Must one believe in Penal Substitution to be saved?

[Kelp]

Assuming that it is the correct "model" of Christ's atonement, is it an essential of the faith? Can a true Christian believe in Christus Victor or some other model?

[Kelp]

Btw, I'm sure about the answer to the question, myself.

[TheAnalogman]

Assuming that it is the correct "model" of Christ's atonement, is it an essential of the faith? Can a true Christian believe in Christus Victor or some other model?

There are too many benefits for us that Christ accomplished as he died on the Cross to believe that just one "model" is sufficient.

[Whipartist]

Since Penal Substitution didn't exist as a theory of the atonement until the 16th century, to say that it's essential for salvation is to say that the gates of hell definitely prevailed against the church.

[Kelp]

Since Penal Substitution didn't exist as a theory of the atonement until the 16th century, to say that it's essential for salvation is to say that the gates of hell definitely prevailed against the church.

What are your sources for this? I would be interested in checking them out. I thought Penal Substitution is at least extant in Anselm's eleventh century Cur Deus Homo?.

[Whipartist]

My sources are the fact that there are no sources for PS in the early church. Nobody taught PS before the 16th century. Anselm's Penal Satisfaction is substatially different though similar to PS. Of course you still have a over a 1000 year gap between the early church and this type of thinking.

We have massive volumes of early church writings and cannot find more than perhaps 3-4 short quotes among all of these theological works which even look somewhat similar on the surface to PS. In actuality, the systematic layouts of early Christian writings on the atonement are in line with moral exemplar, recapitulation and ransom theory.

Proponents of PS tend to basically believe that the very early church abandoned the theory before any writings in favor of it could be written.

[Kelp]

I see.


What is recapitulation? I've heard of the other two.

[Whipartist]

Look up The Incarnation of The Word by Athanaseus on Google. You'll find a translation of it in English in .pdf format out there somewhere. If not, PM me and I'll send it to you. That will answer your question of what recapitulation, is very thoroughly. It's also found in Ireneus's writings.

It's basically the idea that in Jesus' becoming a man as the second Adam, man was reunited with God through Christ, and thus elevated so that what Christ conquered in His life, death and resurrection is also true for humanity aswell. Thus it's the Incarnation which saved us, and not just specifically Christ's death. This is the historical viewpoint of the Orthodox church down to this day. It's also the explanation as to why not only the righteous but also the wicked are resurrected on the last day. Jn. 5:28.

For Christians, we basically share with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and are thus saved by it, being ontologically united with Him in those realities through baptism. This is not merely a juridicial union as in PS.

PM me if you can't find Athanasius' little book online. It's a beautiful and well written little work, and it's literally almost 1700 years old. I always enjoy reading it and I'm sure you will aswell.

Great thread. Got to get to bed.

Ben

[Kelp]

I'll be sure to look for that. God bless. Have a good sleep. It's been a stimulating discussion.

[Mr Arkadin]

Assuming that it is the correct "model" of Christ's atonement, is it an essential of the faith? Can a true Christian believe in Christus Victor or some other model?

What are you actually meaning by the concept of PSA. Are you thinking of it in the strict sense ie. limited atonement? Or do you see it in the sense that Christ was punished for all mens' sins and that was necessary as legal punishment to allow all men to be saved?

[Tercel]

I thought Penal Substitution is at least extant in Anselm's eleventh century Cur Deus Homo?.

Anselm's model of atonement is generally called the "Satisfaction" model. In the Satisfaction model God punishes the guilty only if he is not repaid in some other manner. In Anselm's feudal society families took vengeance for grievances if the grievance was not settled in some other manner (eg by monetary payment). Perhaps an analogy today is God taking you to court for the wrongs you have done to him, and you will be justly punished by the court unless you settle out of court. In the Satisfaction model Christ's own faithfulness to God is taken to be the repayment, Christ essentially offers his life of perfect faithfulness in doing God's will as a repayment for our own lives that are not faithful to God. Thus, there is no "need" for Christ to die in the Satisfaction model and God certainly does not punish Christ, nor does Christ bear God's wrath, nor does Christ bear our sin. Christ is faithful to God to the point of death, and it is his faithfulness that makes up for our unfaithfulness.

