Is the Penal Substitution Theory the most common theory throughout history?

I don't know where to put this, but since I believe Penal Substitution Atonement to be of Calvinistic origin and the topic is not only for Baptists I'm putting it here.

I think @TCassidy has been looking forward to another Penal Substitution Theory thread, and @Yeshua1 has made the statement that arguing against the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is arguing against "the vast majority of Conservative Christians of History".

So, without weighing the merits of each theory, how many believe that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement has been the most dominant theory throughout history and what is your evidence?

 

My position:

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement did not exist until articulated during the Reformation period. Elements that were used to articulate the theory are found not only in Scripture but throughout history. But elements do not a theory make. Penal Substitution Theory is a reformation of Aquinas' theory with punishment substituted for merit.

 

That is the position some have taken. I think this is why they re-write history. They believe if their view can be shown to be of antiquity it adds validity to their position. Typically this is an argument offered when no legitimate support can be had.

For much of history the most popular theory was Origen's Ransom Theory. I doubt anyone today believes that the Cross was God paying a ransom to Satan, but that is how it was understood for a significant time.

The fact that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was not articulated until the 16th century has no bearing on its validity. I think of it this way, most of us believe the world will be here tomorrow whereas for most of history Christians doubted we'd make it this long. Yet here we are.

 

Let me stop you right there, brother. Your statement is subjective (this one gives "the best explanation").

But the topic is not which one you believe gives the best explanation. What I am saying is that you made a statement that is not accurate. Throughout history the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement has not been the majority view.

 

There is a difference between wanting to go all through it again and wanting to go all through it again with you. (kidding .... well, sorta ).

 

The problem is not Christ as the sin offering. Scripture teaches that He bore our griefs and was wounded for our transgressions – the chastisement of our peace was upon Him and by His stripes we are healed.

The problem is when we turn that around to teach that on the Cross God satisfying the demands of justice by punishing Jesus with the punishment due those who are saved. Another issue is that Old Testament sacrifices were not punishments (they represented appeasement, not punishment).

The reason that it is a problem is twofold. First, Scripture does not present God as punishing Jesus (as another put it, God was not being wrathful towards Jesus when He experienced what would have been wrath towards us). Second, it is contrary to what Scripture does teach in regards to God’s faithfulness and His Righteous One.

Exactly. I do not know of anyone who holds that Satan was paid a ransom. My point was that it was the theory at one time (long before Penal Substitution Theory) and spurred Anselm to develop another.

 

Hey brother. I don't mean that your argument is one offered when no legitimate support can be had (if that was how I came across). I mean when people cannot support or defend their theories they tend to look throughout history to appeal to the masses.

Sorry if my comment came off wrong. I didn't realize at the time how it could have sounded.

 

Both Arminianism and Calvinism assume the same theory of atonement. Divine Justice is retributive in type (like a parking ticket that must be paid regardless of who pays the price).

Before Calvin it was assumed this punishment was "satisfactory" punishment rather than simple punishment (a punishment satisfying justice, appeasing wrath rather than a punishment for sin).

 

I would agree that Christ bore the consequences of sin.