Featured Penal Substitution & the ECFs

On another thread we established that Irenaeus did in "fact" hold to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. How does Christ bearing God's wrath against us to pay our "sin debt" balance the virginal disobedience of Eve with the virginal obedience of Mary?

I understand the concept under the theory formerly known as Recapitulation, but I am not sure how it operates now that it's been discovered Irenaeus held to Penal Substitution Theory.

(Forgive the questioning. I'm a bit "old school" in that I have a difficult time with history shifts....I'm still trying to get over Pluto not being a planet).

 

I don't hold Penal Substitution Theory, but I think the point was Mary balanced out Eve. This "reversal" is the basis of Irenaeus' "Penal Substitution Theory".

It is your theory - not mine (it's up to you to explain). How is Christs work a reversal of the deception of Eve in Mary?

 

It is unthinkable that a Christian would deny Isaiah 53 (as a whole, to include growing up as a tender plant, not esteemed, etc all the way to making intercession for the transgressors). And it is unthinkable that a Christian would deny that while we were sinners Christ died for us, that we were justified through His blood, and have been saved from wrath through Him. It is also unthinkable for a Christian to deny this is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law.

But it is not unthinkable to understand that Christian's have not understood these passages to include God punishing Christ instead of us to satisfy divine justice by paying our "sin debt".

This was/ is @Martin Marprelate 's error. While all theories affirm the passages, that Christ bore our sins, that God laid our iniquities on Hom, His flesh for our flesh, etc. they have not understood these things in the context of Penal Substitution.

It is dishonest to lift statements from people, ignore their explanations and interpretations, and impose upon then your own. It is simply wrong.

With Irenaeus, he does speak of Christ bearing our sins. He affirms all of those passages. BUT he interpreted them as Recapitulation, not in terms of Penal Substitution Theory. Same is true of Justin Martyr as he focuses on Christ overcoming these principles on behalf of the "human family".

 

Think of it this way - IF the ECF's statements affirm Penal Substitution Theory (regardless of how they interpreted those statements) THEN all Christian theories affirm Penal Substitution Theory.

What does this mean? Roman Catholic Theology affirms Penal Substitution hust as much as Reformed Baprists affirm Penal Substitution. What differences that may exist do so apart from Penal Substitution Theory.

Ransom Theory, Recipitulation, Christus Victor, Moral Influence.....these are all Penal Substitution Theory because, while drawing different conclusions, they all affirm Christ as bearing our sins in His flesh and dying for us. They all affirm that it is by His stripes we are healed. They all affirm it is through Christ we are delivered from wrath.

In other word, if all of these people held to Penal Substitution Theory then the Theory is meaningless and the conclusion that God satisfied divine justice by punishing Christ to pay our "sin debt" is an afterthought not worth discussing as it is irrelevant to Christian doctrine.

 

The issue is that the ECF's NEVER drew the same conclusions as Penal Substitution Theory draws. They did not interpret the Atonement in THE SAME WAY that Penal Substitution Theory interprets the Atonement.

They affirm the same passages but interpret them differently. This means they are different theories.

This is basic stuff, brother. We all see the same things in nature (we see how an ape hasopposable thumbs, how sea mammals resemble some land mammals) that does not mean we all affirm the Theory of Evolution.

Do you believe that the ECF’s held Penal Substitution OR is it your opinion that they would have endorsed that had it been presented to them?

Correct me if I mistake what you recently posted - you insisted earlier that Aquinas held to Penal Substitution Theory. But you also insisted that Catholics and liberals reject Penal Substitution Theory. Is this correct?

 

Do you believe, then, that there exists a distinction between affirming that Christ bore our sins, died for us (Christ for us) and affirming Penal Substitution Theory? Or does accepting the canon of Scripture (to include Isaiah 53) an affirmation of the Theory?

The reason I ask is that Irenaeus obviously accepts the truth that Christ bore our sins -but he 8nterprets "his flesh for our flesh" through Recipitulation rather than a payment of "sin debt" to satisfy divine justice.

Does his conclusions matter if his explanation contains some of the same elements as Penal Substitution Theory?

 

IF Penal Substitution Theory is based on Scripture (and I believe it is) then should we not find such elements in all theories and interpretations that are also based on the same Scriptures?

It seems that the ONLY way these elements could possibly be taken as a confirmation of of the Theory present in the ECF's writings, since they ultimately came to other conclusions, is if Penal Substitution had no biblical basis at all.

 

I’m going to try to explain this to you another way. Hopefully it “takes”.

Suppose the data is ABC

Suppose the theories are ABCD, ABCE, ABCF, and ABCG

It would be asinine to look back and claim all hold to G because all confirm ABC.

The difference is not A, B, or C. The difference is G. That is what has to be shown.

Do you understand the concept?

 

That is my point, brother.

Most who hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution (regardless of whether they recognize it as a theory or doctrine) work through Scripture using human reasoning. When this reasoning is different, often the conclusions are different.

That said, believe the illustration apt. Here is another:

All believe that:

1. Christ bore our sins.
2. God was pleased to crush Him.
3. The wages of sin is death.
4. The gift of God is eternal life.
5. Christ is the Propitiation for our sins.
6. The Father laid our iniquities on Christ.
7. Through Christ we escape wrath.

It is dishonest, however, to take what is common Christian belief and declare Penal Substitution Theory common Christian belief because Penal Substitution Theory is more than Scripture.

What one would have to prove is that the ECF's believed that God had to satisfy the demands of divine justice by punishing the sins of men so that men could be forgiven, so God punished Jesus in our place with the wrath set aside for our sins in order to pay our "sin debt".

While the ECF's (and all Christians) affirm 1-7, none applied the human reason of retributive justice to the equation. That is why none stated the "doctrine" of Penal Substitution (none identified what makes 1-7 Penal Substitution Theory). Instead we have the Ransom Theory, Christus Victor, Recipitulation, Satisfaction, Moral Influence, and so on.

It was not until the Reformation that 1-7 produced what is called the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

It is human reasoning and not Scripture that makes the difference.

 

Try this:

Suppose the Scripture all believe is S1, S2, and S3.

Suppose the human reasoning are R1, R2, and R3.

Suppose the theories are T1, T2, and T3.

T1=S1+S2+S3+R1

T2=S1+S2+S3+R2

T3=S1+S2+S3+R3


Why are these not equal? Is it because of the S value (scripture) or is it because of the R value (human reasoning)?

Would it not be dishonest to claim all are equal because they hold the same S values?

Consider that the authors of those theories went into great detail explaining the role of R (explaining their reasoning). Wouldn't dismissing R be a pretty stupid thing to do?


OR….

Suppose a monkey, an elephant, and a kangaroo walk into a bar…..