Penal Substitution & the ECFs

[Martin Marprelate]

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

If you have to ask those questions, why have you been arguing as if you know the answers?
You know the basis that I've been using in our discussions. I'm sure you're as sick of reading it (supposing that you do!) as I am of constantly writing it out. But here it is again:

'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'

So you tell me. Do you agree with that statement? If not, on what point do you disagree? I'm sorry to be cagey, but there have been times when I thought we had agreement, only to find out very shortly afterwards that we didn't. It seems that we may agree the same Scriptures, but understand different things by them.

 

[JonC]

If you have to ask those questions, why have you been arguing as if you know the answers?
You know the basis that I've been using in our discussions. I'm sure you're as sick of reading it (supposing that you do!) as I am of constantly writing it out. But here it is again:

'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.'

So you tell me. Do you agree with that statement? If not, on what point do you disagree? I'm sorry to be cagey, but there have been times when I thought we had agreement, only to find out very shortly afterwards that we didn't. It seems that we may agree the same Scriptures, but understand different things by them.

Hey brother.

We are examining here whether the writings of the ECF's evidence a Penal Substitution view.

So that I understand the position of the OP, please tell me if my belief (by my statements) are proof that I affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

If not, then what is lacking?

The reason I ask to look at it this way is that the writings of the ECF's do not contain your definition (so it is not relevant to my expressions here either). But their writings which you believe prove Penal Substitution are statements which I wholeheartedly affirm.

I know you would not assume of the ECF's a belief they did not express (I know you to be an honest man). So please work with me and tell me if my statements prove I hold Penal Substitution.

Thank you in advance for clarifying your thoughts for me.

John

Beyond what I have affirmed here, my views of the Atonement are no more relevant to this thread than are those of Irenaeus, Martyr, and the rest of the ECFs.

If you would like to discuss my views afterwards here is an appropriate thread:

Back by popular demand - An often unpopular view of the Atonement

 

[JonC]

OK, @Martin Marprelate ,

Why don't we start with an easier statement before taking the longer one I posted.

You proved that Justin Martyr affirmed Penal Substitution with this quote:

'If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him 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?' [sect 95, emphases added]

This amounts to a clear statement of penal substitution.

I believe the Father wished His Christ, not only for the whole human family but also for His Church, to take upon Him the curses of us all, knowing that after He had been crucified He would raise Him up. He submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed.

Since I share Martyrs view as you have quoted him, and since those words prove Martyr held to Penal Substitution, then does this mean - by your standard- that I also affirm Penal Substitution through my "clear statement of Penal Substitution"?

If not, then why would this double standard not amount to hypocrisy?

What else needs to be added?

If so (if Martyr and my shared view is a clear expression of Penal Substitution) then what does your definition - that neither Martyr nor I have expressed - have to do with Penal Substitution?

 

[JonC]

I'm going to make a comment for those who have considered ECF writings.

On a different post @Martin Marprelate mentioned Irenaeus' view that Christ had lived to the age of a master, and he described ECF's as holding Penal Substitution but also holding to inconsistent ideas.

There is a danger when we start picking the teachings on one topic apart and accepting some as agreeing with us and others as inconsistent. Theirs (the ECFs) was not a world of stupidity. They did not offer a smorgasboard theory of the Atonement but instead reasoned out how each viewed the atonement, following their ideas to its conclusions.

Ireaneus did not hold the idea that Christ bore our sins - His flesh for our flesh - and then another idea called Recipitulation that would have Christ living to the age of a master. He held the idea that Christ took on our iniquity, our sickness, our curse and bore our sins - His flesh for our flesh - in the terms of recipitulation. The Atonement meant that Christ suffered every age of man, from infancy to the age of a master. It meant that Mary (not "maryology") received revelation where Eve received deception. It was Recapitulation. We can reject the theory (I do) but only when we understand the sense it makes of the Atonement.

The same is true for each theory throughout history. They do not contradict themselves. The contradictions we see are to our way of thinking, and to our theories. These men were not the idiots many would make them out to be today.

Anyway, thank you @Martin Marprelate , for an interesting thread. I look forward to your answer regarding my questions.

 

[37818]

6. The Father laid our iniquities on Christ.

What I cannot understand is how Christ can have all our sins placed on Him and have it not be penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

What I cannot understand is how Christ can have all our sins placed on Him and have it not be penal substitution.

Many can't.

Perhaps the definition @Martin Marprelate gave is wrong and he is right that the early church (and my) belief quality as "penal substitution". Or perhaps his definition is correct and he is wrong because neither of us held to the Theory.

