biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Personally, I do believe in the penal satisfaction theory of the atonement. And up until recently, I was shocked and horrifed by anyone who didn't. Hopefully we all are repulsed by the governmental theory of the atonement, espoused by Grotius, Edwards Jr., Finney, etc.
But what about other theories of the atonement . . . how about the ransom theory, for example? Is a person a non-Christian if they believe that Christ was paying a ransom to buy us back from Satan? This certainly is a far cry from the penal satisfaction theory.
I do not believe in the ransom theory. But I am asking my question for this reason: From what little study I have done so far of the early church fathers, it seems that many of them believed in the ransom theory, instead of the penal substitution theory.
Is there any clear example of anyone espousing the penal substitution theory prior to Anselm?
Are there any of the early church fathers who clearly believed in the penal substitution theory?
As for the early church fathers (as well as more recent guys like C. S. Lewis), should we consider them utterly heterodox for not believing in the penal satisfaction theory, or can we just say they were "mixed up" on this doctrine, without anathematizing them?
I repeat: I personally do believe in the penal substitution theory of the atonement. I am just asking how this theory played out in early church history, and how we should respond to those who disbelieve in this theory of the atonement.
It would also be interesting to hear this board's thoughts about the priestly-sacrificial view of the atonement, as opposed to the penal and ransom theories, but I digress.
But what about other theories of the atonement . . . how about the ransom theory, for example? Is a person a non-Christian if they believe that Christ was paying a ransom to buy us back from Satan? This certainly is a far cry from the penal satisfaction theory.
I do not believe in the ransom theory. But I am asking my question for this reason: From what little study I have done so far of the early church fathers, it seems that many of them believed in the ransom theory, instead of the penal substitution theory.
Is there any clear example of anyone espousing the penal substitution theory prior to Anselm?
Are there any of the early church fathers who clearly believed in the penal substitution theory?
As for the early church fathers (as well as more recent guys like C. S. Lewis), should we consider them utterly heterodox for not believing in the penal satisfaction theory, or can we just say they were "mixed up" on this doctrine, without anathematizing them?
I repeat: I personally do believe in the penal substitution theory of the atonement. I am just asking how this theory played out in early church history, and how we should respond to those who disbelieve in this theory of the atonement.
It would also be interesting to hear this board's thoughts about the priestly-sacrificial view of the atonement, as opposed to the penal and ransom theories, but I digress.
