The New Testament, and the Early Church

[JesusFan]

Ok, name 3 church fathers who denied PSA?

Far more importantly. was not the Psa what was taught by both Jesus and his Apostles?

 

[JesusFan]

Saint Athanasius and the ‘Penal Substitutionary’ Atonement Doctrine | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

was taught even in the Orthodox church!

 

[JesusFan]

I did read my replies

starting with where I quote Isaiah

The " God did not abuse His Son", :. is NOT what Psa teaches, as we hold that the Father poured out His divine wrath and Judgement due to the fact that Jesus willingly accepted that due to Him being the Sin Bearer!

 

[ntchristian]

Members hold traditions and beliefs very close. These discussions always get heated, and real debate is never had.

This is true of the Eastern tradition as well (they are not unaffected by historical secular influences either).

The benefit for those able to hear is we can learn from one another.

I know what you're saying is true.

Also, I no longer think the EOC is the one "true church". If I did, I'd still be a member, although I couldn't attend now because of distance. But I no longer have to worry about that.

 

[ntchristian]

@ntchristian. My post was not to engage in an argument about the theories of the atonement. In light of your original post - if you are searching for answers, a central place to start has to be about the cross. All forms of Christianity have the cross as central to it's existence. What I was interested in was what does the death of Christ mean to YOU, in your own words. That will help determine which type of church would be best for you. For instance, most Baptists could not articulate a "theory of the atonement", but if you reject the idea that in some way Christ died for your sins then you cannot be a Baptist. So that narrows down your search.

I never said that I reject the idea that in some way Christ died for my sins. I don't know why people think I feel that way.

My atonement view is ransom/Christus Victor, the view of the early church and the church of the first millennium. I also hold to Recapitulation, also a very early view which can be encompassed by Ransom/Christus Victor.

 

[DaveXR650]

I never said that I reject the idea that in some way Christ died for my sins. I don't know why people think I feel that way.

My atonement view is ransom/Christus Victor, the view of the early church and the church of the first millennium. I also hold to Recapitulation, also a very early view which can be encompassed by Ransom/Christus Victor.

The fact is that PSA has within it as it's central core that Christ died for our sins. It is perfectly logical when someone says they reject PSA to think that they are rejecting that Christ died for their sins. That's for you and @JonC. Now, I admit, I had never given much thought to the ideas that God was mad at Christ, or that he was an angry deity that nice Jesus had to appease. Even though I am considered on here to be a someone weak Calvinist I must say that here is an example where the careful theology of Calvinism shines because it carefully explains how the whole Trinity worked to plan and provide salvation and that it was the Father's love that motivated this.

Having said that, your explanation above about the theories you do believe are fine with me. Some of the modern theories do not require that Jesus die at all - therefore they gut Christianity and make it nothing but a set of moral teachings. You are not doing this and neither is JonC.

 

[ntchristian]

The fact is that PSA has within it as it's central core that Christ died for our sins. It is perfectly logical when someone says they reject PSA to think that they are rejecting that Christ died for their sins. That's for you and @JonC. Now, I admit, I had never given much thought to the ideas that God was mad at Christ, or that he was an angry deity that nice Jesus had to appease. Even though I am considered on here to be a someone weak Calvinist I must say that here is an example where the careful theology of Calvinism shines because it carefully explains how the whole Trinity worked to plan and provide salvation and that it was the Father's love that motivated this.

Having said that, your explanation above about the theories you do believe are fine with me. Some of the modern theories do not require that Jesus die at all - therefore they gut Christianity and make it nothing but a set of moral teachings. You are not doing this and neither is JonC.

Thank you for your post.

I am not a fan of Calvin or his theology, to put it mildly.

