Jesus Christ and the Penal Substitution Atonement Theory

My opponents 1 Objection with two parts remains refutted: "In summary we would reject a justice system that let some one go unpunished and declared innocent who is guilty of rape, torture, murder, genocide etc, by punishing a volunteered innocent in the place of the guilty, thus we should reject Penal Substitution Atonement Theory. " Refutation 1 fleshed out in my first round post: R1) Jesus is not permanently in Hell due to his Penal substitution of our sins. He is currently in Heaven and ruling. He paid a Penal substitution to atone for our sins that was equivalent but not exact and he is now ruling Heaven because of it. No injustice from God the Father has occurred to Jesus' person. **Points of note: 1st Note - If my opponent does not believe this is a part of every PSAT model viewpoint, He would need to prove that to be the case. He would need to assert a model that shows Jesus is serving our eternal punishment exactly as due. There are no PSAT advocates that do this. All viewpoints recognize the substitution was equivalent rather than exact and not permanent though our punishment was to be permanent/eternal. 2nd Note: My opponent did consent to Jesus' resurrection thus consenting that Jesus is not serving the exact sentence but an equivalent substitution penal sentence equivalently effective. Refutation 2 fleshed out in my first round post: R2) The guilty are not simply released but are forgiven when they accept the substitution and are no longer the past dead guilt ridden sinners but cleansed new individuals… attested before all of heaven by God. Needless to say my opponent's objection no longer stands. My affirmative argument points summarized Argument for PSAT: PSAT accomplishes this 1)Satisfaction of Justice must be applied for the victims both God and Man through a Penal Substitute atoning for the guilty. (amended for clarity) 2)Assurance that the guilty being forgiven and released have indeed changed. 3)People are not static and those changed guilty offenders need forgiveness. In our own Penal system we cannot have all three in fullness- Satisfaction, Assurance of Change and Forgiveness. In God's system of Justice we obtain all three. To address the accusation brought up in the last round that "I(Gileandos) am not Arguing PSAT"; (Wikipedia and theopedia are not theological guideposts for any denomination and not sound sources, Carm though actually Christian is an independent ministry and merely posting a definition on this particular link) These three sources feel like my opponent is merely googling for definitions rather than having solid theological framework teachings that he is able to argue from. The resolution did not state PSAT as affirmed by such and such a person. It also did not state "what Con believes to be PSAT". There were no governing restrictions to a particular view of PSAT in the resolution. There was no assertion that mandated I hold to a Reformed View of PSAT. I am not Calvinist and I do not argue from a Calvinist viewpoint but I shall quote the famous J. I. Packer and his 1973 Lecture on The logic of Penal Substitutionary atonement. This work clarifies misconceptions, discusses the top three views of PSAT and the logic of each, and tries to place forward the Calvinist version as accurate. Clearly there was more than one view in 1973, how much more so several decades later… . http://www.the-highway.com... "First, the significance of penal substitution is not always stated as exactly as is desirable, so that the idea often gets misunderstood and caricatured by its critics; and I should like, if I can, to make such misunderstanding more difficult. " Here the author is joking/not joking but I posted this to show my audience that the subtleties of PSAT are not easily understood and can be mischaracterized just as easily. And again J. I. Packer states… "All this, being so, it might be hard to find an account of penal substitution which could safely be taken as standard or as fully representative, and it will certainly be more straight-forward if I venture an analysis of my own. " These quotes showing that the great J. I. Packer in 1973 recognized the misunderstandings and mischaracterizations…. . thus my opponents attempt to dodge the refutation of his objection by appearing to make a complex issue appear simple…. is inaccurate. I will leave my opponent to come to a more full understanding of PSAT by reading J. I. Packer's work but again I state that this is to lay out some clarities of PSAT and to reject my opponents latest assertion that somehow I am not arguing PSAT. BY formal Definition I have already stated that Jesus Christ Paid for our sins through a Substitutionary Penal process of atonement. (PSAT) **** The second work I would like to quote is the person who holds the Catholic standard view of this model and comes prior to any of the reformed viewpoints. I agree with some of the things that J. I. Packer asserts and I agree with some of the objections. I do also assert many of the things within the Catholic View of PSAT. Summa Theologica = Catholic Work by St. Thomas Aquinas This catholic work is the modern origin and launch pad of my opponents analogy laid out in the first round of Sin being a debt. He lays out the Penal Debt that needs to be paid for both divine and human justice to be satisfied. He also lays out how Jesus substitutes for our penal satisfaction. P2 Q87 A6 "Consequently it is evident that when the sinful or injurious act has ceased there still remains the debt of punishment. " Definition of Penal = Punishable; inflicting of punishment . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Thomas Aquinas lays out the base of all modern viewpoints of the PSAT Model. P2 Q87 A6,A7,A8 . http://www.newadvent.org... Thomas Aquinas: P2 Q87 A6 R3 "Moreover punishment is requisite in order to restore the equality of justice…" To Quote St. Thomas Aquinas directly on his view of Penal (punishment) Subsitutionary Atonement. P2 Q87 A7 R3 "Christ bore a satisfactory punishment, not for His, but for our sins. " Christ bore (took/received) a satisfactory (atonement) Punishment (penal), not for His (Jesus'), but for our Sins (substitutionary) Though Catholics like Evangelicals debate the elements within the Christological Atonement framework and its elements/variations, they all have their roots within Summa Theologica a medieval Catholic work which discusses PSAT and its objections from a Medieval perspective. This is completely a Penal Substitutionary Atonement model. The key differing elements in this Catholic View from the Reformed view are: 1)Due to this equivalent payment "Penance" of Christ, Penance is clear in scripture and in action and a Church doctrine for sinners. 2)There are three categorical sins, original, venial and mortal. This makes the Reformed advocates misunderstand many of the Catholic statements concerning a type of sin. 3)Reconciliation with God for the Catholic comes from our Will being in unity with His Will. 4)Christ's Merit allowed for the substitution to take place. These differences cause a bit of confusion for the theological underpinnings of a reformed advocate, as statements are easily misunderstood. A lot of the Reformed traditions vary entirely in concept and background information from a Catholic Viewpoint.