More extracts from early church fathers and others

[Martin Marprelate]

For some reason I don't seem to be able to post on the 'Early Atonemnt View' thread. Perhaps @JonC would kindly look into that for me.
However, I have found some extracts from the ECFs and added one more from a later period:


1. Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, His life for our lives.' [ Letter to the Corinthians VII]
2. Polycarp. '[Christ] took up our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things.' [Letter to the Philippians, Sect. 8]
3. Epistle to Diognetus. 'No, He did not hate us, or discard us, or remember our wrongs; He exercised forbearance and long-suffering! In mercy, of His own accord, lifted up the burden of our sins! Of His own accord He gave us His Son as a ransom for us, the Guiltless for the guilty, the Innocent for the wicked, the Incorruptible for the corruptible, the Immortal for the mortal! Indeed, what else could have covered our sins but His holiness? ... O sweetest exchange! O unfathomable accomplishment! O unexpected blessings -- the sinfulness of many is buried in One who is holy, the holiness of One justifies the many who are sinners!'
4. Irenaeaus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life. His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man.' [Against Heresies, v.i.1-2]
'On our behalf He propitiated the Father, against whom we had sinned, and cancelled our disobedience by His obedience, restoring us to fellowship with our Maker and submission to Him. [ibid. v.xvii.1]
''He bears our sins, and for our sake suffered pain, and we esteemed Him to be in pains and in bruises and in torments.But He was wounded because of our iniquities, and was tormented because of our sins ... judgment has been taken on some, and they have it in the torments of their perdition; but off others and they are thereby saved' [Apostolic Preaching, Sect. 68-69]
{This next one just blew my mind! I could almost have written it myself}
5. Origen. 'In the most recent times, God has manifested His righteousness and given Christ to be our redemption. He has made Him to be our propitiator ... for God is just, and therefore could not justify the unjust. Therefore He required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him, those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified. [Commentary on Romans 3:25-26]
6. Augustine of Hippo. 'Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment that follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment....... As He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.' [Against Faustus, Book XIV, 4, 6]
The following is somewhat later, but may still be helpful.
7. Gregory the 'Great' (540-604). 'Guilt can be extinguished only by a penal offering to justice .... But how could a man, himself stained with sin, be an offering for sin? Hence a sinless man must be offered. But what man descending in the ordinary course would be free of sin? Hence the Son of God must be born of a virgin, and become a man for us. He assumed our nature without our corruption. He made Himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth for sinners His own body -- a victim without sin, and able both to die, by virtue of His humanity, and to cleanse the guilty upon grounds of justice.' [Morals in Job]

Please note that I don't regard the Church Fathers, or any other human writers, as being proof of any doctrine. The downgrade in doctrine started at or before the deaths of the apostles (Gal. 1:6-9; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7-11; Jude 4). The Bible is our only certain source of truth, as the 1689 Confession tells us. But since the Church Fathers have been mentioned, and some seem to be basing their theology upon them, I thought people might appreciate these extracts.

 

[Zaatar71]

For some reason I don't seem to be able to post on the 'Early Atonemnt View' thread. Perhaps @JonC would kindly look into that for me.
However, I have found some extracts from the ECFs and added one more from a later period:


1. Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, His life for our lives.' [ Letter to the Corinthians VII]
2. Polycarp. '[Christ] took up our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things.' [Letter to the Philippians, Sect. 8]
3. Epistle to Diognetus. 'No, He did not hate us, or discard us, or remember our wrongs; He exercised forbearance and long-suffering! In mercy, of His own accord, lifted up the burden of our sins! Of His own accord He gave us His Son as a ransom for us, the Guiltless for the guilty, the Innocent for the wicked, the Incorruptible for the corruptible, the Immortal for the mortal! Indeed, what else could have covered our sins but His holiness? ... O sweetest exchange! O unfathomable accomplishment! O unexpected blessings -- the sinfulness of many is buried in One who is holy, the holiness of One justifies the many who are sinners!'
4. Irenaeaus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life. His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man.' [Against Heresies, v.i.1-2]
'On our behalf He propitiated the Father, against whom we had sinned, and cancelled our disobedience by His obedience, restoring us to fellowship with our Maker and submission to Him. [ibid. v.xvii.1]
''He bears our sins, and for our sake suffered pain, and we esteemed Him to be in pains and in bruises and in torments.But He was wounded because of our iniquities, and was tormented because of our sins ... judgment has been taken on some, and they have it in the torments of their perdition; but off others and they are thereby saved' [Apostolic Preaching, Sect. 68-69]
{This next one just blew my mind! I could almost have written it myself}
5. Origen. 'In the most recent times, God has manifested His righteousness and given Christ to be our redemption. He has made Him to be our propitiator ... for God is just, and therefore could not justify the unjust. Therefore He required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him, those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified. [Commentary on Romans 3:25-26]
6. Augustine of Hippo. 'Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment that follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment....... As He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.' [Against Faustus, Book XIV, 4, 6]
The following is somewhat later, but may still be helpful.
7. Gregory the 'Great' (540-604). 'Guilt can be extinguished only by a penal offering to justice .... But how could a man, himself stained with sin, be an offering for sin? Hence a sinless man must be offered. But what man descending in the ordinary course would be free of sin? Hence the Son of God must be born of a virgin, and become a man for us. He assumed our nature without our corruption. He made Himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth for sinners His own body -- a victim without sin, and able both to die, by virtue of His humanity, and to cleanse the guilty upon grounds of justice.' [Morals in Job]

