-in-being). The Arians reject that the Son is of the same essence as the Father. The semi-Arians posit him to be “homoiousios” or like-in-essence with the Father. But we who hold that catholic and apostolic faith confess him to consubstantial with the Father, God from God, etc. The distinction between Father and Son then is not one of essence or being, but one of origin (Father is from no one, Son is from/of the Father) or relation (paternity and filiation), neither of which diversifies the one eternal substance of God.
I recommend Oration 29 of Nazianzen for a beautiful lesson concerning this eternal and invisible generation: http://newadvent.org/fathers/310229.htm
You have mentioned difficulty in understanding the Summa, but I do think Thomas Aquinas synthesizes most carefully what the Fathers have taught concerning the Trinity. His precision can be difficult to follow without some background in Aristotle, but I would recommend it as a goal.
“Even the paragraph you quoted, as far as I can tell, avoids all the things that seem problematic in PSA, for it clarifies in what manner Christ “is sin”. Thank you for the article! I hadn’t look at it before.”
You’re very welcome with for the article. As for what you find problematic or not in Against Faustum, as I said before I am not here to prove every single thing a reformer said about the doctrine. I am here to prove what the Scripture says about it, and I think the Biblical and traditional witness is sufficient in which to show that Penal Substitution is a correct doctrine, and that its rhetorical excesses and speculatory conclusions (i.e. Christ experienced Hell on behalf of believers or what not, I am not specifically endorsing this view) are no less speculative, if not less so, than standard Catholic Satisfaction doctrine (i.e. CHrist paid on behalf of man the due honor owed to the Father…where does the Bible or the ECFs say that???)
“The Son is not created, certainly. But he is begotten of the Father from all ages, certainly. Begotten and born are equivalent…one from all eternity, and one in time. Another equivalent term is generation, and the Fathers (especially Nazianzen) speak in terms of this.”
I think you are surmising the creeds, but then I think the creeds are not addressing the Biblical use of the term begotten. If the creeds are saying Christ was generated before time, you just turned Him into a created being before creation. You merely kicked the can down the metaphysical road.
Now, I know that the creeds are not with me on this, but I believe the term “begotten” clearly refers to the resurrection. Acts 13:30-33 state:
“…God raised Him from the dead; 31 and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. 32 And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise [h]to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today i have begotten You.’”
The Scripture flat out says the day Christ was begotten was the resurrection. The fact the Scripture says “today I have begotten you” means that it occurred on a day. If it referred to “generation” or any other euphemism that might have been used in which to avoid the word “creation,” then that squarely places the even on a day, which turns Christ into a created eing, which we know is not the case.
We see he same idea repeated in Hebrews 5:5-10. What we never see is the term “begotten” made in reference to the origins of Christ.
Pardon me if I am going out on a limb here, I appreciate your patience and you know my esteem for the ECFs, but it would appear that using the term “begotten” in reference to Christ’s origins is a misnomer and not found in the Scripture!
I’d appreciate your input on this.
God bless,
Craig
I am indeed taking the Creeds for granted in this case, if only to sort out what is orthodox and what is Arian (or Eunomian, etc.).
“If the creeds are saying Christ was generated before time, you just turned Him into a created being before creation. You merely kicked the can down the metaphysical road.”
So this is why I attached the Gregory Nazianzen oration 29, which is one of the best exercises in apophatic theology, showing what a term does not mean. The Son is, was, and ever will be begotten of the Father, generated by the Father, from all eternity unto the ages of ages. The relation to the Father is not one of cause and effect, or of greater and lesser, or before and after (according to time). The Father and the Son have one essence, one power, created all things by one act.
As for the term begotten or generation, I can’t say I know the exact relation of the term as used in the Arian conflict and as it is used in Scripture. The important thing was to affirm that Christ is the Son of God, and is God, and that he never began to be the Son of God. The words “born”, “begotten”, “generated” are all abstract ways of speaking about the Son’s relation to the Father.
