Penal substitution theory of the atonement

[Steve Hayes]

There has been quite a lot of discussion in the blogosphere recently about
the penal substitution theory of the atonement, beloved of Calvinists. It
seems that many Protestant evangelicals who have previously accepted it
are now having doubts about it.

I tossed in my 2c worth from an Orthodox point of view at:

http://khanya.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/salvation-and-atonement/

in case anyone is interested.

Any thoughts about the topic, anyone?

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by Steve Hayes
There has been quite a lot of discussion in the blogosphere recently about
the penal substitution theory of the atonement, beloved of Calvinists. It
seems that many Protestant evangelicals who have previously accepted it
are now having doubts about it.

...

Post by Steve Hayes
Any thoughts about the topic, anyone?

I'll give you two answers. The first is within the standard Western
context where we look at what Jesus did for us as individuals. That's
not the whole story, but it is certainly part of it.

I would say that sin has consequences, and God had decided to bear
most of them on our behalf. This is substitution, but not necessarily
penal substitution. Penal substitution tends to look pretty arbitrary
on God's side: he has to punish someone so he punishes his son. Why?
It is too easy to see that as an abusive father. But I think it's
plausible to say that sin inevitably has consequences, unless God
wants to create a completely different world in which a lot of things
don't matter.

I say "most of them" because in fact we are expected to repent, and in
many cases make amends. But God bears the most serious consequences.

Looking at things in human terms, it is often difficult to reconcile
people where there are serious matters between them. Each has to put
himself in the other's position, and give up the right to think
themselves superior. To make it real they may need to do something to
show their acceptance of the other.

It's not as cut and dried as punishment, where a specific amount of
pain is mandated. But I think it's as real.

What did Jesus do? Among other things

* He did put himself in our position.
* He accepted humiliation.
* He showed how far God would go in accepting us.

I think this is a better understanding of what he did than the idea
that God's justice demands punishment.

I don't say that this is all that was going on. In addition, I think
by becoming involved in our lives, and accepting the kind of pain that
many people have to bear, he worked to break down the isolation
between us and God that is one of the worst consequences of sin. By
joining us on our side of the barrier, he effectively removed the
barrier between us and him. And through spiritual union with him, we
share in his victory when he triumphed over sin and death.

However I agree with you that there are issues with the standard
context in Western theology. (I can't speak for Eastern.) NT
scholarship has increasingly come to see Jesus' primary goal as
inaugurating the final establishment of God's rule. This is Good News
because it is, as you say, a rescue job. It also applies to the
community, mankind as a whole, and even the whole earth. It's not just
God doing something so that I as an individual can escape hell.

But while it's not *just* a matter of individual salvation, that
is certainly part of it.

You refer to Reformed views. While Calvin used juridical images, he
didn't do so as much as Luther. He has a strain of what has been
called mysticism (though probably not quite as you would use that
term). He sees the role of faith as uniting us to Christ, and Christ's
presence with us as regenerating us. I believe that mystical union and
its effects is the heart of his concept of Christianity, not
predestination.

Currently I see an interesting contrast between NT scholars and
theologians (though not all of them, fortunately). NT scholars are
seeing the Gospel as being the Good News that God is establishing his
reign, and has started the process of rescuing the world and all of
its people. At the moment that process isn't finished, but we see a
foretaste of the Kingdom in how we in the Church live.

The more conventional view, which goes back to very early Christianity
(and to some extent even Paul) sees Jesus primarily as a personal
savior, helping us avoid going to hell because of our sins. (I don't
want to say that it's impossible to combine the two themes. It's more
a matter of emphasis.) Augustine may have raised this to a new level,
but he didn't invent it. This basic context continues to control much
of theology. Given the direction in which NT study has gone for the
last 40 years or so, I sometimes think the theologians and the NT
scholars don't talk to each other.

