Featured Penal Substitution & the ECFs

Hey brother.

We are examining here whether the writings of the ECF's evidence a Penal Substitution view.

So that I understand the position of the OP, please tell me if my belief (by my statements) are proof that I affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

If not, then what is lacking?

The reason I ask to look at it this way is that the writings of the ECF's do not contain your definition (so it is not relevant to my expressions here either). But their writings which you believe prove Penal Substitution are statements which I wholeheartedly affirm.

I know you would not assume of the ECF's a belief they did not express (I know you to be an honest man). So please work with me and tell me if my statements prove I hold Penal Substitution.

Thank you in advance for clarifying your thoughts for me.

John

Beyond what I have affirmed here, my views of the Atonement are no more relevant to this thread than are those of Irenaeus, Martyr, and the rest of the ECFs.

If you would like to discuss my views afterwards here is an appropriate thread:

Back by popular demand - An often unpopular view of the Atonement

 

OK, @Martin Marprelate ,

Why don't we start with an easier statement before taking the longer one I posted.

You proved that Justin Martyr affirmed Penal Substitution with this quote:

I believe the Father wished His Christ, not only for the whole human family but also for His Church, to take upon Him the curses of us all, knowing that after He had been crucified He would raise Him up. He submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed.

Since I share Martyrs view as you have quoted him, and since those words prove Martyr held to Penal Substitution, then does this mean - by your standard- that I also affirm Penal Substitution through my "clear statement of Penal Substitution"?

If not, then why would this double standard not amount to hypocrisy?

What else needs to be added?

If so (if Martyr and my shared view is a clear expression of Penal Substitution) then what does your definition - that neither Martyr nor I have expressed - have to do with Penal Substitution?

 

I'm going to make a comment for those who have considered ECF writings.

On a different post @Martin Marprelate mentioned Irenaeus' view that Christ had lived to the age of a master, and he described ECF's as holding Penal Substitution but also holding to inconsistent ideas.

There is a danger when we start picking the teachings on one topic apart and accepting some as agreeing with us and others as inconsistent. Theirs (the ECFs) was not a world of stupidity. They did not offer a smorgasboard theory of the Atonement but instead reasoned out how each viewed the atonement, following their ideas to its conclusions.

Ireaneus did not hold the idea that Christ bore our sins - His flesh for our flesh - and then another idea called Recipitulation that would have Christ living to the age of a master. He held the idea that Christ took on our iniquity, our sickness, our curse and bore our sins - His flesh for our flesh - in the terms of recipitulation. The Atonement meant that Christ suffered every age of man, from infancy to the age of a master. It meant that Mary (not "maryology") received revelation where Eve received deception. It was Recapitulation. We can reject the theory (I do) but only when we understand the sense it makes of the Atonement.

The same is true for each theory throughout history. They do not contradict themselves. The contradictions we see are to our way of thinking, and to our theories. These men were not the idiots many would make them out to be today.

Anyway, thank you @Martin Marprelate , for an interesting thread. I look forward to your answer regarding my questions.

 

Many can't.

Perhaps the definition @Martin Marprelate gave is wrong and he is right that the early church (and my) belief quality as "penal substitution". Or perhaps his definition is correct and he is wrong because neither of us held to the Theory.

Do you believe that my statement- that God placed our iniquities on Christ, that He became a curse for us - us an affirmation of Penal Substitution Theory?

Or do you believe something else has to be added?

 

I don't want this to get lost simply because it's been ignored. This is what I've asked @Martin Marprelate :

I believe that Christ bore our sins, was "made sin for us". We have been justified by the blood of Christ - that we will be saved by Him from the wrath of God. Our redemption is the righteousness of God manifested apart from the law (that the Law is a witness of God's righteousness). We are justified by God's grace through Christ, Whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood as a demonstration of His righteousness that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Christ borne our griefs And carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities and chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

It is for our sake God made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. We were dead in our trespasses and God made us alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. I believe that God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. I believe that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.

I also believe that the death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice and propitiated the wrath that stood against us.

The Father wished Christ, for mankind, to take upon Himself the curses of us all knowing that, after He had been crucified, He would raise Him up. The Father caused Christ to suffer these things on our behalf. And Christ willfully submitted His will to the will of the Father.

How is my belief different from the Theory of Penal Substitution?

What more must I believe to be considered affirming Penal Substitution Theory?

OR

Does my beliefs stated here mean to you that we both affirm Penal Substitution Theory?

 

I look forward to a good conversation on the other thread (about my beliefs).

That said, it is relevant to THIS thread if an affirmation of the ECFs statements (that I affirm) do in fact serve as an affirmation of Penal Substitution Theory. It is relevant because the ECF statements do not contain some of the aspects that are evident in your definition of Penal Substitution. Are those elements necessary? If so, then the ECF's did not hold penal substitution theory. If not, then you need to revisit your definition.

While I appreciate the attempt at avoiding the actual question (I was wondering how you'd try to get around the issue) it is important to discuss. We have their words, and you stated that their words were without doubt expressions of penal substitution. My words affirm what you have quoted of theirs. I strongly, and on no uncertain terms, hold that God put forth His Son as a propitiation. Christ bore our sins in His flesh....His flesh for our flesh. He died for our sins. The death of Christ satisfied the demands of divine justice and propitiated the wrath that stood against us.

Does our statements posted on this thread (my statements affirming what you hold as proof of Penal Substitution doctrine) prove that I hold the Theory....OR is there something else that needs to be added to our (mine and the ECF's) words to make them Penal Substitution Theory?

There is no need to go further on this thread unless you can answer these simple questions.

Insofar as insulting me, I am not bullying you into anything. I fully expected (and expect) you to avoid the question. I do not see how you can answer without disproving your thesis.

 

I don't think that either of us are in complete agreement with Martyr. That was an example. And Martyr NEVER expressed your definition. Why the addition?

If it's an easier example consider Irenaeus. I also affirm what you offer as proof he held Penal Substitution Theory Yet neither of us (you and I) affirm where he took those words (Recipitulation).

If those words prove Irenaeus held Penal SubstitutionTheory, why would this not be true of others.

 

Brother, you are taking bits and pieces of what I say and drawing your own conclusions.

I agree with what you quoted of Martyr (what you call Penal Substitution). I agree with what you quoted of Irenaeus (what you call Penal Substitution). I do not claim to hold their views in their entirety.

Let's go with the short one - since I agree with the statement you said proved Irenaeus affirmed Penal Substitution then does it not stand to reason that you have to also hold I affirm Penal Substitution?

Irenaeus: 'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man......'

I completely agree. Therefore, by your standard, do I not meet your requirement?

Consider Martyr:

If then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?

I completely agree. By your standard - applied to the ECFs, I also affirm Penal Substitution.

Just because I do not affirm God punishing Christ to pay our sin debt so we can be forgiven doesn't matter because neither did the ECFs.

(And no need for the insults. You are making them a habit).

 

Therefore our suffering and crucified Christ was not cursed by the law, but made it manifest that He alone would save those who do not depart from His faith

I think all Christians affirm that the wages of sin is, in fact, death. And it seems to me that all Christians affirm Christ took upon Himself these wages on our behalf.

The question, however, is whether all view Christ as bearing our sin the same way. We know (as fact) that Irenaeus did not (he viewed the atoning work of Christ in terms of a recipitulation).

While Penal Substitution Theory may be correct (that's another topic) the op is wrong. We are never justified in assuming things about other peoples beliefs. We can only know the ECFs through what is recorded (what is evidenced in their writings).

 

Are you saying there really is not a distinction between Penal Substitution Theory and all of the other theories of Atonement?

I ask because Origen, who believed God ransomed us from Satan believed this was accomplished by Christ "being made sin". Anselm, who considered Origens theory wrong, believed God laid our iniquities on Him. Abelard, who strongly opposed Anselms view, also believed Christ bore our sins on the cross. Irenaeus viewed Christ as bearing our sins as well, but in terms of Recipitulation rather than being punished for our "sin debt".

So is it fair to say Penal Substitution Theory is meaningless when it comes to exploring how people interpret the Atonement because (in your view) it is an idea we all hold?

Also, how do you distinguish between Penal Substitution and the idea that God had to satisfy His wrath by punishing Jesus in order to pay our "sin debt"?

 

I believe Penal Substitution Theory is the theory articulated during the Reformation period. As far as I know this is the traditional understanding. I relate the need to rework history to accompany an earlier origin to postmodernism.

Insofar as elements of the Atonement, I believe both penal and substitution are both implied and stated in Scripture. But they don't form Penal Substitution Atonement. That theory is formed by how these elements come together (and under what context they are combined) to form an explanation of the Atonement.

So yes, I do believe each theory of Atonement to be different as I believe it is not the elements (Scripture) but how they are interpreted and the conclusions that establish the theories.

How about you?

Do you see a difference between the view Christ died to pay our "sin debt" so we can be forgiven and the view Christ died as the conclusion of the Incarnation to experience that aspect of human existence and reverse what Adam had done (Irenaeus)?


Or do all of these seem to be the same view, perhaps only worded differently?