JonC said:Ok…..here is another illustration (to get away from the “smoke screen” of “you didn’t name all of the authors and they are not responsible for what is referenced” nonsense.
Martin Marprelate said:The definition that I have used throughout our discussions and quoted any number of times is this: 'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.' I have no doubt that Justin and many other ECFs would have endorsed that had it been presented to them.
JonC said:@Martin Marprelate , who is no biblical slouch, also affirmed that the Early Church was not privy to the Theory (although he has no doubt that many "would have endorsed that had it been presented to them").
Martin Marprelate said:I made no such comment. Please read my posts #45 and #59. If your comprehension skills are so bad that you cannot reconcile them, all you have to do is ask and I will explain.
BUT DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I DID NOT SAY.
Well, first of all, if you think those were insults, you should get about more. But time after time you ascribe views to me that not only do I not believe, but which I actively oppose. You then apologize, but do the very same thing again almost immediately.JonC said:I took your comment “I have no doubt that Justin and many other ECFs would have endorsed that had it been presented to them” to mean that while you believed Justin and other ECF’s would have endorsed the Theory had it been presented to them you were aware it had not. You responded with insult after insult.
As I pointed out earlier, the word 'Trinity' was coined by Tertullian around 200AD. Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and others had never heard of 'The Doctrine of the Trinity.' But that doesn't mean that they were all Unitarians! Had the doctrine as it was agreed at the various church councils been presented to them, then no doubt they would have endorsed it. The definition of Penal Substitution which I have used comes from the Pierced for our Transgressions book, and the very term 'Penal Substitution is of no great vintage. But that doesn't mean that the ECFs didn't believe that Christ suffered instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Indeed, they did because they wrote in similar terms. Irenaeus is very brief, but he writes of 'The Lord redeem[ing] us by His blood and [giving] His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh.' That is the very essence of penal substitution. I know he wrote some other stuff that I disagree with, but he also wrote this, and he wrote it because he knew that penal substitution-- even if he didn't know the term-- was absolutely vital for our salvation. So did Justin Martyr and several other ECFs..
How you can think that I can't imagine. But again, if you want me to clarify something, all you have to do is ask. But to misrepresent me over and over and over again on a public forum despite being asked to stop over and over again is not acceptable and you need to stop.And I still read your comments that way (I’ve tried to look at it differently, but it appears to me you seemed to realize at least for a moment the difference in views).
It is indeed, and you should stop doing it. whatever Irenaeus wrote elsewhere, he wrote what I have quoted above. You can't ignore it because he wrote something else as well.Just think how you, knowing we are both believers in Christ, responded to my mistake. You have the opportunity to speak up. The ECFs don’t except through their works. We can’t ignore their own explanations. To do so is morally wrong.
The simple answer to your question is that I am not required to agree with everything that Irenaeus wrote, nor to reject everything. There is some merit in Irenaeus' idea of recapitulation --Christ is indeed the last Adam-- but not in the way he expresses it and he carries it much too far. But Recapitulation and Christus Victor both have their merits. Part of your error is supposing that these teachings are mutually exclusive. They're not..Now, if you sincerely believe that Irenaeus held to Penal Substitution Theory then please answer the questions already posed assuming that is your belief (since you said it was). How does the Theory of Penal Substitution balance the deception of Eve with the obedience of Mary? How does it recapitulate the ages?
Last edited: