PSA

[Martin Marprelate]

It is neither scriptural nor historical. You try desperately to twist the words of the ECF and read your meanings into their writings to support a theory that was non-existent at the time. And you do the same with scripture. Neither the Eastern nor Western branches of the church believed PSA, yet you assert that prominent teachers of those churches -- the ECF -- believed PSA. If they had, they would have been charged with heresy. Your position is irrational, untenable, and ridiculous. You cannot be taken seriously.
In short, neither the Greek nor Latin church taught PSA, and that includes the Fathers. This is a theological and historical fact that cannot be altered by wishful thinking, faulty interpretation, or dishonesty.
There is not one trace of PSA in the entire church, East or West, prior to Calvin and Luther.

PSA is both Scriptural and historical and you have not shown otherwise. That the doctrine was not called "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" in ancient times does not mean that the doctrine itself was not understood and acknowledged by the ECFs. I have posted extracts from various church fathers showing this, and you have shown nothing. Stamping your little foot and insisting that things are this way or that does not constitute proof.

As a matter of fact, I don't give a hoot whether the ECFs taught it or not. I only produced the extracts that I've posted for the benefit of you and @JonC. As I stated in the O.P., the apostasy set in even before the apostles had passed away. The only question is whether PSA complies with Scripture, and it does.

 

[JonC]

PSA is both Scriptural and historical and you have not shown otherwise. That the doctrine was not called "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" in ancient times does not mean that the doctrine itself was not understood and acknowledged by the ECFs. I have posted extracts from various church fathers showing this, and you have shown nothing. Stamping your little foot and insisting that things are this way or that does not constitute proof.

As a matter of fact, I don't give a hoot whether the ECFs taught it or not. I only produced the extracts that I've posted for the benefit of you and @JonC. As I stated in the O.P., the apostasy set in even before the apostles had passed away. The only question is whether PSA complies with Scripture, and it does.

The criteria is Scripture.

The ECF did not hold PSA. To be fair, though, they did not hold a developed framework for the atonement. They did not "do theology" as well think of it. It is an error to say they held PSA because that is assuming had they held such a framework it would have been PSA.

But the criteria is not ECF writings. It is not Catholic writings, not Reformed writings, not Anglican writings, etc. It is God's Word.

Even here people disagree about what constitutes God's Word.

If it is the biblical text (God's literal words, "what is written") then PSA is not in the Bible.
If it is what is taught by the biblical text then it might be, subjective to those deciding what is taught.

 

[JonC]

I don't see paganism in the EOC, but I do in the RCC, and some of Protestantism. Where do you see paganism in the EOC?

Their understanding of the sacraments, the incorporation of mysticism, their rituals (a blend of Judiasm and Roman paganism), veneration of icons, a mystical Eucharist, their ecclesiology, their priesthood (blend of Judaism and paganism), penance, deification....to name a few.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I need to clarify as you misunderstood a major point. Nobody, that I know of, believes God forgives men based on them apologizing or even sincerely being sorry.

In the US (and I am not sure about the UK, so we have a similar issue) if a man stands before the court guilty of murder, but he is discovered not to be the man who committed the murder, he is not punished for the murder.

That is the ultimate difference in our positions.

You seem to say God punished Jesus - or our sins laid on Jesus - instead of us and therefore we are not punished (correct me if I misunderstood your view).

I am saying that Christ cleanses us from all unrighteous, that at Judgment when we stand before God we have been conformed into Christ's image, the "old self" crucified, and we stand as a new creation (not guilty of the crimes committed by the "old self" which by then no longer exists).

I hope that helps you understand a bit better. Knowing you thought this recreation was just saying "I'm sorry" explains how you thought it did not fulfill the law.

