Then someone needs to inform Dr. Cooper, the Lutheran theologian, who supports PSA.
Lutherans can support many things. I am sure any theologian, much less a Lutheran theologian, would know that the view of Lutheran theology is Satisfaction theory. But most hold a blend. You would certainly view it as PSA (the only significant difference is the type of punishment (a punishment thar satisfied God's demands against us rather than a punishment as our penalty). Lutheran is often described as related to Aquinas while not Thomism.
I think it was not emphasized or articulated because of reasons given 50 times but it was believed.
I do not believe we can hold an opinion about what they believed except it be articulated in their writing. Your reasons are based on what
you would believe from what they wrote. We can only accept as their beliefs what they articulated in writing.
Suppose people read your posts and noted you hold Wesleyan theology. Oh, you fo not emphasize or articulate Wesleyan theology, but enough elements are there to know it is what you believe.
I would jump to your defense- not because I agree with you but because nobody has the right to say you believe anything other than what you articulated.
It obviously does not stand alone and we know this because the chief advocates of it also incorporated other aspects we have discussed.
This is true, I agree. I misspoke (miswrote). I had something specific in mind, but you are right (many Lutherans hold a blend of PSA and Satisfaction theory, for example).
What I mean is PSA either stands alone or is compromised into an amalgamation of views (perhaps focusing on some PSA elements).
But PSA cannot be held alongside views like Christus Victor, the Moral Influence Theory, Recapitulation, or Ransom Theory without changing those theories into something they are not.
That is most likely true. Especially when I and apparently a lot of others do see the beginnings of it in the early church writings.
The beginnings of every atonement view can be seen in the early church writings.
We definitely see the beginnings of Recapitulation in Irenaeus (actually, more than just the beginnings). We see three forms of Ransom theory within the early church.
And we see elements that would be used for Satisfaction Theory, Substitution, Moral Influence Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory.
BUT the elements are not the things themselves. The doctrines are what people do with those elements.
So yes, you can look at elements and say they are the beginnings of PSA. Others can look at the exact same elements and say they are the beginning of the Moral Influence Theory, or Satisfaction Theory, or the Governmental Theory. That is all subjective opinion.
My opinion is that these elements common to all atonement views are present in the early church writings because they - like all of these diverse views - were looking at the same historical events and the same Scriptures.
But we can only talk about the early Christians actually believing what they articulated. Anything else is less than honest.
Think of Calvin. Did he believe Limited Atonement? No. But the scope of the atonement was a post-Calvin discussion. The elements are there. There are also elements that challenge Limited Atonement. We can pretend Calvin would have held it (I think had he lived another century he woukd have as it is the logical conclusion of PSA). But I cannot say he believed Limited Atonement.
And it would be really true that PSA would have to be emphasized I think, when trying to evangelize pagans who thought themselves OK with God and were already trying to live decent, moral lives, with philosophical introspection, and needed to be convinced of God's holiness and attitude toward sin.
I think this depends on the worldview. I know a few, and have read several, who abandoned Christianity because of PSA because it is not in the biblical text itself (they concluded we hold a man-made faith) or because they view the philosophy of justice as flawed logic (this is especially the case with our younger generation).
But many Western pagans may be reached with PSA. The atonement type is also something Eastern pagans may identify with, but they would hold a very skewed view of God.
I do disagree with your emphasis on Hod's holiness. One thing that is extradionarly lacking in PSA is an appreciation of a just and holy God (God's holiness is compromised to the extent He could be appeased and be satisfied with punishment apart from it being the actual sinner being punished).
But PSA does focus heavily on the Law and human actions. So it could be used to explain sin to those bent in that direction.
You, in some posts at least, seem to be nearly at PSA at least in part, which makes sense because you came from it. Movement in belief does not necessarily mean improvement, one can slip into error as well as improve doctrinal understanding.
I think it appears to you that I am nearly at PSA for the same reason you believe the early church writers believed PSA although they never articulated that belief.
We have similar language. The reason is we hold the same Bibles in our hands and read the same text. But we do not mean the same things.
I sometimes push it to overstatement, but the reason is I would prefer to magnify where we disagree rather than allow "double speak" through vagueness.
For example, we both believe Christ bore our sins. But we do not remotely hold the same meaning for that statement.
I can promise you that my view is nowhere near PSA. I focus on our differences rather than what we have in common when arguing because I want others to see the difference and read the text of Scripture, then decide for themselves which direction to go.
I would be careful refuting it lest you get painted into a corner where you embrace doctrines that you might not otherwise have embraced.
And I offer you the same caution, to be careful in accepting what goes beyond God's words lest you find yourself carried away because you chose to lean on your own understanding ratger than the words God has given us.
We all need to be more careful than most are. I have seen too many people disciple themsrlves under the opinions of various sects and understandings (whether Catholic, Cavinistic, Pentecostal,...whatever) and end up far from Scripture without realizing tge distance traveled.
