Diserner
Well-known member
Also please study in depth the genetic fallacy:
The Atonement, the Gospel and PSA
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
TibiasDad
Well-known member
I am watching Winger’s video on PSA, and at about 3/4s of the way through the first video, I have noticed a couple of things that are interesting.
1) He asserts that because the elements of penal and substitution are mentioned, and indeed they are, that they are necessarily espousing PSA in the modern expression of the theory. That I believe is inaccurate.
Nobody divorces themselves from these two aspects, and they are both necessarily included in every approach to the atonement by orthodox scholars. So the inclusion of penalty and substitution in a theory does not infer PSA as a comprehensive theory.
2) I find it rather interesting that Wringer accuses dissenters of misrepresenting the writings of the ECFs but then turns around and quotes a plethora of sources and then deduces that they are supporting PSA, and this simply because he says so. All this is added to the fact that he had already established that the writings of the ECFs were not seeking to systematize a comprehensive theory of atonement, thus, the comprehensive theory of PSA cannot be asserted as being taught. This is especially true of the Calvinistic expression thereof.
Again, I agree with Winger that the ECFs did not have a systematic approach to theology as a whole, and their writings were not intended as systematic teachings on the atonement or any other aspect of theology. So it is all in the eye of the 21st century beholder what these first, second and third century leaders meant, just as it is with the apostle’s writings.
The PSA of Calvinism, which is where the moniker was born, probably with Hodge, though that is admittedly a guess, cannot be indicative of the ECFs without the specific qualities of that position being associated with the penal substitution idea.
Doug
civic
Well-known member
Yes the PSA is the new kid on the block when it comes to the 7 different theories of the atonement. There were 6 before PSA came into existence.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
From my reading the Ransom Theory seems to be the earliest held theory, and all others followed in tow.
Doug
civic
Well-known member
ditto
Diserner
Well-known member
I don't completely agree with Winger on everything, but I guarantee you there is language that falls within the definition of PSA in the ECF.
That doesn't and shouldn't prove anything, I don't think it will convince anyone who is already being moved one way or the other.
I have been defending PSA a long time and I have a lot written on it.
Check these out if you are interested and respond anywhere.
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/law-wrath-and-grace.264/#post-5357
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/gods-attribute-of-justice-demands-psa.681/
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/answering-some-objections-to-a-true-atonement.376/
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/died-for-sins-what-exactly-does-that-mean.632/
https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/child-abuse-forcing-a-negative-framework-to-make-something-sound-bad.622/
civic
Well-known member
You do know Tibiasdad is a pastor and went to seminary right ?
