Featured The Power To Go And Sin No More

So, every one of them, even the earliest Christians and Fathers who were closest in time to the apostles all got what the apostles taught wrong. And every Christian or group of Christians got it wrong until the Catholic Anselm somehow discovered Satisfaction in the scriptures 1000 years afterward, and 500 years later the legalist Magisterial Reformer Calvin discovered Penal Substitution there. So, nobody had the truth of the atonement until 1000 - 1500 years after the apostles. So, those who lived closest to the time of the apostles such as Clement, or Ignatius who was a contemporary of the apostles -- none of them got the atonement right, but somebody 1000 years later who saw God as a feudal lord got it right, and then 500 years later Anselm's part-spiritual cousin Calvin, who saw God as a stern judge handing out legal sentences, got it right. Yeah, that's perfectly logical. The contemporaries of the apostles and the church for the first 1000 years, which held to Ransom/Christus Victor/ Recapitulation, got that all wrong, and had to be corrected 1000 - 1500 years after the fact by a Roman Catholic and a Calvinist. Yep, makes perfect sense to me. What could I have been thinking. Those poor fools in the first millennium!

 

Well, the church per say had messed up the Gospel itself as taught in Bible pretty much until rediscovered by the reformers, correct?

 

Would say though that based upon how the lord and espwecially paul themselves saw what the atonementr meant, we have to accept that they saw it in mainly a substitionary aspect, as Jesus saw Himself as the din bearer, the lamb of God giving his life to redeem that which was lost!

 

First of all, we should not take the Church fathers as our guides. The Church of Rome did that and look where that got them! The mystery of iniquity was present in the Church right from the start (Acts 20:29-30; 1 Cor. 11:2-4; Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Tim. 1:3; Jude 4).

Secondly, may I ask you if you have actually read the ECFs, or have you merely been deceived by the articles that you are so eager for others to read? Have you read, for example Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew? The doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement is clearly presented there. You can also find it in several other ECFs like Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers and, of course, Athanasius. The writings of these men carry no authority for me, but if you wish I will take the time to write out the extracts tomorrow. To say that Anselm was the first to introduce the doctrine is entirely false.

 

Yeshua 1 can answer for himself, but from my point of view it is because of its vital importance. Yes, the cross shows the love of God, and the resurrection shows Christ as victor over sin and death, but unless the Lord Jesus Christ has paid the penalty for my sins I am still in them. Unless He has taken my sins upon His sinless shoulders and paid the price for them in full, they are still on me.

To deny Substitutionary Atonement is to rip the heart out of the Gospel. Not to have it at the very centre of our preaching and confession is to lower the Gospel of Christ to the level of every other religion. To have it as just one view among many will lead, and has led, to the downgrading of the Gospel. It is a doctrine that absolutely defines Christianity.

 

I disagree with you absolutely. I see substitutionary atonement in Romans 5:8. How? Because I've just read it in Romans 3. Christ's death apart from S.A. is meaningless. It's like someone saying to you, "I love you so much I'm going to throw myself off the Golden Gate Bridge for you!" You might reply, "Well, that's very impressive; but how does it show how much you love me and what good does it do me?" God's love is not shown in His sending the Son to die- that on its own would be meaningless- but in sending the Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).

Lose the primacy of S.A. and you lose the Gospel. Can you not already see it happening in many denominations?

 

Fair enough, JonC.
I still say to you, beware of any downgrade in the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement.
No matter how lovingly our Lord yielded up His life, or how victoriously He rose from the grave, unless He paid for my sins, I shall have to pay for them myself.

For Rebel's edification, here is the ECF Gregory of Nazianzus on S.A. (700 years before Anselm). "As for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse, and sin, who taketh away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so he makes my obedience His own as Head of the whole body." (Fourth Theological Oration)

 

IF His death was not in the manner though of being the penal substitution for individual sinners intended to get saved by it, then on what basis would his death benefit any single sinner then?

What would it matter when he was resurrected, if his death did not provide real and full satisfaction towards God then?

Think many against this concept just have a hard time realising that God is wrath, as well as love, and that we can do NOTHING in and by ourselves to merit any form of salvation!

 

Hard to not see that when one down plays the truth of just what Jesus meant would be accomplished by his death, and as explained further by paul, that does mean that we get the drifting towards the views of Universalim, other ways to God, I can add something to get saved etc!