For the word “begotten” (from the Psalm) in relation to resurrection, I would say that it is in the resurrection that the divine Sonship of Christ is manifested to us, and therefore it is fitly said there. But the term is also used in Heb 1, in connection to how Christ is greater than the angels (1:2-3). Christ is also called in Heb 1:6 the “first-born”, and though it could be interpreted variously, I do think this refers to his eternal generation.
Again, I super-highly recommend reading Oration 29. Gregory Nazianzen presided at the Council of Constantinople, and he uses the phrases generation, begotten, unbegotten all over the place, distinguishing them from anything like creation.
To deny that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father is either to deny that He is Son or that He is eternal.
I will need to read Oration 29, but I want you to understand that Heb 1:5 does not define “begotten” to mean born. In fact, it quotes the same Psalm that Heb 5 and Acts 13 quotes, why would the term “begotten” suddenly change its meaning from the day Christ was risen from the dead to something else?
You point to the term “firstborn,” but again the term “firstborn” in the Scripture relates to preeminence. Isaac is called the “firstborn” even though Ishmael was born before him.
So, I am not denying that Christ was eternally the Son. In fact, I am arguing that the only way for Christ to be eternal is that He is intrinsically eternal not contingent upon any Person of the Trinity. If Christ’s Godness is contingent upon the Father and he had to be born from the Father, I cannot see how that does not rob Him from His eternity. He loses His aseity.
It seems to me that the creeds’ definition of “begotten” is not explictly Biblical and has led to unbiblical speculations as to whether Jesus was born/generated/whatever euphemism.
Why can’t Jesus just be unborn/eternal in the same sense the Father is?
If Christ is “unborn”, then he is no Son. Indeed he might as well be a Father due to his role in creation, and so now we have two eternal Fathers, each a separate being, and so two gods. This is not what Scripture teaches.
The Father is the principle of the Son (for this is what Father means), but this is without contingency. The Son does not depend on the Father for existence as an effect on a cause, but their existence is one, their one eternal infinite act of existing is the very same.
Again for the phrase begotten, it really does refer (as a word, abstracting from context) to that by which a son stands in relation to a father. I am my father’s son, rather than another man’s, because he begot me. Now the original context of those Psalms refer to the king of Judah, who in the day of his coronation is understood to become a son of God in some sense, and so is called begotten. When applied to Christ, we know that he never began to be the Son of the Father–he is eternally begotten. This only made manifest at the resurrection. To say Christ became the Son of the Father in a new way at the resurrection seems irreverent, to say the least.
Now I’m curious: How is the doctrine of Trinity taught in reformed seminaries? I’ve seen you mention your scriptural belief in the Trinity in other places, but I now wonder what exactly this means for you. Although I am well-informed by Thomas, I don’t think I’ve said anything beyond what Athanasius or the Cappadocians would say, and their doctrine is that of Nicea and Constantinople. To fall away from their teaching is to fall in with Arius or Sabellius.
For more further reading, with more explicit reference to Scripture, I recommend Athanasius: De Decretis on the eternal Son, and Letters to Serapion on the life-giving Spirit. Gregory Nazianzen is simply the best for taking in what the terms mean, helping on shed the materialistic, imaginary notions that one attaches to begetting, etc. Nyssa on Not Three Gods is also helpful for understanding God’s unity, although it relies on an odd understanding of man’s unity. Basil and Nyssa also wrote long (not always friendly) treatises against Eunomius, the semi-Arian par excellence. I still haven’t read Augustine’s De Trinitate, but I expect to find a teaching similar to what I have presented here.
Max, I appreciate your time with this, I am trying to see if what I am saying is making sense.
“If Christ is “unborn”, then he is no Son.”
Does His Sonship depend upon literal birth though? Son is a title in the Scripture, I do not see where the Scripture equates it with literal birthing. Rather, Sonship explains His relationship with the Father, that being of submission and reverence.
“…so now we have two eternal Fathers, each a separate being, and so two gods.”
Why? Where does the Bible, or even logic, dictate that unless Christ is birthed that He would be a second God?
The Father created the universe through Christ (John 1:1, 3), so I do not quite follow your logic.
“This is not what Scripture teaches.”
