The Early Atonement View

[JonC]

@Charlie24

I think that the difference between our beliefs can be summed up in a few distinctions. I believe this because we both believe that Christ bore our sins, He suffered the wages of our sins, our sins were laid on Him, the Just for the unjust, that it was God’s will to “crush” Him and to put Him to grief, and that it is by His stripes we are healed.

But we disagree on a few points about how this was accomplished.

I hold the ECM of the atonement. It is called the “Early Church Model” but it is not as developed as theories of the Atonement like the Moral Influence Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, or Penal Substitution Theory.

Christus Victor is a theme that points to the emphasis of the Early Church, and Ransom Theory is really a statement rather than a theory (you probably have noticed this...both are points rather than a concise framework).

The main reason for this is that the Early Church did not view doctrine in terms of these theologies. They held to doctrine but not theology as we use the term. They did not try to condense God’s work into a concise framework.

For example, in discussing the millennial reign of Christ Tertullian he strongly stated his belief that Christ will return and reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But he also said “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” He stated his belief, accepted that this is one view among others. This was never formulated into a hard framework.

Anyway, this is how I look at differences. I believe that the ECM is correct, as do many. But there are many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, who think otherwise.

NOTE : This thread is purposed to explain the ECM (the "Classic view of the Atonement"). It is not a debate but is to help those who hold a different view understand this view. This thread is not designed to persuade others to accept the Clasdic view but is simply to help others understand it.

 

[JonC]

Here is the Early Church Model


1. Jesus gave His life as a ransom to Satan (“the whole world lies under the power of the Evil One”) to free mankind from his power over them.

2. The Father “gave Jesus up” to die a sacrificial death to save us. All of our sins were placed upon Him and nailed to the cross. This is a heroic sacrifice than a ritualistic or pagan style of sacrifice to placate an angry God.

3. Forgiveness of our sins, rather than God punishing Christ in our place to satisfy His justice.

4. By His descent into Sheol and His resurrection Jesus conquered Satan, “binding the strong man and plundering his goods.”

5. Jesus became the Second Adam, undoing our mortality and corruption, and enabling us to partake of the divine nature with Him.

6. Christ’s blood cleanses us from sin. Being cleansed from sin allows us to be reconciled to the Father. We receive imputed righteousness at our initial salvation, but what God expects of us after this is real righteousness (“moving from glory to glory”) made possible through the power of Christ culminating in man being re-created in Christ’s image.

7. Jesus taught us the ways of the Father so that we can be fitted to be eternal citizens in His kingdom.


I know that is not an explanation, but it is an introduction. I can’t explain the Early Church Model as if it were a concise framework of redemption because it is not. Have patience with me.

 

[JonC]

A good example of how the Early Church viewed Christ’s suffering in a different way than many do in the Western Christianity (it is still the view within Eastern Christianity and traditional Anabaptist doctrine):

“This [passage, Isaiah 53] shows the unrighteous rage of the devil when he unleashed himself on our Savior. For although there was no sin found in His being according to the flesh, but that flesh remained sinless, the devil as if [Christ] were a sinner killed Him. And in so doing manifested the totality of his wickedness. But for this very reason, salvation came for those who had fallen into sin.” Theodore of Heraclea

 

[JonC]

And here are a few more quotes to consider:

“The devil was conquered by his own trophy of victory. The devil jumped for joy … by seducing the first man, he slew him; by slaying the last man [Christ], he lost the first from his snare…The devil jumped for joy when Christ died,; and by that very death of Christ the devil was overcome” Augustine

“When He became incarnate and was made man, He began anew the long line of human beings. And He furnished us…with salvation – so that what we had lost in Adam, namely, to be in the image and likeness of God, we might recover in Christ Jesus. Irenaeus

“This is Crist, who, as the Mediator of the two, puts on man so that He may lead them to the Father. What man is, Christ was willing to be – so that man may also be what Christ is.” Cyprian

“He desired to re-create that Adam by means of the weak, and to bring aid to His entire creation. He accomplished these things through the birth of His Son Jesus Christ, Our Lord.” Victorinus

“Our Lord Jesus Christ endured man’s condition on our behalf, so that He could destroy all sin and furnish was with the provision necessary for our entrance into eternal life.” Phileas