We are just going round and round. The blood of Christ (Heb. 9:22), shed upon the cross, does indeed cleanse us from all unrighteousness - but we are not therefore perfectly righteous and still need to confess our sins (1 John 1:7-2:2). The reason that we are so cleansed is that the Lord Jesus has propitiated the righteous anger of God against our sin, and is therefore able to act as our Advocate. We are justified, but our progressive sanctification is not complete.
You say that the crimes committed by the "old self" no longer exist. That is not quite what the Scripture says. The Scripture says that God will remember our sins no more (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 10:17). The reason for that is that the Lord Jesus has made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever (Heb. 10:11-14) and the Father's wrath is satisfied.

 

[JonC]

We are just going round and round. The blood of Christ (Heb. 9:22), shed upon the cross, does indeed cleanse us from all unrighteousness - but we are not therefore perfectly righteous and still need to confess our sins (1 John 1:7-2:2).

You are right that we are not perfectly righteous, and will not be until we are "raised Incorruptible".

Christ is the surety that we will be righteous when God judges the world.

By faith we are justified (declared just). The declaration is based on a future truth. Christ is the surety of this covenant. We will be like Him.

A surety is a contractual term (as in a covenant). It is the basis of confidence that something will occur. A guarantor.

God justifies us in the present as Christ is this surety.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The criteria is Scripture.

The ECF did not hold PSA. To be fair, though, they did not hold a developed framework for the atonement. They did not "do theology" as well think of it. It is an error to say they held PSA because that is assuming had they held such a framework it would have been PSA.

But the criteria is not ECF writings. It is not Catholic writings, not Reformed writings, not Anglican writings, etc. It is God's Word.

I am glad you agree with me. It makes all those threads about ECFs look rather silly, doesn't it?

Even here people disagree about what constitutes God's Word.

If it is the biblical text (God's literal words, "what is written") then PSA is not in the Bible.
If it is what is taught by the biblical text then it might be, subjective to those deciding what is taught.

PSA is found very clearly in Scripture ("what is written"), in Romans 3:25-26 and in Isaiah 53. The Bible does not use the words "Penal Substitution" any more than it uses "Trinity" or "Supra- or Infralapsarianism" or "pre-, a- or postmillennialism." These are words used by humans to try to portray the meanings of Scripture.
PSA is clearly taught in a host of other places.

 

[JonC]

I am glad you agree with me. It makes all those threads about ECFs look rather silly, doesn't it?

PSA is found very clearly in Scripture ("what is written"), in Romans 3:25-26 and in Isaiah 53. The Bible does not use the words "Penal Substitution" any more than it uses "Trinity" or "Supra- or Infralapsarianism" or "pre-, a- or postmillennialism." These are words used by humans to try to portray the meanings of Scripture.
PSA is clearly taught in a host of other places.

You misunderstood my post.

I was not talking about titles of doctrines being in the biblical text but the doctrines themselves.

We can easily highlight the doctrine of the Trinity in our Bibles. We cannot do this with PSA because it is not there. What you see is PSA being taught. What I am looking at is the literal text.

But I understand how you believe it is taught. I disagree with the reasoning.

When I say it is unbiblical and you say it is biblical we are using different definitions of "biblical".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are right that we are not perfectly righteous, and will not be until we are "raised Incorruptible".

Christ is the surety that we will be righteous when God judges the world.

By faith we are justified (declared just). The declaration is based on a future truth. Christ is the surety of this covenant. We will be like Him.

A surety is a contractual term (as in a covenant). It is the basis of confidence that something will occur. A guarantor.

God justifies us in the present as Christ is this surety.

I'm glad you have brought up the subject of Christ as "surety" and also that you have accepted my use of the word "guarantor."
At some point I will start a new thread on what a 'surety' is, based on Hebrews 7:20-28, and also the O.T. uses in Genesis and Proverbs. But I have no time to write anything more now. If I don't get on with my sermon it won't be ready for the Lord's day.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When I say it is unbiblical and you say it is biblical we are using different definitions of "biblical".

My definition of "Biblical" is that it is in the Bible.

 

[Ben1445]

I just want to re-emphasize this post of JonC. It is concise and entirely accurate.

