Comments on Arminian Chronicles: The Chruch Fathers on Penal Substitution

Fair enough. God be with you on your book project...

2011-05-30T18:17:07.447-04:00

Fair enough. God be with you on your book project.

Dan

Dan, Then we are going to have to agree to disag...

2011-05-30T04:46:09.130-04:00

Dan,

Then we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. For there is no way that I'm going to agree that they taught and advocated penal substitution, and I see that you are still refusing to budge on your end, and so we are just going to have to agree to differ.

For we are just going to go back and forth if we don't. Plus, I'm working on a book at the moment and so most of my time is on that.

JNORM, I am going to assume that the only or at l...

2011-05-29T18:52:14.881-04:00

JNORM,

I am going to assume that the only or at least main sense you believe Christ was punished for our sins was His accepting the Roman punishment of crucifixion so we could have life. If that’s wrong, we can revisit.

With that in mind, I will go ahead and attempt to answer your question about the fathers. But first, at bit more clarification is in order.

Sins are not the cause of punishment except by way of desert. You and I don’t deserve crucifixion under Roman law, because Roman law doesn’t apply to us. Most of Rome’s citizens didn’t deserve crucifixion either. So every time the fathers say Christ paid what we deserved for our sins or if they say our sins were transferred to Christ, they support my position, not yours.

Scripture consistently affirms that Christ died for our sins or on account of our sins. (dia with the accusative or uper) (Romans 4:25, 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 Peter 3:18, Galatians 1:4) I noticed you changed the expression ‘for our sins’ to ‘so that we could have life’. And this only makes sense, because in normal conversation we don’t say ‘he took medicine on account of death’ when what we mean is ‘he took medicine to avert death’. Our sins were not the goal of Christ death, the destruction of our sins was. So the sense you are giving to ‘for our sins’ is improper. So when the fathers say Christ took the penalty for our sins, they support my position, not yours.

So giving one simple example from the Eusebius, when he says: “he [Christ] alone having suffered the punishments due for our impieties”, he supports my position, and is not talking about crucifixion under Roman law. Of course, I could give many more examples, but this should do for starters.

Thanks for the link to Derek Flood’s article. His fundamental mistake is thinking that describing the atonement in medical terms is mutually exclusive with describing it in judicial terms. Sure, Eusebius uses medical terms from time to time. That doesn’t explain away things he said that support penal substitution.

I also don’t know if I agree with his take on Anselm. At least when I read Anselm, I see it as God’s honor being restored via punishment..

God be with you,
Dan

Dan, check this out: Substitutionary atonement and the
Church Fathers:
A reply to the authors of Pierced for Our
Transgressions by Derek Flood

I could be wrong, but I think he's Wesleyan.

Do you believe Christ was punished for our sins...

2011-05-27T22:07:04.343-04:00
Do you believe Christ was punished for our sins?

I believe Christ suffered for our sins! He accepted the Roman punishment of death on a Cross so that we could have life.

This is totally different from what the Reformed are saying.

If so, to that extent you agree with penal substitution and more importantly you hold to an idea fundamentally outside the scope of other views of the atonement (perhaps setting aside Governmental atonement).

I hold to the Ransom and Christus Victor views of the Atonement.

Jnorm, The Classical views which is also known...

2011-05-26T16:27:09.999-04:00
Jnorm,

The Classical views which is also known as the Ransom theory and Christus Victor theory are also substitution views.

I will let Trav speak for himself, but from my POV it’s difficult for me to say in the ransom theory or Christus Victor theory what exactly substitutes for what. My overall impression of the EoC’s views on the atonement is they are simply less defined and have less explanatory scope and power as compared to the penal substitution view.

They did believe something about the Atonement and it wasn't the Penal view as understood forensically by the Reformed.

Ah, I think you are looking for an exhaustive, systematic, explanation of the penal substitution view. I am simply saying they affirmed various pieces of the penal substitution view. Some of those pieces are essential elements to the penal view. But only Eusebius and Abucara really get into the details.

