2 Questions emailed to me....

[Scott Bushey]

Just for the sake of good conversation, how would you respond?

1. Can you give Biblical refutation of the idea that one can be
regenerate, but not elect (as some Roman Catholic apologists claim that
Augustine, Aquinas, and even Luther taught). Of course, all elect
are/will be regenerated and will be received into glory - but all the
regenerated that are not elect fall away and are damned. I don't think
Calvinists would agree with this.

2. A prominent Roman Catholic apologist was explaining that the
Bible nowhere teaches penal substitution in the atonement, but rather
vicarious satisfaction is what is taught in the Bible, and by the church
fathers, including Aquinas. Is this correct?

 

[turmeric]

What is the difference between penal substitution & vicarious satisfaction?

Doesn't substitution = vicarious & satisfaction indicate that some payment was made?

Oh, well, I still think Anselm was brilliant, maybe my catechesis has been incomplete

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Just for the sake of good conversation, how would you respond?

1. Can you give Biblical refutation of the idea that one can be
regenerate, but not elect (as some Roman Catholic apologists claim that Augustine, Aquinas, and even Luther taught). Of course, all elect
are/will be regenerated and will be received into glory - but all the
regenerated that are not elect fall away and are damned. I don't think
Calvinists would agree with this.

2. A prominent Roman Catholic apologist was explaining that the
Bible nowhere teaches penal substitution in the atonement, but rather
vicarious satisfaction is what is taught in the Bible, and by the church
fathers, including Aquinas. Is this correct?

Scott,

1) Augustine tended to lump regeneration, justification, and sanctification as all part of one on-going process, all of which are completed only at the death of a believer. For Augustine, all the regenerate make it to heaven based upon the simple fact that the process of regeneration is never completed until death. Hence all the regenerate are elect, if you view Augustine's perspective on regeneration. I can't speak with precise knowledge concerning Aquinas here, and Luther tended to avoid the subject of perseverance. But the golden chain of Romans 8, if you understand "œcalling" as another way of speaking of regeneration, seems to refute this notion.

Augustine (354-430): Of such says the apostle, "œWe know that to those that love God He worketh together all things for good, to them who are called according to His purpose; because those whom He before foreknew, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified." Of these no one perishes, because all are elected. And they are elected because they were called according to the purpose "” the purpose, however, not their own, but God´s; of which He elsewhere says, "œThat the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her that the elder shall serve the younger." And in another place he says, "œNot according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace." When, therefore, we hear," Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called," we ought to acknowledge that they were called according to His purpose; since He thence began, saying, "œHe worketh together all things for good to those who are called according to His purpose," and then added, "œBecause those whom He before foreknew, He also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren And to these promises He added, "œMoreover, whom, He did predestinate, them He also called." He wishes these, therefore, to be understood whom He called according to His purpose, lest any among them should be thought to be called and not elected, on account of that sentence of the Lord´s: "œMany the called but few are elected." For whoever are elected are without doubt also called; but not whosoever are called are as a consequence elected. Those, then, are elected, as has often been said, who are called according to the purpose, who also are predestinated and foreknown. If any one of these perishes, God is mistaken; but none of them perishes, because God is not mistaken. If any one of these perish, God is overcome by human sin; but none of them perishes, because God is overcome by nothing. Moreover, they are elected to reign with Christ, not as Judas was elected, to a work for which he was fitted. Because he was chosen by Him who well knew how to make use even of wicked men, so that even by his damnable deed that venerable work, for the sake of which He Himself had come, might be accomplished. When, therefore, we hear, "œHave not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" we ought to understand that the rest were elected by mercy, but he by judgment; those to obtain His kingdom, he to shed His blood! NPNF1: Vol. V, A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Chapter 14, None of the Elect and Predestinated Can Perish.

Augustine (354-430): Those, then, were of the multitude of the called, but they were not of the fewness of the elected. It is not, therefore, to His predestinated children that God has not given perseverance for they would have it if they were in that number of children; and what would they have which they had not received, according to the apostolical and true judgment? And thus such children would be given to Christ the Son just as He Himself says to the Father, "œThat all that Thou hast given me may not perish, but have eternal life." Those, therefore, are understood to be given to Christ who are ordained to eternal life. These are they who are predestinated and called according to the purpose, of whom not one perishes. And therefore none of them ends this life when he has changed from good to evil, because he is so ordained, and for that purpose given to Christ, that he may not perish, but may have eternal life. And again, those whom we call His enemies, or the infant children of His enemies, whomever of them He will so regenerate that they may end this life in that faith which worketh by love, are already, and before this is done, in that predestination His children, and are given to Christ His Son, that they may not perish, but have everlasting life. NPNF1: Vol. V, A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Chapter 21.

2) I fail to see how one can distinguish so sharply vicarious satisfaction from penal substitution. Nonetheless, the Bible does teach penal substitution, as can readily be seen from Isaiah 53, especially vs. 5-6,

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

As for Aquinas, again I can´t say that I´ve read him enough on the subject to make comment. Just recently, an alleged "œReformed Catholic" has denied the penal substitutionary nature of the atonement, http://www.communiosanctorum.com/?p=94 . For some time now, I have been compiling some patristic proof with respect to the penal substitutionary nature of our Lord Jesus Christ´s death upon the cross on behalf of sinners. This has been and is an on-going study on my part, and I´ll offer some of what I have now compiled.

The following quotes are a compilation of statements from the Early Church fathers regarding the penal substitutionary nature of our Lord Jesus Christ´s death on the cross, acknowledging it in various degrees.. In other words, simply stated, the term "œpenal substitution" means that the Lord Jesus bore the penalty (i.e. the punishment) for our sins in his own body upon the cross, and was thus our substitute who died in our room and stead in order to satisfy the demands of a Holy God against our sins. The punishment of our sins were transferred to Christ upon the cross, and he bore the punishment for them.

Now, there are a few prefatory remarks that I want to make by way of clarification.

1) In affirming the penal substitutionary nature of our Lord´s sufferings, I am not denying other meaningful elements of his atonement, such as the concepts of Christus Victor, reconciliation, and the destruction of the works of devil (1 Jn 3:8), etc. as John Murray stated, "œwe are not doing justice to the teaching of Scripture, nor to the reality of Christ´s sin-bearing, if we restrict our thought or definition to that of bearing the penalty of sin." See his Collected Writings, Vol. 1, p. 38.
2) In the quotations that follow, you will find in these statements, to a greater or lesser extent, elements of the penal substitutionary nature of our Lord´s death as understood by these ancient writers.
3) This is not an exhaustive survey, by any means, and the citations that follow are, in my own humble opinion, affirmations of those elements that pertain to the concept of penal substitution.
4) The penal substitutionary nature of our Lord´s death was not always clearly or fully understood by these writers. I am simply suggesting that one finds the elements of this doctrine in their writings.

Western Fathers

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.

Cyprian (c. 200-58): Nor, beloved brethren, did Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, teach this in words only; but He fulfilled it also in deeds. And because He had said that He had come down for this purpose, that He might do the will of His Father; among the other marvels of His virtues, whereby He showed forth the marks of a divine majesty, He also maintained the patience of His Father in the constancy of His endurance. Finally, all His actions, even from His very advent, are characterized by patience as their associate; in that, first of all, coming down from that heavenly sublimity to earthly things, the Son of God did not scorn to put on the flesh of man, and although He Himself was not a sinner, to bear the sins of others. His immortality being in the meantime laid aside, He suffers Himself to become mortal, so that the guiltless may be put to death for the salvation of the guilty. ANF: Vol. V, Treatise 9 - On the Advantage of Patience, §6.

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67): The Only-begotten God, then, suffered in His person the attacks of all the infirmities to which we are subject; but He suffered them in the power of His own nature, just as He was born in the power of His own nature, for at His birth He did not lose His omnipotent nature by being born. Though born under human conditions, He was not so conceived: His birth was surrounded by human circumstances, but His origin went beyond them. He suffered then in His body alter the manner of our infirm body, yet bore the sufferings of our body in the power of His own body. To this article of our faith the prophet bears witness when he says, He beareth our sins and grieveth for us: and we esteemed Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted: He was wounded for our transgressions and made weak for our sins. It is then a mistaken opinion of human judgment, which thinks He felt pain because He suffered. He bore our sins, that is, He assumed our body of sin, but was Himself sinless. He was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, bearing sin indeed in His flesh but our sin. So too He felt pain for us, but not with our senses; He was found in fashion as a man, with a body which could feel pain, but His nature could not feel pain; for, though His fashion was that of a man, His origin was not human, but He was born by conception of the Holy Ghost.
For the reasons mentioned, He was esteemed "˜stricken, smitten and afflicted.´ He took the form of a servant: and "˜man born of a Virgin´ conveys to us the idea of One Whose nature felt pain when He suffered. But though He was wounded it was "˜for our transgressions.´ The wound was not the wound of His own transgressions: the suffering not a suffering for Himself. He was not born man for His own sake, nor did He transgress in His own action. The Apostle explains the principle of the Divine Plan when he says, We beseech you through Christ to be reconciled to God. Him, Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf. To condemn sin through sin in the flesh, He Who knew no sin was Himself made sin; that is, by means of the flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, He became flesh on our behalf but knew not flesh: and therefore was wounded because of our transgressions. NPNF2: Vol. IX, On the Trinity, Book 10, §47.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): If, then, we know each Generation and One of each, and we perceive the cause wherefore He came, so that assuming the sins of the dying world He took the ruin of sin and the death of all upon Himself [cf. 2 Timothy 1:10]. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §40, p. 52.
Latin Text: Si igitur generationem utramque cognovimus, et utriusque munus unum, et causam qua venit advertimus; ut pereuntis mundi peccata suscipiens, peccati labem, et omnium mortem in se. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.40, PL 15:1556.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): One assumed the sins of all, so that the sins of all were cleansed through Him. Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), Book II, §91, p. 76.
Latin Text: unus omnium peccata suscepit, ut in illo omnium peccata morerentur. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 2.91, PL 15:1586.

Ambrose (c. 339-97): But if you hold to the letter, so as to think from what is written, namely, the Word was made flesh, that the Word of God was turned into flesh, do you not deny that it is written of the Lord that he did not make sin but was made sin? So, was the Lord turned into sin? Not so, but, since he assumed our sins, he is called sin. For the Lord is also called an accursed thing, not because the Lord was turned into an accursed thing but because he himself took on our curse. FC, Vol. 44, Saint Ambrose:Theological and Dogmatic Works - The Sacrament of the Incarnation of our Lord (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1963), p. 242.

Jerome (347-420): Christ "œendured 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.

Augustine (354-430): Begotten and conceived, then, without any indulgence of carnal lust, and therefore bringing with Him no original sin, and by the grace of God joined and united in a wonderful and unspeakable way in one person with the Word, the Only-begotten of the Father, a son by nature, not by grace, and therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on account of the likeness of sinful flesh in which He came, He was called sin, that He might be sacrificed to wash away sin. For, under the Old Covenant. sacrifices for sin were called sins. And He, of whom all these sacrifices were types and shadows, was Himself truly made sin. Hence the apostle, after saying, "œWe pray you in Christ´s stead, be ye reconciled to God," forthwith adds: "œfor He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." He does not say, as some incorrect copies read, "œHe who knew no sin did sin for us," as if Christ had Himself sinned for our sakes; but he says, "œHim who knew no sin," that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, "œhath made to be sin for us," that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God´s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified, that though sin was not in Him, yet that in a certain sense He died to sin, by dying in the flesh which was the likeness of sin; and that although He Himself had never lived the old life of sin, yet by His resurrection He typified our new life springing up out of the old death in sin. NPNF1: Vol. III, Enchiridion, On Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 41.

