The speaker says, “from the very beginning, penal substitutionary atonement is part of the whole Christus Victor… how that is accomplished is through the death of Jesus Christ for our sins.” What picture of God’s “victory” does that assume—victory over what, and by what means—and how does that challenge the way you personally talk about the cross?

**Direct Answer** Based on the speaker’s teaching, God’s “victory” is Christ triumphing over the devil, evil, and death, and the means of that victory includes (not replaces) Christ’s death “for our sins,” where Jesus bears the curse/penalty. That challenges us to talk about the cross not only as a showdown with Satan, but also as a sin-dealing, guilt-bearing sacrifice that restores worshipful gratitude. **Support from Transcript:** • “Christus Victor… is the victory of Christ over the devil and over evil.” • “How that is accomplished is through the death of Jesus Christ for our sins.” • He insists he’s “not arguing for an exclusive penal substitutionary view,” but that PSA is “part of the whole Christus Victor.” • He ties loss of sin-bearing language to spiritual damage: “you miss something deeply… It affects the piety… relationship to Jesus Christ.” • He names PSA themes that should not be lost: “Christ dying for our sins… taking the curse upon the cross… the penalty… upon him.” **Discussion Follow-ups** What words do you tend to avoid—“sins,” “curse,” “penalty,” “blood”—when you explain the cross? How might restoring them change your tone from analysis to adoration?

The speaker claims the “kingdom/Anabaptist” world has “swung the pendulum” so far toward Christus Victor that it’s “not representing the patristic sources properly,” and he connects that swing to changes in “worship,” “piety,” and “relationship to Jesus Christ.” Where have you seen (or felt) that shift show up in the way Christians pray, sing, repent, or speak about grace?

**Direct Answer** The transcript suggests the “shift” shows up when Christians downplay or mock language about Jesus’ blood, sin-bearing, and forgiveness, which then weakens repentance and produces a thinner, less worshipful gratitude toward Christ. The speaker has seen this in “kingdom circles” that keep victory language but grow suspicious of sacrifice/penalty language. **Support from Transcript:** • He says the pendulum swing is “not representing the… patristic sources properly.” • He connects doctrine to devotion: “It affects the piety… the way you look at salvation… your relationship to Jesus Christ.” • He claims losing PSA themes reduces worship: it would produce “such a worshipful, adoration of Jesus Christ that I think is missing.” • He reports “almost a mocking of these themes” in some kingdom circles. • He links the issue to grace: losing “the penalty… upon him” and “imputed righteousness” affects “our sense of coming to God… that God’s grace working in us.” **Discussion Follow-ups** When your community talks about grace, does it sound like pardon from guilt, or mostly empowerment/liberation? What phrases in your prayers and songs reveal which one you assume?

The speaker tells the story of a church that “ripped the pages from the hymnal” that referenced “the blood of Jesus” and more “Protestant themes.” What does that reaction reveal about the fears driving some non-PSA instincts, and what might it reveal about what God is like (or is not like) in their imagination?

**Direct Answer** According to the speaker, that extreme reaction reveals a fear that “blood” and sacrifice language is tied to a distorted, angry, or abusive picture of God and to “messy” Protestantism—so the community tries to purge it. It also suggests they may imagine God as not requiring anything like curse-bearing or sacrifice to forgive, and they may see those themes as harmful rather than worship-producing. **Support from Transcript:** • He recounts: a church tore hymnal pages with “talking about the blood of Jesus… [and] more Protestant… themes.” • He interprets the instinct: “Protestantism is a mess… The problem is in their view of the atonement. And that’s kind of the narrative.” • He notes the cultural critique: people assume PSA equals “angry God against… this poor child” (language he associates with Aulén’s reaction and later he mentions “cosmic child abuse”). • He says the swing can become ugly: “the repercussions… comes out not so pretty.” • He frames the loss as spiritual, not merely academic: it harms “worship,” “piety,” and grace-centered devotion. **Discussion Follow-ups** What view of God would make someone feel they must remove “blood” language? Is that view

The speaker contrasts “systematic” vs “historical” theology and says the patristic writers weren’t in modern “silos,” even using the Fiddler-on-the-Roof-style line, “they can’t both be right… you’re also right.” What would it look like for your church to actively resist “silos” without collapsing into vagueness or contradiction?

**Direct Answer** Based on the transcript, resisting “silos” means letting multiple biblical and early-church emphases stand (victory, ransom, sacrifice, sin-bearing) while still anchoring everything in scripture and in a Christ-centered reading. The speaker’s answer to avoiding vagueness is not “anything goes,” but a disciplined way of testing teaching—he even lays out priorities (scripture first) and says own the paradox without denying clear texts. **Support from Transcript:** • He contrasts approaches: “A systematic theologian takes the doctrine and then builds… A historical theologian takes the ancient faith and says, okay, where does that go?” • “When we get to later centuries, you get into silos… you inevitably fall into reductionism.” • Fiddler illustration: “They can’t both be right… you’re also right,” meaning the patristics often hold tensions together. • He lists multiple early models side-by-side: “Christus Victor… ransom… recapitulation… all these are part of the ancient faith.” • He offers guardrails via SCAR: “Nothing should be required… outside of scripture… [then] Christocentric… antiquity… real.” **Discussion Follow-ups** What practices could help a church beco

The speaker frames the controversy pastorally: losing themes like “Christ taking the curse,” “the penalty… upon him,” and “imputed righteousness” reduces “worshipful adoration.” What would repentance and assurance look like in a community that truly believed those themes—how would confession, baptism, communion, or mutual accountability change?

**Direct Answer** The transcript suggests a community that truly believed those themes would repent with deeper seriousness about guilt and sin, and also with stronger assurance that forgiveness is real because Christ bore the curse/penalty and grants righteousness. The speaker implies this would produce more “worshipful adoration” and a more grace-centered approach to coming to God. **Support from Transcript:** • He ties PSA themes to worship: they “bring out such a worshipful, adoration of Jesus Christ.” • He names the themes: “Christ dying for our sins… taking the curse… the penalty… upon him… imputed righteousness.” • He says losing them affects how people approach God: it impacts “our sense of coming to God… that God’s grace working in us.” • He frames it pastorally: the pendulum shift has “repercussions” that “come out not so pretty.” • He begins the whole discussion with prayer, stressing the topic is “very precious… the blood of Jesus Christ,” implying repentance and assurance should be reverent, not flippant. **Discussion Follow-ups** The transcript doesn’t spell out detailed changes to baptism/communion, but it strongly links atonement language to worship and repentance

When discussing “cosmic child abuse” concerns, the speaker brings in Gregory of Nyssa’s “inseparable operations of the Trinity,” insisting the Father never acts “by himself” apart from the Son and Spirit. How does that patristic Trinitarian assumption reframe modern objections that pit “the Father’s wrath” against “the Son’s love”?

**Direct Answer** According to the speaker, Gregory of Nyssa’s view means you cannot portray the atonement as the Father acting alone in anger while the Son is merely the victim; God’s saving action is a single divine work “from the Father… through the Son… perfected in the Holy Spirit.” That reframes “cosmic child abuse” objections by insisting the Trinity acts together with one unified operation toward creation. **Support from Transcript:** • He raises the modern concern: “cosmic child abuse… was the father mad at the son?” • He says the answer involves balancing “subordination of Christ to the Father with the one will of God.” • He cites Gregory of Nyssa: the Father does nothing “by himself in which the Son does not work cojointly.” • Gregory quote: every operation “has its origin from the Father… proceeds through the Son… perfected in the Holy Spirit.” • He warns that some Christus Victor talk can slide into Trinity confusion: “it gets heretical pretty quick,” implying this patristic framework keeps safeguards. **Discussion Follow-ups** How would your language about the cross change if you intentionally spoke of the triune God acting together, rather than picturing the Father

The speaker proposes his SCAR hermeneutic (Scripture, Christocentric, Antiquity, Real) and says, “Nothing should be required from us for salvation that’s outside of scripture… if Origen says something and it can’t be proved in scripture, forget about it.” How does that ordering of authorities confront typical Anabaptist appeals to “the early church,” and where might it also confront evangelical habits that ignore how doctrine “worked out in reality”?

**Direct Answer** The speaker’s SCAR ordering confronts Anabaptists (and others) by refusing to treat the early church as a second Bible: antiquity matters, but scripture is the “drawing line.” It also confronts evangelical habits by adding “Real” as a test—asking how a doctrine actually shaped lived Christianity over time, not just how it works on paper. **Support from Transcript:** • SCAR defined: “Scripture, Christocentric, Antiquity, and Real.” • He prioritizes scripture: “Nothing should be required from us for salvation that’s outside of scripture. That’s the drawing line.” • He relativizes patristics: “If Origen says something and it… can’t be proved in scripture, forget about it.” • Yet he still values early sources: “we try… to find the earliest source… that’s the antiquity.” • He insists doctrine must be tested in life: “Real: How has this worked out in reality and not… weird things in the church.” **Discussion Follow-ups** Where does your tradition tend to “functionally” place authority—scripture, Jesus’ teachings, early church, or practical outcomes? What would it look like to explicitly use SCAR (or something similar) when disagreements arise?

Yes, the Early Church Taught Penal Substitutionary Atonement - Dean Taylor

Description

It is often argued that the early church did not teach penal substitutionary atonement, but rather taught *Christus Victor.* Dean Taylor argues that penal substitutionary atonement thinking was present in the texts of early Christian writers such as Origen, Eusebius, and Chrysostom alongside *Christus Victor* teachings. Dean believes that Anabaptists have misunderstood the early church position on the atonement. He makes a case that the early church taught penal substitutionary atonement.

Our interview with David Bercot: https://youtu.be/meIXLTH0tgA?si=PB6yHDg5uJrE_ZA9

*Christus Victor* by Gustaf Aulén: https://archive.org/details/christusvictor0000gust/page/n7/mode/2up

*The Nonviolent Atonement* by J. Denny Weaver: https://a.co/d/02eb40x

*Origen: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Books 1-5:* ****https://a.co/d/f2yoj47

*Commentary on Isaiah* by Eusebius of Caesarea: https://a.co/d/7ASmEFh

This is the 277th episode of Anabaptist Perspectives, a podcast, blog, and YouTube channel that examines various aspects of conservative Anabaptist life and thought.

Our podcast: https://anabaptist-perspectives.captivate.fm/listen Read essays: https://anabaptistperspectives.org/blog/ Listen to essays as a podcast: https://essays-for-king-jesus.captivate.fm/listen Facebook: https://facebook.com/anabaptistperspectives/ Support our work: https://anabaptistperspectives.org/donate/ About: https://anabaptistperspectives.org/about Follow Anabaptist Origins: https://www.youtube.com/@AnabaptistOrigins

The views expressed by our guests are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Anabaptist Perspectives or Wellspring Mennonite Church.

From Anabaptist Perspectives — part of the historic Anabaptist tradition. New here? Read our complete guide to Anabaptism →

🎧 Audio Player with Transcript

🎧 Yes, the Early Church Taught Penal Substitutionary Atonement - Dean Taylor

The thing that we're missing is that from the very beginning, penal substitutionary atonement is part of the whole Christus Victor. If we're going to use one overarching term, Christus Victor works. It is the victory of Christ over the devil and over evil and over the, the, you know, all those sorts of things. Christus Victor shouts from the early church. But in that, how that is accomplished is through the death of Jesus Christ for our sins.

Well, Dean, it is great to have you back on the podcast. It's been a number of years. It's been too long. Yes. Yeah. So just by way of introduction, um, let's see, you're on the ministry team at your church, um, you know, you're president of the Zalakon Institute, and you've been studying church history, the early church, um, theology, Anabaptism, all of these things for a very long time. We did an episode on your story, oh my, years ago now, um, which people can watch that if they want to know, uh, more of your journey. But today we're going to talk about something that we have not talked about on this podcast before. We've been waiting on this one because I know it's controversial with some people, uh, and we want to talk about the atonement.

Yeah. So if I understand correctly, you believe in penal substitutionary atonement. Mm-hmm. And we're going to just jump straight into this and see where we get to. So I think the first thing to do for, uh, I'm sure there's lots listening that are like, I don't really know what that means. So can you define what you mean? Can we? I do have, I have some slides here, a lot of slides I prepared. I do have some very specific definitions. So as we go through, yes, um, I do have that. So I will, I do think that's important because it is a, what does that even mean, you know, kind of thing.

