Substitution vs. Satisfaction in atonement?

[wturri78]

Dear PB'ers,

I've been carrying on a very interesting conversation with someone of the Eastern Orthodox bent about how one can determine, essentially, "who is right," especially in the context of those who've chosen either Rome or Constantinople over against the claims of the other--what I still see as a stalemate between competing traditions and claims to genuine succession and preservation of original truth. I would like to post one snippet here where she replied to some of what I had asked. She raises a point that the idea of substitution in the atonement is present in Orthodoxy and the early fathers, but the idea of satisfaction (presumably in a penal way) cannot be traced earlier than Anselm in the west.

I know I can't post links to other forums here (sorry for doing that the other day, I plead excessive ignorance ), but I hope this is OK. I'm obviously not asking anyone to beat up on another person who can't reply, but I don't really see this as different from quoting an article elsewhere on the web...

Thoughts? I seem to recall reading somewhere that Luther's view of the atonement was a "Christus Victor" model by and large...not entirely sure what that means. I also read that Anselm's model borrowed somewhat from the feudal lord-and-serf sort of economy of the day.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by wturri78
Thanks for your reply and for bringing it back to the original post.

I had just discovered this thread so the original theme was the most interesting to me. In general, I steer away from 'how do I know this Church or that Church is right' questions as the answers are always going to be based on one's presuppostions. A Protestant would tell you the true church is one that follows Scripture - but by that they mean one which follows the interpretation of Scripture they've personally become convinced is right. A Catholic would talk about the role of the Pope, because it makes things pretty cut and dried actually, and point to historical continuity. Orthodox (both flavors) would say to look for the Church that hasn't changed, added to, or developed it's doctrines. If you accept that reasoning then you need to decide about Chalcedon I suppose.

Point is - all three are right. Consistency with Scriptures, historical continuity, and doctrinal continuity would all be hallmarks of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. So then the question moves on to what we mean by those three terms - which will lead one to different conclusions depending on their underlying assumptions.

Originally Posted by wturri78
It is logically true that if Catholicism fell off the boat doctrinally, then Protestants are just swimming in a different direction by reacting to doctrines that were wrong at their sources. Much of the Reformation was indeed reactionary and cooler heads did not necessarily always prevail. The goal of Protestantism is to recover the original faith that had been distorted or lost by the Roman church, by building up the doctrine from Scripture, not in simply rejecting what Rome taught.

The problem with this approach, as I see it, is that it often becomes a what I call 'textual archaeology' - where you must try to carefully figure out what the Scriptures mean as if they were from a long-dead civilization. Doctrines can be formed of cobbled together verses taken from this book or that book with no regard to the internal precedence of authority between books. Major doctrines can be built from a passage or a verse in a single book - elevating it out of the context of both the rest of Scripture and the socio-historical millieu it was written in.

Although most responsible hermeneutics does approach the Scripture in context, that context never seems to extend past the immediate time of the writing and never looks at how the Church as a whole understood the words written. As has been pointed out, there were many competing books considered to be Scripture (or at least inspired). There were also many letters and works written that 'disappeared' from circulation. For one text to be selected over another it had to have a certain value to the whole Church and thus how the whole Church understood it (and not just the writer or the original readers) needs to be considered.

Furthermore, an archaeological approach to the Bible ignores outright the fact that there are communities that to this day have a living tradition that has not varied much from that of the 4th century Church. I'm not just talking about Eastern Orthodox - but OO, Assyerians, and even the Old Believers as well. It would be like studying works written by the early Anabaptists in isolation without examining how the Amish and Mennonites of today understand them.

Originally Posted by wturri78
You are right in saying that if either Western view is correct, then something had to have developed beyond its nacent form. Both Rome and Reformed would say that truth did not change, but only our understanding of it. I think both would say that they do not reject those who came before, but "stand on their shoulders" as it were, to see farther.

I agree it doesn't address the question of who is right, but my contention is that the change in soteriology was much more significant than simple development. While a substitutionary aspect of the Atonement is not foreign to Orthodoxy, a satisfactionary aspect is. Doctrinally this model can not be traced back prior to Anselm's publication of Cur Deus Homo in 1097 AD, yet it is the predominant underlying understanding of the Atonement for both Protestants and Catholics. Substitution can be found to some degree in the writings of the Church Fathers, but Satisfaction can not. Furthermore, the early Church Fathers almost overwhelming held to what you might call the Christus Victor model. This is an important point because the two models have fundamentally opposing understandings of who God is in His nature and of what the Atonement accomplished.