Penal Substitution historically grew out of Anselm's Satisfaction doctrine. As Europe moved out of the middle ages, the Feudal analogy within which the Satisfaction model was set became less relevant and the idea of a law-court setting become more popular. Thus Satisfaction is the precursor of Penal Substitution, but there are still substantial differences. The Satisfaction model omits many of the doctrines of people substitution that people often find illogical or morally objectionable (eg the notion of sin being transferred, substitutionary punishment, God being wrathful toward Christ etc).

What is recapitulation?

Recapitulation is based on somewhat Platonic concepts, where all humans participate in a single "human nature". This human nature was damaged in the fall, and that damage resulted from separation from God's nature and God's creative-sustaining power. The damage to human nature introduced not only physical death, but also meant the souls of all humans began to decay toward non-existence. Thus the "problem" facing humanity was complete non-existence. Christ, by virtue of being a God-man, united in his physical body both human and divine natures. Thus human nature which had been separated from God, was rejoined in Christ's body to God. Under this conception, Christ's atoning work can essentially be seen as taking place in the womb of Mary. The simple metaphysical union between man and God that took place in Christ is what accomplishes salvation.

This concept was regularly linked with the Moral Exemplar theory in the Patristic period to give the notion of the divine transformation of humanity. The goal of Christ's work, the Christian life, and humanity in general, was understood to be for humanity to advance in godliness. This was understood to be both moral and ethical transformation as well as ontological transformation. Men through Christ's teachings and the practice of love could gain the virtues that reside in God, reflecting his likeness in ever-increasing amounts. Platonic theory linked the sharing of attributes with ontological identification (ie if two things were alike in some way it was understood to be because they shared the same nature/being), and thus humans could not only increasingly imitate God but participate in his very nature and being. Thus the idea of recapitulation and joining man with God in nature was naturally linked with sanctification to produce the idea of the transformation of humanity toward divinity. This is what theologians of that era meant when they talk about humans becoming divine. Athanasius for example has a famous line that says "God became man so that men might become gods". In today's society where Platonic concepts are not used it is not easy to know how best to construe these ideas in a way that is relevant and comprehensible.


For myself, what I find definitive on the atonement is the Second Century AD. The atonement model that dominates in the second century orthodox Christian writings by miles and miles, is the concept of Christ as a teacher of righteousness. It is believed that by following Christ's teachings and example we can live righteous lives pleasing to God and thus obtain a positive final judgment. These ideas are repeated over and over by the writers in this period. The concept of recapitulation turns up in a couple of writers but does not appear present in the vast majority. Christus Victor (aka Ransom from Satan) do not really appear until the third century and do not play any import role in until the fourth. The first precursors to the Satisfaction model also begin to appear in the fourth century. Yet from the second century onward the dominant model is Christ as a teacher of righteousness. Even the strongest advocates of Christus Victor and Recapitulation always endorse the notion of Christ-as-teacher equally as strongly. The reason for this was due to their belief in a works-based final judgment, and neither Christus Victor nor Recapitulation say anything about how humans can pass God's final judgment, and thus the universal answer to that question was to live one's life in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

