In the above seven-part series, Warren McGrew (Idol Killer) reviews and attempts to debunk the seventeen claims of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). McGrew is joined by former podcaster and radio producer Paul Vendredi who identifies as Eastern Orthodox. Vendredi is very well-informed and posted seventy-seven episodes on the atonement between 2011 and 2016 on his website.1 My goal is to work through all seven episodes and hopefully present a credible challenge to some of the views outlined in this series.
Idol Killer's self-description: "Idol Killer is committed to spreading the Gospel and making disciples of Christ. We are dedicated to promoting classic orthodox Christian doctrine (pre-Augustinian) and in doing so exposing extra-Biblical corrupt philosophies and presuppositions."
McGrew is a former Calvinist, and while I congratulate him for leaving that twisted system, I have a number of issues with the above critique of PSA. Aspects of PSA were developed, or should I say distorted, by Augustine of Hippo (AD354-430), Anselm of Canterbury (AD1033-1109), and finally by the 16th-century Reformers (Charles Hodge AD1797-1878?). In all, PSA boasts seventeen claims. However, some of those claims do not align with the source material i.e. the scriptures and the Church Fathers. Having viewed a number of McGrew's videos, I agree with much of what he says about total depravity, limited atonement, original sin, and infant damnation. Some have taken PSA to ugly extremes, and the repulsive rhetoric relished by some Calvinist (Reformed) teachers is unspeakably wicked and I make no apology for calling them out. For instance, Voddie Baucham: "Babies are vipers in diapers"; James White's affirmation of infant damnation, RC Sproul: "We will be glad to see our own mother in hell"; Paul Washer: "Babies are totally depraved"; Calvin: "Babies are as depraved as rats".2
McGrew recounted that following his abandonment of Calvinism, he questioned many things, including the doctrine of PSA and the reason that Christ came and lived, died, and suffered. (22:00 mark) Worryingly, McGrew also subscribes to Open Theism aka Dynamic Omniscience. When I finally abandoned Pentecostalism, I began to reject all things charismatic and I questioned every aspect of their teaching. While I acknowledge that there are genuine believers within the charismatic movement, it is undeniable that a very high percentage of their teachers are dishonest and engage in fakery and lies as recently demonstrated by the exposures of Mike Bickle and Benny Hinn. I wonder whether McGrew has had a similar reaction following his departure from the Reformed camp? If so, has his aversion to Calvinism gone too far and caused him to reject some core doctrines of the faith?
PSA is ingrained within the Western Church and is regarded as a given. According to Mike Winger, to question PSA is to question the very foundation of Christianity itself: "(Penal substitutionary atonement) is the very meaning of the cross. It's how Jesus saves us.. It's a huge deal, it's the heart of Christianity."3
Winger's definition of PSA: "The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave Himself in the Person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin."3
Vendredi begins by defining two terms:
atonement is reparation for a wrong or an injury.
propitiation is to take someone who is not well disposed toward you and make them well disposed towards you by means of atonement.
While the above definitions are compatible with lexical definitions, the problem arises because Eastern Christianity does not view the death of Christ as an atonement, although confusingly it is referred to as such. Various non-western schools of thought refer to Christ's death in terms of restoration, cooperation (synergism), and "the restored icon model" which Vendredi goes on to explain. Essentially different groups use the same vocabulary but have a totally different understanding of the terms. The key to solving this dilemma is to understand what the scriptures mean by atonement and propitiation, and also how the Church Fathers understood the terms. The two occurrences of propitiation (ἱλασμός) in the New Testament are defined in Strong's Concordance as "a propitiation (of an angry god), atoning sacrifice. (1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10).. 2434 hilasmós – properly, propitiation; an offering to appease (satisfy) an angry, offended party. 2434 (hilasmós) is only used twice (1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) – both times of Christ's atoning blood that appeases God's wrath, on all confessed sin. By the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ provided the ultimate 2434 /hilasmós ('propitiation')."4 Two occurrences of propitiary (ἱλαστήριον) are found in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5: "(a) a sin offering, by which the wrath of the deity shall be appeased; a means of propitiation, (b) the covering of the ark, which was sprinkled with the atoning blood on the Day of Atonement."5
Among those who oppose PSA are Brian Zahnd and Steve Chalke, both of whom I regard as false teachers and do not intend to critique here. McGrew and Vendredi's challenge is based on the study of PSA based on their interpretation of the scriptures and the Church Fathers.
The view espoused by Vendredi (and presumably Mcgrew?) is Christus Victor (Latin for“Christ the Conqueror”). Briefly defined: God conquers evil and liberates humanity from the bondage of sin, death and the devil. Theopedia: "Christus Victor is a motif of divine rescue and liberation from the bondage of sin, death and the devil."6
The term "Christus Victor" is taken from a groundbreaking book published by Lutheran theologian Gustaf Aulén in 1931. Rather than understanding the scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers as a unified whole, Aulén deconstructed various aspects of the atonement of Christ into three primary interpretations in Christian history: Christus Victor, Satisfaction and Moral Influence. Aulén claimed that the Christus Victor model is the "classic idea of the atonement" articulated by the Church Fathers and the scriptures. The resulting disputations regarding the theology of the atonement rest primarily on Aulén's hypothesis. Aulén's critics describe his book as highly selective and unrepresentative of the source materials. Aulén's failure to appreciate the complimentary aspects of the crucifixion has resulted in the accusation that he created a false dichotomy with his either/or approach to the atonement.
