More extracts from early church fathers and others

[JonC]

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.

Kinda, but not quite.

All Christian views of the Atonement share common beliefs because they use the same source (Scripture). But what makes them distinct is where they differ.

Satisfaction Theory is very close to Penal Substitution Theory. But they are different.

These theories do not overlap one another. They simply share the same Scripture, which also means they share a lot of the same language. But they often mean different things by that shared language.

So we have to allow these different views to speak for themselves.

When Penal Substitution says Jesus suffered our punishment we have to view it as suffering the punishment of God. When the Classic view says Jesus suffered our punishment we have to view it as Satan's punishment.

The meaning is different.

Think about how close Luther's view is to Penal Substitution. It sounds exactly the same. But when you look at the type of punishment (satisfactory punishment vs simple punishment) it is different....although I do not see that difference to matter much in the end.

Allow threads to exist that offer and explain opposing views. Ask to understand. Answer to clarify. Allow those views to exist.

Not every thread has to be a debate. Edification is not bad, even if it is just understanding what other Christians believe.

Differences in understanding do not have to be divisions. We do not have to constantly attack and insist on our position. There is room to understand other views.

And explaining one's position is not pushing one's own agenda. The agenda is when members cannot tolerate the existence of another view and must attack to silence that view.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

On the thread explaining the Classic view of the Atonement I am not pushing that view onto others.

I think you are.

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.

This is why I'm not on the thread: so that you can push your position without the irritation of having to defend it. Here's an example:

A good example of how the Early Church viewed Christ’s suffering in a different way than many do in the Western Christianity (it is still the view within Eastern Christianity and traditional Anabaptist doctrine):

“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.” Theodore of Heraclea

This is so bad, it's almost unbelievable! There is no mention of the devil anywhere in Isaiah 53. The chapter does tell us who killed our Lord, and it wasn't the devil.

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

But you have seen me as an enemy for a long time, because I won't knuckle under to your faulty views. Twice I have suggested to you that we tone down the rhetoric, and you have never so much as replied. Also, you cheerfully permit any form of abuse to my view without giving me the right to reply. For instance:

PSA is an abominable doctrine which has done and continues to do great harm to the Body of Christ and even to God Himself. What a monstrosity PSA is!

But if I can't join in your cosy coterie, why don't you butt out of mine? You have made nine posts on MY thread, and inflicted a rubbish video on it as well, whilst I have made only seven. How come I can't criticize you on your thread, but you can come in and mess up mine. Go on; push off! Leave me alone!

 

[JonC]

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.

Thank you. This was the example I was looking for from you.

Those words came from somebody who rejects the Penal Substitution Theory. It is what I believe (my words).

But they also came from (with the exception of suffering oppression) from an Eastern Orthodox Church explaining their faith. They are very much against PSA.

You assumed those statements are PSA because you use the sane words. But you meaning and my meaning are different.

You do the same with the Eary Church writings. You would post quotes akin to my statement you took as PSA but dismiss their writings that explain their understanding of those words.

For those who do not know, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not hold PSA even though they share the same Scripture (actually they stayed with the LXX, but basically the same) and use similar words.

 

[JonC]

You have made nine posts on MY thread, whilst I have made only seven How come I can't criticize you on your thread, but you can come in and mess up mine. Go on; push off! Leave me alone!

Because we do not own the threads. Anybody who wants to learn of the Clasdic position can participate on that thread with the condition that it is purposed to explain a position rather than debate its validity.

You can start one on Penal Substitution Theory. Just make that clarification in the OP - that it is not a debate but to explain.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Because we do not own the threads. Anybody who wants to learn of the Clasdic position can participate on that thread with the condition that it is purposed to explain a position rather than debate its validity.

You can start one on Penal Substitution Theory. Just make that clarification in the OP - that it is not a debate but to explain.

You made no clarification on the 'Early Atonement' thread. [False accusation removed] But that's eleven posts you've made now with no attempt whatsoever to comment on any of the ECFs that I have quoted. You're not debating here; you're trolling! Go and annoy someone else!

 

[JonC]

You made no clarification on the 'Early Atonement' thread.

If I did not, then I will clarify. This was actually discussed prior to me starting the thread (my desire to make this a place where Christians can explain their views without being attacked). Only a few can't post there. Most members can.

The issue was brought up about how it could be done and the solution was to restrict it from thise who are unable to allow opposing views to be expressed and remove offendinh posts that slip by.

 

[JonC]

You made no clarification on the 'Early Atonement' thread.

Thanks. You were right. I forgot to note that in the OP and it has been fixed.

 

[JonC]

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.

By your logic we cannot know Jesus was resurrected because we were not there. We have the testimony of those who were there, as we have volumes of writings from the Early Church (we actually have more writings from the Early Church stating what they believed than we have in the NT text).

The Early Church defended their faith in their writings. They explained their faith in their writings. We can know what they believed by reading what they said they believed.

Now, their writings are not Scripture. They could have misunderstandings. I am sure they did.

There are two schools of thought.

1. The beliefs closer to the events more accurately reflect truth as through time truth gave way to theologies and theory.

2. The beluefs farther from the events more accurately reflect truth as through theological development we move closer to understanding the event.

I believe the first, you the second.

But we do not have to pretend that all we have are sparse quotes from the Early Church. We have volumes.

 

[easternstar]

JonC, thanks very much for all your posts on the early church view of the atonement.
It's really laughable to see all the flailing about, trying to make the ECF seem to support PSA, a doctrine that didn't exist at the time, proof of which being that neither the Eastern branch nor the Western (Roman) branch held the doctrine. So is MP trying to convince us that the ECF who were members of those churches that didn't teach or even know of PSA, that those ECF held to PSA? This is quite ludicrous! He is simply projecting his own PSA biases onto the ECF and trying to make them say something they didn't, to justify his erroneous claim that PSA is scriptural and taught by the early church and the ECF.

 

[JonC]

JonC, thanks very much for all your posts on the early church view of the atonement.
It's really laughable to see all the flailing about, trying to make the ECF seem to support PSA, a doctrine that didn't exist at the time, proof of which being that neither the Eastern branch nor the Western (Roman) branch held the doctrine. So is MP trying to convince us that the ECF who were members of those churches that didn't teach or even know of PSA, that those ECF held to PSA? This is quite ludicrous! He is simply projecting his own PSA biases onto the ECF and trying to make them say something they didn't, to justify his erroneous claim that PSA is scriptural and taught by the early church and the ECF.

It is also sad. That was my point in posting this:

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.

@Martin Marprelate reads that as PSA, the very opposite of what it was written to be. The reason people see a 16th century theory in earlier writings is they make assumotions and dismiss what they disagree with

It was not like this decades ago. Calvinists, when I was much younger, were more honest with history and a lot more careful with the ancient writings. They simply believed the Early Church misunderstood.

But today truth is viewed as subjective. Nobody wants truth. They want affirmation.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

"Jesus freely took upon Himself the penalty of the sin of every human being that has ever walked the face of the Earth". You have "substitution" there. And you have "penal" as in penalty. Unless you have Satan as handing out penalties then you do indeed have penal substitution there.

Now, not being a complete novice, I realize that as a Calvinist Martin would object to the universality of the first statement. But granting that, I want to know how that is not descriptive of penal substitution.

And again, the rest of the quote is not in dispute. Please do not try to say that because penal substitution does not include the rest of the quote that the first part cannot describe penal substitution. I want to know why the part I quoted does not describe penal substitution. And please don't go again into a ramble on how we all die and death is a consequence not a penalty and so on. Just address the actual quote listed.

 

[easternstar]

It is also sad. That was my point in posting this:

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.

@Martin Marprelate reads that as PSA, the very opposite of what it was written to be. The reason people see a 16th century theory in earlier writings is they make assumotions and dismiss what they disagree with

It was not like this decades ago. Calvinists, when I was much younger, were more honest with history and a lot more careful with the ancient writings. They simply believed the Early Church misunderstood.

But today truth is viewed as subjective. Nobody wants truth. They want affirmation.

You said a mouthful.

 

[JonC]

"Jesus freely took upon Himself the penalty of the sin of every human being that has ever walked the face of the Earth". You have "substitution" there. And you have "penal" as in penalty. Unless you have Satan as handing out penalties then you do indeed have penal substitution there.

But what that statement means is Jesus took upon Himself the punishment of Satan.

My point is @Martin Marprelate reads this and concludes that whoever wrote it believed PSA when in fact they did not (that particular statement was written by an Eastern Orthodox teacher explaining their view as opposed to PSA).

"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"

You have to look at beliefs in the full. I wrote those two statements to explain my belief, which is NOT PSA. But by your way of readoning I hold PSA because I wrote those words of my belief.


What you guys are doing is not honest to history. You quote statements similar to that from people like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr saying they held PSA while ignoring that they attributed this punishment to Satan (which, like you just said, makes it not PSA).


Decades ago people who held PSA were more honest. They accepted the Early Church writings as expressing their belief, without removing parts that define their belief differently. They simply said the Early Church misunderstood - which is a fair argument.

 

[JonC]

@Dave G

My question is why would you believe the statement I gave describing, as a conclusion, my belief is PSA when it is really a belief that is common to all Christian views?

What makes PSA is not what it shares with the Classic view, with Satisfaction Theory, with Substitution Theory, etc. What makes PSA is in what makes it different.

Absolutely none of that statement came from PSA. In fact, ALL of it came from an explanation that rejects PSA.

Think about it. Reason with me for a minute.

Read these two statements:

"[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”

You guys (especially @Martin Marprelate ) find quotes from these men of common Christian belief (like "He took upon Himself the consequences of our unrighteousness that we might be given freely the gift of His righteousness.") and declare they believed PSA.

It is not an honest presentation of what they believe because of what you guys willingly ignore to assume they meant those statements as you view them.


Now, it is great to look for common ground, abd there is a lot of common ground. But it is not good to pretend differences do not exist.

 

[easternstar]

@Dave G

My question is why would you believe the statement I gave describing, as a conclusion, my belief is PSA when it is really a belief that is common to all Christian views?

What makes PSA is not what it shares with the Classic view, with Satisfaction Theory, with Substitution Theory, etc. What makes PSA is in what makes it different.

