PSA is found very clearly in the ECFs as well as in the Bible. That it was developed and clarified by the Reformers and Puritans and given its rightful place as a major doctrine is perfectly true. That is one of the many reasons that I am very happy to call myself a Protestant.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Catholics, Protestants, Baptists
- Thread starter Rebel
- Start date
Until it was "developed and clarified by the Reformers and Puritans and given its rightful place as a major doctrine" is was elements and statements within Scripture and within the comments of the ECF's. For example, when some read the ECF's and see PSA they also acknowledge that the word "punishment" is never used. It is assumed that the substitution and consequences mean "punishment," when in fact they those like Martyr are speaking from an entirely different framework. Regardless, my point is that it was within a Catholic framework as rebuttal and reform that PST was "developed and clarified" (Aquinas' philosophical conclusions regarding justness in punishment is an important part of its development).
I respect your comments, BTW, Martin. You have dealt with this issue with integrity. I have seen some take a landmark stance and ignore that PST itself was at least development of Protestant theology. We may disagree on some things, and your honesty in looking at the history of the development of PST is refreshing. Part of the issue will be those Baptists who do not believe their doctrine to be influenced by the Reformers (they don't believe Baptists are Protestants....and I'm willing to say that some may not be...it may depend on the doctrines they hold).
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
That's because they don't look hard enough.
Actually, I have not seen the word used in terms of Christ taking "punishment" in those writings either (my exposure to the ECF's have been limited since my seminary days, and I was depending on the scholarship of others) but I was relying on an assessment by J.I. Packer in an article defending PST that the actual word wasn't used and a comment by Beeke crediting the Reformers with implementing that actual description.That's because they don't look hard enough.
If you know of an ECF using that word to describe the Atonement then please provide the source. Packer and Beeke are certainly not infallible, perhaps they simply overlooked an early theologian. Until then, I can't help but credit the Reformers with developing and defining the position (not that it's a bad thing, there are many aspects of theology that come from development ..... perhaps most).
Anyway, thanks in advance for pointing out those early writings and providing examples for us to examine. I still think Protestant theology is indebted to the work of the Reformers and Puritans (theological scholarship, not just finding older interpretation), but I am always open to being shown otherwise.
Last edited:
First of all, if you have read recently in your newspaper that a Shiite Cleric was beheaded for some alleged crime in Saudi Arabia, I don't think it would be wise for you to say that he was not punished because the word 'punish' did not appear in the report.
Secondly, I have three quotations that include the word 'punish' or 'punishment:' one by John Chrysostom and one by Augustine who just about qualifies as ECFs, and one by Gregory the Great, who doesn't, but he is at least several hundreds of years before either Aquinas or Anselm.
I will post them when I get a little time.
My purpose in posting these extracts from the Fathers is simply to show that, contra Rebel, the doctrine was not unknown before Anselm.
Secondly, I have three quotations that include the word 'punish' or 'punishment:' one by John Chrysostom and one by Augustine who just about qualifies as ECFs, and one by Gregory the Great, who doesn't, but he is at least several hundreds of years before either Aquinas or Anselm.
I will post them when I get a little time.
So do I.
My purpose in posting these extracts from the Fathers is simply to show that, contra Rebel, the doctrine was not unknown before Anselm.
My point is that we need to be careful when looking at writings of the ECF's. It is easy to read into their words thought and ideas that are more contemporary to our understanding than theirs. But you are right that both penal and substitution are present within their understandings of the atonement.First of all, if you have read recently in your newspaper that a Shiite Cleric was beheaded for some alleged crime in Saudi Arabia, I don't think it would be wise for you to say that he was not punished because the word 'punish' did not appear in the report.
Secondly, I have three quotations that include the word 'punish' or 'punishment:' one by John Chrysostom and one by Augustine who just about qualifies as ECFs, and one by Gregory the Great, who doesn't, but he is at least several hundreds of years before either Aquinas or Anselm.
I will post them when I get a little time.
So do I.
There are two things to note. First, we need to honestly engage their works and look at their theologies as a whole. Second, we are not dependent on their teachings. For example, Origen taught that the atonement was a ransom paid to Satan. Just because it is of antiquity does not make it correct doctrine.
