Featured Classical vs Latin Atonement

@DaveXR650 ,

I hope we can continue our discussion here.

This will show why I believe Penal Substitution Theory is not capable with any other view of the Atonement.

 

The Classic View

The Classical view of the Atonement was the view held by the Early Church and encompasses several more specific Atonement Theories (with emphasis on various aspects of the Cross). The general view is that of Exodus.

Through sin mankind had given itself over to evil, was enslaved by the powers of darkness and in bondage to sin and death. This is typically personified in Early Church writings as “Satan”, even when not specifically speaking of Satan himself. Through Adam’s transgression death had entered the world and had spread to all man because all have sinned. The wages of sin is death, and all man must die because of sin. After death is the judgment (it is appointed all men to die once and then the Judgment).

God became flesh, suffered under the bondage of sin and death (under the “powers of darkness”) and shared in the death we experience (the physical death). But unlike us Christ is without sin and the Father vindicated Him, raising Him up on the third day as the Firstborn of a different kind of humanity (Jesus is another “Adam”). Where Adam became a living soul Jesus is a Life giving Spirit.

God offered His Son as a guilt offering, laying our iniquities upon Him. It was by God’s will that Christ die under the powers of evil. It was His will to crush Him. And Christ offered Himself willingly. He lay down His own life. Where men esteemed Jesus as stricken by God he was instead bearing our sins. Christ became a curse for us, was made sin for us, and by His stripes we are healed.

We are reborn, or born of the Spirit, in Christ. We will still physically die, as this is the wages of sin, but we must die to the flesh and live in the Spirit. We are saved not from death but through death. In Christ we are reborn, or recreated. We die (suffer the wages of sin) but we are new creations in Christ and “escape the wrath to come”. In this way Christ died for the “whole human family”, not that all are saved but all of humanity (including those who will not be saved) now falls under the purview of Christ.

The Classic View of Atonement includes theories from men like Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Origen, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexander, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, those who affirm Anabaptist Theology, and the Orthodox Churches.

Points:

1. God laid our iniquities on Christ, Who bore our sins, died for our sins, was made a curse for us, and was made sin on our behalf.
2. Christ’s suffering and death was a direct result of the “powers of darkness”, “evil”, or “Satan”.
3. Christ suffered a physical death on our behalf, but not instead of us.
4. The “Second death” was rendered obsolete to those in Christ as they were new creations and guiltless, “clothed” in Christ’s righteousness.
5. God forgives sins (simple forgiveness) upon repentance
6. Christians are not guilty of sins because they are new creations in Christ, clothed in His righteousness

 

The Latin View

Like the Classic View the Latin View is a category rather than a specific theory. It is called the Latin View because the overall outlook or Atonement scheme was adopted by what would become the Roman Catholic Church (as opposed to what would be come the Orthodox Catholic Church, as they maintained the Classic View in a combination of Moral Influence Theory and Ransom Theory).

Substitutionary Atonement

The first theory under this category was developed by a Catholic scholar named Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). Anselm sought to reform the church in Canterbury. One of the major areas of concern was the people had grown to view the Ransom Theory (which was the most popular understanding of the Atonement up to this point) as God literally paying to Satan a ransom (as opposed to the Early Church personifying sin and death as “the Devil”). The illustration had lost its meaning and become questionable doctrine.

This was the 11th Century and the most valued ethic was often presented as honor. Here we see the development of Satisfaction Theory. Anselm viewed human sin as robbing God of honor. Christ’s death is viewed as the ultimate form of obedience which brought honor to God on behalf of mankind. This is substitutionary (Christ died FOR us), Jesus provided honor to the Father so that we don’t have to (we can’t because of sin). See Cur Deus Homo

Thomas Aquinas further developed the Satisfaction Theory into what is now the Roman Catholic position. This is Substitutionary Atonement. Aquinas concluded that punishment is morally good and that Christ bore a satisfactory punishment (as opposed to penal punishment) for our sins. Aquinas was very careful to point out that this is not in a legal sense, but a moral sense. The Christian is joined to Christ metaphorically by baptism. Where Anselm taught that man could never make up for the honor robbed of God, Aquinas taught that men can do penance to atone for the debt in the form of satisfaction (accepted as payment, but not the actual amount due). What Christ did on the Cross was penance on our behalf. There was a superabundance of merit (the Roman Catholic idea of the “Treasury of Merit) which covers our debt. See Summa Theologica

Penal Substitution Theory

During the Reformation John Calvin sought to reform this idea of Atonement. He relied heavily on Aquinas’ work, but where Aquinas viewed Christ’s death as Substitutionary (Christ died for us) Calvin viewed His death as Penal Substitution (Christ was punished instead of us). Calvin reformed the Roman Catholic view to replace “merit” with “justice”.

