Classical vs Latin Atonement

[RipponRedeaux]

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

It is irrational to say all three are orthodox because they contradict one another. And they have so many flavors within the three groups. What about Eastern Orthodoxy and other related bodies since the East-West Schism of 1054?

Would you say that Baptist Theology is orthodox? That would be absurd because of the wide diversity among the Baptist denominations.

And what do you do with the actual meaning of the word 'orthodox'--meaning the right or correct belief? Right beief has to be based on what the Bible teaches and not open to numerous interpretations.

 

[McCree79]

From Zondervan's Historical Theology;

"Clement of Rome described Christ’s work of substitution: “Because of the love he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives...."

Also Clement,
"Oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God! He did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a grudge against us. Instead, he was patient and forbearing; in his mercy he took upon himself our sins"


Justin Martyr: "Justin Martyr explained: “The Father of all wished his Christ take upon himself the curses of the whole human family"


Two people listed on the second or third post as classical, held to a penal substitutionary atonement.

****just seen this was addresses in post 9

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

Well, why don't you analyse the passage and show us all where there is anything there that contradicts the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

It is irrational to say all three are orthodox because they contradict one another. And they have so many flavors within the three groups. What about Eastern Orthodoxy and other related bodies since the East-West Schism of 1054?

Would you say that Baptist Theology is orthodox? That would be absurd because of the wide diversity among the Baptist denominations.

And what do you do with the actual meaning of the word 'orthodox'--meaning the right or correct belief? Right beief has to be based on what the Bible teaches and not open to numerous interpretations.

"Orthodox" as in within orthodox Christianity.

Free-will Baptist and Reformed Baptist contradict one another, but both are orthodox beliefs.

 

[JonC]

From Zondervan's Historical Theology;

"Clement of Rome described Christ’s work of substitution: “Because of the love he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives...."

Also Clement,
"Oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God! He did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a grudge against us. Instead, he was patient and forbearing; in his mercy he took upon himself our sins"


Justin Martyr: "Justin Martyr explained: “The Father of all wished his Christ take upon himself the curses of the whole human family"


Two people listed on the second or third post as classical, held to a penal substitutionary atonement.

****just seen this was addresses in post 9

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

But I agree with those quotes as well.

The issue here is Penal Substitution theorists rewrite history rather than take an honest look at what these people said. We don't like history that disagrees with our views, but need to accept it regardless. Even bad history should be preserved.

Nothing in the quotes you present are unique to Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[JonC]

Well, why don't you analyse the passage and show us all where there is anything there that contradicts the Doctrine of Penal Substitution.

The issue is not whether their writings contradict the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. The point is their writings do not reflect the theory.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement views God as punishing Christ instead of us. This was not expressed in the Christian religion until the 16th Century.

Your issue here (one that has been constant) is that if you don't see a contradiction you assume they held your view.

But the fact is they did not. The Early Church viewed Christ as willingly suffering and dying at the hands of Satan, not God. They viewed death as a physical death, not a spiritual death.

Sure all views of the Atonement have a lot in common (probably most of their content is shared).

But we need to be honest with history. If we think they were wrong, that's fine. Don't rewrite history to make them "right".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The issue is not whether their writings contradict the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. The point is their writings do not reflect the theory.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement views God as punishing Christ instead of us. This was not expressed in the Christian religion until the 16th Century.

Your issue here (one that has been constant) is that if you don't see a contradiction you assume they held your view.

But the fact is they did not. The Early Church viewed Christ as willingly suffering and dying at the hands of Satan, not God. They viewed death as a physical death, not a spiritual death.

Sure all views of the Atonement have a lot in common (probably most of their content is shared).

But we need to be honest with history. If we think they were wrong, that's fine. Don't rewrite history to make them "right".

Well if the ECFs viewed our Lord as suffering on the cross at the hands of Satan rather than of God, they were mistaken and that's an end of it. Isaiah 54:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him. He has put Him to grief.' I don't know why we're even discussing it.
However, it's fair to say that not all the ECFs were in such error. Here is Gregory of Nazianzus.:

'As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body.. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long is Christ also called disobedient on my account.'

There is no mention of Satan here. Everything is focused on Christ (cf. John 10:17-18). Gregory's argument is that believers are united to Christ, the 'Head of the whole body,' and that our sin is thereby transferred to Him. - 'He makes my disobedience His own.' This is the reason, says Gregory, that Christ 'was called a curse .... and sin.' He took the sin of the world upon Himself and [by implication] suffered the curse of God upon sin 'for my sake.' He was not Himself a sinner, and was not cursed for His own sin, but for ours. Thus we can see, if only in embryo, Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

Well if the ECFs viewed our Lord as suffering on the cross at the hands of Satan rather than of God, they were mistaken and that's an end of it. Isaiah 54:10. 'Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him. He has put Him to grief.' I don't know why we're even discussing it.
However, it's fair to say that not all the ECFs were in such error. Here is Gregory of Nazianzus.:

'As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body.. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long is Christ also called disobedient on my account.'

There is no mention of Satan here. Everything is focused on Christ (cf. John 10:17-18). Gregory's argument is that believers are united to Christ, the 'Head of the whole body,' and that our sin is thereby transferred to Him. - 'He makes my disobedience His own.' This is the reason, says Gregory, that Christ 'was called a curse .... and sin.' He took the sin of the world upon Himself and [by implication] suffered the curse of God upon sin 'for my sake.' He was not Himself a sinner, and was not cursed for His own sin, but for ours. Thus we can see, if only in embryo, Penal Substitution.

That verse does not prove the ECF's wrong. They did not believe it was contrary to God's will that he suffer under the powers of darkness (they believed it pleased God, it was God's will) because this is how Christ accomplished redemption.

Saying Christ makes our disobedience his own is not even close to Penal Theory in embryo.

I believe Jesus made my disobedience His own. I believe it was for my sake Christ became a curse. But I also believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement a severe corruption of biblical Atonement.


@DaveXR650 , I am posting this part for you (in regards to what I was saying earlier about Penal Substitution theorists lifting clips of writings it is the Penal Substitution Theory). Here is the actual paragraph from which Martin just quoted....keeping the parts he removed-

Take, in the next place, the subjection by which you subject the Son to the Father. What, you say, is He not now subject, or must He, if He is God, be subject to God? You are fashioning your argument as if it concerned some robber, or some hostile deity. But look at it in this manner: that as for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account. But when all things shall be subdued unto Him on the one hand by acknowledgment of Him, and on the other by a reformation, then He Himself also will have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved to God. For this, according to my view, is the subjection of Christ; namely, the fulfilling of the Father's Will. But as the Son subjects all to the Father, so does the Father to the Son; the One by His Work, the Other by His good pleasure, as we have already said. And thus He Who subjects presents to God that which he has subjected, making our condition His own. Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His Sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?) But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ.


Do you see what I mean? @Martin Marprelate took a quote and removed it from its own context. That is the ONLY way people are able to claim the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement existed prior to the 16th Century.

 

[JonC]

From Zondervan's Historical Theology;

"Clement of Rome described Christ’s work of substitution: “Because of the love he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives...."

Also Clement,
"Oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God! He did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a grudge against us. Instead, he was patient and forbearing; in his mercy he took upon himself our sins"


Justin Martyr: "Justin Martyr explained: “The Father of all wished his Christ take upon himself the curses of the whole human family"


Two people listed on the second or third post as classical, held to a penal substitutionary atonement.

****just seen this was addresses in post 9

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I need to clarify:

The issue is not these quotes. We already know that Justin Martyr, Clement . . . And the Early Church (and me, although I'm not that old)...believe that Father of all wished his Christ take upon himself the curses of the whole human family and that in his mercy he took upon himself our sins.

The issue is those quotes have absolutely nothing to do with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Now, granted, you can use those same words. But that isn't really being honest when attributed to the writers.

Justin Martyr and Clement write those words in reference to the solidarity or unity between Christ and man. Christ took upon Himself our sins. God wished His Christ to take upon Himself the curses of the whole human family. That is absolutely true. But it is impossible to read those writings within their own context and come away believing it is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It is about respecting history rather than white washing history to suit ones theories. It could be that those writers were wrong (YOU already believe Clement and Martyr were wrong on their view of human free-will, so it should not be hard to simply take their beliefs for how they expressed them as a whole).

