Thread: Early Church and PSA Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029125
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
I am currently involved in a study group that has been considering the origins of the various atonement theories. Regarding PSA the conventional view seems to be that it developed in the Reformation period out of Anselm's Satisfaction theory, and was not, therefore, part of the theology of the early church. Trawling through the internet, however, I came across an article by a certain Michael J. Vlach, entitled Penal Substitution in Church History <http://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20i.pdf>, which argues contrarily that it was understood and propagated by some of the church fathers. As an innocent in these matters I would welcome comments from better-schooled Shipmates as to current thinking on the origins of PSA. I should emphasise this post is not intended to start a rancorous discussion on the merits of PSA but to bring enlightenment as to its emergence in theological thought.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I realize this is the beginning of an ad hominem argument, but in searching for information on this publication, The Masters Seminary Journal, it seems to be the author may have brought an axe to the grinding wheel, in addition to his evidence.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
From what I can gather some Patristic references can be interpreted in a PSA kind of way but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of emphasis on it until much later. Anselm certainly wouldn't have understood it in the same way as contemporary evangelicals
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
My understanding was that the early church taught/ utilized all five of the major biblical images for the atonement, including substitution. The shift at the Reformation was to emphasizing PSA as the sole understanding of the atonement.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
I understand that although substitution is early the penal side of PSA was later.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
cliffdweller, see, you CAN read my mind.
PSA is in the words and mind of Paul, Peter and not least Jesus, how could it not be in the in the mind of the Church from the beginning?
How could it not have been in Jesus'?
[ 29. March 2015, 08:58: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think the answers simple. If you agree with PSA you'll find evidence for it in Patristic writings. If you don't, you won't.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I think Jesus' death was representative, not substitutionary
If we are not punished for our sins but by our sins then the penal element is ruled out.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I don't agree with it at all and it's blindingly obviously unquestionably glaring in the mind of Jesus and His first followers.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And we're not even punished by them.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Miss Amanda hates to seem dense, but she assumes you're not talking about Prostate Specific Antigen. What in blazes, then, is PSA?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
aka for many Evangelicals the favoured (and far too often sole) model of how Christ's death resulted in the forgiveness of our sins.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't agree with it at all and it's blindingly obviously unquestionably glaring in the mind of Jesus and His first followers.
[citation needed]
Could you cite an example or two of when Peter, Paul, or Jesus explicitly refers to Jesus' role as being punished in our place? If it's blindingly obvious this shouldn't be hard, but the bare assertion doesn't seem to add much value to the discussion at hand.
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
The obvious explicitly substitutionary* ref is Isaiah 53 on, which of course is OT, so you then need to see if the early church identified it with Jesus.
I know that's not quite answering the question, but it's the obvious first thought (possibly because the passage is so long and repetitive, whereas the equiv paul thing would be one link in a chain).
*in a weakened sense there's clearly some penal here too (though how it relates to 'pure PSA' would be more complex).
The broad brush strokes of something can be seen at many places, Opening at random in Ephesians you have the juxtaposition of "children of wrath...dead in our trespasses, made us alive with christ"..."and a bit further "reconcile us both to God...through the cross".
This of course is not explicitly PSA/CV/... (in fact the first contradicts* the normal version of those as the Father is the principle hero, although I suppose it would work with the cosmic-childabuse version of PSA). But it exposes the problem that atonement** theories are needed for***.
*as an exact model.
**I know this is begging the question, (but when I tried to avoid it, things just got messy)
***and leaving it as TAMO has the same q's.
Col 2 has a part (immediately following a healthy chunk of representative stuff "in him ..." too and preceeding a bit that is rather CVish "by triumphing over them") that is quite Pxx ish "Cancelling the record of debt...nailing it too the cross"
And in Corinthian's "As first imnportance...Christ died for our sins". Again not the classic formulation of PSA, but decidedly easier to map onto that than many others.
While 1 Peter has the rather substitutey ("suffered, the rightous for the unrightous, to bring us to God")
And I'm not sure how I forgot "For even the son of man, did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (which again isn't straight PSA, it depends on who the ransom is owed to, and ...) combined with the parables about debtors...
So not sure if there's an explicit self-contained purely PSA* passage in the NT, bit I am pretty sure you could build it up from the metaphors.
*or indeed for any of the others (at the appropriate level of detail)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I wouldn't conflate ransom and PSA, they're two separate images. For PSA you're looking for the image of a law court/ legal proceedings-- as opposed to the image of a temple sacrifice (satisfaction) or slave block (ransom). Most of that imagery is in Paul, mostly Romans. (In Romans, Paul seems to go back and forth between several images, seemingly supporting my notion that the early church favored using all five images to portray different aspects of the atonement).
quote:
• Rom. 5:16: And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
• 2 Cor. 5:21: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Show me where it isn't Bostonman. I promise you this, when I do, you can't possibly see it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The interesting thing, though, Cliffdweller, is that having discussed these verses in Romans with Orthodox people - both in real life and online - it's clear that they don't 'read' Paul the same way as we do.
I've even heard Greek people say that the more juridical aspects sound 'weaker' in the Greek than they do in translation - but NT Greek scholars would have to advise on that one ...
I'm not saying these aspects aren't there, simply observing how it's possible for different sections of Christendom to come to different conclusions from the self-same texts.
This suggests to me that a lot of it comes down to our particular interpretative frameworks.
Could it be that Westerners are more inclined to latch onto the more juridical aspects whereas those from more Eastern Mediterranean backgrounds and mindsets are less inclined to emphasise these but latch onto other aspects?