But I am not saying that is what it teaches. I am saying there is one God, in three divine Persons, all of which are eternal and are completely self-sufficient, having the quality of aseity.
“The Father is the principle of the Son (for this is what Father means), but this is without contingency.”
Isn’t that a logical contradiction? If the Son is generated, then He is contingent upon the Father definitionally because He is not self-existent, His existence is dependent upon being birthed by the Father.
“Now the original context of those Psalms refer to the king of Judah, who in the day of his coronation is understood to become a son of God in some sense, and so is called begotten. ”
This would be suggestive of the term not being used in the literal sense of birthing.
“When applied to Christ, we know that he never began to be the Son of the Father–he is eternally begotten. This only made manifest at the resurrection. To say Christ became the Son of the Father in a new way at the resurrection seems irreverent, to say the least. ”
Again, I did not argue that He attained to Sonship at 33AD. He is eternally the Son. However, He was “begotten” in the sense that He resurrected from the dead at 33AD. The Scripture never says He was begotten at the beginning of time.
“Now I’m curious: How is the doctrine of Trinity taught in reformed seminaries?”
They would teach what you are saying, but Reformed theologians also believe in the aseity of Christ. Arminians, who are not Reformed, do not. I am starting to think that Catholic doctrine does not allow for Christ’s aseity in a literal sense, so if you were to take Reformed theology to its logical extent, it would disallow for this theology pertaining to “birthing.”
I feel comfortable affirming everything about the trinity, but to say Christ is birthed I think logicially necessitates Him being a contingent being and thereby created, even if you do not use that terminology. I think the fullness of deity exists in Christ, so this must include eternal Sonship and complete aseity.
“I’ve seen you mention your scriptural belief in the Trinity in other places, but I now wonder what exactly this means for you.”
Please answer follow up questions so we can hammer this out. The Catholic teaching, at least how you are presenting it here, appears troublesome to me because it makes CHrist a contingent being which is irreverent to God,
“Although I am well-informed by Thomas, I don’t think I’ve said anything beyond what Athanasius or the Cappadocians would say, and their doctrine is that of Nicea and Constantinople.”
To be fair, Nicea simply says that Christ is begotten, not made. Nothing I said here would contradict that. In fact, saying Christ is birthed would seem to be saying He is “made,” but with different terminology. So, I think your interpretation of the Creedal statement does not square with the plain meaning of the Creed.
“To fall away from their teaching is to fall in with Arius or Sabellius.”
Which I do not want to do. But nothing here is Arianism or Sabellianism. In fact, what I seem to be reading from Hilary of Poitiers is Arianism using different vocabulary. Instead of Christ being birthed in time, He is birthed out of time. Instead of Christ being created, He is birthed. I am having trouble squaring either of the previous two notions in the Scripture.
“Nyssa on Not Three Gods is also helpful for understanding God’s unity, although it relies on an odd understanding of man’s unity. Basil and Nyssa also wrote long (not always friendly) treatises against Eunomius, the semi-Arian par excellence. I still haven’t read Augustine’s De Trinitate, but I expect to find a teaching similar to what I have presented here.”
I might be quite delayed in reading this, though it is important. Before I read it, I would appreciate that you can logically show that being “birthed” somehow does not make Christ a contingent being. Because, if this cannot be conveyed rationally and it is taken as a presupposition by those writers, I do not think I can get anything out of them.
I appreciate your time and patience,
Craig
Important note, which I just discovered: The Greek “gennao” is variously translated as “to bear” and “to beget”. The meaning is the same. A great example is John 3:6. “That which is born/begotten of flesh is flesh; and that which is born/begotten of spirit is spirit.” I found a bunch of quotes from Athanasius where he says “born”, but given that the Greek is the same word for “begotten”, it is unnecessary to share.
As in English, so also in Latin, the word gennao is translated by nascere (to bear) or gignere (to beget). Augustine uses both to refer to the eternal relation of the Son to the Father. And in the Creed of 381, the word “natum” is used.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
Per quem ómnia facta sunt.” Creed of 381.
As far as I know, there was never controversy about translating “gennethenta” as “natum”. Just as the notion of begetting can be wrongly understood, so also bearing, if one does not understand these terms immaterially.
