Featured Catholics, Protestants, Baptists

It sounds like you are advocating either Christus Victor theory of atonement or Ransom theory in general (I.e., purchase of mankind .... Not all Ransom theories supposed a party to receive payment). Either way or "in between," these groupings as theory ate not original to the topic. Either way your view is not heresy (and obviously many ECF's expressed the position), which I suppose you know. PST is not a test of orthodoxy and it has never been the only view of the Cross. I believe you are correct in that it did not exist as a developed theory until the Reformation, and I view your arguments compelling (much truth in that article, it echos what historical theology teaches). Still, antiquity doesn't prove correct doctrine.

 

I did see them, brother. You chose two that I am not very familiar with in regards to their works (I am Augustine, but not very much with Chrysostom and very little with Gregory) ....that's sneaky Laugh.

I will of course read their works when I get a chance. I think it worth repeating that I do believe both punishment and substitution to be inherent in all theories of atonement, but like Rebel I lean against today's focus of Penal Substitution. It is not that I believe Jesus did not experience in the flesh the punishment that man deserves, and certainly not that I reject Jesus doing so in our place (I believe this inherent in the word "atoning sacrifice." But it is the framework of the theory and how it is reasoned out (what it incorporates) that I find disagreeable. Penal Substitution is not Christ becoming man and suffering in the flesh the punishment of man as our substitute and for our redemption. Just about all theories believe that. My question of PST is the philosophy and theories that put all of that together as PST.

So, thank you for the references. I am comfortable enough with Augustine to say that he did not hold to Penal Substitution Theory but I will look at aspects that you present as being penal and substitution. Insofar as the other two, I have read of them but I have not read their works. So I have some homework to do. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention.

 

Frown It is two words...even in American English....you are right.

I understand that much of this argument is subjective. We look at the early church and realize that they are working out theology but also responding to circumstances which affect their priorities. I also think that this was what was going on in the Reformation as well.

But you have a good point regarding these theories and differences in theories being relevant to issues concerning each generation. Another example is the extent of the atonement. Many have pointed out that this is a later development within Reform thought (and they are right here). Calvin did not believe in limited atonement. BUT the scope of the atonement was a post-Calvin issue. It would be unfair to form hypothetical conclusions for Calvin has he been alive when the topic was introduced. It may be just as unfair to do so with the Early Church Fathers.

I don't think that we can prove a point by looking at the writings of the ECF's, except that what is orthodox within Christianity is not as narrow as the views each of us would hold personally. I do believe that we are highly influenced by the Enlightenment and a reliance on reasoning out a system within which the atonement should occur, and I am not sure that this forms the best framework for understanding the Cross. This is an interesting topic (I am working on a study to look, piece by piece, at aspects of the atonement via Scripture alone (don't worry, I won't subject you to that process....but I may ask your opinion from time to time).

There are contemporary writers that contradict your interpretation of the early church writers (in terms of holding a theory that is close to Penal Substitution Theory). These include Paul Enns (Moody Handbook of Theology), J.I. Packer (The Logic of Penal Substitution), Millard Erickson (Christian Theology), Louis Berkhof (Systematic Theology), Leonard Sweet (Cross & Covenant), Adam Johnson (Atonement), Denny Weaver (The Nonviolent Atonement), Robert Hutchinson (Searching for Jesus), N.T. Wright (Atonement at Ground Zero), just to name a few).

But.....maybe all of those theories, including Penal Substitution, come under the overreaching truth of Irenaeus' Recapitulation theory. Biggrin

 

Oops....sorry for misreading the post. I would then bring up Origen (even though I disagree with his theory) and Irenaeus (I do find merit in his theory) just as two different views to add to the two I quoted previously.

 

Penal Substitution Atonement is more than Jesus dying as a substitute for man and taking on the punishment for the sinfulness of mankind.

It follows a specific philosophy that was not worked out for centuries. Think of it. I commit an evil act, so I incur a sin debt. That sin debt must be collected (not the guilty be punished, or the stain be removed but an actual debt owed to God that must be collected). So to save me God punishes Jesus with my punishment for my sinful act thereby satisfying divine justice (justice demands satisfaction, the just can punish the innocent as a substitute for the guilty as long as that judgment is executed to clear the debt). I hope you see the several philosophies that are presupposed in what I just presented. First there is the overriding sense of divine justice. God can forgive a debt only after it is paid in full. Second, this motif if justice looks very much like Aquinas' theories refined and changed from penance/merit to punishment/wrath. This looks more like 16th-17th rationalizing than 1st century worldview.

It is not Scripture but philosophy were we disagree. And most will not look objectively at their theories to even consider reevaluating their view or honestly rejecting other views.

 

I didn't realize anyone was denying that. But yes, denying that Christ paid the wages of our sin is heresy. We were purchased with a price, and Peter tells us this price was the precious blood if Christ. What I was speaking of was penal substitution theory. Like other views, PST does NOT deny that Christ paid the wages of man's sin (I don't think that any main theories do).

 

Ahhhh....I wondered (at first I thought you mistook my comments as such). Thanks for clarifying Rev.

 

We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, but we don't just try to condition the water either. We go back to the well and draw anew.

 

Brother Martin,

I need to point out that I do believe those passages. Throughout history those who have held other views regarding the Atonement believed those passages. People like N.T. Wright, T.F. Torrance, Denny Weaver and many others today believe those passages but do not necessarily hold the same view as each other or you. So it is not a matter of accepting or rejecting Scripture. It is a matter of accepting or rejecting an explanation of Scripture.

I know that you are not accusing me of denying Scripture here, brother, but instead of not interpreting it correctly. I just wanted to point out that difference and remind you that I did hold strictly to PSA for decades so I understand your arguments and the reasons of your posts. Like I said earlier, I am also not denying PSA as much as I am working through the position to see what is interpretation and what is Scripture. Theology itself incorporates philosophy and reason, and theories of atonement are theological. There is no harm in questioning our theories by putting them again to Scripture.

To illustrate one point here, brother. You rightly point out that we incur a sin debt. But it is interpretation to say this is a debt that must be collected in terms of focusing on the debt apart from the debtor (that God looks, in a sense, at what is owed him and demands payment in full regardless of who makes the payment). What I am talking about is the structure of interpretation here.

But I appreciate your comments. I understand your position because it was once my own. I fear that I have inadequately explained what I am looking at or dealing with as it does not appear you understand my position at this time and I apologize for my failure to articulate here what I am examining. But I am not denying that we have earned those wages of sin, that Jesus bought us with a price, that He bore our sins, and all that atonement entails. I am questioning some of the reasons that are not within the text and that have never formed the bounds of orthodoxy.

Thank you for the passages.