Please note that I don't regard the Church Fathers, or any other human writers, as being proof of any doctrine. The downgrade in doctrine started at or before the deaths of the apostles (Gal. 1:6-9; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7-11; Jude 4). The Bible is our only certain source of truth, as the 1689 Confession tells us. But since the Church Fathers have been mentioned, and some seem to be basing their theology upon them, I thought people might appreciate these extracts.

Thanks for this helpful post. I am always leary of those who appeal to ECF's as if a few quotes speaks for thousands of early believers.
None of us were there! We do not know how few people had access to copies of NT. scripture. To make wide sweeping statements, is to write a script of novel that is not accurate. Anyone can re-write history and mold it like a wax nose!
The scriptures were written to us from God, regardless of what second and third generation believers believed or taught. This small sample does show Psa thought was around to some extent.

 

[JonC]

For some reason I don't seem to be able to post on the 'Early Atonemnt View' thread. Perhaps @JonC would kindly look into that for me.

I don't need to look into it. You are excluded.

The reason is I anticipated that you would try to hijack that thread (it was not a debate thread but one to explain a position you fight so hard to keep anybody from knowing).

The idea was that the Classic view (the "ECM") needs to be understood rather than silenced or mischaracterized by Calvinist. Then people can determine which is biblical.

Calvinists tend want to oppress any opposing view in fear others may find it a challenge to their own.

But I believe we should understand each view so that we can evaluate both via Scripture.

So that thread was not a debate. It was offering to explain a position.

 

[JonC]

For some reason I don't seem to be able to post on the 'Early Atonemnt View' thread. Perhaps @JonC would kindly look into that for me.
However, I have found some extracts from the ECFs and added one more from a later period:


1. Clement of Rome. 'In love the Ruler took us to Himself. Because of the love He had towards us, Jesus Christ gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, His life for our lives.' [ Letter to the Corinthians VII]
2. Polycarp. '[Christ] took up our sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things.' [Letter to the Philippians, Sect. 8]
3. Epistle to Diognetus. 'No, He did not hate us, or discard us, or remember our wrongs; He exercised forbearance and long-suffering! In mercy, of His own accord, lifted up the burden of our sins! Of His own accord He gave us His Son as a ransom for us, the Guiltless for the guilty, the Innocent for the wicked, the Incorruptible for the corruptible, the Immortal for the mortal! Indeed, what else could have covered our sins but His holiness? ... O sweetest exchange! O unfathomable accomplishment! O unexpected blessings -- the sinfulness of many is buried in One who is holy, the holiness of One justifies the many who are sinners!'
4. Irenaeaus. 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life. His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man.' [Against Heresies, v.i.1-2]
'On our behalf He propitiated the Father, against whom we had sinned, and cancelled our disobedience by His obedience, restoring us to fellowship with our Maker and submission to Him. [ibid. v.xvii.1]
''He bears our sins, and for our sake suffered pain, and we esteemed Him to be in pains and in bruises and in torments.But He was wounded because of our iniquities, and was tormented because of our sins ... judgment has been taken on some, and they have it in the torments of their perdition; but off others and they are thereby saved' [Apostolic Preaching, Sect. 68-69]
{This next one just blew my mind! I could almost have written it myself}
5. Origen. 'In the most recent times, God has manifested His righteousness and given Christ to be our redemption. He has made Him to be our propitiator ... for God is just, and therefore could not justify the unjust. Therefore He required the intervention of a propitiator, so that by having faith in Him, those who could not be justified by their own works might be justified. [Commentary on Romans 3:25-26]
6. Augustine of Hippo. 'Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment that follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment....... As He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.' [Against Faustus, Book XIV, 4, 6]
The following is somewhat later, but may still be helpful.
7. Gregory the 'Great' (540-604). 'Guilt can be extinguished only by a penal offering to justice .... But how could a man, himself stained with sin, be an offering for sin? Hence a sinless man must be offered. But what man descending in the ordinary course would be free of sin? Hence the Son of God must be born of a virgin, and become a man for us. He assumed our nature without our corruption. He made Himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth for sinners His own body -- a victim without sin, and able both to die, by virtue of His humanity, and to cleanse the guilty upon grounds of justice.' [Morals in Job]