It's something that has intrigued me for some time now.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The interesting thing, though, Cliffdweller, is that having discussed these verses in Romans with Orthodox people - both in real life and online - it's clear that they don't 'read' Paul the same way as we do.
I've even heard Greek people say that the more juridical aspects sound 'weaker' in the Greek than they do in translation - but NT Greek scholars would have to advise on that one ...
I'm not saying these aspects aren't there, simply observing how it's possible for different sections of Christendom to come to different conclusions from the self-same texts.
This suggests to me that a lot of it comes down to our particular interpretative frameworks.
Could it be that Westerners are more inclined to latch onto the more juridical aspects whereas those from more Eastern Mediterranean backgrounds and mindsets are less inclined to emphasise these but latch onto other aspects?
It's something that has intrigued me for some time now.
I'm sure that's true.
And related to that is the problem that there are images-- metaphors-- with all the inherent ambiguity of interpreting a figurative reference. They then will all the more sound and be interpreted differently in different cultural context-- just as "Jesus the Good Shepherd" is going to sound a lot different in 21st c. urban America than 1st c. rural Israel. The problem comes when we (as many conservatives do) approach them literalisticcally-- making this a literal transactional act, rather than a figurative metaphor for something far more transcendent.
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Show me where it isn't Bostonman. I promise you this, when I do, you can't possibly see it.
How about you shows us where you do see it?
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Show me where it isn't Bostonman. I promise you this, when I do, you can't possibly see it.
How about you shows us where you do see it?
I'll take the bait.
Here is a clear example of where PSA isn't in Jesus' description of the Passion:
quote:
Mark 8:31 (NRSV)
“Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.”
You asked for an example where it isn't; here you go. Where, in this saying of Jesus, do you see penal substitutionary atonement? He does not say "must undergo great suffering in place of sinners" or something. There's no substitution. There's no punishment. This is part of Mark's trope of the "rejected prophet."
Here's another example:
quote:
Romans 5:18 (NRSV)
“Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.”
Adams's trespass led to condemnation. Jesus' act of righteousness leads to justification/acquittal. This is a legal metaphor, but it is not a metaphor of Jesus being punished in our place; it is a metaphor of Jesus' death on the cross providing a persuasive legal argument that leads to a judgment of "not guilty."
Compare to Chrysostom's comment: "The free gift is much greater than the judgment. . . . For it was not just Adam’s sin which was done away with by the free gift but all other sins as well. And it was not just that sin was done away with—justification was given, too. So Christ did not merely do the same amount of good that Adam did of harm, but far more and greater good."
Or Theodore of Mopsuestia: "here is one great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gift in Christ. Adam’s sin brought punishment on all those who came after him, and so they died. But the free gift is different. For not only did it take effect in the case of those who came afterward; it also took away the sins of those who had gone before. It is therefore much greater, because where sin harmed those who came after, grace rescued not only those who came after but those who had transgressed before as well."
In each of these, Jesus is an active agent who is performing a good act rather than receiving a punishment.
So there are two of many examples in which PSA isn't.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Can I remind shipmates that my original question was not to discuss the merits of PSA but to ask whether the theory was articulated in the early church? I am well aware that there are biblical texts and passages which are quoted in PSA's support, but they only become an articulated theory when they are consciously brought together to construct an explicit theoretical framework. (The same, of course, can be said for any theory of the atonement). My question is essentially one relating to the history of the theology of the atonement.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Can I remind shipmates that my original question was not to discuss the merits of PSA but to ask whether the theory was articulated in the early church? I am well aware that there are biblical texts and passages which are quoted in PSA's support, but they only become an articulated theory when they are consciously brought together to construct an explicit theoretical framework. (The same, of course, can be said for any theory of the atonement). My question is essentially one relating to the history of the theology of the atonement.
This strand of the discussion began with Martin's claim that Peter, Paul, and Jesus held it, so of course the early church did. The rest has been about whether Jesus and Paul did, in fact, hold this view; in other words, did the history of PSA begin with them? I would consider Paul and Mark to be authors in the early church who are relevant to that question.
If you'd rather we can start a generation later with Clement or Ignatius or somebody, and see how Clement quotes Isaiah 52 not to make that point that Christ suffered on behalf of our sins, but that “if the Lord so humbled himself [as to suffer], what should we do, who through him have come under the yoke of his grace?” (1Clement 16:17)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The letter to the Hebrews sees Jesus as a pioneer, going befofe us obediently to death as the way to new life.
He didn't do this INSTEAD of us but so we could follow - through baptism and dhing to self.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Actually, I thought it was only about avoiding a rancorous discussion on the merits of PSA.
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Could it be that Westerners are more inclined to latch onto the more juridical aspects whereas those from more Eastern Mediterranean backgrounds and mindsets are less inclined to emphasise these but latch onto other aspects?
It's something that has intrigued me for some time now.
Indeed it could. Jesus's death was certainly substitutionary, but in what sense was this penal? For Anselm, the judicial context was satisfying feudal obligations. Calvin inclines towards PSA in asserting that Christ must appease God's wrath towards us. Charles Hodge was quite explicit that sin can only be pardoned on the ground of forensic penal satisfaction. He derives this, for example from Gal 3:13 (Christ became a curse for us). God hung Jesus on the tree to bear our sins.
Hodge reads the New Testament through the lens of the judicial system of his day. It makes sense to him to read "sacrifice" as a payment to appease God. This would not be the natural reading of someone, say, who sees sacrifice as a means of breaking a curse, renewing a covenant or purifying a sinner.
