Talk:Penal substitution

Anselm

I think the paragraph saying that the theory is rooted i satisfaction theory is misleading given that it has disconnected from the discussion on Anselm later. It may lead to the impression that PSA is rooted in Anslem (the orginal wording was actualy better) I propose removing this paragraph and ammending the part on Anselm drawing on the earlier wording. Can I encourage editors to take time to use the discussion page here given the controversy over this subject -that will perhaps lead to a collegiately agreeable article (Be Dave 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi Dave, I agree that using the discussion page sounds prudent. Are you referring to this?:

"Penal substitution is rooted in the idea of making a “satisfaction” for sin. The origin of “satisfaction theory” is traditionally credited to Anselm of Canterbury's work “Cur Deus Homo” which he wrote in 1098 AD. The 16th century Reformers (particularly John Calvin) saw Anselm's doctrine as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. It is important to note that Calvin, typical of Reformation thinking, does not see penal substitution as a development of doctrine building off of the rationalist arguments of Anselm, but bases his view directly on Biblical texts."

Historically penal substitution did develop out of satisfaction doctrine, so I'm not sure what exactly you are having trouble with here. I have noted that Calvin (as opposed to many who followed him from Beza to Hodges) bases his understanding on biblical arguments. Positivley, one could argue that it is similar to how Luther "rediscovered" grace in Paul. But that does not mean that everyone always believed in solo gracia, it is something that is historically creditied to Luther. Because penal substitution is a particular (Calvinist) understanding of substitutionary atonement, I think it is misleading to remove it from its historical context and give the impression that it is what the church always believed from day one. This is simply historically inacurate. Sharktacos 04:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sharkatos. Agreed the article shouldn't suggest that all the church follwed psa from day one -but at the same time we need to do justice to the more nuanced argument that it was present in some form from day one (see for examplehttp://www.theologian.org.uk/doctrine/punished.html). Does that help? (Be Dave 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

Hmm overtaken by events -it's already been changed -would have been good to discuss the wording first as suggested. (Be Dave 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

I was concerned to delete the evaluative comment about Anselm being "mechanistic" and in the process came to think that the paragraph was too long. As it stand at present, the paragraph on Anselm could come straight out of the Satisfaction entry. Anselm did not teach PSA and this could be said in far fewer words in my opinion (with a cross-reference to the relevant entry). Those who think that PSA is historically rooted in Anselm's Satisfaction theory need to provide evidence with which to back up such a claim. TwoWorlds 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am minded to shorten that section down considerably only making the point that Anselm's thought moves away from the so-called classic theory. Roger Arguile 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger Arguile - I find it quite astonishing that you simply deleted my revision towards "Anselm either drew his perception from contemporary feudal practice ... or from ecclesiastical practice..." with the reference to Alister McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (Oxford, Blackwell, 1998) who comments: "It is possible that the idea may derive from the Germanic laws of the period, which stipulated than an offense had to be purged through an appropriate payment. However, most scholars believe that Anselm is appealing directly to the existing penitential system of the church." (p. 136) TwoWorlds 14:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

I have put the POV tag against this article, partly because of its lack of serious engagement with major scholarship - but including 'popular bloggers' for goodness sake - but partly because the serious moral objections need properly raising. There are no references to the major doctrinal treatises or statements from the magisterium of the Catholic church, nor for that matter any secular comment. Given recent controversies in England I am sure that something should be done to raise this important issue to a level of greater clarity. It is the big divide between evangelicals on one side and catholics and liberal protestants on the other but one would not know this from the article. I hope to step into the breach in the next few days and realise that what follows may be a very brisk debate. Roger Arguile 10:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that it is extraordinary that, though a number of texts are cited as a sort of addendum, there is no engagement with the texts, without which the matter becomes merely opinion. Roger Arguile 10:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the POV tag is not quite right -the article describes Penal Substitution as a particular position and refers to the controversy surrounding it. It undoubtably needs work doing on it and I'm not sure that the section on the Church Fathers escapes the "original research" charge or not? Your view on how well it does at engaging with serious scholarship is quite different from saying that it is POV. Rather it seems to be your point that more could be added to the article to show the range of scholarly debate on this issue -please go ahead with this (Be Dave 11:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure who the "popular bloggers" are could you enlighten us? (Be Dave 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

I see a need to specify which parts are disputed. It may well be helpful to provide a fuller range of responses to the doctrine, e.g. from authoritative Roman Catholic or Orthodox sources or from major secular writers, but this is not the same as to imply that what has been written here does not stand up to scholarship. TwoWorlds 13:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I removed the reference to the popular blogger - see several versions back. We might argue over POV. I wished to draw attention to the fact that it is unbalanced because its judgements about PS are within a range of views themselves very narrowly drawn from evangelical scholars. The quotations from the Fathers will not do as they are not integrated into the article. As for scholarship, from an European point of view, I think that article should include ref to Jeremias, Hengel, Alistair McGrath, F.W. Dillistone and Stephen Sykes, if not to John Milton, and Lessing - and others. I am unhappy, as I wrote, at the failure to note examination of the Biblical text; the resume of Anselm is, I think, wrong. Moreover, it is not that more should be added; I think some of it should be replaced.

However, I am encouraged that it is thought that the article is improvable. My concern has been raised because of the recent English controversy about something which divides Christians very much. I shall do some more reading and make some suggestions, as Two Worlds says that I should. He/she is right. Roger Arguile 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the section on Athanasius shold be omitted and that on Anselm and Aquinas drastically reduced. Athanasius's major emphasis in De Incarnatione is in Christ's having transformed human nature, not on his having been punished instead of us. Anselm's idea of satisfaction derives from feudal society not the law courts and the reference to Aquinas is not germane. It comes from the Prima Secundae which is about the moral life not frm the Tertia pars 48 1ff. I am not sure what is going on here. Roger Arguile 17:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Packer thinks that penal substitution is an understanding owed to the Reformers and does not deal with ideas before this time. Roger Arguile 09:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is worth quoting Packer if he takes it as purely a reformation view (is this said explicitly or is it purely that he deals for the purpose of his work with it in that way -note Garry Williams as a Church Historian does go back further) On Athanasius I personally would leave it because whilst Athanasisus may certainly talk about the transformation of human nature -his language certainly is in a way that at the danger of being anachronistic is PSA orientated. Now that admittedly is an interepretation of it -and so needs to reference the secondary sources -then you may use references from other secondary sources that challenge it -but what we shouldn't do is take it out rather we should note the disputes on interpretation. (Be Dave 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

I replaced a lot of the stuff on quotes, but added in some weasel words to make it clear that it's not the only POV, thinking that for the time being that's better than just deleting it. I do think that the text needs more interpretation through secondary sources. Are there any sources that anyone has access to that argue against this being interpreted as language of penal substitution (regardless of whether people think that PSA is the only or primary way these authors speak of the atonement - which I suspect would be a near universal no.)TJ 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to me to be some Original Research here. Packer is clear that PS is the work of Reformers. Encylopaedic works such as the Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church agree, making it clear that the linking of the idea of the Atonement to the law courts is the work of the Reformers. Of course there are hints in St. Paul, but there is nothing to indicate that this is anything more than metaphor, something with which Jeremias, Packer and Stephen Sykes agree on. I am not sure of what to make of TJ's remark: he asks us for scholarship to prove a negative. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that, for instance, St. Athanasius (or Aquinas) were believers in penal substitution in a way that Luther or Socinius would understand. Roger Arguile 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Packer says that it isn't taught prior to the reformers, although you're welcome to correct me. He does only use post-reformation theology, so far as I know, but that's not exactly a surprise with Packer on any subject. Furthermore, I don't think anyone mainstream is claiming that pre-reformation theologians held to PSA as the only or even dominant theory, only that it was a part of their thoughts on the matter.

