Talk:Penal substitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Calvinism Portal Penal substitution falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Anslem

I think the paragraph saying that the theory is rooted i satisfaction theory is misleading given that it has disconnected from the discussion on Anselm later. It may lead to the impression that PSA is rooted in Anslem (the orginal wording was actualy better) I propose removing this paragraph and ammending the part on Anselm drawing on the earlier wording. Can I encourage editors to take time to use the discussion page here given the controversy over this subject -that will perhaps lead to a collegiately agreeable article (Be Dave 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi Dave, I agree that using the discussion page sounds prudent. Are you referring to this?:

"Penal substitution is rooted in the idea of making a “satisfaction” for sin. The origin of “satisfaction theory” is traditionally credited to Anselm of Canterbury's work “Cur Deus Homo” which he wrote in 1098 AD. The 16th century Reformers (particularly John Calvin) saw Anselm's doctrine as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. It is important to note that Calvin, typical of Reformation thinking, does not see penal substitution as a development of doctrine building off of the rationalist arguments of Anselm, but bases his view directly on Biblical texts."

Historically penal substitution did develop out of satisfaction doctrine, so I'm not sure what exactly you are having trouble with here. I have noted that Calvin (as opposed to many who followed him from Beza to Hodges) bases his understanding on biblical arguments. Positivley, one could argue that it is similar to how Luther "rediscovered" grace in Paul. But that does not mean that everyone always believed in solo gracia, it is something that is historically creditied to Luther. Because penal substitution is a particular (Calvinsit) understanding of substitutionary atonement, I think it is misleading to remove it from its historical context and give the impression that it is what the church always believed from day one. This is simply historically inacurate. Sharktacos 04:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)