Do you believe that my statement- that God placed our iniquities on Christ, that He became a curse for us - us an affirmation of Penal Substitution Theory?

Or do you believe something else has to be added?

 

[JonC]

I don't want this to get lost simply because it's been ignored. This is what I've asked @Martin Marprelate :

I believe that Christ bore our sins, was "made sin for us". We have been justified by the blood of Christ - that we will be saved by Him from the wrath of God. Our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (that the Law is a witness of God's righteousness). We are justified by God's grace through Christ, Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood as a demonstration of His righteousness that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Christ borne our griefs And carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities and chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

It is for our sake God made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. We were dead in our trespasses and God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. I believe that God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.

I also believe that the death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice and propitiated the wrath that stood against us.

The Father wished Christ, for mankind, to take upon Himself the curses of us all knowing that, after He had been crucified, He would raise Him up. The Father caused Christ to suffer these things on our behalf. And Christ willfully submitted His will to the will of the Father.

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@Martin Marprelate ,

Perhaps this is where I should have started (maybe things would have been clearer between the two of us).

I believe that Christ bore our sins, was "made sin for us". I believe we have been justified by the blood of Christ - that we will be saved by Him from the wrath of God.

I believe that our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (that the Law is a witness of God's righteousness). I believe that we are justified by God's grace through Christ, Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood as a demonstration of His righteousness that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. I believe Christ borne our griefs And carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities and chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

I believe that for our sake He made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. I believe Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.

I believe we were dead in our trespasses and God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. I believe that God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.

I also believe that the death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice.

I believe that the Father wished Christ, for mankind, to take upon Himself the curses of us all knowing that, after He had been crucified, He would raise Him up. The Father caused Christ to suffer these things on our behalf. And Christ willfully submitted His will to the will of the Father.

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

I will reply to this on the other thread you have started, so don't expect an answer here. I will reply to your suqgestions about the ECFs here as I have time.
As I told you in post #44. I have other stuff to do for a while that has to come first. I have a bit of time tonight, but then I have to sort out a Bible Study for Wednesday, do some visiting and get four sermons composed for the run-up to Christmas. So it's no good trying to bully me with constant posts. I will reply as and when I can, so be patient.

 

[JonC]

I will reply to this on the other thread you have started, so don't expect an answer here. I will reply to your suqgestions about the ECFs here as I have time.
As I told you in post #44. I have other stuff to do for a while that has to come first. I have a bit of time tonight, but then I have to sort out a Bible Study for Wednesday, do some visiting and get four sermons composed for the run-up to Christmas. So it's no good trying to bully me with constant posts. I will reply as and when I can, so be patient.

I look forward to a good conversation on the other thread (about my beliefs).

That said, it is relevant to THIS thread if an affirmation of the ECFs statements (that I affirm) do in fact serve as an affirmation of Penal Substitution Theory. It is relevant because the ECF statements do not contain some of the aspects that are evident in your definition of Penal Substitution. Are those elements necessary? If so, then the ECF's did not hold penal substitution theory. If not, then you need to revisit your definition.

While I appreciate the attempt at avoiding the actual question (I was wondering how you'd try to get around the issue) it is important to discuss. We have their words, and you stated that their words were without doubt expressions of penal substitution. My words affirm what you have quoted of theirs. I strongly, and on no uncertain terms, hold that God put forth His Son as a propitiation. Christ bore our sins in His flesh....His flesh for our flesh. He died for our sins. The death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice and propitiated the wrath that stood against us.

Does our statements posted on this thread (my statements affirming what you hold as proof of Penal Substitution doctrine) prove that I hold the Theory....OR is there something else that needs to be added to our (mine and the ECF's) words to make them Penal Substitution Theory?

There is no need to go further on this thread unless you can answer these simple questions.

Insofar as insulting me, I am not bullying you into anything. I fully expected (and expect) you to avoid the question. I do not see how you can answer without disproving your thesis.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have now replied to your post in the other thread you have started, so I can have a go at this one while I have time.

OK, @Martin Marprelate ,

Why don't we start with an easier statement before taking the longer one I posted.

You proved that Justin Martyr affirmed Penal Substitution with this quote:
I believe the Father wished His Christ, not only for the whole human family but also for His Church, to take upon Him the curses of us all, knowing that after He had been crucified He would raise Him up. He submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed.

Since I share Martyrs view as you have quoted him, and since those words prove Martyr held to Penal Substitution, then does this mean - by your standard- that I also affirm Penal Substitution through my "clear statement of Penal Substitution"?

If not, then why would this double standard not amount to hypocrisy?

What else needs to be added?

To answer you last question first, the context of Justin's reply to Trypho needs to be considered, as I did in my post on the subject:

Trypho recognizes that the Christ must suffer, but he cannot bring himself to believe that He would be crucified, since the OT law teaches that anyone crucified is under God's curse (Deut. 21:23):

'Then Trypho remarked, "Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover I do 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 should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whoever 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' [Sect. 89]

Justin begins by assuring Trypho that Christ was not cursed for His own sins: 'Though a curse lies in the law against persons that are crucified, yet no curse rests on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved' [sect. 94]

'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 coninueth 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 if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes' [sect 95]

Then Justin reaches the crux of his argument, where he explains that the reason why our Lord was crucified is that the curse which rested on us for our sin was transferred to Him.

'If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him 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?' [sect 95, emphases added]

This amounts to a clear statement of penal substitution. Although Christ was innocent, He bore the curse due to sinful humanity, enduring in His death the punishment due to us.

Now if you accept that, but blanch at the idea of God's wrath, how do you cope with Psalm 95:11: 'So I swore in My wrath, "They shall never enter My rest" ? Here is God's wrath against sin causing Him to lay a curse upon that generation of Israelites: "They shall never enter My rest." But there is equally a curse upon all mankind: "Cursed is everyone that coninueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." And as Justin says, 'no one has accurately done all....,' that is, no one has kept God's law properly, therefore all people are justly under the wrath of God and if Christ does not bear that wrath on their behalf they must bear it themselves.

If so (if Martyr and my shared view is a clear expression of Penal Substitution) then what does your definition - that neither Martyr nor I have expressed - have to do with Penal Substitution?

I do not believe that you and Justin martyr are in agreement; I believe that his use of Deut 21:23 shows that he believes that Christ has borne the curse upon sinful mankind and has therefore borne God's wrath, not against Him, but against sin, for Christ was made sin for us. Justin Martyr has long since gone to his reward, and I cannot cross-examine him as I can you, but I am quite certain from his writing here that he understood that bearing the curse of God due to sinful humanity means bearing the wrath of the God who issued the curse.

 

[JonC]

I have now replied to your post in the other thread you have started, so I can have a go at this one while I have time.
To answer you last question first, the context of Justin's reply to Trypho needs to be considered, as I did in my post on the subject:

Trypho recognizes that the Christ must suffer, but he cannot bring himself to believe that He would be crucified, since the OT law teaches that anyone crucified is under God's curse (Deut. 21:23):

'Then Trypho remarked, "Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him. Moreover I do 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 should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whoever 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' [Sect. 89]

Justin begins by assuring Trypho that Christ was not cursed for His own sins: 'Though a curse lies in the law against persons that are crucified, yet no curse rests on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved' [sect. 94]

'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 coninueth 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 if those who are under the law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes' [sect 95]

Then Justin reaches the crux of his argument, where he explains that the reason why our Lord was crucified is that the curse which rested on us for our sin was transferred to Him.

'If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him 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?' [sect 95, emphases added]

This amounts to a clear statement of penal substitution. Although Christ was innocent, He bore the curse due to sinful humanity, enduring in His death the punishment due to us.

Now if you accept that, but blanch at the idea of God's wrath, how do you cope with Psalm 95:11: 'So I swore in My wrath, "They shall never enter My rest" ? Here is God's wrath against sin causing Him to lay a curse upon that generation of Israelites: "They shall never enter My rest." But there is equally a curse upon all mankind: "Cursed is everyone that coninueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them." And as Justin says, 'no one has accurately done all....,' that is, no one has kept God's law properly, therefore all people are justly under the wrath of God and if Christ does not bear that wrath on their behalf they must bear it themselves.
I do not believe that you and Justin martyr are in agreement; I believe that his use of Deut 21:23 shows that he believes that Christ has borne the curse upon sinful mankind and has therefore borne God's wrath, not against Him, but against sin, for Christ was made sin for us. Justin Martyr has long since gone to his reward, and I cannot cross-examine him as I can you, but I am quite certain from his writing here that he understood that bearing the curse of God due to sinful humanity means bearing the wrath of the God who issued the curse.

I don't think that either of us are in complete agreement with Martyr. That was an example. And Martyr NEVER expressed your definition. Why the addition?

If it's an easier example consider Irenaeus. I also affirm what you offer as proof he held Penal Substitution Theory Yet neither of us (you and I) affirm where he took those words (Recipitulation).

If those words prove Irenaeus held Penal SubstitutionTheory, why would this not be true of others.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Insofar as insulting me, I am not bullying you into anything. I fully expected (and expect) you to avoid the question. I do not see how you can answer without disproving your thesis.

