Penal-Substitutionary Atonement in Church History

In my last blog post entitled “God’s View of Sin,” a commenter took exception with my view endorsing a penal-substitutionary model of the atonement. His claim is very clear and very basic: “that no component of PST exists in any form, kerygmatic or written, until the reformation is a good indication that no one even conceived of it until then.” Now, it seems to me that this statement is filled with numerous problems. First, since the term kerygmatic applies to “preaching” it seems that no one can know if PST was preached for the first thousand years of the church because we do not have a record of everything that was preached during that period. The statement on its face is an extreme exaggeration and the commenter turned critic should have avoided it. Second, that we have no written record of anyone ever espousing any component of PST is, on the face of it, simply mistaken. The basic objective of this blog post is to demonstrate that there were components and more, of the penal-substitutionary model of the atonement embraced by those in the ancient church and that this can be traced throughout the history of the church until it comes into its own in the works of Anselm is not a difficult task.

Now, my critic has set his own bar and that bar is indeed a high one. Because my critic has set a high bar for himself, all that I must do in order to show that he is wrong is demonstrate that just one component of PST was indeed present in the history of the church prior to 1,000. I do not have to show that PST was fully framed out in some confessional form prior to 1,000. Additionally, there is a logical problem with my critic’s argument. Whether or not there is a written argument for PST is not a good enough reason to conclude that no one had ever conceived of it until Anselm. For there are many things that could be argued that would require principles deduced from the belief that PST is biblical doctrine. Finding principles that would require the soundness of PST would be good evidence that, even though there were no direct writings about the doctrine, PST was received by certain theologians making such arguments upon said principles. Even though my critic has issued a proposition that is filled with numerous logical fallacies, it is the lack of historical facts that is the most glaring. And so, it is the historical fact that I shall address for the remainder of this post. My goal is to provide historical proof that the PST was not new to Anselm, but that it has its roots in early Christianity, in fact, in Scripture itself.

It would be remiss for me not to provide a definition of what I mean when I say penal-substitutionary atonement. Wayne Grudem is helpful when he says that Christ’s death was penal in that he bore a penalty when he died. And, Christ’s death was a substitute in that he was a substitute for us when he died. [Grudem, Systematic Theology, 579] One of the issues with which we must grapple where the atonement is concerned is the its multifaceted nature. Gregg Allison identifies several facts: expiation, propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, Christ the Victor, example, and exchange or imputation. Because of this fact alone, the opportunity to focus on these various aspects of the atonement could create the false idea that other facets were not as important. This is a nuance of the doctrine that must be kept in view as one studies its history.

Clement of Rome wrote, “In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the love He bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.” (1 Clement 49) Clearly the idea of substitution is present in the phrases, “his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls.”

The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus also expresses a substitutionary view, “He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal…By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God?” This work was written in the late 2^nd century.

Justin clearly thought in a penal-substitutionary way in his dialogue with Trypho, “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…His Father wished Him to suffer this, in order that by His stripes the human race might be healed.” This letter was also written in the second century.

Irenaeus, having been the first to formulate the recapitulation theory, expressed a substitutionary view of the atonement; “For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally moulded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners, and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation.”

Athanasius, living in the 4^th century expressed a substitutionary view: For when ‘the Word became flesh and dwelt among us’ and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He became to us salvation, and became life, and became propitiation; then His economy in our behalf became much better than the Angels, and He became the Way and became the Resurrection.” And then again, he wrote, “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.”

Ignatius clearly believed that Jesus died on behalf of sinners, “Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved.”

The Epistle of Barnabas contains similar language, “For to this end the Lord endured to deliver up His flesh to corruption, that we might be sanctified through the remission of sins, which is effected by His blood of sprinkling…He also Himself was to offer in sacrifice for our sins the vessel of the Spirit, in order that the type established in Isaac when he was offered upon the altar might be fully accomplished.”

It is challenging to gain more clarity on this question than is added by reading the early church historian Eusebius, “Thus the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world, became a curse on our behalf.” And again, “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 upon Himself the appointed curse, being made a curse for us.” And finally, “But since being in the likeness of sinful flesh He condemned sin in the flesh, the words quoted are rightly used. And in that He made our sins His own from His love and benevolence towards us.” It seems this statement alone would provide the hammer, the nail, and the coffin by which we could reject and dispense with the view that there was no hint of PST in the first 1,000 years of the church. Surely, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against such claims.

I rest my case.

What is even more devastating for the anti-PST view than the historical evidence in church history is a careful exegesis of the text of Scripture. Nothing more is needed than Scripture itself to offer a sound and thorough refutation of any view opposing a Penal-Substitutionary Atonement.

The Siamese Sins: Low View of Scripture & Failure to Discipline

An alarming snapshot indeed but not a surprising one. I wanted to comment on a few of these and then briefly point out what this sort of folly and vanity exists in the first place. Notice that groups like the Assemblies of God, the PCA, an Southern Baptist all witnessed either a significant increase in those accepting of homosexuality and/or have a very high percentage that accept it. The Assemblies of God experienced a remarkable 62% increase in just 7 years. The SBC experienced a whopping 30% increase over the same timeframe. And I have no earthly idea what is going on in the PCA but it cannot be good. I have always held the PCA in high regard but clearly the elders are neglecting more than their share of responsibilities when 49% of their members believe that homosexuality is acceptable. 

This is what happens when you have weak men in the pulpit and weak elders and deacons in leadership. Weak reactions to homosexuality lend credence to Christians (supposedly) who are waffling on this issues. The preacher must thunder away without any hint of softness on these issues. He cannot afford to stammer, shutter, and fumble over his words when discussing the blatant sexual sin that is homosexuality. He cannot appear to be weak in any way. Loving yes, but firm, resolved, even extremist where this culture is concerned. We are beginning to discover which men are called as shepherds and which ones are hirelings. The hireling wilts, stammers, stutters, looks for a way of escape. He wants to please men and God. His worse nightmare is controversy. His is not a godly shepherd. He is not only a poor excuse for a shepherd, he is even a poorer excuse for a Christian and even a worse excuse for a man. Where are you O man of God? These numbers indicate we need you something fierce!

Now, a look at the second bit of information and we begin to connect the dots. If you want to understand why it is that the top survey is what it is, you need to look no further than the bottom survey. You can ignore the top lines in the graph for the most part. If you really want to know peoples' opinion of the Bible, just ask them if we should take it literally, not if they think it is the Word of God. The latter expression has become so nebulous it provide nearly nothing of meaningful value when used. But when you ask people if you should take the Bible literally, now you are asking them something. And make no mistake about it, this is not a literary question. This is not a poll for scholars. This is a poll of the common folks. Literally to them means something far different than literary devices. And here we see that the views of Scripture are, as we would expect, extremely low. You see, I can believe that the Bible is the Word of God without taking that statement literally. In other words, it isn't literally the Word of God. And yes, if you don't believe me, go test my claim. 

The point I am making is simple. The Church can ill-afford to bring in new members and retain old members that adopt the sort of thinking expressed in this survey. If Bible-Believing Churches want to protect themselves and thrive for Christ, they must insist that members hold to a high view of Scripture consistent with historic Christian orthodoxy or be removed from membership. Nothing less will do. Second, the Church must insist that members affirm a Christian ethic, to include sexuality, or be removed from membership. Nothing less will do. No you cannot be a member of a local genuine Christian community and hold a low view of Scripture. No you cannot be a member of a local genuine Christian community and affirm homosexuality. The solution is simple. For the godly shepherd and the godly congregation, this is not too difficult. For the man pleasers and the culture lovers, such a task seems daunting. I would suggest you close you doors. If cannot hold to a high view of Scripture and affirm the Christian ethic, regardless of how embarrassing it might seem to our blasphemous culture, then please close your doors and stop calling yourself a Christian because your not!

Finally, Churches need a reaffirmation process annually for all members. Members need to understand that if they depart from the confession that governs their membership, it could be grounds for excommunication. Furthermore, they have an on-going obligation to disclose any such changes to the elders. Additionally, they need to positively reaffirm the confession no less than annually in some way shape or form and they need to do so formally. This will protect the integrity of the memberships of local congregations.

What is the Starting Point for Christian Apologetics?

There is little disputing the fact that Christian apologetics has become a very complex and even intimidating subject. If you were to listen to the advice of some apologists, you may be led to believe that defending the faith requires graduate level training in secular philosophy. While it may be true that an education in philosophy may benefit the apologist in many ways, it is an extreme exaggeration to think that such training is essential to effectively engage in biblical apologetics. Since the chief aspiration of Christian apologetics is to defend Christian belief and practice and to refute those who contradict Christian belief and practice, it only stands to reason that every Christian, to one degree or another, ought to be able to engage in the sort of Christian apologetic that is faithful to Christian Scripture.

Contrary to the claims of some apologists, biblical apologetics does not begin with advanced or even basic training in secular philosophy. To the contrary, biblical apologetics begins with God’s Word. And since an understanding of God’s Word is impossible apart from genuine faith, we can claim that biblical apologetics begins with faith. And we all understand that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Hence, a heart that is filled with the gift of faith as a result of the preaching of the gospel is the only foundation known to biblical apologetics. If you build your apologetic upon any other ground, it is doomed to fail sooner or later.

So then, apologetic method must be grounded in biblical truth and can only be exercise faithfully by someone who has experienced the faith that only God grants. Apologetics does not begin with autonomous human reason or historical evidence or empirical proof. It begins with the impartation of divine faith in the heart of the individual and is anchored indelibly to the divine revelation of Scripture.

Peter’s instructions to every believer is much more simple than most contemporary apologists wish to admit. In his famous apologetic imperative, Peter uses the word logos. Many apologists imply, perhaps without realizing it in many cases, that Peter had Aristotelian logic in mind when he employed this word. But a review of how that word is used elsewhere in the NT tells us that such an interpretation is highly unlikely and, most likely, is an anachronism read back into the text by contemporary apologists who are far too influenced by Aristotle themselves. Jesus uses this word in Matt. 5:32 when he talks about a reason for divorce. Peter uses it with Cornelius when he wants to him to give him a reason for why he has sent for him. (Acts 10:29) The problem is that most contemporary apologists are far more attracted to and interested in philosophy than they are biblical exegesis and systematic theology. Most contemporary apologists miss the fact that Peter is quoting Isaiah 8:12, and not Aristotle.

Peter’s idea of apologetics begins with sanctifying Christ in our hearts, not with Platonic philosophy. This sanctification cannot occur apart from genuine, God-given faith. The cursory manner in which traditional apologists allude to this verse, one would think that Peter was writing to an elite group of professional PhD’s who composed The First Hellenistic Evangelical Philosophical Society. [McManis: Biblical Apologetics] But Peter is concerned about the everyday common disciple of Jesus Christ, not highly trained philosophers.

Many apologists claim that Peter’s text had the existence of God in view and set out their program to teach others how to defend the claim that God exists. But that is far from what Peter wrote. In plain enough Greek Peter said that it was the τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος tes en humin elpidos. The hope that is in you. We are to be prepared to provide the unbeliever a reason for the hope of Christ that is in us. What is that reason? The reason is the soul-converting power of the gospel, the life-giving force of the good news of Jesus Christ. Peter did not say that we have to be skilled in formulating the best categorical syllogisms in defense of the claim that God exists. He also did not say that we had to provide evidence, historical or otherwise, or even arguments, that satisfy the challenges of unbelieving skeptics. That assertion is made by contemporary Christian apologists who are somewhat mistaken in their ideas or far too much enamored by intellectual lust and may even have become seduced by secular philosophy.

Christian apologetics, biblical apologetics then, is a defense of Christian belief that is performed by a heart converted by God and filled with divine faith. To defend the Bible is ultimately simply to present it as it is – to present its truth, beauty, and goodness, its application to present-day hearers, and of course, its rationale. When that message is preached so that people understand, the Bible defends itself. [Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God] The starting point for Christian apologetics then is the Word of God, the Bible. The entire defense of Christian theism hinges upon the Bible. If the Bible fails, Christianity fails. If you cannot defend the Bible, you cannot defend Christianity. If you cannot defend the Bible, you cannot defend Christ. Is it any wonder that every attack leveled against the Christian faith today is levelled against the Bible, its reliability and trustworthiness, its credibility. Doctrine matters after all, despite those silly, naïve pastors who for years have had a misplaced emphasis on relationships even to the outright belittling of Scripture and theology. Without the Bible, Christianity becomes indefensible, powerless, and irrelevant. There is no defense for such a system.

The Children of Men: Understanding Human Origins of Heresy

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.” (Gen 3:15) “And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one.” (Matt 13:37-38) “So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Rev. 12:17)

Lately, I have been focusing my blog posts on the subject of heresy. I am convinced that American Christians, for the most part, have completely lost touch with the true nature of heresy. This is due in no small part to ignorant pastors who, for the last 30 years have been bellowing from the pulpit that doctrine doesn’t matter. I used to attend an Independent Baptist Church where the pastor loved to bash those who took doctrine seriously by characterizing them as people who treated the Bible like a math book. While that statement can be true in a certain context, it is not true in the context in which he presented it. In fact, he did more work for the kingdom of darkness in those moments than he did for the kingdom of God. That is regrettable and more than a little unfortunate. It was and is irresponsible for any pastor or elder to belittle Christian doctrine. As I have always said to men who do this: Christian love never elevates itself at the expense of Christian truth. Heresy was an immediate threat to the Christian Church, has been a threat throughout her long and rick history, and remains an ever-present threat to her today. Christians, elders, and pastors ought to respond accordingly.

A heretic is one who is unregenerate, but who resembles, even remarkably at times, and portends to be, one of the regenerate. He is one that has rejected the faith while pretending to accept it. He claims to love Jesus, to be loyal to God, and to love the Church, all the while spreading his false and damnable teachings. That makes me wonder, whatever happened to damnable doctrines? In modern American Churches, the incidents of heresy are growing at an alarming rate and it is especially growing among the young. It is as if the Christian culture must mimic the worldly culture and where the worldly culture is overthrowing traditional values because it is the interesting thing to do, many young Christians have fixed their attention on orthodoxy and her creeds and confessions, see it as dull and uninteresting, and in the name of carving out their own spot, they have climbed into the seat of heresy and buckled-up for the excitement it promises to offer them. The hiss of the serpent can be heard in nearly every evangelical community. What can I say? A little hyperbole is a good thing now and then.

It is no small matter to call into question the sacredness of things like the nature of Sacred Scripture, the divinity of Christ, and the sacred institution of marriage. But at nearly every turn, evangelicals find themselves doing precisely that. We are debating things we are obligated to receive and believe with all humility. And for some strange reason, we think this behavior is somehow more sophisticated, more expressive of progress, even more noble than not. Young evangelicals seem to view the practice of challenging orthodoxy through the lens of updating an outdated policy manual at work. The casual approach to such things is telling and reveals a very disturbing trend in many, if not most, evangelical churches. I believe this trend can be traced to the refusal of the Church to test those who claim to be believers and teachers and leaders who are not! I believe the trend is in no small part to be blamed on pastors and churches so interested in growing their membership and attendance that they have relaxed church membership requirements to the point that Satan would be a good candidate for the deaconate in many communities. They have deluded themselves into thinking that any standards for membership at all are the equivalent of legalism. The apostles of Christ who gave us the teachings of Christ would have disagreed!

Gonzalez points out that “the challenge posed by heresy provoked a series of reactions that would have great consequences for the future life of the church. The creed, the New Testament canon, and the doctrine of apostolic succession are three of those reactions.” [Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought] The church should be no less busy today contradicting and stopping the mouths of heretics as it was from its beginning. Instead, many in the church have adopted the tactics and strategies of the world. They begin by labeling people who are concerned with doctrinal truth as unkind and mean-spirited and overly critical of others. Perhaps some would accuse them of being intellectual bullies. This kind of name-calling and classification is used to manipulate people’s behavior. No one likes to be called a bully or unloving. Hence, the tactic succeeds in silencing those who are simply concerned about the well being of the church and it cuts the fence line so that sheep can wonder out, and wolves may wonder in! Don’t buy into the weak-minded tactics of these swindlers of God’s flock is my advice.

I hope to take you back in time to look at some of the ancient heresies with which the church had to contend from nearly her inception. It is my goal to link those ancient heresies with the modern ones about which we contend today. Moreover, my purpose is not merely to call out these things, and to help you make these connections. Instead, my purpose is to influence change. I want the church to begin to excommunicate the heretics, be they simple members, Sunday school teachers, elders, pastors, theologians, and scholars. There is no place for the serpent in the church, regardless of the disguise he may use. When we find the snake in the garden, we cut its head off. When we discover the heretic in God’s community, we take swift action. We lovingly confront them, at first giving them the benefit of doubt. We continue to work with them while managing their influence. In time, if they refuse to recant, we excommunicate them and let them know they are not welcome in community until they repent and receive with all humility, that which has been preserved and handed down to us from the apostles at the beginning.