 

[DaveXR650]

@DaveXR650 , I am posting this part for you (in regards to what I was saying earlier about Penal Substitution theorists lifting clips of writings it is the Penal Substitution Theory). Here is the actual paragraph from which Martin just quoted....keeping the parts he removed-

Jon, to be honest with you, what is ironic is that you yourself in your previous posts, have gone much further than the ECF's did in recognizing penal substitution. And this is why I have trouble understanding the issue here. I see nothing wrong with the claim made by Martin, and the other guys on here who are posting snippets from ECF's that show the root of penal substitution. I have the same quotes and I think they do too. And I think your previous quotes show you are almost there also.

If what you are saying is that there is more to a complete understanding the atonement than just the actual defined issue of penal substitution I agree. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has several sermons devoted to an exploration of the other aspects of the atonement and they are worth listening to. But I do think that at the very first cause, core level the idea of Christ taking our sin upon himself is THE main issue. And I think it is well supported biblically.

If your concern is that it requires you to become a 5 point Calvinist if you believe in penal substitution I would just say "No, you don't." I realize there are papers out there that say that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first [i.e. 22nd. MM] Psalm refers to Christ.

Thanks for printing a little more of my extract. It reinforces the fact that Gregory believed in Penal Substitution. It is true that he foolishly believed that Christ was not forsaken on the cross, but 'He makes His own our folly and our transgressions' (substitution) and 'now by the sufferings of Him who could not suffer [really? Gregory has a strange view of Christ's incarnation. MM] we were taken up and saved (the penal aspect).

 

[JonC]

Jon, to be honest with you, what is ironic is that you yourself in your previous posts, have gone much further than the ECF's did in recognizing penal substitution. And this is why I have trouble understanding the issue here. I see nothing wrong with the claim made by Martin, and the other guys on here who are posting snippets from ECF's that show the root of penal substitution. I have the same quotes and I think they do too. And I think your previous quotes show you are almost there also.

If what you are saying is that there is more to a complete understanding the atonement than just the actual defined issue of penal substitution I agree. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has several sermons devoted to an exploration of the other aspects of the atonement and they are worth listening to. But I do think that at the very first cause, core level the idea of Christ taking our sin upon himself is THE main issue. And I think it is well supported biblically.

If your concern is that it requires you to become a 5 point Calvinist if you believe in penal substitution I would just say "No, you don't." I realize there are papers out there that say that.

The problem with @Martin Marprelate 's claim is that those statements he provides are not the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

I love certain periods of history. I love historical theology. What bothers me is when people lift comments out of historical accounts and misuse them to mean something different from the quote in its original context.

When people do that to me I correct them. But those men are dead. All we have is their writings.

I did post more than they wrote on the topic, you are correct there. But what I posted had nothing to do with the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. I posted passages that we all agree on (and I assumed that the Early Church agreed on those passages as well, even though they were not mentioned in the writings I quoted).


I was a 5 point Calvinist for many years. The reason I abandoned Calvinism was not the 5 points but Penal Substitution Theory.

Some still call me a Calvinist because of my view of predestination and election +what attracted me to Calvinism in the first place). But the foundation of my belief is different as I don't hold Calvin's atonement theory.

It is not a matter of choosing which theory to follow. It is an issue of remaining faithful to God's Word. Penal Substitution theorists are not faithful to Scripture when it comes to that doctrine.

It would not be a big deal except it is a foundational doctrine.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for printing a little more of my extract. It reinforces the fact that Gregory believed in Penal Substitution. It is true that he foolishly believed that Christ was not forsaken on the cross, but 'He makes His own our folly and our transgressions' (substitution) and 'now by the sufferings of Him who could not suffer [really? Gregory has a strange view of Christ's incarnation. MM] we were taken up and saved (the penal aspect).

No, it doesn't. Gregory is not talking about God pouring His wrath on Christ but Christ sharing in our sin.


