One more reason why I can't be Southern Baptist

That's perhaps a bit anthropomorphic, but yes. It was God's predetermined plan that Jesus die by the hands of godless men, and Jesus lay down His own life (no one took it from Him - He was obedient even to the death of a cross).

 

No. I disagree with N.T. Wright that the cross had in view Israel's struggle with Rome. Jesus did not suffer God's wrath, but the consequences of sin (the wages of sin which is death) on behalf of mankind and the unrighteousness of men (to borrow from the Early Church Fathers). On the cross Jesus suffered the abuse of men and the deliverance of God (borrowing from Eusebius).

 

The Father sent His Son as a propitiation in His blood.

 

I agree, and this is what I mean. There are passages and ideas about Christ, God's wrath, propitiation, etc. throughout church history because it is throughout Scripture. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement demonstrates a level of doctrinal development that is foreign to the Church until Calvin articulated these passages and ideas into the theory by placing it within a specific context. But Calvin himself worked off a pre-existing theory (what Luther affirmed). And going back a few centuries, that grew out of a refinement of another theory which was a "correction" to another (Origen's theory which had become the primary view).

Where you see Penal Substitution Theory as existing in fragmented form throughout history, detailed to its fullest in the 16th century, others wonder why it never existed as a complete doctrine for a Millennium and half of church history. Why did Paul not articulate the atonement as Penal Substitution Theology? Why didn't Polocarp? Why didn't Justin Martyr? With all of the studies and debates, why was this "central truth" upon which Christianity itself supposedly rests hidden from the Church until the 16th century?

I do not find it coincidence that the person who first "detailed [Penal Substitution Theory] to its fullest" was a lawyer. I suspect he was not aware that he had provided a false framework to Scripture - looking at history this is often what happens even with those who trained in theology. We tend to contextualize truths to understand them within a context contemporary to us.

 

Of course it was determined beforehand. I already said it was God's predetermined plan.

Your idea of appeasement seems more pagan than biblical. You are assuming too much, expecting too little.

 

Jon, I've been trying to follow your multiple threads on the atonement but can't keep all of them straight.

Appeasement is not the best word to use. But, if you get down to it, satisfaction and substitution aren't exactly neutral either. Unfortunately, the biblical authors repeatedly sprinkled their writings with those concepts. So did the ECFs.

Your disagreement, as best as I can tell, forms around the idea of God's wrath being directed toward Christ. I suggest you read J.L. Packer on the topic and ask yourself if you are not recapitulating Socinus' objections to penal substitution.

And let's be real: Anselm's satisfaction theory is just as objectionable as penal substitution; it's perhaps worse. God has been wronged, so an ultimate sacrifice is necessary. That's even worse than to think that divine justice must be meted out because, well, it's just.

Is God capable of wrath? If so, to whom would it be directed? I'm pretty sure God had nothing against the rams and bulls sacrificed during the old covenant, but that mattered little in their fate. The ram that was produced at the attempted offering of Isaac had no sin, and God was not angry at him, but he was offered just the same.

If your complaint is that the development is rather late, then would you also find fault with the solas? Which of the ECFs espoused a recognizable form of justification by faith alone, by grace alone, etc.?

I think you are on to something in suggesting that Calvin, trained as an attorney, cast his understanding of the atonement in that light. If the tool you're most comfortable using is a hammer, every problem is a nail. Just like surgeons usually suggest that the patient's best course of treatment is — guess what? — surgery.

What I think (and I'm just guessing) is that some proponents of PST have concentrated on the wrath (or justice) of God to the exclusion of the willing sacrifice of the Son, who willingly laid down his life that we may have life.

 

Perhaps I need to clarify the aspect of Penal Substitution Theory I am arguing against. But first I need to acknowledge that it is the expression of the theory that has been offered by a few people on this board that I find most unbiblical, although even in a general sense I think the theory flawed.

My complaint is not that Penal Substitution Theory is a late development (the Apostolic Church did not have a complete doctrine of the Trinity, but that does not mean the doctrine should be rejected). I do not find antiquity to be the determinant of correctness. I have mentioned the development of the theory for two reasons. First it is the insistence by a few here that the theory is the only one held throughout Church history. They do this by taking a very light definition (Christ bore our sins) when it suits them and a very strict definition when it does not. Second, I enjoy looking at how doctrines develop. I think that this can be a benefit.

I also see the difficulties in terms of satisfaction and substitution. Like “appeasement”, much depends on the context provided.

The problem is not PSA. The problem is how far some take PSA in isolation of other theories. The fruits of this “hyper” blindness leads to God being wrathful to Christ on the Cross. This is different from how Scripture deals with the topic. God’s love is as one sending His Son. God’s love is as one dying to save His enemies. But God’s love is not as one being angry at His Son on behalf of His enemies.

Our theories become issues only when we take them as Scripture (when we stop looking to Scripture alone) and build doctrine upon them. In this regard, Calvin contextualizing the Atonement within the framework of his understanding of justice is no better or worse than Origen contextualizing the Atonement within how he understood a ransom. In both cases truths are brought out, but both theories are dangerous when they are taken as anything more than illustration.

 

Who objected to the truth that the Son willingly lay down His life as a propitiation for our sins? This is something I insisted on when we spoke of my belief in the "Atonement" thread, and I have not seen anyone thus far reject that idea.

Strawman?

 

Oh, and to clarify - if you are looking for what I believe then just look at the "Atonement" thread (the OP, not where it became a PSA thread). Atonement

My objection to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as expressed by a few people here is what @NetChaplain once wrote (I've never heard it put better): God was not wrathful when He laid upon Christ all that would be wrath to us.

That's my objection in a nutshell. God laid upon Christ our iniquities, but He did not punish (simple punishment) Jesus for those iniquities. Christ bore our sins - took upon Himself the consequences of sin, which is death. But God was never wrathful towards Him because God is not wrathful towards the righteous (which is why we know that when we go through suffering it is not God's wrath upon us, although He remains in control).

 

Sorry. I will clarify:

Who is it that objected to you "[bringing] up the willing sacrifice of the Son earlier"?
I certainly did not object to anyone for "[bringing] up the willing sacrifice of the Son" and I have not seen anyone else do so.

Is this a "strawman" accusation, or can you point us to the post where a member objecting when you: