Catholics, Protestants, Baptists

[Rebel]

The article is complete rubbish from start to finish. The author (who is he?) selectively quotes from the Bible and leaves out all the verses that so clearly point to Penal Substitution. He also has not read the Church fathers properly or he would not make such sweeping statements which are easily refuted merely by quoting them.

Here are a few extracts from the Church fathers. Let me say that I do not regard the Fathers as being authorities on doctrine. In my reading of them I find that they contradict themselves and each other pretty regularly. The Bible is our only authority. I give these extracts purely to refute these false claims that PSA was unknown until the Reformers.

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.

Derek Flood uses the words of the ECF to totally refute the claim that they held to PSA. Those who insist that they did are reading 16th century error back into the early fathers, the same way that the papists read their errors back into the NT. You can't refute Flood, no matter how hard you try.

 

[Rebel]

That is because his post was removed after it was reported. Such heresy is not allowed on this site.

Heresy is a departure from original doctrine. Therefore, PSA is heresy. So, based on that, all posts in favor of it should be deleted. But instead, my posts get deleted. But I will continue to uphold early church doctrine against all innovation, whether Catholic or Protestant.

 

[Rebel]

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.

So, how can anyone hold a heretical position and not be a heretic? Come on, Rev, at least be honest.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Derek Flood uses the words of the ECF to totally refute the claim that they held to PSA. Those who insist that they did are reading 16th century error back into the early fathers, the same way that the papists read their errors back into the NT. You can't refute Flood, no matter how hard you try.

Well actually I did refute him simply by quoting from the very Church fathers that you and he claim support you.
Why do you keep on peddling your nonsense? PSA is there in the Bible and many of the ECFs knew it.

 

[Rebel]

Well actually I did refute him simply by quoting from the very Church fathers that you and he claim support you.
Why do you keep on peddling your nonsense? PSA is there in the Bible and many of the ECFs knew it.

Scholars, 15 centuries of church history, the early church, and the scriptures disagree with you, which leaves you with the only ground to stand on being the Magisterial Reformers and Protestant Fundamentalists -- in other words, no ground at all, since the doctrine was invented 1500 years after Jesus Christ.

You show no evidence of even having read the Flood articles. What's wrong -- too lengthy for you? He uses those very Fathers that you so erroneously claim to support PSA to show that they did not in fact believe PSA. They couldn't have believed a doctrine that was unknown and untaught, that was not invented until the 16th century.

You are doing what your RC cousins do -- trying to read something back into the early churches, Fathers, and scriptures that is not there because you must do so to try and support a doctrine you insist is true, but isn't. You have to do this because your whole house-of-cards theology depends on it, just like the Roman system depends on their fallacious house-of-cards theology.

PSA and the false doctrine concerning what God requires to be saved go hand-in-hand, and so also a false teaching about Who God is, and His very nature. PSA is the most harmful, most abhorrent doctrine ever invented, and look who invented it -- a bunch of persecuting, state-churchists. What a wonderful bunch for Baptists to be following!

 

[Rebel]

For those who want to know the truth of what I'm saying without delving into scholarly works, just do a web search on the doctrine. It's easy to find the facts about PSA, and other atonement theories that came a thousand years and much later, after the NT and early church.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

For those who want to know the truth of what I'm saying without delving into scholarly works, just do a web search on the doctrine. It's easy to find the facts about PSA, and other atonement theories that came a thousand years and much later, after the NT and early church.

Anyone wanting to know that Rebel doesn't know what he's talking about should go to post #41 on this thread where I gave three quotes from Church Fathers approving Penal Substitution. I have posted other quotes on various threads on this board. I can easily dig them out if anyone doesn't think three's enough.