What are the issues with Penal Substitution Theory?

God that father treated him while hanging on that Cross in same fashion as a lost sinner, hence feeling being forsaken by God!

 

I am saying what the bible affirms, that while upon the Cross, Jesus became sin for us, became the sin bearer, and during that time, God the Father had to forsake and treat Him as being a lost sinner, not due to Him being such, but due to Him suffering in our stead for the sins that we had committed against God!

 

Would you please point me to the thread where this occurred?

 

Did Christ become a curse for us? And if so, what exactly was that curse, what does it mean and where did it originate?

 

I believe the Doctrine of Penal Substitution to be at least as old as any other.
The fact is that until Anselm's book, Cur Deus Homo in the 11th Century, there was no systematic treatment of Penal Substitution, but that the doctrine was widely accepted is shown by quotations from Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Gelasius of Cyzicus (who?) and 'pope' Gregory, all before 600 AD. In the 13th Century, Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, gives support to the doctrine. I gave that quote on another thread just a few weeks ago.
Calvin is the first Protestant to give an extended study to the doctrine, but Luther, in his commentary on Galatians, has a lengthy section on Penal Substitution in his treatment of 3:10-14 in which he endorses it very enthusiastically.

I have the details of all these in front of me and am delighted to type them out if anyone would like to read them. I am pretty sure that you will find that Heinrich Bullinger, who was contemporary with Calvin and wrote almost as voluminously, also endorsed P.S.

 

Penal substitution.

The crucifixion itself speaks of punishment (beating, flogging, nailing to a cross.)

The horrible cost of our sin. The absolute innocent one suffering in our place.

Adam after his sin said "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."
IOW - its your fault God.

God took him at his word.

 

I'm game.

BTW and FWIW, I'm not a Calvinist but on the other hand I find fault with Arminianism as well.

But there was a "price" of course.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

I tend to agree. What were the quantitative and qualitative depths of His suffering? - We may never know even on the other side.

 

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Here are my quotations from Aquinas:

'It is wicked and cruel to hand an innocent man over to suffering and death against his will. Nor did God the father so treat Christ in whom he inspired the will to suffer for us. God's severity is thus manifested; he was unwilling to remit sin without punishment, as the Apostle intimates when he says, 'He did not spare his own Son.' But it also illustrates God's goodness, for as man was unable to make sufficient satisfaction through any punishment he might himself suffer, God gave him one who would satisfy for him. Paul stresses this, saying, 'He has delivered him for us all,' and 'God has established him [Christ] as a propitiation by his blood through faith.'
[Quest. 47, art 3. Italics and square brackets in the original, underlining mine]

And

'By sin man contracts a twofold obligation. First, he is bound in slavery to sin inasmuch as 'everyone who sins is a slave of sin, and by whatever a man is overcome, of this also he is the slave. Because then, the devil had overcome man by inducing him to sin, man was delivered into the bondage of the devil. Secondly, by sin man was held to the debt of punishment according to divine justice......
As therefore Christ's passion provided adequate, and more than adequate satisfaction for man's sin and debt, his passion was as it were the price of punishment by which we are freed from both obligations. satisfaction offered for oneself or for another resembles the price whereby one ransoms himself from sin and from punishment.....Now Christ offered satisfaction.....by giving the greatest of all things, namely himself, for us. For that reason, the passion of Christ is said to be our ransom.'
[Quest. 48, art 4. Italics in the original, underlining mine]

Moreover, right at the end of Question 47, Aquinas writes: Reply to Objection 3: Christ, indeed willed His Passion just as the Father willed it; yet He did not will the unjust action of the Jews. Consequently Christ's slayers are not excused of their injustice. Nevertheless, whoever slays a man not only does a wrong to the one slain, but likewise to God and to the State; just as he who kills himself, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v). Hence it was that David condemned to death the man who "did not fear to lay hands upon the Lord's anointed," even though he (Saul) had requested it, as related 2 Kings 1:5-14.

Here Aquinas is saying that although God the Father willed the passion of Christ, that did not excuse those who killed Him. In this Aquinas is in line with Acts 4:26-28. But in the extracts above it is clear that he believes that God 'was unwilling to remit sin without punishment' and that Christ took that punishment upon Himself.

 

You are quite wrong IMO to suppose that Justin Martyr is relying on Acts 2. He is dealing with Trypho's objection to the Messiah being hung upon a tree and is relying on Galatians 3:10-14 and the associated O.T. verses. Here is a longer extract:

Trypho recognizes that the Christ must suffer, but he cannot bring himself to believe that He would be crucified, since the OT law teaches that anyone crucified is under God's curse (Deut. 21:23):

'Then Trypho remarked, "Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover I do admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of [Nun] was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law' [Sect. 89]

Justin begins by assuring Trypho that Christ was not cursed for His own sins: 'Though a curse lies in the law against persons that are crucified, yet no curse rests on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved' [sect. 94]

'For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, "Cursed is everyone that coninueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this........But if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes' [sect 95]

Then Justin reaches the crux of his argument, where he explains that the reason why our Lord was crucified is that the curse which rested on us for our sin was transferred to Him.

'If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?' [sect 95, emphases added]

This amounts to a clear statement of penal substitution. Although Christ was innocent, He bore the curse due to sinful humanity, enduring in His death the punishment due to us. Several others of the ECFs explain this doctrine on the basis of the 'curse' vocabulary of Gal. 3:13 and Deut, 21:23, including Eusebius of Caesarea ('Proof of the Gospel, bk.10, ch.1) and Hilary of Poitiers (Homily on Psalm 53, sect. 13).

You will (or should) be aware that in all our discussions I have never quoted Calvin. I am therefore not happy to refer to Penal Substitution as 'Calvin's Theory.'

The definition that I have used throughout our discussions and quoted any number of times is this: 'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.' I have no doubt that Justin and many other ECFs would have endorsed that had it been presented to them. Those who deny the doctrine have tended to be Roman Catholic ritualists and/or schoolmen, Socinians and modern-day liberals.

 

I take it that the 'yes' refers to my first question, and 'Genesis 3' to my fourth. That leaves questions 2 & 3.
However, I think that Christ becoming a curse for us originates a lot further back than Genesis 3. Try Titus 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:20.