CATHOLIC CONVENTS AND MONASTERIES: SANCTUARIES OR CESSPOOLS?

• “Sanctuary” – A place of refuge or safety.
• “Cesspool” – A disgusting or corrupt place.

It is normally admirable to see someone who is sold out to God, serving Him at all costs, and is willing to do anything to please our Lord.  This often appears to be the case with Catholic monks and nuns.  Most of the people within these two groups appear to have a very sincere dedication to God (or to the Church), since they have chosen “the consecrated life.”

Now, understand that there are different groups of nuns and monks and they don’t all have the same rules.  Some are stricter than others.  But all of them have a measure of asceticism built into their system.

Asceticism

The online dictionary.com describes asceticism as:

1) The manner of life, practices, or principles of an ascetic.

2) The doctrine that a person can attain a high spiritual and moral state by practicing self-denial, self-mortification, and the like.

3) Rigorous self-denial; extreme abstinence; austerity.

According to the Oxford Languages dictionary, it means:

"Severe self-discipline and avoidance of all forms of indulgence, typically for religious reasons."

So that is why when a would-be monk or nun enters these groups, they will then be isolated, at least to a certain extent, for a period of time to live very closely together in a monastery (monks with other monks or nuns with other nuns).  In extreme cases, they will be completely isolated from the outside world (cloistered), with almost no exceptions.  Sometimes, nuns will live in a convent, where there seems to be a little more freedom.   

Furthermore, Catholic nuns and monks generally will be forced to live a celibate life, meaning that they will not be allowed to marry and they must abstain from sex, in some cases, for the rest of their lives.

If that’s not hard enough, some of these “religious,” as they are sometimes called, are usually expected to discipline and punish themselves by eating very small and simple meals (e.g., bread and water), sometimes only once a day.  Depending on the type of monastery, they are expected to fast often for long periods of time, sleep on hard floors or boards, wear extremely uncomfortable clothing (sometimes made of itchy hair or sharp metal pieces) for long periods, whip themselves (self-flagellation), wear tight cords around the body, and/or sometimes taking vows of silence or vows of poverty, etc., etc. 

Obviously, this won’t make most people say, “Hey, sign me up for that!”  No, this lifestyle is unusually harsh and most Catholics will avoid it.

 Motive?

Again, it is indeed rare to see such dedication toward God or Church, but what is the reason for going to this extreme?  Why choose to live such a harsh lifestyle?

Perhaps it is because they are trying to follow what Jesus said:

“And he said to them all, ‘If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.’” (Luke 9:23)

Or maybe they are thinking of what the apostle Paul said:

 “but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified. (1 Corinthians 9:27- NASB)

Do they intend to emulate the apostle Paul in his hardships and suffering (Galatians 5:24; 2 Corinthians 6:4-10) or are they even trying to outdo the apostle Paul? 

But what they do in the monastery is not what Jesus and Paul were talking about.  There is a balance in your spiritual life and its discipline.  In fact, Paul warned against legalistic asceticism.  Such a life of legalism will only keep you from serving God properly:

“If you have died with Christ to the spiritual forces of the world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its regulations: “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!”? These will all perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such restrictions indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-prescribed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body; but they are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:20-23 - BSB)

It is possible that their motives are well-intended, but we need to remain biblical if we really want to please God.  Much of convent/monastic life is unnecessary.  If you really want to please God, try spending more time at home in prayer, and in the Word of God. 

Thinking about a vow of silence?  How about keeping your mouth shut at the appropriate times, but use your freedom of speech to spread the true gospel! 

Instead of taking a vow of poverty, get a job and actually help others financially who live in poverty!

Instead of trying to live a life of isolation in a monastery (which you won’t find in the New Testament), do what Jesus said and interact with the lost by taking the gospel to the world! (Matthew 28:18-20)

Instead of making yourself miserable, pray for those who ARE ALREADY miserable! 

This life in the convent or monastery is closely tied in with a works-based salvation, that is, they believe that they get more “points” doing this and they have a “better chance” to get into Heaven.  It is an earning system.