Where is the Penal view in your quote of…

I would be happy to get into the details of what the fathers said, but it might be more productive to first have a clear view of what we are looking for in the fathers.
Now one of the reasons I might be seeing more in the fathers in support of penal substitution, is because I believe penal substitution alone is compatible with the idea of Christ being punished for our sins.

Because Christ suffered on our behalf or suffered a penalty/punishment on our behalf.

Do you believe Christ was punished for our sins? If so, to that extent you agree with penal substitution and more importantly you hold to an idea fundamentally outside the scope of other views of the atonement (perhaps setting aside Governmental atonement).

As if it were possible for the Unchanging Father to change His mind and hate His own Son. This causes separation within the Godhead.

He hated the sin’s His Son carried, but not the Son Himself.

Did Christ purchase us from the wrath and justice of the Father? Or did Christ purchase us from the bondage of Death, sin, and the god of this age?

I a sense I agree with GodnCheezburgers - it’s both. But to be uber specific, Christ didn’t purchase us from the wrath of God. Rather He satisfies justice. I think part of the problem here is created by mixing legal, economic, rescue, cleansing and medical metaphors.

Got nothing but love for ya.

God be with you,
Dan

@jnorm Looks like the answer to your question is b...

2011-05-26T13:31:19.415-04:00
@jnorm Looks like the answer to your question is both. Christ not only suffered for us by paying back to the Father that which we can in no way do but, in doing so, He freed us from death thus granting us eternal life by the restoration of our place in heaven.

Also Scripture as well as the Fathers talks about ...

2011-05-25T19:55:03.605-04:00
Also Scripture as well as the Fathers talks about us being purchased.

The question I would like to ask is:

Did Christ purchase us from the wrath and justice of the Father? Or did Christ purchase us from the bondage of Death, sin, and the god of this age?

Dan said: "I don't think so, no. My me...

2011-05-25T19:35:54.156-04:00
Dan said:
"I don't think so, no. My method was to read what they wrote and decided if I agreed with what they said or not."

We will have to agree to disagree. They did believe something about the Atonement and it wasn't the Penal view as understood forensically by the Reformed. Yes they did use language that some can point to, but when you look at the whole scope of what they were saying then you can't say that they advocated a Penal Substitution view as advocated by the Reformed.

Dan said:
How can you say they didn't have a penal view of the atonement?

Because Christ suffered on our behalf or suffered a penalty/punishment on our behalf.

The Reformed stress the idea of Christ being punished by the Father on our behalf in order to satisfy the wrath and justice of the Father. As if it were possible for the Unchanging Father to change His mind and hate His own Son. This causes separation within the Godhead.

Where is the Penal view in your quote of Tertullian? Where is the Penal view of your quotes of Eusebius of Caesarea? I see one of clean vs unclean or a view of expiation of ones sins. Do you see satisfying the wrath or justice of the Father anywhere in the quotes?

What about your quotes of Macarius of Jerusalem, Athanasious, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Victor of Antioch, Ambrose, Augustine, Proclus of Constantinople, Gregory the Great.

Theodore Abucara comes close, but even he would of lacked a forensic view that is attached to the Reformed perspective. He also lacks the view of it satisfying God's wrath and Justice.

Theophylact of Ohrid comes close to it towards the end of your quote of him, but the forensic nature of the Reformed perspective would still be missing.

The Anselm view is mostly about offending God's honor. The Reformed protestant Penal Substitution view builds on the views of both Anselm and Thomas Aquinas. And so saying that he held to a penal substitution view is to be anachronistic. For the Penal Substitution view is a development of Anselm's view.

Does Bernard de Clairvaux say that satisfaction was paid to the Father in order to appease His wrath and justice?

Does Nicolaus of Cusa say that Christ died in order to satisfy the wrath and justice of the Father?

A.M. Mallett said: "If the atonement was n...

2011-05-25T16:53:07.352-04:00
A.M. Mallett said:
"If the atonement was not penal, what possible purpose does substitution serve?"