I asked for scholarship against this being because I think it should be edited , and I already have access to the scholarship that goes the other way. Say, for example, Pierced for our transgressions, and, as per WP:NPOV, both points of view need to be represented (if they exist and aren't extremely fringe/non-scholarly).

As for whether there's more than "hints in St. Paul", I guess we'll have to agree to disagee there. :) TJ 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not offering my own opinion about St. Paul but that of Professor Stephen Sykes, former Regius professor at Cambridge and of Joachim Jeremias. I suggest that TJ reads Packer's 1973 article which can be googled. 'Pierced for our Transgressions' does not emanate from the law courts, not does it relate to Socinius's objections. I fear that without a knowledge of Greek it really is impossible to argue all of this. I have a little but not much. That is why I rely on Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines) who knows of Athanasius's references to sacrifice and ransom but not law. I really feel that those who disagree must show their hands and cite scholars who show knowledge of other scholarhip (as Packer does, as Sykes does ) which back up these interpretations of the Fathers. Roger Arguile 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church entry on Atonement. Incidentally no one has commented on the fact that the quotation from Aquinas is quite inapposite since it does not deal with Christ's atoning sacrifice at all. I have left that so far. Roger Arguile 13:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read Packer's 1973 lecture (several times), and indeed I several printed copies of it in its book form. I don't see why it should be read as meaning that the church fathers didn't believe (although granted I haven't just re-read it with the question in my mind, only skimmed it.) Any quotes you have in mind - say give me page numbers or something?

I'm not sure what your reference to 'Pierced for our Transgressions' means - are you misinterpreting my reference to the book, Pierced for our Transgressions, by Dr's Steve Jeffrey, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sachs?

I'm not interested in debating whether or not these ancient authors promote the view, I just want to show that there are authors who do promote this view, and thus that it should be mentioned.

Again, I must reiterate, I'm not saying that people hold that the fathers ONLY or PRIMARILY held PSA, only that their comments indicate that PART of the cross involved a substitution that was penal. TJ 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As per Paul the Apostle, there are plenty of Bible scholars who hold that he did believe in PSA. Granted, there are some who don't, but there are plenty who do. A few examples (randomly picked off the top of my head) would include Cranfield, N.T. Wright, Mark Goodacre, etc TJ 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Of course, there are scholars who hold that PS derives from Paul. Unfortunately the article does not say so. There are no scholars who hold that PS is an element in Patristic writing(** Sorry!). There are no quotes about the fathers in Packer. He just says, quite rightly, that PS is owed to the Reformers. I don't know the book by Jeffrey and co. I was, I fear, referring to Isaiah.

I fear that our tempers may be getting frayed. I am sorry if that is so. I shall therefore try not to delete any of your edits until I have rewritten the article but it would be helpful if you could a) cite scholars and b)precis what they say. At present we have a deal of nonsense (in my view about Athanasius and no one to back it up. Roger Arguile 13:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"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" From the article by Dr Garry Williams (lecturer in Church History and Doctrine -Oak Hill Theological College -in the referenced article at The Theologian.

I think that should clarify the point regarding backing up Athanasius -i.e. not just that there are quotes from him that suggest a PSA view but also that secondary scholarship interprets it this way. In terms of frayed tempers -it would probably be helpful to tone down the language and not use words like "nonsense" -but I'm not one to talk. I would discourage a "rewrite" rather edit what is there -I think this has been the problem with the article that it has had some editing wars. It also perhaps isn't the best way to encourage the authors who wrote the original! It is better to evolve the article as is. (193.63.62.252 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

On the basis that there is serious (if recent) scholarship tracing the doctrine back historically could I ask whether anyone objects to the historical section being put back in -if it is only Roger can I ask that he respects the collegiate approach of other editors -we are trying to find consensus here and modifications have been made in line with his complaints -there's some way to go but just deleting an edit everytime it is made because it doesn't quite meet your personal requirements is not the way forward. (Be Dave 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Clearly Gary Williams recognises that there is a view that the idea goes back only to Anselm - though Packer and others suggest that it goes back only to the reformers. Packer notes that there is a difference between a representative and a substitute; and quotes his difference with PT Forsyth. He also specifies the nature of penal substitution as distinct from other kinds. I have noted the fact that the expression and the historical phenomenon can be traced back to the reformation not beyond, as Packer suggests. That the Socinian objection has not been met, in the view of many scholars, is a more serious issue to be noted. I put the POV tag on it because of the narrowness of the scholarship and, to be frank, the lack of reference to serious biblical exegesis. No one doubts that there are many scholars who believe that this is was Jesus taught and that St. Paul spelt it out. No one doubts that many non Pelagian non Unitarians think that Socinius has not been answered. Some may doubt whether Packer's view is that PS is to be understood metaphorically, but he clearly thinks that there are crude and unpersuasive versions of it. If it can be agreed that the Fathers did not major on PS it makes more sense to deal with the best articulated versions of the theory. Frankly, I think Mr. Williams needs to do a lot more than assert, especially if he accepts Packer's carefully defined view as to what PS is. Personal requirements I do not have; only one theological teacher, not well published is scarcely more than a swallow - which does not makes a summer or an argument. Roger Arguile 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not got time right now to respond in detail - I just want to comment on Gary Williams' article before the discussion moves on more swiftly. It's aimed squarely at an article by one Steve Chalke, who is by no means a scholar, and that's both why it's so basic and why it comments on the view that it dates from Anselm (who did not teach it.) It doesn't indicate that Gary Williams himself is ignorant. TJ 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger Dr Williams is a vaild source within the Wikipedia guidelines. You are welcome to add further sources. However at the moment you are simply giving us your evaluation of the scholars cited and your interpretation of their work. Removing them was itself therefore a POV action. As I said feel free to add! Packer by the way has endorsed the book "Pierced for Our Transgressions" which also has a section in tracing the history back pre Anselm. (Be Dave 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Providing citations from primary texts (the church fathers) seems to me the most scholarly way of addressing the issue whether PSA was taught in the early church. Unless the translation of any of these texts is in dispute (evidence?), there was no need to delete them. Given that many of these texts are easily accessible on the internet, readers can easily follow them up and read in a wider context. By all means add references to some serious interpretation of these primary texts but secondary literature should remain what it is: secondary. For this reason I endorse the call to reinstate the texts. As far as secondary literature is concerned, I would be interested in more precise references to Sykes and Jeremias, even if they are hardly up-to-date NT scholarship, the former not being a NT scholar and the latter having been dead for some time now. TwoWorlds 23:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that 'Two Worlds' thinks that this is the most scholarly way of addressing the issue (to provide short quotations from the Fathers); unfortunately it is not one shared either by most scholars or by WP guidelines. Secondary scholarship on the views of the Fathers is necessary. Packer who described the reformers as 'pioneers' in this field is one such; so, I would have thought is Stephen Sykes who wrote a book on the subject. Having worked with him in Ely when he was bishop I wonder at the description of him which implies that he is not an NT scholar - he went to St. John's Durham thereafter - he certainly has more Greek than most people I know. I am interested in the view that Jeremias is relegated through not being up to date. I do not think that Christians can easily defend the notion that the newer is better than the old. Some of Jeremias's work, notably on the parables, has been put in question but he remains a giant in the field of NT scholarship. I am sure that Two Worlds can read the whole of Sykes short book on the Atonement. It would be a mistake, I think, to simply quote a short text. Can I urge Two Worlds to look at the WP guidelines? They are intended to prevent those who, in this field, have little Latin and less Greek to suppose that they can encompass the thought, for instance, Aquinas or Athanasius when there are notoriously tricky issues to be faced.