Augustine (354-430): 3. Death comes upon man as the punishment of sin, and so is itself called sin; not that a man sins in dying, but because sin is the cause of his death. So the word tongue, which properly means the fleshy substance between the teeth and the palate, is applied in a secondary sense to the result of the tongue´s action. In this sense we speak of a Latin tongue and a Greek tongue. The word hand, too, means both the members of the body we use in working, and the writing which is done with the hand. In this sense we speak of writing as being proved to be the hand of a certain person, or of recognizing the hand of a friend. The writing is certainly not a member of the body, but the name hand is given to it because it is the hand that does it. So sin means both a bad action deserving punishment, and death the consequence of sin. Christ has no sin in the sense of deserving death, but He bore for our sakes sin in the sense of death as brought on human nature by sin. This is what hung on the tree; this is what was cursed by Moses. Thus was death condemned that its reign might cease, and cursed that it might be destroyed. By Christ´s taking our sin in this sense, its condemnation is our deliverance, while to remain in subjection to sin is to be condemned.
4. What does Faustus find strange in the curse pronounced on sin, on death, and on human mortality, which Christ had on account of man´s sin, though He Himself was sinless? Christ´s body was derived from Adam, for His mother the Virgin Mary was a child of Adam. But God said in Paradise, "œOn the day that ye eat, ye shall surely die." This is the curse which hung on the tree. A man may deny that Christ was cursed who denies that He died. But the man who believes that Christ died, and acknowledges that death is the fruit of sin, and is itself called sin, will understand who it is that is cursed by Moses, when he hears the apostle saying "œFor our old man is crucified with Him." The apostle boldly says of Christ, "œHe was made a curse for us;" for he could also venture to say, "œHe died for all." "œHe died," and "œHe was cursed," are the same. Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment.
5. These things are not my conjectures, but are affirmed constantly by the apostle, with an emphasis sufficient to rouse the careless and to silence the gainsayers. "œGod," he says, "œsent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh." Christ´s flesh was not sinful, because it was not born of Mary by ordinary generation; but because death is the effect of sin, this flesh, in being mortal, had the likeness of sinful flesh. This is called sin in the following words, "œthat by sin He might condemn sin in the flesh." Again he says: "œHe hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." Why should not Moses call accursed what Paul calls sin? In this prediction the prophet claims a share with the apostle in the reproach of the heretics. For whoever finds fault with the word cursed in the prophet, must find fault with the word sin in the apostle; for curse and sin go together.
6. If we read, "œCursed of God is every one that hangeth on a tree," the addition of the words "œof God" creates no difficulty. For had not God hated sin and our death, He would not have sent His Son to bear and to abolish it. And there is nothing strange in God´s cursing what He hates. For His readiness to give us the immortality which will be had at the coming of Christ, is in proportion to the compassion with which He hated our death when it hung on the cross at the death of Christ. And if Moses curses every one that hangeth on a tree, it is certainly not because he did not foresee that righteous men would be crucified, but rather because He foresaw that heretics would deny the death of the Lord to be real, and would try to disprove the application of this curse to Christ, in order that they might disprove the reality of His death. For if Christ´s death was not real, nothing cursed hung on the cross when He was crucified, for the crucifixion cannot have been real. Moses cries from the distant past to these heretics: Your evasion in denying the reality of the death of Christ is useless. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; not this one or that, but absolutely every one. What! the Son of God? Yes, assuredly. This is the very thing you object to, and that you are so anxious to evade. You will not allow that He was cursed for us, because you will not allow that He died for us. Exemption from Adam´s curse implies exemption from his death. But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offenses, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment. And these words "œevery one" are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ.
7. The believer in the true doctrine of the gospel will understand that Christ is not reproached by Moses when he speaks of Him as cursed, not in His divine majesty, but as hanging on the tree as our substitute, bearing our punishment, any more than He is praised by the manicheans when they deny that He had a mortal body, so as to suffer real death. In the curse of the prophet there is praise of Christ´s humility, while in the pretended regard of the heretics there is a charge of falsehood. If, then, you deny that Christ was cursed, you must deny that He died; and then you have to meet, not Moses, but the apostles. Confess that He died, and you may also confess that He, without taking our sin, took its punishment. Now the punishment of sin cannot be blessed, or else it would be a thing to be desired. The curse is pronounced by divine justice, and it will be well for us if we are redeemed from it. Confess then that Christ died, and you may confess that He bore the curse for us; and that when Moses said, "œCursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," he said in fact, To hang on a tree is to be mortal, or actually to die. He might have said, "œCursed is every one that is mortal," or "œCursed is every one dying;" but the prophet knew that Christ would suffer on the cross, and that heretics would say that He hung on the tree only in appearance, without really dying. So he exclaims, Cursed; meaning that He really died. He knew that the death of sinful man, which Christ though sinless bore, came from that curse, "œIf ye touch it, ye shall surely die." Thus also, the serpent hung on the pole was intended to show that Christ did not feign death, but that the real death into which the serpent by his fatal counsel cast mankind was hung on the cross of Christ´s passion. The manicheans turn away from the view of this real death, and so they are not healed of the poison of the serpent, as we read that in the wilderness as many as looked were healed. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIV, §3-7.

Augustine (354-430): He did no sin, neither was any guile found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth; to whom the prince of this world came, and found nothing in Him; whom, though He had done no sin, God made sin for us. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book III, Chapter 13.

Augustine (354-430): Only the shameful nature of the death which our Lord vouchsafed to undergo for us is not now so apparent, Who, as the Apostle says, "œwas made a curse for us." NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, Sermon 38, §8.

Augustine (354-430): He was troubled, then, who had power to lay down His life, and had power to take it again. That mighty power is troubled, the firmness of the rock is disturbed: or is it rather our infirmity that is troubled in Him? Assuredly so: let servants believe nothing unworthy of their Lord, but recognize their own membership in their Head. He who died for us, was also Himself troubled in our place (pro nobis, "œinstead of ourselves" PL 35:1797). He, therefore, who died in power, was troubled in the midst of His power: He who shall yet transform the body of our humility into similarity of form with the body of His glory, hath also transferred into Himself the feeling of our infirmity, and sympathizeth with us in the feelings of His own soul. Accordingly, when it is the great, the brave, the sure, the invincible One that is troubled, let us have no fear for Him, as if He were capable of failing: He is not perishing, but in search of us [who are]. Us, I say; it is us exclusively whom He is thus seeking, that in His trouble we may behold ourselves, and so, when trouble reaches us, may not fall into despair and perish. By His trouble, who could not be troubled save with His own consent, He comforts such as are troubled unwillingly. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate VII, §60, §2, John 13:21.

Augustine (354-430): Man, however in that he fell by sin, has lost the rest which he possessed in His divinity, and receives it again (now) in His humanity; and for this purpose He became man, and was born of a woman, at the seasonable time at which He Himself knew it behoved it so to be fulfilled And from the flesh assuredly He could not sustain any contamination, being Himself rather destined to purify the flesh. Of His future coming the ancient saints, in the revelation of the Spirit, had knowledge, and prophesied. And thus were they saved by believing that He was to come, even as we are saved by believing that He has come. Hence ought we to love God who has so loved us as to have sent His only Son, in order that He might endue Himself with the lowliness of our mortality, and die both at the hands of sinners and on behalf of Sinners (et a peccatoribus et pro peccatoribus moreretur PL 40:332). For even in times of old, and in the opening ages, the depth of this mystery ceases not to be prefigured and prophetically announced. NPNF1: Vol. III, The Catechising of the Uninstructed, Chap. 17, §28.

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 sould 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, 164 - Addressed to Euodius (414 AD), Chapter 37 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 395.

Augustine (354-430): For even the Lord was subject to death, but not on account of sin: He took upon Him our punishment, and so looseth our guilt. With reason then, "œIn Adam all die, but in Christ shall all be made alive." For, "œThrough one man," saith the Apostle, "œsin hath entered into this world, and through sin death, and so hath passed unto all men, in that all have sinned." NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 51, §10.

