Featured The Power To Go And Sin No More

Perhaps, but early church teaching that Christ gave "His body for our body" is pretty darn close to "in our stead."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was just saying that "His body for our body" was a first century statement by Clement of Rome which suggests a substitutionary aspect of the Atonement. So we do know that before 100 A.D. Christians held some type of penal substitutionary aspect to the Atonement. A strictly Christus Victor Atonement is also foreign to the early church (as evidenced by Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr and Ignatius, for example....there are more), regardless as to its primacy (which was directly related to what the early church was experiencing). If you are denying that they viewed a penal substitutionary aspect, then you are mistaking or you are being very selective of the "fathers" of whom you speak. If you are saying that they did not have worked out a stand-alone penal substitutionary view as we have today, then I agree. But antiquity does not make correct (the early church fathers also did not have a "stand alone" doctrine of the Trinity, for example).

 

What I have said is also correct and the writings of the early church fathers proves it. All you have to do is examine what they wrote. You are correct that they did not hold a substitutionary view as we would define as a "theory of atonement." But you wrong that their view denies or does not recognize penal substitution qualities in Christ's work on the Cross.

I think that the problem is that some look at the Atonement and the development of its "theories" academically. The early church, and the Reformation, both looked to Scripture through what they were experiencing. Buy the early church fathers did not deny that Jesus died as a substitution for us (as evidenced by their own writings).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

They did, but not as the one single and all encompassing theory of atonement. If all you can see in Christ's work on the cross is penal substitution then your view is as lacking as those who deny a substitutionary death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It is primary insofar as it is applicable. Scripture also speaks of other aspects of his own death (victory over sin and death, reconciliation of creation, for example). It is wrong to merely call one of these aspects "primary" because it diminishes other aspects of the atonement. I understand some tend to only place importance on what supports their theological agenda, but this is a wrong way of looking at scripture. We cannot say "well, yea. sure The Atonement included all of those things , but they are not as important as penal substitution, or victory over death and sin, or implications of reconciliation, or as an example of righteous obedience. They are equally important and we don't have to ignore some truths to hold others. For example, Luke emphasizes Christ's humanity while John emphasizes his deity. One is not more important than the other in Gods redemptive plan. We need to start taking Scripture for what it is as it comes instead of picking and choosing what we will believe or what we feel is more important.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thank you for the articles. I’ve read through them and will continue to do so.

1. As I stated, antiquity does not make right. I do not know, but if your beliefs are “Christian” then I assume that you also believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. I find it interesting that the Early Church Fathers did not hold such a doctrine. Prior to Beza there was also no doctrine concerning the scope of the Atonement (Calvin did not believe in limited atonement…it was not a doctrine of his generation). My point is twofold. First, antiquity of doctrine does not make it correct doctrine. Our authority is Scripture, not the Early Church (although its study is certainly important). We can look back and see things where the Early Church misinterpreted issues as they worked through and developed what we would view as early theology. Second, the circumstances of the Early Church affected the emphasis of doctrine (just as it did during the Reformation). It will always be that way because Scripture is our authority and it is more than merely academic.

2. I agree with you that the Early Church Fathers did not teach the Penal Substitutionary Theory of Atonement. I also agree that it was born out of the Reformation and that there are many who read Scripture as if the Reformers were apostles.

3. Where I disagree is that the Early Church Fathers denied the penal substitutionary elements of the Atonement that the Apostolic Church taught and that you seem to deny. It is not a matter of what was taught at a given time, but what is denied. This is why you will never be able to “prove your point.” There are, as the articles you provide, penal and substitutionary aspects to these early teachings. Its context is what is argued (are they talking about Christ dying in our stead, or something else entirely). I tend to think that the Early Church Fathers still held the doctrine handed to them by the Apostolic Church, but their doctrine was also shaped (naturally and appropriately) by their circumstance.

4. One flaw in your article is the insistence on the dichotomy between the loving Son and the angry Father, with the Father essentially abusing His Son to satisfy His own wrath. This misrepresents substitutionary atonement entirely (granted, many who hold the view may see it this way). But I also have concerns with Penal Substitutionary theories of Atonement as often presented.

5. I agree that many cannot see the Atonement but through lenses of their own theological system. The Early Church looked to the Atonement and Christ as their Champion, the Victor over death, sin and evil. But where we disagree is that I do not believe they rejected the Atonement as satisfying on our behalf God’s own justice, holiness, and righteousness. It is an error to see the Atonement as substitutionary only, perhaps even mostly, but it is also incomplete not to be able to detect these aspects within Christ’s work on the Cross.

6. I agree that we need to consistently reexamine our doctrine. I think that we have been overly influenced by the Reformation and often read Scripture within a Reformation rather than first century context. Unfortunately, some also try to place the contemporary church within a first century context in terms of holding to worldview shaped by antiquity rather than one shaped by God.