Penal Substitution, Christus Victor and Anabaptist theology

[JamesL]

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:

'[Christ] was delivered up for our sins, and was raised for our justification' {Rom. 4:25). Without the resurrection our sins cannot be forgiven. Without it Christ's death would have no more significance than that of the countless sheep, goats and bulls under the Old Covenant. It is the sign that God is propitiated towards sinful men and women; that His justice has been satisfied and that 'There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus' (Rom. 8:1).

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

I prefer the Apostles' ideas, thanks.

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

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?

It was asked in the article about the forgiveness of trespasses. The prayer is not "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us." Who could be saved?....

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.

 

[JonC]

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 agree, James.

What is troubling to me is not primarily what one group accepts, but what they deny.

Anabaptist theology (referencing the author in the OP) highlights some truths about reconciliation that may exist but are not at the forefront of Penal Substitution theory. Christus Victor highlights the truth that Christ overcame death and sin on our behalf. Penal Substitution highlights that sin and rightful judgment that we fall under because of our transgression, the justness of God, and the amazing grace and forbearance that is showered upon us as his children.

But Anabaptist theology also holds a Christus Victor view in exclusion (or at least minimalized view) of it “being the will of the Father to crush Him” to suit other theological distinctions. On the other side, a couple of posts ago several holding a PST position indicated that they cling to 1 John 3:4 but only at the exclusion of other passages (e.g., 2 Cor 5; Rom 5,8; 1 Pet 1) - although I don’t know that they recognized the statements as Scripture as I did not indicate them as such.

To me it appears that many hold these doctrines as one would support a sports team. Anything not pushing your team forwards on the field is obsolete or obstruction. But the passages I mentioned are not opponents on the field. They may not be the biggest supporters of one aspect of focus, but they certainly are not detractors to our theology (if our theology is correct) and should not merely be dismissed.

The theory I presented in the OP is, IMHO, flawed. But in asking some of the questions the OP addresses, and seeing some of the responses, I am beginning to see that others have the same flaw. I guess the question becomes, if you hold to one biblical truth at the exclusion of other biblical doctrines, then are you holding your position biblically? I suppose my answer is “no," regardless to the correctness of what is held.

 

[Aaron]

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?

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,

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

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

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)

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

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?

I don't.

Forgiveness has more than one aspect, at least two - legal and relational.

No, sin and trespass.

 

[JonC]

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

All transgression is sin, but if Paul is correct then those who signed apart from the given law (those who signed between Adam and Moses) were not transgressors (they were not under the law, so their sins were not transgressions if the law....it was still sin).

I agree with Stott that I don't see another way of interpreting that verse, but I am open to suggestion. How do you interpret Romans 5:13?

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[Rebel]

All transgression is sin, but if Paul is correct then those who signed apart from the given law (those who signed between Adam and Moses) were not transgressors (they were not under the law, so their sins were not transgressions if the law....it was still sin).

I agree with Stott that I don't see another way of interpreting that verse, but I am open to suggestion. How do you interpret Romans 5:13?

Sent from my TARDIS

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.

 

[JonC]

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 lean towards some of their theologies as well. We have to keep in mind, however, that many doctrines were undeveloped or underdeveloped during the first couple centuries of the Church. Their theology was also not Anabaptist theology (although insofar as this thread is concerned, I tend to agree to a great extent with you). Also, the ECFs did not always agree on these theories (e.g., read Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Martyr - you can see differences in their theologies). Also, as I just hinted, theologies develop from the work of previous scholars.

 

[Rebel]

I lean towards some of their theologies as well. We have to keep in mind, however, that many doctrines were undeveloped or underdeveloped during the first couple centuries of the Church. Their theology was also not Anabaptist theology (although insofar as this thread is concerned, I tend to agree to a great extent with you). Also, the ECFs did not always agree on these theories (e.g., read Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Tertullian, and Martyr - you can see differences in their theologies). Also, as I just hinted, theologies develop from the work of previous scholars.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

For the most part, I don’t that that Baptists who say that they hold to Anselm’s satisfaction theory actually have in mind that God became man to satisfy that dishonor that sin brought to the majesty of God. I understand the “substitution” element here, and why we use satisfaction and substitution interchangeably, but sometimes I think this muddies the water.