Usage is also important when it comes to terminology. As I said earlier, Thomas allows Greeks to use the word we would translate “cause” to speak of the Father in relation to the Son, although he says this would be erroneous in Latin. The reason is that the Greek theologians all understand the “cause” without any of those things we would associate with effects or creatures or contingency. I would never go around teaching that the Father is cause of the Son, although I acknowledge it can be understood in a true sense. (I won’t further defend the terminology of cause. I think the Latins avoid the term with good reason.)
—-
You said: “Does His Sonship depend upon literal birth though? Son is a title in the Scripture, I do not see where the Scripture equates it with literal birthing. Rather, Sonship explains His relationship with the Father, that being of submission and reverence.”
The importance is affirming that Christ is literally the eternal Son. The qualities of submission and reverence are predicated of Christ only with respect to his human nature. For the Son is equal to the Father in his deity, not submitting to any. And also reverence, the Father and the Son receive reverence from creatures, but do not owe it the one to the other. When the Son becomes man, he then renders honor, reverence and submission to the Father, but this is inasmuch as he is a creature. Thus the notions of submission and reverence do not indicate how the Son is eternally Son of the Father.
As to contingency, again I deny it. Remove this notion from begetting, and you will have some idea of what is spoken of here. As for aseity, it seems it could be understood in two different ways. In one sense, the being of the Son is the same as the Father’s, and so aseity holds. In another sense, the Son is eternally from the Father (as this is what a Son is).
—–
Thank you for asking the questions! It does take a bit of time to go over these things (in between classes and other deadlines..), but it is always worth the review and the discovery. God bless!
Thanks again Max.
This might make more sense if I try to describe how this all sounds to me in a different way.
Arianism:
BEFORE TIME: ONLY THE FATHER
PROTO-TIME: FATHER CREATES SON, ENJOYS HIM FOR EONS
TIME: SON CREATES ALL OTHER THINGS IN TIME
Orthodox Christianity:
BEFORE TIME: THE FATHER AND THE SON ALWAYS WERE.
ALSO BEFORE TIME: THE SON WAS BORN FROM THE FATHER, BUT THERE WAS NO INSTANCE OF BIRTH, BECAUSE THERE WAS NEVER A TIME WHERE JESUS WAS NOT
TIME: SON CREATES ALL THINGS IN TIME
Is the above accurate, or how would you tweek it?
“The importance is affirming that Christ is literally the eternal Son.”
He is eternally the Son, but that does not mean He is the Son in the sense we are sons from human fathers.
“The qualities of submission and reverence are predicated of Christ only with respect to his human nature.”
Not necessarily. Though existing in the form of God, He did not consider equality with God the Father something to be grasped, so he then submitted Himself and took on flesh. Hence, the submission and reverence existed eternally before He became flesh.
“For the Son is equal to the Father in his deity, not submitting to any. And also reverence, the Father and the Son receive reverence from creatures, but do not owe it the one to the other.”
Christ is equal to the Father, but He submitted to the will of the Father, whose counsel existed before time. The Son does reverse the Father, not as something owed, but something in which God has no higher thing to set His mind upon then Himself. Christ calls the Father “my God” and prays to Him, and I see no reason why in eternity past the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would not revere each other as alone worthy of glory.
“When the Son becomes man, he then renders honor, reverence and submission to the Father…”
The creed in Phil 2 does not appear to say this, however.
“As to contingency, again I deny it. Remove this notion from begetting, and you will have some idea of what is spoken of here.”
But you cannot remove contingency from begetting, it is impossible. You are saying it is a necessity that Christ is born of the Father, or otherwise He cannot exist. This is a contingency. To say it is anything else is to say the same thing but with different words.
“Thank you for asking the questions! It does take a bit of time to go over these things (in between classes and other deadlines..), but it is always worth the review and the discovery. God bless!”
Please be patient with me I am trying to understand.
God bless,
Craig
In response to the all-caps part, there were various forms of Arianism and some sorts might assert that the Son always existed, but some make him unequal.
