Thanks for taking the time for a detailed reply and I appreciate that. But then, there was I take it no writing where the verse saying he bore our sins in his own body should not be thought of as substitution? In other words, there was no concept of "substitution" as being an error of interpretaton that was ever discussed? I admit that it could be that the idea of sustitution was so foreign to them that the idea never occurred to anyone. The problem is that I think that there are several mentions of what appears to be an "exchange" or something similar so I don't think that was the case. Are there any other ECF writings you know of where they discuss what it means to bear our sins in specific terms and related directly to that particular verse?
What about later theologians? I don't mean liberal or modernists, but orthodox or anabaptist for example? Do you have a knowledge of any of them where they actually take that argument - that he bore our sin as being true, yet that cannot be said to be substitution. It's just that to me it seems completely obvious that someone else bearing our sin is by definition, substitution, whereas bearing our sin in solidarity with us would simply not be properly said to be bearing our sin even though it might be bearing the same punishment or trial. I would just like to know if this methodology is done by anyone else, since this thread is about other theologians or preachers and you brought up, once again, this concept.
You are welcome.
I agree - we cannot prove a negative.
For example, we cannot prove that Jesus did not own a dog. Some may insist otherwise and demand a passage stating Jesus did not own such a dog. But the idea Jesus owned a dog is not in the biblical text itself. It would be an addition to the text.
Likewise, we can prove that prior to the 16th century Jesus bearing our sins was viewed as Jesus sharing in our humanity. But we cannot prove they did not also believe simple substitution and just didn't specify thos belief because this would be proving a negative.
We can prove this type of substitution ("instead of") did not exist within mainstream Christianity from the 9th century to the 16th century because we have more detailed writings about atonement theories.
Anselm developed Substitution Theory but this was not simple substitution (not "instead of"). It was representative substitution which was presented but not defended (the assumption being it existed prior to Amselm). Christ was man's representative substitute restoring through obedience the honor man had stolen from God.
Abelard disagreed with Anselm and completely abandoned substitution in favor if influence (demonstrating the way).
With Aquinas' Satisfaction Theory he went to great lengths defending his philosophy from being called "heresy" by qualifying the type of substitution and type of punishment (avoiding penal substitution). His was satisfactionary substitution (again, not "instead of").
We cannot speak to what is not there. We cannot assume pre-16th century Christians held two distinct theologies and only wrote about one.
What about later theologians?
Initially Anapaptists rejected "instead of" substitution and viewed Christ as dying on our behalf. They were particularly opposed to PSA. Part of this was it stood contrary to their view, but another part was their pacifism (Calvin's judicial philosophy contrasted their own). But more recently Anabaptist doctrine has become more diverse and includes Arminianism (primarily among Mennonites, less with Amish).
Some Luthers have gravitated towards an "instead of" substitution as well, although technically Lutheranism holds a satisfaction view ("on behalf of" rather than "instead of") and a form of Christis Victor.
Same with Roman Catholics. The "instead of" substitution has influenced Catholics, although Roman Catholic theology is still linked to Aquinas.
Orthodox theology rejects this "instead of" substitution in favor of "for" and "on behalf of" (the theology strongly opposes PSA im favor of Christus Victor). But there are outlier apologists, like Reardon, who accepts some PSA influences to include the type of substitution.
Many of the theological lines have blurred. We even have anti-PSA movements within Reformed churches (which seems to me would make them not reformed). But in a way this has led to even more sects as theology becomes less articulated and less specific.
I believe the only true doctrine is God's words. It does not matter what His words mean to you or me. It matters what they state (the actual biblical text).