Originally Posted by wturri78
I think we'd agree that greater clarity came to definitions through controversy.

True. However, in those cases you need to be careful to look at what was generally believed before and what came to be believed after and determine if the latter is really just a clarification of the former. My contention is that in the west there are many key doctrines that 'sprang up' in the 11th and 12th centuries which were built on an entirely different set of presupostions than existed prior to that time. Fundamentally different and contradictory understandings of the nature of God, the nature of Grace, the nature of Salvation, the nature of Sin, and so on.

 

[wturri78]

Any takers?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It took time. And I think a guy like Irenaeus puts paid to a lot of EO assertions. And he's conveniently over in Gaul (though he started off at Polycarp's feet in Smyrna), so he's not really a Eastern Father. Forget him. And his nascent Covenant Theology.

(I'm not prepared to accept the "nothing prior to Anselm" allegation, anyway, but saying that there's no extended treatment of something before Cur Deus Homo isn't the same as saying you can't find supporting threads)

If a wrong idea takes hold, if it seem like the best thing going, then it may take a while to get back to a more biblical understanding.

Lets not forget that a major problem in the early church was losing the Jewish root. Basically, the church remembered to read the OT Christologically (good) while it forgot it was graffed onto a Jewish root.

Which meant pastors should have been learning Hebrew (they weren't), and they should have been learning how to read the OT and think like Jews hoping in Messiah in order to understand those books the way the disciples and Paul did. The church actually got into anti-Jewish mode, which meant they failed to teach generations of Christians about "their" history.

I think I can say that being steeped in "my people's" history since infancy has definitely had massive impact on my theology and hermeneutic. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are my fathers; the kings and prophets of the OT I view as fathers of my nation--not progenitors of some late political or ethnic group today. Reading about Abraham's covenant as the covenant of Grace (and the implications of that for baptism) is as natural to me as breathing.

This has also impacted my understanding of the whole Levitical sacrificial system, and how that relates to the death of Christ. Substitution is simply the OT model, not Satisfaction. [edit: My statements here were quite confused, as I misread badly the original post's statements. Please read my clarification below. I apologize.]

I don't think the EOs care either. There's a long trail of Christian theology that simply doesn't care whether there's a close connection theologically to the OT or not. Big deal. This is the New Testament. EO is far more concerned to be in step with the church-of-the-past-1500 years than with the church-of-the-past-3500 years.

 

[DTK]

Dear Bill,

I don't have the time to interact with everything this Eastern Orthodox person is asserting, but the concept of penal satisfaction was present long before Anselmin the history of the Church. This dear lady is simply ignorant and is only regurgitating what she has been taught. But I hasten to add, once again, that members of the Early Church were inconsistent in their expressions of it. Let me list for you a few...

Justin Martyr (wrote after 151): “For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.’ And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God. For you did not practice piety when you slew the prophets. And let none of you say: If His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed, we have done no wrong. If, indeed, you repent of your sins, and recognize Him to be Christ, and observe His commandments, then you may assert this; for, as I have said before, remission of sins shall be yours. But if you curse Him and them that believe on Him, and, when you have the power, put them to death, how is it possible that requisition shall not be made of you, as of unrighteous and sinful men, altogether hard-hearted and without understanding, because you laid your hands on Him? ANF: Vol. I, Dialogue of Justin, Chapter 95.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man’s sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator’s purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name. But He has both suffered the penalty in our presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose account our name also is rejected. ANF: Vol. III, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 14.

Jerome (347-420): Christ “endured in our stead the penalty we ought to have suffered for our crimes.” Commentariorum in Isaiam, Liber Decimus Quartus, LIII, vs. 5-7, PL 24:507. For translation, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 390.

Augustine (354-430): If all the souls of men are derived from that one which was breathed into the first man ‘by whom sin entered into the world and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men,’ either the soul of Christ was not derived from that one, since He had no sin of any kind, either original or personal, to bring the due penalty of death upon Him—a penalty which He did not owe, but which He paid for us, since the prince of this world and the lord of death found nothing in him—and it is not unreasonable to believe that He who created a soul for the first man should create one for Himself, or, if His soul was derived from that first one, He purified it in taking it for Himself so that He might be born of the Virgin and might come to us without any trace of sin either committed or transmitted. FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, Letter 164 - Addressed to Euodius (414 AD), Chapter 37 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 395.