As for your account of the orthodox faith, I would agree with the first two. As for the “TIME” section, I would clarify that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit create all things in time. Or using appropriation, by which equality is not denied but the relations of the persons is made manifest, say that the Father creates all things through the Son by the Holy Spirit. God creates all things by one divine power, one divine will, common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
—
Each of your comments are worth responding to:
“He is eternally the Son, but that does not mean He is the Son in the sense we are sons from human fathers.”
This is true, for he is not begotten by a material or temporal generation. It is important to affirm that his is a Son by nature though and not merely by adoption or through doing something a son or anyone else might do. Thus he is Son and begotten in a true, though exalted sense.
“Hence, the submission and reverence existed eternally before He became flesh.”
There is a confusion here between what God will from all eternity and what takes place in time. God intended from all eternity to create in time, but this does not mean creation existed from all eternity.
“The Son does reverse [sic] the Father, not as something owed, but something in which God has no higher thing to set His mind upon then Himself. Christ calls the Father “my God” and prays to Him, and I see no reason why in eternity past the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit would not revere each other as alone worthy of glory.”
From all eternity, God loves himself as perfectly good and worthy of love and glory. This is true of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so is no basis of the distinction of persons. Christ calls the Father “my God” and worships him according to his humanity. The Father is not God over the Son in his divinity, but they are one God.
“But you cannot remove contingency from begetting, it is impossible. You are saying it is a necessity that Christ is born of the Father, or otherwise He cannot exist. This is a contingency. To say it is anything else is to say the same thing but with different words.”
It is as necessary that the Son is born of the Father, as it is that the Father beget the Son. It has not been, is not, and never will be otherwise. If you think I say the Son is contingent on the Father, then you must say I make the Father contingent on the Son. The word “begetting” involves as much contingency/materiality as the word “son”. If we can understand the word “son” without these trappings, then the same is true of “begetting” or “generation”.
—
I always recommend reading Thomas and the Fathers on these points, but perhaps you may find other writers more accessible. For Thomas’ account of the Trinity, Gilles Emery provides the most concise summary and explanation. As for the Fathers, I have it on good authority that Lewis Ayres and Khaled Anatolios have written the best recent books on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity among the Fathers. I intend to read Anatolios’ Retrieving Nicaea this weekend, so I could strengthen or weaken my recommendation soon.
Ironically, there was a line from Isaiah 45:10 in the Office yesterday, “Woe to a man who asks his father, ‘What are you begetting?'” I believe Thomas accommodates this passage to explain the great care and reverence with which the eternal Generation of the Son is considered. I thank you again for all the questions, but also remind you (for what it’s worth) that the eternal generation of the Son is the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, as expressed in the Creeds and taught by the Fathers. I believe you are earnest in your desire to understand.
God bless!
Max
“In response to the all-caps part, there were various forms of Arianism and some sorts might assert that the Son always existed, but some make him unequal.”
Good to know that, never heard that one.
“As for your account of the orthodox faith, I would agree with the first two. As for the “TIME” section, I would clarify that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit create all things in time. Or using appropriation, by which equality is not denied but the relations of the persons is made manifest, say that the Father creates all things through the Son by the Holy Spirit.”
Yes, thank you for clarifying.
“It is important to affirm that his is a Son by nature though and not merely by adoption or through doing something a son or anyone else might do.”
Yes, He is not adopted, it is intrinsic to His nature.
“There is a confusion here between what God will from all eternity and what takes place in time. God intended from all eternity to create in time, but this does not mean creation existed from all eternity.”
But it does mean that God had the aptitude and desire to create. Hence, if Christ submitted in time, the submissive attitude behind it existed in eternity past.
“From all eternity, God loves himself as perfectly good and worthy of love and glory. This is true of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and so is no basis of the distinction of persons. Christ calls the Father “my God” and worships him according to his humanity. The Father is not God over the Son in his divinity, but they are one God.”
I agree, but I think your response here allows for mutual reverence.