I assure you that you will not bully me into anything. I have a quiet hour now, but after this it will be a while before I reply to anyone on this board. You are way down on my list of priorities. And if you do not think I can answer your points you are very much mistaken.

I don't think that either of us are in complete agreement with Martyr.

In post #63, you said you were. You shift your ground very quickly.

And Martyr NEVER expressed your definition. Why the addition?

I think Martyr is perfectly clear. I refer you to my post #70.

If it's an easier example consider Irenaeus. I also affirm what you offer as proof he held Penal Substitution Theory Yet neither of us (you and I) affirm where he took those words (Recapitulation).

If those words prove Irenaeus held Penal Substitution Theory, why would this not be true of others.

Irenaeus: '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......'

I admit that this is pretty thin, and it would be helpful to have more data, but the first part of the sentence says the Lord redeemed us by His blood: that is penal, and when He says that our Lord gave 'His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, that is substitution. That He did this to reconcile God and man shows that there was estrangement between the parties: Christ is the Mediator who must do whatever is necessary to reconcile them. Estrangement pre-supposes wrath. He sheds His blood, thereby paying the penalty for our sins, and He gives His life that ours should not be forfeit, and His flesh that we might, in our flesh, see God (Job 19:26). That pre-supposes the propitiation of wrath.

I do see some merit in Recapitulation: Christ is the last Adam who must triumph where the first failed.
I do see some merit in the Ransom Theory (not Origen's): 'To give His life a ransom for many' (Mark 10:45).
I do see some merit in the Moral Influence Theory: 'I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice.....'
I do see some merit in the Christus Victor theory: 'The Lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed to open the scroll......'

But none of them make sense without Penal Substitution.

That's all I've time for tonight. I will answer other points as you make them as I have time, but you will have to be patient.

 

[JonC]

I assure you that you will not bully me into anything. I have a quiet hour now, but after this it will be a while before I reply to anyone on this board. You are way down on my list of priorities. And if you do not think I can answer your points you are very much mistaken. In post #63, you said you were. You shift your ground very quickly. I think Martyr is perfectly clear. I refer you to my post #70.

Irenaeus: '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......'

I admit that this is pretty thin, and it would be helpful to have more data, but the first part of the sentence says the Lord redeemed us by His blood: that is penal, and when He says that our Lord gave 'His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, that is substitution. That He did this to reconcile God and man shows that there was estrangement between the parties: Christ is the Mediator who must do whatever is necessary to reconcile them. Estrangement pre-supposes wrath. He sheds His blood, thereby paying the penalty for our sins, and He gives His life that ours should not be forfeit, and His flesh that we might, in our flesh, see God (Job 19:26). That pre-supposes the propitiation of wrath.

I do see some merit in Recapitulation: Christ is the last Adam who must triumph where the first failed.
I do see some merit in the Ransom Theory (not Origen's): 'To give His life a ransom for many' (Mark 10:45).
I do see some merit in the Moral Influence Theory: 'I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice.....'
I do see some merit in the Christus Victor theory: 'The Lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed to open the scroll......'

But none of them make sense without Penal Substitution.

That's all I've time for tonight. I will answer other points as you make them as I have time, but you will have to be patient.

Brother, you are taking bits and pieces of what I say and drawing your own conclusions.

I agree with what you quoted of Martyr (what you call Penal Substitution). I agree with what you quoted of Irenaeus (what you call Penal Substitution). I do not claim to hold their views in their entirety.

Let's go with the short one - since I agree with the statement you said proved Irenaeus affirmed Penal Substitution then does it not stand to reason that you have to also hold I affirm Penal Substitution?

Irenaeus: '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......'

I completely agree. Therefore, by your standard, do I not meet your requirement?

Consider Martyr:

If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him 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?

I completely agree. By your standard - applied to the ECFs, I also affirm Penal Substitution.

Just because I do not affirm God punishing Christ to pay our sin debt so we can be forgiven doesn't matter because neither did the ECFs.

(And no need for the insults. You are making them a habit).

 

[Aaron]

Death is the wages of sin. Where was the sentence of our sins carried out if not upon Christ?

But the Scriptures state it plainly. The chastisement of our peace was upon him. In other words, the execution of justice that brings peace, the punishment that brings peace, was upon him.

If you miss that, you've missed the Gospel.

O strong Ram, which hast batter'd heaven for me !
Mild Lamb, which with Thy Blood hast mark'd the path !
Bright Torch, which shinest, that I the way may see !
O, with Thy own Blood quench Thy own just wrath ;
And if Thy Holy Spirit my Muse did raise,
Deign at my hands this crown of prayer and praise.