 Bad Environment

Not only is there an issue with asceticism in convents and monasteries, but there is something that is recognized by most as a more sinister problem.  When there are so many celibate people of the same sex trapped together indefinitely, bad things tend to happen.  An environment like this invites trouble.  We’ve all heard of pedophile and sexual predator priests in the Catholic Church, but what about nuns and monks?  Can it be that the same things happen to them, as well?  Indeed it can.

Back in January 2019, CBS News did a video on nuns accused of sexual misconduct.  One of the former nuns that CBS interviewed, Trish Cahill, was sexually abused by an older nun.  Cahill, when speaking to the CBS News correspondent, used the phrase “pedophile nun.”  And the correspondent said that the phrase “‘Pedophile nun’ is a phrase I think most of our viewers will have never heard.”  The former nun replied, “Really?  Wow!  That’s really a shame because there’s a lot of them out there.  It’s the secret not yet told.”

The Catholic Church is very aware that it breeds such victims.  Cahill also later said, concerning a financial settlement she received from the Church for the abuse she suffered, “They had canon lawyers on retainer just for people like me!”  That is, the Church had lawyers ever ready to defend against the inevitable… those who would make accusations of a sexual nature against Catholic leaders.  Again, the Catholic Church knows very well the monster they have created with these convents and monasteries and their forced living conditions. 

But thank God, some are finally realizing what Protestants have been saying about the Catholic Church for a long time: In this same video, another former nun, Mary Dispenza, said, “The demands of chastity and celibacy are unrealistic demands for many of us.”

Exactly!  They may mean well in the beginning, but it often ends in disaster.

See the video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoy6mLX9r4

Problems in the Church

Again, sexual abuse by priests (and others in the hierarchy) is well known and documented.  But there are many reports and stories of monks and nuns who have abused others, as well. This abuse has fallen under different categories.  Sometimes it is psychological, sometimes verbal, very often it is sexual, and many times it is strictly physical abuse. 

These stories and accusations have been around for a long, long time - for decades, or most likely, centuries.  Sexual deviancy in the Catholic Church was especially a problem during the time of the Borgia popes (in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries), but the Catholic Church, not surprisingly, not only tries to downplay these perverted activities, but the Vatican will also hide their modern predators from the public by not contacting law enforcement, but rather, shuffling off offenders to other areas of the country where they are unknown, starting the same cycle all over again.

The Cat is Out of the Bag

Interestingly, the popular website Catholic Answers wrote an article in March of 2008, titled “Convent Horror Stories.”  See here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/convent-horror-stories

According to this article, when Catholics first came to America, Protestants viewed the Catholic Church as the “sworn enemy of freedom.”  The author tells us of (alleged) liars who came against the Church and spread horrible stories and “urban legends,” making it sound as though Catholic priests were perverts.  The author of the article mocked those Catholic haters who seemed to view the responsibilities of a nun to be “serving the perverse sexual needs of Catholic priests.”  Catholic Answers mocks these (allegedly) fabricated “convent horror stories,” and considers them all to be false.  They try to make it appear as though no such thing has happened among the priesthood.

But more interesting yet, is the fact that in August 2018, the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report came out nationwide and it revealed that some of those very types of things mentioned in the Catholic Answers article were actually true and still happening today.  The types of activities they brushed off as nonsense in 2008 were actually confirmed in 2018.  Not only those things that were mentioned in the Catholic Answers article, but far worse, including pedophilia.  See here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4757021-Pennsylvania-Grand-Jury-Report-on-Catholic.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/08/14/pennsylvania-grand-jury-report-on-sex-abuse-in-catholic-church-will-list-hundreds-of-accused-predator-priests/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/us/pennsylvania-catholic-church-grand-jury/index.html

Here is an article with some of my thoughts on this:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report also mentioned the involvement of at least one nun, who helped a priest in some of his assaults upon certain victims, and who also, herself, sexually assaulted a male victim (more than once).

The report also includes an incident of at least one monk who abused a male victim.

The focus of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report seems to have been mainly on priests, but one would be naïve to think that nuns and monks are exempt from such behavior.

If you think that nuns abusing others is something that doesn’t exist, see this link:

https://www.snapnetwork.org/nun_abuse

And these two by the New York Post:

https://nypost.com/2019/02/16/inside-the-horrifying-unspoken-world-of-sexually-abusive-nuns/

https://nypost.com/2020/12/22/nuns-were-pimps-for-sick-priests-says-sex-abuse-victim/

If you think that monks abusing others is something that does not exist, see these links:

https://www.snapnetwork.org/man_claims_monk_sexually_abused_him_more_than_100_times_as_a_kid

https://www.snapnetwork.org/west_abused_children_spent_time_philadelphia_aug19

This is some Jeffrey Epstein type of behavior!

And in case you’re thinking that this Grand Jury Report is not substantial, or even fake, the Vatican acknowledges the seriousness of those Pennsylvania findings:

“The Holy See treats with great seriousness the work of the investigating Grand Jury of Pennsylvania and the lengthy Interim Report it has produced.”

See here:

https://ucatholic.com/news/vatican-breaks-silence-on-pennsylvania-sex-abuse-scandal-criminal-and-morally-reprehensible/

Conclusion

So, the conclusion is that convents and monasteries are indeed not the sanctuaries they claim to be. 

Note that I am not saying that there has never been anything good to come out of those places.  For example, monks used to make copies of the Scriptures in monasteries.  But that doesn’t negate the problems within them.

There are several things I blame for the problems therein:

First, I blame the social structure of these monasteries and convents to a large extent.  These living conditions certainly provide an unnecessary “occasion of sin,” as Catholics call it (Baltimore Catechism #3, Lesson 18, Question 770-775).

Here, we have a bunch of unmarried men (or women) who are celibate, with no chance to relieve sexual tension, while living together in close quarters for long periods of time.  Concerning these living conditions, someone once so eloquently stated, “That just ain’t right!”

Secondly, they have a powerful Church which is willing to cover up their sins of perversion for them by keeping their crimes from the police, and then removing those offenders to another location for a fresh start.  Thus, they have an incentive to continue in this perverse lifestyle.  They know others around them in the same convent/monastery are doing it, as well, so they all have a dirty little secret, yet they are quietly protected by the Church.  This, alone, tells us that the leaders in the Catholic Church (including the pope) don’t care about the innocent lives that are being destroyed.

Thirdly, to make matters worse, false doctrine pervades not only monasteries and convents, but the Catholic Church as a whole.  No amount of magnificent architecture, or well-meaning occupants, can make up for false doctrine.  False doctrine is a curse that will destroy eternal souls.  If there is any doubt as to whether there is false doctrine in the Catholic Church, see the multitude of articles in this blog.

Are these Catholic convents and monasteries considered sanctuaries – are they bastions of truth with biblical principles – or are they cesspools of false doctrine and perversion?  The answer is clear for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear (Isaiah 6:10; Jeremiah 5:21; Matthew 13:15).

 

 

 

JOHN MARTIGNONI’S LOSING BATTLE

 

I’ve previously devoted several of my articles to addressing comments made by Catholic apologist and speaker John Martignoni, who maintains the Bible Christian Society newsletter.  Today, we will deal with his Newsletter #410.  You can find it here:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/586-apologetics-for-the-masses-410-private-interpretation-of-the-bible-vs-church-teaching

John often speaks about how Protestants (who admit to being fallible) will have a problem correctly interpreting Scripture, while claiming it is not an issue with Catholics.  He emphasizes that what the Protestant believes depends entirely on his private, fallible interpretation of the Bible, while the Catholic can rest confidently in the authority of the Catholic Church for correct interpretations.

In this particular newsletter, he gets a question from someone named “Cary L.” who asks:

“Why is your potentially fallible decision to trust the claims of the Roman Catholic Church for your salvation correct?

John Martignoni states that it is an excellent question, and I agree!  In fact, I don’t think that John (or any other Catholic) can adequately answer it the way he wants to without violating Scripture or common sense.

First Things First

But John requests that Cary first deal with a question of his (John’s) own:

“If you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then how do you have any sure way of knowing what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine and practice?”