While I'm not sure we have quite done it for entirely the right
reasons, I think Liberal Protestantism is closer to your view than
other parts of the Western church. This is largely because we tend to
concentrate on Jesus' teaching, and to put somewhat lesser weight on
theology. Thus we are less influenced by some of the features of
Western theology that bother you. Liberal Protestants haven't been
quite as open about our differences from traditional theology as
perhaps we should have been. Thus it often looks like we're just
normal Protestant who aren't serious about our religion. I think
that's wrong. There are certainly nutcases among us, and probably a
few clergy who have lost their faith and just don't want to admit it.
But the members and clergy that I know are serious about following
Christ. They're just not so sure how useful traditional theology is in
doing so. We tend to feel safer to base our religion on Christ as we
meet him in the Gospels. I have to say that I think this is as Christ
would prefer it. I like studying theology. I even think it's useful.
We'd surely be in a much worse position if the Church had become Arian
rather than Nicene. But what Jesus expected was clear, and it wasn't
subscription to a theology: it was obeying him.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

Post by Steve Hayes
There has been quite a lot of discussion in the blogosphere recently about
the penal substitution theory of the atonement, beloved of Calvinists. It
seems that many Protestant evangelicals who have previously accepted it
are now having doubts about it.

...

Post by Steve Hayes
Any thoughts about the topic, anyone?

I'll give you two answers. The first is within the standard Western
context where we look at what Jesus did for us as individuals. That's
not the whole story, but it is certainly part of it.
I would say that sin has consequences, and God had decided to bear
most of them on our behalf. This is substitution, but not necessarily
penal substitution. Penal substitution tends to look pretty arbitrary
on God's side: he has to punish someone so he punishes his son. Why?
It is too easy to see that as an abusive father. But I think it's
plausible to say that sin inevitably has consequences, unless God
wants to create a completely different world in which a lot of things
don't matter.

I think it is common cause that sin has consequences. The question is: are
those consequences only or even primariliy judicial and forensic?

Satisfaction theory of the atonement.
Source: Yannaras 1984:151-152.
"In the Roman Catholic West of the Middle Ages, there was a
whole theology created to support this individualistic
'religious' need for objective 'justification,' for a
transaction with the Godhead, the aim being to provide the
fullest possible support for moral self-sufficience, and by
extension for social order. Thus was formulated the theory of
'the satisfaction of divine justice through Christ's death on
the cross' and this theory passed into Protestantism and into
Eastern Orthodox writers in the climate of 'europeanizing'
tendencies and pietistic influences on the East in recent
centuries. The image of God is identified with the archetypal
'sadistic father' who thirsts insatiably after satisfaction
for his 'wounded justice,' and, by logical extension, delights
in the torment of sinners in hell".

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I say "most of them" because in fact we are expected to repent, and in
many cases make amends. But God bears the most serious consequences.
Looking at things in human terms, it is often difficult to reconcile
people where there are serious matters between them. Each has to put
himself in the other's position, and give up the right to think
themselves superior. To make it real they may need to do something to
show their acceptance of the other.
It's not as cut and dried as punishment, where a specific amount of
pain is mandated. But I think it's as real.
What did Jesus do? Among other things
* He did put himself in our position.
* He accepted humiliation.
* He showed how far God would go in accepting us.
I think this is a better understanding of what he did than the idea
that God's justice demands punishment.

Yes, but i think the advocates of the penal substiution theory would probably
disagree.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
I don't say that this is all that was going on. In addition, I think
by becoming involved in our lives, and accepting the kind of pain that
many people have to bear, he worked to break down the isolation
between us and God that is one of the worst consequences of sin. By
joining us on our side of the barrier, he effectively removed the
barrier between us and him. And through spiritual union with him, we
share in his victory when he triumphed over sin and death.
However I agree with you that there are issues with the standard
context in Western theology. (I can't speak for Eastern.) NT
scholarship has increasingly come to see Jesus' primary goal as
inaugurating the final establishment of God's rule. This is Good News
because it is, as you say, a rescue job. It also applies to the
community, mankind as a whole, and even the whole earth. It's not just
God doing something so that I as an individual can escape hell.
But while it's not *just* a matter of individual salvation, that
is certainly part of it.

In Orthodox theology there is a distinction between "individual" and
"personal".

An analogy is with a building.

There is the collectivist view -- a monolith.
There is the individualist view - a heap of stones, or scattered stones
There is the personal view - a building

This applies to both ecclesiology and anthropology.

The personal view is "holistic" -- that is, the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts. The individualisting view sees each stone in isolation, but in a
building the stones become together something that they were not in isolation,
and that applies whether one is seeing local churches in relation to the
universal church (ecclesiology), or members of the church in relation to the
body (anthropology).

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
You refer to Reformed views. While Calvin used juridical images, he
didn't do so as much as Luther. He has a strain of what has been
called mysticism (though probably not quite as you would use that
term). He sees the role of faith as uniting us to Christ, and Christ's
presence with us as regenerating us. I believe that mystical union and
its effects is the heart of his concept of Christianity, not
predestination.
Currently I see an interesting contrast between NT scholars and
theologians (though not all of them, fortunately). NT scholars are
seeing the Gospel as being the Good News that God is establishing his
reign, and has started the process of rescuing the world and all of
its people. At the moment that process isn't finished, but we see a
foretaste of the Kingdom in how we in the Church live.
The more conventional view, which goes back to very early Christianity
(and to some extent even Paul) sees Jesus primarily as a personal
savior, helping us avoid going to hell because of our sins. (I don't
want to say that it's impossible to combine the two themes. It's more
a matter of emphasis.) Augustine may have raised this to a new level,
but he didn't invent it. This basic context continues to control much
of theology. Given the direction in which NT study has gone for the
last 40 years or so, I sometimes think the theologians and the NT
scholars don't talk to each other.

I* would see the former view as going back to the New Testament.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
While I'm not sure we have quite done it for entirely the right
reasons, I think Liberal Protestantism is closer to your view than
other parts of the Western church. This is largely because we tend to
concentrate on Jesus' teaching, and to put somewhat lesser weight on
theology. Thus we are less influenced by some of the features of
Western theology that bother you. Liberal Protestants haven't been
quite as open about our differences from traditional theology as
perhaps we should have been. Thus it often looks like we're just
normal Protestant who aren't serious about our religion. I think
that's wrong. There are certainly nutcases among us, and probably a
few clergy who have lost their faith and just don't want to admit it.
But the members and clergy that I know are serious about following
Christ. They're just not so sure how useful traditional theology is in
doing so. We tend to feel safer to base our religion on Christ as we
meet him in the Gospels. I have to say that I think this is as Christ
would prefer it. I like studying theology. I even think it's useful.
We'd surely be in a much worse position if the Church had become Arian
rather than Nicene. But what Jesus expected was clear, and it wasn't
subscription to a theology: it was obeying him.

Aulen, a Lutheran, who argues that Lutheranism was less concerned with
forensic justification than the other reformers, says:

"Irenaeus has been commonly interpreted by theologians of
the Liberal Protestant school as teaching a 'naturalistic' or
'physical' doctrine of salvation; salvation is the bestowal of
'divinity' - that is, of immortality - on human nature, and
the idea of deliverance from sin occupies a quite secondary
place." Harnack sees Irenaeus's theology as primarily a
theology of the incarnation, not of atonement. Anglo-Catholic
writers have often accepted this view, in conscious opposition
to the evangelical Anglican school. This is understandable if
one sees the doctrine of the atonement as only the Latin type,
which 'involves an opposition, expressed or implied, between
the incarnation and the work of Christ'."

Of course there is always the question whether Calvin himself was a Calvinist.
He would probably fail the TULIP test.

And it is primarily Calvinists who seem to be pushing the penal substitution
theory.

[Matthew Johnson]

In article <0vWak.392$***@trnddc05>, ***@geneva.rutgers.edu says...

[snip]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
While I'm not sure we have quite done it for entirely the right
reasons, I think Liberal Protestantism is closer to your view than
other parts of the Western church.

It looks like this is so only when you are looking from a great distance, taking
a bird's eye view. But when you "put the pedal to the metal" and see how Liberal
Protestantism's theory translates into practice, what we see is something very,
VERY different from anything recognizable as Orthodox Christianity. The recent
controversy concering "gay marriage" is a perfect example: the Orthodox have
always considered it obviously unacceptable in any Christian church, yet many
Liberal Protestants are doing it, and have been doing it for some time now.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
This is largely because we tend to
concentrate on Jesus' teaching, and to put somewhat lesser weight on
theology.

This is a false dilemma: it is not possible to "concentrate oh His teaching",
and at the same time, "put somewhat lesser weight on theology." Rather, as
Blessed Theophylact pointed out in his commentary on Mat 22:40, you cannot be in
obedience to the First Commandment while believing heresy about God.

The real question is not how _much_ weight you put on it, but what _kind_ of
weight.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
But what Jesus expected was clear,

Was it so clear? If so, then why can't we agree concerning who is doing what He
expected?
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)

----

[I meant closer on one specific issue, not generally. Of the other
major forms of Christianity, liberal Protestants are closest to
conservative Protestants. Though even in that case there are
significant differences. --clh]

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
While I'm not sure we have quite done it for entirely the right
reasons, I think Liberal Protestantism is closer to your view than
other parts of the Western church.

It looks like this is so only when you are looking from a great distance, taking
a bird's eye view. But when you "put the pedal to the metal" and see how Liberal
Protestantism's theory translates into practice, what we see is something very,
VERY different from anything recognizable as Orthodox Christianity. The recent
controversy concering "gay marriage" is a perfect example: the Orthodox have
always considered it obviously unacceptable in any Christian church, yet many
Liberal Protestants are doing it, and have been doing it for some time now.

The question is not so much about things like "gay marriage" but really
whether Liberal Protestantism accepts a similar soteriology to that of
Orthodoxy.

And the problem with Liberal Protestantism is that it has thoroughly
misunderstood (and misrepresented) Orthodoxy by taking Origen as its chief
exponent, and this affected the views of later writers, like Bosch, and
extended to liberal Catholics like Bevans and Schroeder (as I pointed out in
the article).
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/

---

[I'd say the older liberalism tended to hold to the moral influence
theory. The current liberal churches tend not to have any one specific
theory, but mention a number. Penal substitution tends to be low on
the priority list, although broader types of substitution are common.
Christus Victor has recently become of interest. Here's what the PCUSA
says: http://www.pcusa.org/today/archive/believe/wpb9404.htm
However this could be misleading, as in practice most people accept
parts of several theories.

--clh]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
While I'm not sure we have quite done it for entirely the right
reasons, I think Liberal Protestantism is closer to your view than
other parts of the Western church.

It looks like this is so only when you are looking from a great distance, taking
a bird's eye view. But when you "put the pedal to the metal" and see how Liberal
Protestantism's theory translates into practice, what we see is something very,
VERY different from anything recognizable as Orthodox Christianity. The recent
controversy concering "gay marriage" is a perfect example: the Orthodox have
always considered it obviously unacceptable in any Christian church, yet many
Liberal Protestants are doing it, and have been doing it for some time now.

The question is not so much about things like "gay marriage" but really
whether Liberal Protestantism accepts a similar soteriology to that of
Orthodoxy.

And it does not. One of the ways we can see this, though, is by how soteriology
expresses itself in the practice of the church. And that expression is radically
different, as is epitomized by their acceptance of the travesty of "gay
marriage".

Post by Steve Hayes
And the problem with Liberal Protestantism is that it has thoroughly
misunderstood (and misrepresented) Orthodoxy by taking Origen as its chief
exponent, and this affected the views of later writers, like Bosch, and
extended to liberal Catholics like Bevans and Schroeder (as I pointed out in
the article).

And you were right to point that out.

Post by Steve Hayes
[I'd say the older liberalism tended to hold to the moral influence
theory. The current liberal churches tend not to have any one specific
theory, but mention a number.

But Charles misses the point here: it is almost always true, if not in fact
always true, that when someone says he "accepts a number fo theories", he does
not really believe in any of them.

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
[I'd say the older liberalism tended to hold to the moral influence
theory. The current liberal churches tend not to have any one specific
theory, but mention a number.

But Charles misses the point here: it is almost always true, if not in fact
always true, that when someone says he "accepts a number fo theories", he does
not really believe in any of them.

This comment seems odd to me. The NT uses a number of images, each of
which has been developed into theories, e.g. ransom, sacrifice,
someone who suffers in our place, second Adam (whose obedience
overrides the first Adam's disobedience). Many treatments mention all
of these.

Of the well-known theories, many of us consider moral influence as
insufficient on its own. However it is does show one aspect of the
atonement, and deserves mention. Similarly, the idea that Jesus' death
is a judgement on sin (i.e. it shows the seriousness of our sin) is
not a sufficient explanation on its own, but deserves mention.

One of the participants mentioned Calvin, so I have looked at the
discussion in the Institutes. He does talk about penal substitution,
as noted. But he also emphasizes, probably as much, Jesus' obedience
on our behalf. Indeed one can summarize several of his ideas by saying
that in an act of exchange Jesus takes on our sin and its guilt, and
abolishes them through his death and resurrection, and in exchange we
take on his obedience. Initially it is simply credited to us, but in
the end it transforms us, through a spiritual union with him mediated
by the Holy Spirit.

When I prepared a lesson for Sunday School (7th and 8th grade) on this
topic I found that a text I was using mentioned 4 considerations: the
cross as example, as judgement, as reconcilation, and as victory. At
least 3 of these have been presented as separate theories, and
probably all 4. I have no idea why you would think that either the
author of the text or I do not take any of them seriously because all
4 are mentioned. I genuinely believe that all are true, and that they
do not contradict each other.

The atonement is an action that goes beyond our ability to explain it.
However many expositions capture at least some of the impact, and are
worth taking seriously. The problem usually comes when they are pushed
too far. E.g. the Biblical image of ransom is helpful until you start
taking it too literally and ask to whom the ransom is paid. Similarly,
some of the explanations of penal substitution take a genuine Biblical
image but push it in a direction and to an extent that makes God seems
arbitrary and abusive.

Why do you think the Bible tends to use stories and multiple images
when dealing with major topics? Again, I don't think theology is
wrong. However I do think its practitioners often have too much
confidence in the sufficiency of their models.

[AJA]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
When I prepared a lesson for Sunday School (7th and 8th grade) on this
topic I found that a text I was using mentioned 4 considerations: the
cross as example, as judgement, as reconcilation, and as victory.

AT-ONE_ment is a helpful parsing of the word in my experience.
And all of the above you mention. I think as Christians we are meant to
struggle with this all during our Christian lives.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
Why do you think the Bible tends to use stories and multiple images
when dealing with major topics? Again, I don't think theology is
wrong. However I do think its practitioners often have too much
confidence in the sufficiency of their models.

Absolutely. Theology may be widely defined as the study of God. Models are
fine, hard fought also by eminently reasonable Christians through the ages.
But they are models, as you say, and not wholly sufficient. Scripture,
tradition, experience, reason.
And not to forget grace.
"A man can't always be defending the truth, there must be a time to feed on
it."
--C. S. Lewis
Blessings,
Ann

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
[I'd say the older liberalism tended to hold to the moral influence
theory. The current liberal churches tend not to have any one specific
theory, but mention a number.

But Charles misses the point here: it is almost always true, if not in fact
always true, that when someone says he "accepts a number fo theories", he does
not really believe in any of them.

This comment seems odd to me.

Perhaps it would not seem so odd, if you would not confuse 'theory' with
'treatment', 'model' or 'images'.

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
The NT uses a number of images, each of
which has been developed into theories, e.g. ransom, sacrifice,

Of _course_ the NT uses a number of _images_. But they do not correspond to
differing theories. It is only when you force upon Scripture this division into
theories that you run into trouble -- as the history of theology has shown over
and over.

[snip]

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
The atonement is an action that goes beyond our ability to explain it.

But what did you think a theory was, if not an attempt at explanation?

[snip]

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by Steve Hayes
[I'd say the older liberalism tended to hold to the moral influence
theory. The current liberal churches tend not to have any one specific
theory, but mention a number.

But Charles misses the point here: it is almost always true, if not in fact
always true, that when someone says he "accepts a number fo theories", he does
not really believe in any of them.

This comment seems odd to me.

Perhaps it would not seem so odd, if you would not confuse 'theory' with
'treatment', 'model' or 'images'.

Yes, I think that's exactly it.

Post by Matthew Johnson

Post by h***@geneva.rutgers.edu
The NT uses a number of images, each of
which has been developed into theories, e.g. ransom, sacrifice,

Of _course_ the NT uses a number of _images_. But they do not correspond to
differing theories. It is only when you force upon Scripture this division into
theories that you run into trouble -- as the history of theology has shown over
and over.

A friend of mine once said that all heresies were, and are, attempts to say
about God what God himself has refused to say.

[Helmut Richter]

Post by Steve Hayes
A friend of mine once said that all heresies were, and are, attempts to say
about God what God himself has refused to say.

What about the converse statement: that all attempts to say about God what God
himself has refused to say were, or are, heresies?

[Matthew Johnson]

[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
A friend of mine once said that all heresies were, and are, attempts to say
about God what God himself has refused to say.

I like that formulation. It is a catchy saying, and based on a true principle.
But he does seem to forget that there is an even bolder class of heresies, those
that do not restrict themselves to such attempts. These are the heresies that
boldly deny what God has said about Himself, replacing it with something else.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Matthew Johnson
[snip]

Post by Steve Hayes
A friend of mine once said that all heresies were, and are, attempts to say
about God what God himself has refused to say.

I like that formulation. It is a catchy saying, and based on a true principle.
But he does seem to forget that there is an even bolder class of heresies, those
that do not restrict themselves to such attempts. These are the heresies that
boldly deny what God has said about Himself, replacing it with something else.

It's not meant to be universal -- he said it in a particular context, where he
said he could define religion, but couldn't define God.

[h***@geneva.rutgers.edu]

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a false dilemma: it is not possible to "concentrate oh His teaching",
and at the same time, "put somewhat lesser weight on theology." Rather, as
Blessed Theophylact pointed out in his commentary on Mat 22:40, you cannot be in
obedience to the First Commandment while believing heresy about God.

This is an ironic comment. Mat 22:40 is part of a passage in which
Jesus is deemphasizing the letter of the Law, saying that the most
important thing is to love God and your neighbor.

Clearly one can't comply with Mat 22:40 while worshipping false Gods
or images. However "heresy about God" can often mean not using the
right definition of essense and hypostasis. I do think ideas such as
the Trinity are useful. As I noted in the original posting, if
Arianism had won, the results would not have been good. But Jesus'
emphasis is on the quality of our relationship with God and our
neighbor. There is no sign in the NT that there is only one way to
describe the nature of God in terms of philosophy, and that the
importance of finding it compares with obeying Jesus' teachings.

You can see that something has gone wrong when you notice (at least in
the West) that Christianity ended up with exactly the kind of
legalistic purity codes that Jesus objected to in the Pharisees. Not
to mention coming up with ways to justify the worship of images. (No,
I am not an iconoclast. I have no objection to using images to help
people think about Jesus. My problem is "bowing down to them," Ex 20:5.)

This is a pretty strange position for me since I've been fascinated by
theology for my whole life, and spent a lot of time studying it.
However my sense is that the Church didn't take seriously enough the
limits of human thought. (I'm inclined to point to apophatic theology,
but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the East to be sure I'm using
it properly.) Ideas such as the Trinity capture only part of the
reality of God. Any positive formulation has limits. Rather than
battling over which formulation is the one true doctrine, we should
accept that all such formulations have their limits, and that in many
areas it's good to have several descriptions, as long as we understand
their strengths and weaknesses. (Of course it's possible for some
formulations to be sufficiently defective that they have no use.)

[l***@hotmail.com]

Read, =93What Did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution,=94
J. I. Packer (1974).

For a long time in theology, even to some degree in evangelical
theology, there has been something of a hesitancy to describe the
atonement as being substitutionary in nature, especially to speak of
it in regards to being a penal substitution. If liberals were capable
of such a thing, this position would most certainly amount to nothing
less than Anathema! And even some evangelicals, who at heart accept
the penal substitution of Jesus Christ on the cross, either don't
discuss it at all or talk around the subject with out ever actually
admitting to it, almost trying to express the doctrine in
circumlocutory language. Packer does a masterful job of explaining
the view and demonstrating its exegetical foundation in Scripture.

[l***@hotmail.com]

While Anselm stressed satisfaction or the alternative wrath of God,
the Reformers stressed satisfaction through either the punishment of
Christ (penal, vicarious substitution) or punishment on man. Althaus
makes a remarkable comparison between Luther and Anselm:

For Anselm there were only two possibilities, either punishment or
satisfaction. For Luther, satisfaction takes place through punishment,
not of the sinner but Christ. The punishment of sin consists in God=92s
wrath together with all that this wrath brings upon men. So Christ
stands under God=92s wrath. He suffers it in his passion. He dies the
death of a sinner. But, unlike us sinners, he suffers and dies an
=93innocent and pure death.=94 Thereby he has =93paid God=94 and brought it
about that God takes his wrath and his eternal punishment away from
us.

[ Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, p. 203.]

Calvin clearly expounds this clarification and refinement of the
Anselmic theory by appealing to such passages as Isai 53:6; Rom 8:3; 2
Cor 5:21; Gal 3:13=9614; and 1 Pet 2:24. =93For the Son of God, though
spotlessly pure, took upon Him the disgrace and ignominy of our
iniquities, and in return clothed us with His purity.=94
[Institutes, Beveridge, 2.16.6]

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson
This is a false dilemma: it is not possible to "concentrate oh His
teaching", and at the same time, "put somewhat lesser weight on
theology." Rather, as Blessed Theophylact pointed out in his
commentary on Mat 22:40, you cannot be in obedience to the First
Commandment while believing heresy about God. > >This is an ironic
comment.