Augustine (354-430): Now you are going to say to me, "œBut I'm not God; I'm a sinful man"”or woman." Well, thank God you admit to having sins. So forgive others in order to be forgiven yourself. All the same, it's God himself who urges us to imitate him. First of all it is the Lord Christ, of whom the apostle Peter says, Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we might follow in his footsteps (1 Pt 2:21); and of course, he didn't have any sin, and he died for our sins and shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins. For our sake he took upon himself what he did not owe, to set us free from debt. He ought not to have died, we ought not to live. Why not? Because we are sinners. Death was no more his due than life is ours. He accepted what was not his due; he gave us what was not ours. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Sermons, Part 3, Vol. 4, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermon 114.3 (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1992), p. 189.

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., WSA, 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.

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 "œthe 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, 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, PL 76:1195.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 1:8: This verse refutes the teachings of the Pelagians, who say that babies are born without sin and that the elect can make progress in this life that it becomes possible for them to attain perfection. We cannot live in the world without guilt, since we brought it with us when we came into the world. As David said: "œI was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." But the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin, so that our guilt does not keep us in the power of the enemy, because the man Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and man, has freely paid the price on our behalf, even though he did not owe anything himself. He surrendered himself to the death of the flesh, which he did not deserve, in order to deliver us from the richly deserved death of our souls. On 1 John. 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. 172.
Latin text: Contra haeresim Pelagii haec sententia valet, quae et parvulos omnes sine peccato nasci, et electos in hac vita tantum proficere posse dicebat, ut sine peccato existant. Nam et cum propheta dicat: Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in delictis peperit me mater mea, sine culpa in mundo esse non possumus, qui in mundum cum culpa venimus. Sed sanguis Jesu Christi Filii Dei mundat nos ab omni peccato, ut nos ideo sub jure hostis nostri debita nostra non teneant, quia pro nobis Mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Jesus gratuito reddidit quod non debebat. Qui enim pro nobis mortem carnis indebitam reddidit, nos a debita animae morte liberavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput Primum, PL 93:88.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:1: The Lord intercedes for us not by words but by his dying compassion, because he took upon himself the sins which he was unwilling to condemn his elect for. On 1 John. 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. 177.
Latin text: Interpellat ergo pro nobis Dominus, non voce, sed miseratione, quia quod damnare in electis noluit, suscipiendo servavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput II, PL 93:89.

Bede (672/673-735) commenting on 1 John 2:2: In his humanity Christ pleads for our sins before the Father, but in his divinity he has propitiated them for us with the Father. Furthermore, he has not done this only for those who were alive at the time of his death, but also for the whole church which is scattered over the full compass of the world, and it will be valid for everyone, from the very first among the elect until the last one who will be born at the end of time. This verse is therefore a rebuke to the Donatists, who thought that the true church was to be found only in Africa. The Lord pleads for the sins of the whole world, because the church which he has bought with his blood exists in every corner of the globe. On 1 John. 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. 178.
Latin text: Qui per humanitatem interpellat pro nobis apud Patrem, idem per divinitatem propitiatur nobis cum Patre. . . . Non pro illis solum propitiatio est Dominus, quibus tunc in carne viventibus scribebat Joannes, sed etiam pro omni Ecclesia quae per totam mundi latitudinem diffusa est, primo nimirum electo usque ad ultimum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est porrecta. Quibus verbis Donatistarum schisma reprobat, qui in Africae solum finibus Ecclesiam Christi esse dicebant inclusam. Pro totius ergo mundi peccatis interpellat Dominus, quia per totum mundum est Ecclesia, quam suo sanguine comparavit. In Primam Epistolam S. Joannis, Caput II, PL 93:90.

Eastern Fathers

Justin Martyr (wrote after 151): "œFor 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.

Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-270): We believe therefore in one God, that is, in one First Cause, the God of the law and of the Gospel, the just and good; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, true God, that is, Image of the true God, Maker of all things seen and unseen, Son of God and only-begotten Offspring, and Eternal Word, living and self-subsistent and active. always being with the Father; and in one Holy Spirit; and in the glorious advent of the Son of God, who of the Virgin Mary took flesh, and endured sufferings and death in our stead, and came to resurrection on the third day, and was taken up to heaven; and in His glorious appearing yet to come; and in one holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and life eternal. ANF: Vol. VI, Part 2 - Dubious or Spurious Writings, A Sectional Confession of Faith, 17.

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: "œThou 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: "œNow ye are the body of Christ and severally members?" And by the rule that "œif 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: "œBy his stripes we were healed," and "œThe 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, "œI 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): We have, then, now stated in part, as far as it was possible, and as ourselves had been able to understand, the reason of His bodily appearing; that it was in the power of none other to turn the corruptible to incorruption, except the Savior Himself, that had at the beginning also made all things out of naught and that none other could create anew the likeness of God´s image for men, save the Image of the Father; and that none other could render the mortal immortal, save our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Very Life; and that none other could teach men of the Father, and destroy the worship of idols, save the Word, that orders all things and is alone the true Only-begotten Son of the Father. 2. But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all. 3. And do not be surprised if we frequently repeat the same words on the same subject. For since we are speaking of the counsel of God, therefore we expound the same sense in more than one form, lest we should seem to be leaving anything out, and incur the charge of inadequate treatment: for it is better to submit to the blame of repetition than to leave out anything! that ought to be set down. 4. The body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell in it was placed out of the reach of corruption. 5. And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord´s body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. 6. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, "œBring to naught Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word §20, 1-6.

Athanasius (297-373): He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word §38, 7.

Athanasius (297-373): But what need we many words? Our Lord and Savior, when He was persecuted by the Pharisees, wept for their destruction. He was injured, but He threatened not; not when He was afflicted, not even when He was killed. But He grieved for those who dared to do such things. He, the Savior, suffered for man, but they despised and cast from them life, and light, and grace. All these were theirs through that Savior Who suffered in our stead. And verily for their darkness and blindness, He wept. For if they had understood the things which are written in the Psalms, they would not have been so vainly daring against the Savior, the Spirit having said, "˜Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?´ And if they had considered the prophecy of Moses, they would not have hanged Him Who was their Life. NPNF2: Vol. IV, Letters of Athanasius, I. Festal Letters, Letter 10, §5, For 338.

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.