“It is as necessary that the Son is born of the Father, as it is that the Father beget the Son. It has not been, is not, and never will be otherwise. If you think I say the Son is contingent on the Father, then you must say I make the Father contingent on the Son. The word “begetting” involves as much contingency/materiality as the word “son”. If we can understand the word “son” without these trappings, then the same is true of “begetting” or “generation”.”
But how can you remove the trappings? It appears to me we are calling the Son “born,” but He really isn’t born. In what sense can we accurately say He is born?
“I believe you are earnest in your desire to understand.
God bless!”
THank you for your time. I am going through Justin Martyr, so it might take me time to go to Aquinas on this.
God bless,
Craig
you said “As long as a doctrine is taught in the Scriptures, then it is true. They “are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:16). And, if there is supposedly anything missing from the Scripture that is necessary to believe to do for salvation, wouldn’t that turn God into a liar?”
If Sola Scriptura was the way God intended us to worship him, why didn’t Christ command his apostles to write a new testament canon? Why doesn’t the scriptures have a list of books that belong to this canon?
That aside.
Christ was punished by the people, not God.
The idea that the only way our God the father can render justice is by the torture and death of a innocent person, isn’t compatible with what is actually revealed about the nature of God.
I hope this answers your non-sequitur about sola scriptura: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzqupfo78gQ
Your latter point is simply an opinion that ignores the Scriptures and the Fathers.
GOd bless,
Craig
You can argue back and forth about sola Scripture all you want but if it doesn’t explicitly say “here are your 66 that’ll interpret themselves for you”, then any argument for it is merely conjecture.
The scriptures say “God is love” Punishing the innocent to acquit the guilty is not love, in fact it a huge sin. How can the sins of the world be taken away by another sin?
This goes against reason. How can you rationalize this?
I would venture the guest you did not read the article you are responding to, which is unfair to me if you expect me to take your response to it seriously.
The Septuagint Esaias 53:10, 11a The Lord also is pleased to purge/cleanse him from his stroke/beating. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed: the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to show him light
vs.
Masoretic Text Isaiah 53:10, 11a Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied
Oh, how much ye miss out on by using the scribes’ text.
Very interesting read but I am somewhat confused regarding the context of your statements!
Are you, in fact Eastern Orthodox? Much of what you have written here seem to be in contradiction to what I have read from other Eastern Orthodox folks who take serious exception to PSA! And your view of the scriptures almost sounds “Sola Scriptura” which really has me wondering “Who is this guy?”
I know the EOC holds primarily to the Ransom and Christus Victor views but as you have stated, there really is no absolute, monolithic view but putting everything else aside and looking strictly at the scriptures, it should be clear to anyone that the atonement was substitutionary in nature and I think many of the objections to Penal Substitutionary Atonement is based upon a flawed perception that Christ bearing God’s wrath for our sins somehow caused a rift in the eternal Godhead which would be based upon a very flawed perception of Christology and Theology Proper!
It has been brought to my attention that Martin Luther actually held to the Christus Victor view but I am guessing he likely would not object to the reformed view of PSA. Have you taken a look at this?
I am currently wrapping up an “Atonement Theories” paper for a Systematic Theology course in Seminary and was looking for quotations from early Church fathers which show that PSA is not some “Johnny Come Lately” theory invented by John Calvin but has historical support along with the others.
My understanding (giving my two cents here) is that the Reformers concentrated specifically upon the Penal Substitutionary Atonement because it directly rebutted Anselm’s medieval Satisfaction theory which morphed into the “Treasure of Merit” and the system of indulgences which were Luther’s principal objections.
I know this original blog post is several years old but I just found it while researching my own paper as I said. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
In short, this was written when I was Protestant. For a more complete view see: https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2020/11/28/orthodox-atonement-and-1-peter-224/
Thank you for the quick response! Are you saying you no longer agree with what you have written? I thought you were quite fair in your representations. I think we would both agree that the atonement is not monolithic that could be held to one particular academic “Theory.”
