Featured Penal Substitution & the ECFs

Yes, it does say that.

As far as I know none of the ECF's disputed that passage (although their interpretations varied).

So back to the issue -

1. Christ was pierced through for our transgressions
2. He was crushed for our iniquities
3. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him
4. By His scourging we are healed.

Irenaeus interpreted this in terms of Recipitulation (Christ suffered all for all; every age for ever age; punishment for punishment) thereby recapitulating or reversing the effects of Adam to those in Christ.

What is missing from his view? It is not Scripture - Irenaeus affirmed those passages. But he did not interpret those passage within the same philosophical view that we often do. He explained those passages to mean something completely different from God punishing Christ to pay our sin debt so that we could be healed.

Scripture is the same. Human reasoning is different. You cannot prove Penal Substitution Theory without looking at the reasoning and ways those same verses have been interpreted.

I don't hold to Irenaeus' view. BUT I also affirm that Christ was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities, the chastening for our well being fell upon Him and by His scourging we are healed. Yet at the same time I strongly reject Penal Substitution Theory as a corruption of Scripture and believe it to be a superficial interpretation that skews the gospel message as a whole.

I don't object to the Scripture Penal Substitution Theory uses. I reject to the human reasoning it applies. That is the difference - the philosophy, not the passages.

And that is why I believe the claims on this thread (that the ECF's held to Penal Substitution Theory) are offensive and asinine. They imply that not holding to the theory is a rejection of Scripture when, if this were an honest discussion, it would be apparent that what is different is the interpretation.

 

We are talking about Penal Substitution Theory as held by Irenaeus. The Cross was not a payment for "sin debt" but one part of the recipitulation of the human race.

Or are you now denying that Irenaeus' view (Recipitulation) is also classified as Penal Substitution Theory?

 

Yea, I don't think so either. All theories have similarities (they are all based off the same Scriptures). But they arrive at different places (theologically).

 

You may, but I don't. I completely affirm that God's wrath against the wicked is based on His holiness. Yet I deny Penal Substitution Theory.

Anabaptist theology also affirms God's wrath against sin based on His holiness. But Anabaptist theology is known for its opposition to Penal Substitution Theory.

 

No. Due to not believing retributive justice the correct context through which the Atonement should be viewed.

 

Just for clarification-

Do you think one has to believe God punished Jesus to satisfy His judgment by paying our "sin debt" to hold Penal Substitution Theory?

 

The wages of sin is death.

Does this mean that the consequences of sin is death?

Or does this mean that sin constitutes a debt that must be paid?

Those are two very different things.

Is this a spiritual death or physical death....or both? Do we escape a physical death, a physical death, or both? Has this any bearing on men having to die to sin?

The wages of sin is death BUT the gift of God is eternal life.

Scripture is the same. It does not change. It is objective. Human reasoning is not.

 

Did you not notice? You added "sin debt".

 

Do you believe Penal Substitution Theory includes the idea Jesus paid our "sin debt", and apart from this "sin debt" being paid we couldn't be forgiven?

 

Ok. And thanks for the clarification.

Yes - the wages of sin is death and no, this is not a sin debt that had to be paid before we could be forgiven.