Rekindle: "..his (Aulén's) handling of the Bible leaves much to be desired. It is selective to a fault, often overlooking key details that would broaden the atonement to include penal substitution (PSA). On the other hand, some of those passages that Aulén regularly cites make no mention of the devil (Romans 3; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5). For example, Aulén appeals at length to 2 Corinthians 5, but he omits any reference to 5:21, “For our sake [God] made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God”.7
The Church Fathers
Epistle to Diognetus (? AD130): 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 those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! (Epistle to Diognetus, 9.2–5).8
Justin Martyr (AD150-165): "For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses. Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.' Deuteronomy 27:26 And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God." {Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 95}9
Athanasius (AD300-375): "Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.." (chapter 2)
He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all.. (chapter 2)
But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression.. He died to ransom all... (chapter 4)10
But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression.. He died to ransom all... (chapter 4)10
Gregory of Nazainzus (AD329-390): "For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved." {Letters division 1)11 Vendredi links this sentence to what he refers to as "The Restored Icon Model" based Genesis 1:26 and The Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24 in the Septuagint. This view affirms that man is an icon of God that has become damaged. To repair this damage, God Himself assumes human flesh, uniting the entirety of human nature to his divinity. The Greek word in question is εἰκών (eikón): an image, i.e. lit. statue, fig. representation.12 While I have no argument with this model as far as it goes, Gregory of Nazianzus had more to say about the atonement:
"..as for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account. {Fourth Theological Oration (Oration 30)}13
'I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged Him, Him that had done you no wrong, Him that had done you good, that He exacted not justice, that He is first to beseech, though first outraged; let none of these things be set down at present. Ought ye not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing only that He has done to you now?' And what has He done? Him that knew no sin He made to be sin, for you. For had He achieved nothing but done only this, think how great a thing it were to give His Son for those that had outraged Him. But now He has both well achieved mighty things, and besides, has suffered Him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong. But he did not say this: but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is this? Him that knew no sin, he says, Him that was righteousness itself, He made sin, that is suffered as a sinner to be condemned, as one cursed to die. For cursed is he that hangs on a tree. Galatians 3:13 For to die thus was far greater than to die; and this he also elsewhere implying, says, Becoming obedient unto death, yea the death of the cross. Philippians 2:8 For this thing carried with it not only punishment, but also disgrace. Reflect therefore how great things He bestowed on you. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for any one whatever; but when He who undergoes this both is righteous and dies for sinners; and not dies only, but even as one cursed; and not as cursed [dies] only, but thereby freely bestows upon us those great goods which we never looked for; (for he says, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him;) {Homily 11 on Second Corinthians}14
Vendredi refers to John Chrysostom as a "blabbermouth" due to his voluminous writings. He continues: "I actually don't think that John Chrysostom's exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5:21 is all that bright." John Chrysostom's writings are wordy, voluminous and difficult to follow. Nevertheless, he does use unmistakable PSA language in this section of his writings.
I could quote more of the Church Fathers, but the above selection demonstrates that their writings contain elements of Christ's substitutionary death using penal language. While they had no systemized formula for the atonement, their focus was multifaceted. Anyone can quote fragments of the Church Fathers selectively to suit their own interpretation, but it is vital to take account of the overall picture of their writings, and as far as I can discern, elements of PSA is very much part of that picture.
To be continued.....
2. Evil & Depraved - The Reformed View of Children (youtube.com)
3.The Real History of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (youtube.com)
4. Strong's Greek: 2434. ἱλασμός (hilasmos) -- propitiation (biblehub.com)
5. Strong's Greek: 2435. ἱλαστήριον (hilastérion) -- propitiatory (biblehub.com)
6. Gustaf Aulen | Theopedia
7. A Broad Critique of Christus Victor | Rekindle
8. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to Diognetus (Mathetes) (newadvent.org)
9. CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr) (newadvent.org)
10. Chapter 2: The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation by Athanasius (blueletterbible.org)
11. CHURCH FATHERS: Letters, Division I (Gregory Nazianzen) (newadvent.org)
12. Strong's Greek: 1504. εἰκών (eikón) -- an image, i.e. lit. statue, fig. representation (biblehub.com)
13. CHURCH FATHERS: Fourth Theological Oration (Oration 30) (Gregory Nazianzen) (newadvent.org)
14. CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 11 on Second Corinthians (Chrysostom) (newadvent.org)
15. John Chrysostom & PSA - Answering Mike Winger E4 (youtube.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment