Featured Penal Substitution, Christus Victor and Anabaptist theology

This is a fantastic discussion, and every post has some statement which could turn into a new discussion. I agree that the atonement is a lifelong study, and that we shouldn't get so entrenched in one view that we can't even entertain the notion of some merit in another position. I am fortunate to be the recipient of a substitutionary atonement - but I think some things are lacking when one theory of atonement becomes the overly dominant aspect of theology. I think it can cloud our understanding of forgiveness, resurrection, etc. Here are a few issues:

This reflects the dominant view of justification, that justification relates almost exclusively to legal aquittal. But Christ being raised for our justification shoukd be viewed in the same framework as Christ being raised as the first fruits of resurrection. Christ was not raised so that we could be aquitted of sin (justified), he was raised so that we could be raised. Our resurrection is just on the basis of His resurrection. Read on into chapter 5, particularly to verse 10....we were reconciled to God through His death (not counting trespasses against us, see 2 Cor 5:19), we shall be "saved" by His life.

If our trespasses are already not counted against us, seeing we have been reconciled, what kind of "saved" is Paul saying shall be? He is, after all, speaking from the middle standpoint that one is already, and one is yet to come

Can you explain? Do you think sin is defined as transgressing the Law, or do you think sinning is one of multiple ways of trangressing the Law?

I would beg to differ with your assesment of the prayer. It was absolutely "forgive our sins according to how we forgive others"

Jesus even said that plainly in the very next verses..."for if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive you." (Matt 6:14-15)

I'm assuming you mean "who can be saved from hell if God only forgives in the manner we forgive?"

I would ask why you view forgiveness and saved only in terms of eternal consequence? Forgiveness has more than one aspect, at least two - legal and relational.

 

Is there a transgression that is not sin? By the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law needs not to be written to be transgressed. Anything that falls short of God's glory is sin, and there is nothing that is sin that can not be described as a direct transgression of God's law. Christ wasn't adding to the law when He equated the desire with the act of adultery. He was showing us that the law judges the thoughts and intents of the heart as much as an outward action, as well it should, for adultery and all manner of evil come from the heart.

There is nothing in the human experience to which the law does not speak, contrary to rabbinical tradition, which said, "The law says to love my neighbor, therefore, I may hate my enemy."

So, ignorance of the law does not excuse one, as those who wrest Romans 5. When was there no law? Cain and Abel brought sacrifices. So did Job. And Pharoah's house was judged because of Abram's wife, with "great plagues."

The law does not depend on handwriting. It's there. But we need the handwriting to know sin,

Then that's one prayer of the child of God that is never answered, thank God.

Forgive what? Do you think one can enter Heaven without his sins for given?

I don't.

No, sin and trespass.

 

I am drawn to Anabaptist theology precisely because it is in line with the early church, and I'm talking about the churches of the first century and early second century.

 

I quite agree about the differences in the theologies of the Fathers, but one thing is certain: None of them held to PSA. People who support the doctrine try to read it back into those Fathers, like Romanism tries to read its errors back into the NT. It just won't work. Nowhere in the churches of the first 1500 years was PSA known or held. Nowhere in the churches of the first thousand years was Satisfaction held. It would have been impossible for anyone in those times to have held to something which was not invented until Anselm (Satisfaction) and the Magisterial Reformers (PSA). And the reason these were not held is because the churches did not find them taught in the scriptures or the Fathers. So, neither the scriptures nor tradition are the source of these doctrines. That's why to this day the Eastern Church does not hold them. And that's why most Mennonites and other traditional Anabaptists don't hold them, either.

 

The fact that you keep repeating this nonsense on thread after thread doesn't make it true.

 

Why is it that mankind cannot accept the simple truth that Jesus Christ died for the believers sins????????????????????????????????

 

To insist upon the validity of penal Substitution does not deny that there are other elements in the Atonement.
Yes, the cross shows forth the love of God; yes, Christ emerges victorious; yes, there was a ransom paid, not to Satan as Irenaeus thought, but to God.

But Penal Substitution lies at the very heart of the cross. It is the most precious doctrine imaginable, magnifying and uniting the justice, the mercy and the love of God, bringing comfort and assurance to those who believe it. It is also absolutely vital, for if Christ did not take my sins upon Himself, they are still on me. It is under the severest attack in these days as are many other fundamental Christian doctrines, and it is the duty of all Bible-believing Christians to uphold it.

 

This is a very interesting subject. The truth is that we are not saved by a theory of atonement but by believing the gosple of the Lord Jesus Christ. The sufferings and death of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection are the essencial of the gospel that we should believe to be saved.

Christus Victor was the prevailing view of atonement for 1000 years till Anselm introduced the satisfaction theory of atonement, Christ suffering on the Cross was a substitute for human sin and satisfying God due to Christ infinite merit. John Calvin formulated penal substitution of atonement ( Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin improved the anselmian view of atonement by introducing the idea of punishment to meet the demands of divine justice) and during the 17th century Hugo Grotius who was a follower of Arminius formulated during his controversy against the moral example theory of Socinius the governmental view of atonement. His model was objective like the penal substitution theory but instead of describing God as a wrathful Judge, he described it at a benevolent Creator and moral Governor of the universe who while as a Father of mankind desired salvation of mankind but in his justice could not pass over sin, man had broken his divine law and deserved eternal death as a punishment. Justice has to be satisfied, so in this atonement theory Jesus is the substitute for our punishment.

There are other views like the recent healing view with its subjective emphases and kaleidoscopic view which gives no priority to any particular view or model of the atonement and considers important views on atonement as no sufficient in itself in describing the full meaning of atonement.

I haven't found any perfect view or model of atonement. Any atonement view which is within the boundaries of orthodox christianity emphasizes one or more aspect of Christ atonement but is lucking in some other aspects.

Atonement in the Bible is described in a plethora of images and metaphores and its motif is the love of God reconciling fallen humanity to Himself thru his Son Jesus who died for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world ( the scope of the atonement is extended to the whole world but its effective only to the elect) Love is the motivation of the Father and the heart of the gosple but his justice demanded full satisfaction (a holy God can't forgive or pass over sin).

The justice and mercy kiss at the Cross, this is a great mystery, maybe a Theory of the Atonement will be only possible in the infinite mind of God. The just dying for the unjust, the holy One dying for sinners so that by believing the Son the ungodly will be justified and his sins forgiven. Great is the mystery of godliness.

An atonement theory tries to explain the sufferings and the death of Christ, so far there is no perfect theory that does justice to the whole plethora of images that are found in the Bible. Believing in the Jesus Christ who atoned for our sins saves us not an othodox view of atonement.

Blessings

 

On the Other Christian Denominations forum, I gave quotes from three Church Fathers which contain the word 'punishment,' having been challenged by JonC to find one. Here they are again:

First John Chrysostom. In his Homilies on 2 Corinthians, he illustrates his point with the analogy of a king who takes pity on a miserable, condemned criminal. The king gives his only son to receive the guilt and punishment of the criminal, and then exalts the criminal to a place of dignity. Chrysostom argues that the criminal would be overwhelmed with gratitude and would do anything rather than upset the king who had treated him so badly. The he comes to application:

'If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain, and transferred the death and guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and if then, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen 10.000 deaths rather than appear guilty of so great an ingratitude? Then let us also now consider with ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provisions we have offered our Benefactor; nor let us presume, because though outraged He bears it with longsuffering; but rather for that reason be full of remorse.'

Note that Chrysostom is not trying to expound the doctrine of Penal Substitution; he assumes it as part of his illustration of another point. Therefore PSA must have been familiar to his readers or they would not have understood his meaning.

Now Augustine of Hippo. This is from Against Faustus, Bk. 14, sect. 3.

'But as Christ endured death as man and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear that curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in taking our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death that He suffered in bearing our punishment.'
That should be clear enough for anyone.

Now Pope Gregory the 'Great,' Morals on the Book of Job, Vol. 1, speaking on Job 2:3:

'And of him is it rightly added, 'without cause.' For He was destroyed without cause who was at once weighed to the earth by the avenging of sin, and not defiled by the pollution of sin. He was 'destroyed without a cause,' who, being made incarnate, had no sins of His own, and yet being without offense took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal.'

Gregory emphasizes our Lord's innocence, and explains His suffering on the grounds that He 'took upon Himself the punishment of the carnal. This is obviously Penal Substitution.

 

Jon,
If you are looking for the fully-formed PST teaching as expounded by John Owen and the Puritans, you're not going to find it in the Fathers. In my limited study of them, they are all over the place in their theology and contradict themselves on a fairly regular basis. All I am saying is that there are clear quotes where various Fathers show that they support the Biblical truth that Christ died as a substitute for our sins, taking the penalty that is due to us. That they don't have it nailed down and watertight does not surprise me, nor does it refute what I am posting.

In your quote from Leon Morris, he says:

I think this is probably true. The Fathers were more taken up with the Nature of Christ. But where they do speak, clear elements of PST are present on a regular basis. However, if anyone wants to understand the Atonement, they will do better to study the Reformers and Puritans than the Fathers.

I would not be bothering with this all over again if Rebel did not keep posting that PST was unknown before the Reformation.