Sin and Substitutionary Atonement salvation

[Michael Wrenn]

the Bible clearly takes the penal substitionary view, as espoused from Jesus/Paul/ Author of hebrews, all the Apostles...

Rooted firmly in the sacrificial sacrifice ordained by God under Old Covenant...

Are you against God having to need to be appeased by death of Christ, or do you view it as making God a killer and vulgar act?

Both actually.

If the Bible teaches as you say, why was penal substitution not taught until Calvin? The earliest churches did not teach it.

 

[The Biblicist]

Both actually.

If the Bible teaches as you say, why was penal substitution not taught until Calvin? The earliest churches did not teach it.

I have provided explicit and clear penal substitutionary langauge from Justin Martry and I can show much more of the same in the very first of the Ante-Nicene Father's. Your response to the language of Justin Marty is simply weak and wrong.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have provided explicit and clear penal substitutionary langauge from Justin Martry and I can show much more of the same in the very first of the Ante-Nicene Father's. Your response to the language of Justin Marty is simply weak and wrong.

And I have provided three sources in post #80 that prove you wrong. In Derek Flood's article ( the third source listed), look at what he says about Justin Martyr -- bottom of 144, top of 145.

As these sources clearly show, the Penal Substitution theory was unknown and thus untaught until Calvin. Christus Victor was the view of the earliest churches and was held for a millenium until Anselm's Satisfaction theory. The other early view was the Moral Influence view.

So, the scriptures, the earliest churches, the early fathers, scholarship, and church history are all against you.

 

[The Biblicist]

And I have provided three sources in post #80 that prove you wrong. In Derek Flood's article ( the third source listed), look at what he says about Justin Martyr -- bottom of 144, top of 145.

As these sources clearly show, the Penal Substitution theory was unknown and thus untaught until Calvin. Christus Victor was the view of the earliest churches and was held for a millenium until Anselm's Satisfaction theory. The other early view was the Moral Influence view.

So, the scriptures, the earliest churches, the early fathers, scholarship, and church history are all against you.

Very little systematic theology is available in the second century ECF's. Just because there is no systematic presentation of penal substitution does not mean it was not believed. The language used by Justin Marty cannot possibly be interpreted any other way.

Derek overlooks the specific statement "IN THE PLACE OF" and so that very statement repudiates his entire objection that Justin does not state what end Christ suffered the curse.

 

[The Biblicist]

And I have provided three sources in post #80 that prove you wrong. In Derek Flood's article ( the third source listed), look at what he says about Justin Martyr -- bottom of 144, top of 145.
.

Here is the essence of Derek's argument:

"‘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.’

From this single quote they pronounce that Justin’s statement ‘amounts to a
clear statement of penal substitution’, and proceed to move onto the next church father. Christ took ‘upon him the curses of all’, Justin
writes, but he does not tell us to what end he took it."

However, Derek plainly does not read the entire context and he ignores the precise langauge.

Not only does he ignore the words "God MADE him" and that what God made him to was to take upon himself "the curse" but he plainly spells out the reason "IN THE PLACE OF" others. The "curse" is the penalty of the law.

Justin Martyrs later statement about "healing" is in perfect keeping with what he previously stated and both of which are found in Isaiah 53:

4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

One has to be either willfully blind or so committed to ideology to miss the clear penal substitutitonary statements repeated over and over again by Isaiah.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Very little systematic theology is available in the second century ECF's. Just because there is no systematic presentation of penal substitution does not mean it was not believed. The language used by Justin Marty cannot possibly be interpreted any other way.

Derek overlooks the specific statement "IN THE PLACE OF" and so that very statement repudiates his entire objection that Justin does not state what end Christ suffered the curse.

Derek has sufficiently shown that Justin Martyr and the early church fathers did not teach penal substitution.

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, there is a difference in substitutionary concepts and penal substitution.

Amazing that the earliest churches and the early fathers had the same scriptures that we have today, and yet penal substitution was not believed or taught until Calvin.

 

[The Biblicist]

Derek has sufficiently shown that Justin Martyr and the early church fathers did not teach penal substitution.

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, there is a difference in substitutionary concepts and penal substitution.
Amazing that the earliest churches and the early fathers had the same scriptures that we have today, and yet penal substitution was not believed or taught until Calvin.

Amazing, utterly amazing willful ignorance. I have shown that Derek overlooked explicit penal substitutionary language. Just like you, it is simply willful ignorance.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Amazing, utterly amazing willful ignorance. I have shown that Derek overlooked explicit penal substitutionary language. Just like you, it is simply willful ignorance.

Have you really read the entire article? Doesn't look like it.

But you go ahead and believe as you wish. I have no problem with that, as long as I don't have to believe it.

I was talking with an AMiA minister about the atonement, and he said he could see some truth in all the views.