“As we have said, when the body of the Lord was hung upon the cross, the tombs were opened, Hades was unlocked, the dead received life again, and the souls were sent back again into the world. For the Lord had conquered Hades, had trodden down death, and had covered the enemy with shame.” Alesander of Alexandria

“He submitted to death, purchasing us back by His own blood from him who had got us into his power, sold under sin.” Origen

“For my no other means cold we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and mortality – unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up in incorruptibility.” Irenaeus

“What is the justice, therefore, by which the devil was conquered? What, unless the justice of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Because, although he found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. And it is certainly just that the debtors, whom he held, should be set free, since they believed in Him whom he slew without any debt. It is in this way, then, that we are said to be justified by His blood.” Augustine

“Because of the love He had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God. He gave His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.” Clement of Rome

“We were not helped by His original life, sunk as we were in sin. Therefore, He came down into our deadness in order that, He having died to sin, we might then receive the life of His that is forever. For we bear about in our body the dying of Jesus.” Origen

“When our Lord arose from the place of the dead, and trampled death under foot, and bound the strong one, and set man free, then the whole creation saw clearly that for man’s sake the Judge was condemned.” Melito

I mean Him who crucified my sin, along with him [Satan] who was the inventor of it. Christ has condemned all the deceit and malice of the devil under the feet of those who carry Him in their hearts.” Ignatius

“In the last times, the Son was made a man among men, and He re-formed the human race. However, He destroyed and conquered man’s enemy. So He gave to His handiwork victory against the adversary.” Irenaeus

“For the apostasy had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own. Now, Christ did not do this by violent means, but by the means of persuasion. This is becoming to God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires. In this manner, neither would justice be infringed upon, nor would the ancient handiworks of God to destruction.” Irenaeus.

“In this manner, the Lord has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh. He also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, actually imparting God to men by means of the Spirit. On the other hand, He has joined man to God by His own incarnation. And He will truly and lastingly bestow immorality upon us at His second coming – through communion with God.” Irenaeus

“In His work of recapitulation, He has summed up all things. He has waged war against our enemy. He has crushed him who had in the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and trampled upon his head.” Irenaeus

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24

I think that the difference between our beliefs can be summed up in a few distinctions. I believe this because we both believe that Christ bore our sins, He suffered the wages of our sins, our sins were laid on Him, the Just for the unjust, that it was God’s will to “crush” Him and to put Him to grief, and that it is by His stripes we are healed.

But we disagree on a few points about how this was accomplished.

I hold the ECM of the atonement. It is called the “Early Church Model” but it is not as developed as theories of the Atonement like the Moral Influence Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, or Penal Substitution Theory.

Christus Victor is a theme that points to the emphasis of the Early Church, and Ransom Theory is really a statement rather than a theory (you probably have noticed this...both are points rather than a concise framework).

The main reason for this is that the Early Church did not view doctrine in terms of these theologies. They held to doctrine but not theology as we use the term. They did not try to condense God’s work into a concise framework.

For example, in discussing the millennial reign of Christ Tertullian he strongly stated his belief that Christ will return and reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But he also said “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” He stated his belief, accepted that this is one view among others. This was never formulated into a hard framework.

Anyway, this is how I look at differences. I believe that the ECM is correct, as do many. But there are many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, who think otherwise.

Jon, I'm no scholar, I'm simple minded in reading much commentary over the years and believing what I see from Scripture.

I see no evidence in Scripture of anything other than penal substitution.

If someone could point out the alternative from Scripture I would most certainly review it for consideration.

 

[Charlie24]

Jon, I'm no scholar, I'm simple minded in reading much commentary over the years and believing what I see from Scripture.

I see no evidence in Scripture of anything other than penal substitution.

If someone could point out the alternative from Scripture I would most certainly review it for consideration.

I'm somewht like you, Jon, in that I don't follow the status quo of Doctrine.

For example, I may very well be the only one on BB that believes a righteous man declared righteous by God can lose that righteousness, other than the Catholics.

The determining factor is not what my denomination says, it's what I can plainly read in Scripture that leaves no doubt in my mind.

That's the way it is for me with PSA, even though it's not plainly written as losing Salvation.

But that's what I interpret from every angle I approach it, until someone can show me otherwise in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

I'm somewht like you, Jon, in that I don't follow the status quo of Doctrine.