Gregory believed that God offered to Satan something which Satan was willing to trade for mankind. Christ came as a man, but Satan saw the miracles He performed and decides He is more valuable than the rest of humanity but our solidarity with Him.

That said, I am glad that you agree that Gregory held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is one more reason to abandon the theory.

This is how Gregory described Atonement:

"When the enemy (Satan) saw the power, he recognized Christ as a bargain which offered him more than he had. For this reason he (Satan) chose him (Christ) as the random for those he (Satan) had shut up in death's prison."


@DaveXR650 , now do you understand what I mean when I criticize @Martin Marprelate for lifting quotes out of context?? Gregory held nothing like the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. He held a form of Random Theory. He viewed Satan as demanding Christ flas a random (much like Augustine's view).


We have to stop being dishonest with history. I do not agree with Gregory (although his theory would fall within the Classic view). But I'm not going to rewrite history to make Gregory agree with me. That would be dishonest.

 

[DaveXR650]

Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world;

He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body.

And thus He Who subjects presents to God that which he has subjected, making our condition His own.

For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved.

Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions;

I see transference from us to Jesus. I completely agree that the goal of this passage was not to try to prove penal substitution. If Gregory was so wrong on the way he looked at "ransom", why would it be wrong to think that the theology of atonement could not have been more correctly and fully developed by the reformers? I do believe that the reformers take on this is supported well in scripture. So the general idea that old is better and more accurate doesn't hold up if the reformers did a better job of looking at scripture. And besides scripture predates the ECF's, although in some cases they may not have had complete access to the extent the reformers did.

I'll just throw this out there. It could well be that penal substitution improperly taught could lead to a mechanistic view of the atonement where your sins have been taken care of in such a way that it is a done fact, independent of our faith, unity with Christ, adoption, and we are left with no involvement with Christ or walking the Way that is in any way essential. But I need to emphasize "if improperly taught". You don't get that if you read reformers sermons.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, it doesn't. Gregory is not talking about God pouring His wrath on Christ but Christ sharing in our sin.


Gregory believed that God offered to Satan something which Satan was willing to trade for mankind. Christ came as a man, but Satan saw the miracles He performed and decides He is more valuable than the rest of humanity but our solidarity with Him.

That said, I am glad that you agree that Gregory held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is one more reason to abandon the theory.

This is how Gregory described Atonement:

"When the enemy (Satan) saw the power, he recognized Christ as a bargain which offered him more than he had. For this reason he (Satan) chose him (Christ) as the ransom for those he (Satan) had shut up in death's prison."


@DaveXR650 , now do you understand what I mean when I criticize @Martin Marprelate for lifting quotes out of context?? Gregory held nothing like the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. He held a form of Random Theory. He viewed Satan as demanding Christ flas a random (much like Augustine's view).


We have to stop being dishonest with history. I do not agree with Gregory (although his theory would fall within the Classic view). But I'm not going to rewrite history to make Gregory agree with me. That would be dishonest.

If Gregory believed that it was Satan who sent Christ to the cross and his view falls within your so-called 'Classic' view, then that would seem to be a good reason to abandon the 'Classic' view.
As you know, I do not believe in your 'penal substitution theory;' I believe in the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, a definition of which I have given you more times than I care to remember. Gregory's understanding of the penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement are, as I said, embryonic, but they are recognizable. I don't expect any ECF to articulate the whole doctrine as it is today. I had not realised how many of the ECFs believed in the 'ransom to Satan' theory.' That is simply outside of Christian orthodoxy and shows how far the early Fathers had fallen away from the Apostolic doctrines. But in the light of Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30, I suppose we should not be surprised.
But if so many of them believed in 'Ransom to Satan,' why are we even considering them?

 

[JonC]

I see transference from us to Jesus. I completely agree that the goal of this passage was not to try to prove penal substitution. If Gregory was so wrong on the way he looked at "ransom", why would it be wrong to think that the theology of atonement could not have been more correctly and fully developed by the reformers? I do believe that the reformers take on this is supported well in scripture. So the general idea that old is better and more accurate doesn't hold up if the reformers did a better job of looking at scripture. And besides scripture predates the ECF's, although in some cases they may not have had complete access to the extent the reformers did.