Please note that I don't regard the Church Fathers, or any other human writers, as being proof of any doctrine. The downgrade in doctrine started at or before the deaths of the apostles (Gal. 1:6-9; Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 2:1-2; 1 John 4:1-3; 2 John 7-11; Jude 4). The Bible is our only certain source of truth, as the 1689 Confession tells us. But since the Church Fathers have been mentioned, and some seem to be basing their theology upon them, I thought people might appreciate these extracts.

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

While the Early Church held a view that contradicts the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement there ARE more points of common agreement than not.




We do need to look at how all Christians agree and not just in what separates us.

We ALL agree that a penal substitution exists.

Christ bore our sins, suffered our punishment, the Just for the unjust, thar we would be reconciled to God and escape the wrath to come at Judgment.


You ate right that we argue about a small difference.

While you view Jesus as suffering God's punishment for our sins the Early Christians viewed Jesus as suffering the punishment of Satan.

While this small difference may effect doctrine in a huge way, we can also appreciate what we have in common. The language is the same but the framework os different.

For that reason I do like to include both where they agree and disagree with the theory. That way we can appreciate their views in full.

So I would have included quotes that also explain their differences with the theory as well....like these:

“This [passage, Isaiah 53] shows the unrighteous rage of the devil when he unleashed himself on our Savior. For although there was no sin found in His being according to the flesh, but that flesh remained sinless, the devil as if [Christ] were a sinner killed Him. And in so doing manifested the totality of his wickedness. But for this very reason, salvation came for those who had fallen into sin.”


The devil was conquered by his own trophy of victory. The devil jumped for joy … by seducing the first man, he slew him; by slaying the last man [Christ], he lost the first from his snare…The devil jumped for joy when Christ died,; and by that very death of Christ the devil was overcome




But yes, penal substitution theorists, substitution theorists, satisfaction theorists, recapitulation, and the Early Church did have a lot im common even though they disagreed.

 

[DaveXR650]

While you view Jesus as suffering God's punishment for our sins the Early Christians viewed Jesus as suffering the punishment of Satan.

While this small difference may effect doctrine in a huge way, we can also appreciate what we have in common. The language is the same but the framework os different.

The way I would look at that is that scripture says this was a planned thing - that Jesus would be delivered into the hands of wicked men and suffer. And I don't think it's far fetched to say Satan was involved. But if it is also true, as you say here:

We ALL agree that a penal substitution exists.

Christ bore our sins, suffered our punishment, the Just for the unjust, thar we would be reconciled to God and escape the wrath to come at Judgment.

Then this has to be ultimately done as God has planned, of course using the hands of wicked men, maybe even Satan. It is a stretch I think to claim that our sins were washed away by something that was done by Satan. Well, then what happened? Did God say that he has decided later that, looking at what happened, he would declare that sufficient atonement for our sin? What I mean is this. You cannot say on one hand that you agree that Jesus took our sins upon himself, even acting as a substitute, as Bercot freely admits in his videos - yet at the same time claim that this was not God's will but Satan's.

 

[DaveXR650]

I went back and found this. If it works it should start right at the 44 minute mark. If it doesn't then move it there if you don't want to hear the whole thing. What I was trying to say above is that to me, in my modern systematic mind, he has made a direct contradiction by claiming that this was the work of Satan, and yet it was God's plan to as he himself says, have Jesus take our sins upon his own body on the cross. If that indeed was the purpose, then that indeed was the plan.