Ok, so let me try to adequately answer John Martignoni’s question to Cary L.  It’s about certainty.  The question is assuming that infallibility is a must to be able to know basic Christian doctrine.  But this doesn’t follow.  This is the same old false dichotomy that some Catholic apologists use over and over: 1) either your interpretation is infallible (i.e., unable to err), or 2) it has to be wrong.  It is as though there is no third option.  But every single person is fallible, yet, many times a person gets the interpretation correct!  Just because an interpretation could possibly be wrong doesn’t mean that it will indeed be wrong.

Post-apostolic Christians don’t have infallibility, but we don’t need it to have enough certainty to come to the knowledge of the truth, or to be saved.  We only need a sufficient amount of certainty. 

Are there some passages more difficult than others?  Yes, there are (2 Peter 3:15-16).  Do we get it wrong sometimes?  Yes, we may.  And you may say, “That’s not very reassuring if it’s possible that we can be wrong!”  But that’s what Bible study is for, and nowhere in that Bible are we told that we need infallibility to interpret a Bible verse.  In fact, Scripture points out that the common person can indeed understand it.  Jesus expected exactly that!  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=interpretation

In fact, it was mostly the common people who listened to and followed Jesus.  Basic hermeneutical concepts (i.e., Bible interpretation principles) and common sense go a long way here. 

What’s the Difference?

Ok, back to Cary’s question.  Cary is basically asking: “Isn’t the reasoning of the Catholic who is trusting in his understanding of Church teachings just as fallible as the reasoning of the Protestant who is trusting in his understanding of Scripture?  The answer is yes, indeed.

But Martignoni is saying no, it isn’t.  He says that what Protestants do “does not at all equate with my accepting the teachings of the Catholic Church as being authoritative and infallible.”  In other words, the Protestant has a problem, but the Catholic can’t go wrong when trusting in his “infallible” church. 

Supposedly, Protestants can’t read and understand infallible Scripture with certainty, yet Catholics can confidently read and understand their church’s “infallible” teaching.  But how is it that the Catholic is supposed to somehow have more certainty than the Protestant?  He doesn’t.  There is no difference.  Even if they end up with an infallible source, they still both have to begin with their fallible reasoning.

Martignoni’s “Infallibility”

John Martignoni goes on to state that he is indeed infallible in his first-hand knowledge of some things, for example, he “infallibly” knows that he is married, that he lives in Birmingham, that 2+2=4, etc. 

He further says that he can know something infallibly about matters of which he has second-hand knowledge, like the speed of light, the fuel for the sun, the year of the death of George Washington, etc.

Ok, I get his point, but these last things he mentioned would have less certainty, since some scientists, researchers, historians and authorities may have actually got some of their information wrong.  It happens from time to time.

But, of course, the infallibility that we are concerned with here is not about these things.  We are speaking of having infallible certainty in spiritual and moral matters.  No one but God has this level of certainty.  But again, He does give humans sufficient certainty in spiritual matters (1 John 5:13).

But John’s whole point, I think, is that the things he mentioned here are told to us by an “authoritative” source (scientists, researchers, historians, etc.).  So, apparently, according to John, if it’s based on some authority, it must be true, correct?  And of course, depending on an authoritative source is exactly what John will claim, concerning the Catholic Church.  He also makes a big deal over Cary’s admission of fallibility, and he keeps throwing it back into Cary’s face.  But fallibility is not necessarily a weakness when it comes to Bible interpretation.  We all have fallibility and Martignoni needs to stop pretending that Catholics are somehow immune to it, just because they believe their Church to be infallible. 

Double Standard

We use our fallible reasoning daily in everything we do, and most people use it effectively.  By the way, every type of communication has to be interpreted.  And the Catholic, just like the Protestant, is obligated to use his own fallible, “non-authoritative,” “private” understanding to interpret not only the Bible, but also to interpret his own church’s teachings.  Again, no one has moral infallibility today, and it doesn’t take such a gift to have a sufficient amount of certainty.  There is no getting around this fact, in spite of what John Martignoni says.  There is a double standard being used here.

