PSA, an essential Christian doctrine.

[Foghorn]

This doctrine of PSA - Penal substitutionary atonement, I believe is an essential doctrine to Christianity. I believe firmly this is a doctrine taught throughout scripture. I am also aware there are those out there who do agree with some aspects of PSA, mainly, they disagree that Jesus endured the wrath of the Father. If one loses this truth, you lose the gospel.

I believe these couple of verses may be a good place to start.
Psalm 22:1
My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?
Far from my help are the words of my groaning.

Matthew 26:39,
And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.”

 

[Foghorn]

There really is so much to consider on this topic. Though Isaiah 53 would prove it alone IMO, there is much, much more. The OT sacrifices all points to Christ and the Atonement, and him suffering God's wrath.

I would be very interested if many would share their understanding of this doctrine. Why do you agree or disagree?

May God alone get the glory.


Blessings

 

[Foghorn]

Isaiah 53:
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.

 

[public hermit]

If it's essential, it's a late bloomer. That way of seeing the "mechanism that saves" doesn't hit the ground running until Calvin. There are a number of understandings that predate it, i.e., ransom theory, recapitulation, Christus Victor even. Calvin saw punishment of sin as the primary function of the cross, which is an anemic view. The truth probably entails something of each theory but transcends them all.

 

[Foghorn]

If it's essential, it's a late bloomer. That way of seeing the "mechanism that saves" doesn't hit the ground running until Calvin. There are a number of understandings that predate it, i.e., ransom theory, recapitulation, Christus Victor even. Calvin saw punishment of sin as the primary function of the cross, which is an anemic view. The truth probably entails something of each theory but transcends them all.

It would be much better I think to look to scripture, not Calvin, Arminius, or whoever. I don't know about you but I rather scripture.
And Isaiah for one is centuries before the reformers.

But thanks for your opinion.

 

[preacher4truth]

If it's essential, it's a late bloomer. That way of seeing the "mechanism that saves" doesn't hit the ground running until Calvin. There are a number of understandings that predate it, i.e., ransom theory, recapitulation, Christus Victor even. Calvin saw punishment of sin as the primary function of the cross, which is an anemic view. The truth probably entails something of each theory but transcends them all.

IIRC there were ECF's who stated subsitution, facing wrath &c early on. It wasn't "formulated" at that time as some of the other theories perhaps were, but it was still there in the early church teachings. Also 1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:1-12 teach these things, so it is not like it is outside of Scripture.

Also, part of the experiencing of God's wrath has to do with Him removing restraint, as we see in OT Scriptures of Him allowing nations to attack Israel. We see this in His allowing, and determining wicked men to crucify His Son as well; Acts 2:23; Acts 5:30.

To be fair I don't have any quotes at this time, but could take time to look into them when I have time.

Just got back in from working the land, putting in a garden &c so trying to chill.

 

[public hermit]

It would be much better I think to look to scripture, not Calvin, Arminius, or whoever. I don't know about you but I rather scripture.
And Isaiah for one is centuries before the reformers.

But thanks for your opinion.

It wasn't an opinion. If you don't know and learn from your own history, you might end up making mistakes others have already made, or you might assume your way of seeing things is the only way.

There is no doubt that many today assume PSA is essential. Well, it hasn't always been. Centuries of Christians did not think in that framework. That fact alone should cause one to wonder if their assertion about whether PSA is essential should be softened or simply rejected outright. And then, one should explore the ways Christians of repute have thought differently. If the Bible settled this question, it wouldn't be a question.

 

[Foghorn]

It wasn't an opinion. If you don't know and learn from your own history, you might end up making mistakes others have already made, or you might assume your way of seeing things is the only way.

There is no doubt that many today assume PSA is essential. Well, it hasn't always been. Centuries of Christians did not think in that framework. That fact alone should cause one to wonder if their assertion about whether PSA is essential should be softened or simply rejected outright. And then, one should explore the ways Christians of repute have thought differently. If the Bible settled this question, it wouldn't be a question.

It is your opinion. Don’t have time now, I’ll be back later.

Thanks

 

[preacher4truth]

It is your opinion. Don’t have time now, I’ll be back later.

Thanks

The test of PSA being true or not true doesn't rest with the ECF's, but whether or not it is found in Scripture.

 

[public hermit]

It is your opinion. Don’t have time now, I’ll be back later.

Thanks

No rush. I'm not trying to argue; I just think your claim is too strong.

 

[public hermit]

but whether or not it is found in Scripture.

That's the problem. Those who held some form of the Ransom Theory relied on scripture. The problem is not simply what we find in the scriptures, but how we interpret it.

I might agree that PSA is essential to Covenant Theology in the weak sense that it has historically been associated with supporters of PSA, but the stronger claim won't hold. Thinking in terms of covenants has been around since the early centuries. Scoff at the ECFs if you want, but they include more than Augustine. As all the Reformed know, Calvin quoted Augustine nearly as much as scripture. He neglected a lot of wisdom and insight by his nearly exclusive Augustinianism.

 

[preacher4truth]

That's the problem. Those who held some form of the Ransom Theory relied on scripture. The problem is not simply what we find in the scriptures, but how we interpret it.

I might agree that PSA is essential to Covenant Theology in the weak sense that it has historically been associated with supporters of PSA, but the stronger claim won't hold. Thinking in terms of covenants has been around since the early centuries. Scoff at the ECFs if you want, but they include more than Augustine. As all the Reformed know, Calvin quoted Augustine nearly as much as scripture. He neglected a lot of wisdom and insight by his nearly exclusive Augustinianism.

"Scoff?"...sigh... Many know persons can pick whatever ECF they want to be their authority.

They include "more than Augustine?" A low and unnecessary blow. Why act like that?

Your biased and discourteous response is duly noted...

I'm certain I was courteous.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

The Eastern Orthodox view is summarized in the Paschal Sermon of St. John Chrysostom which is read in every Orthodox church on the morning of Pascha.

Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.​

​

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, 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. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.​

 

[public hermit]

"Scoff?"...sigh... Many know persons can pick whatever ECF they want to be their authority.

They include "more than Augustine?" A low and unnecessary blow. Why act like that?

Your biased and discourteous response is duly noted...

I'm certain I was courteous.

I wasn't trying to be discourteous, but my apologies for coming across that way. I know John Calvin, and I know he quotes Augustine more than anyone. Without Augustine, there is no John Calvin. Is that rude to say that? I guess it would be if it were untrue, but I don't think it is, which is why I'm saying it. I'm thinking somebody has probably counted.

ETA: Somebody has: Out of 33 ECFs, Calvin quoted Augustine 50%, 1,708 times, according to one source in the link. We don't need those numbers, though, because reading both side-by-side shows the influence. PSA can be justifiably located at Calvin because he solidified (nurtured?) seeds in Augustine.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272331061_An_investigation_into_Calvin's_use_of_Augustine

 

[preacher4truth]

I wasn't trying to be discourteous, but my apologies for coming across that way. I know John Calvin, and I know he quotes Augustine more than anyone. Without Augustine, there is no John Calvin. Is that rude to say that? I guess it would be if it were untrue, but I don't think it is, which is why I'm saying it. I'm thinking somebody has probably counted.

ETA: Somebody has: Out of 33 ECFs, Calvin quoted Augustine 50%, 1,708 times, according to one source in the link. We don't need those numbers, though, because reading both side-by-side shows the influence. PSA can be justifiably located at Calvin because he solidified (nurtured?) seeds in Augustine.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272331061_An_investigation_into_Calvin's_use_of_Augustine

I accept your apology, no grudges here.

So, guilt by association, correct?

I completely disagree with your last statements above as they are borne of bias.

Bro, seriously, your disdain for these two isn't remotely Christian behavior.

 

[Clare73]

There really is so much to consider on this topic. Though Isaiah 53 would prove it alone IMO, there is much, much more.The OT sacrifices all points to Christ and the Atonement,

The OT sacrifices were the pattern of NT atonement.

They were penalties (Lev 5:6-7, 15, 6:6, 26:41, 43), and
they were substitutionery; i.e. the animal died in the sinner's place (Lev 17:11).

Jesus' death was Penal Substitutionery Atonement from the beginning.

and him suffering God's wrath.

We were by nature (we are born with our nature) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).
Jesus saved us from God's wrath (Ro 5:9).
God's wrath is coming (Col 3:6).
Jesus rescues us from the coming wrath (1Th 1:10).
God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient (Eph 5:6).
God's wrath remains on those who reject the Son (Jn 3:36).

Isaiah 53 pretty much says it all:
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.

I would be very interested if many would share their understanding of this doctrine. Why do you agree or disagree?

May God alone get the glory.
Blessings

 

[public hermit]

I accept your apology, no grudges here.

So, guilt by association, correct?

I completely disagree with your last statements above as they are borne of bias.

Bro, seriously, your disdain for these two isn't remotely Christian behavior.

To the contrary, I love Augustine even though I disagree with him on some things. I also think Calvin had some wonderful insights. He opens the Institutes by saying, basically, we can't know God unless we know ourselves, and we can't know ourselves unless we know God. Brilliant! I think those opening chapters are fantastic. When he recounts all the precarious ways we can die, classic! I just disagree with their overall approach, specifically as it culminated in PSA.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

It would be much better I think to look to scripture, not Calvin, Arminius, or whoever. I don't know about you but I rather scripture.
And Isaiah for one is centuries before the reformers.

But thanks for your opinion.

Well PSA didn't exist until the Reformation, its the new kid on the block.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

To the contrary, I love Augustine even though I disagree with him on some things. I also think Calvin had some wonderful insights. He opens the Institutes by saying, basically, we can't know God unless we know ourselves, and we can't know ourselves unless we know God. Brilliant! I think those opening chapters are fantastic. When he recounts all the precarious ways we can die, classic! I just disagree with their overall approach, specifically as it culminated in PSA.

Spot on brother I have written thesis paper on the topic.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I wasn't trying to be discourteous, but my apologies for coming across that way. I know John Calvin, and I know he quotes Augustine more than anyone. Without Augustine, there is no John Calvin. Is that rude to say that? I guess it would be if it were untrue, but I don't think it is, which is why I'm saying it. I'm thinking somebody has probably counted.

ETA: Somebody has: Out of 33 ECFs, Calvin quoted Augustine 50%, 1,708 times, according to one source in the link. We don't need those numbers, though, because reading both side-by-side shows the influence. PSA can be justifiably located at Calvin because he solidified (nurtured?) seeds in Augustine.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272331061_An_investigation_into_Calvin's_use_of_Augustine

You have done your homework and know your church history. As the say the apple(calvin)doesn't fall far from the tree(augustine)