And I have no problem with the idea of listing and expounding upon every mention of the cross and the atonement in all of it's aspects. What has surprised me is that like above, there is clear indication that early church fathers were indeed thinking of our sin and of Christ taking the wrath and punishment of it upon himself on the cross. Also, in reading the writings of PSA advocates I notice that they, when writing about the atonement, also go into many other aspects of it as well, whether it be John Owen, or Torrance, or Stott.

I actually am familiar with Bercot, and tend to like him. But what he tends to do is give the early church writers a bye and say that they did not feel the need to systematize everything, which I agree with. The problem is, if you say that, then you cannot then say something that undermines PSA when to do so you have to do the thing you claim to be above - that is claim one thing opposes another, logically, as an argument against PSA. The fact is, using Bercot's logic is fine as long as you also accept the quotes Martin has provided which clearly indicate PSA. And, using Bercot's own methodology - just leave it at that.

 

[JonC]

The way I would look at that is that scripture says this was a planned thing - that Jesus would be delivered into the hands of wicked men and suffer. And I don't think it's far fetched to say Satan was involved. But if it is also true, as you say here:

Then this has to be ultimately done as God has planned, of course using the hands of wicked men, maybe even Satan. It is a stretch I think to claim that our sins were washed away by something that was done by Satan. Well, then what happened? Did God say that he has decided later that, looking at what happened, he would declare that sufficient atonement for our sin? What I mean is this. You cannot say on one hand that you agree that Jesus took our sins upon himself, even acting as a substitute, as Bercot freely admits in his videos - yet at the same time claim that this was not God's will but Satan's.

Everything is according to God's plan. We do not say God forced Adam to eat of the tree, but this was God's plan.

And obviously God planned the cross. He offered His Son.

 

[DaveXR650]

Everything is according to God's plan. We do not say God forced Adam to eat of the tree, but this was God's plan.

And obviously God planned the cross. He offered His Son.

"I believe that Satan put him on the cross. I believe that he died there because of the wickedness of Satan".
"I believe he died there to protect us from the wrath of Satan". I'll say it again. Everyone needs to go back and listen to this moment. Bercot says this is the only difference. It is a big difference, and he has formulated it in a way that contradicts those quotes above.

'On our behalf He propitiated the Father, against whom we had sinned, and cancelled our disobedience by His obedience, restoring us to fellowship with our Maker and submission to Him.

This is completely different from what is said above. And this is part of the quote from an early church father. You guys get into the weeds trying to do away with penal substitution. Bercot would be OK if he just stuck with his original thesis of the ECF's simply having a range of non systematized statements on the atonement. But what he does there is flat out wrong.

 

[JonC]

"I believe he died there to protect us from the wrath of Satan". I'll say it again. Everyone needs to go back and listen to this moment. Bercot says this is the only difference.

That interview is not the best at understanding the Classic view (it is too much answering questions rather than explaining). The other video is much better (this one he just tells us what the Early Church taught).

These are what he said are the main differences (time stamp in parentheses):

1. They believed God literally forgives sins rather than punishing sins on Christ to satisfy justice (23:11)

2. They believed Jesus gave His life as a ransom to Satan (23:50)

3. They viewed Jesus sacrifice as heroic (in type) rather than ritualistic (33:18)

4. They viewed Christ’s blood as cleansing us from sins rather than paying a debt (35:44)


What you are talking about is at 45:05 where he is talking about an encounter with a person at the Roxbury Holiness Camp. He was comparing what was said about Jesus being crucified (that they both believe in the cross, in His sacrificial death, that we are redeemed through his blood, that our sins were placed ton Him and nailed to the cross. He drew on the difference between who put Him there.

I agree and disagree with him. We all, if we are Christian, believe that Christ died to protect us from Satan’s wrath. Nobody denies we were freed from that bondage. And obviously he was not saying we do not escape God’s wrath to come in Christ.

But he was simply relating how similar Penal Substitution Theory is to the Classic view. And he is right.

We both believe that Jesus bore our sins as our substitute and was punished in our place. We disagree on who was punishing Him, and the type of substitute. But the gospel is the same.

 

[JonC]

We see, then , the salvation of the world on Christ’s death on the cross, because in His passion and death Jesus freely took upon Himself the penalty of the sin of every human being that has ever walked the face of the Earth. He took upon Himself the consequences of our unrighteousness that we might be given freely the gift of His righteousness. He took upon Himself our condemnation that we might be granted His justification. He took upon Himself our death, that we might be delivered His eternal life.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't need to look into it. You are excluded.

