How Are We Saved? Discussing Penal Substitution & Vicarious Satisfaction with Dr. John Joy 

I remember several years ago when this was posted on your blog. I agree with Joy and am glad this is being discussed. I would add that one tragic omission in most of these discussions is the failure to address the Biblical term Atonement, used over one hundred times in the Bible. It never refers to punishment being transferred onto a substitute. Thus, the sacrificial animal wasn't getting punished in your place, and thus psub is false by the simple Biblical lexical meaning. The exegesis angle is missing from most discussions, and that's a serious shortfall because you can't do theology without appeal to divine revelation. Appealing to the Bible has the double benefit of pulling the rug out from the Protestant side (especially since Psub was only invented after the fact to support Sola Fide) and gives the Catholic the surest foundation when they take the truth to heart. I would say the Apostles did understand the Atonement beyond a vague sense because they had a more concrete view of the Sacrificial system. In fact, I have strongly come to "upgrade" Satisfaction to what I call the Liturgical Atonement, where the Cross was really one big liturgical event and it was this act of worship where the merit truly is (beyond a vague use of "love" is where the merit is). And the Bible clearly supports the Liturgical aspect of the Cross, including intoning the Divine Office with Psalm 22 at three pm, the canonical "hour of prayer" (Acts 3:1). More recently I've written on how the Synagogue was never confused with the Temple, which all Jews knew were two different Buildings, the Temple for worship and the Synagogue for study. The Protestant side basically Judaized and modeled their "liturgy" after the synagogue, which amounts to a Glorified Bible Study, whereas the NT and Catholicism models the Church after the Temple, with Sacrificial and Worship terminology (which the Bible never applies to the synagogue).

Thanks for addressing the elephant in the room. Such a vital topic and yet so poor/meagre a content (at least on RU-vid) on Catholic soteriology and vicarious satisfaction. Honestly speaking, its hard to grasp the theme with just books, at least for a lay such as me, but without an understanding of it, I feel, one cannot fully appreciate the mass and the Eucharist. Appreciate the content much.

"As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love: as I also have kept my Father's commandments and do abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled. This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you." (John 15:9-14)

This is an amazing presentation! I’m ordering the book immediately!!

Just bought the book! Thank you to both of you to make this topic available to us Catholic Laymen. Viva Cristo Rey!

Christ the Redeemer of all human race!

Thanks for this. Breaking the Habit says there is no official Church position on atonement. And i do think he may be right; the CCC seems silent. Thanks for your comments on Max Kolbe. Alpha does use that story quoting JP2 as well. I'm not sure if co-partner and Col 1:24 is being used in the right context. Both these refer to our work on bringing others to salvation, not about our own salvation

34:44 bookmark

so we had to wait til the 13th century to know what the Cross was all about???

Hell is not, and never has been, "separation from God." You do know we classically hold to omnipresence?! Hell is separation from the positive aspects of relation to God, that is, he only relates to you negatively.

I wish though you could have discussed the Scripture verses on the wrath of God (repeated at Fatima). Your analogy of the car wreck and even Anselm's theory which begins with the dishonour of God suggests there is an offended person. I think some Protestants uphold the wrath of God yet do not think it necessarily leads to a capricious God. Also a discussion about the good thief who offered nothing but a prayer would have helped. Finally my concern is that this adding our own works gets mangled in the grassroots. A majority of Catholics are practical Pelagians. Which is why they don't see the necessity of Christ and leave the Church

Clearly you don't understand Christian universalism. No christian universalist claims there is no punishment for sin, the claim is that this punishment is not eternal but a purification of the soul so that all things will be put under the feet of Christ. Most objections to this true doctrine are founded eitger on an un christian unwillingnes to realise that their personal enemies will be saved and an unchristian unwillingness to say that the work of the cross and ressurection was actually successful, that God does not ultimatly loose to satan as all other theories suggest.

The meagre content on the work of Christ on the Cross is no surprise. Look at the meagre content in the Catechism itself, both in length and depth. I'm not sure why. That said, (to be blunt) this video was of little help to me. I'm afraid that Penal Substitutionary Atonement (properly described-not the way it wascaricatured in this video) describes the Cross of Christ and how He saves us accurately. "The Biblical gospel of atonement is of God satisfying himself by substituting himself for us. The concept of substitution may be said, the, to lie at the heart of both sin and salvation. For the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man asserts himself against God and put himself where only God deserves to be; God sacrifices himself for man and puts himself where only man deserves to be. Man claims prerogatives which belong to God alone; God accepts penalties which belong to man alone." -John Stott 'The Cross of Christ' p.159-160

The best part about this video is you don't have to get into it very far to know that it's completely wrong. As a matter of fact Paul did describe salvation, apparently you missed that? Being a Catholic that's not terribly surprising. But this is a subject that's important to the church and I would say more so to the believers. It's clear that there's a separation between those that believe and those that are in the church. The church being, Christ's Church, not the Catholic Church. If you are Catholic and you submit yourself to Catholic teachings, dogma, then your salvation is by sacraments. The priests have magical power to save or to condemn. There's no point coming later and saying that salvation has anything to do with Christ. He did what He did, left the church on earth, and it's the church that saves?. Never mind what Paul said, never mind what's written in scripture. That's not important, the RCC is infallible after all, and this is what they say? If that's what you believe in, stop reading here. It is written, for you are saved by grace through faith. That's through faith. So Grace that's the grace of God, which is available to everyone, is effective unto your salvation because of your faith. Which if you kept reading that passage you discovered was a gift from God. The problem is that most of what calls itself Christianity is clueless when it comes to Faith. Almost every believer thinks that believing is faith. But then you have these believers that end up in hell, so how did that happen? Clearly there's something more to it than faith, cuz they were believers, and that's faith? Well I'm here to tell you it ain't. If that's my opinion, please reply to this comment with one of your own that says shut up. Because no one is interested in my opinion, and I'm not interested in yours. All that counts, is what scripture says that is unless you're Catholic. If you're Catholic the only thing that matters to you is what your Pope says. You may as well burn your Bible. The last thing you want to do as a Catholic is read it? developed some sort of understanding of the word on your own. However if by some chance you are interested where in scripture it talks about the means of salvation, you will find that in Romans 10 13 to 17. Paul starts, all that call on God are saved. What about half of the virgins 10 of them started out, five were saved, that is the part we're interested in, five of them and I guarantee you they all believed, end up in outer darkness? What about the Lord Lord crowd? All believers, in fact so much so, that they argue with Christ. In that passage, they say Lord didn't we do this, didn't we do that, didn't we do all these mighty works in your name? Nope I never knew you get out of here. What do you want to hear when the day comes? Is your explanation going to be, but I read a book? All that call on the Lord shall be saved, are saved, same thing. The takeaway should be those that are not saved didn't call on God. They believed, they went to a church, they were busy, they did lots of works, maybe they even wrote a book? But they missed something? Paul asks, and this is a good question, how will they call? As one looking for salvation I'm pretty interested? How will they call on one in whom they have not believed and how will they believe in one of whom they have not heard, and how will they hear without a preacher? This is why the Great commission is for us to preach the gospel. Now have a look at the preacher. He's one that was sent what did that mean isn't every preacher sent? Nobody in the Christian community, or those people calling themselves Christians, believes that every other so-called Church got it right, so clearly their preachers, ministers, whatever couldn't be sent? Clearly Catholics believe the pope is sent. I was a Catholic most of my life, but in the end I didn't believe the pope was sent. I did however believe that the scripture was the word of God? Maybe you do too? Now look at Romans 10:17. Remember the believers they already believe. They came to believe because of the minister of, or the preaching of the word. Then they were to call on God. That was the point of them believing. So they believe to call, and they call, why? Paul says so then Faith comes. Now things are getting good, because after all it's by faith that grace is effective and this is where the scripture or rather it's translation falls apart. So then faith comes by the hearing of the word? Most who read that think the word? scripture? Read it again in Greek. Read it the way Paul wrote it. The word Paul used was not logos. The Bible the scriptures are logos. Paul said Ramtos, that's the Greek term that's translated word. It never refers to a written word, only to a conversation. Paul is literally saying faith comes by speaking with God. Note not at God, to God, it's a conversation, not a prayer aimed at the ceiling. You want to know you're saved, ask God, and if He says yes you are My child, if you hear His voice, if you hear Him disciplining you, for all who are sons are chastened? If not? Read the rest of the passage. If you hear Him correcting you, if you hear Him directing you, not a pope, not sacraments, not some minister, not some understanding that you developed intellectually, but a relationship, where He's Lord and you follow Him you can be very sure that you're actually a Christian. Then you won't need to waste your money on some book that tells you this and that or some other thing.