Human sin is a disobedience to the Divine Law. Calvin assigns the humanistic judicial philosophy he had studied and wrote about to Divine Justice. God can not merely recreate man in Christ as guiltless because a judge must punish sinful actions in order to be just. Even if the man was not linked to the sin, the sinful actions have occurred and God has an obligation to act. God sends Jesus who perfectly obeys the Law. God punishes Jesus on the Cross for the sins that the elect have committed, there achieving forgiveness for those sins. Restitution must be made, and restitution can only be made through punishment. See Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.xii.2-3

Churches who hold the Latin View: many evangelical Baptists churches, CoC, Roman Catholic Churches, Reformed Churches (although many are moving away from the tradition).

Points:

1. God laid our iniquities on Christ, Who bore our sins, died for our sins, was made a curse for us, and was made sin on our behalf.
2. Christ’s suffering and death was God’s wrath poured on Christ (or our sins laid on Christ) instead of us.
3. Christ suffered a death that equated to a “spiritual death” or “second death”
4. God forgives sins by having punished those sins in Christ
5. Christians are guilty, however they are clothed in Christ’s righteousness and the penalty for their guilt was paid when God punished Christ instead of men.

 

A summary (not inclusive) of the ideas within each view:

The Classical View:

1. God laid our iniquities on Christ, Who bore our sins, died for our sins, was made a curse for us, and was made sin on our behalf.
2. Christ’s suffering and death was a direct result of the “powers of darkness”, “evil”, or “Satan”.
3. Christ suffered a physical death on our behalf, but not instead of us.
4. The “Second death” was rendered obsolete to those in Christ as they were new creations and guiltless, “clothed” in Christ’s righteousness.
5. God forgives sins (simple forgiveness) upon repentance
6. Christians are not guilty of sins because they are new creations in Christ, clothed in His righteousness

Penal Substitution Theory:

1. God laid our iniquities on Christ, Who bore our sins, died for our sins, was made a curse for us, and was made sin on our behalf.
2. Christ’s suffering and death was God’s wrath poured on Christ (or our sins laid on Christ) instead of us.
3. Christ suffered a death that equated to a “spiritual death” or “second death”
4. God forgives sins by having punished those sins in Christ
5. Christians are guilty, however they are clothed in Christ’s righteousness and the penalty for their guilt was paid when God punished Christ instead of men.

 

It doesn't matter what title each uses. The "Classical view" is called "classical" not because it is correct but because it is was the only Christian view until the 11th century. Within this view there were several ideas, some better than others.

The "Latin view" is called "Latin" because for over four centuries it was found only within, and developed in, Roman Catholic churches (Roman Catholic vs Orthodox Catholic labels). It is natural that the Reformers adopted the "Latin view". Had they come from the Orthodox Church they'd have developed a theory within the Classical view.

 

Yes, all theories of Atonement have much in common. They all believe that God laid our iniquities on Christ, Who bore our sins, died for our sins, was made a curse for us, and was made sin on our behalf. All believe it pleased God to crush Him and that it is by His stripes that we were healed.

You say that is the basis of Penal Substitution Theory. But it is the basis for all other views as well. That is why I find it so odd to find people identifying those particular beliefs and insisting it means those in the past held to Penal Substitution Theory (or any particular view, for that matter). Those are common Christian views regardless of Atonement positions.

I find beliefs that deny penal substitution and yet agree that Jesus had our iniquities laid on Him, and agree with the idea of propitiation in many places. One is in Irenaeus' view of the Cross (Recapitulation). Another is Justin Martyr and his view of God's redeeming of "the human family".

But of more interesting to me is Anabaptist theology (like Simons, Grebel, and John Yoder). Simons and Grebel died before Penal Substitution Theory, but Yoder is more contemporary.

If you want to understand anti-Penal Substitution Theory views I'd recommend reading the Early Church writings or 15th to 20th century Anabaptist theologies. They are all orthodox and the view predates Penal Substitution Theory by 1,500 years.

 

Anabaptist Theology is orthodox. So is Reformed Theology, and so is Roman Catholic Theology).

The Anabaptists were not among the first to advocate Independency and the separation of church. Origen (185-253) explained in Against Celsus why it was against the Christian religion to vote, serve in the military, or hold any type of public office. His reasons are the same as held in Anabaptist Theology.

I have cut and pasted their views (in full). You picked over comments that said things like "Christ bore our sins" and exclaimed "that is the doctrine of Penal Substitution".

Until you are able to discuss writings on their own terms there is no need to copy and paste on this forum.

But if it will help, D. E. H. Whiteley summed it up next nicely when he wrote " if Paul can be said to hold a their of the modus operandi, it is best described as one of salvation through participation: Christ shared all our experiences, sin alone excepted, including death, in order that we, by virtue of our solidarity with him, might share his life."