 

[JonC]

The fact is that PSA has within it as it's central core that Christ died for our sins. It is perfectly logical when someone says they reject PSA to think that they are rejecting that Christ died for their sins. That's for you and @JonC. Now, I admit, I had never given much thought to the ideas that God was mad at Christ, or that he was an angry deity that nice Jesus had to appease. Even though I am considered on here to be a someone weak Calvinist I must say that here is an example where the careful theology of Calvinism shines because it carefully explains how the whole Trinity worked to plan and provide salvation and that it was the Father's love that motivated this.

Having said that, your explanation above about the theories you do believe are fine with me. Some of the modern theories do not require that Jesus die at all - therefore they gut Christianity and make it nothing but a set of moral teachings. You are not doing this and neither is JonC.

This is not accurate, brother.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does have Christ dying for our sins, but every Christian has this fact at the core of their faith. It is unfair to pick out things that we have in common and then claim otherwise unless we accept the whole of Penal Substitution Theory. I would have preferred you to have simply asked how other views believe that Christ died for our sins.

Paul, in Galatians 1:4, tells us that Christ gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.


Since the Reformation there have been two overarching (and competing) views of the Atonement. Prior to the Reformation there was one (apart from Roman Catholicism).

Prior to the Reformation the Christian Church held that through Adam’s transgression death entered into the world and we were held captive by sin and death (the present evil age). Jesus set aside His glory and in obedience to the Father became man and suffered death. Having no sin He was made sin for us. The Righteous One suffered under the evil age, under that bondage of sin and death, sharing our infirmity. God vindicated His Son and raised Him on the third day, having gained victory over sin and death. Our sins were laid upon Him, He died for our sins. But He had no sin. Now we will also suffer the wages of sin, which is death. And then the Judgement. But because of the Cross (as a summary of Christ’s work) all judgment is given to Christ (it is a Christ-centered judgment). Christ, suffering the same wages, was vindicated. Therefore there is no judgment in Christ.

After the Reformation the Church was introduced to a different overarching idea (a reformation of Roman Catholic legalism (a reworking of Thomas Aquinas’ view of a merit based system).

This system holds that God transferred our sins to Jesus and punished the Righteous One for the sins of the guilty so that the guilty would not have to perish. The reason provided is that God has to exercise punishment against sin regardless of where the punishment is placed (God can punish the innocent for the guilty and satisfy the demand of divine justice).

 

[ntchristian]

This is not accurate, brother.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does have Christ dying for our sins, but every Christian has this fact at the core of their faith. It is unfair to pick out things that we have in common and then claim otherwise unless we accept the whole of Penal Substitution Theory. I would have preferred you to have simply asked how other views believe that Christ died for our sins.

Paul, in Galatians 1:4, tells us that Christ gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.


Since the Reformation there have been two overarching (and competing) views of the Atonement. Prior to the Reformation there was one (apart from Roman Catholicism).

Prior to the Reformation the Christian Church held that through Adam’s transgression death entered into the world and we were held captive by sin and death (the present evil age). Jesus set aside His glory and in obedience to the Father became man and suffered death. Having no sin He was made sin for us. The Righteous One suffered under the evil age, under that bondage of sin and death, sharing our infirmity. God vindicated His Son and raised Him on the third day, having gained victory over sin and death. Our sins were laid upon Him, He died for our sins. But He had no sin. Now we will also suffer the wages of sin, which is death. And then the Judgement. But because of the Cross (as a summary of Christ’s work) all judgment is given to Christ (it is a Christ-centered judgment). Christ, suffering the same wages, was vindicated. Therefore there is no judgment in Christ.

After the Reformation the Church was introduced to a different overarching idea (a reformation of Roman Catholic legalism (a reworking of Thomas Aquinas’ view of a merit based system).

This system holds that God transferred our sins to Jesus and punished the Righteous One for the sins of the guilty so that the guilty would not have to perish. The reason provided is that God has to exercise punishment against sin regardless of where the punishment is placed (God can punish the innocent for the guilty and satisfy the demand of divine justice).

You have correctly stated the theological and historical facts, from the early church to the Reformation and beyond. It is good and refreshing to see a Baptist post this.