Western Christians are just ignorant -- not stupid, but ignorant. They try to squeeze an Eastern religion into a Western paradigm, and it doesn't work. The concept of PSA would have been, and is today, completely foreign and morally repugnant to Eastern Christianity. As JonC said, it is pagan to them. It presents God's nature as completely different from the view of His nature held in the East. Thus, PSA was not and could not have been held by the ECF nor the early church, and it was not even held in the Roman branch of the church. The Classic view was the view taught and believed for the first millennium of church history. Anselm came up with Satisfaction, Aquinas with the superabundance of merit, and then Calvin and Luther invented PSA as a revision and expansion of Anselm's Satisfaction. All of these Western theories departed completely from the Classic view held by the earliest churches and still held by the EOC today.
To understand the early view of the atonement, it cannot be seen through the lens of Western Christianity. It must be seen and understood the way the earliest Christians did -- through an Eastern worldview concerning the nature of God and salvation, which differs radically from the way the West sees God and salvation.

Christianity is not an “eastern religion.” That is a term that includes Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and the like. Please stop calling what you call true Christianity an eastern religion. That is confusion.

 

[JonC]

I'm glad you have brought up the subject of Christ as "surety" and also that you have accepted my use of the word "guarantor."
At some point I will start a new thread on what a 'surety' is, based on Hebrews 7:20-28, and also the O.T. uses in Genesis and Proverbs. But I have no time to write anything more now. If I don't get on with my sermon it won't be ready for the Lord's day.

I did not realize you used "guarantor". I use both, but lean towards guarantor. I do not know how it is in the UK, but everyone I think here knows "guarantor". We know "surety" in certain occupations (like construction). But they are synonyms.

A "surety" or "guarantor" is something that assures of a certain outcome.

We have surety bond companies here. They guarantee an outcome. If I finance you to build a road the surety guarantees my investment.

Christ is the surety or guarantor of a better covenant. God declares us just through faith with Christ Himself as the guarantee we will be just as He confirmed us into His image, makes us new creations in Him, through the cleansing of His blood. We are crucified with Christ (die in the flesh) and resurrected with Him (made alive in the Spirit).

The cool thing about this view is it is literally in the biblical text. We do not need to expound or decide what is being taught. All we need to do is believe God's words, lean not on our understanding, and apply those words to our life as believers.

 

[JonC]

Christianity is not an “eastern religion.” That is a term that includes Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and the like. Please stop calling what you call true Christianity an eastern religion. That is confusion.

It was a Near Eastern religion initially in that God chose the Hebrew people (an Eastern people) and ordained the Hebrew religion (an Eastern religion) which culminated in Christianity in the East.

The point of emphasizing the Eastern part is the context in which Scripture was written is a distinctly Eastern concept. It would be a mistake to apply a Western or Asisn context to Scripture.

(Near East and Middle East are now used interchangeable for the area where Christianity originated as the Near East is viewed as a part of the Middle East).


Buddhism is not an Eastern religion. It is a South Asian religion.

Confucianism is a Far Eastern religion.

Hinduism is a South Asian religion.

 

[JonC]

@Ben1445

I learned the last post the hard way.

I was taking a full load in grad school and decided to add a class. I saw "Introduction to the Old Testament", and since my undergrad degree was in religion I took it - thinking it would be easy.

I mean, if you took several Old Testament courses, wouldn't an Introduction to the Old Testament be pretty much an overview of what you studied as an undergraduate?

I found that by "introduction" they meant the ANE worldviews and cultures in the area of the OT. I have never heard "introduction" used that way. Sometimes I think they made up using it that way to trick us into taking the class. It was very interesting, but not an easy course.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

We do not need to expound or decide what is being taught. All we need to do is believe God's words, lean not on our understanding, and apply those words to our life as believers.

[Quick stop in sermon-writing for cup of tea]
With respect, I think you do. 'Surety' or 'Guarantor' has a certain meaning in Scripture which is not identical to the definition you have given.
And with respect again, in a previous thread, you used the word "guarantee" which I suggested was not as precise as 'guarantor.'

 

[JonC]

[Quick stop in sermon-writing for cup of tea]
With respect, I think you do. 'Surety' or 'Guarantor' has a certain meaning in Scripture which is not identical to the definition you have given.
And with respect again, in a previous thread, you used the word "guarantee" which I suggested was not as precise as 'guarantor.'

Tea? You mean coffee? Or a tall glass of sweet iced tea?

You actually have a good point. Often our theologies differ because of how we define terms.

We are talking about ἔγγυος

Mounce's definition - guarantee, guarantor (Heb 7:22)
NAS - under good security (adjective), guarantee (noun)
Ling - fiador; guarantee, guarantor
INT - the guarantee
Logeion - security
Abarim- secured or guaranteed
Tufts University - to give security
Ancient Greek Dictionary - guarantee

In several ancient Greek texts (3 BC to 2 AD) the word is used as a guarantee for a financial loan and contracts where individuals were required to provide a guarantee the contract or obligation would be met.

In 2 Maccabees it means a guarantee (the men went to battle knowing they would win because God's faithfulness was their guarantee of victory).


I agree guarantee and guarantor are different. Guarantee is what the guarantor ("person, organization, or thing that guarantees something") does.


1. We are crucified with Christ, we crucify the flesh, we are made alive in the Spirit. God has predestined us to be conformed in Christ's image.

2. Christ Himself is the Guarantor that we will be righteous.

3. God declares us just in Christ as there is a Surety we will be righteous.

 

[JonC]

I do need to note that I am using surety or guarantor to demonstrate why God forgives our sins in Christ.

This is not the context it is used in Scripture. In the Bible Christ is the surety of a better covenant to us, not God. We die in the flesh and know we will be made alive in the Spirit because He died in the flesh and was made alive in the Spirit.

Obviously God needs no surety. He is sovereign and has predestined us to be conformed into His image, to be righteous, to be glorified, to be raised Incorruptible. God does not need to be appeased. It is not God that needs to change but man.

We can be confident on our hope because Christ Himself is the surety of a better covenant and a perfect High Priest who mediated for us when we sin.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 0430 GMT ((Thr) 1030 pm EST / 730 pm PST

 

[JonC]

One issue we have not discussed is who does the Atonement change?

Does God change (His wrath appeased so He no longer looks at the wicked as wicked because their debt is paid)?

Does man change (progressively cleansed from unrighteousness, being conformed into Christ's image to the ultimate state of being in His image)?

 

[easternstar]

Christianity is not an “eastern religion.” That is a term that includes Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and the like. Please stop calling what you call true Christianity an eastern religion. That is confusion.

You know what I'm saying, and it isn't that Christianity is the same as the religions you listed. Christianity was born in the East, not in the West. It was born amidst an Eastern worldview, not a Western one. That's important for how doctrines were formulated and expressed.

 

[easternstar]

PSA is both Scriptural and historical and you have not shown otherwise. That the doctrine was not called "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" in ancient times does not mean that the doctrine itself was not understood and acknowledged by the ECFs. I have posted extracts from various church fathers showing this, and you have shown nothing. Stamping your little foot and insisting that things are this way or that does not constitute proof.

As a matter of fact, I don't give a hoot whether the ECFs taught it or not. I only produced the extracts that I've posted for the benefit of you and @JonC. As I stated in the O.P., the apostasy set in even before the apostles had passed away. The only question is whether PSA complies with Scripture, and it does.

The two long articles I posted offer ample evidence and proof to refute the claim that the ECF believed PSA. Reading your own Western johnny-come-lately heinous meanings back into the ECF writings and twisting them to suit your purpose is dishonest. But, hey, strain away at it until you pop something loose or burst a blood vessel; it still won't change the fact that the ECF did not hold to PSA.