For example, I may very well be the only one on BB that believes a righteous man declared righteous by God can lose that righteousness, other than the Catholics.

The determining factor is not what my denomination says, it's what I can plainly read in Scripture that leaves no doubt in my mind.

That's the way it is for me with PSA, even though it's not plainly written as losing Salvation.

But that's what I interpret from every angle I approach it, until someone can show me otherwise in Scripture.

I was looking for a good explanation by somebody more qualified than me. I like what I have read of David Bercot (he's a Christian historian) and looked up some videos.

I found an audio I wish I was aware of before an hour ago. It is not short, but it explains exactly what I have been trying to explain, just without my lack of articulation.

 

[Charlie24]

I was looking for a good explanation by somebody more qualified than me. I like what I have read of David Bercot (he's a Christian historian) and looked up some videos.

I found an audio I wish I was aware of before an hour ago. It is not short, but it explains exactly what I have been trying to explain, just without my lack of articulation.

I'll listen to it in the morning when I'm not so tired, or maybe better said in the morning when my attention span is stronger.

 

[Charlie24]

@Charlie24

I think that the difference between our beliefs can be summed up in a few distinctions. I believe this because we both believe that Christ bore our sins, He suffered the wages of our sins, our sins were laid on Him, the Just for the unjust, that it was God’s will to “crush” Him and to put Him to grief, and that it is by His stripes we are healed.

But we disagree on a few points about how this was accomplished.

I hold the ECM of the atonement. It is called the “Early Church Model” but it is not as developed as theories of the Atonement like the Moral Influence Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, or Penal Substitution Theory.

Christus Victor is a theme that points to the emphasis of the Early Church, and Ransom Theory is really a statement rather than a theory (you probably have noticed this...both are points rather than a concise framework).

The main reason for this is that the Early Church did not view doctrine in terms of these theologies. They held to doctrine but not theology as we use the term. They did not try to condense God’s work into a concise framework.

For example, in discussing the millennial reign of Christ Tertullian he strongly stated his belief that Christ will return and reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But he also said “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” He stated his belief, accepted that this is one view among others. This was never formulated into a hard framework.

Anyway, this is how I look at differences. I believe that the ECM is correct, as do many. But there are many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, who think otherwise.

I watched all of the video, Jon.

He started out explaining PSA pretty much as I understand it from Scripture. He goes on to explain 7 points of difference in PSA and the Early Church Model (ECM).

A lot of hair splitting with analogies taking place. I think anyone here who listens to the video will agree it's a one-sided view. This gentleman sells PSA short, very short!

At one point he says, and I quote, "in the satisfaction theory Christ didn't have to teach us anything to redeem us, He could have just come and died."

A 12 year old Sunday School kid in our Church knows better that this! He was discussing one of the points at this statement, the effect of the incarnation on the atonement. Basically he's saying the life of Christ and His teachings had no purpose with the PSA view.

The one point that I totally rejected and most of the early Christians did believe, according to history, is the Ransom Theory of the ransom being paid to Satan. He used several analogies that I see as inappropriate.

Comparing situations that take place on this earth between men, with the relationship between God and man is not comparing apples to apples.

In the overall view it's clear to me that I recognize a completely different God than the one presented in the video.

From the Scripture I see a fractured relationship between a Holy Creator and His creation in the Garden, directly disobeying Him without excuse.

For creation to survive this fraction there must a reconciliation of some type. Sin is ever the problem between the Creator and His greatest creation. It must be dealt with and with a firm hand in love and mercy. It can't be pushed to the side and forgotten, it is the ruination of man before a Holy Sovereign God, and must be met head on.

This is the situation I see that God must deal with to continue with man. I believe PSA is accurate, probably not perfect, but the way God had planned for man to come back into relationship with Him.

 

[JonC]

I watched all of the video, Jon.

He started out explaining PSA pretty much as I understand it from Scripture. He goes on to explain 7 points of difference in PSA and the Early Church Model (ECM).

A lot of hair splitting with analogies taking place. I think anyone here who listens to the video will agree it's a one-sided view. This gentleman sells PSA short, very short!

At one point he says, and I quote, "in the satisfaction theory Christ didn't have to teach us anything to redeem us, He could have just come and died."

A 12 year old Sunday School kid in our Church knows better that this! He was discussing one of the points at this statement, the effect of the incarnation on the atonement. Basically he's saying the life of Christ and His teachings had no purpose with the PSA view.

The one point that I totally rejected and most of the early Christians did believe, according to history, is the Ransom Theory of the ransom being paid to Satan. He used several analogies that I see as inappropriate.

Comparing situations that take place on this earth between men, with the relationship between God and man is not comparing apples to apples.

In the overall view it's clear to me that I recognize a completely different God than the one presented in the video.

From the Scripture I see a fractured relationship between a Holy Creator and His creation in the Garden, directly disobeying Him without excuse.

For creation to survive this fraction there must a reconciliation of some type. Sin is ever the problem between the Creator and His greatest creation. It must be dealt with and with a firm hand in love and mercy. It can't be pushed to the side and forgotten, it is the ruination of man before a Holy Sovereign God, and must be met head on.

This is the situation I see that God must deal with to continue with man. I believe PSA is accurate, probably not perfect, but the way God had planned for man to come back into relationship with Him.

I think your objection (Christ not having to teach us anything) may be misplaced just because I ended up watching more of his videos last night. He was addressing the framework.

But, like I said, I just wanted to explain my view. And since I have been trying unsuccessfully I thought a 3rd party may help.

I am glad you watched it.

 

[JonC]

Here is another video which explains more the issue you mention.

While Bercot is an Anabaptist Christian historian, Wright is an Anglican theologian. So they have a slightly different way of presenting the ECM.

But they hold the same view.

I hope you do not mind the videos. I just think they may help where I have failed.

 

[Charlie24]

I think your objection (Christ not having to teach us anything) may be misplaced just because I ended up watching more of his videos last night. He was addressing the framework.

But, like I said, I just wanted to explain my view. And since I have been trying unsuccessfully I thought a 3rd party may help.

I am glad you watched it.

His views make sense to the ear but not according to Scripture.

We have to go back to the Garden and see how angry God was with sin.

The penalties and reality of the results and seriousness of sin.

PSA agrees with what I see taking place, but that's my opinion.

 

[JonC]

His views make sense to the ear but not according to Scripture.

We have to go back to the Garden and see how angry God was with sin.

The penalties and reality of the results and seriousness of sin.

PSA agrees with what I see taking place, but that's my opinion.

Here you are wrong. He was presenting the Early Church view (whether right or wrong). It makes sence according to Scripture.

Nobody is denying God's wrath is upon the wicked.

Go back to the Garden.

God told Adam on the day he ate of the fruit he would die ("dying you shall die").

You read that as "when you eat of the fruit I will kill you".

They read it as "you will die", for "sin produces death"

BOTH of those views make sense according to Scripture but they cannot both be true.

The goal should be to understand how these views differ but the difference is the framework of understanding rather than Scripture itself.

I did not mean this to be arguing against your view, but simply explaining mine.


Your theology AND my theology fits Scripture within our respective framework.

 

[Charlie24]

Here you are wrong. He was presenting the Early Church view (whether right or wrong). It makes sence according to Scripture.

Nobody is denying God's wrath is upon the wicked.

Go back to the Garden.

God told Adam on the day he ate of the fruit he would die ("dying you shall die").

You read that as "when you eat of the fruit I will kill you".

They read it as "you will die", for "sin produces death"

BOTH of those views make sense according to Scripture but they cannot both be true.

The goal should be to understand how these views differ but the difference is the framework of understanding rather than Scripture itself.

I did not mean this to be arguing against your view, but simply explaining mine.


Your theology AND my theology fits Scripture within our respective framework.

You have to make your points as well as I, no offence taken in that, Brother.

Yes, I remember he had another view on "you shall surly die."

I think he overlooks both a physical death and a spiritual death.

He placed the emphasis on the physical death, I place it on the separation from God.

 

[JonC]

You have to make your points as well as I, no offence taken in that, Brother.

Yes, I remember he had another view on "you shall surly die."

I think he overlooks both a physical death and a spiritual death.

He placed the emphasis on the physical death, I place it on the separation from God.

We (I will include myself here) do view the wages of sin (the death that is produced by sin) as a physical death. God told Adam only one thing that happened to him because he ate the fruit - "you will return to the ground, for dust you are and to dust you will return".

But there is more to that. It was not in the video (as he said, it was just a summary leaving out a lot of issues). So I am glad you mentioned this.

Irenaeus described this death as a physical death with a spiritual implication because we are created body and soul. It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment. Adam (this first Adam) would be judged as "falling short of God's glory" at Judgment.

We cannot combine the wages of sin (physical death) with the Judgment agsinst the wicked (the second death) because Scripture keeps them separate.

On the cross Christ bore our sins snd suffered the punishment of the one who has the power of death, the one who authors sin and death, the one who ruled as man's "master" and kept us enslaved by sin... that is, the devil.

Christ overcame this. He suffered the punishment of Satan for our sins. He arise victorious over sin and death.

But we are cleansed by His blood. This deals not with the wages of sin (the death produced by sin) but the wrath of God against the wicked.

He makes man anew. There is no condemnation, no reason for condemnation. He is literally the Second Adam.

The wages of sin is death. This is a fact thar will not change because it is God's word. BUT the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus.


We view the death of Christ as defeating Satan by removing the sting of death (the grave will not hold us) and the blood of Christ as cleansing us from all sin (not as a payment for our dins but as cleansing us from sin as foreshadowed by the OT sacrificial system).

 

[Charlie24]

We (I will include myself here) do view the wages of sin (the death that is produced by sin) as a physical death. God told Adam only one thing that happened to him because he ate the fruit - "you will return to the ground, for dust you are and to dust you will return".

But there is more to that. It was not in the video (as he said, it was just a summary leaving out a lot of issues). So I am glad you mentioned this.

Irenaeus described this death as a physical death with a spiritual implication because we are created body and soul. It is appointed to man once to die and then the Judgment. Adam (this first Adam) would be judged as "falling short of God's glory" at Judgment.

We cannot combine the wages of sin (physical death) with the Judgment agsinst the wicked (the second death) because Scripture keeps them separate.

On the cross Christ bore our sins snd suffered the punishment of the one who has the power of death, the one who authors sin and death, the one who ruled as man's "master" and kept us enslaved by sin... that is, the devil.

Christ overcame this. He suffered the punishment of Satan for our sins. He arise victorious over sin and death.

But we are cleansed by His blood. This deals not with the wages of sin (the death produced by sin) but the wrath of God against the wicked.

He makes man anew. There is no condemnation, no reason for condemnation. He is literally the Second Adam.

The wages of sin is death. This is a fact thar will not change because it is God's word. BUT the gift of God is life in Christ Jesus.


We view the death of Christ as defeating Satan by removing the sting of death (the grave will not hold us) and the blood of Christ as cleansing us from all sin (not as a payment for our dins but as cleansing us from sin as foreshadowed by the OT sacrificial system).

I agree with his view in the video what "you shall surly die" means vs God "killing you" as he put it.

As I see it when Adam sinned, the death sentence of spiritual death fell on Adam, this is separation from God, the fractured relationship through disobedience.

The physical death would follow as the result of sin. Plus God placed a general time limit on man later, actually He shortened it the final time to 70 years, approximately.

 

[Van]

@Charlie24

I think that the difference between our beliefs can be summed up in a few distinctions. I believe this because we both believe that Christ bore our sins, He suffered the wages of our sins, our sins were laid on Him, the Just for the unjust, that it was God’s will to “crush” Him and to put Him to grief, and that it is by His stripes we are healed.

But we disagree on a few points about how this was accomplished.

I hold the ECM of the atonement. It is called the “Early Church Model” but it is not as developed as theories of the Atonement like the Moral Influence Theory, Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, or Penal Substitution Theory.

Christus Victor is a theme that points to the emphasis of the Early Church, and Ransom Theory is really a statement rather than a theory (you probably have noticed this...both are points rather than a concise framework).

The main reason for this is that the Early Church did not view doctrine in terms of these theologies. They held to doctrine but not theology as we use the term. They did not try to condense God’s work into a concise framework.

For example, in discussing the millennial reign of Christ Tertullian he strongly stated his belief that Christ will return and reign in Jerusalem for a thousand years. But he also said “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” He stated his belief, accepted that this is one view among others. This was never formulated into a hard framework.

Anyway, this is how I look at differences. I believe that the ECM is correct, as do many. But there are many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, who think otherwise.

I do not understand all these historical theories to explain what was accomplished by Christ's suffering and physical death on the cross.

It seems to me scripture provides a complete explanation.