 

Ok @Martin Marprelate ,

Here are a few views that are not Penal Substitution Theory:

The Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He (the Devil) could indeed shed the blood but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of the One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors.

I'm not saying that is a correct view. But it does show that Christianity is far from united in the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (it is a theory held by a large minority).

 

The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all. You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be. For the human race would have perished utterly had not the Lord and Savior of all the Son of God, come among us to put an end to death. (Athanasius of Alexandria)

 

As it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word, who existed in the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also always present with mankind, was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man liable to suffering, [it follows] that every objection is set aside of those who say, "If our Lord was born at that time, Christ had therefore no previous existence." For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh(1) the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam-- namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God--that we might recover in Christ Jesus.


For as it was not possible that the man who had once for all been conquered, and who had been destroyed through disobedience, could reform himself, and obtain the prize of victory; and as it was also impossible that he could attain to salvation who had fallen under the power of sin,- -the Son effected both these things, being the Word of God, descending from the Father, becoming incarnate, stooping low, even to death, and consummating the arranged plan of our salvation, upon whom [Paul], exhorting us unhesitatingly to believe, again says, "Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring down Christ; or who shall descend into the deep? that is, to liberate Christ again from the dead."(2) Then he continues, "If thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shall be saved."(3) And he renders the reason why the Son of God did these things, saying, "For to this end Christ both lived, and died, and revived, that He might rule over the living and the dead."(4) And again, writing to the Corinthians, he declares, "But we preach Christ Jesus crucified;"(5) and adds, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?"



For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that might receive the adoption of sons? . . . For as He became man in order to undergo temptation, so also was He the Word that He might be glorified; the Word remaining quiescent, that He might be capable of being tempted, dishonoured, crucified, and of suffering death, but the human nature being swallowed up in it (the divine), when it conquered, and endured [without yielding], and performed acts of kindness, and rose again, and was received up [into heaven].


Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man (human nature) to cleave to and to become, one with God. For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished. And again: unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility. For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to man.(2) For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God.


For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God. Those, therefore, who assert that He appeared putatively, and was neither born in the flesh nor truly made man, are as yet under the old condemnation, holding out patronage to sin; for, by their showing, death has not been vanquished, which "reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."(3) But the law coming, which was given by Moses, and testifying of sin that it is a sinner, did truly take away his (death's) kingdom, showing that he was no king, but a robber; and it revealed him as a murderer. It laid, however, a weighty burden upon man, who had sin in himself, showing that he was liable to death. For as the law was spiritual, it merely made sin to stand out in relief, but did not destroy it. For sin had no dominion over the spirit, but over man. For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally moulded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners,(4) and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation. Thus, then, was the Word of God made man, as also Moses says: "God, true are His works."(5) But if, not having been made flesh, He did appear as if flesh, His work was not a true one. But what He did appear, that He also was: God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man; and therefore His works are true.

(Irenaeus)

 

Not really. What you call the "basic elements of Penal Substitution" are passages that we all agree upon.

This was very clear the last time we had this discussion as I agreed with everything you said was Penal Substitution in the writings of the Early Church yet I do not agree with Penal Substitution Theory.


The important thing is the beliefs they held that contradict Penal Substitution Theory.

Again, we all believe that Christ died for our sins, it was God's will to crush Him, His flesh for our flesh, it is by His stripes we are healed, He became a curse for us, He shared in our infirmity, and He is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

The problem isn't with the passages we have in common but the philosophy that makes Penal Substitution a theory.

For example, those who believe in Substitution Theory hold a very similar view with Penal Substitution theorists. BUT it's different as well. They believe Christ's death a substitution and even suffering punishment (Christ was punished for us) but strongly reject His death was penal substitution (Christ was punished instead of us).

You have a tendency to ignore what separates doctrines and emphasize common points when it suits you.

 

Sure there was. Have you not read Van de Geestlijke Verrijsenisse (The Spiritual Resurrection) written in 1536? Or De nieuwe Creature (The New Birth) written in 1537 (revised in 1550)?

If you like Owen you may appreciate De nieuwe Creature as well.

Have you never heard of the Schleitheim Confession (1527)?????

What about the Dordrecht Confession of Faith (1632)?????

What about Weissagung aus heiliger gotlicher geschrift (Prophesy from True, Holy, and Divine Scripture) written in 1530?

What about Hoffman's biblical commentary written in 1526?

You are assuming that because Anabaptists (like today's Baptists) were comprised of different sects that they did not have a common theology (which would mean there is no such thing as Baptist theology). You are wrong.


Edit...the Dordrecht Confession of Faith was 1632....so early 17th Century. You get a pass on that one. But not the rest.