Augustine (354-430): The Lord too was mortal, but not as a consequence of sin; he took upon him our penalty, and thereby canceled our guilt. That is why though all die in Adam, all shall be brought to life in Christ. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Expositions of the Psalms 33-50, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), Exposition of Psalm 50 (51), §10, p. 419.

Augustine (354-430): So when the immortal and just one was far away from us, as from mortals and sinners, he came down to us, to become, that far distant being, our near neighbor. And what did he do? Since he himself had two good things, and we two bad things; he the two good things of justice and immortality; we the two bad things of iniquity and mortality—if he had taken on each of our bad things, he would have become our exact equal, and would have been in need of a deliverer along with us. So what did he do, in order to be our near neighbor? Our neighbor, not by being what we are, but by being near us. Keep your eye on two things: he is just, he is immortal. As for your two bad things, one is fault, the other is punishment; the fault is that you are unjust, the punishment that you are mortal. He, in order to be your near neighbor, took on your punishment, did not take on your fault; and if he did take it on, he took it on in order to cancel it, not to commit it. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., Works of Saint Augustine, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 5, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 171.3 (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1992), pp. 248-249.

Augustine (354-430): One man came to counter one man, because through one man death, and through one man the resurrection of the dead. For just as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor 15:21-22).†5 So one man came to counter one man; nor did he come in the same way as the one he came to rescue had come; no, he came from the virgin, he came without lust, he came conceived not by sexual desire but by faith. So one man came to counter one man. In order to come to the rescue of mankind, he took something from the human race; but he didn't take everything which the one he was coming to the aid of had. So he came, and he found us lying fallen in both the fault and its punishment; he took upon himself only the punishment, and released us from both the fault and the punishment. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 9, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 335B.1 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1994), p. 216.

Augustine (354-430): So death in our Lord was a sign of alien sins, not a penalty for his own. In all other human beings, though, mortality is the penalty for sin; it is derived, you see, from the very origin of sin, from which we all come; from the fall of that man, not from the coming down of this one. It's one thing, I mean, to fall, another to come down. The one fell out of wickedness, the other came down out of kindness. For just as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive (Rom 8:3). So as one carrying the sins of others, for what I did not seize, he said, I then discharged the debt (Ps 69:4); that is, I died, though I had no sin. Behold, he says, the prince of this world will come, and in me he will find nothing. What's he will find nothing in me? He won't find in me anything that deserves death. What deserves death, you see, is sin. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 10, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 361.16 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1994), p. 236.

Augustine (354-430): But he came bringing grace, and so far from demanding what was owed to God, he paid a debt he did not owe. Did one who was sinless owe a debt to death? But you, what was owing to you? Punishment. He canceled your debts, and paid off debts that were none of his. This is mighty grace. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 16, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 33-50, Psalm 44.7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 287.

Leo the Great (pope 440-461): For we were taken up into its own proper self by that Nature (which condescended to those limitations which loving-kindness dictated and which yet incurred no sort of change. We were taken up by that Nature, which destroyed not what was His in what was ours, nor what was ours in what was His; which made the person of the Godhead and of the Manhood so one in Itself that by co-ordination of weakness and power, the flesh could not be rendered inviolable through the Godhead, nor the Godhead passible through the flesh. We were taken up by that Nature, which did not break off the Branch from the common stock of our race, and yet excluded all taint of the sin which has passed upon all men. That is to say, weakness and mortality, which were not sin, but the penalty of sin, were undergone by the Redeemer of the World in the way of punishment, that they might be reckoned as the price of redemption. What therefore in all of us is the heritage of condemnation, is in Christ “the mystery of godliness.” For being free from debt, He gave Himself up to that most cruel creditor, and suffered the hands of Jews to be the devil’s agents in torturing His spotless flesh. Which flesh He willed to be subject to death, even up to His (speedy) resurrection, to this end, that believers in Him might find neither persecution intolerable, nor death terrible, by the remembrance that there was no more doubt about their sharing His glory than there was about His sharing their nature. NPNF2: Vol. XII, Sermon 72- On the Lord’s Resurrection, §II.

Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603): Guilt can be extinguished only by a penal offering to justice. But it would contradict the idea of justice, if for the sin of a rational being like man, the death of an irrational animal should be accepted as a sufficient atonement. Hence, a man must be offered as the sacrifice for man; so that a rational victim may be slain for a rational criminal. But how could a man, himself stained with sin, be an offering for sin? Hence a sinless man must be offered. But what man descending in the ordinary course would be free from sin? Hence, the Son of God must be born of a virgin, and become man for us. He assumed our nature without our corruption (culpa). He made himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth (exhibuit) for sinners his own body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, upon grounds of justice. Moralium Libri, Sive Expositio In Librum B. Job, Liber Decimus Septimus, Caput XXX, verse 12, §46, PL 76:32-33.

Gregory the Great (Gregory I c. 540-603): Thus it is that this Mary, of whom I was speaking, was alive, because he who owed nothing to death died on behalf of the human race; thus it is that we ourselves daily return to life after we sin, because our Creator, who was sinless, came down to suffer our punishment. Dom David Hurst, trans., Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 25, John 20:11-18 (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990), p. 196.
Latin text: Hinc est etiam quod haec ipsa de qua loquimur Maria vivit, quia ille pro humano genere qui morti nihil debebat occubuit. Hinc est quod nos quotidie ad vitam post culpas revertimur, quia ad poenam nostram conditor sine culpa descendit. XL Homiliarum In Evangelia Libri Duo, Liber Secundus, Homilia XXV, §9, PL 76:1195.

Eusebius of Caesarea (260/263-340): And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us, He says these words, adding further on in the same Psalm: “Thou hast protected me because of my innocence,” clearly shewing the impeccability of the Lamb of God. And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: “Now ye are the body of Christ and severally members?” And by the rule that “if one member suffer all the members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins; because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: “By his stripes we were healed,” and “The Lord delivered him for our sins,” with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, “I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee,” and can cry that they who plot against Him, not men only but invisible dæmons as well, when they see the surpassing power of His Holy Name and title, by means of which He filled the world full of Christians a little after, think that they will be able to extinguish it, if they plot His death. Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, Vols 1 and II, ed. and trans. W. J. Ferrar (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), Book 10, Chapter 1, pp. 195-196.

Athanasius (297-373): For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from usbefore. For no past of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us. 2. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that before the law was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery — lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought — He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. 3. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave ‘it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father — doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from fire. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word §8, 1-4.

Athanasius (297-373): Moreover the words ‘He is become surety’ denote the pledge in our behalf which He has provided. For as, being the ‘Word,’ He ‘became flesh’ and ‘become’ we ascribe to the flesh, for it is originated and created, so do we here the expression ‘He is become,’ expounding it according to a second sense, viz. because He has become man. And let these contentious men know, that they fail in this their perverse purpose; let them know that Paul does not signify that His essence has become, knowing, as he did, that He is Son and Wisdom and Radiance and Image of the Father; but here too he refers the word ‘become’ to the ministry of that covenant, in which death which once ruled is abolished. Since here also the ministry through Him has become better, in that ‘what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh,’ ridding it of the trespass, in which, being continually held captive, it admitted not the Divine mind. And having rendered the flesh capable of the Word, He made us walk, no longer according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, and say again and again, ‘But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit,’ and, ‘For the Son of God came into the world, not to judge the world, but to redeem all men, and that the world might be saved through Him.’ Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all. With a view to this has John exclaimed, ‘The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.’ Better is grace than the Law, and truth than the shadow. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse I, Chapter I3, §60.

Chrysostom (349-407): And what hath He done? “Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you.” For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He hath both well achieved mighty things, and besides, hath suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? “Him that knew no sin,” he says, Him that was righteousness itself, “He made sin,” that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. “For cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13.) For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, saith, “Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:8.) For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on thee. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dieth for sinners; and not dieth only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dieth] only, but thereby freely bestoweth upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that “we might become the righteousness of God in Him;”) what words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? ‘For the righteous,’ saith he, ‘He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.’ Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not “made” [Him] a sinner, but “sin;” not, ‘Him that had not sinned’ only, but “that had not even known sin; that we” also “might become,” he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, “righteousness,” and, “the righteousness of God.” For this is [the righteousness] “of God” when we are justified not by works, (in which case it Were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is “the righteousness of God.” NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on Second Corinthians, Homily 11, §5.

Chrysostom (349-407): In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in the things that are written in the book of the Law.” (Deuteronomy 27:26.) To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man’s undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, “He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22.) And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Galatians, Chapter 3, v. 13.

Chrysostom (349-407): "For he makes a wide distinction between ‘commandments’ and ‘ordinances.’ He either then means ‘faith,’ calling that an ‘ordinance,’ (for by faith alone He saved us,) or he means ‘precept,’ such as Christ gave, when He said, ‘But I say unto you, that ye are not to be angry at all.’ (Matthew 5:22.) That is to say, ‘If thou shalt believe that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.’ (Romans 10:6-9.) And again, ‘The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thine heart. Say not, Who shall ascend into heaven, or who shall descend into the abyss?’ or, who hath ‘brought. Him again from the dead?’ Instead of a certain manner of life, He brought in faith. For that He might not save us to no purpose, He both Himself underwent the penalty, and also required of men the faith that is by doctrines" NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians, Homly 5, Ephesians 2:11,12.

Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople (434-446): Listen to the reason for his coming and glorify the power of the incarnate. Mankind was deep in debt and incapable of paying what it owed. By the hand of Adam we had all signed a bond to sin. The devil held us in slavery. He kept producing our bills, which he wrote on our passible body. There he stood, the wicked forger, threatening us with our debts and demanding satisfaction. One of two things had to happen: either the penalty of death had to be imposed on all, since indeed ‘all had sinned’ [Rom. 3:23]; or else a substitute had to be provided who was fully entitled to plead on our behalf. No man could save us; the debt was his liability. No angel could buy us out; such a ransom was beyond his powers. One who was sinless had to die for those who had sinned; that was the only way left by which to break the bonds of evil. Sermon 1, §5. See Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, eds., Documents in Early Christian Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 63.

Cyril of Alexandria (patriarch 412-444): They led away the author of life to die—to die for our sake. In a way beyond our understanding, the power of God brought from Christ’s passion an end far different from that intended by his enemies. His sufferings served as a snare for death and rendered it powerless. The Lord’s death proved to be our restoration to immortality and newness of life. Condemned to death though innocent, he went forward bearing on his shoulders the cross on which he was to suffer. He did this for our sake, taking on himself the punishment that the law justly imposed on sinners. He was cursed for our sake according to the saying of Scripture: “A curse is on everyone who is hanged on a tree.” ...We who have all committed many sins under that ancient curse for our refusal to obey the law of God. To set us free he who was without sin took that curse on himself. Since he is God who is above all, his sufferings sufficed for all, his death in the flesh was the redemption of all. And so, Christ carried the cross, a cross that was rightfully not his but ours, who were under the condemnation of the law....Indeed, our Lord Jesus Christ has warned us that anyone who does not take up his cross and follow him is not worthy of him. And I think taking up the cross means simply renouncing the world for God’s sake and, if this is required of us, putting the hope of future blessings before the life we now live in the body. Our Lord Jesus Christ was not ashamed to carry the cross we deserved, and he did so because he loved us. Commentary on the Gospel of John 12. Joel C. Elowsky, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament IVb, John 11-21 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), pp. 308-309.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466): Christ was nailed to the cross, paying the penalty not for his own sins but paying the debt of our nature. For our nature was in debt after transgressing the laws of its maker. And since it was in debt and unable to pay, the creator himself in his wisdom devised a way of paying the debt. By taking a human body as capital, he invested it wisely and justly in paying the debt and thereby freeing human nature. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 95. See Ancient Christian Writers 49:143, Theodoret On Divine Providence 10.26.

In spite of the tendency of the members of the ancient eastern church to ignore the concepts of guilt and of penal substitution on the part of Christ for His people, that traditional understanding of this aspect of Christ's death was nonetheless present in their writings. This dear lady is simply misinformed and illiterate concerning the writings of the ancient church on these matters.

DTK

 

[wturri78]

Rev. Buchanan, thanks for your feedback. I was a little confused by a few of your statements...could you clarify below?

It took time. And I think a guy like Irenaeus puts paid to a lot of EO assertions. And he's conveniently over in Gaul (though he started off at Polycarp's feet in Smyrna), so he's not really a Eastern Father. Forget him. And his nascent Covenant Theology.

Are you saying that Irenaeus is opposed to EO assertions about satisfaction, EO in general, or something else? I have seen no shortage of Irenaeus references in EO writings and they also highlight his connection to Polycarp. I'm not sure I see that he's forgotten. He seems to be on a pedestal if anything. Am I misunderstanding you?

(I'm not prepared to accept the "nothing prior to Anselm" allegation, anyway, but saying that there's no extended treatment of something before Cur Deus Homo isn't the same as saying you can't find supporting threads)

If a wrong idea takes hold, if it seem like the best thing going, then it may take a while to get back to a more biblical understanding.

