Justice and penal system have always existed. And, as I said, new elements are added as one builds upon the ideas of a predecessor.

As Garry Williams says, “Justin [Martyr]'s answer to Trypho is an unequivocal affirmation of penal substitution. He asks why, if Christ bore not his own but our curse, Trypho resists: '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?'”

This, to me, clearly expresses the idea of “transfer of penalty.”


No, they failed to see this idea, or to emphasize this idea, perhaps exactly to maintain their distinction from the West. But this doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t exist either in the Bible or in the patristic literature.

I provided previously an Orthodox link, http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/st-gregory-the-theologian-on-our-ransom-by-god/
where Father Stephen posts a passage of Gregory of Nazianzus, where the latter tries to refute the idea of a ransom, either to Satan or to God. Then someone asks,

To which Father Stephen replies:


So the truth is not that the idea was not present in the patristic literature, but that it was not raised to the level of a dogma in the Eastern Church as it was in the West.

I would like to re-emphasize that I do not agree with everything the church fathers, or Anselm, or Calvin say, but there are elements of truth in this theory.

I disagree. A close relative could pay the price in order to provide a legal mechanism by which he who had sold himself as a slave could have his debt cancelled and his property restored to him. This was in the laws given to Israel.


No, it’s also to remove your sins from the book of remembrance of God. So both imputed and imparted justice are involved here, and imputed justice has a legal element.

Of course. My point wasn't in regards to a relative's paying the debt for a slave. Of course 1st century Jews had this concept. They didn't have the concept I mentioned, which is that it would be necessary for a price to be paid in order for God to legally forgive one's sins. Actually not only Jews, but no culture had this idea. However, the concept would later spring from a Hellenized concept of justice. So no 1st Century Jew would have had this concept because, in the first place, it's not Jewish, and, in the second, even if Hellenized culture, it hadn't yet been formulated.



The books of heaven simply reflect reality. There is no way to have the sins removed from the book of remembrance of God without their being removed from the sinner. In addition, if the sin is removed from the sinner, the books of heaven will reflect that fact.



The sin is removed from the sinner, and, because of this, also from the book of God's remembrance.



The legal element is one of recognition. The law recognizes the righteousness of the one pardoned because the sin really has been removed from the sinner.

Let's go back a moment to the question of why the wicked did in the end. It the sin is removed, then they will be OK because, to use my phrasing, the revelation of God's character will cause them no harm, since they are not clinging to sin (to use your phrasing, God's abhorrence of sin will cause them no harm). So the problem is simply one of their not clinging to sin. If a person does not cling to sin, that person will be fine.

Not in terms of theology. If they did, then the Eastern Orthodox church would have these concepts. (I added the word "retributive," since, of course, justice always existed.)



I don't understand this point at all. Is this talking about Gen. 3:13? Where's the idea expressed that Christ was accursed so that God could legally forgive us?

Regarding the rest, I've been specific in regards to the point I've been speaking to, which is not about debt. It's about God's not being able to legally pardon sin without Christ's death. I have been asserting that this idea was not expressed before Calvin. The quotes I've seen you provide have to do with debt. I am aware that the concept of debt existed in patristic literature.

The fact God revealed to Sister White that He is obligated to Himself, to His law, and to His justice to enforce the execution of the death penalty upon sinners speaks volumes in favor of it. It shouldn't matter, then, what others may have or may not have written about it in the past. The Dark Ages prevailed more or less until God raised up the Remnant Church after the Great Disappointment.

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man’s stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” (1SM 340)

Tom, the details are unimportant. The concept is important. The amount equivalent to the debt of the slave had to paid – there was a transference of debt. Thus, the slave’s debt could be legally cancelled.


Not in terms of theology? What is your basis for saying that? I’ve commented about the Orthodox Church in the last part of my previous post and of this post.


I think you mean Gal. 3:13.
You keep speaking repeatedly of “legally forgive” as if this was the only element of the penal substitution theory. I was trying to address the quote you posted which said:





You had said:

“The Eastern Orthodox church does not accept Anslem's idea of satisfaction. Why not? Because they split off from the Catholic church before Anselm penned it. Their principle reason for rejecting the view is precisely because it doesn't appear in either the Scriptures or the writings of the fathers.”