PSA is, in the contxt of our judicial system, delightfully intuitive and easy to grasp, even for very young children. The problem, as with any image for the atonement, is to take the details too far.
In terms of whether Jesus saw his death in this light - well I doubt it. Robin Collins once made the point with his celebrated re-write of the parable of the prodigal son. The father does not say that he can't simply forgive the prodigal (which would be an affront to the moral order of the universe). As an alternative ending, Collins has the elder brother offering to do extra work on the land to pay off his brother's debt. The father accepts the debt is cleared when the elder brother dies of exhaustion.
PSA is certainly a useful missional metaphor, attempting to connect the Gospel with a particular cultural milieu. As a theory of the atonement it creates for me too many difficulties.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thanks Drew. That's interesting. I would have had you down as a big PSA fan. I admire your candour.
I agree on the neatness and simplicity of this particular model. So much so, it can be hard to imagine the Gospel being presented in any other terms.
But in terms of the OP it does seem a late development
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Can I remind shipmates that my original question was not to discuss the merits of PSA but to ask whether the theory was articulated in the early church? I am well aware that there are biblical texts and passages which are quoted in PSA's support, but they only become an articulated theory when they are consciously brought together to construct an explicit theoretical framework. (The same, of course, can be said for any theory of the atonement). My question is essentially one relating to the history of the theology of the atonement.
This strand of the discussion began with Martin's claim that Peter, Paul, and Jesus held it, so of course the early church did. The rest has been about whether Jesus and Paul did, in fact, hold this view; in other words, did the history of PSA begin with them? I would consider Paul and Mark to be authors in the early church who are relevant to that question.
If you'd rather we can start a generation later with Clement or Ignatius or somebody, and see how Clement quotes Isaiah 52 not to make that point that Christ suffered on behalf of our sins, but that “if the Lord so humbled himself [as to suffer], what should we do, who through him have come under the yoke of his grace?” (1Clement 16:17)
Essentially what we probably need to hear from Kwesi at this point is do you really want to know the history of penal substitutionary atonement-- or just substitution? I think we can show a pretty clear thread of substitution along with the other 4 images in the early church's teaching on the atonement. Where we'll have some debate, though, is whether that's penal substitutionary atonement. Can you clarify which way you're wanting to gear the discussion?
Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Thanks Drew. That's interesting. I would have had you down as a big PSA fan. I admire your candour.
I agree on the neatness and simplicity of this particular model. So much so, it can be hard to imagine the Gospel being presented in any other terms.
But in terms of the OP it does seem a late development
Gamaliel - it's complicated.
While I think of it, there seems to be another issue with PSA. If God demands punishment for sin then he seems to be bound to satisfy some principle outside of himself - universal justice - which creates all kinds of difficulties.
But I must be careful not to high jack Kwesi's question. Cliff dweller is right to ask whether Kwesi wants to focus on substitution or penal substitution, I refer my honourable friends to Cliffdweller's last post.
Yours aye,
Drew
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair enough, Drew. I don't wish to hijack Kwesi's thread but I di want you to know how helpful I found your post.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Good man Bostonman. Fair play to you. That was my FIRST verse. 12th word.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Drewthealexander quote:
Cliff dweller is right to ask whether Kwesi wants to focus on substitution or penal substitution, I refer my honourable friends to Cliffdweller's last post.
Shipmates, I was specifically concerned with penal substitution. It may be, of course, that some of those claiming penal substitution to have been propagated in the early church were confusing it with other forms of substitution. That might be part of the discussion.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sacrifice is substitutionary is penal.
Matthew 16:21 (NRSV)
Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection
21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Romans 3:23-26 "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus." (NRSV)
Romans 4:25 (NIV) He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Romans 5:16-18 (NIV)
16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
2 Corinthians 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (RSV)
Galatians 3:10, 13 "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.' ... Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree.'" (RSV)
1 Peter 2:24 "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."(RSV)
1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God." (RSV)
Hebrews 10 (NIV)
Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All
10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.
3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins.
4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”
8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.
9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.
10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
To us.
[ 29. March 2015, 22:53: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Martin,
Those verses are strong on substitution, but very weak on penal. Where is the court-room, the judge declaring the fine for our sins paid by Christ?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sacrifice is substitutionary is penal.
No, it isn't. That's a Protestant reading back into the Old Testament. Arguably the scapegoat is penal substitutionary (though I'm not quite sure that's what's going on even there - I think the scapegoat is taking the reified sins); but the scapegoat is the one sacrifice that isn't killed but released.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We're divided by disposition guys, that's all. You're right Alan of course, no such formal sentence exists in the court of Heaven.
Mine's nasty.
And Dafyd, if any dumb Prod can read that in to these verses then EVERYONE else, historically, based on their culture, one very anthropic - monkey - culture of penal 'justice', including the writers and Jesus, did. All those nice Greeks and Romans especially. Regardless of the rare 'enlightened' extremely remote elite. And even then.
NONE of which makes it so at all. It isn't. For God is love.
But projecting modern liberal niceness back on to the giants on whose shoulders we stand is ... folly.
Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11—"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all ... It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin ... By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities." (RSV)
If won't see it, you can't.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
"upon him was the chastisement that made us whole" is, it seems to me, the closest the Bible comes to penal substitution. And, that assumes that the chastisement Christ bore was the penalty for our transgressions. So, penal substitution is there, but it's one verse in the prophets - albeit one that is clearly ascribed to Christ in the New Testament (Philip and the Ethiopian Eunach - but even there we don't get an exposition of this passage, just that the Servant is Jesus Christ).
If penal substition was widely accepted by the earliest Church, and especially if that was how Jesus understood and explained His death, then it would surely be referenced considerably more often and more clearly.
We don't even get many references to God as a judge in a court of law (quite a few in a judge of quality - the plumbline is the wall straight, the farmer judging the value of fruit trees by how much they produce etc). And, the references that are there relate mostly to dispensing justice, punishing others for their sins against us rather than punishing us for our own sins, something like the parable of the judge who is hounded day and night by the widow demanding justice which is eventually dispensed just to get her out of his hair.
I wonder if one of the reasons the image isn't used much is because the image of a human judge who is fair and unbiased would have been largely unknown?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Dafyd, if any dumb Prod can read that in to these verses then EVERYONE else, historically, based on their culture, one very anthropic - monkey - culture of penal 'justice', including the writers and Jesus, did.
That doesn't follow. It isn't true.
quote:
If won't see it, you can't.
That line of argument can be turned round on you.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
I am no scholar in historical theology so am not well qualified to answer Kwesi's question.
But it seems to me that theology is usually couched in terms of the prevailing 'philosophy' of the day. On that score PSA is late ( Anselm?).
It also seems to me that we confuse vicarious action ( on behalf of) with substitutionary action ( instead of).
A classic case of misreading comes in Mark 4 v 12 where Jesus (? in reality the Early Church) speaks of the difficulty in understanding the parables. The usual translation to account for the blindness of the disciples comes at v 12 where the word "lest" is problematic. If it is translated as "unless" (pace Jeremias) then the matter becomes clear and God is absolved from the responsibility of causing their blindness and deafness "
An additional complication is that the Biblical writers did not distinguish between purpose and consequence. Since they thought that God wills all things they identified consequence with purpose.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Of course Dafyd. It's true because we're narrow, literal minded, weak, ignorant, frightened monkeys.
Even Jesus believed He HAD to die. Did He believe above all that it was simply to break through to us? All the good and timeless meaning we extract from it? That it was pure sacrifice WITHOUT substitution for ... penalty?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Martin, there are atonement theories other than PSA and Moral Exemplar: theories that take account of the objective realities achieved by the Paschal event, and yet are not penal, or even, necessarily, substitutionary. Count me amongst those who are sceptical of the biblical support for PSA. Indeed, one passage often cited in support of PSA, Romans 3:25-26, seems to, actually, be an argument against the logic behind behind it. "No one can accuse God of ignoring wrongdoing, when you look at the restoration of all things implied in the events of Holy week". It's almost as if Paul had heard some voices raising the "soft on sin" argument, and was keen to cut it off in the bud.
[ 30. March 2015, 12:47: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even Jesus believed He HAD to die.
Yes. But, why did He believe He had to die? To pay some ransom, to someone? To take His battle with death right down into Hades itself? To take our sins and carry them into the grave where they no longer have a hold on us? To be a passover sacrifice, with His blood on the doorposts of our lives so we need no longer fear the angel of death?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It's true because we're narrow, literal minded, weak, ignorant, frightened monkeys.
You're not so narrow, literal-minded, weak, ignorant, or frightened that you think PSA is true. I don't think PSA is true. It is just possible that Jesus and one or two of the Apostles were less narrow, literal-minded, weak, ignorant, or frightened than we are.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Even Jesus believed He HAD to die.
Why bring convoluted theology into this?
Jesus believed He had to die. In the same way as anyone driving into a concrete wall at 90mph knows they will die.
Jesus knew that His confrontation with sinful human nature could only have one outcome. His death was inevitable.
Jesus was simply being true to Himself.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sacrifice is substitutionary is penal.
No, it isn't. That's a Protestant reading back into the Old Testament. Arguably the scapegoat is penal substitutionary (though I'm not quite sure that's what's going on even there - I think the scapegoat is taking the reified sins); but the scapegoat is the one sacrifice that isn't killed but released.
Actually it would be penal satisfaction.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
An additional complication is that the Biblical writers did not distinguish between purpose and consequence. Since they thought that God wills all things they identified consequence with purpose.
As a broad generalization, this simply is not true. There are abundant places in Scripture where God is shown to be unhappy with the outcomes, with human decisions that were made, etc. There are even a surprisingly large number of verses where we see the phrase "God repented" or regretted something God had done (e.g. appointing Saul king) because of the outcome.
I don't deny there are texts that fit your description, but they are far far from the whole, and therefore don't really provide a rubric for understanding these particular passages.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Sacrifice is substitutionary is penal.
No, it isn't. That's a Protestant reading back into the Old Testament. Arguably the scapegoat is penal substitutionary (though I'm not quite sure that's what's going on even there - I think the scapegoat is taking the reified sins); but the scapegoat is the one sacrifice that isn't killed but released.
Actually it would be penal satisfaction.
I'm not sure about that, cliffdweller.
On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest moves to the Holy of Holies - the dwelling place of God in microcosm. The words used are "for a covering", as if sin damaged the fabric of creation, and this action mended it. There are two goats involved. One is sacrificed and whose blood is sprinkled on the altar (and is then eaten). The second is the scapegoat, which "takes away the sin of the world". Or, I guess, "becomes a curse".
At its root, sacrifice involves a re-dedication of something of the bounty of God back to God. The Jewish concept of Atonement is phenomenally important here I agree. Any theories of atonement - whatever else they do - have to fly with this one ritual and its associated meaning. Right now, I see nothing penal in there, let alone things done to satisfy God. The action is entirely from God.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
My point was just that the temple imagery of the scapegoat made it satisfaction, not substitution.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Arguably the scapegoat is penal substitutionary (though I'm not quite sure that's what's going on even there - I think the scapegoat is taking the reified sins); but the scapegoat is the one sacrifice that isn't killed but released.
Actually it would be penal satisfaction. [/QB][/QUOTE]
If you think the scapegoat is being sent into exile instead of the Israelites then it would be substitution. I don't think that's what is going on there, and it's certainly not a good explanation for what Jesus is doing on the cross unless you think the whole incarnation is an exile and therefore a punishment (which is I think not at all a traditional Christian reading and quite possibly gnostic).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Guys, if I asked anyone in my last 4 Anglican congos why Jesus had to die they would all say for their sins. Instead of them. And if I went to any Roman or Greek church in town (and we have 2 Orthodox) they WOULDN'T?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Guys, if I asked anyone in my last 4 Anglican congos why Jesus had to die they would all say for their sins. Instead of them. And if I went to any Roman or Greek church in town (and we have 2 Orthodox) they WOULDN'T?
They would probably say "in order that we might have eternal life", I would have thought. Quite possibly, so would the anglican congos to which you refer, since John 3:16 is normally the first point of encounter for people with the Gospel.
[ 30. March 2015, 21:12: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My experience of the Orthodox suggests that they would stress 'on behalf of' rather than 'instead of'.
I can't speak for the RCs, but I'd imagine their 'take' would be closer to the 'Western' one you are describing ... more of an emphasis on sin and punishment.
That seems to be changing, though, from what an RC lay-worker told me a few years ago.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Guys, if I asked anyone in my last 4 Anglican congos why Jesus had to die they would all say for their sins. Instead of them. And if I went to any Roman or Greek church in town (and we have 2 Orthodox) they WOULDN'T?
Yes, and that would be substitution. That wouldn't necessarily be penal substitution unless they expanded what they said to include mention of God as judge (which even then need not be legal) and stuff about being 'not guilty' or Jesus 'paying the penalty' for our sins.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
My experience of the Orthodox suggests that they would stress 'on behalf of' rather than 'instead of'.
This is really the key distinction between the New Testament, the early Church and the Orthodox to this day, as opposed to the reformed tradition, which accepts doctrine innovated in the 16th century. This article from the Antiochian Orthodox Church of America explains how substitution has always been at the heart of Christianity, but that it's the penal element that is a latecomer and is no way required in our understanding of Christ's redemptive work.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I always find it ironic that evangelicals are criticised on the one hand for being 'sola scriptura' and yet, when a theological/doctrinal idea is promoted by evangelicals that seems to be 'new' (1800) - but is actually found in Scripture - those who disagree with them suddenly turn 'sola scriptura' themselves!
Much of our thinking in the Church today is a development of Scripture and is said to be the leading of the Spirit in reason and tradition.
It seems to me that a lot of our contemporary theology is a reaction to the tmes in which we loive, trying to make sense of the world as it is. An example would be millennialism. When the church is doing well - let's example the mid to late 19th century when we expanded round the world - postmillennialism was the major eschatalogical view. In this age it was 'winning the world for Jesus' that gave The Salvation Army its motivation. But postmillennialism has given way to to pretribulation (either with or without a rapture) because the world is a different place after a century of conflict and the decline of the Church in the West.
PSA is one of those doctrines that cannot be totally 'proved' as the incontrovertible atonement metaphor; but neither can it be denied. The fact that it's a later development doesn't mean that people should reject it as not being emphasised in the teachings of the early Fathers, any more than justification by faith alone when 'introduced' by Luther should also be condemned because it didn't 'appear' until the early 1500s.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
But postmillennialism has given way to to pretribulation (either with or without a rapture)
I of course meant 'premillennianism'...
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
PSA is one of those doctrines that cannot be totally 'proved' as the incontrovertible atonement metaphor; but neither can it be denied. The fact that it's a later development doesn't mean that people should reject it as not being emphasised in the teachings of the early Fathers,
While I'm not against the idea that the Holy Spirit can move us ever onward and upward in our understanding of God, I can't accept that 16th century Germans, who were far removed geographically, historically, culturaly and linguistically from the founders of the faith, suddenly had major insights which had been overlooked by the early Church. The reason I have such high regard for the Coptic Church, for example, though it's outside the Chalcedonian definitions, is that it was founded by St Mark close in time and space to where it all happened. The further West the Church went, the more it innovated doctrine not accepted at the heart. The further from the source, the muddier the water.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Mudfrog
I always find it ironic that evangelicals are criticised on the one hand for being 'sola scriptura' and yet, when a theological/doctrinal idea is promoted by evangelicals that seems to be 'new' (1800) - but is actually found in Scripture - those who disagree with them suddenly turn 'sola scriptura' themselves!
Of course not all evangelicals are sola scriptura, not are all evangelicals accepters of PSA. The can be either, neither or both. But some of those who do hold to a high view of scripture would dispute that PSA is a scriptural doctrine, even one that exists in only embryonic form. I expect that you could name some of them without too much difficulty.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Mudfrog
I always find it ironic that evangelicals are criticised on the one hand for being 'sola scriptura' and yet, when a theological/doctrinal idea is promoted by evangelicals that seems to be 'new' (1800) - but is actually found in Scripture - those who disagree with them suddenly turn 'sola scriptura' themselves!
Of course not all evangelicals are sola scriptura, not are all evangelicals accepters of PSA. The can be either, neither or both. But some of those who do hold to a high view of scripture would dispute that PSA is a scriptural doctrine, even one that exists in only embryonic form. I expect that you could name some of them without too much difficulty.