The reason is I anticipated that you would try to hijack that thread (it was not a debate thread but one to explain a position you fight so hard to keep anybody from knowing).

The idea was that the Classic view (the "ECM") needs to be understood rather than silenced or mischaracterized by Calvinist. Then people can determine which is biblical.

Calvinists tend want to oppress any opposing view in fear others may find it a challenge to their own.

And @JonC wants to oppress any opposing view that he may find a challenge. What is it about the term "Discussion forum" that you find so threatening? Kim Jon Un and Putin would be proud of you.

But I believe we should understand each view so that we can evaluate both via Scripture.

So that thread was not a debate. It was offering to explain a position.

It was an attempt to put forward your view and prevent others from critiquing it.

 

[JonC]

And @JonC wants to oppress any opposing view that he may find a challenge. What is it about the term "Discussion forum" that you find so threatening? Kim Jon Un and Putin would be proud of you.

It was an attempt to put forward your view and prevent others from critiquing it.

Lol...this post is evidence of why you cannot post on that thread.

You simply are not the type of person that can discuss or even understand views other than your own. Your intent may be good at the start, but you would end up just trying to insert and defend your own view.

Like I said, you are more than welcome to start a thread about your theory or one you have held in the past.

 

[DaveXR650]

And @JonC wants to oppress any opposing view that he may find a challenge. What is it about the term "Discussion forum" that you find so threatening? Kim Jon Un and Putin would be proud of you.

You know. I wouldn't mind at all if the moderators on this site were more strict in hi jacking threads. People have every right to discuss the early church's view of the atonement without us turning it into an argument about penal substitution. But there are two problems with that. First is this:

We both believe that Jesus bore our sins as our substitute and was punished in our place. We disagree on who was punishing Him, and the type of substitute. But the gospel is the same.

The schools of thought are overlapping. Combine that with what Bercot said in the video I posted above about the differences, and add to the quotes Martin posted from the early churchmen and you see how false it is to make PSA off limits in such discussions as it has always been an integral part of understanding the atonement.

The other thing is that the animosity of a moderator towards PSA, in spite of all the conciliatory rhetoric by many of the ones against it, is palpable. On the thread that we are all banned from, in post 19 a guy says he "hates" PSA. I thought at first that Jon would knock that off but no, that is allowed, along with other attacks on PSA, on a thread supposedly devoted to not doing exactly that. So what we really have there, is a thread devoted to arguing PSA, unless the argument is for PSA, then it is banned.

 

[DaveXR650]

We see, then , the salvation of the world on Christ’s death on the cross, because in His passion and death Jesus freely took upon Himself the penalty of the sin of every human being that has ever walked the face of the Earth. He took upon Himself the consequences of our unrighteousness that we might be given freely the gift of His righteousness. He took upon Himself our condemnation that we might be granted His justification. He took upon Himself our death, that we might be delivered His eternal life.

By the way, I agree with that as written. And I would add, that if you truly look at what he is saying, and compare it with the video I posted earlier of Craig and Boyd discussing these issues, and then take what N.T. Wright says in the video posted elsewhere and compare that to other videos where Wright is asked specifically about PSA and you see a pattern in each case.

That is, the more you look into this, the more you move to penal substitutionary atonement as being at the very core of the atonement. They discover that in their research. It is especially evident in Boyd talking to or more like being schooled, by Craig, and that is why you see it developing in church history. But in church history, until it is settled as to exactly who Jesus really is in relation to the Father, you cannot have penal substitution accurately taught as a standard doctrine. And it is also true that if you live in a world where life is perceived, not incorrectly, as a constant battle with evil spirits and the forces of darkness, it is no wonder the ECF's emphasized what they did. Now, I think in Western modern cultures the emphasis is correctly on our own offense and personal sin and our "dethroning" of God, which was the original sin anyway. That's just my thoughts at any rate.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

While the Early Church held a view that contradicts the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement there ARE more points of common agreement than not.

