PSA

[DaveXR650]

If PSA was really defined as "Jesus had died in my place, bearing my sin and its punishment for me, so I could know God and live with him forever" and it did not matter if it was God's punishment or Satan's punishment, simple or representative punishment, ontological or judicial...etc. then PSA is meaningless because it can mean so many different things.

I don't think it would matter if you only meant that the actual infliction of the injury upon Jesus body was at the hands of wicked men, or, I guess, even Satan. But it does matter if the "satisfaction" rendered was to Satan or to God. Penal substitution clarifies that whereas the early church fathers were all over the place. But, the point is, as Martin had shown in some quotes earlier, the early church fathers seemed to many to be developing an understanding that Jesus was suffering as a propitiation to the justice of God. It is clear in their language unless like you, there is a deep animosity to that doctrine which seems to blind your reasoning.

 

[JonC]

I realize that it is easy to give hazy theologies and let it incorporate a very wide array of beliefs. In application this is sometimes good.

But when discussing doctrine it is not good to create vague doctrines just to increase the size of its umbrella.

When we create, or adopt (as PSA has done), language that is common to Christianity as a whole we need to define terms to show what we mean.

Yes, if we do not apply to the terms the Early Church used their own definitions then we can say all Christians (Reformed, Anabaptist, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc) have the same view of the Atonement.

The problem is us saying this does not make it true.

 

[JonC]

I don't think it would matter if you only meant that the actual infliction of the injury upon Jesus body was at the hands of wicked men, or, I guess, even Satan. But it does matter if the "satisfaction" rendered was to Satan or to God. Penal substitution clarifies that whereas the early church fathers were all over the place. But, the point is, as Martin had shown in some quotes earlier, the early church fathers seemed to many to be developing an understanding that Jesus was suffering as a propitiation to the justice of God. It is clear in their language unless like you, there is a deep animosity to that doctrine which seems to blind your reasoning.

The problem is when that language was first used it did not mean what you believe. They did not mean God punished Jesus using Satan as the mode for our sin debt.

Read their writings in full. They speak of Satan justly punishing us because we belonged to him and Satan unjustly punishing Jesus because while He was the "Son of Adam" He was also sinless.

This leads to their next conclusion - that Christ destroyed Satan's power because He unjustly suffered and died for our sins. God raised Him on the 3rd day as divine judgment.


Yes, PSA does not exclude one from salvation. But it is not the Classic view. It is not Satisfaction Atonement. It is not Substitution Atonement. It is not Moral Influence Theory.

All of these are different. They express different and competing views of the Atonement.

 

[DaveXR650]

I realize that it is easy to give hazy theologies and let it incorporate a very wide array of beliefs. In application this is sometimes good.

But when discussing doctrine it is not good to create vague doctrines just to increase the size of its umbrella.

When we create, or adopt (as PSA has done), language that is common to Christianity as a whole we need to define terms to show what we mean.

Can you please explain to me why you keep hammering this? That general definition was a quote from the article cited by the OP. You, for some reason seem determined to hammer home the idea that that is not a detailed enough definition, even though it must have satisfied the editors at the Gospel Coalition.

I have put up 2 more explanation, with much more detail, 4 more if you count the quotes that relate directly to areas of dispute and you don't even acknowledge that. Plus, you have come over to this thread to try to mess up our discussion of penal substitution after barring me from commenting on the thread on the ECF's views.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yes, PSA does not exclude one from salvation. But it is not the Classic view. It is not Satisfaction Atonement. It is not Substitution Atonement. It is not Moral Influence Theory.

All of these are different. They express different and competing views of the Atonement.

I don't know why you are doing this over here but once again, some of the quotes from the ECF's do indicate penal substitution. And PSA is satisfaction atonement but with a more developed theme of justice and punishment. And, the idea of moral influence of the atonement is completely compatible along side PSA, just not as the core of our atonement.

 

[JonC]

I don't know why you are doing this over here but once again, some of the quotes from the ECF's do indicate penal substitution. And PSA is satisfaction atonement but with a more developed theme of justice and punishment. And, the idea of moral influence of the atonement is completely compatible along side PSA, just not as the core of our atonement.

They do indicate a type of penal substitution.

They held that Jesus had died in the place of "the whole human race" bearing man's and the punishment of Satan that man justly earns, so that man would be reconciled to God and be cleansed of sin.

I will admit you could say that is a type of penal substitution, and that that beluef would fit into your definition.

The problem is the actual belief is not PSA. When defining PSA its holders have devolved into making their own belief benign and generic, probably because it has been declining over the last couple of decades.

Paul Enns offers a good definition:

Jesus Christ willingly took humanity's place on the cross, bearing the penalty for our sins, satisfying God's justice, and allowing for our forgiveness and reconciliation, with Christ being our legal substitute before God's judgment.

But nobody would confuse the Early Church as believing this definition.


The reason the Classic view was introduced is you offered a generic atonement as defining PSA. I was saying every Christian, even those who do not hold PSA, would hold your definition of it.

PSA really has a meaning that distinguishes it from other views.

 

[DaveXR650]

Yes, PSA does not exclude one from salvation. But it is not the Classic view.