I'll just throw this out there. It could well be that penal substitution improperly taught could lead to a mechanistic view of the atonement where your sins have been taken care of in such a way that it is a done fact, independent of our faith, unity with Christ, adoption, and we are left with no involvement with Christ or walking the Way that is in any way essential. But I need to emphasize "if improperly taught". You don't get that if you read reformers sermons.

I am not sure why you get that sins were transferred from us to Christ in my posts. The fact that you do explains how you see it in the Early Church quotes as well.

Maybe this will help - the Early Church (even those who held a form of Ransom Theory I reject) viewed Christ "sharing our infirmities" as applying to God laying our sins on Christ and Christ becoming a curse for us.

So the idea was one of unity or solidarity with Christ. His flesh for our flesh. He became flesh so that we could have spiritual life.

Does that help to at least understand why the Classic View is not taking those passages to mean transfered from us to Christ (even if you disagree)?

I do agree with you insofar as illegitimate reasons to reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Many reject it because they view it as too forensic.

The reason I initially rejected the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is because it is not actually in the Bible (and I am a Biblicist insofar as I believe any foundational doctrine has to be in the text of Scripture - not what we think is taught but actually contained in God's Word).

The reason I came to reject the Theory even more is that having studied Scripture apart from Penal Substitution Theory I can see how the theory ultimately overshadows some important truths if the Bible.

This does not mean that Penal Substitution theorists are not saved (salvation died not depend on any human doctrine). I'm sure some are and some are not. But it does mean that there is a limit to their understanding. There are spiritual concepts that Penal Substitution theorists simply cannot grasp or apply to their lives because these are replaced by what amounts to Christian philosophy.

 

[JonC]

If Gregory believed that it was Satan who sent Christ to the cross and his view falls within your so-called 'Classic' view, then that would seem to be a good reason to abandon the 'Classic' view.
As you know, I do not believe in your 'penal substitution theory;' I believe in the Doctrine of Penal Substitution, a definition of which I have given you more times than I care to remember. Gregory's understanding of the penal and substitutionary aspects of the atonement are, as I said, embryonic, but they are recognizable. I don't expect any ECF to articulate the whole doctrine as it is today. I had not realised how many of the ECFs believed in the 'ransom to Satan' theory.' That is simply outside of Christian orthodoxy and shows how far the early Fathers had fallen away from the Apostolic doctrines. But in the light of Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30, I suppose we should not be surprised.
But if so many of them believed in 'Ransom to Satan,' why are we even considering them?

The Ransom Theory does fall within the Classical View. But you are not understanding the significance. The Ransom Theory itself isn't the Classical View.

Likewise, the Roman Catholic theology of the Cross falls under the Latin View (along with the Penal Substitution Theory). But the theories are not the same.

The Classic View is focused on Christ as suffering under the powers of evil and gaining victory over those powers.

The Latin View focuses on Christ satisfying some divine demand against man.

Under each there are numerous positions.

Under the Classic View there is Ransom Theory, Recapitulation, Moral Influence Theory,....and so on.

Under the Latin View there is the Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution.


I think you have misunderstood the meaning of "doctrine". The word means "teaching". The Doctrine of Penal Substitution is Penal Substitution Theory. The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a doctrine. These things are theories that are doctrines....they are false doctrines, but doctrines nonetheless.

Calling it the Doctrine of Penal Substitution does not change the fact that it is simply the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement taught.

 

[JonC]

@Dave G ,

Another thing to consider:

@Martin Marprelate holds that Gregory believed in the Penal Substitution Theory although Gregory actually a version of Ransom Theory.

But he also has claimed that the Early Church held Penal Substitution Theory in an embryonic state. This is an important statement when it comes to foundational doctrines.

The reason is there are some, like Martin, who present the teachings of the Apostles themselves as ineffective on their audience. Their congregations learned some basic elements but for the most part were blind to true Christian doctrine as that would not be articulated until the Reformation in the 16th Century.

There are others who believe the Apostles effectively taught the churches. The idea here is men, over the centuries, created Christian philosophies and theories to understand Scripture but these things ultimately clouded understanding.