The early church agrees with PSA in most of its writings, and does not contradict it. In Pierced for our Transgressions by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, the authors write, "In truth the weight of evidence is quite overwhelming, and it is worth reflecting on the extracts cited in the following pages in order to feel the full weight of it. The myth of the 'late development' of penal substitution has persisted for quite long enough. It is time to put an end to it." And while I have posted some of the extracts from that book, more than half have come from elsewhere. It is a simple matter to browse through, say, Henry Bettenson's The early Church Fathers and find plenty of other examples.
Since Pierced for our Transgressions is a British book, some folk here may be unaware of it an unfamiliar with the authors. However, the book comes with a foreword by John Piper and lengthy commendations from Don Carson, Mark Dever, Dale Ralph Davis, Sinclair Ferguson, John Frame, Timothy George, R. Kent Highes, Trumper Longman III, C.J. Mahaney, the late Roger Nichole and J.I. Packer, Mike Pilavachi, Tom Schreiner, Mark Thompson, Carl Trueman, Stuart Townend and David Wells as well as many British and Australian preachers and theologians.

We do need to look at how all Christians agree and not just in what separates us.

Well that would be good, but difficult when you exclude others (and it's not just me as you know very well!) from threads where you want to make your own points without anyone pointing out your errors. What you want to try and say is that all Christians agree with you - and they don't!

We ALL agree that a penal substitution exists.

Christ bore our sins, suffered our punishment, the Just for the unjust, thar we would be reconciled to God and escape the wrath to come at Judgment.

This is a major concession from you that has shown up in some more recent posts. The very basis of Penal Substitution is that Christ suffered our punishment in order to reconcile us to God.
If we want to find common ground, perhaps you will comply with my request to explain exactly where you differ from the definition of PSA that I have been using: The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

You ate right that we argue about a small difference.

While you view Jesus as suffering God's punishment for our sins the Early Christians viewed Jesus as suffering the punishment of Satan.

While this small difference may effect doctrine in a huge way, we can also appreciate what we have in common. The language is the same but the framework os different.

For that reason I do like to include both where they agree and disagree with the theory. That way we can appreciate their views in full.

So I would have included quotes that also explain their differences with the theory as well....like these:

“This [passage, Isaiah 53] shows the unrighteous rage of the devil when he unleashed himself on our Savior. For although there was no sin found in His being according to the flesh, but that flesh remained sinless, the devil as if [Christ] were a sinner killed Him. And in so doing manifested the totality of his wickedness. But for this very reason, salvation came for those who had fallen into sin.”

The devil was conquered by his own trophy of victory. The devil jumped for joy … by seducing the first man, he slew him; by slaying the last man [Christ], he lost the first from his snare…The devil jumped for joy when Christ died,; and by that very death of Christ the devil was overcome

It is interesting that Isaiah 53 makes no mention whatsoever of Satan, and makes it very clear that it was the LORD (i.e. the triune God) Himself who killed Christ, which is something that Justin Martyr, for exmple, understood very well

But yes, penal substitution theorists, substitution theorists, satisfaction theorists, recapitulation, and the Early Church did have a lot im common even though they disagreed.

There may be agreement on substantial matters, but I am in no doubt whatsoever that if the Lord Jesus has not taken our sins upon Himself and paid the penalty for them in full on the cross, then we shall have to pay the penalty for them ourselves. Whether we need to believe that in order to be saved I do not know, but of that fact I am certain. But praise God, our Lord has done these things, and there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I want to add another quotation from the ECFs which I have posted before, but I think it is so important it bears repeating.

Jutin Martyr. 'Then Trypho [the Jew] remarked, "Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures that you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of [Nun] was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view. But whether Christ sould be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear indeed that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer, but we wish to learn if you can prove to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law."'
[Justin replied] 'Though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved. ...... For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, "Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them." And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others, have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes?
If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him[self] the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves.?' [Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, sects. lxxxix, xciv]

Eusebius of Caesarea. 'And the Lamb of God ... 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, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, th insults and the dishonour which were due to us, and drew down on Himselfthe appointed curse, being made a curse for us.' [Proof of the Gospel, vol. 2]

Would anyone like to comment on the number of times Satan appears in either of these extracts?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You know. I wouldn't mind at all if the moderators on this site were more strict in hi jacking threads. People have every right to discuss the early church's view of the atonement without us turning it into an argument about penal substitution. But there are two problems with that. First is this:

The schools of thought are overlapping. Combine that with what Bercot said in the video I posted above about the differences, and add to the quotes Martin posted from the early churchmen and you see how false it is to make PSA off limits in such discussions as it has always been an integral part of understanding the atonement.