Exactly. Exactly. So I think we, I mean, any Christian is going to say, oh yeah, the atonement. I mean, like this is, you know, we all get that. But we're talking about different, uh, I guess you could call theories of, of the atonement and things. Um, so why don't we start with definitions and just kind of lay the groundwork for us? And could we, you know, this, this topic, um, we're talking about something very precious. And one of the things I think that, uh, you can't just have, um, discussions about the blood of Jesus Christ, you know, in just a flippant, even academic way. Let's start with prayer on it, if you don't mind, and just ask God to just be with us through this.

It's a very textual dense. I have a slide on here. Um, geek warning. I don't know. I, I don't like to have such theologically dense conversations all the time. And, and I, you know, the core of me is wanting to represent Jesus Christ and to put his teachings into practice. You hear me all the time saying, let's keep it simple. This is a very theologically dense subject. Um, I've studied it for over 30 years, and so it's very, it's very dear to me. Um, and we're going to be looking at this as historical theologians, and we can talk about that versus a systematic theologian. Um, but at the all said, wow, we're talking about the blood of Jesus Christ.

So let's just pray for it just a moment. Dear God, I just, I just ask you as we discuss this subject of the blood of Jesus Christ, your blood, and how you save us, that you would help us and be with us, Lord. Let only you be represented and not my thinking or carnal man or systems of men or anything like that, God. But I just pray, Lord, let your way and your truth prevail. Your promise that when your word is brought forth, it will accomplish what it was sent for. So God, I pray that you'd be over this entire long conversation and that you would be somehow glorified through it all. In Jesus' name, amen.

I guess the first definition is, I think the, the, the scripture that brings it in the most simplistic way is First Corinthians 15, verse 1. It's a general one on atonement, and then I'll give the, the penal substitutionary.

It says, "Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel, which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast to that word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." And that is atonement. Now, all atonement models, um, you know, would ascribe to that, you know. And, um, the other thing I want to say, uh, from the very beginning here is I am not arguing for an exclusive penal substitutionary view of the atonement. My, what the thing I'm trying to accomplish today is that, um, the argument that penal substitutionary atonement is not part of early Christianity and that didn't exist until, you know, in the, uh, the middle ages or something is not true.

It's, I even would say it's ridiculous. And so, but I am not at all, don't hear me saying that I don't believe that the Christus Victor, um, metaphors are important. Matter of fact, if, if, if the, if we were having another discussions on, on why, um, we have to get rid of Christus Victor language, I would be just as, just as upset. But the tendency in my crowd, the kingdom crowd in the Anabaptist world, um, I believe has swung the pendulum in a way that is simply not representing the, the, the patristic sources properly. So just to clarify, patristic sources, we're saying the early church writings. The early church, right. Um, and we're talking the first couple hundred years after the time of Christ?

Definitely the first hundred years, but even into, um, we're going to, I'm going to have quite a lot from Origen and, and, um, Chrysostom and Eusebius, um, where they actually take the subject more, um, but it's not being represented. The thing that we're missing is that from the very beginning, penal substitutionary atonement is part of the whole Christus Victor. If we're going to use one overarching, uh, uh, term, Christus Victor works. It is the victory of Christ over the devil and over evil and over the, the, you know, all those sorts of things. Christus Victor shouts from the early church. But in that, how that is accomplished is through the death of Jesus Christ for our sins.

And that part is missing as the pendulum has now swung. Um, and I think you miss something deeply. And it affects the piety. I think it affects, it affects the way you look at salvation. It affects your relationship to Jesus Christ. And I, and I pastorally, I feel that it's important. And the only reason why I dig so deeply into this is because I do think the repercussions of people who have swung the other way, um, it comes out not so pretty. So just to, just so people are, like, because, because we're getting, we'll end up getting pretty deep into some things here. And so a lot of people are going to be like, why does it matter?

Yeah. And you're saying, well, how we think about this, there's lots of different theories on the atonement, right? Of like, how exactly does this thing work? Right. Um, and you're saying the way we think about it really matters. It can affect how, how we live. It can affect the church. It does. There's somehow, and it's subtle. It's not like, um, again, the arguments are good with, with, uh, Christus Victor. I'm a Christus Victor man. And I want to keep, I'll keep saying that through this whole message.

But when you lose this idea of Christ dying for our sins, uh, taking the curse upon the cross, the, the penalty of our, of our sins being upon him and the salvation, the imputed righteousness that comes from him to us, that is, that brings out such a worshipful, um, adoration of Jesus Christ that I think is missing. And I, I have seen within, um, some, uh, kingdom circles, which are my circles, almost a mocking of these themes. I've, I've, I've heard of a church that when John D. Martin's, uh, new hymn came out and, and they had the, um, you know, the hymnal, uh, and that the ones that had talking about the blood of Jesus or, you know, some of the more Protestant, uh, so-called, you know, themes in there, that this church ripped the pages from the hymnal.

Uh, a friend of mine witnessed it. Yeah. And I'm like, okay. Oof. Okay. So like people take this stuff really seriously. I take it real seriously. And we, and the thought is, okay, this is the blame. Protestantism is a mess. The reason is they have a poor view of grace and they got to realize they need these things. Uh, and where's the problem? Well, the problem is in their view of the atonement. And that's kind of the narrative. And I get it. I, I, I wish it was so simple. So you're saying for one thing that there's more nuance involved, um, with this, but also, um, there, there is value to these models, you're saying.

And also, well, okay, let's, let's back up a bit. So, so let's, let's go back to definitions. Definitions. Okay. So can, can we start with, um, what penal substitutionary atonement is? Uh, and, and also you mentioned Christus Victor. So let's, let's define that and, you know, and so forth. Yeah. Great. Let's give a, uh, let's give a definition of both. Uh, this is a, a definition by Jarvis Williams. Um, and he says it this way. I thought it's, let's get something that's classic penal substitutionary definition. Jesus died a violent substitutionary death to be sacrifice, to be a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of Jews and Gentiles. By this death, Jesus took upon himself God's righteous judgment and wrath against the sins of those for whom he died by dying as their penal substitute, their legal substitute, um, God's wrath against their sins and expiated, satisfied, propitiated, expiated their sins so that the sins of the Jews and the Gentiles would be forgiven and so that they would be justified by faith, forgiven of their sins, reconciled to God, reconciled to each other, participate in the future resurrection and save from God's wrath.

Okay? Yeah. Classic. Uh, I used a, uh, a Protestant, you know, um, definition there. So now let's go to J. Denny Weaver's book on, uh, the nonviolent atonement and his view and his interpretation or his definition of Christus Victor. So this is Christus Victor. Okay. So now this is Christus Victor. Mm-hmm. This atonement image, image used the image of a cosmic battle between good and evil, between the forces of God and those of Satan. In that fray, God's Son, Jesus Christ, was killed and apparent defeat of God and victory by Satan. However, Jesus' resurrection turned the seeing defeat into a great victory, which forever, which forever revealed God's control of the universe and freed sinful humans from the power of sin and Satan.

This motif carries the designation of classic because it is the prevailing view found in the early church theologians. A variation of the classic or victory motif depicted Christ's death as the ransom price paid to Satan in exchange for freeing the sinners Satan held captive.

With his resurrection, Christ then escaped the clutches of Satan and sinners were freed from Satan's power. And that's in the nonviolent atonement, page 15 from Denny Weaver. Yeah. So, so he, he also, he mentions another one there, uh, the ransom theory, I believe it's what it would be called, right? Do we have more on that that we want to mention? So it's a good, it's a good question. Um, and they do get fuzzy. And I think it's because of Ulan's, um, reason that they do get fuzzy. He's quoting, he's even using Ulan's, um, concept of calling this classic. Ulan, who's this? Um, okay. Or did I just uncover a whole nother thing? Well, you did, but okay.

So, okay. Okay. So let me say this. Okay. So with Weaver, Denny Weaver, for the most part, I don't agree with this stuff about the patristics and everything, but the idea of the victory over evil, the, um, the, the defeat of Satan and all that, um, I agree. Now, um, that all of our redemption can be reduced to a human sacrifice to the devil, I disagree with.

Um, but the idea of Christus Victor, um, being in, in victory over those things, I do, I do, I agree with. Uh, and I think it's incredibly important. So where does this, where did, uh, where did, in my opinion, where does the Christus, where does the Christus Victor, uh, pendulum start to swing? There is a, uh, a book that was done in the 1940s or 1950s by Gustav Ulan. Ulan. And, uh, he was a Swedish, uh, theologian. Let me get my slides on this. Uh, born 1879, 1977, Bishop of the Church of Sweden and a Lutheran theologian.

Um, and he in 1930 did some, um, uh, discussions on, um, the atonement. And he is a systematic theologian, um, by train, by training. But then when he was doing this, a, in England, a monk by the name of Hebert, Arthur Hebert, heard it and was like, whoa.

And he was, and, uh, Arthur Hebert is a, um, um, a, a liturgical scholar. And so he took this and published it and it went viral. And in this, um, they present this view, and I'm like, I don't, just to save time, I didn't go into a lot of the details in my paper, Kingdom Reductionism, which we'll give credit to. Um, I, I give all the quotes, but in a very, um, uh, apologetic, if you know, in the, in the term way, he, he gives us the idea of, um, of the, the Christus Victor that was sort of forgotten about for a while and said, it's not about this angry God against, against this poor child.

It's, it's about defeat over Satan. And during an era that you're talking about the buildup to World War II and all this kind of a thing, it was very received. Um, C.S. Lewis loved it, loved the book, loved the thing. And this book revolutionized historical theology, uh, and systematic theology and, and the academic circles to this day. Um, I would say that only now with, with the new, um, easy access to, um, patristic writings, are we now starting to see a scholarly pushback to Ulan's, um, suggestions. Interesting. Um, now he used to be able, when you would talk about origin or Chrysostom or something, I mean, you literally had to go into some seminary and dig that up and know Latin and all, you know, whatever.

Nowadays, we are living in an amazing era of historical theology. Yeah. I was going to say, I mean, the, the explosion of available, um, patristic material, like early church writings, uh, in the last even 20 years is unreal, is unreal. And so, which is great because now it is easy for anybody to go buy those books or look them up on the internet. Yeah. Exactly. We were in the era of historical theology. When I was first studying with Dave Russo, 30 years ago, 35 years ago maybe, um, you know, I remember he would talk on things and living in Tyler, I would go in my car two hours to the seminary in Dallas. Whoa. You know, find the Antonicine Fathers and, you know, you know, look it up, pay 25 cents or 10 cents or whatever for, you know, copying.

And I would look at it and drive back home and, wow, you know, and then finally got my own set and then started reading it. And, and now, I mean, but that's just, well, you have it on your watch for crying out loud. You can have a smartwatch with the edit, you know, and so much more. There is something to, to keep in mind too. Like there has been a lot added to what's available in the early church writings beyond just that Antonicine set. Like there's new things that have been discovered, translated, et cetera, which maybe we're getting down the patristics road a little too far. But I think these, this is important context, I think for people, um, because what you're saying is this fellow was writing, you know, in the 1940s, 50s.

Um, so that, so okay, but that's an important data point of like, yeah, it is that I'm making sure I'm tracking with you. No, no, no. Okay. So thank you. Thank you for keeping me on track. So, so with this book called Christus Victor, he's the one who labeled it. That's the name of his book. Did he come up with the term or was it? He might have. Um, I don't know of anyone before him. Okay. Um, it is a classic. Everybody should read it. Um, it's good. I mean, in some ways, in many ways, it's good, but he way overstates his case and says that this is the only self-respecting person who's going to read the patristic writings are going to come up with this.

And he's a systematic theologian, not a historical theologian. And, and so he's presenting the systematic theology. His actual point is to try by the end of the book to turn Martin Luther into a Christus Victor guy. Believe it or not, he's a Lutheran theologian. And if you read the whole book, if people read the whole book, that's interesting. That's where he's going with it. Okay. I didn't see that one coming. Yeah. To be honest, most people don't. Wow. I think with Luther, he said so much, you can usually find him saying anything. But, but anyway, so, so with this though, this idea we can blame the Protestants that they've got something wrong and the Catholics, you know, Mm - hmm it's nonviolent.

Wow. And you know, and like for instance, N.T. Wright brings up this idea, if your view of Christ and the atonement can basically have, uh, Jesus being born and crucified as a baby, then something's wrong. Right. And like, amen. Right. So in other words, if nothing in the life of Jesus, the teachings of Jesus, his presentation of the kingdom of God, his resurrection, if any of that doesn't play into your Christology and your, and your atonement and your salvation, then we've got problems. And N.T. Wright was really big at bringing that out. And so was, um, right. And so the, the Anabaptists then have always typically grabbed onto this and said, whoa, that's the problem.