That, I'd generally agree with. The "finding threads" argument is dicey though, because you can find a thread of pretty much anything it seems. Rome bases its whole "development of doctrine" doctrine on the ablity to find "acorns" and then claim that the fathers would naturally have agreed with Scott Hahn had they only had the benefit of his DVDs

Lets not forget that a major problem in the early church was losing the Jewish root. Basically, the church remembered to read the OT Christologically (good) while it forgot it was graffed onto a Jewish root.

Which meant pastors should have been learning Hebrew (they weren't), and they should have been learning how to read the OT and think like Jews hoping in Messiah in order to understand those books the way the disciples and Paul did. The church actually got into anti-Jewish mode, which meant they failed to teach generations of Christians about "their" history.

Excellent point and the reason why Biblical Theology did so much to change my thinking. However, the EO assert that it was the West that lost the Jewish root and instead ingrafted a more pagan rationalism and Roman legalism. They point to their continuity with the OT worship rituals as evidence that they have preserved the OT element.

I think I can say that being steeped in "my people's" history since infancy has definitely had massive impact on my theology and hermeneutic. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are my fathers; the kings and prophets of the OT I view as fathers of my nation--not progenitors of some late political or ethnic group today. Reading about Abraham's covenant as the covenant of Grace (and the implications of that for baptism) is as natural to me as breathing.

This has also impacted my understanding of the whole Levitical sacrificial system, and how that relates to the death of Christ. Substitution is simply the OT model, not Satisfaction.

Subsitituion is definitely the OT model...are you saying that satisfaction is the NT model or was not present in the OT? Not sure about how you worded it.

I don't think the EOs care either. There's a long trail of Christian theology that simply doesn't care whether there's a close connection theologically to the OT or not. Big deal. This is the New Testament. EO is far more concerned to be in step with the church-of-the-past-1500 years than with the church-of-the-past-3500 years.

Quite possibly, but I think it's a rather broad brush to say that they don't care about the OT. they do think they're in line with the OT theologically, although we would certainly say their thinking in that area is off the mark.

Thanks again for your thoughts! God bless.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bill,
I apologize that my post was too hastily written to be clear or to the point. It was 3:00AM, and I should have been asleep, not going off half-cocked.

Having re-read your counterpart's statements, I see many (!) things I missed. His claims concerning the formation of authoritative texts is aberrant (to a Protestant). But it fits in with how it seems EO (and similarly Rome) views the function of tradition--i.e. as an extension of the process inspiration, and arrival at truth. As if it were primarily a labor of building consensus. This "provisional" attitude is then read back into the pages of Scripture also, so that our appeal to the timeless authority of an ancient doctrinal statement is to them something of an anachronistic theological statement.

I can hear him now say: "So what if Satisfaction statements can be found in the days of Israel? Back then, statements about the God of Israel had to be tailored to the whole cultural world, in which a "wrathful" deity was de rigeur. But by mixing in new statements about mercy and peace, Israel was able to move steadily away from those attitudes." That sounds very much in line with the gentleman's hermeneutic.

*****************

What I wrote concerning Irenaeus has more to do with his primitive "covenant theology," than having to do with the subject of the thread. (ref. Ligon Duncan's doctoral diss.)

I apologize for that rabbit trail right off. It came to mind more as a related topic--because people say the same thing about CT--that it is just a "new thing" no one ever had possession of in the church prior to the age of the Reformation. Similarly with Substitution--it isn't as "new" as some people claim it is.

I'm happy to be proved wrong about Irenaeus' general approval by the EO. I know they think less of Augustin (and through him of Latin theology). So, western theologians don't always get a respectful reception by EO.

As for my "threads" statement, DTK's quotes following do for me what my theory could not--namely provide examples of what I expected could be found (but do not possess the sources to look up). Against Rome's idea of doctrinal development, either the doctrines are IN the text of Scripture, and only need systematizing and clarification, or else they are erroneous notions which the Apostles never taught.

OK, the charge of "losing the root" can be leveled by either side against the other. Then, "to the testimony," and we'll argue it out on that basis. But if we "win" that battle exegetically, is it because we're "overly rational"?!? So our logical arguments from Scripture can be dismissed. Great. Now what?