The other thing is that the animosity of a moderator towards PSA, in spite of all the conciliatory rhetoric by many of the ones against it, is palpable. On the thread that we are all banned from, in post 19 a guy says he "hates" PSA. I thought at first that Jon would knock that off but no, that is allowed, along with other attacks on PSA, on a thread supposedly devoted to not doing exactly that. So what we really have there, is a thread devoted to arguing PSA, unless the argument is for PSA, then it is banned.

I agree absolutely. But when a [member] starts a thread for the very purpose of pushing his own viewpoint and denies others the opportunity to reply, that is simply not right.

 

[JonC]

... purpose of pushing his own viewpoint and denies others the opportunity to reply, that is simply not right.

I see your confusion.

On the thread explaining the Classic view of the Atonement I am not pushing that view onto others. I realize that is how you see any position other than your own - as an attack you must defend against. And that is exactly why you are not on the thread.

I do not care if people hold another view. I have Calvinist friends who hold Penal Substitution Theory. I have Luthern friends who hold Satisfaction Theory. And I have Baptist friends who hold my position.

We (my friends who enjoy discussing our faith) all believe that Christ bore our sins bodily, it pleased God to crush Him, He died for our sins and by His stripes we are healed.

But we do not share the same understanding on how that occurred.

Yet we understand where we differ because we have taken the time to understand one another without seeing it as a battle.

We do not see one another as enemies we must attack but as brothers who simply hold a different understanding.


That thread was not designed to be a place for you to insist on your understanding and attack others.

Whether the Classic view is right or wrong is not the topic of that thread. The topic is to explain and answer questions so that it is understood.

@Charlie24 has participated the most so far so I will use him as an example of integrity in posting. I think he understands that I am not trying to make him accept the Classc view but instead want others to understand the position.

I also want people to understand Penal Substitution Theory and Satisfaction Theory as then they would know the three main views, realize other views exist, and then hold which ever they view as biblical.

I just do not believe it is good to stay in an echo chamber and pretend other Christians do not exist. When we understand one another we can fellowship and discuss things as brothers without attacking one another.

That is why I encourage you to start a thread to explain Penal Substitution Theory.

I encourage any Lutherans (if we have any....I don't think we do) to explain Satisfaction Theory.


I did not join this form for it to be infighting and attacks against Christians.

I joined thinking it would be a place where Christians could explain their views without worrying about being attacked for their understanding because they were surrounded by fellow believers.

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate

Here is a summary of what the Early Church held:

We see the salvation of the world in Christ’s death on the cross, because in His suffering and death Jesus freely took upon Himself the penalty of the sin of every human being that has ever walked the face of the Earth. He took upon Himself our bondage that we might be freed from those bonds. He took upon Himself our oppression that we might share in His victory over evil. He took upon Himself the consequences of our unrighteousness that we might be given freely the gift of His righteousness. He took upon Himself our condemnation that we might be granted His justification. He took upon Himself our death, that we might receive His eternal life.

They did not hold Penal Substitution

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate

Here is a summary of what the Early Church held:

Who says? I'm asking because I don't know. You don't tell us.
How much does it agree with the various extracts from the ECFs that I have posted?

We

So who are 'we'? Is this a quotation from one of the ECFs speaking for all the other ECFS, even the ones who weren't born when this was written? Who is it by? Is it from that well-known ECF, @JonC? I don't know. You don't tell us.

see the salvation of the world in Christ’s death on the cross, because in His suffering and death Jesus freely took upon Himself the penalty of the sin of every human being that has ever walked the face of the Earth. He took upon Himself our bondage that we might be freed from those bonds.

So every human being that has ever walked on the face of the Earth has had his penalty paid by Christ? So every single person is saved?
But more than that, on what basis did He do that? Is this not saying that Christ pays a penalty on behalf of all these people so that they don't pay it? How is that not Penal Substitution?

He took upon Himself our oppression that we might share in His victory over evil. He took upon Himself the consequences of our unrighteousness that we might be given freely the gift of His righteousness. He took upon Himself our condemnation that we might be granted His justification. He took upon Himself our death, that we might receive His eternal life.

They did not hold Penal Substitution

Actually, on the basis of what you have written here, 'they' absolutely did hold to Penal Substitution. He takes on our condemnation; we get His justification. How is that not P.S.? It may not be your theory, but it is the Lord Jesus taking our sins (penal) and we receiving His eternal life (substitution).