How very open minded. You should write for the Conciliar Post. Regarding the "Classic view" which is not really a unified view, but once again this is commentary in Stott's book about the idea of God deceiving Satan and the "fishhook" and "mousetrap" analogies:
"To be sure, these theologians may well have developed such pictures as a concession to the popular mind, and the early Fathers saw a certain justice in the idea that he who had deceived the human race should himself be deceived into defeat. But to attribute fraudulent action to God is unworthy of him."
"What is of permanent value in these theories is first that they took seriously the reality, malevolence and power of the devil, and secondly that they proclaimed his decisive, objective defeat at the cross for our liberation. Nevertheless, R.W. Dale was not exaggerating when he dubbed them 'intolerable, monstrous, and profane'. We deny that the devil has any rights over us which God is obliged to satisfy. Consequently, any notion of Christ's death as a necessary transaction with, let alone deception of, the devil is ruled out."

 

[DaveXR650]

The reason the Classic view was introduced is you offered a generic atonement as defining PSA. I was saying every Christian, even those who do not hold PSA, would hold your definition of it.

What in the world is your problem? How many times do I have to repeat that the original short definition was from the OP and the attached article. It wasn't mine. I then provided 2 more explanations in a definitional format which you have failed to address. So keep repeating your non point as much as you want.

 

[JonC]

How very open minded. You should write for the Conciliar Post. Regarding the "Classic view" which is not really a unified view...

You are mistaking. The Classic view is a unified view. It is the common view of the Atonement expressed in Early Church writings.

You are speaking of Christus Victor (a motif or theme common throughout Christianity, and the primary up to the 11th century).

The "mouse trap" explanation is not from the Early Church (it is a 6th century explanation offered by Augustine).

 

[JonC]

What in the world is your problem?

I was answering your question. Don't ask of you dont want an answer.

 

[JonC]

What did Christ's death, per PSA, accomplish?

 

[DaveXR650]

You are mistaking. The Classic view is a unified view. It is the common view of the Atonement expressed in Early Church writings.

Then explain this. I don't have this at hand. This is from secondary sources. From Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 2.8.1
From William Lane Craig, "A long, interesting discussion of the mercy seat follows. Origen concludes that Christ is at once 'the propitiatory and priest and sacrifice which is offered for the people.' Because 'he is a sacrifice, propitiation is effected by the shedding of his own blood for the forgiveness of past sins'.(2.8.11).
How this fits with Christ as a ransom paid to Satan remains obscure. They appear largely as two independent aspects of Origen's multifaceted atonement theory."

I think this is a clear case of what I mean by a non unified view. Clearly, Origen was looking at multiple aspects of atonement, one of which indeed clearly is penal substitution.

 

[DaveXR650]

What did Christ's death, per PSA, accomplish?

See post 3,10,11

 

[JonC]

Then explain this. I don't have this at hand.

The Early Church is generally considered the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, which are the Christian writers from the earliest church up to the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325).

"the propitiatory and priest and sacrifice which is offered for the people.' Because 'he is a sacrifice, propitiation is effected by the shedding of his own blood for the forgiveness of past sins' does not contradict his view (or the Classic view).

This is what I believe as well. But you have to remember that the Early Church believed Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteous (as opposed to paying a sin debt) and that God literally forgives sins.

 

[JonC]

See post 3,10,11

So basically God punished Jesus in our place so that He would not have to hold us accountable for our actions?

 

[DaveXR650]

So basically God punished Jesus in our place so that He would not have to hold us accountable for our actions?

Well, yes but the way I would put it is more like this. God loves us and wants to forgive us. The plan for Jesus being our lamb for the atonement was God's way of forgiving us and yet upholding his holiness and wrath against sin and his absolute justice. To understand this you had to have two things which I think would have hampered the early church's understanding of this. One would be that you must have a full understanding of who Jesus was and his divinity. And their writings show that that was not totally understood. And two, you would have had to have some understanding of Judaism and the Old Testament sacrificial system. Of course that would be no problem for Jewish believers but I think it was for gentile Christians.

 

[JonC]

Well, yes but the way I would put it is more like this.

Thank you. I understand how you would put it, that God wants to forgive us...etc.

But I was looking at the basic statement - what the Atonement accomplished. When we get into "understanding of Judiasm" I think you miss a lot (there is a reason tzedek is what it is, and is not what it is not).

So essentially, the Atonement changed God rather than man (it appeased God's wrath, satisfied God's justice, so that God would not have to hold men accountable for their sins).

I believe that Christ's blood literally cleanses us from all unrighteous (rather than paying a sin debt). The Atonement changes man (resulting in a "new Adam", or "Second Adam", in Whom we are remade).


Now...I am not saying that you do not hold that - or something of it - in addition to the Atonement. I am just speaking of how we differ in terms of what was actually accomplished.


You cannot appeal to an understanding of Judiasm because they maintained a different view of justice (tzedek) and the OT sacrificial system (the animal sacrifice, which occurred outside of the Temple, was not what covered sins, it was - to them - the blood taken into the Temple to cleanse from sin).