So could it be, I can see how this comes together then because it'd be, it'd be easy for us as Anabaptists to be, well, that's just the Protestants having, oh, it's like a, a formula and bingo, sacrifice, done deal. And, and we don't have to like less of an emphasis on the life and teachings of Christ and, and the resurrection and, and so forth. Um, and maybe it's a bit of pushback towards that. It is. And it's, and it's a nice way, you know, I, I to, to kind of belittle the arguments. You know, one of the things I always say in my classes is any argument that's lasted 500 years isn't stupid. Mm - hmm It may be dead wrong, but it's not stupid.

And we love though, in the theological world, just to kind of belittle a, a, a theology or to, ah, that's just stupid. And then you can kind of dismiss a 500 year of research and history of something, and then you can present your little shallow view of, of something. The truth is, and, and this is where historical theologians really come out, is like, uh, it's kind of nuanced and that there's points here and yeah, that's a, that's a good point. And I believe, and if I could say this even before we dive into this with Anabaptist theology, it has to come back to Christ and Christ living out his life through us on earth. And so at the end of the day, you know, all these, uh, speculative things on how God saved us and how he became man are, are kind of arguments that went on in different centuries.

The only reason it's become so important to me is because I have seen so many of us grab ahold of this and take the pendulum, and I've seen it literally affect our worship, our piety, our, our, um, our sense of coming to God, that God's grace working in us. And so anyway, uh, that's the reason. And so I think that Ulan gave this and he said that, well, then where did this whole thing come from? Well, he basically says that Anselm of Canterbury came up with it around the year 1000 or 1100 or so. And you're meaning penal substitution. Yeah. So this is before that, it's because of his chivalry idea. And, uh, interesting. And he gives us this little historiography to kind of follow.

And then after him, you know, or you had Aquinas and Aquinas, Thomas Aquinas took this and you're like, oh, so that's what happened. And they just made such a profound argument that it affected everyone for the rest of the world. And that is complete nonsense.

I mean, just complete nonsense. And so, okay, as a historical theologian, when you begin to read the sources, you're like, okay, that's ridiculous. You can be a systematic theologian. And many of you that are already watching, you know, are always like, oh, he doesn't understand God can do this. And how do you say this about the justice of God? And can't God just forgive somebody like he did the, the, the, the, the sinner, you know? And, and okay, all those may be true. And you, and those all may be true. What I'm going to argue is that the argument that penal substitutionary atonement is not in the patristic writings is false and that it didn't exist till Anselm of Canterbury is ridiculous and that this is part of the witness of the early church.

You can, you can argue and say, well, that's, I don't take the whole early church. That's fine. Make that argument, but it's there. And you're going to see today that it's there. And it's not just there. I would say it's when you now accept that, you can even read through some of the more ambiguous passages, I think better. So just to be really clear then, what we're hitting on this episode, we're focusing on historical theology here, right? Of, okay, what is the teachings of the patristics, the early church writers? And I think you made an important point there. It doesn't mean therefore, oh, it's a hundred percent right, but it does mean, okay, they did teach this and we need to be, am I, am I getting your argument correct there?

I think that's pretty important. I want to just make sure I get the argument. Usually people address this philosophically from the start. Yeah. So they're saying, um, this reasoning that God has to be just is, I don't like that because that means when he forgave the, the sinner, that doesn't fit. And therefore the systematic stuff doesn't, I'm not coming from that way. So, okay. So we're not diving deep into like the philosophy of this, that, and the other. Right. Okay. So, so and we'll get into, I'm sure we'll hit some of this, but then I, but I can see the comments already, you know, there's going to be people saying, well, what about this passage in, in such and such early church writer who very clearly lays out ransom theory.

For example, last night I'm probably, you know, I'm reading through stuff and I'm finding all kinds of stuff. I'm wait, wait, they're clearly saying, well, this and this and so, and I'm sure you'll get into that as well. And I believe, amen. I would say, amen. Again, if you were arguing to me that we shouldn't be Christus Victor, I would be our, I would be making a different lecture today. So you, again, I think you, what we're getting at here is you want to make sure we're being honest about what the early church is saying on this topic because it's been over, we've, we've swung the pendulum too far to say, oh, they don't talk about this stuff.

And there's something deeper with, with historical theology addresses issues differently. A systematic theologian takes the doctrine and then builds it a defense of it. A historical theologian takes the, the ancient faith and says, okay, where does that go? The problem is that when we get to, to later centuries, you get into silos. And as you get into silos, you aren't allowed to look the other way. In the, in the ancient, in the patristic sources, like, uh, I have a little meme that I make on a, a, a play on, um, a scene by, uh, on Filler on the Roof, where what's his name? The old guy there is saying, you know, uh, that can't be right, that can't be right.

And then this guy said, well, they can't both be right. And he said, you know what? You're also right. So it's, it's, it's the nuances there that a historic theologian takes. And here's why I think that's so important. When we silo, you, you, you inevitably fall into reductionism. And so if we've allowed to own the paradox alone, allowed to own the, wow, it, how does it, how does it mean both? Then it forces us to a very deeper understanding of the faith. And you say, how does it allow for both? When you say both, you're, you're, you're referring to, um, Christus Victor and penal substitution, right? So all those models are part of the early church.

Christus Victor's there, ransom's atonement there. We see recapitulation theories are there. Um, um, all these are part of the ancient faith. But please don't say that penal substitutionary is not there. It's very much there and it's very important to them. And so what you're again, it's, we're making an argument or you're making a case for, hey, there's some nuance here. There's some mystery too. Because if you have these different views, you're like, wait, these are different interpretations of how the atonement works in their lives. And you're suggesting, well, yes. And there is some mystery there and some nuance. And it's kind of how, how do these different things work? Because I'm over here being like, hmm.

Because I know my, you know, my Christus Victor friends are going to be like, but it's this. And the penal substitution friends are going to be like, but it's this. And you're like, no, it's both. They're both right. It's both right. So, so that'll, that now the problem is now everybody's going to be upset because how can they both be right? So, but we, and we'll get into that in a moment. But again, I think this is really important to us. But you said that does to our theology. It, it makes it rich and deep. Um, because when we silo, we close our eyes to the other things. And this is what, when I read it all, I said, bro, you are missing the obvious stuff.

And when I read people today, I mean, when we're going to get to Origen, I'm sorry, any self-respecting person who's read the commentary of Origen of the Romans and doesn't see this is in a silo. You're going to see this today. By the end of this message, you're going to blame it on his translator, Refinus, and you're going to say this or that, but you're going to have to deny him. When you're reading, when you hear Chrysostom speak about it, you're, if you don't see the penal substitutionary atonement in Chrysostom, you're in a silo. And so, but so then how does it, how do you match then the God forgives? Well, own the, own the dynamic, own the rich theology there that's, that's got the nuances of it all.

So let's just start, let's just start getting into it then. You know, you've definitely got my curiosity piqued here. Um, because again, I've, I honestly, like I've only heard people say, oh yeah, yeah, early church, it's all this and they'll have all the quotes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Christus Victor, ransom theory. It's because we love it. Yeah. Which, by the way, there's been a maturity. There has been a maturity, um, in this discussion. I've been looking at this for 30 years. Um, okay. So David's my dad.

David Brissell. David Brissell's my dad. I mean, okay. I was going to say, we, we, we've interviewed him, uh, not directly on this, but a bunch of things. Yeah. And so there's no one has been more influenced and more mentored into the life of Tanya and I than David and Deborah Sowell. Okay. We were in their living room when I was right out of the army. So my first atonement theory that I ever studied was Christus Victor through the, through when I was a little, you know, a little boy coming out of the army, you know, through that. And so as I read through the, the, I was okay, that's my lens, you know, um, but yet I probably still had my, uh, Southern Baptist in me that was, wait, that question doesn't fit.

And so as I read through the fathers, I'm like, how does that fit to paying to Satan? Or how does the ransom fit to this? And it made me think, and so through 30 years, and as I began to read and look into this, I was like, wait a minute. And as much as it pains me, David and I kind of joke about this, that we, uh, I remember when I was ordained at Charity, and I think it was 2006 or five or something. And, uh, I remember at my ordination, we got home and he came to my house and said, let's talk about the atonement. It's like, it's like, it's a, it's like, so, but, so, you know, again, I understand the nuance where, where David and I agree completely is that Christ came.

He saved. There's been a substitution of some kind, um, that are were saved by grace and how that operates, that, that our works matter, that all those things are, are things that David and I agree with and we have a great time with that. And this particularly we differ on that. And it's kind of fun. Last night, I, I, I emailed David and I was like, hey, by the way, I'm talking to Dean about this and I know you guys disagree if you have any questions. Oh my, he sent me just some really, some, some gold. It was some pure gold. And then he sent a follow-up. He was like, all in good fun. Like all in good nature.

You know, um, but one of them was like, man, I mean, I guess, I mean, does Dean like, you know, just willfully like misread the early church? You know, he's just like, how could you, you know, so. To also to be fair to, to, to David Brissell, which we've interviewed a couple of times on this podcast and, and, uh, highly respect his work. Me too. I love you. It's my soul to this day. At the same time, you two have a clearly a very different perspective of what the early church teaches here, which maybe, by the way, we might just sit down with David and just talk to him. Yeah. You can get his side.

That would be really fun. Let's do it. Let's do it. I would enjoy it. Let's do it. Let's get you and David together on the podcast and actually compare notes. I think that could, there could be some value in that. So anyway, we'll see if that happens. But I didn't want to note that because there, there are people that we, um, know who've looked into this a lot, who, who are looking through this stuff and saying, oh, wait, you're wrong. You know? So, so we'll, you know, and I'm sure they'll fight it out in the comments. Exactly. It's still on this video. So, yeah. But I just want to note that and make sure that that's, that's clear, but also keep a good nature too.

And I think that's the part that I've found very fun to watch actually, because I know you both. And see, it's keeping a good nature. And I think that's also part of being a historian. I learned to be a historical theologian from David. Mm-hmm. And why you hear it, this is such a geekishly text-based message today. And I, my apology to your listeners, but that's what I got from David. You know, let the sources speak.

And so, um, you'll see that coming out. And with that, again, people misread David. So it's, you know, the question, well, how do you disagree with David? Well, people misread David Brissell. Um, and, and I was just talking with David, we were on a podcast just last week and we were talking about the Romans commentary. And he said he was getting in trouble for his, um, ironic spirit, you know, where he'd say, it says this, but you know, on the other hand, it's respectable. People are like, wait a minute. You know, I mean, I remember back in the early, I'm getting off a tangent. I remember back in the early days, the first time I ever heard a, a profanity at a brother's meeting in Texas was when this guy joined us down in Texas and he wanted David to say we're the one true church.

Oh boy. And when David said, what are you talking about? I'm not going to say we're the one true church. Uh, that's, that's not me at all. And he literally said, you mean I came to this place, you know? Wow. Uh, and that's not David. And when you know him well, um, and he's got called out on it, but I think it's a strength of his. And I've inherited that him as, as my, my biggest mentor, um, is this idea of, you know, there's some things that are, are gray. Let's, let's find the Christ basics and not lose that. And this is where I think people get off into all kinds of tangents of orthodoxy and Calvinism and this and this and the other.

And then all of a sudden, so whatever happened to the teachings of Jesus? And what if Jesus gave us the most important things to worry about, you know? So two things before we jump into it. One of the things that I, I, we don't have time to dig into it, but a lot of the arguments is about the idea, and this is from the philosophical side before we get into it, is, uh, well, you know, is this cosmic child abuse or is it pagan sacrifice? As you know. Like, like, well, one of the questions someone asked me to ask you was like, well, was the father mad at the son? You know, like, was the son the object of, of the father's wrath?

You know, like, whoa, like, how, how could that be? Um, so it's in the same vein. It's a great question, but I think that, you know, one thing, it's a very important, it's a deeper also, uh, subject of, of theology. Um, you have to balance the subordination of, of Christ to the Father with the one will of God.

And I borrow, it's not certainly not my thing, a, a, a view called the inseparable operations of the Trinity. Um, and before we were getting into the Trinity, too, just a little bit, just a touch, this would be fun. Okay. That all the actions of God to man works in Trinity. Let me give you one quote from this. This is from Gregory of Nyssa on the, on his work, okay, on not three gods.

But in the case of the divine nature, we do not similarly, uh, similarly learn that the Father does anything by himself in which the Son does not work cojointly. Hmm. Or again, that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit. But every operation which extends from God to the creation and is named according to our variable conceptions of it has its origin from the Father. It proceeds through the Son and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason, the name derived for the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfill it. Because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass comes to pass by the action of the three.

Yet what does come to pass is not three things, but one. Hmm. So this idea, it's a, it's a patristic idea. This is Gregory of Nyssa, but, um, if you... What year is that, by the way? Okay, this is post-Nicene. This is 380 or so. 380. Okay. So, um, yeah. But the idea here, and here he's dealing with these questions that are being asked, is, is there one divine will or three? And you get sometimes in this Christus Victor world, it kind of slides, the Trinity's a dance and, and there's different things and I mean, it gets heretical pretty quick. Um, we still have the subordination of the Son to the Father and that's a different subject, but the balance, you have to keep that paradox in here of the inseparable operations of the Trinity.

Own that and it'll change your life with everything else, um, from everything. So anyway, that's too deep. So some good groundwork there. Um, the only other thing I want to say is in my 30 years of looking at this, um, I have seen a maturity and the Christus Victor camp. And the one that I love the most is by our good friend and to your right. If you don't mind, I'm going to show a video here. Also, I just wanted to, it'd be fascinating to interview him, by the way. Like what he's, he's Anglican, right? You know, Church Church of England, um, written a bunch of books and stuff. And I valued his, his work.

I would love to talk to him about some of this, which I know he's, he's pretty famous in Hardy Hill. And if you read his earlier stuff, he raised the bar. And again, he said, if your, if your theology can have Jesus dying on the cross as a baby, you guys are something wrong. Anabaptists are all over that. Amen. Where's the kingdom? Where's the resurrection? Where's the life and teachings of Christ? So he's right. But listen to hear how he's realized in his later years now, um, how I'm going to play this for you. Okay. Mm-hmm. Is this to some extent what people have termed the Christus Victor model? Yes, it is. But, but the problem with that is that in the, um, I forget what it was, 50s and 60s, there was a famous book on Christus Victor, which played it off against the other theories.

And it was that book by a Swedish bishop called Gustav Aulane was obviously reacting against low-grade presentations of an angry wrathful God and substitution. And so he said, no, no, no, forget all that. It's about God winning the victory in Christ over the powers. So it became an either/or. So many people have thought, because we believe in penal substitution, we mustn't believe in Christus Victor. That's completely wrong. Bam.

That's, that's, that's really interesting. So he, the wording there, you know, an either, an either/or. Either/or. And he's saying, own the nuance. Own the nuance. Interesting. Yeah. So that's coming from NTRI. So this isn't just Dean Taylor making stuff up. So, okay.

Um, all right. Well, then let's get in, I guess, to this stuff. I think I've said, um, oh, one thing, by the way, I should say, and we could talk about it at another podcast. I have a hermeneutic that I use called, I, I use the scar. And I have the analogy of, uh, Thomas looking at Jesus, uh, and looking at the hand. And when we have a doubt on something, and he says, you know, look at the scar on my hands. Okay.

Um, and I use that SCAR for scar. And it's scripture, Christocentric, antiquity, and real. Nothing should be required from us for salvation that's outside of scripture. That's the drawing line. Not the year 100, not the year 150, not 325, not the Seventh Council seminar, whatever. Number two is Christ. We read all things in the scriptures Christocentric, the Old Testament looking to Christ, the New Testament looking to Christ. Number three, we try the best we can in all of our theologies to find the earliest source. And that's the antiquity, the A. And then the scar, the R of the scar is real. How has this worked out in reality and not in just coffee table revivals or weird things in the church Mm - hmm over the centuries?

And that matters to me. And so this whole thing, uh, and it goes in the priorities of from one to four, scripture, scripture, Christocentric, antiquity, and real. So if origin says something and it's not, can be proved in scripture, forget about it. But on the other hand, I am looking for antiquity and something that my belief is based in antiquity as we, as we look. Okay. So we can talk about that another time. Okay. First, the definitions of penal substitutionary atonement. Again, I'm, I'm defining that needs to be understood. Penal substitutionary atonement. Okay. So what does that even mean? It's, and a lot of people listening, they think they understand it, but what is it?

What do you know what you're really saying here? So let's break that word. What does penal mean? I'm just going to have a weird word. What does penal mean? And so the first word, penal substitutionary means, um, I have a definition here, is perhaps the most controversial element of the model. In simple terms, it implies a legal setting, a courtroom. Um, the dictionary definition for penal reads that it's relating to or used for or prescribing the punishment of offenders under a legal system. That's penal. Penal codes we use and that kind of thing. The punishment part of that definition is also important. Models that support penal substitutionary atonement will just start saying PSA insists that Jesus was punished for our sins and for humanity.

Key point in PSA. Um, going a little further, PSA teaches us to look at the guilt of our sin and the curse of us being put on, on Jesus. In PSA, our sin, our punishment, our guilt was somehow transferred from us to Jesus.

By going to the cross, Jesus suffered for our sins, paying our price as a substitute for us. As a fulfillment and antitype of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was a priestly offering to the Father.

This drives Christus Victor people crazy. By this offering, our sins are forgiven by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ upon the sinner. Amen. Almost all of these fundamental elements of PSA are rejected by modern kingdom theologians and many neo-Anabaptists. And you're, and you're, when you're using that, you're saying like people in the Christus Victor crowd from primarily. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then the final, the substitutionary simply implies that Jesus took our place. Some form of substitution is accepted in all forms. Uh, you have to. In Christus Victor atonement, Jesus may be our substitute, but he does not require, he's not required the need for Jesus to receive our guilt, our curse, and it certainly does not require the Father to punish Jesus as a, as our substitute.

It also certainly does not envision an Old Testament sacrifice and expiation to appease the Father. That's, they don't like that. In PSA, however, the substitution of Jesus unapologetically involves Jesus taking on our sins, receiving our punishment and a sacrifice, uh, and suffering for us and a sacrifice to the Father. So as we get into the, the early ones, um, I'm going to point out the nuance. So the first one that, that Christus Victor and and Ulan's book is, is the recapitulation model by, um, um, Irenaeus. It's excellent. It's Christus Victor and it shouts Christus Victor. Man has been created, this is Irenaeus speaking, uh, right in around the year 150 or so, Bishop Elyon. Man has been created by God that he might have life.

If now, having lost life and having been harmed by the serpent, he were not to retain to return to life, but were to be wholly abandoned to death, then God would have been defeated and the malice of the serpent would have overcome God's will. But since God is both invincible and magnanimous, he showed his magnanimity in correcting man and in proving all men, as we have said, but through the second man, he's bound the strong one and spoiled his good and annihilated death, bringing life to man who has become subject to death. For Adam has become the devil's possession and the devil held him under his power. And having wrongfully practiced deceit upon him and by the offer of immortality made him subject to death.

For by promising that they should be as gods, which did not lie in his power, he worked death in them. Wherefore he, who had taken man captive, was himself taken captive by God, and man who has been taken captive was set free from the bondage of condemnation. Christus Victor. And that's it. The amen, the champion over death, uh, and that kind of a thing. Shouts Christus Victor.

But there's other elements in the, uh, in the patristics. So that was Irenaeus. You're too clear, right? Okay. Okay. So let's go to Clement of Rome. Okay. Um, uh, and Clement of Rome, uh, who was mentioned even in the scriptures, we think, um, by Paul, um, very is apostolic father, even in, um, you know, generation, maybe two generations before Irenaeus. Um, let us, he says in verses 1 Corinthians 7, uh, 1 Clement, excuse me, 7 to the Corinthians, let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ and see how precious that blood is to God, which having been shed for our salvation has set the grace of repentance before the whole world. His context is trying to get the Corinthians to repent from throwing out their leader.

Keep that in mind. We are not justified by our own wisdom, understanding, or piety, this is in chapter 32, or by the deeds we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the almighty God has justified all from the beginning.

Now here's the problem in the nuance. In these early sources, um, you, Christus Victor, I mean, excuse me, uh, uh, uh, penal substitutionary guys like myself, you read Christus, you read Clement of Rome, you're like, well, there it is, the blood of Jesus shed for us. And there, and but yet then you get the, uh, the Christus Victor guys say, not so fast. Not so fast. You're reading it because you're tainted by penal substitutionary thinking. What Clement is saying is that the blood shed to the devil, then God appreciates and then frees us, and they read that into that, and it's, it's possible. It's possible. So the problem with a lot of the earlier quotes that are on a different subject, here Clement is writing about not kicking out your pre, your, your minister in, in Corinth, and excuse me, in Corinth.

And you get this little nuggets, you know, and they're beautiful nuggets, but you're like, so what's he saying about the atonement? And we read a lot into that. So you have to then, we're going to have to go until we find some things that are more specifically, and I could use these and claim their mind and all ever, but what I've limited myself to is the quotes, I talk about the wrath of God, the substitution, um, uh, the sacrifice themes of the Old Testament, the guilt, the, the, those penal things. I need something that gives us more definition that we can say, okay, that's PSA. And the early guys, and then once you accept that, there are hundreds of quotes that are punctuated through the, uh, through the early church that you then go, oh, well then Clement is probably arguing here for penal substitutionary atonement.

I think he is. Um, even though I will admit you can read that in different ways, uh, just a little more difficult in my opinion. So, all right. So because of this, let's go in and to some of the quotes. All right. So this gets dense. Oh, boy. All right. You ready? All right. So now we're all lookers leave. Let's go. Yeah. So now we are focusing specifically on patristic early church writings, um, that you would say, okay, this, this is penal substitutionary atonement. And I'm hunting, what I'm trying to do here, again, remember I'm a Christus Victor guy too. Okay. I'm hunting for, like, when I read these and my working through, my first, my first view was Christus Victor, I got to some of these quotes, I'm like, how does that fit Christus Victor?

How does that paying a ransom to the devil or even to God, all right, in a ransom sense? How does, how is that not sacrifice? And, and the, the earlier ones here are still a little ambiguous. You'll see as they go to origin, as you see be us in Chrysostom, you then read the other ones back a lot more clear. So let's start with, let's start with the early ones, Epistle of Barnabas, and just get some of them that you began to see. So who, who wrote this? Epistle of Barnabas is written very early. This is around the year 100 AD. Um, this is volume one, um, um, um, I have here in his epistle, the Epistle of Barnabas, uh, chapter five.

And the next quote will be, uh, chapter eight. For to this end, and he's, and he's given us a, an interpretation of the Old Testament sacrifices. So it's a, it's an interesting thing to hone in on, you know. Mm-hmm. For to this end, the Lord endured to deliver his flesh unto corruption, that by the remission of sins, we might be cleansed.

Notice we're cleansed from sins, not just freed from death, which cleansing is through the blood of his sprinkling. Again, the analogy of the Old Testament. For the scriptures concerning him contained some things related to Israel and some things relating to us. And in speaking thus, he was wounded for our transgressions, and he was bruised for our sins, and by his stripes we were healed. As a sheep, he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb is done before his shearers. And then in chapter eight, he says, a few chapters later, well, I'm saying here, a few chapters later, Barnabas says this.

Understand ye how in all plain plainness it is spoken unto you that the calf that sacrificed in the Old Testament, the calf is Jesus. The men that offer it, being sinners, are they that offer him for the slaughter.

So again, Christus Victor guy could still, uh, they'll get there out of there. They'll get out of here. Don't worry. But I would say the easy learning of this, you have an expiation sacrifice in the Old Testament for the sins of the people. This is the, in my opinion, the plain way to read it. A Christus Victor guy can wiggle out of that though. All right, let's go to Diagnetus, the letter of Diagnetus. It's one of my favorites. It clearly has both, which is my take that there's both through it all. So again, and now when was this written? Letter of Diagnetus was again very early, 150, 120 or so. Uh, we don't know exactly who wrote it.

The word Diagnetus is just a disciple. And, um, he mentions this theme and it, and it's beautiful. Um, and he talks about ransom and he talks about this atonement in a sense of, of the way of a covering, which a lot of CV guys, uh, Christus Victor guys don't like this. A cover the of sins of, you know, that kind of thing. So anyway, let's get into this quote. It's a beautiful, beautiful quote, worshipful quote. But when our wickedness has reached its height, notice the problem is sin. Uh, so some people push it so far, it's not sin, it's death, or the problem is not having teaching. The problem to the patristics, the problem is sin.

But when our wickedness has reached its height, and it has been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death was impending over us, yes, death. And when the time had come, which God had before appointed for manifesting his own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for man, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remembered our iniquity against us, but showed great long suffering and bore with us, he himself took on him the burdens and our iniquities, not just our death, our sins. He gave his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the 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? This is awesome. 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 godly, could be justified? Then by the only Son of God, oh sweet exchange, oh unsearchable operation, oh benefit surpassing all expectation, that the wickedness of many should be hid and the single righteous one, and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors.