The EO rituals (which to a Protestant actually have more, rather than less, affinity to Rome's) appear to this watcher to be very much the product of Gnostic and "mystery-religion" influences than to self-conscious building on the OT. But, that's Rome's argument also. Hughes Oliphant Old's book, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century, taught me that the Patristic corruption of baptism really took off when the church started competing with the pagans for "pizazz" in ritual.

*****************

I misread your interlocutor's contention respecting Substitution/Satisfaction. I thought he was denying substitution, when he affirmed something like it. This statement of mine:

Substitution is simply the OT model, not Satisfaction.

therefore, reveals my serious confusion regarding his claim respecting the EO position. I assumed that he was affirming, then, some sort of "satisfaction"--but unrelated to the wrath due to us for sin. The truth is, the Substitute DOES exist to Satisfy, to placate the wrath of God.

I thought whatever "satisfaction" he held to, it might amount to something like the "governmental" theory, that teaches God demonstrates his hostility to sin by attacking it in Jesus. However, justice is not done to him substituted in the place of guilty, condemned sinners, but as a testimony. As a demonstration of Justice, of God as the moral Governor of the world punishes sin, but only in the person of the one who can take the blows, and rise again. Man isn't condemned (not yet, anyway), because God pities him. Sin isn't so much moral as it is existential.

The "Christus Victor" model has some elements of the former as well as the one below, but it is Christ getting "victory" over sin, Satan, hell; conquering his enemies. This may not be "satisfying" divine justice, but God is clearly satisfied.

The view I understand the EO hold most often (perhaps I'm incorrect, or perhaps it was in the past) is the "ransom" theory, where God in Christ gives Satan his "due." That is a form of "satisfaction", albeit not to divine justice per se, but for our "debt".

In any of these three, as well as the first, one can insert a meaning of the word "satisfy". This is what was so confusing to me at first. The writer of the response separated the idea of "substitution" from "satisfaction" (which I assumed went together), allowed for the former but not the latter. Does he do this to cover such statements as can be found in the Fathers that seem to open the door for "substitution-as-satisfactory"? (see the quotes from DTK)

That seems a logical conclusion, but I'm not involved in the real debate.



Anyway, I apologize for not reading more patiently the original comments. And for misattributing the position. And for confusing the language. And especially for giving anyone the notion that Substitution and Satisfaction are not speaking to the same point.

 

[py3ak]

It might be worth while to point out as well, that substitution by itself is rather an empty concept. To say, "Christ is my substitute" is true - but until I answer in what relation He is a substitute, I have really affirmed very little as to the connection of substitution with salvation.

 

[wturri78]

Thanks for the clarifying comments! I understand well that sleep deprivation doesn't always work in our favor

Thanks also to the latter comment, that saying Christ was our substitute means little until we understand what it was he did in our place. What bugs me more than anything about the EO position regarding salvation, as I see it so far, are the following:

1) There isn't a position! At least not by the standards I'm familiar with. Their actual understanding seems to be very broad and spread around, with some strands taking a view that actually sounds quite similar to what I might loosely label a "Protestant" view (while not holding to the same terminology), while other strands do away entirely with the justice and wrath of God and just wrap up everything in his "love." For a communion whose worship rituals are so precisely formulated, I would think that a minor point like the salvation of our souls might get a little more precision.

2) Many of the people I've chatted with hold to a false dichotomy between wrath and love. If God has one, then he can't have the other. They stress that Christ died to conquer death, liberate us from sin and the Devil, and raise us up to eternal life. No arguments here! But why that precludes both legal and moral satisfaction of divine justice, no one can say.

Granted these are people on a discussion forum and I have no idea how many of them may or may not fully understand their own theology. But there, it's much easier to put most of that in the background since worship, ritual, symbolism and mystery are so much at the fore. One could easily live his entire Christian life memorizing calendars of saints and fasts and never really touch the core of Biblical doctrine.

It's interesting to see, that for all of their sacramental similarities to Rome, their underlying structure seems far different--there is still an emphasis on attaining holiness through prayer, fasting, sacraments, good works, penance, etc.--but the concept of doing these things to incrementally accumulate merit, hoping to tip the scales in your own favor, seems quite absent. In fact, rejected as Roman Catholic heresy. I don't see that there's any assurance or certainty of salvation in their system, but it does not appear (to me) to be the endless treadmill of merit that the Reformers rejected so soundly. Kind of makes you wonder how a Reformation might have looked had some of those key issues (merit, indulgences, purgatory, papal supremacy, etc.) never arisen in the West. Hmm...