Your appeal to the scriptures is therefore correct. Being an evangelical Christian with (historic) fundamentalist moorings, my understanding of the atonement was shaped by the scriptures long before I heard of all the differing “theories” that are taught in Seminary classes. 🙂
I would say that the Propitiatory and Substitutionary aspect is central to the atoning work of Christ with everything else (Christus Victor, Ransom, Moral Influence/Example, Satisfaction, Recapitulation, Etc.) being peripheral but necessary for a full understanding of the atonement. I would also say that most objections to Penal Substitution are based upon mischaracterizations of the position and a distorted view of the triune Godhead. Steve Chalke and Brian Zahnd are prime examples of this. Scriptures are quite clear that Christ bore the penalty for our sin hence the term “Penal.”
You mentioned the “Ransom to Satan” theory in the article you linked but based upon the accounts of Jesus’s temptation and the maniac of Gadarenes, it seems that Satan and the demons knew EXACTLY who Jesus was so how could God deceive Satan with the “Bait of flesh on the hook of his deity?” Have you ever had someone bring this up or has any other proponent of the Ransom theory addressed this?
Sorry, I know I am throwing quite a bit at you but this is a link to an Orthodox source that I am more accustomed to finding https://liveorthodoxy.com/en/2020/03/06/2020-03-07-penal-substitutionary-theory-is-a-poor-substitution-for-biblical-atonement/. What I find interesting here is that Deacon Thom goes through the very Old Testament examples I would use to make the case for a Penal Substitutionary Atonement in order to disprove the position. Most notable is his treatment of the Passover lamb saying that it became sacred and was eaten (which is true) but neglected the part that says “When I see the blood, I will pass over you” showing that the Lamb was slain as a substitute for the firstborn that God declared must die on that night! I guess I could take this up with Deacon Thom but his blog post seems to be in contradiction to yours so I am curious as to your thoughts. Is his position consistent with that of the Orthodox Church or is deficient somewhere in his understanding? I do not know about the Orthodox Church but for a Baptist Deacon it is not required that he be a Bible Scholar with formal theological training! LOL
Blessings
In short, the ransom theory presumes not upon Satan’s ignorance, but his greed and his lack of appreciation of parallelisms. So, in effect, God heals things by bending back things the other way. Satan presumed that by killing Christ, he can prevent something like general repentance. Satan did not realize Christ came not to just correct people morally, but to couple this with a reorientation of the human nature/tropos.
Think about it. Adam died involuntarily because he voluntarily opted into sin. Sin divorces us from God’s grace which upholds all life (Gen 6:1-3). Christ died voluntarily as not being actually sinful (Rom 8:3) He was not liable to die. He voluntarily gave up His soul and permitted His own murder. And so, Christ in effect “broke” the law of death, swallowing up death. He bent back the branch so to say, the bent human nature/tropos was bent back to a restored tropos that does God’s will and does not die, but rather experiences Theosis and eternal life.
And so, re-read Theodore of Heraclea according to what I just said. Now his words have a whole new, much more precise meaning.
Christ’s death was subtutionary, but it was not an arbitrary “blood price” that had to pay as if God simply thirsted for blood. It was a literally canceling of death, taking the involuntary penalty of our sin voluntarily, hence making death an eternal possibility for all those joined to Him through faith and cooperating with His grace–in effect, allowing the atonement to apply to themselves.
This is why Orthodox believe in universal atonement, but not universal salvation. Faith is the means we permit grace to act and draw us in union with Him, thereby restoring our tropos so that our resurrected bodies would be coupled with the correct nature/tropos that permits eternal salvation/Theosis.
“Penal Substution” as the West understands it is too minimalistic and essentially “I got punched in the face, so someone else has to get punched in the face to make things right.” Clearly, two wrongs don’t make a right. But the Orthodox view of substitutionary atonements isn’t two wrongs make a right. It is Christ, going above and beyond with righteousness, to cancel death through volunteerism.
How then could God express simultaneously his holiness in judgment and his love in pardon? Only by providing a divine substitute for the sinner, so that the substitute would receive the judgment and the sinner the pardon. We sinners still of course have to suffer some of the personal, psychological and social consequences of our sins, but the penal consequence, the deserved penalty of alienation from God, has been borne by Another in our place, so that we may be spared it.
John Stott, The Cross of Christ