Well, I can think of one but from what I've seen - oh no, wait! TWO!! - but from what I've seen and heard, neither of them would describe themselves as evangelicals any more.
Neither would we describe them as such even if they claimed the title for themselves - and they certainly do not hold to a high view of Scripture.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
@ Mudfrog
I'm pretty certain that Chalky still self-identifies as evangelical, and he is careful to stress that he arrives at his positions precisely by going back to the scripture, tunnelling through the cultural accretions which have been added to the NT account by more recent generations. This, even on its own, is enough to categorise him as evangelical, even without the conversionism, activism and crucicentrism and so forth. How is it that the reformers of past generations are lauded for going back to the bible, whist Chalky is excoriated for doing exactly the same thing.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Simply because he's 'going back' to a view that is not Scriptural. It's a case of only he can see it therefore we're all wrong.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Mudfrog - I honestly don't think anyone here is taking a sola scriptura position against PSA. There is no potential argument about the Spirit leading us into all truth, but there are constraints on that. The understanding of truth has to be a further unfolding of what has gone before. That's the real problem here - PSA just doesn't seem to be that.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Well, I self-identify as evangelical.
And, I don't think PSA is clearly Scriptural. Certainly, if PSA is Scriptural it's a minor model (in terms of frequency and clarity of expression) compared to others.
However, someone earlier described it as missional. I agree with that, it's a model that has value in explaining the gospel within cultures where there is a judicial process, where "someone else paying my fine" is something people can associate with. I'm far from certain that Judean and/or Greco-Roman cultures of the first few centuries would find the metaphor useful, which explains it's absence in the NT.
But, of course, the same applies to some other models - they made sense to the NT writers and their immediate audience, but may not convey the message as clearly to a contemporary audience.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, I self-identify as evangelical.
And, I don't think PSA is clearly Scriptural. Certainly, if PSA is Scriptural it's a minor model (in terms of frequency and clarity of expression) compared to others.
However, someone earlier described it as missional. I agree with that, it's a model that has value in explaining the gospel within cultures where there is a judicial process, where "someone else paying my fine" is something people can associate with. I'm far from certain that Judean and/or Greco-Roman cultures of the first few centuries would find the metaphor useful, which explains it's absence in the NT.
But, of course, the same applies to some other models - they made sense to the NT writers and their immediate audience, but may not convey the message as clearly to a contemporary audience.
This.
The problem stems from using PSA-- or any of the biblical models-- as a literal transaction rather than an image. If we stress substitution (even penal substitution) as a metaphor it's less problematic when it breaks down (as it inevitably does). This is why I think it's helpful to employ all five of the biblical images-- not only does it make it more likely that you'll include one that "speaks" to your audience effectively, it also makes it clearer that we're talking metaphors here. Each has something of value to add to the overall picture, each has a failing or weakness that distorts the picture, especially when taken in isolation.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Mudfrog, the problem with your argument is that it isn't actually supported by very much at all. Everyone knows, you say, that the bible supports PSA, but no-one can demonstrate this with concrete examples that stand up to scrutiny. The text list that Martin posted earlier contained only one passage that could be taken as supportive of PSA (the Isaiah 53 reference) in the midst of 20 or so texts that were possibly (in some cases) substitutionary, but were certainly not penal. If it's such a key doctrine, then why the absence of reference to it in either Jesus' preaching or Paul's teaching. I'm with Alan on this, PSA was Calvin's take on Anselm's "satisfaction" metaphor (I'm pretty sure that Anselm never took it as anything other than a metaphor helpful to his time and culture, less certain about Calvin, who seems to have believed it to be "the" Truth, though he was, of course, a lawyer and could therefore maybe relate more easily to a judicial model than to others).
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
How does PSA deal with the problem of guilt?
In my way of thinking guilt can never be transferred. It can only be forgiven.
So if we have a problem with the word penal there is just as great a problem with substitution.
I like the prayer of Humble Access. " whose nature is always to have mercy".
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
How does PSA deal with the problem of guilt?
In my way of thinking guilt can never be transferred. It can only be forgiven.
So if we have a problem with the word penal there is just as great a problem with substitution.
I like the prayer of Humble Access. " whose nature is always to have mercy".
Not necessarily a problem with substitution. Christus Victor has God forgiving our sins because that's His Nature (as in the POHA), but, on the cross, fighting the battle against sin and death that we could not win, as our Champion, clearly a substitutionary concept.
[ 31. March 2015, 16:11: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
No. The aspect is vicarious, not substitutionary.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Isn't it both, vicarious, in the sense that the victory He wins is applied to us, substitutionary in that He does on our behalf what we could not do for ourselves, like a footballer taking over from an injured teammate.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Am I to conclude from the discussion thus far that Shipmates, both supporters and opponents of PSA, are generally agreed that PSA was not a feature of Christian teaching before the Reformation?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The answer, of course, depends on which direction the Shipmate answering the question is coming from.
Proponents of PSA will say, yes it was there all along only nobody noticed it or attached sufficient weight to it until the Reformation ...
Opponents of PSA would argue to the contrary.
I'm not one of those who says we can make the Bible say what we want it to say, but I do think we have to filter 'what the Bible says' through, 'what my understanding/interpretation of the Bible says ...'
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
quote:
I can't accept that 16th century Germans, who were far removed geographically, historically, culturaly and linguistically from the founders of the faith, suddenly had major insights which had been overlooked by the early Church.
Well, they had the Greek NT in one hand and Augustine in the other. The Catholics had the Vulgate and the insistence that by keeping the Pope in mistresses, palaces and armies you could buy your nearest and dearest out of being tortured in the hereafter. Which demonstrates, I think, that rhetorical tropes are no substitute for analysis (do you see what I did there?).