—John Donne​

 

[JonC]

Therefore our suffering and crucified Christ was not cursed by the law, but made it manifest that He alone would save those who do not depart from His faith

Death is the wages of sin. Where was the sentence of our sins carried out if not upon Christ?

But the Scriptures state it plainly. The chastisement of our peace was upon him. In other words, the execution of justice that brings peace, the punishment that brings peace, was upon him.

If you miss that, you've missed the Gospel.

O strong Ram, which hast batter'd heaven for me !
Mild Lamb, which with Thy Blood hast mark'd the path !
Bright Torch, which shinest, that I the way may see !
O, with Thy own Blood quench Thy own just wrath ;
And if Thy Holy Spirit my Muse did raise,
Deign at my hands this crown of prayer and praise.

—John Donne​

I think all Christians affirm that the wages of sin is, in fact, death. And it seems to me that all Christians affirm Christ took upon Himself these wages on our behalf.

The question, however, is whether all view Christ as bearing our sin the same way. We know (as fact) that Irenaeus did not (he viewed the atoning work of Christ in terms of a recipitulation).

While Penal Substitution Theory may be correct (that's another topic) the op is wrong. We are never justified in assuming things about other peoples beliefs. We can only know the ECFs through what is recorded (what is evidenced in their writings).

 

[37818]

Many can't.

Perhaps the definition @Martin Marprelate gave is wrong and he is right that the early church (and my) belief quality as "penal substitution". Or perhaps his definition is correct and he is wrong because neither of us held to the Theory.

Do you believe that my statement- that God placed our iniquities on Christ, that He became a curse for us - us an affirmation of Penal Substitution Theory?

Or do you believe something else has to be added?

Simply Christ suffering and dying on the account of all our sins being upon Him is penal substitution. How is it not? Isaiah 53:6. Romans 5:8. 2 Corinthians 5:14. 1 John 2:2.

 

[JonC]

Simply Christ suffering and dying on the account of all our sins being upon Him is penal substitution. How is it not? Isaiah 53:6. Romans 5:8. 2 Corinthians 5:14. 1 John 2:2.

Are you saying there really is not a distinction between Penal Substitution Theory and all of the other theories of Atonement?

I ask because Origen, who believed God ransomed us from Satan believed this was accomplished by Christ "being made sin". Anselm, who considered Origens theory wrong, believed God laid our iniquities on Him. Abelard, who strongly opposed Anselms view, also believed Christ bore our sins on the cross. Irenaeus viewed Christ as bearing our sins as well, but in terms of Recipitulation rather than being punished for our "sin debt".

So is it fair to say Penal Substitution Theory is meaningless when it comes to exploring how people interpret the Atonement because (in your view) it is an idea we all hold?

Also, how do you distinguish between Penal Substitution and the idea that God had to satisfy His wrath by punishing Jesus in order to pay our "sin debt"?

 

[37818]

Are you saying there really is not a distinction between Penal Substitution Theory and all of the other theories of Atonement?

I ask because Origen, who believed God ransomed us from Satan believed this was accomplished by Christ "being made sin". Anselm, who considered Origens theory wrong, believed God laid our iniquities on Him. Abelard, who strongly opposed Anselms view, also believed Christ bore our sins on the cross. Irenaeus viewed Christ as bearing our sins as well, but in terms of Recipitulation rather than being punished for our "sin debt".

So is it fair to say Penal Substitution Theory is meaningless when it comes to exploring how people interpret the Atonement because (in your view) it is an idea we all hold?

Also, how do you distinguish between Penal Substitution and the idea that God had to satisfy His wrath by punishing Jesus in order to pay our "sin debt"?

I am asking you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am asking you.

Good luck with that!

 

[JonC]

I am asking you.

I believe Penal Substitution Theory is the theory articulated during the Reformation period. As far as I know this is the traditional understanding. I relate the need to rework history to accompany an earlier origin to postmodernism.

Insofar as elements of the Atonement, I believe both penal and substitution are both implied and stated in Scripture. But they don't form Penal Substitution Atonement. That theory is formed by how these elements come together (and under what context they are combined) to form an explanation of the Atonement.

So yes, I do believe each theory of Atonement to be different as I believe it is not the elements (Scripture) but how they are interpreted and the conclusions that establish the theories.

How about you?

Do you see a difference between the view Christ died to pay our "sin debt" so we can be forgiven and the view Christ died as the conclusion of the Incarnation to experience that aspect of human existence and reverse what Adam had done (Irenaeus)?


Or do all of these seem to be the same view, perhaps only worded differently?