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
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Power To Go And Sin No More
- Thread starter plain_n_simple
- Start date
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
It is, very close and we should be indebted to Christ as he felt he was indebted to us. That is that we are to follow him in his holy direction, peacefully, and with an awareness of the gravity and implications of the situation of all. We are Baptised through Christ of his blood, as he was baptised by John the Baptist. We are circumcised through the sacrifice of the Lord, and through him, are deemed fit.
Thank you.
Faith in selfless Unity through Good
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Your solution for guilt and sin is to "ignore it"???
Tell others that 1 Cor 6 does not apply to them?
Tell them that 1Cor 5 is no big deal - just skip it?
Tell them that Romans 6 should not be a concern for them - just ignore it?
Tell them that Romans 8:4-9 should not give them pause for reflection since they can listen to "peace and safety" messages instead?
1 Cor 7:19 "what MATTERs is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
1John 5:1-4 HOW is it that we "know we love God" in those verses?
I agree that Christ forgives sins and thus removes our guilt - but what about the Christians that continue to sin after baptism (all of them).
Should they just ignore the convicting work of the Holy Spirit and listen to you instead? Or is this not the point you are making here?
in Christ,
Bob
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).
Last edited by a moderator:
What I said was correct. Scholars affirm it. Penal substitution and Satisfaction were unknown and untaught in the earliest churches and by the earliest Christians. The views held were Ransom/Christus Victor and Irenaeus's Recapitulation view. There are tons of evidence for this. I have posted some of it. It is undeniable. Those who see any hint of penal substitution or satisfaction are reading those views back into the statements of people who did not hold them. It never crossed their minds because the settings which produced these errors did not exist in the first century. Eleventh century or sixteenth century constructs cannot be superimposed on the early Christians.
If anyone doubts that what I have said is true, all they have to do is some research. This will prove - and scholars are in consensus - that penal substitution was not taught in the early churches.
I hesitate to post any links again, but the following is an excellent article; it is balanced and non-biased. I don't agree with all of the author's statements -- for instance, it is clear that the early churches did teach the Ransom view -- but overall this is one of the best articles I have ever read on the subject. Also, a guy by the name of Derek Flood has written excellent, thorough, informative, and accurate articles on this subject.
I suggest a thorough reading of the following article with an open, objective mindset, if anyone is interested in the truth.
http://www.christian-history.org/substitutionary-atonement.html
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
Last edited by a moderator:
Some scholars may affirm it but even then such arguments should be made as a supplement to scripture not as the primary argument.
in that way, and they
You know that ALL of the ECF saw it in the same fashion then?
Jesus and paul saw it though in that way, and since jesus is God, and paul inspired by him?
And bottom line is what did Jesus and the Apostles frame the atonement as being?
And they pretty much agreed with His death being a penal substitionary one, in agreement with the OT prophets who forsaw the coming of the Messiah!
Are we saved by His Grace alone, or by us keeping the Law then?
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
I do not see it as being the ONLY way to see the Cross atonement, but would say that it is the primary one, and that is the very view on his own meaning of death that Jesus gave to it!
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
Last edited by a moderator:
So, Jesus and the apostles taught something that Christians did not see for the first thousand years of church history. Yeah, that makes sense.
In conjunction with the article I previously referenced, I would suggest a thorough reading of the following articles for an excellent, objective discussion on the atonement, including the views of the Fathers. These are long but well worth reading and very helpful. It hasn't been all that long ago that I discovered Derek Flood. His writings confirmed what I already knew, like the writings on the Christian History website that I referenced did also. If anyone will study the early churches and writings of the early Christians, you cannot help but see that they did not teach or hold to satisfaction and penal substitution. This is a false, abhorrent teaching, foreign to the early church and to God's character.
http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf
http://therebelgod.com/CrossPaper.pdf
http://therebelgod.com/cross1.html
And here's a bio of Derek Flood: http://therebelgod.com/derek-floodBio.html
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Your points are good and balanced. I would disagree with number 3.
As I said, I thought Flood's articles were that also -- good, objective, balanced. I would go beyond some of he things he said about OT sacrifices, but I won't get into that. I would still like to stay on the forum, reading and occasionally contributing.
The main point on the Atonement of the Cross though is that IF Penal substitution is not THE basis to have Fod forgive sinners, then on what basis does he justify the ungodly, and yet still remain Holy and right in all of His ways?
From whom do we receive theology from then, from the Lord Jesus and His Apostles, or those who came after them?
Just shows that even early on, there were some deviating from the faith, just as paul and Peter warned us about!