Incidentally, unless my recollection is entirely incorrect PSA was more Calvin's thang than Luther who, IIRC, gets a glowing write up in Aulen's little tome on the matter. So strictly speaking it's 16th Century Frenchmen, not Germans.
There is a passage in Catherine of Siena which says something to the effect that only Jesus could save us because only he could undergo the punishment that we deserve. Anyway, she was a fourteenth century Italian who was proclaimed as a Doctor of the Church by Pope Paul VI and as a Patron Saint of Europe by John Paul II. Make of that what you will. I suspect it's one of those late medieval doctrines that was taken on by the Reformers in the naive belief that if it wasn't Aristotelan it was what St. Paul taught.
I believe that when the good folks at Oak Hill put out 'Pierced for Our Transgressions' they gave a list of patristic quotes which, to their minds, demonstrated that PSA was patristic. I don't think that it convinced anyone who wasn't already signed up but it might be worth looking at to see why a couple of scholarly types who were invested in PSA thought it was.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can see what Mudfrog is saying with his eschatalogical analogy but it presupposes what he sees as the current vogue being the current vogue. There would be good grounds for suggesting that a pre-millenial model isn't the dominant or prevailing one at all. It might be where Mudfrog is but it has never been that way in the circles I've tended to move in.
Equally, Chalkie's controversy might have a been a big deal within certain sectors of evangelicalism, but it becomes less of a deal if we look at Christianity as a whole and not just the Protestant evangelical sector.
In the same way, an internal controversy within liberal theology, say, or within Roman Catholicism isn't going to have as much traction or impact among people who aren't involved with either of those.
As for which views are the most scriptural - everyone claims that when it comes to their own interpretation. Just because any one of us claims to have THE correct interpretation doesn't make it the case.
RCs and Orthodox would contest that Luther was unscriptural with his 'faith alone' on the basis of the way they understand apparent differences between Paul and James on the issue - as well as the way Luther naughtily inserted 'alone' into the text.
To some people it looks incontrovertibly obvious that PSA is scriptural. Others, reading the same texts don't see it that way at all. C S Lewis famously didn't.
Which is why I keep saying that if we are convinced it is there we will find it, if we aren't we won't.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Mine is the best of all possible views. It's there and it's way past its sell by date. The universe has expanded since then. As Rob Bell just said. Ten feet in front of me.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Gamaliel quote:
To some people it looks incontrovertibly obvious that PSA is scriptural. Others, reading the same texts don't see it that way at all. C S Lewis famously didn't.
Which is why I keep saying that if we are convinced it is there we will find it, if we aren't we won't.
I have no difficulty in recognising PSA as scriptural, though I find PSA unconvincing. I also recognise that other atonement theories are also scriptural. The point, of course, is that scripture is less blindingly obvious than we might like to think. The problem lies in deciding what weight and meaning are given to particular texts, and that rests on a general sense one gets from the biblical record as a whole as to the nature of God (systematic theology), and the application of reason. The nub of the dispute between supporters and critics of PSA arises, ISTM, from a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of the Christian God and his relationship to justice and grace.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Am I to conclude from the discussion thus far that Shipmates, both supporters and opponents of PSA, are generally agreed that PSA was not a feature of Christian teaching before the Reformation?
Disagree at least on SA, I think the "penal" part is up for debate, and to some extent may even be splitting hairs. As I said before, IMHO substitution is one of several images used by the early church before the Reformation. What shifts with the Reformation is dependence on PSA as the only image-- which brought with it the very problematic tendency to view it as a literal transaction rather than a metaphor for a wonderful transcendent mystery.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Gamaliel quote:
To some people it looks incontrovertibly obvious that PSA is scriptural. Others, reading the same texts don't see it that way at all. C S Lewis famously didn't.
Which is why I keep saying that if we are convinced it is there we will find it, if we aren't we won't.
I have no difficulty in recognising PSA as scriptural, though I find PSA unconvincing. I also recognise that other atonement theories are also scriptural. The point, of course, is that scripture is less blindingly obvious than we might like to think. The problem lies in deciding what weight and meaning are given to particular texts, and that rests on a general sense one gets from the biblical record as a whole as to the nature of God (systematic theology), and the application of reason. The nub of the dispute between supporters and critics of PSA arises, ISTM, from a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of the Christian God and his relationship to justice and grace.
Related to that is the underlying question of "what is the problem that the atonement is fixing?". Each of the five theories is framing the problem differently-- what exactly is it we need to be saved from?
Both substitution & satisfaction are God-ward theories-- meaning the force or impact of the atonement is directed toward God-- and God is the one who is changed by it. They would view humanity's problem as something like:
God’s wrath (or holiness) against human sinfulness puts us in danger of eternal punishment (or separation)
Moral influence is a human-ward theory-- meaning the force or impact of the atonement is directed toward us-- we are the ones who are changed by it. It would view humanity's problem as something like:
Humans need to know God’s love for us
Both ransom & Christus-victor are Satan-ward theories-- meaning the force or impact of the atonement is directed toward Satan-- and Satan is the one who is changed (in this case defeated) by it. They would view humanity's problem as something like:
Humanity is trapped and oppressed by spiritual forces beyond our control.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think I would instead describe the Orthodox understanding of atonement as deathwards. Our problem is death. On Pascha we don't sing about Christ triumphing over Satan, but triumphing over death. St. Paul doesn't say sin came through one man and through sin Satan; he says sin came through one man and through sin death. The resurrection is ultimately a destruction of death, not of Satan.
