A Protestant I was speaking with brought up Genesis 22 as an example of Penal Substitution, where instead of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac, a ram was sacrificed instead. I was shocked that he would use this as an example, for there are some pretty serious errors in that argument. Then I realized this is a great proof against the doctrine of Penal Substitution, so I decided to share my thoughts.
First of all, Abraham was already justified by the time Genesis 22 came around, so to suggest Abraham had to atone for his sins despite being justified is a blatant contradiction in Protestant theology. In fact, Protestants are adamant that James 2:21-24 (talking about Genesis 22:13) is speaking of Abraham's vindication, not his justification, so the sacrifice couldn't have been of a PSub nature. Second of all, this argument suggests that Isaac could act as a substitute for Abraham's sins in the first place, which is impossible because Isaac was a sinner himself (and Sacrifices must be pure).
So if this situation was not that of Penal Substitution, then this means Sacrifices involving animals can be done for other reasons, such as showing thanksgiving to God. This refutes the idea that just because an animal is slain that it must be taking someone's punishment. And since this famous OT example prefigured the Father sending the Son to be a sacrifice, then this powerful foreshadowing points away from Jesus being a Penal Substitute as well.
20 comments:
Would Calvinists deny that "Sacrifices involving animals can be done for other reasons, such as showing thanksgiving to God"?
They don't deny it, but they cannot explain the shedding of blood aspect having nothing to do with penal substitution. I've been in many discussions where they will twist and turn rather than give a straight answer, because they know that saying an animal can be killed for non PSub reasons forces them to admit that Psub was not necessarily the framework and thus not necessarily what happened to Jesus.
You are confused. It is not Isaac who is being substituted for Abraham, it is the ram which is being substituted for Isaac. Abraham isn't the person for whom the ram functions as a substitute, so Abraham's justificatory status is completely irrelevant. If anybody, Abraham would image the role of the Father, not that of a sinner.
Nick,
1. Protestants do not deny that sacrifices involving animals can be done for other reasons. We do not believe that every offering in the OT was done as a substitution for the sinner in the judicial sense.
2. Gen. 22 is a clear indication that God is willing to substitute someone or something in place of a human being on the sacrificial altar. This is a standard interpretation of the text. The question you have to answer is why a human being had to be led to the altar in the first place.
Ryan,
Are you saying that the whole point of Genesis 22 was that Isaac was supposed to die for his own sins but God substitute a goat instead? If so, I'd say that goes directly against the text itself, which states Abraham was to offer Isaac as a burnt offering and Abraham was the one who ended up offering a ram instead. In other words, it was Abraham's sacrifice to make, not Isaac's. The lesson is not that Isaac was a sinner and was going to be judicially put to death until a substitute took his place.
Anonymous,
Regarding your #1, I'm glad to hear that and I told you my thoughts on this.
Regarding your #2, Genesis 22 is unique in having a human on the altar. The chapter plainly tells us that God was testing Abraham, seeing if Abraham was more devoted to Abraham's only begotten son or to God. There is no normative condition of humans being on altars, except in pagan sacrificial systems where human sacrifice was commonplace.
Well, it's not "the" point - as if there can only be one point to a passage - but in the context of redemptive history, the argument can certainly be made.
Would you agree that this situation is a type of Christ? Abraham's only-begotten son is going to be sacrificed, and he believes Isaac will be resurrected (Hebrews 11:17-19). But whereas the ram is substituted for Isaac, the Father actually did not spare His own only-begotten Son but rather delivered and then resurrected Him (Romans 8:32). The ram is a type of Christ.
Why do you think Christ needed to die in order for forgiveness et. al. to be procured?
I agree it is a type of Christ, but with the qualifications you make.
As far as sacrifice is concerned, the one making the sacrifice was Abraham, so my original point still stands.
My main focus here is to get people to realize that sacrificing need not entail Penal Substitution.
Ryan said...
Well, it's not "the" point - as if there can only be one point to a passage -
1. That's a first. That is the first time I ever heard a Protestant say that there can be more than one point to a passage of Scripture.
2. This is sort of the point you are debating with Nick, isn't it? Nick's entire point is:
"This refutes the idea that just because an animal is slain that it must be taking someone's punishment."
In other words, if I understand Nick correctly, he says that Protestants believe there is only one point to this passage. Penal substitution.
3. Up to this point, I would have to agree with Nick. I've never met a Protestant who believes that there is more than one point to a passage. Every time I say to them that passages of Scripture can have more than one point, they ridicule the idea.
4. However, you have proved me wrong in that regard. Since you are a Protestant (I presume) and you believe that there can be more than one point to a passage.
5. If you believe that there is more to this passage than penal substitution. Then, since you are a Protestant, then I suppose your very existence also disproves Nick's argument.
But I'm thinking Nick intended to debate some mainline Protestant thinking.
Nick,
You said:
Then I realized this is a great proof against the doctrine of Penal Substitution, so I decided to share my thoughts.
Isn't penal substitution the idea that Christ died for our sins?
If I'm right, that sounds like Catholic Teaching. Why would you want that disproved?
De Maria,
Penal Substitution is not the Biblical or Catholic view of the Cross. Protestants believe that God's wrath was dumped on His Beloved Son instead of on the Christian believer. And since the believer deserves hellfire for their sins, then Jesus endured hellfire in their place. Jesus was thus damned in the Protestant mind. Fortunately, this is not what happened at the Cross. At the Cross, wicked men killed Jesus, and througout all this Jesus continued to love and be obedient. This good work was so pleasing in The Father's sight that it Atoned for all the sins of the world.
See the Tag "Penal Substitution" on my blog posts for more information.
Ok, thanks. So, the Protestant mind is that God actually hated His own Son on the Cross? How weird is that?
But I've run across many other weird teachings from them. Just recently, on another site, a fellow was telling me that faith is not enough to believe the doctrines of Christ. At the same time, on the same page, he is telling me that he believes in faith alone?
I'm certain he doesn't see the contradiction there.
So, as it pertains to Ryan. He seems to disagree that the Protestants only see penal substitution in that verse (i.e. Abraham and Isaac at the altar). If he is a Protestant and he sees something else there, along with penal substitution, does that not disprove your point that "This refutes the (Protestant) idea that just because an animal is slain that it must be taking someone's punishment." Since he, if I understand him, seems to believe there is more than one reason for animal sacrifice.
PS thanks for clearing up the numbers. Much clearer.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Hello Ryan,
It seems you kicked yourself in the foot when you said that Isaac prefigured Christ.
1. If you believe in Penal Substitution.
2. And if Nick is representing it according to Protestant belief.
Then, when you said that Isaac on the altar prefigured Jesus on the Cross, then,
a. either the Protestant mindset of Penal Substitution would be applied. And Abraham is the offended father who is punishing Isaac for sins committed against Abraham by all concerned.
b. Or, this episode in the Old Testament does not prefigure Jesus on the Cross. Because nowhere does Scripture say that Abraham was an offended father.
That's the way I see it.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I don't think I stated "b" quite right. Bottom line though, logically speaking, Protestants who believe in Penal Substitution can't say that Abraham offering Isaac on the altar is a prefiguring of Christ on the Cross.
Nick's logic is sound.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
Did you see my Post, Was Jesus Damned In Your Place?
That's what Penal Substitution teaches, and it's required for Faith Alone to be true.
Yes. But I don't see the connection between Penal Substitution and Faith Alone.
The connection is that Jesus cleared everything that could possibly hinder one's entrance into the kingdom. One of those major things is needing sins forgiven. Since it's incompatible with Assurance that one can fall into sin and need it forgiven, Luther reasoned that forgiveness of all sins had to be already dealt with. PSub does this by pre-forgiving all the sins you would ever commit. This is received by the only thing that could possibly receive it, Faith.
That's a leap! Why is faith the only thing that could possibly receive it? Faith, hope and love are the three last things and the greatest is love. Faith, without love is nothing.
So....if anything can receive it, it is love.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation. When I tried to learn the Protestant logic, I learned enough to reject it. The more I learn about how Protestants think, the more confusing it becomes.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Because Protestants see everything else (including hope and love) as a "work". Thus, only faith is something we do not do, we only receive from it.
Have they never heard the term, "act of faith"?
Post a Comment