All Christians should use the Scriptures to evaluate their own church’s teaching.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to “… test all things.”  But this does not apply only to the leaders, but to the “laity,” as well.  Checks and balances.

The problem is that John has been pushing his version of “fallibility-can’t-produce-certainty” for a long time.  He refuses to give up his argument, but he is still wrong on this. 

Biblical “Proof” of the Need for an Infallible Magisterium?

He then demeans the God-breathed Scriptures when he tells Cary:

“The Scriptures reflect the tradition of the Christian faith, they are not the source of the Christian faith, as you make them out to be.” (Emphasis mine)

Ok, first of all, I’ve never seen a Catholic who can actually fully define this Sacred Tradition.  You can’t trust in it if you can’t accurately tell us what all it contains.  See here:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-about-tradition.html

Second, the Christian faith is indeed encapsulated in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This is how we know what the true Christian faith is, and this is also how we detect false doctrine.

John proceeds to mention a couple of Bible passages to attempt to prove that we need more than just the Bible.  He uses Nehemiah 8:1-8 to suggest that it was the leaders in this passage (like in the Catholic Magisterium) who had to explain what the Book of the Law was saying.  But we have to remember that, in this context, these Jews had just returned from Babylon (whose language had become ingrained in their minds for many years while there).  Many of those Jews grew up with the Babylonian language.  But the Book of the Law was written in Hebrew, so, many Jews in that seventy-year exile had to now “brush up” on their native language, while some could probably speak very little Hebrew!  That’s why the Jewish leaders had to expound/translate the Law for the people.  So, this passage does not at all prove that we need an infallible magisterium to interpret for us.

Again, John Martignoni also uses Acts 8:30-31 for the same purpose.  In this passage, the Ethiopian eunuch is reading the book of Isaiah aloud, and Philip asks the eunuch if he understands what he is reading.  The eunuch responds, “How can I unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31).   Catholics will often respond, “See, there it is!  We need an infallible Magisterium to interpret Scripture for us.” 

But, to use the words of John Martignoni, “Not so fast!”  Philip was NOT an apostle, a pope, or part of an infallible magisterium, but simply a deacon in the church (Acts 6:5)!  So why does John use this passage to try to prove a magisterium?  Is there some intentional deception going on here? 

Furthermore, these passages that John quoted do not negate the abundance of verses showing that the common man is expected to understand Scripture, as revealed in the links above.

Later on, John points out more passages to demonstrate that the (Catholic) Church has authority to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19), to decide between disputes (Matthew 18:15-19), to teach with authority (Luke 10:16), etc., etc., to suggest that the Catholic Church fits all that criteria.  But most of these points are addressed in the following links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/09/pillar-and-foundation.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/08/hi-jacking-of-john-2023.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

John’s attempt to use Scripture to show that the Catholic Church is infallible falls far short of its goal.

John’s System

It’s a losing battle, but John gives it his best shot and waxes eloquent in his explanation of how he arrives at his conclusion:

“My theological system is based on the teachings of the 2000-year old Catholic Church which I believe, after careful consideration of the available evidence, and there is a lot of evidence - historical, scriptural, logical, etc. - was founded by Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit and operates with the authority of Jesus Christ which He Himself gave to it.”

But unfortunately, John had to use his fallible reasoning, step by step, to come to this conclusion!  This happens in each of those steps in this process, yet John thinks he is bypassing this issue of man’s fallibility.  He is not.

John Martignoni greatly downplays fallibility, but if it weren’t for his fallible reasoning, he would have never discovered his “infallible Church” (even though his conclusion is wrong).  So, if John’s fallible reasoning is good enough to get him to that conclusion (after plowing through the logical data, Scripture, tons of church history, studying the multitude of church fathers, studying Sacred Tradition, etc., etc.), wouldn’t that same fallible reasoning be good enough to simply read and understand Scripture in the first place?  If your fallible reasoning can help you navigate through all that, you should be able to trust it to understand and interpret Scripture.  Apparently, the Catholic Church can’t trust you to read Scripture directly, but they can trust you to go through all the above process with no issues!  Interesting logic.

Conclusion

It is not only John Martignoni, but there are many Catholic apologists that emphasize the Catholic Church’s ability to “infallibly interpret” the Bible. 

We need to ask, though, exactly how much of the Bible is actually interpreted infallibly by the Church?  No one really knows, since Catholics disagree on the number of verses with such a status.  But know this for sure… it is only an incredibly tiny fraction of the Scriptures that the Catholic Church has interpreted with such certainty!  If infallible interpretation is so critical (and the Catholic Church seems to think that it is), then why are so few verses rendered as “infallibly” determined?  What about the “certainty” of the rest of the verses in the Bible? 

If you appeal to common sense (or something like it) then why can’t Protestants do the same thing?  The Catholic’s certainty is not any greater than ours.  See also this link:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2015/10/martignoni-and-authority-to-interpret.html

Catholics will say, “But if you misunderstand something in Scripture, the ‘Living Church’ can correct you, unlike the Bible.” 

But misunderstandings don’t just happen to Protestants. 
There are plenty Catholics who also misunderstand “infallibly-interpreted” Church teachings.

But the Bible is indeed a living book (Hebrews 4:12), given to us by the Word of God, Himself (John 1:1), and its words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).  It is not the Catholic Catechism that will judge us on the last day.  And neither will the Catholic Church.  It will be the words of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, penned inside the greatest book the world has ever known.  It is a miraculous, God-proven and God-breathed book (2 Timothy 3:16), with its contents perfectly interwoven by God.  And if a person studies it, he will soon see that it does indeed correct misunderstandings, if you take it in context, and in its totality.  It is a life-changing book of such great magnitude, yet it can be understood sufficiently by mere humans whose hearts are right.

So what’s the answer when we disagree with someone else about Bible passages?  Horror of horrors [for some Catholics], it simply comes down to us debating the Bible using our fallible minds (along with decent biblical hermeneutics, common sense and a humble attitude -Luke 8:15).

John Martignoni, I hope that you will be humble enough to recognize (and admit!) that your worn-out arguments about man’s uncertainty due to his fallibility don’t hold water.  Stop misleading your audience.  Since this is a losing battle for any Catholic, let’s put this false teaching to rest.

PENAL SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT (Part 2)

 

In an article by Stephen J. Wellum, Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, he states:

“In his classic book, The Cross of Christ (IVP, 2006), John Stott famously wrote: ‘At the root of every caricature of the cross there lies a distorted Christology’ (159). I couldn’t agree more, yet it’s crucial to remember that a true Christology is also dependent on a correct theology proper. Thus, it’s more precise to say: ‘At the root of every caricature of the cross is a distorted doctrine of God.’ If we get God wrong, we will never grasp the problem of sin, and its glorious solution in Christ and his cross. In fact, all common objections to penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) are ultimately rooted in sub-biblical ideas regarding the triune God of Scripture.”

See here:

https://www.9marks.org/article/answering-4-common-objections-to-psa/

I think that sums it up pretty well.  In Part 1 of this series, I shared some thoughts on the Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) view and said that it was the most graphic demonstration of God’s love shown to mankind.  And I do believe that a wrong view of the atonement will give one a distorted view of the nature and character of God.

I also mentioned that Catholics don’t agree with PSA as it seems to be a problem for them.  They, as well as some Protestants, feel that the idea of Jesus being punished for man’s sin is barbaric.  God’s wrath could not possibly fall on His Son.  Jesus is, and always was, innocent and (according to them) punishing Him would be wrong.  But I think that a close look at the typology of the Old Testament animal sacrifices would clearly reveal the concept of PSA to be valid.

Origin of Animal Sacrifice

Just to clear the air, some compare Old Testament animal sacrifices with heathen rituals, and claim that the Old Testament based its sacrifices on these heathen ceremonies.  But the heathen were not the first to use them.  The truth is that God was the first One to use animal sacrifices – and it started with Adam and Eve.  Once they sinned, they realized that they were naked, so they used fig leaves to cover themselves.  But God took innocent animals, killed them, and used their skins to cover Adam and Eve, making them greatly aware of the seriousness of their disobedience (Genesis 3:21).  The Lord made the same point when dealing with Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:3-5) and with the Jews in the wilderness (Leviticus chapters 3-5) when they wanted forgiveness and offered up sacrifices.  Every Jew in the Old Testament understood what was going on in those sacrifices.  They saw that an innocent animal loses its life in order to pay for the sins of the one who brings the sacrifice.  It was the animal who suffered the wrath and punishment intended for the sinner.