The early church undoubtedly believed that Christ died as a substitute for us (in terms of a representative of man), but you are quite right that the idea of Penal Substitution theory (that Jesus experienced vicariously the punishment due us as individuals for our individual sins to satisfy the demands of the Father that this debt be paid in full in order that he could in turn forgive this debt and reconcile certain persons to himself) was foreign to the Christian landscape for the first millennia. It is not only dependent on Anselm’s theories but also to Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas developed the philosophical argument (in refining satisfaction theory) that the innocent could suffer penance for the guilty (if both were willing) without sacrificing justice. He rejected, however, the idea that the Son could take the punishment of the wicked as unjust. That development did not occur until the Reformation.

I'm providing a link that I found interesting (by Leon Morris from Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology). I realize that Morris, like each of us, have a way of viewing the Atonement, but I think he handled the topic well. What I like about the article is that Morris rightly states the earlier view as people simply holding on to the “satisfying truth that Christ saved them by way of the cross and did not argue about how this salvation was effected.” I also like his conclusion that “we are small minded sinners and the atonement is great and vast. We should not expect that our theories will ever explain it fully. Even when we put them all together, we will no more than begin to comprehend a little of the vastness of God’s saving deed.”

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/atonementmorris2.html

 

[JonC]

I also like this, from Morris:

In the NT the cross plainly occupies the central place, and it is insisted upon in season and out of season that this is God's way of bringing salvation. There are many ways of bringing this out. The NT writers do not repeat a stereotyped story. Each writes from his own perspective. But each shows that it is the death of Christ and not any human achievement that brings salvation.

I am afraid too often many see nothing but a sterotyped Atonement.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

This is an old topic….but they are all old topics, and I still find this one intriguing...exploring the depth of the Atonement and these issues are hopefully something that will never grow old. Anyway, I've had a few VA appointments lately and carried with me (digitally) several journal articles to pass the time. A few expressed a move towards or to Anabaptist atonement theology.

In one article the author (Stoltzfus) notes that Penal Substitution Theory is a model whereas Christus Victor is a motif. The reason being Penal Substitution is a rational theory while Christus Victor is more of a collection of general themes ( a point made by Gustaf Aulen decades ago). Here I agree ( Christus Victor is overarching as evidenced by the diversity expressed through the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I do not believe that this diversity exists to the same degree within Penal Substitution Theory as it is a much more refined and narrow). While I disagree with the premise of the article (the validity of a theory or doctrine based on or contrasted with its implications within a specific field of practice), the author makes some good points.

Stoltzfus identifies concerns that led him to the Mennonite church and to Anabaptist theology. I share some of his concerns, but by no means all (please don't assume his argument to be my own). How would you address the following issues (keep in mind that he is writing from an Anabaptist and not a Baptist perspective)?

1. “The Penal Substitutionary telling of the story emphasized Jesus’ death as the key moment when sins were forgiven and the possibility of a relationship with God was restored. In light of this, Easter seemed like a bit of an afterthought.” How does the Resurrection fit into Penal Substitution Atonement?

2. “The Penal Substitutionary understanding of the story seemed to emphasize a God whose defining characteristic was wrath and judgment. Although the Penal substitution model does emphasize that God’s love, grace, and mercy led him to search out a way for humans to avoid the punishment they deserve for their sin, the Penal Substitution story suggests that because God will not (or cannot) forgive sins without punishment taking place, he punishes Jesus Christ in the place of humanity. Thus, in the final accounting, it seemed that God was primarily concerned that someone be punished.” Does divine justice trump divine love and forgiveness? If God has to collect a debt in full before forgiving that debt, then how does this translate to the believer forgiving the debts of others as they have been forgiven? Is this a true definition of forgiveness?