Athanasius (297-373): For if, as has been said, because of the resurrection from the dead He is called a beginning, and then a resurrection took place when He, bearing our flesh, had given Himself to death for us, it is evident that His words, "˜He created me a beginning of ways,´ is indicative not of His essence, but of His bodily presence. For to the body death was proper; and in like manner to the bodily presence are the words proper, "˜The Lord created me a beginning of His ways.´ For since the Savior was thus created according to the flesh, and had become a beginning of things new created, and had our first fruits, viz. that human flesh which He took to Himself, therefore after Him, as is fit, is created also the people to come, David saying, "˜Let this be written for another generation, and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord.´ And again in the twenty-first Psalm, "˜The generation to come shall declare unto the Lord, and they shall declare His righteousness, unto a people that shall be born whom the Lord made.´ For we shall no more hear, "˜In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die but "˜Where I am, there ye´ shall "˜be also;´ so that we may say, "˜We are His workmanship, created unto good works.´ And again, since God´s work, that is, man, though created perfect, has become wanting through the transgression, and dead by sin, and it was unbecoming that the work of God should remain imperfect (wherefore all the saints were praying concerning this, for instance in the hundred and thirty-seventh Psalm, saying, "˜Lord, Thou shall requite for me; despise not then the works of Thine hands); therefore the perfect Word of God puts around Him an imperfect body, and is said to be created "˜for the works;´ that, paying the debts in our stead (avnqv h`mwn th.n ovfeilh.n avpodidou.j), He might, by Himself, perfect. what was wanting to man. Now immortality was wanting to him, and the way to paradise. This then is what the Savior says, "˜I glorified Thee on the earth, I perfected the work which Thou hast given Me to do;´ and again, "˜The works which the Father hath given Me to perfect, the same works that I do, bear witness of Me;´ but "˜the works´ He here says that the Father had given Him to perfect, are those for which He is created, saying in the Proverbs, "˜The Lord created me a beginning of His ways, for His works;´ for it is all one to say, "˜The Father hath given me the works,´ and "˜The Lord created me for the works.´ NPNF2: Vol. IV, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse II, Chapter 21, §66.

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386): But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness. Of no small account was He who died for us; He was not a literal sheep; He was not a mere man; He was more than an Angel; He was God made man. The transgression of sinners was not so great as the righteousness of Him who died for them; the sin which we committed was not so great as the righteousness which He wrought who laid down His life for us, "” who laid it down when He pleased, and took it again when He pleased. NPNF2: Vol. VII, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture XIII:33.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): Moreover, in no other way was it possible for the Love of God toward us to be manifested than by making mention of our flesh, and that for our sake He descended even to our lower part. For that flesh is less precious than soul, everyone who has a spark of sense will acknowledge. And so the passage, The Word was made Flesh, seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that He was made sin, or a curse for us; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these, how could He be? But because by taking them upon Him He took away our sins and bore our iniquities. This, then, is sufficient to say at the present time for the sake of clearness and of being understood by the many. And I write it, not with any desire to compose a treatise, but only to check the progress of deceit; and if it is thought well, I will give a fuller account of these matters at greater length. NPNF2: Vol. VII, Epistle 101 - To Cledonius.

Same quote as above: Gregory of Nazianzus (329/330-389): Indeed, in no other way could the love of God towards us be so manifested than by the way he remembered our flesh, and for our sake descended even to our lowest part. For everyone who has a spark of sense will acknowledge that flesh is less precious than soul. This is why the passage, "˜The Word was made flesh´, seens to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that he was made sin, or made a curse for us (2 Cor. 5.21; Gal. 3.13); not that the Lord was transformed into either of these things (how could he be?) but because by taking them upon Himself He took away our sins and bore our iniquities (Is. 53.4-5 LXX). This, then, is enough to say at the present time for the sake of clearness, and of being understood by the multitude. I write this with no desire to compose a treatise, but only to check the progress of deceit; and if it is thought a good idea, I will give a fuller and more substantial account of these matters later. See Epistle 101 to Cledonius in John A. McGuckin, St Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology, and Texts (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), pp. 397-398.

Chrysostom (349-407): What he says, amounts to this nearly. What armed death against the world? The one man´s eating from the tree only. If then death attained so great power from one offense, when it is found that certain received a grace and righteousness out of all proportion to that sin, how shall they still be liable to death? And for this cause, he does not here say" grace," but "œsuperabundance of grace." For it was not as much as we must have to do away the sin only, that we received of His grace, but even far more. For we were at once freed from punishment, and put off all iniquity, and were also born again from above (John 3:3) and rose again with the old man buried, and were redeemed, justified, led up to adoption, sanctified, made brothers of the Only-begotten, and joint heirs and of one Body with Him, and counted for His Flesh, and even as a Body with the Head, so were we united unto Him! All these things then Paul calls a "œsuperabundance" of grace, showing that what we received was not a medicine only to countervail the wound, but even health, and comeliness, and honor, and glory and dignities far transcending our natural state. And of these each in itself was enough to do away with death, but when all manifestly run together in one, there is not the least vestige of it left, nor can a shadow of it be seen, so entirely is it done away. As then if any one were to cast a person who owed ten mites (o`bo,louj) into prison, and not the man himself only, but wife and children and servants for his sake; and another were to come and not to pay down the ten mites only, but to give also ten thousand talents of gold, and to lead the prisoner into the king´s courts, and to the throne of the highest power, and were to make him partaker of the highest honor and every kind of magnificence, the creditor would not be able to remember the ten mites; so hath our case been. For Christ hath paid down far more than we owe, yea as much more as the illimitable ocean is than a little drop. NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on Romans, Homily 10, Romans 5:12.

Chrysostom (349-407): For if it was not through any liability to it that He died the former death, save only for the sin of others, much less will He die again now that He hath done that sin away. And this he says in the Epistle to the Hebrews also, "œBut now once," he says, "œin the end of the world hath He appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after that the judgment; so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Hebrews 9:26-28.) And he both points out the power of the life that is according to God, and also the strength of sin. For with regard to the life according to God, he showeth that Christ shall die no more. With regard to sin, that if it brought about the death even of the Sinless, how can it do otherwise than be the ruin of those that are subject to it? NPNF1: Vol. XI, Homilies on Romans, Homily 11, Romans 6:10.