What we have here is, of course, a political issue. The spat between Dean Jeffrey John of St. Albans and the bishops of Willesden, Lewes and Durham is one more skirmish in the battle between evangelicalism and liberal catholicism. Those who defend PS sometimes suggest that it is the only true view and that those who do not hold it hold to a defective doctrine of the faith. Their opponents understandably bridle at this. An article must not take sides but it will have to notice the character of the skirmish (or the attempts through ARCIC, for instance, to reconcile them. (I still await substantive rebuttals of Packer's view). Roger Arguile 09:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Packer is saying that there was nothing prior to the reformation -merely that it was at this time that PSA was most fully articulated. In that sense the reformers were pioneers. But the point of the earlier texts is that there is a significant scholarly position (note endorsed by Packer and others with regards to recent studies) that argues that PSA type thinking can be traced back through the fathers. You are welcome to cite sources that show a disagreement on that interpretation but not to ignore that body of opinion completely as you seem to want to do. (Be Dave 10:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

Just to clarify the issues (please say if I'm wrong!):

• Roger believes that the arguments on Church Father PS ideas are not encyclopaedic, and therefore should be deleted. This opinion is based on the fact that only one scholar appears to have made the argument. I'd like to ask one question here: What would it take to convince Roger that it's encyclopaedic?
• POV -- I'm presuming from the text above that this is due to a representation of one side of certain arguments, but not others. If this is correct, can we do one of two things:
  • Tag just the appropriate sections with {{NPOV-section}}
  • Create sections for the counter-arguments, and mark them as stubs

HTH, -- TimNelson 13:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What it will take is some evidence of a body of opinion which has taken on serious patristic scholars and addresses their points. Just for example J.N.D. Kelly in his Early Christian doctirnes (p. 375) makes the point that, whereas the doctrines of the Trinity and Christology were worked out over the first four centuries, the nature of Christ's redeeming work was not the subect of such scrutiny until (of course) Anselm. As he says, a variety of ideas can be found sometimes in the same author, sometimes unrelated, sometimes incompatible. He cites three major ideas a) that Christ transformed our nature by beocming human (Ireneaus) ('As in Adam etc..). The second idea is the payment of a ransom to the devil )(cf. Aulen); thirdly there was the so-called realist theory, that Christ, by his suffering paid the price (!) reconciling man to God. That last is, of course, similar to the penal substitution theory. (Yes!) But, unlike the Trinity and the Person of Christ, there was never any formulation agreed or even put forward. Moroever, Kelly takes the line that there was no sense that any one 'theory' was needed and, insofar as there is a common thread it is that of Recapitulation (from Ireneaus), the idea that Christ is not substitute but representative of the human race (As in Adam...again!). In Athanasius, this is worked out in terms of the Markan term 'ransom', not a penal concept.

There really isn't much evidence of the ideas similar to that of penal substitution being more than one of a parcel of ideas. As soon as it becomes dominant, or exclusive, it exposes itself to Socinius' criticism which ,as Packer notes, held theologians in thrall for three hundred years. Packer's attempt to get out of it is to reach for the notions of 'mystery' and 'analogy', causing Stephen Sykes to note that Packer clearly believes that the idea of Penal Substitution is metaphorical.

If I have given the impression that I regarded PS as not present (as an 'idea') I am sorry. (Whoops! looking above, I have done so**^; what it was NOT was a theory - as such it was, as historical phenomenon, a sixteenth century coinage). What I am opposed to is the contention that one can detect a thread going through Patristic writing which the modern Theseus can retrieve to get him/herself out of the maze. I would like the chance to set out the above argument in the article, adding the biblical material on which, of course, everything is founded. But it is necessary to set out the theory is a strong form (Calvin and co.) while looking at the criticisms of Socinius, Packer, Lampe, Sykes and co. I really believe it is not good enough to set out a series of short quotations, either patristic or biblical. The quality of WP articles on theological matters must be as high as they are in physics and other sciences.

I am less concerned with the minutiae of protocols than with having a clear article well researched and sourced. I note that several people say they have read Packer; I am surprised that they do not note his caveats about PS when it assumed the status of an articulated theory. Roger Arguile 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I would want to distinguish between PS a) as a 'narrative' or 'idea' or'metaphor'; b) as a doctrine and c) as a theory d) as a historical phenomenon. a) is found in the Fathers, interwoven with others and not dominant, according to Kelly; it is a fair description of Packer according to Sykes; b) is absent from the historic formularies of the Church ie the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds but is found in the formularies of some churches; it is this against which Socinius argues c) dates from Calvin as against Anselm, Abelard, Aulen etc. d) dates from the Reformation and is the subject of current debate not least because it is argued (b)) to be the only proper interpretation of Christ's saving work. Roger Arguile 16:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger Arguile - I would be interested to see how you distinguish between "narrative", "metaphor", "theory" and "doctrine". Such a distinction may well be the way forward. Maybe we are in much more agreement than you suggest. I for one agree that the metaphor/idea of "penal substitution" is just one of "a parcel of ideas" in the early church and I do not deny at all that something happens when this idea/metaphor is developed into a narrative doctrine and given central place in a system of thoughts. The way forward seems to me not to deny that "penal substitution" has been around for rather longer than some think but to explain more carefully what precisely is new is later theology, maybe along the lines you suggest here. By the way, I have not denigrated the scholarship of Stephen Sykes, I have merely pointed out that his scholarship is not in the area of New Testament. Neither have I said that we should not be still reading Jeremias (in fact, I have asked you for a precise reference) but merely hinted at the fact that he has been dead for nearly thirty years now. Where in the WP guidelines does it say that secondary sources are better than primary sources? The guidelines warn against providing extensive extracts. The short citations which are there at present seem to me fine and, as I have pointed out, they can be read easily in their wider context by going to other web sites. TwoWorlds 13:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Church Fathers