A lot of the best do turn out ironic.

Mat 22:40 is part of a passage in which Jesus is deemphasizing the
letter of the Law, saying that the most important thing is to love
God and your neighbor.

No, he is not deemphasizing, He is correcting a serious misinterpretation.
Deemphasizing it would be replacing one error with another.

Clearly one can't comply with Mat 22:40 while worshipping false Gods
or images.

Wrong. Now that God has become Incarnate, His image not only can be
worshipped, it MUST be.

However "heresy about God" can often mean not using the right
definition of essense and hypostasis.

Wrong again. Where _do_ you get these false generalizations?

I do think ideas such as the Trinity are useful.

Now this is ironic, since you have yet to show awareness of the
greatest use for it.

As I noted in the original posting, if Arianism had won, the results
would not have been good.

But you were quite vague about in what way it would "not have been good".

But Jesus' emphasis is on the quality of our relationship with God
and our neighbor.

So you said earlier too. But I did not find it convincing then
either. Why did you think that mere repetition would be any more
convincing.

There is no sign in the NT that there is only one way to describe the
nature of God in terms of philosophy, and that the importance of
finding it compares with obeying Jesus' teachings.

But here you miss the point, and you miss it in a typically Western
way. It was only in the West that theologians assumed the
philosophical terms 'essence', 'homoousios', 'hypostasis',
'substance', 'person' etc. were taken unmodified for philosophy for
use in theology. And even in the West, that was a late
assumption. Pope Leo the Great knew better.

If you read Kartashev's history, you will see that the philosophical
terms were taken for use in theology NOT because they could be used
unmodified, but because they were the closest terms available. But
their meanings had to be changed to be used in theology. And that
change was to 'define' them in terms of apophatic theology. Leo Donald
Davis did a good history on this, too.

For that matter, Vladimir Lossky also covers this in "The Mystical
Theology of the Eastern Church".

You can see that something has gone wrong when you notice (at least
in the West) that Christianity ended up with exactly the kind of
legalistic purity codes that Jesus objected to in the Pharisees.

What 'codes' are you referring to? Not even Western Canon Law sank that low.

Not to mention coming up with ways to justify the worship of
images. (No, I am not an iconoclast. I have no objection to using
images to help people think about Jesus. My problem is "bowing down
to them," Ex 20:5.)

Then you are an iconoclast. One of the first things the Iconoclast
Emperors did was order the icons moved high up in the churches so that
people could not reverence them. Only later did they dare move against
the icons themselves.

This is a pretty strange position for me since I've been fascinated
by theology for my whole life, and spent a lot of time studying it.
However my sense is that the Church didn't take seriously enough the
limits of human thought.

I think you overstate your case. It could be true for those who
overemphasize cataphatic theology over apophatic. But you mention the
latter yourself below.

Besides: it was certainly not true of the great theologians who gave
us the new, Nicene, Trinitarian theology, Sts. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa
and of Nazianzus.

(I'm inclined to point to apophatic theology, but I'm not
sufficiently familiar with the East to be sure I'm using it
properly.)

Lossky is good for this, too.

Ideas such as the Trinity capture only part of the reality of God.

This is certainly true if, as you seem to assume, you insist on taking
the same meanings for the terms 'essence' and 'person' as in
philosophy. But this is a tragic blunder. For it is precisely in the
Trinity that we finally learn what 'person' really means. We do not
learn this in philosophy.

Any positive formulation has limits. Rather than battling over which
formulation is the one true doctrine, we should accept that all such
formulations have their limits, and that in many areas it's good to
have several descriptions, as long as we understand their strengths
and weaknesses.

Historically, this is precisely what the opponents of Nicene
Trinitarianism and Chalcedonian Christology refused to do. It was
they, not us, who refused to recognize the weaknesses of the
formulations. This is why St. Basil, for example, used certain
formulations in a perfectly Orthodox manner, but we later moved away
from them, since they were no longer understood in such a manner.

(Of course it's possible for some formulations to be sufficiently
defective that they have no use.)

And this is painfully common. That is why we should focus on learning
the historic formulations rather than trying to come up with our own.