Chrysostom (349-407): [3.] But first it is worth while to hear what those who are infected with the Manichaean doctrines say here, who are both enemies to the truth and war against their own salvation. What then do these allege? By death here, they say, Paul means nothing else than our being in sin; and by resurrection, our being delivered from our sins. Seest thou how nothing is weaker than error? And how it is taken by its own wings, and needs not the warfare from without, but by itself it is pierced through? Consider, for instance, these men, how they too have pierced themselves through by their own statements. Since if this be death, and Christ did not take a body, as ye suppose, and yet died, He was in sin according to you. For I indeed say that He took unto Himself a body and His death, I say, was that of the flesh; but thou denying this, wilt be compelled to affirm the other. But if He was in sin, how saith He, "œWhich of you convinceth Me of sin?" and "œThe prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me?" (John 8:46; 14:30.) and again, "œThus it becometh Us to fulfill all righteousness?" (Matthew 3:15.) Nay, how did He at all die for sinners, if Himself were in sin? For he who dies for sinners ought himself to be without sin. Since if he himself also sin, how shall he die for other sinners? But if for others´ sins He died, He died being without sin: and if being without sin He died, He died "” not the death of sin; for how could He being without sin? "” but the death of the body. Wherefore also Paul did not simply say, "œHe died," but added, "œfor our sins:" both forcing these heretics against their will to the confession of His bodily death, and signifying also by this that before death He was without sin: for he that dies for others´ sins, it followeth must himself be without sin.
Neither was he content with this, but added, "œccording to the Scriptures:" hereby both again making his argument credible, and intimating what kind of death he was speaking of

 

[DTK]

rest of my post...

since it is the death of the body which the Scriptures everywhere proclaim. For, "œthey pierced My hands and My feet," (Psalm 21:18.) saith He, and, "œthey shall look on Him Whom they pierced." (John 19:37. Zechariah 12:10.) And many other instances, too not to name all one by one, partly in words and partly in types, one may see in them stored up, setting forth His slaughter in the flesh and that He was slain for our sins. For, "œfor the sins of my people," saith one, "œis He come to death: "œand, the Lord delivered Him up for our sins: "œand, "œHe was wounded for our transgressions." (Isaiah 53) But if thou dost not endure the Old Testament, hear John crying out and declaring both, as well His slaughter in the body as the cause of it: thus, "œBehold," saith he, "œthe Lamb of God, Who taketh away the sin of the world:" (John 1:29.) and Paul saying, "œFor Him Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him:" (2 Corinthians 5:21.) and again, "œChrist redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us:" (Galatians 3:13.) and again, "œhaving put off from himself principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them;" (Colossians 2:15.) and ten thousand other sayings to show what happened at His death in the body, and because of our sins. Yea, and Christ Himself saith, "œfor your sakes I sanctify Myself" and, "œnow the prince of this world hath been condemned;" showing that having no sin he was slain. NPNF1: Vol. XII, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 38, §3.

Chrysostom (349-407): And what hath He done? "œHim 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? "œHim that knew no sin," he says, Him that was righteousness itself, "œHe made sin," that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. "œFor 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, "œBecoming 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 "œwe 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 "œmade" [Him] a sinner, but "œsin;" not, "˜Him that had not sinned´ only, but "œthat had not even known sin; that we" also "œmight become," he did not say "˜righteous,´ but, "œrighteousness," and, "œthe righteousness of God." For this is [the righteousness] "œof 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 "œthe 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, "œCursed 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, "œCursed 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, "œHe 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.

Chrysostom (349-407) on Hebrews 9:28: "œSo Christ was once offered.": By whom offered? evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] "œwas offered." "œWas once offered" (he says) "œto bear the sins of many." Why "œof many," and not "œof all"? Because not all believed, For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing.
And what is [the meaning of] "œHe bare the sins"? Just as in the Oblation we bear up our sins and say, "œWhether we have sinned voluntarily or involuntarily, do Thou forgive," that is, we make mention of them first, and then ask for their forgiveness. So also was it done here. Where has Christ done this? Hear Himself saying, "œAnd for their sakes I sanctify Myself." (John 17:19) Lo! He bore the sins. He took them from men, and bore them to the Father; not that He might determine anything against them [mankind], but that He might forgive them. NPNF1: Vol. XIV, Epistle to the Hebrews, Homly 17.

Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople (434-446): Listen to the reason for his coming and glorify the power of 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.

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 ACW 49:143, Theodoret On Divine Providence 10.26.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) Hebrews 2:6-8: This was the way he spoke on behalf of us all, "œThe reckoning of my sins is far from my salvation." He was in fact guiltless of sin even in his humanity: "œHe committed no sin," remember, "œnor was guile found in his mouth." Yet in making ours his own he became human nature´s mouthpiece: he took on our sins and carried our diseases. Robert Charles Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 145.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) 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, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 2 (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 175.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-466) commenting on Numbers 5:6: Only Christ the Lord, both as God and as man, is blameless. The prophet Isaiah foresaw this and said, "œHe commited no transgression, nor was deceit found in his mouth." For this reason he took upon himself the sins of others, for he had none of his own. For Isaiah says, "œHe bears our sins, and he is afflicted for us." And the great John says, "œBehold the Lamb of God who bears the sins of the world." For this reason he is also called "œfree among the dead," since he suffered death unjustly. Questions on Numbers. Joseph T. Lienhard, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. III, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 209. See PG 80:356-57.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Saiph]

DTK,

No wonder I have questions regarding sanctification. I read Augustine almost exclusively. Interesting how the ideas get into your mind without you even realizing it.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=14599

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My goodness Pastor King. That's an incredible job you've done.

Thank you so much!

 

[Brian]

A true labor of love, Pastor King. Thank you. We are indebted to your work.

 

[Peters]

This might be helpful:


Punished in our Place
A Reply to Steve Chalke on Penal Substitution
by Dr Garry J. Williams

In March 2004 Zondervan published a new book by Steve Chalke with Alan Mann under the title The Lost Message of Jesus. Various aspects of the book have provoked criticism from evangelicals, in particular the comments on the meaning of the cross, and a debate in which Chalke will speak has been organized by the Evangelical Alliance. In order to spell out his views, Chalke has written a new piece entitled Redeeming the Cross (cited below as RTC) available online at the Oasis Trust website, together with a shorter summary (RTCS). In this article I set out the arguments in these new papers and respond to them, challenging Chalke´s claim that penal substitution is "˜no orthodoxy at all´ (RTC, p. 2).

Chalke cites only a few phrases from the criticisms which have been made of The Lost Message of Jesus and presents none of his critics´ main arguments. He is trying not to reply to these arguments, but to offer further reflections on the cross. This is not necessarily a negative comment: often it will be appropriate to respond to criticism by stating one´s views more fully. It does mean that the substantive criticisms remain unanswered.

Chalke asks some interesting questions. He is concerned that people almost universally think of "˜certain elements of the Church as judgemental, guilt inducing, bigoted and self-righteous´ (RTC, p. 1). He fears that these perceptions arise from what we believe about the cross, since how we behave inevitably stems from what we believe. If our society dismisses the cross, perhaps that is because we have misrepresented it in our lives. In particular, perhaps we have failed to grasp the wider significance of the cross. Here Chalke has social and political concerns. He wants to know what the cross means not just for individuals, but for the creation and its life as a whole: "˜Has Christ´s death on the Cross got any relevance or meaning beyond the individual eternal destiny of his followers?´ (RTC, p. 2). What, for example, does it mean for foreign policy or for the present terrorist threat? Chalke does not in so many words say that he thinks that the doctrine of penal substitution is to blame for our neglect here, but he implies it. The pieces raise a set of problems, and the only finger pointed as they unfold is aimed at penal substitution.

As he moves on, Chalke is keen to affirm "˜a clear substitutionary element´ in his understanding of the cross (RTC, p. 2). This is of course distinct from a penal substitutionary element, since it implies only that Christ did something in our place, not that he bore punishment in our place. For Chalke, this substitutionary element is part of a "˜multicoloured rather than monochrome´ theology of the cross (RTC, p. 2). That said, the "˜centre point of this biblical mosaic´ is the idea that by both his death and resurrection Jesus Christ is victor over the forces of evil and sin (RTCS, p. 2).

By contrast, Chalke introduces penal substitution: "˜a righteous God is angry with sinners and demands justice. His wrath can only be appeased through bringing about the violent death of his Son´ (RTC, p. 2). This, he says, "˜is a totally different matter´ (RTCS, p. 2).
A wrong definition of penal substitution

Chalke does not here accurately state the doctrine of penal substitution. Note that he does not say that "˜some people express the doctrine like this´ or that people often mangle it when they explain it, which may be true. Rather, he explains the "˜concept´ itself (RTCS, p. 2). Perhaps he has heard this account of the doctrine or been taught it somewhere, but the inaccuracy remains, and it comes from a leader who wishes to explain how we should think about the death of Jesus and who presents himself as competent to give a potted summary of the history of the doctrine.
The problem is simple. Penal substitution, rightly understood, does not teach that "˜God ["¦] brought about the violent death of his Son´ (RTCS, p. 2). It teaches that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit together purposed that the Son should become a man and as a man bear on the cross God´s just punishment for sin in the place of sinners. Chalke´s phrasing makes it look as if party A (God) "˜brought about´ the death of party B (his Son), with the overtone being that this was something inflicted by A on B. I do not infer unfairly: this implication emerges clearly when Chalke speaks of such a God as a "˜cosmic child abuser´ (RTCS, p. 2).

This is not penal substitution, since the Son lays down his life of his own accord. Indeed, the great reformed theologians of the seventeenth century taught that the Father and the Son in eternity covenanted with one another that the Son would lay down his life. This is obvious from reading John Stott: "˜We must never make Christ the object of God´s punishment or God the object of Christ´s persuasion, for both God and Christ were subjects not objects, taking the initiative together to save sinners´ (The Cross of Christ, 2nd edition, p. 151). The difference between Chalke´s caricature and Stott´s careful statement is Trinitarian: Father and Son act together, not as two separate agents with their own plans. This problem of a mistaken explanation of penal substitution is grave, since if Chalke cannot rightly explain a doctrine there is little chance that he will critique it accurately.

Moving on to his actual criticisms of penal substitution, we come first to the claim that it "˜isn´t as old as many people assume´ (RTC, p. 2). Chalke gives us a brief genealogy: the doctrine "˜first emerged´ in "˜draft´ in the work of Anselm in the eleventh century (RTCS, p. 2), though he did not teach it explicitly (RTC, p. 2). It was then "˜substantially formed´ by John Calvin in the sixteenth, before being settled by Charles Hodge in the nineteenth (RTC, p. 2).

Penal substitution in the church fathers

Chalke´s version of penal substitution is recent indeed, but the doctrine itself is in fact ancient. The claim that it did not exist until Anselm is simply wrong. There is extensive evidence that a wide range of church fathers taught the doctrine of penal substitution. This is not to say that this one view dominated the rest. There is no need to claim that it did; it is simply necessary to find that some significant Christian thinkers stated a version of the doctrine before Anselm. Among others, it can be documented that penal substitution was taught by Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the Great, and Gelasius of Cyzicus. I will give just four clear examples and reference the rest.1

An early example is found in Justin Martyr´s second century Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Justin´s Jewish interlocutor objects to the idea that the Messiah could be crucified, since "˜whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point.´2 Justin´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?´3. Justin here speaks plainly of the curse due to all Jews who do not keep the whole Law (quoting from Paul´s paraphrase of Deuteronomy 27:26 in Galatians 3:10), and of the curse against the idolatrous nations, both of which are curses from God himself. He denies that Jesus was cursed for his own sins, but affirms that he took upon himself the curses due to others.

Ambrose of Milan in the fourth century explains how the sentence of God on sin has been upheld even though sinners have been saved by the removal of the curse. Jesus "˜took up death that the sentence might be fulfilled and satisfaction might be given for the judgment, the curse placed on sinful flesh even to death. Therefore, nothing was done contrary to God´s sentence when the terms of that sentence were fulfilled, for the curse was unto death but grace is after death.´ 4
At the end of the century, Augustine offers a penal explanation of the cross at various points in his works, for example in Book 14 of the Reply to Faustus the Manichaean. Faustus denounced Moses for pronouncing Jesus accursed in Deuteronomy 21:23, failing to grasp the significance of the Apostle Paul´s argument in Galatians which shows that the curse was our curse. Augustine vindicates the belief that Jesus bore the curse deserved by human sin: "˜as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as he was, ever living in his own righteousness, but dying for our offenses, he submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as he died in the flesh which he took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in his own righteousness, he was cursed for our offenses, in the death which he suffered in bearing our punishment.´5 Augustine summarizes, distinguishing between guilt and punishment: "˜Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that he might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment´.6

Gregory the Great, writing at the end of the sixth century, hopes to vindicate the just government of God in the light of the fact that the innocent Jesus has borne punishment. He uses penal substitution to show how the punishment of the innocent Jesus was necessary: "˜if he had not himself undertaken a death not due to him, he would never have freed us from one that was justly due to us´. He goes on: "˜for the sake of sinners he condemns him who is without sin, that all the elect might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as he who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness´. In a striking statement he asserts that "˜the rust of sin could not be cleared away, but by the fire of torment´.7

Anselm: drafter of penal substitution?

We note ironically that Anselm, identified by Chalke as the drafter of penal substitution, did not actually teach the doctrine at all. In Cur Deus Homo, Anselm explains that punishment and satisfaction are alternatives, whereas penal substitution holds that it is punishment which satisfies God´s justice. Anselm is quite clear that it is either punishment for the sinner or satisfaction by another (i. 13). Crucially, the satisfaction is made not when another takes the punishment in the place of the sinner, but when he dies an obedient death and thus compensates for God´s lost honour. Anselm is the great exponent of satisfaction by substitutionary obedience, not of penal substitution. The New Testament teaches both views (e.g. Rom. 5:15-21, 8:3): Anselm taught only one, and not the one that Chalke ascribes to him.