The purpose of life!

The Classical views which is also known as the Ransom theory and Christus Victor theory are also substitution views.

As seen by one of our hyms:

quote:
"Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs, granting life"

The word Atonement means "At one with", and so God was making reconciliation when He died on the cross. A reconciliation between God and man as well as reconciliation between man and man. You know, between Jews and Gentiles.

When Adam and Eve bit the fruit from the Tree of Good and Evil they became in bondage to three things:

1.) Death (Our separation from God)

2.) Sin (our tendency or propensity towards sin)

3.) Satan (the god of this age who blinds minds and kept us in bondage)

Also through their sin death entered the World and so creation as a whole had to be reconciled.

We were in bondage and so God went on a rescue mission to save mankind. His perfect life and death on the Cross defeats the devil, and it purges/cleanses/expiates the sins of those who are united with Him. This union with Christ is what reunites God and man.

His Incarnation, perfect life, and Resurrection defeats the devil and rescues all men from death. The Resurrection of Christ is the very reason why mankind will one day rise from the grave. His Incarnation and Resurrection is also the reason why there will one day be a new Heaven and a new Earth. We are just the first fruits of what is to come.

If the atonement was not penal, what possible purp...

2011-05-24T12:51:56.143-04:00
If the atonement was not penal, what possible purpose does substitution serve?

Jnorm, I don't think so, no. My method was t...

2011-05-24T10:28:38.141-04:00
Jnorm,

I don't think so, no. My method was to read what they wrote and decided if I agreed with what they said or not.

How can you say they didn't have a penal view of the atonement? They consistently talk about the atonement being penalty or taking our punishment (they make about 30 statements to that effect above by my count)? That just doesn't square with your statement that they took a non-penal view.

God be with you,
Dan

Could you be reading the penal view into the fathe...

2011-05-24T04:31:24.130-04:00
Could you be reading the penal view into the fathers and early christian witnesses? They did have a substitution view, but it wasn't penal substitution.

I know that some protestant circles see penal substitution as the gospel and so the urge to read such a view back into the fathers would be strong, but it's not really honest.

Comments on Arminian Chronicles: The Chruch Fathers on Penal Substitution

Fair enough. God be with you on your book project...

Dan, Then we are going to have to agree to disag...

JNORM, I am going to assume that the only or at l...

Dan, check this out: Substitutionary atonement and the
Church Fathers:
A reply to the authors of Pierced for Our
Transgressions by Derek Flood

I could be wrong, but I think he's Wesleyan.

Do you believe Christ was punished for our sins...

Jnorm, The Classical views which is also known...

@jnorm Looks like the answer to your question is b...

Also Scripture as well as the Fathers talks about ...

Dan said: "I don't think so, no. My me...

A.M. Mallett said: "If the atonement was n...

If the atonement was not penal, what possible purp...

Jnorm, I don't think so, no. My method was t...

Could you be reading the penal view into the fathe...

Comments on Arminian Chronicles: The Chruch Fathers on Penal Substitution

Fair enough. God be with you on your book project...

Dan, Then we are going to have to agree to disag...

JNORM, I am going to assume that the only or at l...

Dan, check this out: Substitutionary atonement and theChurch Fathers:A reply to the authors of Pierced for OurTransgressions by Derek FloodI could be wrong, but I think he's Wesleyan.

Do you believe Christ was punished for our sins...

Jnorm, The Classical views which is also known...

@jnorm Looks like the answer to your question is b...

Also Scripture as well as the Fathers talks about ...

Dan said: "I don't think so, no. My me...

A.M. Mallett said: "If the atonement was n...

If the atonement was not penal, what possible purp...

Jnorm, I don't think so, no. My method was t...

Could you be reading the penal view into the fathe...

Dan, check this out: Substitutionary atonement and the
Church Fathers:
A reply to the authors of Pierced for Our
Transgressions by Derek Flood

I could be wrong, but I think he's Wesleyan.