You see, in God’s scheme of things, blood MUST be shed for the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22), and He used innocent animals to portray this fact.  But this practice of animal sacrifice was temporary, since it was fulfilled, once for all, by Jesus on the cross (Hebrews 9:12; 10:11-14).

John the baptist made an incredible statement about Jesus: 

“The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29 - NASV)

This monumental statement by John the baptist told everyone what was going to happen.  John understood the fact that all Old Testament animal sacrifices pointed to Jesus.  And remember, it was mandatory that those sacrifices should be without blemish (Leviticus 1:3; Deuteronomy 15:21), just as Jesus was (Hebrews 9:14).  The typology of the Old Testament foreshadows the perfect sacrifice of Jesus in the New Testament.  There’s no escaping the Old Testament typology of atonement through animal sacrifices, where the innocent was punished for the guilty.

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21- NASV)  

This is very strong language, but it satisfies the symbolism of the Old Testament sacrifices. 

I have said all this to demonstrate to Catholics and others the fact that Jesus’ atonement was indeed God’s wrath poured upon Him, showing PSA to be true.

The Suffering Servant

What did Jesus do for us at the cross?  According to Psalm 53:

·      He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows (Psalm 53:4)    

    He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities (v. 5)

·     The punishment that brought us peace was upon Him (v. 5)

·      We were healed [spiritually] by His stripes (v. 5)

·      The iniquity of mankind was laid upon Him (v. 6)

·      He was stricken [punished] for the transgression [wrongdoing] of God’s people (v. 8)

·      He bore our iniquities/wrongdoings (v. 11)

·      He bore the sin of many (v. 12)

·      He made intercession for us [the transgressors] (v. 12)

Notice the language here in Psalm 53: The Psalmist is saying over and over that He (Jesus Christ) carried a weight, a burden. He bore griefs; He carried sorrows; man’s punishment was upon Him; iniquity was laid upon Him; and He was bearing our burden of sin.  Wrath is attached to sin.  In the Old Testament, God expressed His wrath by placing the man’s sins upon the innocent animal.  In the same way, in the New Testament, God has expressed His wrath by placing mankind’s sins upon His innocent Son.  Again, there is no escaping the fact that Jesus endured God’s wrath/punishment.

Imputation

As I stated in Part 1, His taking our sin and us receiving His righteousness is all possible because of the doctrine of imputation.  J.V. Fesko, Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, Mississippi, defines imputation in this way:

“The doctrine of imputation teaches that while Adam’s sin is imputed to us because he is our natural federal head, God imputes or accredits the righteousness and suffering of Jesus to those who are in him and, conversely, imputes the sins of those redeemed to Christ.”

See here:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-doctrine-of-imputation/

The apostle Paul speaks of imputation in Romans 4:6, 8, 11, and 22-24.

The biblical word “imputed” is a legal term and indicates an undeserved status - Jesus’ righteousness was imputed to us (though we are undeserving) and our sins were imputed to Him (though He is undeserving of it, i.e., sinless).  His righteousness was legally “accounted” or “credited” to us.  Again, this is only possible due to imputation.  Logically speaking, if Jesus’ righteousness was imputed to us, then our sins (and the punishment and suffering attached to them) had to be imputed to Him.  Just as righteousness is imputed to man, sin and separation were imputed to Jesus.

What the Atonement Was Not

Some will complain that the PSA view depicts a “human sacrifice,” and that the Bible forbids that (2 Kings 16:2-3).  But the atonement of Jesus Christ was not such a “human sacrifice” for at least two reasons. 

First, Jesus is not just human, but He is also divine. 

Second, His punishment on the cross was voluntarily accepted by Him. 

