Featured Baptists, Penal Substitution, Original Sin

I am trying to look at this in a systematic way. I have also provided extensive quotes from many of those Church Fathers which would deny PST as I would define it, but thought that perhaps it was in definition that we disagreed.

The reason is that I also have posted the quote you offered of several Church Fathers, and you never objected. I think that perhaps what we are calling PST is not the same. I'll use Eusebius as a quick example here, and assume he holds to PST.

Penal Substitution Theory:
1. Strongly denies the Son and Father experienced a separation on the Cross.
2. Denies Christ suffered a "spiritual death."
3. Focuses on the reconciliation of all men to God.
4. Places the Law as applicable only to the Jewish race (and only tho them that lived in their own land).
5. The Atonement is the basis of reconciliation of humanity upon which the father forgives sins.
6. The Atonement is the summoning of all men equally to share in this reconciliation.

(These teachings are from “Demonstratio Evangelica")

It is a matter of definition. Those teachings (the context of the quote you offered proving Eusebius taught Penal Substitution) stands in contract to my view of PST. I may be able to go along with your view, if it is, as you indicate, what has been taught by the ECF's.

 

Please correct me where I have misunderstood. Calvin believed in PST. He did not even hear of limited atonement. Arminus believed in PST but not limited atonement. I don't understand how PST existed for Calvin and Arminius, limited atonement developed afterwards, but the older doctrine is dependent on the younger.

 

Eusebius may contradict what some want his comments to mean, but he doesn't contradict himself. Here is your quote in context of the whole:

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.

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.

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.

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. (“Demonstratio Evangelica”).

My argument is with those who believe that Christ took the punishment of our individual sins in our place. I agree with your view, which you call Penal Substitution theory, as expressed through Eusebius. We simply disagreed on what constituted Penal Substitution Theory.

 

The bold part is correct. Limited Atonement was a doctrine that arose as a Calvinistic address to the ideas of James Arminius, which concerned not the Atonement but the doctrine of divine predestination. I agree that it is more suited for those who believe in limited atonement, but conclusions are not always logical. I've said before, it is not logical that a man will die and then come back to life three days later....or that a man could walk on water. The substitution theory that PST grew out out of was a refinement of satisfaction theory (most combine these as one), but it had in mind penance and God's honor.

I think that you are not holding to any theory, but are speaking of substitution in general. If so, then I would agree with you. There are centuries of believers who held to the fact that Christ died on the cross to save them, bore their sins, turned aside God's wrath due them for their sin, and freed them from the bondage of sin and death as enough to sustain their faith. They looked to Christ as a mediator when they sinned and held a steadfast faith that being reconciled to God through the death of his Son that they would be saved by his life. I wish we had more people like that today.

 

Well, actually, it didn't. Limited Atonement has been with us since the "Amen" was penned to the Book of the Revelation. Limited Atonement can be found all through the New Testament.

And while on the subject, every Christian, with the exception of a few Universalists, believes in Limited Atonement.

Do you posters who think you deny Limited Atonement believe the Devil will be saved? Or His demons? If not then don't you limit the Atonement to humans only? Just as those of us who accept Limited Atonement limit it to believers only? Remember, Limited Atonement does not teach that the Atonement was limited in its ability to save, but rather, limited only in its application. It is sufficient for all, efficient only for believers.

 

I stand corrected......just because something wasn't considered r worked out doesn't necessarily mean it didn't exist (the doctrine of the Trinity demonstrates this).

Sent from my TARDIS

 

I am not sure Limited Atonement wasn't considered or worked out prior to 1610. Just because some Christians missed it doesn't imply all Christians missed it.

 

I am saying that you are extracting from him what you view as error and applying what is left over to say Eusebius believed PST. If you take his view as he offers it, then those elements of punishment and substitution don't quite add up to PST. In fact, his view that this punishment was the sin of humanity that Christ took as our substitute (like Martyr insists, as our representative) so that in the reconciliation of mankind all may become reconciled to God flatly denies many aspects of how some hold PST.

I've said before, and will again, that elements of substitution and due punishment are present in most, if not all, theories. That does not mean those other theories affirm PST.

As an illustration only : John Owen clearly believes that through the Atonement we are freed from the bondage of sin. Therefore he held to Christus Victor theory.....only with some error and confusion mixed in.

I am saying, brother, that when we dissect a man's theory or theology, hold on to one part while dismissing the whole, then we do disservice to the brother's position. I would not do that to you, intentionally, and we shouldn't do it to others.

I believe you will find your strongest argument from Scripture, not antiquity.

Sent from my TARDIS

 

Are there any writings or evidences of the doctrine of Limited Atonement being worked out prior to the work of the Reformers?

 

Barnabas (A.D. 70): “[Christ speaking] I see that I shall thus offer My flesh for the sins of the new people.”

Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “He endured the sufferings for those men whose souls are [actually] purified from all iniquity…As Jacob served Laban for the cattle that were spotted, and of carious forms, so Christ served even to the cross for men of every kind, of many and various shapes, procuring them by His blood and the mystery of the cross.”

Irenaeus (A.D. 180): “He came to save all, all, I say, who through Him are born again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men…Jesus is the Savior of them that believe; but the Lord of them that believe not. Wherefore, Christ is introduced in the gospel weary…promising to give His life a ransom, in the room of, many.”

Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Christ died for the salvation of His people…for the church.”

Cyprian (A.D. 250): “All the sheep which Christ hath sought up by His blood and sufferings are saved…Whosoever shall be found in the blood, and with the mark of Christ shall only escape…He redeemed the believers with the price of His own blood…Let him be afraid to die who is not reckoned to have any part in the cross and sufferings of Christ.”

Lactantius (A.D. 320): “He was to suffer and be slain for the salvation of many people…who having suffered death for us, hath made us heirs of the everlasting kingdom, having abdicated and disinherited the people of the Jews…He stretched out His hands in the passion and measured the world, that He might at the very time show that a large people, gathered out of all languages and tribes, should come under His wings, and receive the most great and sublime sign.”

Eusebius (A.D. 330): “To what ‘us’ does he refer, unless to them that beleive in Him? For to them that do not believe in Him, He is the author of their fire and burning. The cause of Christ’s coming is the redemption of those that were to be saved by Him.”

Julius (A.D. 350): “The Son of God, by the pouring out of His precious blood, redeemed His set apart ones; they are delivered by the blood of Christ.”

Hilarion (A.D. 363): “He shall remain in the sight of God forever, having already taken all whom He hath redeemed to be kings of heaven, and co-heirs of eternity, delivering them as the kingdom of God to the Father.”

Ambrose (A.D. 380): “Before the foundation of the world, it was God’s will that Christ should suffer for our salvation…Can He damn thee, whom He hath redeemed from death, for whom He offered Himself, whose life He knows is the reward of His own death?”

Pacian (A.D. 380): “Much more, He will not allow him that is redeemed to be destroyed, nor will He cast away those whom He has redeemed with a great price.”

Epiphanius (A.D. 390): “If you are redeemed…If therefore ye are bought with blood, thou are not the number of them who were bought with blood, O Manes, because thou deniest the blood…He gave His life for His own sheep.”

Jerome (A.D. 390): “Christ is sacrificed for the salvation of believers…Not all are redeemed, for not all shall be saved, but the remnant…All those who are redeemed and delivered by Thy blood return to Zion, which Thou hast prepared for Thyself by Thine own blood…Christ came to redeem Zion with His blood. But lest we should think that all are Zion or every one is Zion is truly redeemed of the Lord, who are redeemed by the blood of Christ form the Church…He did not give His life for every man, but for many, that is, for those who would believe.”