It's like the Years poem (The Second Coming), the further away the falcon gets the less clear I heard it's masters voice. Sooner or later something new arises.

I can see pros to Martin's progressive theology. The problem, the main "con", is if any of the theories or philosophies are the least but wrong then the initial doctrine is off a little....but by the time it gets to us the doctrine is off by miles.

 

[DaveXR650]

I am not sure why you get that sins were transferred from us to Christ in my posts. The fact that you do explains how you see it in the Early Church quotes as well.

I do. And if you say it is because I am reading through the eyes of a 2023 reformed Baptist whose favorite teachers are almost all Calvinists you are correct. My defense is like Popeye. "I Yam what I Yam"!

I also clearly see penal substitution in scripture and I go so far as to say that the idea as a basis for us even hoping to approach God is so foundational that I cannot understand how everyone else doesn't see that too.

I can see pros to Martin's progressive theology. The problem, the main "con", is if any of the theories or philosophies are the least but wrong then the initial doctrine is off a little....but by the time it gets to us the doctrine is off by miles.

Looking at scripture and consulting with others, comparing notes, and then formulating the best theology that you can is not progressive theology. The attempts to move away from penal substitution, given the reasons and reading the resulting theology is the kind of dangerous progressive theology that I worry about. To be clear, I don't think you do this because you are almost totally at penal substitution in my opinion. But when I read what was being done in some circles where Christ's death is reduced to an example or a tragic mistake the overall implications are hugely damaging. (Once again, I do not believe that's what you are doing or what the ECF's were doing either.) The other thing that happens is that in the case of the Catholic church, the reliance on the Church itself as equal with scripture and with the power to enforce obedience, error remains and is compounded with hardly any way to make a correction, until something blows, like the Reformation.

But at our best, humans are constantly going off track in one direction or another and constantly in a state of conflict which hopefully leads to corrections.

 

[JonC]

I do. And if you say it is because I am reading through the eyes of a 2023 reformed Baptist whose favorite teachers are almost all Calvinists you are correct. My defense is like Popeye. "I Yam what I Yam"!

I also clearly see penal substitution in scripture and I go so far as to say that the idea as a basis for us even hoping to approach God is so foundational that I cannot understand how everyone else doesn't see that too.


Looking at scripture and consulting with others, comparing notes, and then formulating the best theology that you can is not progressive theology. The attempts to move away from penal substitution, given the reasons and reading the resulting theology is the kind of dangerous progressive theology that I worry about. To be clear, I don't think you do this because you are almost totally at penal substitution in my opinion. But when I read what was being done in some circles where Christ's death is reduced to an example or a tragic mistake the overall implications are hugely damaging. (Once again, I do not believe that's what you are doing or what the ECF's were doing either.) The other thing that happens is that in the case of the Catholic church, the reliance on the Church itself as equal with scripture and with the power to enforce obedience, error remains and is compounded with hardly any way to make a correction, until something blows, like the Reformation.

But at our best, humans are constantly going off track in one direction or another and constantly in a state of conflict which hopefully leads to corrections.

I don't mean progressive theology that way (poor choice of words on my part).

I mean @Martin Marprelate viewed those writings to reflect the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement in its embryonic state. And that is fair. Many doctrines came about that way. Often we see theology refining and building upon theologies of the past.

The problem is the rest of the writing is a complete denial of the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It is like calling Mormons Christian because they believe Jesus was "God's son". The context tells a different story.

I agree that moving away from any theory or theology can be dangerous...depending, where of course, the direction one goes. But it does not necessarily lead to progressive theology.

We see this in movements within Reformed churches as they attempt t move from Penal Substitution Theory. Some go back to Scripture (resulting in a more biblical view) while others try to change aspects of Penal Substitution Theory they find unbiblical (resulting in a progressive form of Penal Substitution Theory).

We also have to remember that at one time the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement was considered progressive theology.

Fear of moving towards progressive theology is removed when we move towards Scripture.

One thing I can say having held to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and having been a Calvinist is that there is a depth of truth they are missing. But to be fair, it is a much more demanding truth so I can understand why people are reluctant to examine Scripture apart from their traditions (whatever they may be).