1) God established the means for sinners to be reconciled to Himself.
2) Reconciliation was needed because sin, autonomous human decisions not in accordance with God's will, causes a separation from our Holy God.
3) The payment or ransom needed to reconcile individuals was the death, the shedding of blood, of a perfect sinless sacrifice. Thus Christ became the means of reconciliation when He sacrificed His life.
4) The ransom did not go to Satan, but to God as required by His sovereign justice.
5) Christ's sacrifice established victory over the barrier of sin to reconciliation.
6) No individual was reconciled when Christ sacrificed His life, but He became the means of reconciliation for the whole of fallen humanity.
7) In order to receive the reconciliation provided by Christ, we must be chosen by God for salvation by being set apart spiritually into Christ based on crediting our faith as righteousness.
8) Individuals are chosen for salvation during their physical lifetime, when God credits their faith as righteousness.
9) The opportunity to receive the reconciliation ends when we physically die, or like Soil #1 we become unable to believe.

 

[Charlie24]

I do not understand all these historical theories to explain what was accomplished by Christ's suffering and physical death on the cross.

It seems to me scripture provides a complete explanation.

1) God established the means for sinners to be reconciled to Himself.
2) Reconciliation was needed because sin, autonomous human decisions not in accordance with God's will, causes a separation from our Holy God.
3) The payment or ransom needed to reconcile individuals was the death, the shedding of blood, of a perfect sinless sacrifice. Thus Christ became the means of reconciliation when He sacrificed His life.
4) The ransom did not go to Satan, but to God as required by His sovereign justice.
5) Christ's sacrifice established victory over the barrier of sin to reconciliation.
6) No individual was reconciled when Christ sacrificed His life, but He became the means of reconciliation for the whole of fallen humanity.
7) In order to receive the reconciliation provided by Christ, we must be chosen by God for salvation by being set apart spiritually into Christ based on crediting our faith as righteousness.
8) Individuals are chosen for salvation during their physical lifetime, when God credits their faith as righteousness.
9) The opportunity to receive the reconciliation ends when we physically die, or like Soil #1 we become unable to believe.

I would say all 9 points are dead on the money! I especially like #6 that is one I'm afraid many need to learn!

Well done!

 

[easternstar]

In reading these various threads, I must state that I owe a huge debt of gratitude to JonC for his many accurate posts about PSA, its origins, and its complete lack of support in scripture, the early church, and the Church Fathers, despite attempts here to contort the Fathers's words into supporting a theory which did not even exist at the time. I also have much evidence to refute this; I've posted it in depth in other places, but thankfully due to JonC's excellent posts, I feel no need to post it here, which is a relief to me because I am grown quite weary and exhausted from arguing this on other forums.
I hate PSA. If I had not discovered the truth about the early church views of the atonement, I could not be a Christian because PSA is an abominable doctrine which has done and continues to do great harm to the Body of Christ and even to God Himself. What a monstrosity PSA is!
I appreciate the EOC for one thing: its tenacious adherence to the earliest views of the atonement. And I also appreciate the early Anabaptists and Quakers for the same thing -- a light in the darkness of the Magisterial Protestant evils.

 

[Charlie24]

In reading these various threads, I must state that I owe a huge debt of gratitude to JonC for his many accurate posts about PSA, its origins, and its complete lack of support in scripture, the early church, and the Church Fathers, despite attempts here to contort the Fathers's words into supporting a theory which did not even exist at the time. I also have much evidence to refute this; I've posted it in depth in other places, but thankfully due to JonC's excellent posts, I feel no need to post it here, which is a relief to me because I am grown quite weary and exhausted from arguing this on other forums.
I hate PSA. If I had not discovered the truth about the early church views of the atonement, I could not be a Christian because PSA is an abominable doctrine which has done and continues to do great harm to the Body of Christ and even to God Himself. What a monstrosity PSA is!
I appreciate the EOC for one thing: its tenacious adherence to the earliest views of the atonement. And I also appreciate the early Anabaptists and Quakers for the same thing -- a light in the darkness of the Magisterial Protestant evils.

The Scripture had the opposite effect on me through the years.

I look back at the early Christians throughout several centuries and wonder if they actually understood the seriousness of sin and how that God hates it for man's sake. It's so serious that only His Son could take it away through a horrible, suffering death.