You don’t seem to be understanding that the idea of satisfaction and the idea of a debt owed to God that had to be paid are one and the same thing.

I’m trying to address your points, but it's becoming a difficult task!

My point was regarding the concept. A 1st century Jew would not have had the concept in mind that Christ's death was necessary for God to be able to legally pardon sin. I believe Christ's comments would have been understood as I suggested. Christ said He came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. The price paid was His life, and the purpose for giving it was to free us from sin. I think this is the point Jesus was wishing to communicate, and that His words could easily have been understood this way. I think it is an absolute impossibility that His words could have been understood by anyone who heard Him as meaning that Christ's death was necessary in order for God to have the legal right to pardon sin.



Penal system and justice have always existed in terms of people being incarcerated for things they did. However, the penal substitution idea and justice as Calvin formulated it have only existed for a few hundred years. That's what I meant.



Yes, Gal. 3:13.



Ok.



This isn't true. I previously quoted from C. S. Lewis who agrees with the idea of a debt being paid, but not with the idea of satisfaction, which should be sufficient to establish this point.



Sorry! I've appreciated your input. One of the difficulties I believe is that there is a real paradigm shift which takes place. It's difficult to think of things differently than one is accustomed to doing. You're input has caused me to study things in more detail, which I'm appreciative of.

Here are some questions from an essay I was reading I found interesting (by Brad Jersak "Stricken by God?"):


What if the Fall of Genesis is not about the violation of a law, necessitating punishment. Perhaps it is about the venom of deception concerning God’s character and this led (and leads) humankind to partake of the poison fruit (anything from hedonism to moralism), requiring healing?

What if, rather than separating us from the love of God, the Fall triggered God’s great quest to descend into the chasm to seek and find the lost where they had stumbled? What if where sin abounds, grace abounds much more?

What if forgiveness is not something that is earned through sacrifices or punishment but is freely offered as antivenin to all who will look to the Crucified One after the pattern of the bronze serpent?

What if God was not punishing Jesus on the Cross, but rather, God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself?

Tom, you do err by missing the facts for the logic which you cite in the letter of the texts of Christian literature. Equally, you do not recognise the opposite explanation when stated in excerpts quoted for you: that Justin Martyr dialogue a case in point.

Historical literature has value for showing development and aberration, but you fail to grapple with the totality of up-to-date literature of the published SOP view points on the atonement. MM and Rosangela have provided the evidence, but you hold to logic so tenuously you fail to understand the facts around you on this thread or in your library at home. You aren't ignoring these facts as non-existent are you?

A debt is a penalty owed - that is linguistics and common sense. Death for sin is both natural and defined beforehand by the law!! Animal sacrifices REPLACED this death due us sinners, starting with Adam, premised on the promise of the Saviour: the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ was seen by faith by every believer since Adam - though Cain learned this lesson the hard way...! HAVING offered another life instead of his own, the sinner was personally "freely" pardoned, since the debt of giving a life - the penalty for every sinning yet "living soul"!! - bought pardon for mortal life to continue, and immortal life to follow.

This supported by Bible and SOP: it's not systematic theology - as someone might think themes congregate, it's "Biblical theology" as the spirit of the text expands the context from beginning to end and from any text to and from any text. I learned this from those I consider the best Bible teachers of our church, past and present.

You don't like violence, do you? God CAN'T be VIOLENT?!! - can he? Nevermind the plagues of Egypt and the time of trouble to come; let alone the licence the Devil gets to wreak havoc and destruction, and misery: That WAS WAR in heaven, and the Son of God himself "repented" of making man, in holy indignation: God personally unleashed the forces of nature against man and beast. It wasn't God 'Letting go control' of nature, or even just withdrawing his protection, for that doesn't fit God's methods or ends of judging, as that constitutes the 'luck of anarchy', and God is not anarchic! Judgement is deliberate, lawful and the death penalty for sin IS destructive...! Saving the world from judgement of guilt for sin requires a legally recognised Saviour from guilt, sin and death.