Absolutely none of that statement came from PSA. In fact, ALL of it came from an explanation that rejects PSA.

Think about it. Reason with me for a minute.

Read these two statements:

"[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”

You guys (especially @Martin Marprelate ) find quotes from these men of common Christian belief (like "He took upon Himself the consequences of our unrighteousness that we might be given freely the gift of His righteousness.") and declare they believed PSA.

It is not an honest presentation of what they believe because of what you guys willingly ignore to assume they meant those statements as you view them.


Now, it is great to look for common ground, abd there is a lot of common ground. But it is not good to pretend differences do not exist.

The total absence of PSA from the first 1500 years of Christianity proves it is not the Gospel. That's why many of it's advocates try so hard to connect the doctrine to the early church when no connection exists -- without this manufactured and misrepresented connection, their house of cards falls.
Also, it has already been shown that Isaiah 53 does not teach PSA. If it did, the early churches would have seen it there and taught it, but they didn't.
As I said, PSA was a doctrine of its times. It is not the scriptural or early church view of God or Jesus Christ. Nor was it the view of 1500 years of church history. I thank God for that. I can only be a Christian because PSA is not the Gospel.

 

[DaveXR650]

But what that statement means is Jesus took upon Himself the punishment of Satan.

No. You do not have the right to say that. Who are you to interpret that as such? If you were saying that Satan did what he did to Christ and only meant that he factually did it then that would be one thing. It could even mean that in the same way the Babylonians attacked Israel - but it was a judgement of God.

The fact is, with what you are claiming, any statement made by an early church father that indicates what Jesus was suffered was the result of judgement against us by the Father on account of our sin, negates your view.

He has made Him to be our propitiator ... for God is just, and therefore could not justify the unjust.

. 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]

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;

What Jesus bore was God's just judgment against what we had done. Satan wishes us evil, and comes after us, in accusation, temptation, deception. But just judgement against us is from God's point of view. Satan is not commissioned as a judge. Even if you could make a case for Satan being the actual one doing the abuse on the cross your theory still falls apart if the abuse is due to a just judgement against us.

 

[DaveXR650]

By the way @JonC . Don't use Dave G as me. The poor guy isn't in on this so far.

 

[JonC]

No. You do not have the right to say that. Who are you to interpret that as such?

I have every right to say it means that because I was the one who wrote the statement to explain my belief.

That is my point.

You and Martin insist when the Early Church wrote similar things it proves they held PSA but only because you leave out theor writings explaining that Christ suffered Satan's wrath.

What Jesus bore was God's just judgment against what we had done.

That is what YOU believe. And that is fine. But you do not need to project that on me or other writers.

You take advantage that those writers are dead and cannot post on this form their insistence Christ unjustly suffered Satan's wrath which was the way Christ broke his bandage over us. So I post their own words because they are not here. Yet you still ignore them abd press on, which is odd.

You said that my own words, if they were saying the cross was Christ unjustly suffering Satan's wrath, would mean it was not PSA.


I provided Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen,. etc stating that the cross was Christ unjustly suffering Satan's wrath. You guys ignored that and kept misrepresenting them because - like me - they used phrases you can use in your theology as well.

That is wrong. It is a form of dishonesty (if they were alive today and this were a different venue they could take you to court and win).


When I say I believe that "Jesus freely took upon Himself the penalty of the sin of every human being that has ever walked the face of the Earth" and have repeatedly said "I believe Jesus unjustly was punished with the penalty we would receive from Satan - death from the one who holds the power of death, that is the devil", and you say that statement does not mean the penalty is from Satan....that is just dealing falsely with me.


NOW, if you were to say you belueve Jesus suffered our punishment then it would mean God's wrath because you would be expressing your belief.

 

[JonC]

By the way @JonC . Don't use Dave G as me. The poor guy isn't in on this so far.

Sorry @Dave G . I hit the wrong button.

 

[DaveXR650]

That is what YOU believe. And that is fine. But you do not need to project that on me or other writers.

I could be projecting it. And you could be projecting it too. We all agree, the guys you post, the sources I use, everyone agrees on this: the early church did not articulate a systematic explanation of the atonement, nor have a unified position on it.

So, we look at their writings. I suggest, and I didn't come up with it myself, that things the ECF's wrote about the atonement do indicate penal substitution. I not saying it was their only, or main explanation. But I am saying that the writings seem to indicate penal substitution.

Satan's wrath which was the way Christ broke his bandage over us.

That is not my point. I think you are wrong on this and to the extent they did believe that, they are wrong too, but this does not mean they don't discuss penal substitution and some of the quotes @Martin Marprelate put up show this.

NOW, if you were to say you belueve Jesus suffered our punishment then it would mean God's wrath because you would be expressing your belief.

Yes. My whole point is that if anyone, when looking at the above quotes from ECF's, or other quotes which are available - if you find evidence that the "penalty" involved is a penalty for our sin based upon God's judgement (not Satan's), and thus what Jesus suffered was ultimately caused by God, then you have the makings of PSA just as the Reformers articulated it.

And I say that you do, even from the quotes above.