I have returned a section citing the quotations from Church Fathers -making it clear that these are quotations used by Penal Substitution advocates. I have not provided any original research or POV by making an attempt at an interpretation myself. Can I encourage editors to continue in this collegiate spirit. Instead of deleting information improve on it. Add data re sources used to rebutt the PSA use of these texts -but don't ignore the fact that PSA advocates are using these texts. (Be Dave 11:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

Please tell us who these PSA advocates are and what warrant they have. PSA as as a historical phenomenon - and as an verbal coinage - does not predate the Reformation. No one has claimed that it did. As to whether the many ideas surrounding PSA can be found earlier - in the Fathers, no one thought they could earlier than the last few years. Of course PSA is attributed by its advocates to the a NT origin. But the vast body of Patristic scholarship is against the current contention. I shall not delete, but it will be necessary to replace. It simply won't do as it is.Roger Arguile 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Extracts from Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the Atonement Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004). "It would be anachronistic to search for carefully articulated theories of the atonement among the early Fathers. Throughout this period the various strands of thought continued side by side, often in the writings of one and the same author." Anselmian themes were present in the early Church "and at times they were remarkably emphatic." (159) "The idea of substitutionary suffering is fairly common in the early Church" and not limited to Christ’s death. Nevertheless: "The notion of substitution is, of course, often associated particularly with the idea that Christ takes our place in his death, undergoing the wrath of God on our behalf. Thus, the cross becomes a place where sin is judged and punished, a place where God satisfies his justice or his wrath." "The idea of Christ suffering the curse of the Law is often intimately associated with the scholastic Reformed tradition that began to develop in the late sixteenth century. But penal substitution as such was not a Calvinist invention. Among the early Church fathers, we find references to the penal character of the cross." (160) "There are elements in Irenaeus, for instance, that point beyond recapitulation of Adam’s life… Irenaeus even appears to assume that Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross is propriatory in character and so is meant to deal with the wrath of God." (161). What is new is the dominance this motif gains in some traditions. TwoWorlds 14:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger Arguile - there have been some influential proponents of the claim that PSA ideas were absent prior to Anselm or Calvin or whoever but "vast body of Patristic scholarship"? As Irenaeus has been mentioned just now, have a look at your copy of Kelly, p. 174, "propitiating for us the Father against Whom we had sinned". Again, no-one suggests that this was a major, let alone dominant motif (which is one reason why it does not tend to be discussed much in brief overviews of the period). But which patristic scholar argues that it was entirely absent? TwoWorlds 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC) By the way, Kelly points out that Irenaeus is here "echoing traditional language". TwoWorlds 14:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reformation

I have added a somewhat vague statement under background which seeks to acknowledge that PSA is more prominent in the Reformed tradition - the bracketed "later" is there (a) because of the disagreement about Luther cited later in the article and (b) because I am unaware of any real controversy over PSA during the Reformation period. Has anyone studied Trent? I don't think much more needs to be said on the Reformers in this paragraph (Background), or Anselm for that matter, but a little more maybe and then a fuller explanation further down in the article. Any takers? TwoWorlds 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Different Christian traditions

It may be worth noting that you won't get much PSA in the Catechism of the Catholic Church but I have not come across any Roman Catholic (or even Orthodox) rebuttal of PSA. Surely there is disagreement about the place of the doctrine (metaphor?) within Christian theology but has anyone knowledge of substantial disagreement? (I am of course thinking of serious theological debate rather than the kind of polemic one might get in church papers and on blogs.)TwoWorlds 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Apart from Socinius there is also, rather more recently, Hastings Rashdall, among scholars. I think that much of the difficulty is that, as I indicated the Creeds contain no doctrine of the atonement. Moreover, many of the words used both in Scripture and subsequently - sacrifice, satisfaction, ransom, expiation, propitiation,redemption, reconciliation - have no flavour of the law courts. For this reason, many Christians simply cannot see that PS is more than another picture and a metaphor at that (Sykes The Story of the Atonement p. 52). Further, as the baptist writer Paul Fiddes points out, much talk of the work of Christ fails to deal adequately with how it works out in the life of the believer. The sense that all has, in principle been done, may satisfy those who believe in election/predestination (which of course, Calvin did) but for the rest of us, while we can see the logic of the Calvinist opinion, we feel that without noticing the doctrine of sanctification not enough has been said. We think that the Calvinist position is a huge mistake and that the over emphasis on the law court substitution is quite wrong. Having said that, the article must give as good an account as it can but it must notice that most Christians do not take it tout court as we are bidden by some evangelicals. Roger Arguile 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Calvin

I am aware that my insertion of material on Calvin has mucked up the order temporarily. At present the article dodges all over the place so that it is hard to fit new material in. I hope to assist with re-ordering before too long. Roger Arguile 10:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope to edit the material on Anselm so that it call goes in one place. Roger Arguile 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Re ordering

I have re-ordered material and excised Aquinas. I hugely admire thomas but the quotation does not come from the section in the Summa on Redemption but on human sinfulness. I have tried to be faithful to the arguments now running in favour of PS cf. modern conroversyRoger Arguile 11:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

POV on PS debate

This section raises questions and then answers them but assumes that the answers, very often quotations, are adequate and cites no one hostile to the position. I have included Dillistone in the rest of the text but while he is, for instance, sypathetic to Calvin the man, he sees little to sustain PS in the light of modern jurisprudence and confusion between different concepts of law. Modern evangelical authors are cited at the expense of others of different points of view. I have attempted to respond to the opinions of those who see PS in the early church though I think the section still unbalanced.Roger Arguile 12:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A few comments

Sorry, I know I got quite into this article a while ago and then pretty much dissapeared - really, I'd like to do some more reading before contributing much, and indeed I'm getting Stephen Sykes' "The Story of Atonement", but I do have a few comments to make.

Firstly, interesting relevent reading to this is Tom Wright's The Cross and the Caricatures, in which he responds to Jeffrey John's recent comments, and Pierced for Our Transgressions. I don't think I agree with everything he says - like Wright normally, he's worth reading and wrestling with, but I often disagree with him. However, he does state of Pierced for our transgressions that:

it firmly and decisively knocks on the head an old canard which is repeated yet again in a letter in the Church Times (20 April 2007, p. 13): that 'penal substitution' was invented by Anselm and developed by Calvin, and that it excludes and even contradicts other ideas, not least the 'Christus Victor' theme. Over against this, J, O and S offer a catena of passages from Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Gelasius of Cyzicus, Gregory the Great, and Thomas Aquinas. Of course, some will object to some of their exegesis; but (to look no further) the fact that both Athanasius and Augustine have to explain that it is not self-contradictory to think of God, in his love, propitiating his own wrath by sending his own Son, shows both that they were saying substantially the same as more recent advocates of substitution have done, and that they were already meeting the objections that much more modern anti-substitution writers have raised.

Wright, of course, is primarily a biblical scholar, not a scholar of church history, but he is well read in this topic and I would be quite surprised if he said this kind of thing with this kind of strength with the entire scholarly community against him. I've come across a few other names recently, but nothing solid. The history of this doctrine is not an area I'm very well read in, I'm afraid - I know a bit but have not read as widely as I hope. Hopefully I'll do some more now, but my main interest atm is trinity, so we'll see how much I do.