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
If CV is primarily thought of in terms of Satan rather than death, then that is a huge difference between CV and Orthodox soteriology.
ETA: Satan doesn't get much of a look-in at Pascha. Where we talk about Satan a bunch (and spit on him) is at baptism.
[ 01. April 2015, 00:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes - that's a helpful distinction, Mousethief.
I also like Cliffdweller's reminder that these things are metaphorical - and effectively try to express the inexpressible ...
I also agree with Kwesi that even if we do believe PSA to be scriptural, it only becomes 'blindingly obvious' if we ourselves are blind to the role that interpretation, tradition, culture, history and a whole range of other factors play in the way that we engage with the scriptures in the first place.
None of us approach the scriptures in a vacuum.
Which is why I'm increasingly tired of the way certain types of conservative evangelical bandy the scriptures around in such a way as to suggest that there's only one way to understand them - ie. theirs.
There are corresponding problems with other approaches too, of course - 'The Bible says ...' and 'The Church says ...' can both be convenient excuses for insisting on my way or the highway ...
I'm intrigued by this comment of Kwesi's - that the issue hinges on 'a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of the Christian God and his relationship to justice and grace.'
I think that's part of it - but also it's to do with our view of sin. I used to think that the Orthodox - in not espousing PSA - were soft on sin, soft on the consequences of sin - to adapt a notorious phrase ...
In not embracing PSA I thought they were living the issue of sin and punishment to one aside - refusing to confront it.
Now, I'm no longer convinced that the Orthodox view does that - and I'm sure Mousethief would assure us that it doesn't take sin any less seriously than any of the 'Western' theories.
I really do think that our respective traditions are more of a determining factor than we would often care to admit ourselves.
PSA is very neat and quite effective in revivalist circles where it can be used to provide some very striking sermon illustrations and analogies that can bring on the expected results - such as deep conviction of sin and sudden conversion experiences - with a sense of 'release' from the burden of sin and guilt.
In a similar way, medieval RC depictions of Christ's sufferings were designed to do that too - to inculcate a sense of sympathy, guilt and shame on the part of the beholder - 'I am responsible for this ...'
Now, I'm not suggesting that either are cynical 'marketing ploys' - simply that they fit the purpose in both traditions/scenarios.
One of the reasons, I suggest, that many evangelicals are reluctant to abandon or modify PSA isn't so much that it's 'in the Bible' - which it might well be, although that is capable of being challenged given that generations of Christians and whole sectors within Christendom don't read it that way - so much as it would alter the shape of their modus operandi and preaching/proclamation.
They would also - perhaps with some justification - fear that it would lead to greater levels of nominalism and to people having a blaise attitude towards sin.
However, all that might not necessarily be the case.
PSA has become a sacred cow. If you'd met me 20 years ago I would have told you that PSA WAS the Gospel - that you weren't preaching the Gospel at all if you didn't include it in your presentation.
I've seen some Reformed or small r reformed - attempts to 'prove' that PSA was always there in the Patristic record - particularly with St Athanasius.
I'm no expert, but I have found these less than convincing as they are highly selective and leave out aspects and quotes from the same Patristic sources that don't quite fit a Reformed schema.
So they'll quote one Father to imply that he believed in PSA, but overlook quotes from the same guy on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, say, or the Real Presence or the use of icons and relics etc etc.
I'll be honest ... though, I've been very, very reluctant to let go of PSA as I'm nervous about what'd lie beneath me if I let go of it and dropped downwards ...
So, I do have sympathy with those who cling onto it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think that's part of it - but also it's to do with our view of sin. I used to think that the Orthodox - in not espousing PSA - were soft on sin, soft on the consequences of sin - to adapt a notorious phrase ...
In not embracing PSA I thought they were living the issue of sin and punishment to one aside - refusing to confront it.
Now, I'm no longer convinced that the Orthodox view does that - and I'm sure Mousethief would assure us that it doesn't take sin any less seriously than any of the 'Western' theories.
We take sin deadly seriously. It's just that we don't see it primarily in legal terms.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
cliffdweller wrote:- quote:
IMHO substitution is one of several images used by the early church before the Reformation. What shifts with the Reformation is dependence on PSA as the only image-- which brought with it the very problematic tendency to view it as a literal transaction rather than a metaphor for a wonderful transcendent mystery.
This is an important point that probably needs re-emphasising. The various prophetic statements and images in the OT that relate to the "One who is to come" - and their repetitions in the NT - are many and various. In their different ways, the gospel writers use them all to show that all these images - which in Jewish typology are to be taken as demonstrating how God's plan unfolds - all converge on the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It follows from that that there is no one model of atonement that can be used on its own, if that model leaves any prophetic aspects unaddressed.
mousethief - that was a useful post - thanks. Since I'm on this unfolding of the Jewish idea of atonement kick, I think it illustrates nicely how such a view can unfold from its earlier incarnation. On the day of atonement, the high priest models God's actions every year in dealing with sin and covering it. In Jesus, God takes it to the max. and covers all sin for all time. And since it was by sin that death came, death is now itself destroyed, because even the sin of Adam is now covered.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Death is not destroyed because sin is destroyed; death is destroyed because Christ entered it and broke free. As we sing, Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
As Chrysostom says in his Paschal Homily,
Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.
and
O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Death is not destroyed because sin is destroyed; death is destroyed because Christ entered it and broke free. As we sing, Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
As Chrysostom says in his Paschal Homily,
Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.
and
O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
Of course - sorry, poor drafting on my part. Even I had noticed that people still die!
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0