3.“The Penal Substitution claim that Christ’s death is necessary for the forgiveness of sins also leads to a second problem, as Christ clearly claimed to have the authority to forgive sins prior to his death…Christ’s claim to have the authority to forgive sins prior to his death calls into question the Penal Substitution claim that sins cannot be forgiven without the prior occurrence of punishment.” (Here, I am not confident of the author’s claim that PST actually claims sins cannot be forgiven without the prior occurrence of punishment). On what basis did Christ forgive sins?

4. “It seems to me that Penal Substitution may decontextualize sin, making all such behavior the responsibility of the individual.” How does Penal Substitution Theory address sin in terms of humanity and reconciliation apart from it's focus on the individual? Or does the Fall even have an impact beyond individual sins (i.e., does it have a sociological impact)?




(Kenneth Stoltzfus, Ph.D., is Chair, Department of Social Science, LLC International University. The article I referenced is “Penal Substitution, Christus Victor, and the Implications of Atonement Theology for Integration of Christian Faith and Social Work Practice”, Social Work & Christianity, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2012).

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I also like this, from Morris:

In the NT the cross plainly occupies the central place, and it is insisted upon in season and out of season that this is God's way of bringing salvation. There are many ways of bringing this out. The NT writers do not repeat a stereotyped story. Each writes from his own perspective. But each shows that it is the death of Christ and not any human achievement that brings salvation.

I am afraid too often many see nothing but a sterotyped Atonement.

Sent from my TARDIS

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.

 

[walkinspirit]

I also like this, from Morris:

In the NT the cross plainly occupies the central place, and it is insisted upon in season and out of season that this is God's way of bringing salvation. There are many ways of bringing this out. The NT writers do not repeat a stereotyped story. Each writes from his own perspective. But each shows that it is the death of Christ and not any human achievement that brings salvation.

I am afraid too often many see nothing but a sterotyped Atonement.

Sent from my TARDIS

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

 

[JonC]

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

I agree, although I will also note that Jesus died for the believers....not their sins.

To lean on Leon Morris, the Early Church simply held to the truth that Christ saved them by way of the cross. This was expressed in different ways (as it is in Scripture) but that one truth (not some philosophy of how God effected the Atonement) guided them. I wish it were so today, and I believe that more and deeper truths would be realized through Scripture.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

Martin, I told you then and I'll repeat it now in all love and patience (just as you are doing....we are in repeat mode): Elements of punishment and substitution does not PST make. We got into the ECF's because you had offered a couple of quotes out of context (you said that Martyr and Eusebius taught PST but when we look at the context it was obvious they departed from that theory.....yet they did mention punishment and substitution). But I am not at home so I cannot argue (I cannot reference) those other's you offer. But perhaps we can simply end this discussion here, with Augustine.

Insofar as Augustine's atonement theory (I do know his works fairly well), I'll just give you the "benefit" and accept that your view of the Atonement (that view which you call Penal Substitution) is what Augustine taught.

Our difference is in definitions, that's all, brother. I would have never called his theory PST, but I will gladly accept it as yours (with the condition that you don't object when I also lean upon the theories of those Church Fathers as being PST).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Elements of punishment and substitution does not PST make.

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:

In the early church there seems to have been little attention given to the way atonement works

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

You are right, I believe, that fully formed theories of the atonement did not exist in the early church. There are some ideas and expressions that were wrong (some almost offensive), like Origen’s theory that God paid Satan off or Augustine’s “bait” notion. But what undergirded these views was a more simple and basic understanding than I believe our theories would allow.

I do not find these scholars inconsistent within themselves, although they do sometimes seem inconsistent among each other. I believe my first paragraph explains why. But I think it would be best not to attribute one of our developed theories as being affirmed in antiquity. I know that there are elements that support PST in these Early Church Fathers. But I also know that there are elements that support other theories and that are in opposition to PST. It is best, IMHO, not to blend arguing the validity of a theory or theology with looking at how it was held two thousand years ago.

While I see great value in studying the ECFs and in historical theology in general, I agree with you that this is not how we need to study Penal Substitution or any other theory of the atonement.