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

That's the KJO folks mentality. What about 15 centuries of Church history without an articulated Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement?

Do you really think it is fair to say that Polycarp, Origen, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, John Chrysostom, Tertullian, Augustine, Jerome, Erasmus, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Conrad Grebel, Hugo Grotius….just to name a few….did not have the atonement??? That the Church existed for so long simply understanding fragments of penal and substitution along side or within their theories until the Reformation?

Your arrogant conclusion that the Church was without the atonement until the Reformation is nothing more than belief in your theological system over God's Word.

 

There are facts and there are theories. The fact is that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was not articulated until the Reformation. There are penal and substitution aspects throughout history and Scripture (as JI Packer put it, the "elements" were there) , but not articulated as the Penal Substitution Theory. I understand this somehow hurts your feelings, but you need to realize that antiquity has no bearing on the legitimacy of one theory over another. You don't need to invent a history.

The majority view (the classic view) is the Christus Victor Theory (even larger if you consider it as a motif, as many do). The second most prominent is the Satisfaction Theory (to include variants from Anselm to Aquinas to Luther). Then you have the Ransom Theory (general and Origens), but this is obsolete now. You have Recapulation, Moral Government Theory, Example Theory, Penal Substitution Theory....and so on.

If you become interested in examining historical theology and what influenced these theories I would enjoy journeying with you. But if you ate more comfortable with historic fiction I understand.

Just remember that you do not have to be dishonest for Penal Substitution Theory to be correct. Elements are historical, but Scripture and not antiquity form our doctrine.

 

You still do not understand.

I am not arguing that these people rejected that Christ propitiated our sins by experiencing God's wrath. Don't you get It? I am saying neither the word or context necessitates that meaning.

The idea that God punished Jesus by being wrathful to him comes from systematic theology incorporating an understanding of divine judgment, sin, atonement, the sacrificial system, ...to name afew. To claim the context of the three passages in question (tossing in Romans) or word itself demands that theory is ignorant and demonstrates a severe lack of understanding about what constitutes biblical and systematic theology.

 

First, I never asked you to "make your case". I asked you to go through the two passages and show where John uses "propitiate" to mean "bearing wrath". Instead you regurgitate commentary on Jesus propitiating by bearing wrath. I am interested in reading a theory I know very well. I wanted to stick to the passage and the context. You couldn't stay in the passage.

Second, I never called you dishonest. I believe you do not recognize your failure to objectively examine the passage. I believe you do not know the history and development of these theories. I think you are ignorant to the material, not dishonest in character. This does not change the fact that your posts ate not honest to the biblical text itself or history (your posts are not honest to what is objective in this discussion, you seem not to see rhis, therefore you are not qualified to an opinion).

 

I'm not even talking about the immediate context. The context of the passage allows for the interpretation of "propitiation" because it is discussing sin (although this is one issue where some prefer "expiate", so it could be discussed). But the context is not "bearing wrath". This is nowhere in the epistle.

What I hope for in discussion is an honest dialogue about Scripture, about the context, and even about historical positions. But what @The Archangel is doing is simply introducing his conclusions into one text where it is completely absent. He could take "propitiation" here and then look to Paul's explanation about Christ bearing our sin and walk through his theory. But he doesn't. He simply declares John meant something that, even if he believed it, is not discussed in the text itself. This is being dishonest with the material, not a character issue but one of ignorance.

Read the verse, expand it to the entire epistle. That's great. But don't insist on something that is not actually there to "prove" a point.

My comment is not that he is wrong (although I believe he is) but that he is not proving his point with the text provided. He needs to incorporate much more than he is at this time.

Would you like to walk through 1 John and show me where John declares that Jesus bore God's wrath?

 

For you I need to rephrase this (because of your view of the theory).

Before the Reformation it has never been stated that God punished Jesus by pouring out his wrath upon Jesus to satisfy justice by punishing Jesus with the punishment that is due our sins, this punishment being in our stead.

From our other discussion, you believe that anything mentioning penal substitution proves the theory existed. All theories can be called "Penal Substitution Theory" based on your definition of the term. This is simply not the definition I'm using.

Like J.I. Packer observed - Penal Substitution Theory was not articulated as we have it, but the elements were there. My disagreement is with the philosophy going into the development of the theory (that's where I believe it failed), not with the passages it affirms.

 

Oh....that's a good color.

 

Here is an example of what is going on between a couple of us:

We need to finish a fence and today is a good, sunny day.

Me: Today is sunny, let's put in two hours and finish this thing.

You: So you are saying today is sunny but tomorrow it might rain.

Me: No, I think it might rain a little tomorrow, but I am saying that today is sunny.

You: But you are implying that it might storm tomorrow.

Me.: I’m just saying that today is sunny. I’m not talking about tomorrow.

You: But you think it might rain tomorrow.

Me: Yes, light showers, but that’s not what I’m talking about now. I’m saying that today is sunny, we can finish the work.

You: So you are saying you want to finish the work because it might storm tomorrow and the high winds may damage the fence if the concrete hasn't set?

Me: No, tomorrow is Saturday and we are off. I’m saying that today is sunny, let's finish the job.

You: But you mean tomorrow might rain, because you said you believed it might.

Me. No. I mean today is sunny, let’s get this work done.


Regardless as to the validity of Penal Substitution Theory, or any other theory, we need to look at what Scripture says. The topic here is about history. While we can look through history and declare that everyone believes Penal Substitution Theory (to include yours truly) because they believe Christ died for our sins, was bruised for our transgressions, and by his stripes we are healed, we can still consider their differences (none believed that God was inflicting wrath on Christ as a punishment for our sins as individuals).

 

The history doesn't make the doctrine correct. But it is the topic of the thread (some enjoy looking at the history).

And don't start the "But you didn't interact" nonsense. I posted the entire context from which your quotes were extracted.

Penal Substitution is there, but what was missing? God punishing Jesus for our sins, in our stead, with our punishment. That isn't in Martyr as it is in Penal Substitution Theory.

I'm not arguing that penal substitution was absent, just that the Penal Substitution Theory as articulated in the Reformation was absent.

 

I'll rephrase: They did not write down that they did.

Don't forget that given your view of Penal Substitution Theory (from a previous discussion) I also believe in that theory. But that's not what I'm talking about.