For me personally it is the vast differences between modern atonement doctrine the idea of Christ as teacher of righteousness universally taught in the second century onward that is the single most important piece of evidence on the subject. Just so you know I'm not making all this up, here's a few supporting quotes:
“When we analyse their [the Apostolic Fathers'] utterances, we find that their chief emphasis is on what Christ has imparted to us – new knowledge, fresh life, immortality, etc” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [revised edition], pg 163)
“At times, in all these writers [the Apostolic Fathers], the saving efficacy of Christ’s work is made to consist mainly – sometimes wholly – in His teaching.” (Hastings Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, pg 198)
“We have already noted the popularity of the conception of redemption as enlightenment among the Apostolic Fathers. It reappears in the Apologists…” (Kelly, 169)
“[In the Apologists] his chief vocation as Savior was to teach men the truth about monotheism and the moral life.” (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 100-600AD, 153)
“Undoubtedly the principal purpose of the incarnation… strikes him [Justin Martyr] as having been didactic. Having forgotten the truth and having been inveigled into ignorance and positive error by the demons, men desperately need the restoration of the light they have lost. As ‘the new law giver’ or again, ‘the eternal, final law, the faithful covenant which replaces all laws and commandments’ , Christ imparts this saving knowledge. It was to bestow such illumination, in particular the realization of the oneness of God and the belief in the moral law, and to restore men by it, that the Logos in fact became man .” (Kelly, 168-169)
“there is a distinct tendency in Tertullian to reduce Christ’s achievement to ‘the proclamation of a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven’, and to represent Him as ‘the illuminator and instructor of mankind’.” (Kelly, 177)
“[Clement of Alexandria's] most frequent and characteristic thought is that Christ is the teacher Who endows men with true knowledge, leading them to a love exempt from desires and a righteousness who prime fruit is contemplation.” (Kelly 183)
“Clement is equally fond of speaking of Christ as the Teacher and the Saviour. And the two words mean for him much the same thing, for it is mainly by His teaching and His influence that Christ saves.” (Rashdall, 225)
“[For Origen, Christ] is ‘the pattern of the perfect life’, the exemplar of true virtue into Whose likeness Christians are transformed, thereby being enabled to participate in the divine nature.” (Kelly, 184)
“[Hippolytus'] most characteristic thought, however, is one derived from the Apologists, viz. that the redemption chiefly consists in the knowledge of God mediated by the Word through nature and history, the law and the prophets, and finally the Gospel: ‘appearing in the world as the truth, He taught the truth.’” (Kelly, 178)
Thus, in summary:
“it is clear that meditation on the life and teachings of Jesus was a major preoccupation of the piety and doctrine of the Church [of the second century].... Christ as example and Christ as teacher were constant and closely related doctrinal themes.... [A common teaching was] salvation through the obedience to the teachings of Christ and through imitation of his example.... the work of Christ was represented as that of the exemplar and teacher who brought the true revelation of God’s will for man.” (Pelikan, 142-152)

PS. If anyone has more quotes on the subject, or can recommend any good books on second to fourth century atonement theology I'd be interested to hear.

[RainPete]

Well, according to the Bible one must believe on / in Christ to be saved. Not in some theory, systematic theology, philosophy, idea or religion. So I voted NO.

As for whether Penal Substitution is RIGHT, I read what Whipartist said (very interesting) and Tercel (interesting too.) Other places that I've seen, there are a thousand theories as to where some systematic models of the atonement came from - and everyone claims theirs is the original model. It's beginning to sound like all of these churches that claim to follow the Bible, but often just follow new traditions.

The fact that all these models are possibly all RIGHT in some way proves to me that Christ's death accomplished a lot more than what we give Him credit for. Basically, I tend to feel all the arguing over the point is rather fruitless, and the bottom line is we ought to believe in Christ himself, not in what we know about Christ. Seeing all of what He did on the cross should increase our faith, not make us want to get into a particular camp that supports a particular view so we can feel special or something...

[Kelp]

What are you actually meaning by the concept of PSA. Are you thinking of it in the strict sense ie. limited atonement? Or do you see it in the sense that Christ was punished for all mens' sins and that was necessary as legal punishment to allow all men to be saved?

Basically the second thing you said. For me, the question of whether it's limited to the elect or not comes in later.

[Mr Arkadin]

Basically the second thing you said. For me, the question of whether it's limited to the elect or not comes in later.

In that case your on the money.