Praise God. So the obvious reading to this is that the, that our sin was placed upon him and that it's by his righteousness that the exchange happened, that we are saved. And so again, I've heard people try to turn this into somehow ransom to the devil or something. And it's interesting. It's awkward, but it does say he's ransomed to us. So you do have a mixture in here and life and death is all part of it. But to remove sin is the problem. Death is also the problem. Amen.

Anyway, all right, let's go to the next one is Methodius and one by, uh, uh, uh, um, um, Lacantacious. And these are both, uh, looking at the Old Testament sacrifice. And again, we're, we're looking at that penal expiation to God kind of a thing and see how it plays out. Um, notice the place that the sacrificial blood makes in the argument. As in the instance of the immolation of the lamb, the burning of the lamb, the mystery of which they regard is solely in remembrance of the deliverance of their fathers from Egypt. When, although the firstborn were smitten, they themselves were preserved by marking the doorpost of their house with blood, nor do they understand, speaking of the Jews, that by it also the death of Christ is personified, by whose blood souls made safe and sealed shall be preserved from wrath and the burning of the world, whilst his firstborn, the son of Satan, shall be destroyed with the utter destruction by the avenging angels, who shall reverence the seal of the blood impressed upon the former.

So again, just the, the analogy here, it's the wrath of God. I'm sorry. It's there. And that this blood appeases that wrath of the curse that comes upon mankind. Again, really leaning back to, or pointing back to the Old Testament. Sacrifice and so forth. Yeah. Yeah. And expiation sacrifice to God. Yeah. Lacantacious, basically the same way. Uh, these guys are all close to the, uh, uh, end of the Nicene period. And the Jews even now exhibit a figure of this transaction when they mark their thresholds with the blood of the lamb. For when God was about to smite the Egyptians to secure the Hebrews from that infliction, he had enjoyed them to slay a white lamb without spot and to place it, place on their threshold a mark for its blood.

And thus, when the firstborn of the Egyptians had perished in one night, the Hebrews alone were saved by the sign of the blood. Not that the blood of the sheep had such efficacy in itself as to be the safety of men, but it was an image of things to come. For Christ was the white lamb without spot. That is, he was innocent and just and holy, who being slain by the same Jews is the salvation of all who have written on their foreheads the sign of the blood, that is, of the cross of which his shed, of which he shed his blood. Again, just looking into the, um, the sacrifices there. All right. So now let's go deep.

Okay. Let's go to origin. It's funny. I remember years ago I'm, uh, talking to some guy. I, uh, am on the phone and cause, and they had a group that were really getting into this, you know, and some offshoot, uh, wouldn't have called himself Anabaptist, but you know, some was, uh, in the fringes of our, of our circles.

And he, and he was talking to me and he said, Dean, you don't, he said, we have Origen's view of the atonement. I said, oh, you do. He said, yes, we do. He said, I said, really, what can you, can you explain that to me? And of course, he talks about the idea of the ransom to the devil. Origen's famous quote that, that the death of Jesus was a ransom to the devil. And I said, so I don't think you understand Origen. I tried to appeal to him and he was very mad and said, you know, all these very exciting things to me.

And the irony is all these people who go around saying that they have Origen's view of the atonement have never read Origen. And what I'm about to read to you, if you can truly, if, if you're not changed by the quotes that I read to you today from Origen's commentary to the book of Romans, then I think you're in a silo.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. First, let me give you the famous quote that we have. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Okay. Let's start with that. Okay. So let's start with the famous one. This is the, the, the famous Ulan quotes this. This is the one quote that Ulan does give in his Christus Victor book. Okay. And it's an odd quote. And he says, so this is Origen speaking about, well, who's the sacrifice paid to? Is it, you know, like Lacantacious and Methodius said, you know, or who's it paid to? And Origen says, so to whom did he give his soul a ransom on behalf of many? Certainly not to God. So would it not then be to the evil one?

Hmm. For he had control over us and to the souls of Jesus was given to him as a ransom for our sakes. Now, whoa. So here's Origen's view of the atonement, so called. It's interesting. That quote from that, that commentary of the, uh, the Gospel of Matthew is not in the Antonine scenes.

As a matter of fact, I have never been able to find an English translation of the context of this quote until recently. In 2020, I think a reformed, uh, young man posted it. I have the article here, um, uh, posted here, the source. You can go look at it. And finally, we get an interpretation. It's an odd one. As in, can you, can you go and get this book by Origen? You're saying like you, you were struggling to find a translation. You cannot find the, uh, the, the, the commentary of Origen to the Gospel of Matthew in just an easy form. It's in fragments. Um, what we have is from Jerome and he has, and so Jerome's talking about it and you have to pull these quotes out of Jerome's Latin manuscript.

Oh, wow. So we haven't had it. Or then the, the Greek, um, uh, scraps of this all is very hard to find. I've quoted the source to here. You can go to an excellent article, um, has done on this. When you read the context, it's a little weird.

So I don't know what to do with it. Origen's, you know, you, you take him, you're like, okay, that's amazing, but what is that? And every now and then you're hit with a, what was that? The context of this is he's saying that the, that his, uh, soul, to whom did God give his soul a ransom? But he actually divides Jesus that his spirit he does different, his body he does different, and his soul he does different. Explain that with Nicene, um, Christology and you'll be good to find it. But let me read you what he says. Oh, that's good. Yeah, it's good. It's kind of weird. Yeah. It goes on, and thanks to this article here, it goes on to say, among the discourses of the gospel that we are examining, it is written that our Savior gave his own soul as a ransom on behalf of many.

But according to Peter, it is said that we were ransomed from our futile manner of life received from our ancestors, not by corruptible things, by silver and gold, but by precious blood. The apostle also says, you are bought with a price. Do not be slaves of men. Then here's Origen's conclusion.

Through Jerome, through fragments. It's a, it's a very, um, you know, whatever. We were brought therefore with the precious blood of Christ on the one hand, but on the other hand, the soul of the Son of God was given a ransom for our sake, and neither his spirit, for he first entrusted that to his father, saying, Father, into thy hands I entrust my spirit, nor his body, for we do not find any passage where that is even written about.

It's like, okay, so this kind of puts some context to this famous, you should be. Yeah. That's, yeah. Okay. So he's separating the work of Christ in a way that I don't think you could do in an orthodox manner. Um, yeah. Like, is this bordering, bordering on heresy a little bit? Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Again, to be fair to, to Origen, he does many times say, this is the received stuff. Interesting. This is the stuff I'm speculating on. And you gotta give Origen that credit. Uh, so this is potentially, this is potentially, I, I, we don't, it's fragmented as it is. And so you gotta, to the benefit of the doubt, give Origen that he's just, and, and it also, he had like, he was the first, you know, he's in Alexandria, he's got all these guys, and he had all these scribes.

So this guy could walk around in his robe, you know, saying all this cool stuff. He had these guys writing down, we have more stuff from Origen than anybody, you know? Oh, okay. And so you, it's kind of like Luther, you can find Origen saying anything. Oh, say, so, but again, the point being, the point being, this is the famous Origen atonement quote. And also you're, you're just saying, hey, before we get all excited about this, the context here is, is important. There's a little sus. Yeah. It's, it's a little sus. I don't know what to do with it. I'm like, okay, Origen, that, well, I mean, Origen is kind of one of those, yeah, you know, you read it and you're just like, you just kind of scratch your head a bunch and like, I'm not quite sure what, where he's going here, you know, it's just kind of odd sometimes.

Yeah. Okay. So then we'll say, well then, okay, well then, um, and it's interesting, his idea of the, of the, uh, ransom being paid to the devil is actually developed by Gregory of Nyssa, uh, later, probably reading Origen. Gregory of Nyssa would've loved Origen. Um, and the interesting thing is where that argument goes, and this is a tangent, is that God's not being deceptive. Gregory of Nyssa implies, um, or actually says specifically at this point, um, that he was tricking Satan is what makes him a liar, because what he was really doing was saving Satan.

Now this is because eventually, Gregory of Nyssa. Yeah. So event, because eventually he gets saved and all of evil, Satan does. But see, it wasn't Gregory of Nyssa, like universalist or like any kind of Origen. So, so anyway, so, and he didn't say it explicitly. He said all evil gets redeemed. Okay. So it's a little, there's an interesting article I have it on here. I found once, uh, Paul Anthony on to Heaven with the Devil. It's an interesting take on, you can read Gregory of Nyssa. And nowadays, all the sources are there in this new generation of, interesting. Well, we, I have a feeling we're gonna need to put a lot of sources in the show notes for this.

So here's a good, everybody go out and buy Origen's commentary, of the book of Romans, book one and book two. Uh, and you will have the source for that. All right. We'll link that. Yeah. It'll change your life.

All right. So where, is there any place that then Origen spoke clearly? That's kind of weird. That's kind of ambiguous. And it was in fragments as it is. So we do grant it, it was, um, it's, we have the Latin text, um, translated by Refinus. If, if a, if a desperate Christus Victor, after they finally are confronted with this, will usually say, it's all Refinus' fault. It's his fault. He changed everything. I'm like, I, I've heard that. Okay. I've heard that. Maybe a word here, a word there.

When you finally just read it, you're like, okay, he didn't change a whole chapter. You, you, you have to face that either you throw out all of Origen, um, or okay, this stuff is pretty clear and Refinus did not change all of this. That's, that's interesting. Little nuances of words and interpretations. Okay. Okay. Fine. But I have heard that argument though. Sure. Where it's just like, well, poor argument. Yeah. Poor translation, you know, and, and all of this. So, but anyway, continue. Okay. So, uh, we're gonna go hop into Romans chapter three, um, the big, um, propitiation passage. And one of the important points of, uh, penal substitutionary in the scripture is the verse in Romans chapter three, verse 24 and 25, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God sent forth as a propitiation by his blood through faith to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance, God has passed over the sins that were previously committed.

This is very important, um, to penal substitutionary. So I wonder what Origen thought of that. And usually people, they would interpret just this one little tibbit that we got out of Gustav alone, Ulan, um, but let's actually dig into it.

Fortunately, this word propitiation is a, is a hot topic and you can geek out on the internet till it's not really the mercy seed. It's not really an expiation sacrifice. It's really Jesus himself. And that word is interpreted and there's a lot of, uh, you can geek out forever on trying to lower the view of propitiation as not meeting an expiation to the Father. And that's where the, the debates in, in this guy is okay. Okay. Okay. And so it's not a sacrifice. It's just Jesus himself and that kind of thing. Fortunately, not only does, does Origen deal with the, the word propitiation in a very scholarly way, he even owns the nuances of how in Greek and Latin it's different and that kind of a thing.

And so he goes that. So let's get right into Origen. And I have all these quoted, uh, for you, the sources and the page numbers. Let us look carefully at the meaning of redemption, which is in Christ Jesus.

The term redemption refers to that which is given to enemies for those whom they are keeping in captivity in order that they might restore them to their original freedom. Captives conquered by sin, as if by war, were being held fast, then by the enemies of the human race, let go. What does that sound like?

Hmm. They were prisoners. Yeah. And they're let go. Christus Victor. Clear Christus Victor language. So he's saying this is what it means. Redemption in Christ Jesus. It's Christus Victor. You are in, you are captive and now you're let go. It screams Christus Victor. Screams it. But he goes on.

Remember it. It's both. It's all. Although the holy apostles has taught us many things about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, which are to be marveled at, things which are spoken about him through a mystery. In this passage, he has brought forth something even more admirable, which I do not think is easy to find in other passages of scripture. For above, he said that Christ was given his very self as the redemptive price for the entire human race so that he might redeem those who are being held in captivity of their sins, Christus Victor.

Now he has added something even more profound, he says, and says, quote, this is still, this is still quoting directly from Origen. God predetermined him as a propitiation through faith in his blood. This means, of course, that through the sacrifice of himself, he would make God propitious to men. And though, and through this, he would manifest his own righteousness as he forgives them of their past sins. He goes on.

Origen understands in these different terms of, of, uh, the propitiation. And he goes on. With one and the same understanding, then the apostle designates Christ as the propitiatory or the propitiation, or if frankly found in the Latin manuscripts, propitiator. This is all Origen speaking.

There is however no difference whether propitiator or propitiation or even appeasement is recorded, since in Greek it is always expressed by the one and the same word. Given, uh, given clarity, then the Origen then points to first John two two. And he says, and he himself is the propitiation for our sins and not for us only, but for those of the whole world.

Origen speaking, but what John has said, namely that he is the appeasement or propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for those of the whole world, um, is the, the, the language that he's, he's getting to. Then he goes on to explain how this is in, in, uh, in other ways, and I'm gonna get back to those and other places Origen uses in his commentary of the book of Numbers, speaking of the sacrifices that we see in the Old Testament. Origen makes this statement: if there had not been sin, what's the problem? Sin. If there had not been sin, it had not been necessary for the Son of God to become a lamb, nor had need been that he, having become incarnate, should be slaughtered.

But he would have remained what he was, God the Word. But since sin entered into the world, what's the necessity of sin requires a propitiation, and a propitiation is not made but by a victim. It was necessary that a victim should be provided for sin. And again, this is a commentary on the book of Numbers on how to understand the Old Testament sacrifices. Mm-hmm. Okay. So one of the things that, uh, Christus Victor people, and when they swung too far, typically say is this whole idea of, of that God is just and so he can't forgive. Well, that is the, one of the most popular debates. What about the guy who's forgiven? Uh, you know, and he's, you know, shakes why he just says you're forgiven.

So it's, it's so obviously the early church didn't believe this co-concept of God being just, and that's thrown on, um, the middle ages as chivalry and all this kind of, uh, thing. So let's see what Origen says. For God is just, and the one who is just could not justify the unjust.

For that reason, he wanted there to be a mediation of a proprietor, propitiator, so that those who were not able to be justified through their own works might be justified through faith in him. These things had to be said first, as much as pertains to the explanation of the discourse, in order that the apostolic reading might become clear.

Amen. Thank you, Origen. So, um, okay. The other thing is the idea of imputed our sin imputed to him. Yeah. Is a really big one. Yeah. Talk to me about that. Origen takes it so far. I had to be honest, I'm not comfortable where he goes with it. But let me read to you that he doesn't have a problem with our sin being imputed to Jesus. And he says this: if God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, then it could not be said of him that there was no darkness in him at all. For if Jesus was in the likeness of the flesh of sin and for sin and condemned sin by taking upon himself the likeness of the flesh of sin, then it cannot be said of him absolutely indirectly that there was no darkness in him.

I don't agree with him, but the, the idea there is that the, that idea of, uh, the sins being laid upon him, um, is, is clearly there. So the basic thing though, are you, Dean, are you trying to argue that Origen is just a PSA guy? Um, penal substitutionary. I'm curious. Yes. Are you? Yeah. No. Remember, he starts the whole thing by giving this beautiful analogy of captives being let go.

Origen's point, and this is the point we have to all get, is that Jesus is way too dynamic, like a diamond, like to try to, to narrow this down to one little metaphor. Listen to this quote: let us examine each of the designations recorded of the Savior, and let us carefully ponder what it is that is being depicted of his individual titles. You will find thus that indeed in him, all the fullness of deity was pleased to dwell in bodily form. He is also the propitiatory and the priest and the sacrifice which is offered for the people. And so he's saying that in the context of both the, remember he's saying first it's a, the analogy of the Christus Victor, they're let go, said, but then he's saying even something more profound, and he gives us the sacrifice thing.

And then he ends this whole thing in the book of Roman Commentary here, saying Jesus is, as C.S. Lewis put, a wild lion that cannot be tamed. With our little interpretations and trying to put a God into this one little box, he cracks out of that. And he gives us this beautiful analogy, and it's a, it's a mixed metaphor. It's, it's more than what a mix, not a mix, but it's a, it's a multiple metaphor that, that goes to different things. Curious, how does that, how does that affect Origen's view of salvation? In the same commentary, he goes on.

He himself is the propitiatory, is the propitiatory through faith, and all who are of faith are justified by him. In this current passage, the apostle, as if establishing the conclusion of his previous argument, now says, where then is your boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? That of works? No, but through the law of faith. For we are told that a man is justified through faith without the works of the law. Origen then continues, this is all him talking. He is saying that the justification of faith alone suffices, so that the one who only believes is justified, even if he has not accomplished a single work.

And he goes on to explain, well, where do you see this? And he goes on to play that the thief on the cross. He explains that the woman, uh, caught in adultery, they were immediately forgiven. Now in your mind, you're thinking, okay, this is totally different than what David Verso is saying. Not necessarily. David, if you read in his commentary, reads it very clearly that at the beginning, it's completely this way, that Jesus sees us as a sinner and saves us. And so it's not, again, there's nuances in here and even how David Perso would walk, walk through this. I think that this is entirely ignored, even in our piety, even in our worship, even the way we come to Christ.

I'm worried when people are just coming to Christ out of empty, or not empty, but legalistic terms, uh, and not because Christ has saved them. Um, he goes on. Now then let's return to our theme. Yes, let's do Origen.

A human being is justified through faith. The works of the law contribute nothing to his being justified. But where there is no faith, which justifies the believers, even if one possesses works from the law, nevertheless, because they have not been built upon the foundation of faith, although they might appear to be good things, nevertheless, they are not able to justify the one doing them, because from faith, because from them, faith is absent, which is the sign of those who are justified by God. This is what we have instead that Abraham believed God, and that was accounted to him for righteousness. And so Judaic boasting is excluded, not through the law of works, but through the law of faith, which is in Christ Jesus, in whose cross the apostles boast, for whom, for who will legitimately boast on his own chastity or his own wisdom, and who will boast that of his own righteousness when he hears God saying through the prophets, all your righteousness is like the rags of a minstress woman.

The only just boasting then is based upon the faith and the cross of Christ, which excludes all boasting that deceives from the works of the law, that derives from the works of the law. Wow. Wait, are you saying that works doesn't matter? Origen sees the error. And notice if your theology doesn't lean towards a need of a correction like Paul's does. Are you saying that we, we go on sinning that grace much more abounds? And Paul says, no, no, no, no, no. We must live righteous lives. Origen sees the same problem. I argue that your theology of your salvation should lean towards grace that needs this balance. And Origen says, but perhaps someone who hears these things should become lax and negligent of doing good.

If in fact faith alone suffices for him to be justified, to this person we shall say that if anyone acts unjustly after justification, it is scarcely to be doubted that he has rejected the grace of justification. For a person does not receive the forgiveness of sin in order that he should once again imagine that he has been given a license to sin. For the remission is not given for future crimes, but only the past ones, according to Origen. Oh, so, okay. Yeah. So the point is here, um, is there any sense of what later people are saying? You can go on sinning and all. No, that's not in Origen. That's not in Origen. Um, that you can't lose your salvation.

Not in Origen, obviously. Um, that they never were saved. That's not what he's saying. He's saying you've lost that. And so don't turn this into the, as you go down your silos into the centuries, um, that's not what Origen is saying. But what is he saying that should turn us into a, uh, something that's, it's very powerful. So anyway, that's Origen. Wow. So I got two more, uh, uh, biggies, uh, Eusebius and Chrysostom. But yeah. All right. No, go, go for it. No, any thoughts on Origen? Yeah, it's just a, it's, that's a lot. Like it feels, it feels like I needed to grab. I, I haven't read his commentary on, on Romans. That seems like that would be worth doing.

Yeah. Actually, like kind of, it's like, yeah, I'm still trying to get it. And again, I don't agree with every word he says, for sure. Of course. Yeah. Um, but wow, please don't tell me that these things were invented in the, in the, um, I mean, it's not like I'm, if, if I would quote those quotes and I was to have here, you know, who's saying it? Luther, Calvin, well, yeah, Augustine. That's kind of what, kind of what my head is saying. It's like, that does sound kind of like, yeah, like Luther. What do you think Luther, Calvin, and, and, uh, were reading? Origen. Okay. And so, um, I don't, I don't agree with where a Calvin and, and Augustine takes this.

So in the ancient, there's these gems though, that makes us own the nuance. And that's the biggest argument that I'm trying to say through this, this idea of atonement and, and salvation. Own the nuance. On the nuance. It's powerful. Yeah. Okay. Um, all right. Let's go to Eusebius. Eusebius now is a very, uh, obviously redounded speaker. He's, he's the great historian. He lived in both the persecution era, and then he said, and then he was infatuated with, with Constantine and into the next era. And he wrote a book called, um, The Preparation of the Gospel and the Demonstration of the Gospel, which he explains the gospel. So why aren't we looking at that? And when someone in the patristics are actually saying this is the gospel.

Mm-hmm. Um, and there's some pretty strong words, but what you really see in, um, in Eusebius, he's the best at explaining the multiple metaphors. It's a big book. These books are big. And as you work through them, you see as Christus Victor, oh, that sounds like, uh, um, uh, uh, recapitulation from Irenaeus. That sounds like ransom. That sounds like Christus, you know, and you see it coming out of Eusebius. But you do see as part of that, his ones on penal substitution. So let's see. And, um, speaking on Isaiah 53, this is proof of the gospel, book three. In this, he shows that Christ, being apart from all sin, will receive the sins of men on himself.

And therefore he will suffer the penalty of sinners and will be pained on their behalf and not on his own. And if he shall be wounded by the strokes of blasphemous words, this also will be the result of our sins. For he is weakened through our sins so that we, when he had taken on him our faults and the wounds of our wickedness, might be healed by his stripes.

All right. Later on, uh, paid for our sins, um, proof of the gospel, book 10. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastened on our behalf and suffered a penalty he did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitudes of our sins. And so he became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins because he received death for us and transferred to himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonor which were due to us and drew down on himself the appointed, the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but a price for our souls?

Wow, Eusebius. Yes. All right. Uh, we have now, and you can go get it. I suggest everybody go get it. The commentary on the book of Isaiah by Eusebius, unbelievably not translated until 2010. Whoa. So all the time that these people were, uh, looking through every time, there's those and all of us in the early, we didn't even have Eusebius's commentary on the book of Isaiah. And it's interesting because we believe that Eusebius had Origen's commentary of the book of Isaiah, which we no longer have, um, right there on his shelf when he's doing his. So it unlocks, it unlocks the patristics in many ways. Interesting. Interesting. Um, the, the commentary here, uh, in the ancient Christian texts, um, uh, it says, uh, the, the translator said, the fact that the commentary of Isaiah has never been appeared in modern language is all the more remarkable when one remembers that this commentary is the first Christian commentary on the prophet Isaiah to have survived to the, to the present.

Wow. And never been translated. And, and going to his previous quote, he's using a lot of language from Isaiah 53. And, and that had come up in some other things you were quoting earlier. So like this is a significant point. So now we're going to open up and see what he says. Yeah, exactly. So let's turn to Isaiah 53 and see what he has to say.

But he was the very Savior who heals our soul and cleanses every sin. Therefore he continues on. This one bears our sins and suffers pain for us, and we accounted him to be in trouble and calamity and ill treatment. In the passage, and he comes to the, the thing on Isaiah, he was wounded for our transgression.

Just as he did in other works, Eusebius interprets the verse as talking about our punishment having been upon Jesus. And when he does this, he curiously says, and this is a weird statement, even his children, we had this view. Listen to the quote. Okay. Even his children, we had this view concerning him that he suffered all these things because of us in order that we might set us free from all retribution. Therefore he continues on, but he was wounded because of our sins and has been weakened because of our sins.

And he himself shall bear their sins in another place. So here, uh, okay, uh, to give a little bit of this quote, he's one of the first people who has, uh, all these different, um, he's a true historical theologian and he has all these documents and he, you're going to hear me talk about Sinocus, uh, Sumacus and, and different Greek manuscripts of the Isaiah. So people say, what about the Septuagint? What about the Mesorek? He had all these before us. And even with that, he's making these arguments for the atonement in this way. He says, and he himself bears their sins, or according to Sumacus, and he himself bore their, uh, impieties. Taking on himself the impieties of those who were formerly sinners and ungodly, he stripped them of the garment of sin and perfected them as righteous.

For this reason, he continues on to say, therefore he shall inherit many, for it was because he assumed on himself the sins of many that he also has been able to make everyone his inheritance. If there has been no one to, if there had been no one to forgive sins, they would have continued on in their faults and would have never attained a salvation. And now, after he is a, after he assumed their sins, he then, because of this, also received them as an inheritance from the Father.

Um, and then my favorite, I saved it for the last of the Eusebius and we'll finish with Chrysostom. The most beautiful passage that brings the multi-images. Again, I'm not arguing for Christus Victor only. I'm not arguing for penal substitutionary only. Listen to this. This is from the proof of the gospel, book four.

So why did Jesus come to earth? You know, the big, uh, why did God become man? The reason is not one, but many. First, that the kingdom of the Logos may be established over the living and dead. What does that sound like? Christus Victor. Second, to cleanse our sins by allowing himself to be struck and by becoming a curse for us. Penal substitutionary atonement. Thirdly, to offer in the sacrifice to God for the whole world, PSA. Fourthly, to destroy the reign of the devil, Christus Victor. Fifthly, to ensure to his disciples everlasting life with God, Christus Victor.

Isn't that beautiful? Now that is something. That's beautiful. And when we allow ourself to get siloed on this subject, you're, you're, you're killing your, you're, you're, you're stripping yourself into a kind of reductionism that I believe affects your piety. I believe it affects the way you pray to God. I believe it affects the way you, uh, I can, I think it can even the way you come to God and your salvation. It's, it's own all of that and the way Eusebius gives it to us. All right. Finally, we'll end with the champion of, uh, Greek theology, Chrysostom. Mm-hmm. Um, many people say, well, they, the Orthodox view of the atonement and this kind of a thing.

Yes. That, that was one of the things that I'm sure the comments are lining up. Yeah. Um, the Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, would, would, would probably use a lot of this stuff, would they not? It's interesting. Um, so over the last 30 years, as I've been looking at this, you know, um, all this has matured and included, including in the, in the Orthodox, um, world. You, um, unfortunately, Orthodox, um, um, theology is just filled with, uh, apologists on the internet. It's very difficult to find an honest, okay, I'll be careful. It's very difficult to find a, yeah, an honest, uh, uh, scholar in, uh, when you're going through apologists and any of us, if I'm going to be an Anabaptist, uh, apologist and I'm saying we're the one true church and that's it, you know, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to present, I'm going to lack a nuance and, and I, and one of my biggest, you know, problems with that is just, it's not really Catholic.

It's not, it's not really owning, uh, the, the church as we've received it from the apostles in a broader way. And so I have noticed that the future, uh, now you're finding Orthodox scholars who like, well, I don't know, uh, especially when they hear Chrysostom. It's hard to be a self-respecting Greek Orthodox and dis, uh, Chrysostom. You just, you can't, you can't. Okay. So, um, and so in his homily based on Second Corinthians chapter five, the verse, which is of course one of the most powerful, uh, penal substitutionary verses is, for he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him. And I don't know if you've ever listened to a, uh, a Christus Victor only guy squeeze out of that verse.

It's kind of funny. And so I try to think of one, oh, it's kind of like the righteousness of God, the kingdom's coming forth and, and there's a way to explain it around of it, you know, and you're like, okay, is that, and I'm only believing this because I'm messed up, because I read Luther, you know, is the, is the idea. What's the plain language there? For he made him, God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God in him. So let's go to, let's go to, uh, Chrysostom. And so he's writing a commentary on that chapter. Exactly. So, uh, Chrysostom, we have beautiful, um, sermons of his.

And you'll see this is not, you'll, you see how, how it reads. It doesn't read like a, uh, an apologetic or, or a, uh, uh, uh, an article or something. It reads like a sermon. He's preaching. You can hear Chrysostom preaching this and his good sermon. And, uh, I want to go, I want to go stand in the middle of the Hagia Sophia and, and preach this, you know, get and get thrown out of Turkey. But, uh, um, because that's where he would have lived, right? Uh, yeah, in that area. Exactly. Right there. Uh, and the, before the, the current Hagia Sophia. So we're preaching now, right? Okay. I say nothing of what has gone before, that you have outraged him, him that has done you no wrong, him that has done you good, that he exacted not justice, that he is first to beseech the first outrage.

Let none of these things be set down at present. Ought you not in justice to be reconciled for this one thing? Oh, like for this reason alone, this one thing only that he had done to you now. And what has he done?

He 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 outraged him. But now he had both well achieved mighty things and besides had suffered him that did no wrong to be punished for those who had done wrong.

But, but he didn't just even say that, but he did not say this, but mentioned that which is far greater than this. What then is it that he said? He that knew no sin, he says, him that was righteousness itself, he made sin.

That is suffered as a sinner to be condemned for the curse, for one curse to die. For cursed is he that hangeth on a tree, Galatians 3:13. For to die thus was far greater than to die. And this he also elsewhere implying is saith, becoming obedient unto death, yes the death of the cross.

For this thing carried with it not only punishment, not just punishment, but also disgrace.

Reflect therefore how great thing he bestowed on thee. For a great thing indeed it were for even a sinner to die for anyone whatsoever. But when he who undergoes this both is, that this both is righteous and dieth for sinners and not dies only, but even as one cursed and not as cursed only, but therefore freely bestowed upon us those great goods which we never looked for. And then he keeps building it up and building it up, preaching. For he says that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

What words, what thought shall be adequate to realize these things? For the righteous, says he, he made a sinner that he might make the sinners righteous. Okay, rather he didn't even say that. He didn't even say that. If he said not even so, but what is far greater for the word he employed is not the habit of sinning, but the quality itself. For he said not made him a sinner, but sin. Not he that hath not sin only, but that he had not even known sin that we also might become. Now he didn't say righteous, but righteousness and the righteousness of God. For this righteousness of God, when we are justified, not by works, in which case it was necessary that not a spot even should be found, but by grace, in which case all sin is done away.

And this at the same time that it suffices us not to be lifted up. Seeing the whole is the free gift of God, teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.

And then finally, one of the most controversial things in PSA versus Christus Victor is, is the whole penal case, the courtroom scene.

And he finishes his point with this. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and a malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only begotten and true to be slain and transferred the death and the guilt as well from him to his son, who was himself of no such character that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation.

Whoa, I didn't expect that. Now, wow. When you read the fathers, as you did with Origen, as you did with Clement of Rome, uh, Clement of Rome goes on to, uh, explaining about how we have to live a righteous life. Origen says the same thing. Tertullian says the same thing. They all say the same thing.

In the patristic mind, this truth should convict you to righteousness. He finishes his point with this. Reflecting then on these things, let us fear these words more than hell. Let us reverence these things they express more than the kingdom. And let us not deem it grievous to be punished, but to sin. Grievous about sinning. For were he not to punish us, we ought to take vengeance on ourself, who had been so ungrateful towards our benefactor. So the idea that we can go on sinning because we have this license of sin is not known in the patristic writings. But as we see, these things are, are, are beautiful and they're part of it. I have a picture here.

You can see it on the internet. I'm maybe we'll find. It's, it's the way you, you take like a little cylinder. Hmm. And, and you can shine a light on it and it looks like a square. And you shine a different light over here and it looks like a circle. And they both give us, uh, an analogy of, um, of what? And you can get into a camp. Oh, it's a circle. Um, no, it's a square.

But if we get into those kinds of silos, you're somehow missing the truth of what's really underneath it. My biggest fear that when we get into silos of penal substitutionary atonement only, or if we get into the silos of Christus Victor only or any of the other analogies, you are not seeing the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. Very clearly, very clearly. We can see they may be wrong, but these nuances are in the patristic writings. And to ignore that is to somehow not to get a view. And as a historical theologian, I'm saying, I think there's something in all of these views of the atonement, um, that we need to, to go to.

And I'll, I'll finish then and we can open it up to your, any thoughts to Eusebius's point. I love his quote again. The reason is not one, but many. First, that the kingdom of the Logos may be established over the living and dead.

Second, to cleanse our sins by allowing himself to be struck and by becoming a curse for us. Third, to offer himself in sacrifice to God for the whole world. Fourth, to destroy the reign of the devil. Fifth, to ensure to his disciples everlasting life with God.

And that's the patristic witness of the atonement. Mm-hmm. So in your view then, how do you put these two together, the Christus Victor and the penal substitution? Like, do you have a way of bringing these together or is this just saying this is part of the mystery of the atonement? Yeah, talk to me about that. So the problem is, I, I don't think that you can, um, give a sacrifice to Satan. Um, well, that was one of the questions here. Yeah, I think, and, and even in the, in the, um, oh, the, the late, I mean, the, the, the Nicene period, um, Gregor Veneziensis argued that no, no, no, no, it's, it's a, it's a ransom to, to God, the Father.

Um, Gregor Nyssa argued it's a, it's a, it's a, a ransom to Satan. Um, I don't think you can go there, but with the ransom to the Father, um, it fits fine within the other themes. And the Christus Victor is the overarching theme that, I mean, you see, Eusebius has no problem putting those together. Christ died on the cross. How does he bring about this kingdom? Not by paying something to the Satan, Satan, but all of this, remember, we're believing it in a Trinity that works with one divine will. It's not cosmic sacrifices or me having to go grab somebody. We were just going to go grab somebody and, and have him pay for sin.

No, it's God working in Trinity and the most precious thing that we have, the redemption of our souls to salvation. And so all of this works in the divine way of, of, of God saving humanity, becoming man, using the cross to do that, using that cross to defeat Satan and to the resurrection and allowing his kingdom to be placed on this earth. And we're alive and we're putting the kingdom teachings on earth and we're glorifying Christ and we're establishing his kingdom all through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, uh, and his sacrifice of himself on the cross. Um, belittling it with these things like cosmic, uh, it's why I prayed at the beginning. You get into these conversations and I, I, you hear how Chrysostom took this.

You can't read that and just stay academic. It's meaningful. It's the, it's the blood of Jesus Christ. It's, it's mysteries that are, are deep. And, and in that becoming like Christ, becoming like God is all of, you know, their, um, their teachings as well. But wow, why would you, why would you miss out on all of those beautiful metaphors of the blood of Jesus? Uh, you know, I, I, I think even in salvation, you know, and I, in my journey in, in Anabaptism, I've seen a, uh, an interesting shift, you know, in my original churches that I was a part of, not David's, but, you know, in, in Pennsylvania, it's kind of like it, it was a, the pendulum was swung so far over to like revivalism and such that, you know, unless you had a crisis conversion, you know, like this, then, you know, we were rebaptizing everybody because they didn't have quite the crisis conversion of Christ speaking, you know, and breaking in their heart.

Acts 2:36, going into 2:38, does very clearly say when Peter was preaching under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, they were pricked to the heart. There was a work of God by faith acting upon the sinner. Then they cried out, what shall we do? And then they were, uh, baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. And this all working together by these different actions of faith were coming out. Now the, and so we were really emphasizing this crisis of the prick to your heart part, you know. Now it's almost like the pendulum has swung over to almost like an old order salvation that you've got, um, okay, you're just going to be obedient.

You're going to follow the teachings of Christ and we're going to put the teachings of Christ on earth. And I don't know, there's something in the preaching, there's something in the singing, there's something in the worship that's missing this mystery of God saving the sinner that when you were in your sin, Christ died for the ungodly. And that, that gratitude that we have to God's grace and his salvation of my soul and, and that type of thing is somehow becoming less and less preached from the pulpit. And I wonder, in my opinion, is it having something having to do with this pendulum, even in this theology that the problem is teaching, the problem is, is we're dead death and, and we just need to be taught and this kind of a thing.

You hear some Christus Victor people say, not so much in our circles, but, you know, and I, I, I, uh, I think it's a danger and I think it affects our worship and affects our, our piety and, um, it's not just an academic subject. Mm-hmm.

So the one question I have then, what do you see as the biggest challenge to penal substitution? And then how could others looking through this, studied into this, et cetera, come to a different conclusion than you? Oh, they do. Yeah, exactly. But like, why? Like, why do you think that they? I personally think, uh, most people, um, uh, rarely, um, the, the, the idea of a historical theologian is different than a systematic theologian. And so in most seminaries and, and people and on the internets and, and things, you, you start, uh, and you go get a book, you go grab a book on the atonement. I'm going to find out the atonement and it's some guy's perspective on the atonement.

And you get this quote and that quote and it builds these types of things. Um, this happens on a lot of subjects. Um, a historical theologian lets the sources start from the beginning and lets it speak. And I believe that in my 30 years of, of reading the patristics, um, a lot more has been coming out. And the access and the ease of, I mean, I was, uh, just doing something the other day and to be able to pop up instantly the, the Greek text, uh, of Justin Martyrs on his, his, his view of transmutation and the communion. And, and I was doing that for other podcasts. And so I was like, it's like, you can, oh yes, there's the Greek text.

And what about the different translations? Oh yes, here is this. I mean, that's crazy. We are in the most incredible time for historic Christianity because we're actually able to let not the apologists speak, but let the, um, patristics speak for themselves. So I think that it's just like I saw that I think NT writes an honest scholar. Um, I saw his views modified to that, who he just said that at the beginning. I said, yeah, it's not either or. What's you read his earlier stuff? It sounds kind of either or. He's kind of slamming penal substitutionary atonement and, and making it sound like you have to be only Christus Victor. Um, I think we're maturing in our understanding and the, the, the sources being able to us and we're realizing, you know, okay, I can accept penal substitutionary atonement and it doesn't mean I have to be allowing sin or, you know, saying I don't have to have the baggage of what it came up in the 1500s or I can accept Christus Victor and it doesn't have to be woke.

It doesn't have to be weird. Uh, and I, and I am excited about the research that's just happening recently. Um, and, uh, I, I think it's, I think it's a good thing. So I, I think that this stuff's coming out more and you're going to hear more people own the nuance to view. So again, you're coming back kind of where we started of saying, well, they're both right in a way, like these two, these two views. And that's what you're advocating for, which, which, um, okay, I can see that. I also see in the comments, you know, both sides will now attack you probably. So go get them, guys.

Um, yeah. So I wonder if that also speaks a bit to our culture. I'm, I'm totally speculating here, but you were, you've mentioned the term silos to where it's like, you have to kind of choose a camp. Yeah. Like you have to choose. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which silo you're going to be in. Again, you're, you're saying, well, let's take a step back and say that's not necessarily the case. There's mystery here, there's nuance here, um, and there's elements of both. Am I getting this right? Absolutely. You are. Yeah. And I guess the point that I really want to, uh, this is for most people watching is like, well, what? You know, yeah. Uh, it's when you start getting into these rabbit holes, you start to look up these things.

But, and so I do want to give a caution. Um, the beauty of Anabaptism is that the idea of Christ and his kingdom is brought forth in practical and real living ways. Um, what happens is you can hide a lot of sin, nations of sin in some of these rabbit holes. And as you, you pin through and you start saying, oh, this, this whole strain of thought has this. And what David Brissot and I usually argue and, and other, um, you know, patristic, uh, uh, guys in, in that type of way is that I, I, you have to kind of start from the beginning. And so the things that matter most, mm-hmm, aren't the things that matter, um, um, 1500 or so.

I, when I was in seminary, um, I, I, uh, had to read the thousand pages by Michael Horton, you know, five point Tulip Sniffin, uh, Calvinist, you know, and you know what? I loved it. Of all the, the, uh, yeah, of all the one that my, uh, advisor made me read, I, I liked it because when he spoke, you knew what he was saying. A lot of the, the systematic theology books that we had to read are like, uh, but Michael Horton says it, you know what he's saying. Um, but it's interesting, um, you know, in his, his thing, it's funny or not funny. It's kind of sad how you build up all this Christology and atonement and soteriology and all that.

And then finally at the end, you try to tack on a little bit of, uh, the morals of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus. The teachings of Christ cannot be separated from the Christology and soteriology of Christ. And so it's who he is. He didn't speak like you and me, like, like, uh, a teacher. His teachings come from his very nature. And so if somehow we end up with a Christianity that is into, uh, we have the right view of the atonement or we have the right this and, and somehow are missing the simple teachings of Jesus, that God came to earth and said, guys, this is the blueprint for humanity, not getting right the view of atonement and not getting right this type of a thing.

Um, we've got to keep that priority. I don't mind geeking out of this. I'll do it all day long with you, but please. And this comes with many different things. Apologists in this day and age on the internet rip one way or the other on issues and get us into these camps. Allow the simplicity. Because when you read, grab the DDK, grab the Clement of Rome, grab the earlier church writings. What do they find important? Huh? They sound like Jesus. And they say that when the teachings of Jesus are what's important to be kept and it's what the church should look like. And so anyway, those are the type of things. So in these other areas, I don't have to have a dogmatic view on the millennial reign or I don't have to have a dogmatic view on, sorry, well, there's another whole thing.

Oh boy. I don't have to have one on, on, on spelling this out in some particular silo. Um, I can enjoy the conversations of the Christus Victor guys and the, uh, penal substitutionary guys. And so, yeah, I can see that in Clement of Rome. I can see a little bit of that in origin, you know. Okay. But it's, but that's going to be controversial because, well, obviously, because there's going to be people that said, well, okay, there's one example I saw, um, of a, a particular writer who, who was very strong on penal substitution. Okay. And he laid out this big case and wrote all these articles and blah, blah, blah. And this is the way it needs to be.

Okay. And towards the end of that, basically said, if some, if you have a teacher in your church that does not teach what I have described here, they should not be allowed to speak in church. And I was like, well, that seems a little strong because like, you're assuming your interpretation is totally right. Are you pushing back on that kind of? I am. Where it's like, if you don't have this exact view, then therefore you're not in our camp kind of thing. Yeah. I think that's wrong. Almost like tribalism. It is tribalism. And I think it's wrong. However, one of my hopes is to try to redeem and to rescue the kingdom camp. Okay. Okay.

Because you can't really talk to me about that. I am serious because, okay, so much of this is ran by a neo-Anabaptist and it gets woke, it gets weird. And usually it's kind of like a leaven. Next thing you know it, you're reading all these things and it, I have seen, and this is now putting on my pastoral hat, I have seen a, a baggage that has come with it that concerns me a lot. And so I get his cry. I think it's too far. We need to own it for what it is. And if you, we have to see that being, that the, the blueprint for humanity, Jesus Christ saving us from evil and putting his kingdom on the earth is Christus Victor.

That's the victory of Christ is the theme. And so that's okay. Um, but I understand where he's at because I do think usually if you, if you were to take the guys who are Christus Victor only, you know, it's like, it gets usually there's a, uh, the stuff they're reading, they're not letting themself read the other side. And there's a lot that goes along with this. And you're like, well, have you ever thought of this? Nope. That's, you know. So I mean, it could be, it's, it's, but this is where the siloing can happen really quickly because they say this, and I don't know this person at all, but let's say they had seen that, you know, and so, oh, well, we don't want that.

So we'll go over here. And then pretty quick now you just have, you're in your two separate silos and it's very hard to bridge back across. Yeah. What I'm hearing you say is you really care about bridging it back across. Yes, I do. I do. I think Christus Victor is important. Um, without it, I think we can get into, uh, NT writes said it right on. If your soteriology, atonement or anything, if your idea of Jesus Christ boiled down, could be that Jesus came as a baby, crucified on the cross and basically accomplished everything, you're wrong. Somehow you've got some messed up theology. And that's what Christus Victor argues for. This is wrong. You've got a whole life of Christ.

You've got his life. You've got his teachings. You've got his, his kingdom. You've got his church. Um, we've got to talk about that. And so that's where the, the, the silo of penal substitutionary goes. Basically, his teachings aren't important. His dispensationalism said this, you know, his teachings aren't important. His, his life is not really important. It's almost confuses you, you know, and, and all this other stuff. So basically he could, he came as a sacrifice. We offer the sacrifice. Hey, he's a lamb. Do it as a baby. And, and then we could have sacrificed. And that's what Christus Victor is crying out for. And I think it's a good pushback. We need that pushback from Christus Victor.

Okay. So that's, that we could, could be, yeah, penal substitution taken to a whole, a whole nother level than what you're right suggesting here. And, and that's, but that's the sloppy. Just, just like I said, there's a sloppy side of Christus Victor. Yeah. The sloppy side of penal substitutionary is that. Well, that was kind of, if you're in a thumper of a penal substitutionary guy and all he's reading is Piper and this, and then, you know, and all this different stuff, usually those guys are, you know, right wing, you know, and they're talking about all this and they've got a vibe. And so, oh yeah. And, and, and that's why I was like, you guys on that comment, you've got vibe, you know, you guys who I'm talking about.

So yeah. Because I was like, well, that's probably what's going to happen when people, people hear, hear the, they hear the term and they immediately think they go to the extremes. Yeah. Like, oh, that's that camp over there. And then that's why, that's why we wanted to actually do this podcast with you because it'll probably be controversial with some people. But I think it is important to talk about these things instead of just immediately going all the way to the far extremes of, of either direction or all directions or whatever, however you want to slice it. So here's my, my argument of this message is you, uh, this way may be right, this way may be right.

Um, this, uh, um, apologetic may be right, this may be right. All I'm saying is that those silos and only being one way or the other, you won't find in the early church. Make your arguments philosophically, make your arguments in systematic theology. Mm-hmm. You can't make them in, in, in the theology of the early church. If the early church, that's the important piece. That's the important piece. Yeah. So what's Dean arguing? I'm arguing is that if you're saying that this stuff is unknown until as I'm in the, or, uh, you know, uh, the, the, the medieval period, no, that's ridiculous. Stop saying that. Throw the books away. It's not true. Um, if you're saying, if you're arguing from a philosophical point that it's only Christus Victor, it's only, you know, fine, do that all day.

Have coffee and get around the coffee table and say that. You're doing though, you're not going to be able to do it with the early church. So I'm, I'm hearing between the lines is a real, um, uh, an, an, an earnest desire for more, um, digging into this material with the early church. And, and, and actually it feels like a lot of this stuff is, is still new and, and still being published and coming out. Um, so if I would suggest, it seems like more scholarship should be happening here. We are in the best day for historical theology. And you've literally, you can get on there and, uh, and, and, and, and look up stuff.

I want to see the Justin Martyrs apology, uh, uh, you know, first apology, the Greek manuscript. Where's that? Boop. There it is on the manuscript. Oh, let me see that. Oh, I'd like to translate that myself. Boop. Translate it yourself. I mean, we're there. That's pretty cool. That's crazy. That's pretty neat. And back when I used to have to drive two hours to, to, to Dallas to go to the seminary to, to copy just the Antonicine Fathers alone. And I think that's exciting. And I think that we're going to get a historic faith. And I believe if we're honest, start with the Fathers. Remember my, my, my, we'll do a whole podcast on my scar thing.

Scripture, Christocentric, Antiquity, and Real. Antiquity, go as early. Don't go apologetics and, and start with the, uh, grab volume one of the Antonicines, grab the Apostolic Fathers from Amazon or something, and let the earliest ones speak to you.

And then, then get into the other things. If you go the other way, you'll just be stuck in your silo and you'll be reading your silos that way. Yeah. But it's powerful. It's, it's life changing. So I want to, um, you mentioned C.S. Lewis towards the beginning here and how he'd been influenced by some of this. And he has an interesting quote on the, on the atonement, um, uh, in his book, Mary Christianity. So I want to read this and, and then hear your thoughts, engage with that, um, and, and so forth. Um, so this is what he says. We are told that Christ was killed for us, that his death has washed out our sins and that by dying, and that by dying, he disabled death itself.

That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary. Mayor plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us. And even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. Yeah. Uh, yeah. What would you say to that? Totally amen. Yeah. And that's the bottom line. So I started with the, the passage, um, that by this we are saved, um, according to the scriptures. And, and as these silos and, and theologians and, and mere men have tried to redeem it. And he's right in the middle.

I mean, he was influenced. He loved Ulan. He, he goes into writing and he liked it very much. Into the day, he says this, and I agree with him. I think that point has to be made. Um, and that point, he's deliberately owning the nuance. It's the rest are secondary. And that's the, that's the important point. Yeah. Acknowledging the mystery, perhaps. That would be another way to say that. And that, you know, we, that are we going to miss the, the, uh, you know, are we going to miss the whole point, uh, you know, is that, um, here, I'll give you that verse one more time here. First Corinthians 15:1.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel, which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved. If you hold fast that word, which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.

Amen. That feels like a, a, a really strong place to end this episode. Is there anything else you'd like to say? No, I think it's good. I, I think it's good. And so, uh, yeah, I'll be interesting to see. So, so I'll give you some resources. I'll give you some, um, interesting books that I think are some, some good scholarship. Um, again, all of it, let's keep to the word of God is our, um, you know, I, let's, I like C.S. Lewis's, um, uh, verse there, our word, uh, passage there. And I'll give you some resources and some things to check it out more. And, and yeah, so it's a good topic. Well, thanks for being willing to come on and, and share on this.

And yeah, we're going to link as much as we possibly can on, on the, in the references down in the show notes or in the description. Um, and, uh, yeah, when this releases, I'll let you know and you can, you can watch the comments pour in because I'm sure there'll be lots of discussion happening. It's awesome. I hope so. So thank you so much for sharing today. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here. Lesson Friday.

Thanks for listening to this episode with Dean on the subject of the atonement. If you found this interesting, you might want to check out the interview we did with David Berceau where he gives some of his input on how he views salvation. You can find that linked down below. And of course, you can find all our content for free on our website at anabaptistperspectives.org. Thanks again for listening and we'll catch you in the next episode.

Discussion Questions

Great for study groups

Yes, the Early Church Taught Penal Substitutionary Atonement - Dean Taylor

Description

🎧 Audio Player with Transcript

Playlist

Playlist

Yes, the Early Church Taught Penal Substitutionary Atonement - Dean Taylor

Description

🎧 Audio Player with Transcript

Add to Playlist

Playlist

Playlist