Last edited:
Browsing through the thread, I came across the quote by Eusebius that I posted earlier in response to being called a liar by Rebel. Here it is again. I don't know what word is translated 'chastened' here, but it doesn't seem so very far away from punishment to me. The unbiased reader may also feel that 'scourging' sounds just a bit like punishment.
'And the Lamb of God.......was chastened on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so he became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because he received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults and the dishonour which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.'
'And the Lamb of God.......was chastened on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so he became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because he received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults and the dishonour which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.'
For those who are actually interested (and it is a fascinating topic) but do not have the reference, this is why I believe Eusebius does not appear to hold the same view of Atonement as the Reformed position of Penal Substitution Theory. (These quotes are from “Demonstratio Evangelica”).
First, Martin’s quote in context:
“He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sickness His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, and because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonor, which were due us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: ‘By his stripes we are healed,’ and ‘The Lord delivered him for our sins,’ with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriation our sufferings, He can say, ‘ I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against Thee.”
This is certainly penal and it's substitution. The problem , however, with viewing this as Reformed PST is that Christ does not take our individual punishments, but he is knitted to mankind and, although innocent, suffers in our stead in that manner. Eusebius' view of course contains penal and substitution elements, but it differs here from Reformed PST.
"For the words, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' which He spoke on the Cross, and which were prophetically foretold in the Psalm, what else did they mean but that like a great athlete He was matched against all these adversaries, while Almighty God ordered the contest and gave the decision? Thus He summons His Father as the overseer of what is being done, and as the adviser, like a clever Anointer, to come to Him, especially as He has no other helper, but only Him that governs the context. And so He says in prayer, "Be not thou far from me, for trouble is near, and there is no helper."...And though He says this, His farther is not too far off to hear Him, He is not removed far off, He is not separated by the smallest space, but is actually saying to Him: "While thou speakest, I will say, I am here."
The Cross is not to Eusebius a spiritual death in our stead. It is very much the physical death on the cross. There is no separation from the Father, and the focus is Christ’s victory over evil and death.
“Since it was impossible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins, and the whole race of mankind needed a living and true offering, of which the Mosaically designed propitiation was a type, and our Lord and Saviour was this Lamb of God, as it was said of Him, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world’; and again, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world’” He brings redemption also, according to Paul’s words, “Who is become wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption’ naturally teaches that His coming is at once the fulfilment and the contemplation of sin of those who have sinned against Him, at the same time as it is the blotting out and purification of sins, and the propitiation for the transgressions of them that believe in Him.”
Again, here Eusebius presents Christ’s death as a reconciliation of humanity. Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world and he brings redemption to those who believe. This is not a twofold statement in PST. I’ll just let the next two stand on their own, just for information and orientation.
“I have now proved that the old covenant and the law given by Moses was only applicable to the Jewish race, and only to such of them as lived in their own land.” …… “But the new covenant leads those who, through our Saviour by the grace and gift of God are raised up, to a rapid march into the kingdom promised by God. It summons all men equally to share together the good things.”
“And His coming shewed clearly the righteousness of God, who reckoned the whole of mankind worthy of the calling of God. Such was not the Mosaic dispensation, which was given to the Jews only: wherefore having appeared for a time it has passed away. But the righteous proclaimed by our Saviour is fitly called eternal righteousness.”
(I quoted from the translation edited by W.J. Sparrow and Lowther Clarke)
Last edited:
Another ECF that many will present as holding PST is Justin Martyr. Here is what is typically offered as PST:
“If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him,who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although HisFather caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family.
Here is a broader context:
“Nay, more than this, you suppose that He was crucified as hostile to and cursed by God, which supposition is the product of your most irrational mind. For though you have the means of understanding that this man is Christ from the signs given by Moses, yet you will not; but, in addition, fancying that we can have no arguments, you put whatever question comes into your minds, while you yourselves are at a loss for arguments whenever you meet with some firmly established Christian. Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved. For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.’ And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practice piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognize Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him?”
Martyr, like Eusebius, views the atonement not for individual sinners being saved but for the entire human race. On the Cross Jesus is not bearing the punishments for individuals, but instead he is paying the consequences of sin in the flesh for the entire human race. This is a common aspect through many theories of atonement (most theories also contain penal and substitution aspects).
"For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,' confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to your, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. And you clearly see that this has come to pass. For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called from Him Christians; and other nations effectively carry out the curse, putting to death those who simply confess themselves to be Christians; to all of whom we say, you are our brethren; rather recognize the truth of God…. Now I will demonstrate to you that the whole Psalm [Psalm 22] refers thus to Christ, by the words which I shall again explain…. 'O God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?' And what follows: 'The words of my transgressions are far from my salvation. O my God, I will cry to Thee in the day-time, and Thou wilt not hear; and in the night-season, and it is not for want of understanding in me.' These, as well as the things which He was to do, were spoken. For on the day on which He was to be crucified, having taken three of His disciples to the hill called Olivet, situated opposite to the temple in Jerusalem, He prayed in these words: 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' … Even as there was no ignorance on God's part when He asked Adam where he was, or asked Cain where Abel was; but [it was done] to convince each what kind of man he was, and in order that through the record [of Scripture] we might have a knowledge of all: so likewise Christ declared that ignorance was not on His side, but on theirs, who thought that He was not the Christ, but fancied they would put Him to death, and that He, like some common mortal, would remain in Hades…. For we who believe on Him are everywhere a reproach, 'despised of the people;' for, rejected and dishonored by your nation, He suffered those indignities which you planned against Him. And the following: 'All they that see me laughed me to scorn; they spake with the lips, they shook the head: He trusted in the Lord; let Him deliver him, since he desires Him;' this likewise He foretold should happen to Him. For they that saw Him crucified shook their heads each one of them, and distorted their lips, and twisting their noses to each other, they spake in mockery the words which are recorded in the memoirs of His apostles: 'He said he was the Son of God: let him come down; let God save him…. He prophesied the things which do exist, and which happen to Him. For the Father had decreed that He whom He had begotten should be put to death, but not before He had grown to manhood, and proclaimed the word which proceeded from Him. '”
(Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho)
Martyr does not present a separation from God here, paying a spiritual debt. Instead Jesus is fulfilling the entire Psalm (Martyr goes into much detail verse by verse). The cry “My God, my God” was one crying for deliverance – and here Martyr says it was not actually for God to deliver him (for Jesus knew He would) but for the benefit of those listening to declare that he was fulfilling what was prophesized and evidence to the Jews that He was indeed the Christ.
“If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him,who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although HisFather caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family.
Here is a broader context:
“Nay, more than this, you suppose that He was crucified as hostile to and cursed by God, which supposition is the product of your most irrational mind. For though you have the means of understanding that this man is Christ from the signs given by Moses, yet you will not; but, in addition, fancying that we can have no arguments, you put whatever question comes into your minds, while you yourselves are at a loss for arguments whenever you meet with some firmly established Christian. Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved. For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.’ And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practice piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognize Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him?”
Martyr, like Eusebius, views the atonement not for individual sinners being saved but for the entire human race. On the Cross Jesus is not bearing the punishments for individuals, but instead he is paying the consequences of sin in the flesh for the entire human race. This is a common aspect through many theories of atonement (most theories also contain penal and substitution aspects).
"For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,' confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to your, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ. And you clearly see that this has come to pass. For you curse in your synagogues all those who are called from Him Christians; and other nations effectively carry out the curse, putting to death those who simply confess themselves to be Christians; to all of whom we say, you are our brethren; rather recognize the truth of God…. Now I will demonstrate to you that the whole Psalm [Psalm 22] refers thus to Christ, by the words which I shall again explain…. 'O God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?' And what follows: 'The words of my transgressions are far from my salvation. O my God, I will cry to Thee in the day-time, and Thou wilt not hear; and in the night-season, and it is not for want of understanding in me.' These, as well as the things which He was to do, were spoken. For on the day on which He was to be crucified, having taken three of His disciples to the hill called Olivet, situated opposite to the temple in Jerusalem, He prayed in these words: 'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.' … Even as there was no ignorance on God's part when He asked Adam where he was, or asked Cain where Abel was; but [it was done] to convince each what kind of man he was, and in order that through the record [of Scripture] we might have a knowledge of all: so likewise Christ declared that ignorance was not on His side, but on theirs, who thought that He was not the Christ, but fancied they would put Him to death, and that He, like some common mortal, would remain in Hades…. For we who believe on Him are everywhere a reproach, 'despised of the people;' for, rejected and dishonored by your nation, He suffered those indignities which you planned against Him. And the following: 'All they that see me laughed me to scorn; they spake with the lips, they shook the head: He trusted in the Lord; let Him deliver him, since he desires Him;' this likewise He foretold should happen to Him. For they that saw Him crucified shook their heads each one of them, and distorted their lips, and twisting their noses to each other, they spake in mockery the words which are recorded in the memoirs of His apostles: 'He said he was the Son of God: let him come down; let God save him…. He prophesied the things which do exist, and which happen to Him. For the Father had decreed that He whom He had begotten should be put to death, but not before He had grown to manhood, and proclaimed the word which proceeded from Him. '”
(Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho)
Martyr does not present a separation from God here, paying a spiritual debt. Instead Jesus is fulfilling the entire Psalm (Martyr goes into much detail verse by verse). The cry “My God, my God” was one crying for deliverance – and here Martyr says it was not actually for God to deliver him (for Jesus knew He would) but for the benefit of those listening to declare that he was fulfilling what was prophesized and evidence to the Jews that He was indeed the Christ.
Last edited:
The articles from Derek Flood that I linked to ably refute your claims. You probably did not bother to read them. There is absolutely no doubt that the early church did not hold to PSA or Satisfaction. These concepts are entirely absent, for instance, in the EOC, the only church as a whole that has held to the early church doctrine on the atonement.
If you can't be bothered to read Flood's lengthy refutation of your fiction, maybe a perusal of a Wikipedia article would suit you.
I expect you to be able to defend the claims you make. We can swap supposed authorities all day. I have presented a real extract from an ECF, and with the greatest respect to JonC, I can present several more. Present your arguments and get on with it. Don't hide behind some putative expert.
I need to add this, brother: even though I quoted those ECF writings they by no means disprove penal substitution theory. I was merely illustrating that sometimes their writings are taken out of context for support when if taken within their theologies they are non-supportive. We can also point to ECF writings that we would all find in error (Origen's theory of atonement, for example). So perhaps providing evidences that others have held our positions may not be the best proof.
When looking at the various views and understandings of the Atonement it is easy to see where theories agree. But in your opinion, what do you think the initial point is where agreement breaks down? (I have been wondering this and I don't have an answer).
Not hiding behind anyone. The articles I linked to examine those Fathers in depth and prove that they did not hold to PSA. Scholarship and historical facts are against you. PSA was invented by Calvin and the Magisterial Reformers. There is no trace of it in the early church. It was unknown and untaught. It is based on a legalist concept of God and salvation not taught in scripture and not taught in the church for 1500 years. It is a johnny-come-lately theory and a false gospel.
In this PSA thing, you are just like the Roman Catholics: you take something invented centuries later and try to read it back into early writings, including scripture, where it does not exist. You help to prove my point about Catholics and Protestants being cousins.
Last edited:
Here is an excellent article. I don't agree with everything he says, but he totally debunks the teaching that Satisfaction and PSA are apostolic doctrine.
http://www.christian-history.org/substitutionary-atonement.html
http://www.christian-history.org/substitutionary-atonement.html
He can't defend his own heresy.
I thought you and I had gotten past this, but you revert to name calling. I figured it was just a matter of time.
But since you want to go there: Since you and others have diverted from the original doctrines of the atonement, who is holding to and teaching heresy?
I haven't called you any names. Beside holding to heresy ad being willing to espouse it here on this board even though you cannot yourself defend it you seem to have a reading comprehension issue.
So saying someone is a heretic is not name calling? And saying I have a reading comprehension issue is not an insult I suppose? Come on, Rev, try not to be a hypocrite. I know that will be hard for you to do, but make a better effort at it.
And just because you don't like the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence I have presented, stop lying by saying I can't defend myself. It is your position that is bereft of evidence and support in the early church, so it is not I who is espousing heresy.
Now let everyone see who started the insults and name calling. I had not made this personal to anyone or attacked anyone, only a doctrine.
I made an effort a while back to reach out to you with an olive branch of peace which you accepted. I guess that's over. I'm not surprised.
You will not find a post where I said you were a heretic. I did say your position is heresy. I addressed your position not you thus the reading comprehension issue.