Human sacrifices were repeated over and over and dedicated to demonic idols (e.g., Baal, Molech, etc.) with the intention to honor and appease false gods.  Jesus’ atonement was a one-time offer to the one true God to redeem mankind.  Big difference.

Something else – Jesus did not suffer in Hell.  He went to Hell to preach to the “spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:18-20).  But His suffering – and His victory – was on the cross.  That’s where atonement happened and that’s where forgiveness occurs, not in Hell.

How Bad Was It?

What was the extent of His suffering?  Can any human know for sure?  Remember, Jesus wasn’t the only one who died on a cross.  Over the centuries, there were many who had been crucified, some suffering several days on a cross before dying.  Jesus spent only six hours on His cross, but I refuse to believe that any of the others suffered more than He did.  Something more than just physical pain was going on at Jesus’ crucifixion.  There was something supernatural happening there, something in the spiritual realm.   

Maybe He suffered something equivalent to eternity in Hell.  I don’t know.  Perhaps, since He is an eternal being, an eternity was somehow “compressed” into those few hours of suffering in that deep darkness (Luke 23:44-45).  We don’t know, but at least some of what happened on the cross is certainly a mystery, yet, we dare not minimize His suffering there.  Whatever happened, He is God and He was able to endure such suffering.

The Ugliness of Sin

Dr. Michael Brown (a famous Jewish biblical scholar, radio host and author who understands well the Old Testament sacrificial system) said this about the atonement:

“Each human being owed a debt that none of us could pay back. But the Son of God, with His infinite ‘credit,’ said, ‘I will pay for all of it.’ So, at one and the same time, God can be perfectly just and perfectly merciful.

And He shows us how deeply He loves us by showing us how ugly sin is. If He simply said, ‘I look the other way; I forgive you,’ it doesn’t show us the ugliness of sin. It doesn’t show us God’s justice. It doesn’t give us a picture of the exchange that took place through the cross. We now receive what Jesus deserves, and He took what we deserve. This produces a gratefulness far beyond what simply saying ‘I forgive you’ could ever produce, and it produces a hatred of sin in our lives because we’ve seen the ugly consequences of it. So, without that aspect of the cross, we do not understand the love of God.”

See here:

https://decisionmagazine.com/gods-wrath-atonement/

Conclusion

Jesus’ atonement on the cross is the focal point of all human history and the determining factor of every human’s eternal destiny.  You must accept it or deny it, but no one can afford to ignore it – nor should anyone downplay it.  Let’s be careful how we present His atonement.  The magnitude of that event cannot be fully grasped by mere humans. 

The extent to which God went to purchase vile and ungrateful mankind is nothing less than shocking, yet truly priceless.  Again, we need to be careful never to diminish the amount of suffering He endured on that cross.  In that event, God expressed both the ultimate punishment for sin, and His unfathomable love for man. 

Human fathers and mothers no doubt love their offspring, and many, if not most, would venture to die for their precious children.  But no human could ever love someone as much as Jesus has loved us.  The cross proves this fact.

One might ask, “Who was it that put Jesus on that bloody cross?  Was it the Roman soldiers?  Was it the Jewish leaders?”  The truth is that it was all of us, including you and me.  You might say, “But my sins are little compared to someone like Adolf Hitler’s!  Jesus may have had to suffer a lot for him, but He didn’t have to suffer that much for me!” 

No, I’m sorry, my friend.  James 2:10 says:

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”

If you think your sin is no big deal, then why did God go to such extremes?  Why the bloody cross and the horrendous suffering? 

You see, even our “tiniest” sins are excessively ugly.  God is an infinitely holy God and that means that breaking the tiniest part of His Law makes you deserving of the same Hell that Adolf Hitler deserves!  The only difference between you and him is the degree of punishment, once there.  But it will be no comfort to look across the vast, smoke-filled landscape of burning sulfur and see Adolf Hitler suffering more than you are.  That won’t remove you from there.

According to 2 Peter 3:9:

“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” 

No one on earth has to go to Hell.  We all have a choice.  Simply put your trust in that shocking display of love at Calvary.  Trust Him and His suffering on the cross (and that alone) to be forgiven, to get into Heaven, and to escape the wrath of God.