Death is needed to take away sin, not so, but being pardoned the paying of a penalty/debt for sin and guilt without the substitute payment - that is arbitrary, for having no basis in God's law or his justice, and fails to save from the judgement of death against sin.

Jesus saves us from sin AND death...!!

If you do not understand our (joint) explanation of salvation on this thread - also saved from guilt (which is what is pardoned, y'know!...:-)) - by Jesus' death (his life and resurrection, too...), then you need specialist help with your logical fallacies, since you remain with a flawed theology of an incomplete Gospel, which is a grave issue.:-)

I have just returned after not having internet access for a while, and found this thread. Pardon me, but I am not understanding Tom how you can miss penal substitution in the scriptures, since this theme is presented all through scripture.

In Genesis 3 God promises Eve that the saviour will come and defeat Sin, and institutes the sacrifice of a lamb as a sacrifice for sin (in a shadow of the Lamb of God), the OT Penal substitute.

In Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy you have you have the institution of the Sacrificial system, now In that system the Day of atonement (let alone the passover, and daily sacrifices), had two lambs. Both had the sins of the people placed upon their heads, the one was led out into the wilderness to wander and die, the second, was placed on the alter FOR THE WHOLE NATION and was killed, it's blood drained, and consumed in the fire from the alter. The Ceremony was not comeplete here though, since the blood HAD to be taken by the high priest and sprinkled on the mercy seat. Had any part of this ceremony not taken place then the nation of Israel was not counted guiltless for the next year., and if any individual did not take part then they were cut off from the whole nation - an outcast.

In Isaiah 53 we see the suffering servant who's stripes were to heal us.

Paul said 'Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.'

Tom, you asked for Jesus statements and teachings. Jesus said 'Before Abraham was I AM' He is the I AM of the Burning bush. It was Jesus who met with Moses and gave the ceremonial Law as a foreshadowing of His life and death. Therefore to ask just for Jesus teachings when He was on earth is cutting off your nose to spite your face so to speak.

We need to read not just what the words are saying, but also there context (the surrounding verses and extending to the whole scriptures). The scriptures that God and His Son have given us are whole we cannot extract one part from another.

As for what the early Fathers taught and believed I am not versed in that so I cannot say, but are we not verging dangerously close to Catholicism when we insist on hearing what the early fathers have written? Our Foundation is the word of God, and only His Word. As Jesus said 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God'

The difference is in the nature of the debt.

In the early patristic literature, the idea of a debt to Satan is more prevalent, and this idea definitely has nothing to do with satisfaction and penal substitution.

Satisfaction is the payment of a debt to God – there is no other definition for it.

In Anselm, the debt and satisfaction is to God’s honor. There is no idea of Christ taking upon Himself our punishment. This is different from Calvin – Christ must take upon Himself our punishment because we had a debt to God’s justice.

Lewis sees our debt to God as a debt of repentance and surrendering of the will. This is different from the debt to God which is found in the church fathers. For instance, I quoted from St. Ephrem the Syrian:

“Thou hast taken upon Thyself the common debt of all in order to pay it back to Thy Father - pay back also, O guiltless Lord, those sins with which our freedom has indebted us. Thou hast redeemed us from the curse of the law by Thy precious blood. Deliver also those redeemed by Thy blood from harsh justice!”

Even more than to the debt of honor proposed by Anselm, the debt spoken of here seems to be related to penal substitution – a debt to justice.

This was an Eastern church father, and the person admits similar thoughts can be found in the early Western fathers. (And this indeed is true, for they speak of Christ taking upon Himself the curse of the law which was ours.) In response, the Orthodox priest says that the Eastern Orthodox church didn’t adopt this view as a dogma, but that the idea is indeed present in the early fathers.

So, the conclusion is that elements of the idea of penal substitution can be found in the patristic literature, and that the absence of that idea is not the reason why the Orthodox church didn't adopt it as its standard position.