Secondly, I suspect that Roger may have a rather narrower definition of the doctrine than the rest of us. However, I've had to really rush the last two paragraphs because I'm going to a friend's birthday, so I'll be back later! TJ 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends on who the rest of us are. I have been careful to quote my references among whom F.W. Dillistone is numbered. Dillistone (and Sykes) both have the virtue of clarity, the former especially with reference to Calvin. In relation to Wright, I do not know that anyone thought that Anselm 'invented' the doctrine. Au contraire, his background is feudal not legal. Wright's comments on Augustine and Athanasius are pretty uncontroversial. As for the paradoxical nature of the claims, that is another story altogether and one which needs to be faced. But I suggest that anyone who wants to engage reads Dillistone (and Daube?) first.Roger Arguile 18:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I have the spare cash to shell out for Dillistone right now (that'll show me for being a full time voluntary worker!), but I'll take that under advisement for the future. It also doesn't look very easy to get hold of him - he looks to be out of print.

The idea that Anselm 'invented' the doctrine is, to my knowledge, pretty much rejected by people who have studied the problem enough to write it, but I've heard it from time to time, largely in popular circles, but I think I recall even one of my lecturers of Christian theology repeated it. I've certainly heard it a fair few times.

By 'the rest of us', I guess I was meaning the kind of definition of the doctrine promoted in evangelical churches today - ie that Jesus' death was substitutionary, "he died in our place" (which is only a hairs breadth away from being representative, and indeed I would believe in both of them), and that it was penal - a concept that it was satisfying a 'need' for justice inherent in the character of God (rather than say something to do with 'the universe is set up so that suffering is caused by sin, but God doesn't cause it') - i.e. Jesus took the just consequences of our actions, because God decreed both the punishment and the loving 'solution to the punishment' (to use words very loosely because I want to be quick.

Basically, the point I don't quite get is that you're suggesting that because there's nothing of a "law court", various figures don't promote penal substitution. While it's true that various figures have used law court analogies, and thought things through in ways relevant to them, I don't think many modern figures have done so. E.g. say I'm not aware that Stott's The Cross of Christ uses law court analogy, and certainly when I (if I may use a teacher as inexperienced as myself as a representative teacher of this doctrine) have taught this doctrine, I haven't used any such thing, either mentally or in my writing. Possibly - and I may well be misinterpreting you on this - you may be interpreting the 'penal' in a different sense to which we are.

I have to warn you, BTW, that I'm really busy ATM and may not reply quickly - am busy next few evenings, and I have a lot of non-work 'work' to do, so I may not have time. But this is an interesting topic. And one where I do not know enough, so which should hopefully do me good. TJ 22:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This where we have to become more specific. We are not dealing with something as identifiable as a bicycle but with a cluster of ideas epxpressed fdifferently by diffeent people. One reason why Calvin (not Anselm) is creditted with having articuluted (not invented) the idea of PS is that he did so in a very specific way related to the criminal law. In that sense he was a pioneer (as Packer says) and it is not a canard (Wright) that he did so. When talking about ideas the context is vital. Just as Anselm's background (or foreground) was feudalism, so Calvin's was a) the criminal law and b) the questioning through a particular reading of scripture of the complex of worship and behaviour required by the Roman Catholic church.ie the Reformation. Calvin is reading the Old Testament in the light of his understanding of law. His achievement in distinguishing between the moral law, the ceremonial law and the judicial law is huge (which is one reason why I cannot for the lifeof me understand why there is so much skirmishing about a) the Fathers and b) the recent controversy while omitting reference to Calvin.

However, while 'penal' means punishment (administered by lawful authority and therefore distinguished from revenge, war etc.) the context alters. Old Testament law operated very differently from Roman imperial law and from 16th. French law. This part of the problem. Nevertheless some forum, earthly or heavenly must be supposed in any penal set of ideas and this is where the problem, in the view of some, arises.

But finally, as Packer says, the point of the exercise of scholarship is kerygmatic ie. about preaching the gospel. That means returning to Scripture; but some parts of Scripture are more accessible than others and some ways of preaching the gospel are easier than others. Hence Dillistone's argument.

What has not yet been done and needs to be done is a) looking at the Biblical words such as expiation and propitiation and b) answered Paul Fiddes' point about the effects of Christ's saving work however understood on you and me. (Back to Packer and the kerygma).Roger Arguile 07:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: in the above quoted article by Tom Wright, he makes two interesting points, which I as an uninvolved bystander, merely note. First he says that there are many models of penal substitution(!) but also that he regards 'Pierced for our Transgressions' as 'deeply unbiblical'. I have not read the book but those who have endorsed it uncritically may now hesitate. Finally, as I have indicated, Wright himself is obvious writing at speed: there may be canards about but not from Packer; 'invented' is not what what reputable scholars say. As for what the rest of us say, we are of no weight and need not be quoted. I think we have some way to go to get out of the fog; but I wish the evangelicals would not behave as if they owned the turf. Roger Arguile 09:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be talking to myself here, but that's fine. Can I thank TJ for referring me to Tom Wright's 'The Cross and the Caricatures' from which I quote (blinking as I do so). '...though I have argued here and in many other places for something that can be called 'penal sustitution' I regard the 'Christus Victor' theme as the overarching one within which substituion makes its proeper point..' He is, I fear, scathing about 'Pierced for our Transgressions'. That may mean that he will be removed from some people's Christmas card list but I recommend reading this tirade - for that is what it is - as an encouragement to read the texts and argue the substance rather than engaging in loyalty games.Roger Arguile 10:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really time to reply, but the authors of PfoT have responded over here, and there's also (to my mind) a helpful critique of his piece over here. Wrights piece is thought provoking, but it's a shame it's so rude.

One thing I was surprised to discover through this whole thing - apprently Oak Hill are very fond of Wright's work. Presumably they'd talk of the Christus Victor motif in a different way (and, indeed, in many forms of what people mean by PSA - much of what people mean by Christus Victor seems to be internal to that form of PSA. Packer says in PSA Jesus "won for us"... what do you win if not a victory.;) ) But that shows up a lot of the second and third hand preconceptions I've had of them in the past - perhaps I'll even consider studying there now!

