Topic: Penal Substitution and Colossians 2

[neon_knights]

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


Couldnt these verses be supporting the idea that Jesus was punished on the cross for our sins?

[Shiny]

Survey says...! -aaaaaaant-

Where do you find that Christ was a substitute for our own sins in that passage? I can't find it. Even if that "Nailing it to his cross" could be used, we still have sins even after His resurrection.

[Alveus Lacuna]

No. His perfect righteousness absorbs our unrighteousness.

[Ortho_cat]

No. His perfect righteousness absorbs our unrighteousness.

never heard it put like this before...everyone else in agreement?

would penal atonement theorists say it the other way around?

[FountainPen]

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


Couldnt these verses be supporting the idea that Jesus was punished on the cross for our sins?

Yes. As well as Isaiah 52 - 53 and a whole host of other scriptures.

He is the good shepherd, who lays down His life for His sheep.

He redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

The righteous suffered for the unrighteous.

[witega]

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


Couldnt these verses be supporting the idea that Jesus was punished on the cross for our sins?

"Jesus was punished" is a passive sentence. It describes something being done to Jesus. But in St. Paul's words, Christ is not the passive but the active subject: He 'quickens', 'forgives', 'blots out', 'nails to His cross', 'spoils principalities and powers' and 'triumphs over them.' The grammar (and thought) pattern is directly opposite to your question.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Yes. As well as Isaiah 52 - 53 and a whole host of other scriptures.

He is the good shepherd, who lays down His life for His sheep.

He redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

The righteous suffered for the unrighteous.

You're missing the subtlety.

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness.

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God's anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God's presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth's atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.

Anyway, God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That's the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn't die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it's the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.

There's too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

[Melodist]

You're missing the subtlety.

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness.

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God's anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God's presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth's atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.

Anyway, God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That's the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn't die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it's the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.

There's too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

Take that Orthonorm, now you can stop praising me for my articulation of things. This is much better than I have been able to do on this particular subject. 

Well put Alveus.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Well, I do hope it get a response to see if I helped clear it up for anyone in this thread. It's taken me a LONG time to get my head around what the Church is saying about this, and I hope I've gotten it somewhat right.

[Melodist]

Well, I do hope it get a response to see if I helped clear it up for anyone in this thread. It's taken me a LONG time to get my head around what the Church is saying about this, and I hope I've gotten it somewhat right.

It can be difficult when we use the same exact words to explain different things.

[Ortho_cat]

Ya that idea of being saved from the wrath of the Father is something I can definitely relate to from my Protestant days...who wouldn't want to run from such a God?

[Papist]

Yes. As well as Isaiah 52 - 53 and a whole host of other scriptures.

He is the good shepherd, who lays down His life for His sheep.

He redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

The righteous suffered for the unrighteous.

You're missing the subtlety.

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness.

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God's anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God's presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth's atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.

Anyway, God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That's the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn't die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it's the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.

There's too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

Wow. This is excellent. Very wel stated.

[David Garner]

You're missing the subtlety.

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness.

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God's anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God's presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth's atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.

Anyway, God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That's the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn't die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it's the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.

There's too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

This is absolutely outstanding!

I hope it is not too forward of me to ask, but may I share this on my blog?

[Knee V]

FountainPen,

"For" does not necessitate substitution. There is a sense of "He died and now we don't", but that still doesn't necessitate substitution. Having formerly been a Calvinist, I certainly understand where you're coming from, though.

The Colonies declare their independence and the British invade. An American soldier is fighting and gets killed. Later, the Americans win the war. Thus, the soldier died for us.

In the movie "Seven Pounds", Will Smith's character finds people that he feels are "worthy" of his organs, then kills himself so that they can receive them. Some of them would have died without those organs, while some would have continued with a diminished quality of life. Either way, he died for those people.

In both of those instances someone died for others without there being any kind of legal substitution going on. So it can be demonstrated that "to die for" someone doesn't necessitate a legal substitution. So on what basis do we require that there be a legal substitution when we say that Christ died "for" us? Why is it that "substitution" is the only way in which to understand that type of language? How about "He died on behalf of us", or "He died for our sake"? Is there any reason why that type of understanding of "for" would be unacceptable?

[Ortho_cat]

ya, as others have said, penal substitution deals with the appeasement of God's wrath.

[Alveus Lacuna]

You're missing the subtlety.

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness.

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God's anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God's presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth's atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.

Anyway, God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That's the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn't die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it's the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.

There's too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

This is absolutely outstanding!

I hope it is not too forward of me to ask, but may I share this on my blog?

Sure.

[David Garner]

You're missing the subtlety.

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness.

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God's anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God's presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth's atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.

Anyway, God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That's the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn't die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it's the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.

There's too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

This is absolutely outstanding!

I hope it is not too forward of me to ask, but may I share this on my blog?

Sure.

Awesome - thanks!

[ialmisry]

Yes. As well as Isaiah 52 - 53 and a whole host of other scriptures.

He is the good shepherd, who lays down His life for His sheep.

He redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

The righteous suffered for the unrighteous.

You're missing the subtlety.

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness.

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God's anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God's presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth's atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.

Anyway, God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That's the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn't die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it's the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.

There's too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

Wow. This is excellent. Very wel stated.

QFT

[NicholasMyra]

Couldnt these verses be supporting the idea that Jesus was punished on the cross for our sins?

He is the good shepherd, who lays down His life for His sheep.

Did his sheep have a reputation for beating up the caliph's son or something? Why does Allah the most Proud have to deliver just punishment to the sheep?