Theodoret on definite atonement

[DTK]

Though the Early Church Fathers often made inconsistent statements regarding the nature and extent of the atonement, one does nonetheless find such statements as the following, scattered throughout their writings, which affirm the definite extent of the atonement of Christ.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 9:27-28: As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death´s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, "œHe committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth." It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only. Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175.

DTK

 

[Canadian Baptist]

You know DTK, I really appreciate your tidbits from the Fathers. As you know from our discussion in the Theological Forum I am just beginning to read them as well as Augustine and have many questions as to their beliefs. I wan't to uphold the work they did in which is in agreement with scripture and not be ashamed of the debt we owe them. Catholic apologists will generally hide these type of quotes from us, so keep up the good work!
Soli Deo Gloria,
Darrin

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Great Quote.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by DTK
Though the Early Church Fathers often made inconsistent statements regarding the nature and extent of the atonement, one does nonetheless find such statements as the following, scattered throughout their writings, which affirm the definite extent of the atonement of Christ.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 9:27-28: As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death´s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, "œHe committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth." It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only. Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175.

DTK

Was this issue ever discussed in any early church councils or synods?

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by DTK
Though the Early Church Fathers often made inconsistent statements regarding the nature and extent of the atonement, one does nonetheless find such statements as the following, scattered throughout their writings, which affirm the definite extent of the atonement of Christ.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Hebrews 9:27-28: As it is appointed for each human being to die once, and the one who accepts death´s decree no longer sins but awaits the examination of what was done in life, so Christ the Lord, after being offered once for us and taking up our sins, will come to us again, with sin no longer in force, that is, with sin no longer occupying a place as far as human beings are concerned. He said himself, remember, when he still had a mortal body, "œHe committed no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth." It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only. Robert Charles Hill, trans., Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175.

DTK

Was this issue ever discussed in any early church councils or synods?

The answer to this question is no. One of the most neglected doctrines of the Bible in the Early Church both with respect to conciliar authority and individual witness is that of the atonement of Christ, both its nature in terms of the aspect of penal substitution and its extent. Most of your eastern ECFs emphasized the nature of the atonement in terms of Christus Victor, or as one Eastern Orthodox theologian has noted...

Meyendorff: In the east, the cross is envisaged not so much as the punishment of the just one, which "œsatisfies" a transcendent justice requiring retribution for man's sins....The point was not to satisfy a legal requirement, but to vanquish the frightful cosmic reality of death, which held humanity under its usurped control and pushed it into the vicious cycle of sin and corruption. And, as Athanasius of Alexandria has shown in his polemics against Arianism, God alone is able to vanquish death, because He "œalone has immortality" (1 Tm 6:16). Just as original sin did not consist in an inherited guilt, so redemption was not primarily a justification, but a victory over death. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd rev. ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), p. 161.

I have observed in exchange with Roman Catholics how that many of them detest any notion/aspect of penal substitution being connected with the atonement of Christ, which has prompted me in my reading of the ECFs to collate their occasional testimonies wherein they do offer witness to the atonement in terms of its nature as penal substitution and with respect to its extent. I think that these aspects of the atonement have not been researched as carefully as they could have been in many of our modern works dealing with the history of Christian doctrine.

DTK