This conversation is interesting, but perhaps not entirely on topic, so please shout at me if anyone gets annoyed by my tangents! TJ 10:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent Controversy

I have removed this section following reading Tom Wright's price (above) which offers an entirely different account of Steve Chalke's book which he endorsed. In any case, current events are probably not approriate in an article on a subject long debated.Roger Arguile 10:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why -I will replace it perhaps with some reference to Wright next week. It shouldn't be removed because it has been the most significant element in the PSA debate recently -indeed the cataylst for a number of books out on the subject and Chalke is the main person blaming it all on Anslem. Whilst Wright interprets Chalke as pro penal substitution, he is on record in writing as disagreeing with penal substitution. Wright refers to private conversations which have not been made public. As for his comments on PFOT -well he seems to have read a different book to me and to accuse the endorsers of doing so uncritically is a fairly big charge to make -if you read the endorsers you will see that they are not doing it uncritically -see I Howard Marshall on limited atonement and the head of OMF on the book's usefulness to the missionary (Be Dave 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

More on historical thought

Roger, thanks yu've obviously been working hard on this. I think though that there was a strong feeling among editors that direct quotes from fathers using psa language should be included in the article -especially the article clearly shows how secondary sources are using them. We are reduced to one comment from Augustine. Let's get the quotations back in there. (Be Dave 06:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate tht there was a feeling that quotations were useful. I would resist it since without an understanding of the complexity of the thought world of the Fathers what is written is bound to be misleading. The present skirmishing over the book Pierced for our Transgressions indicates that there is in fact no clear agreement as to what constitutes PS language; Tom Wright raised some questions about it in his recent piece on the book. Frankly, those who are not well read in the Fathers are not well qualified to insert material. We are in danger, in this electronic world, of forgetting that the huge weight of scholarship of past ages is more likely to yield some understanding than a couple of weeks of electronic exchanges. In any case, one ought to distinguish: Augustine's thought is important though, from my conversations with a specialist, not easily yielding soungbites; Eusebius is a historian - and possibly an Arian - Gregory has a very different stance from Augustine, whom he predates by a hundred years; it simply is unscholarly to set out a list, no matter what the few contributors think.Roger Arguile 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger, should I ask someone who is well read in the fathers to supervise the inserting -then. The "Tom Wright skirmishing does not infact show problems deciding what is PS language. Indeed Wright has said that one of the good things about the book is that it nails the lie that PS goes back only to Anselm. Please trust other editors and readers to read, think and edit intelligently. No-one is advocating just a list of quotes although from both a scholarly and legal point of view you assertion that this is not permissable (what wikipedia likes is a different matter) is highly contestable (yes I'm qualified to comment on this!). -sorry this was by me unsigned in at the time and ammended today.(Be Dave 20:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Tom Wright fortunately does not use the word 'lie' but rather 'canard'. Nailing lies is a very unhelpful way of putting things and evidences my concern; otherwise Dr. Packer becomes a liar -'pioneer' is his word and can be looked up in any dictionary. Likewise I do not recall using the word word 'impermissable'; rather I am concerned that it is not made clear how the various quotations match. "Be Dave" might be helped by looking at the section in the article on the Bible where the use of texts in the Fathers is noted. Whatever the contestability of anything, muddle is not good scholarship. That there was a list of quotations without scholarly exposition is the case; that the webite for the book 'Pierced for Transgressions' cites a list of quotations of different significance without stating the context or noting the views of those who disagree can still be seen and read; that even modern writers mix metaphors can easily be demonstrated. If this is proper scholarship, I am dismayed. Tom Wright certainly raises the point that there are different models of PS and that the word 'sacrifice' needs some explication (in his article The Cross and the Caricatures). I am not qualified to judge the appropriateness of his judgements on the book which are, on the whole, pretty negative (because I have not read it, though on the basis of Wright's jdugement I am not encouraged to do so). His remark about the so-called classic doctrine being the whole of which PS is a part )(I am not quoting) is fascinating.

As for WP editors, they range hugely in their background knowledge as we all know; if they do not demonstrate a good background knowledge of the subject we have to take this into account. Finally, I am not sure what it is hoped to achieve. That the Fathers' accounts were unsystematic is agreed by most people; that they wrote about 'redemption' is stted in the article; that the matter became a battleground only in the middle ages and the early modern period is largely accepted and stated; that Calvin, Luther and their opponents articulated the arguments forcibly is stated; that the matter has arisen again is mentioned. I am not sure what "Be Dave" wants. If what is wanted is a recognition that the PS lies at the heart of Christian understanding of the Atonement if only everyone could be made to accept this, then that amounts to a Point of View which is certainly not neutral. Roger Arguile 11:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this: As for WP editors, they range hugely in their background knowledge as we all know; if they do not demonstrate a good background knowledge of the subject we have to take this into account. Just how should that affect the implementation of wikipedian policies? (Jimbo Wales has stated that he thinks it should not.)

According to Wright, PfoT does detailed exegesis of the Fathers, rather than the website which simply lists passages as a reference. It is written by three authors with PhD's, and the accompanying study skills - while two of them do not have PhD's in theology, they do have some degree of theological training, and any PhD doctor will tell you that what a PhD teaches you isn't knowledge of the field, but how to research at that level. So they're pretty competent to write scholarly work (especially when scholarly work is often written by graduate students anyway).

As for the strength of Wright's reaction to PfoT - Wright is very often stronger in his criticism towards conservative evangelicals in anglicanism than he is towards liberals, etc (as people often are towards people closer to them in beliefs, while still notably different), and when he effectively said that he wasn't being balanced about PfoT within that piece. Furthermore, many of his stated reasons seem pretty flimsy to me, and have been easily answered by the PfoT response.

Which isn't necessarily to say that there should be a list of quotes - I don't see a compelling case that there should be at all - but I do disagree with a lot of the things you said in that section. TJ 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my "that section" above referred to your comments on the talk page, rather than the article itself. It wasn't intended as an attack at all, although Roger seems to have taken it as such. TJ 08:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Injustice?

I appreciate your desire to put a point over, but the fact is that the paragraph constitutes an argument. It also repeats the description of what PS is which should go at the top of the article. It does not meet the points made earlier about concepts of justice and their relationship to culture (David Daube and Dillistone) If the point is to be made it should be made there. The criticisms of PS made by Socinus, you have repeated and also to repeat Packer's comment on it which is in the article already. I am not sure of the reason for the repetition. The Packer quotation is of course a reprint of his article in 1973 which is already quoted at length and Packer is allowed to speak for himself in the original article. That is why this section is unnecessary as well as repeating one side of the argument but not the other. The points made do not add to the argument. For that reason I have removed them. Roger Arguile 13:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to put a point over - please stop attributing unworthy motivations to those who disagree with you. I honestly have no interest in misrepresenting the case. I am aware you have already effectively called me a liar ("disingenuous") on my talk page, and refused to withdraw your offensive untruth - that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but if you must hold that private view, do not publicly announce it on this forum - it is against the rules of wikipedia to do so. Do not accuse us of bad faith until WP:assume good faith entitles you to. (It'd be nice if you'd just give us the benefit of the doubt in your head, since I am absolutely certain that your opinions about the state of my mind are utterly wrong, for whatever reason - but the policies of wikipedia don't require anything there.)

the fact is that the paragraph constitutes an argument - only in the sense that the policies of wikipedia require paragraphs that constitute arguments to be included. Wikipedia requires

The fact is, this section refers to a specific argument that isn't included in the rest of the article. The article includes the arguments against penal substitution re injustice, but not the main arguments that the proponents of PSA use - which are not generally talking about the nature of language when talking about God. There are related concepts in the rest of the article, but they're not going to be picked up by anyone who isn't already quite familiar with the subject. TJ 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you are upset. I do not think you a liar and have made no suggestions that you are; my understanding of the word 'disingenuous' is that it is not a euphemism for the telling of untruths of which I am sure you are innocent. I forbear from making any further comment. You may be unaware but you put your request on your own talkpage, not on mine or the article's; it wa therefore only by chance that I came across it. I do not accuse you of bad faith. I do however think that your edit was a duplication - as I said. There is material from Packer already there in defence of his more subtle view. I think, to be honest, that he already has enough coverage without repetition. Roger Arguile 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're getting the brunt of my irritability at the minute due to things that are not your fault. I am increasingly wondering whether it might be better for me to avoid talking to people I don't know over the internet at the minute. The internet brings out the worst of people at the best of times (... at least, I hope it's bringing out the worst of other people - there are some really nasty people I've met here! (not you!) ), so it may well not be wise for me to continue editing right now, when frankly it's not the best of times for my irritability (although not to such an extent that it excuses it at all.)

I'm glad that you don't think I'm a liar, although to be honest I'm not aware of any meanings that the word disingenuous could carry that don't imply some form of deception or bad faith. It is my experience that it's fairly standard to respond to comments on your own talk page or on the other persons on wikipedia - I tend to prefer my own since I find it easier to follow conversations that way.

I think it's worth noting that my edit was simply a reversion of your deletion; I did not write this section, and indeed would probably have written it differently if I had (and indeed I would like to edit it if I had the chance). It is arguably the case that using Packer specifically in that case is not best, but there are plenty of other writers who make the same point. Furthermore, it is common for wikipedia articles to rely on a smaller range of sources initially and then grow to have a wider range. TJ 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Disingenuous?

I am sorry you are out of sorts. I know the feeling. When I used the D word I was referring to your comment about the quality of editors. Ediotrs vary: some are vandals, some are highly effective scholars; then there are those of us who insert facts which turn out to be false; those who press a point of view; those who are more of less widely read than others; and so on. We all of us think we can improve on the work of others. In that sense we think we are better than they are. It did not use the word about your views - which, as you say, - are not known to me or about any content. I note your point about your having not written the piece but only reinserted it. I happen to think that Wright, in his article the Cross and the Caricatures, in the last section raises issues which need elucidating; but more on anotehr occasion. (Wha tyou say is a reminder of how important people's faces are in communication. That is why God became man! Roger Arguile 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was disputing that the quality of editors varies - what I was disputing was your statement that this should be "taken into account", which presumably means that one should treat the edits of an editor one respects better than the edits of one that one doesn't. This is contrary to wikipedia policies - and what's more, it's just not helpful, since we all have our biases and are more inclined to listen to those we agree with than those we don't.

I do think that Wright raises some interesting points in that section, but I also think that the authors of PfoT really did make some valid criticisms of his critique in their response to it. I just started writing a long paragraph about why that was, before realising it's probably not a good idea to rant on that right now! I do think that Wrights comments are both, a) interesting and worth listening to, and b) rather unfair on conservative evangelicals, who he doesn't appear to understand very well. (I do sympathise, though, with him re the latter, given speculations I have about why the latter might be the case - having spoken to some CE's who come into contact with him as part of his ministry as a bishop, my guess is they don't show their best light to him, so he's bound to have a worse view of them than a broader experience would mandate, and also to get quite irritated by him. Sadly, like in so many areas, the politics of church life brings out by far the worst in people - and then leads to commentators etc who don't understand them talking about them as if they were much worse than they are!)

I'm not sure how much I'm going to be around in the near future, since I've been fairly rubbish at keeping up with this even at the best of times, and I am not at my best at the moment (although there really isn't any particularly good reason for that). Nonetheless, this is a fairly interesting conversation that's been helpful, and it's been interesting to edit this article, so I'll try hard to contribute too. TJ 23:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

Removed the following from the page as POV

"At present it is largely an argument between Evangelicals, the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright and the authors of the book 'Pierced for our Trangressions' and others associated with Oak Hill Theological College, though the dismissal of the doctrine of penal substitution on moral grounds by the Anglican Catholic Dean of St. Albans, Dr. Jeffrey John, in a broadcast talk during Holy Week has drawn fire in his direction." (Be Dave 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Which point of view does it support? I do not know. Roger Arguile 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger -it is the opinion of the author who entered it in who has made a decision for themselves that the debate concerns one Theological College. (193.63.62.252 13:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

I am having trouble with the syntax. It is a fact that Oak Hill has become a focus of the debate, not an opinion. I do not know if 193.63.62.252 lives in England. If he or she does not, he or she will not know that the question of what contribution Oak Hill has made, malign or beneficial, to English theological education, is very much part of the problem. I was the editor who inserted the section; I had read the books, blogs etc.; it did relate both the Steve Chalke's book, and to Jeffrey John. But again unregistered editors who do not identify themselves should really take the trouble to register so that we know that they not some previous correspondent using another machine. It is a privilege for 193.63.62.252 to call me 'Roger' while I have to correspond with a person who reveals nothing. Perhaps the substance of Christian behaviour should animate those who choose to enter debates in which non-believers are unlikely to have an interest. But I may be wrong.....Roger Arguile 13:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger apologies -I was the user -I forgot to sign in -although -note that Wikipedia does get passing visitors so please be welcoming to them and assume goodfaith on other users part they are entitled not to register and there is really no need to write a story on everything! The question of Oak Hill's contribution to English theological education is completely irrelevant to a the article. There are a number of authors writing on the subject with connections to different theological institutions -that again is your point of view. Oak Hill is no more the focus of this debate than any other subject that its members write on. Indeed no more than the institution that held the symposium on the subject a couple of years ago. But the article did not say that the instituiton was the focus of the debate -rather that the debate was limited to an argument between Tom Wright and the authors of PFOT -not only POV but factually incorrect.(Be Dave 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

Be Dave has not quite read the article, as deleted clearly. It did not say that the debate was exclusively between the above mentioned parties. That Oak Hill is heavily involved is very clear both from email traffic and letters in Church newspapers. It is quite important to read articles carefully. But there is nothing partial about a description (POV); it is accurate or not. On the whole I think that referring people to the role of Oak hill is more helpful than not.Roger Arguile 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Anslem

Sorry to return to Anslem -but the statement that it wasn't until him that redemption was seriously discussed is incorrect. Whether other authors were using PSA vocabularly or not may (doubtfully) be up for discussion, what is not is that authors such as Athanasius, Augustine and others were seriously advocating how redemption happened. However the section is now slightly difficult to unpick (Be Dave 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

I am not sure what 'Be Dave'is saying. J.N.D. Kelly and others deal with the Work of Christ in the early fathers. Of course he does and so do they. No one for a brief moment said that they did not. However, to say that Athanasius and co. were 'seriously advocating how redemption happened' is only correct insofar as it is one way of saying that they were concerned with the work of Christ, but there is already a difficulty. 'Redemption' is a proper biblical word which derives of course from the freeing of slaves, not at all from the world of the law court. Ancient authors did not use the word 'penal'. That comes from Calvin, and it is simply anachronistic to behave like a prospector panning for gold in ancient streams looking for signs of PS. Many people think that PS is not gold at all. Moreover, 'redemption' is one picture and not one which fits in easily with penal substitution (which is what the article is about). Please can 'Be Dave' read, if he has not, Dillistone and earlier authors before attempting any 'unpicking'? ( or Hodges or Maurice Wiles or any scholars who represent the breadth of Christian writing on this rather than only those for whom PS is the gold standard). Roger Arguile 11:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overemphasising how far 'penal' is used today to mean "related to law-court analogies". PSA generally means something more like "Jesus was our substitute, punished in our place." While that can quite easily be seen in relation to punishment in the law court, there's also a number of other contexts in which punishment can occur, and very few modern evangelical writers (in my experience) use law-court analogies at all.

Furthermore, I think that Be Dave wasn't using the term "redemption" to necessarily mean "penal substitution", and perhaps it was a slightly sloppy usage of language - but pretty much all of us fall into that when dealing with theology. I would interpret him as saying something like "perhaps we can debate whether or not PSA was held, but it's pretty clear that they discussed and cared about what the work of Christ on the cross was". I think that's a correct interpretation.

If it is, my view on it is that it's true to some extent, but it's also the case that doctrines about the cross weren't as carefully well developed as say doctrines about the trinity were at the time - and it's also fairly clear that they became increasingly developed through increased scrutiny over time. TJ 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but wht many of us find hard is to know what PS means unless as with Calvin it IS tied to the law courts. Calvin was very clear that the judicial process before Pilate was crucial. If one follows TJ's words ie"Jesus was our substitute, punished in our place", many people have no trouble with substitution, though they may argue about what it means - the words 'for us' are essential (and are in the Creeds, as well as the Bible) but the word 'punish' indicates a legitimate action, as distinct from 'revenge' etc. and the primary locus of punishment is the law court (which is also where the word 'justification' comes from). If those who are keen on PS care to tell us what PS is about if it is not to be conceived in terms which Calvin would understand we should be helped. As for 'redemption', it is either a very general umbrella term or it belongs in the slave market. I know that words change their meanings but those who insist on PS presumably know what it means and what it does not. As for Paul Fiddes, no one has yet taken up his considerable challenge (found also in Maurice Wiles - the Remaking of Christian Doctrine) about the problem of the notion of 'once for all'. The trouble is still that I do not notice other than a narrow range of scholars being noticed.

Can someone tell me where it is suggested in the article that the Fathers were not concerned with what difference Christ made? Roger Arguile 12:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

bias

As one of the early editors of this page I was surprised to find that much of the earlier content has been deleted and replaced with content that is in contrast very one sided. The only objection listed is Soccinus (who is a favorite of Calvinists to list in an ad hominem kind of way), when there have been over the years many objections to penal substitution, even among its advocates. All of that context is now gone, and it has been replaced with content that reads not like a wikipedia article, but like a very one sided argument in favor of penal substitution written by a single author. I propose that this article needs a major overhaul with an attempt at some objectivity.

As to the above discussion on penal substitution, what is being missed here imho is that while the early church believed in substitutionary atonement, they did so within the context of Christus Victor not penal substitution. Simply finding themes of vicariousness and bearing punishment in the fathers does not equal penal substitution which is rooted in the idea of God's wrath being appeased through vicarious punishment. That idea is absent in the church fathers, and instead we have substitution understood in the context of ransom, which becomes plain if the entire work of Athanasius or Augustine is read instead of simply cheery picking as the authors of "pierced for our transgressions" do. Sharktacos (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve Chalke/Recent Controversy

I reverted a recent change in the article that added several paragraphs on Steve Chalke's criticism(s) of the PSA view. While it might be worthwhile to include Chalke's criticisms, none of the sources were WP:V - they were all blog posts from Chalke critics/"apologetics" sites (quotes intentional). The money quote from Chalke has been the comparison of some presentations of PSA to "divine child abuse", and there have been interviews/clarifications since that was written. While I think it would be valuable to note this in the article, I don't think it needs to be long, or to include a full rebuttal.--Lyonscc (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I edited the section on Chalke to remove the reference to Socinus, as well as making it more accurate (proving his full quote). Chalke's comments have nothing to do with Socinus whatsoever. If anything Chalke is referencing the famous statement made by feminist theologian Rita Nakashima Brock that the cross is "divine child abuse" (which, one should note, he is disagreeing with). Implying that the debate among evangelicals over penal substitution is connected to the arguments of Socinus amounts to "guilt by association" since Socinus was regarded as a heretic, and thus shows bias which is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. The arguments by evangelicals against penal substitution are characteristically based on an appeal to Scripture, just as those in favor of it are. Sharktacos (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The quote from Chalke and Mann (2003) is from page 182, not page 16, I have the book here in front of me.

Overview

I edited a portion of the overview, making it in line with the detailed sections that follow. In particular, it now stresses that penal substitution is an atonement theory particular to Calvinism (and perhaps Protestantism more broadly), and is not a view that is accepted by the Catholic or Orthodox churches (both have repeatedly rejected the Calvinist understanding of PSA). I believe these are very uncontroversial statements of fact. However, because this is a very contested topic I wanted to provide a space here on the talk page to discuss in case anyone wishes to. Sharktacos (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

At present (9 July 2016) the overview is contradicted in the following two sub-sections: the former states that PS "is a theory... developed in the Reformed tradition", while the latter state "It is debated if the Church Fathers subscribed to this doctrine", and that PS is, according to its advocates, "rooted in the historical traditions of the Christian Church". If the article were written as a history of ideas, this problem might be ironed out, alongside the problem of using an encyclopedia page (here at Wikipedia) to engage in polemics of the form of writing "Advocates argue X (Bible citation) [no citation]".Stjohn316am (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Early Fathers

I reverted the removal of this sentence: "There is general agreement that no writer in the Early Church taught penal substitution as their primary theory of atonement." The quote by Justin Martyr does nothing to prove that he had PSA as "the primary theory of atonement." In fact, it is even debatable whether he had penalty substitution in mind. He wrote that Christ took the "curses," but curses are not synonymous with penalty. A person could take a curse upon himself without taking it as a penalty to pay. Anyways, whether Justin had PSA in mind when he wrote that still does not prove it was his primary view of atonement. Perhaps the quote by Justin could fit in somewhere else in the article, but it does not seem to warrant removal of the sentence. Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Corollary of vicarious liability to substitutionary atonement theology

The connection between vicarious liability made by William Lane Craig to penal substitution should be listed here, because it plays a big role in substitutionary atonement theology. Here is an example reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsNqBOAU1_s) 132.234.228.39 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation Overkill contains a section...

There's a section Wikipedia:Citation_overkill#In-article_conflict that specifically talks about one arguing for a POV. In this case, this overload of citations that I just undid was doing exactly that. Citing Oxenham's polemic work (a specifically Catholic theologian and non-historian) and Aulen who literally wrote the book on Christus Victor is biased. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Page number is incorrect for Chalke and Mann quote

The quote from Chalke and Mann (2003) is from page 182, not page 16, I have the book here in front of me.

Thanks. I don't have the book, but a Google search seems to support your "page 182" note. I've adjusted it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Plz subscribe

Please subscribe 223.233.125.60 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

External links

There are six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links.
• WP:ELCITE: access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)