The doctrine of God and the ethics of punishment

Beside the historical criticism of the doctrine, Chalke levels one central theological charge amid his various asides. The "˜real problem with penal substitution´ is that it is incompatible "˜with any authentically Christian understanding of the character of God or genuinely Christocentric worldview´ (RTCS, p. 2). The debate surrounding it "˜is about the very nature of God´ (RTC, p. 1). Penal substitution rests on "˜violent, pre-Christian thinking´ (RTC, p. 3). It "˜presents us with a God who is first and foremost concerned with retribution flowing from his wrath against sinners´ (RTC, p. 2), whereas Jesus taught that God welcomes back the prodigal with no price (RTC, p. 3). Jesus urged forgiveness without punishment, but penal substitution makes punishment necessary for God. Chalke asks: "˜wouldn´t it be inconsistent for God to warn us not to be angry with each other and yet burn with wrath himself ["¦]?´ (RTC, p. 3). Thus penal substitution makes God a hypocrite: "˜If the cross has anything to do with penal substitution then Jesus teaching becomes a divine case of "œdo as I say, not as I do". I, for one, believe that God practices what he preaches!´ (RTC, p. 3).

This is a long-standing criticism, proposed at least as early as 1578 by the anti-Trinitarian Faustus Socinus. That said, it cannot be dismissed simply by the bad company it keeps. Rather, there is a clear biblical counter-case which suggests a quite different construal of the operation of divine justice. Unlike Chalke, the Apostle Paul distinguishes sharply the different spheres of justice which operate within creation and between God and creation. At the end of Romans 12 he follows Jesus in teaching that we must not take revenge. But the striking thing is that Paul there explains that individuals must not take revenge precisely because God is going to do so: "˜Do not take revenge my friends, but leave room for God´s wrath, for it is written: "œIt is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord´ (12:19). From here Paul moves to argue in 13:1-7 that God has given a limited remit to the state to implement this final justice in the present time by the power of the sword. Paul could therefore deny vengeance in the sphere of human personal conduct, and at the same time ascribe retribution to God, shared in part with the ruling authorities. Where Chalke would have us infer that God would never do what he tells us not to do, Paul argues exactly the opposite. God would have us not do what he does precisely because he does it. God´s work, including his work in the atonement, is not to be measured by his injunctions to us. God says precisely "˜do as I say, not as I do´, and justly so, since he is God and we are not.

Paul´s teaching answers one of Chalke´s concerns. While as Christians we are no doubt often judgmental and condemning, we cannot use penal substitution to mandate that kind of behaviour. A Christian who holds to a proper biblical view of the spheres of punishment will recognize that the one thing he cannot do as an individual is to claim that he has the authority to judge others, since that is the authority God reserves to himself.

Personal not social or cosmic?

This leaves Chalke´s other concern, that we have reduced the significance of the cross from the social and cosmic to the merely personal. Let it be said that we must affirm the personal: every individual´s greatest need is reconciliation with God. But clearly the merely personal is inadequate. Despite Chalke´s apparent concern, penal substitution explains very well the cosmic effect of the cross. The narrative of Genesis 2-3 shows that the fall disordered the whole creation, with the serpent seeking to rule Eve, and Eve Adam, and Adam God. Man warred against God and was shut out from his presence. Male-female relations were distorted, and the ground was frustrated. Even the process of life itself, of a new human being coming into the world, became painful. This whole complex of woe was the death threatened in Genesis 2:17. The serpent said that man would not die, but he was wrong. Though he did not die bodily at once, he died spiritually, and then faced an eternity under the wrath of God. The curse of perpetual hostility with God and a disordered cosmos came on the day sin came.

To put the entire creation right, to reverse the effects of sin, to reorder all of the different relations, something had to be done with that curse of spiritual death. Humanity needed to be put back in its right place, under God and over the creation. The restoration of humanity was the key to putting all of the other relationships back in place. Penal substitution teaches that on the cross the Lord Jesus Christ exhausted the disordering curse in our place. It is thus that there can be resurrection and new creation, because the curse, the punishment of the old which rested on men and women and thus on the world, has been spent. Penal substitution, against Chalke´s suggestion (RTC, p. 3), is therefore the prerequisite for a strong doctrine of the resurrection as the beginning of the new creation, not a detractor from it. The old is done away with, the new can begin. Hence indeed the scope of Christ´s work is cosmic: he reconciles all things to himself (Col. 1:20), because he deals with the curse on Adam which affected all things. The new creation has begun with the resurrection, and it is the death of Christ which exhausted the curse which held the old creation in spiritual death. This is no merely personal or individual doctrine. As he bore our punishment in our place and put us right with God, Jesus secured the risen life of the entire new creation.

Conclusion

Steve Chalke expresses concerns about the message and relevance of our preaching, and these concerns combine with his historical and theological criticisms to move him to reject penal substitution. His concerns are valid, his criticisms are not, and neither need lead anyone to abandon this biblical doctrine of the catholic church in favour of what is truly "˜no orthodoxy at all´.

Dr. Garry Williams teaches Church History and Doctrine at Oak Hill College, London. He is engaged in long-term research for an exposition of penal substitution.

Footnotes

1 Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, x. 1; Athanasius, Oratio contra Arianos, i. 60; Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus super Psalmos, lxviii. 7; Gregory of Naziansus, Orationes, xxx. 5; John Chrysostom, 2 Cor. Hom., xi. 6; Cyril of Alexandria, De adoratione et cultu in spiritu et veritate, iii. 100-102; Gelasius of Cyzicus, Church History, ii. 24.
2 Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, lxxxix; ANF, 1:244.
3 Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, xcv; ANF, 1:247.
4 De Esau sive de fuga saeculi, c. 7; FC, 65:314-315.
5 Contra Faustum, xiv. 6; NPNF1, 4:209.
6 Contra Faustum, xiv. 4; NPNF1, 4:208.
7 Moralia in Job, iii. 14; LF, 18:149.

* An earlier version of this paper appeared in Evangelicals Now in 2004. It may be reproduced only in full and with due attribution (with this note included).

 

[DTK]

Yes, I've read Williams' chapter, "The Cross and the punishment of Sin" in the book, Where Wrath & Mercy Meet. The book itself is a collection of papers delivered at Oakhill school of theology.

DTK

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

DTK -

That was an exceedingly helpful post.

Blessings.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

DTK, you never cease to make my jaw drop.

thanks!

*saving page*

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by OS_X]