Talk:Penal substitution

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

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

message: It may be worth noting that you won't get much PSA in the Catechism of the Catholic Church but I have not come across any Roman Catholic (or even Orthodox) rebuttal of PSA. Surely there is disagreement about the place of the doctrine (metaphor?) within Christian theology but has anyone knowledge of substantial disagreement? (I am of course thinking of serious theological debate rather than the kind of polemic one might get in church papers and on blogs.)TwoWorlds 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from Socinius there is also, rather more recently, Hastings Rashdall, among scholars.  I think that much of the difficulty is that, as I indicated the Creeds contain no doctrine of the atonement. Moreover, many of the words used both in Scripture and subsequently - sacrifice, satisfaction, ransom, expiation, propitiation,redemption, reconciliation - have no flavour of the law courts. For this reason, many Christians simply cannot see that PS is more than another picture and a metaphor at that (Sykes The Story of the Atonement p. 52). Further, as the baptist writer Paul Fiddes points out, much talk of the work of Christ fails to deal adequately with how it works out in the life of the believer. The sense that all has, in principle been done, may satisfy those who believe in election/predestination (which of course, Calvin did) but for the rest of us, while we can see the logic of the Calvinist opinion, we feel that without noticing the doctrine of sanctification not enough has been said. We think that the Calvinist position is a huge mistake and that the over emphasis on the law court substitution is quite wrong. Having said that, the article must give as good an account as it can but it must notice that most Christians do not take it tout court as we are bidden by some evangelicals. Roger Arguile 21:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Different Christian traditions

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

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

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

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

message: Removed the following from the page as POV 
"At present it is largely an argument between Evangelicals, the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright and the authors of the book 'Pierced for our Trangressions' Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (IVP, 2007)  and others associated with Oak Hill Theological College including Dr. Gary Williams , though the dismissal of the doctrine of penal substitution on moral grounds by the Anglican Catholic Dean of St. Albans, Dr. Jeffrey John, in a broadcast talk during Holy Week has drawn fire in his direction." (Be Dave 20:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger apologies -I was the user -I forgot to sign in -although -note that Wikipedia does get passing visitors so please be welcoming to them and assume goodfaith on other users part they are entitled not to register and there is really no need to write a story on everything!   The question of Oak Hill's contribution to English theological education is completely irrelevant to a the article. There are a number of authors writing on the subject with connections to different theological institutions -that again is your point of view.  Oak Hill is no more the focus of this debate than any other subject that its members write on.  Indeed no more than the institution that held the symposium on the subject a couple of years ago.  But the article did not say that the instituiton was the focus of the debate -rather that the debate was limited to an argument between Tom Wright and the authors of PFOT -not only POV but factually incorrect.(Be Dave 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: As one of the early editors of this page I was surprised to find that much of the earlier content has been deleted and replaced with content that is in contrast very one sided. The only objection listed is Soccinus (who is a favorite of Calvinists to list in an ad hominem kind of way), when there have been over the years many objections to penal substitution, even among its advocates. All of that context is now gone, and it has been replaced with content that reads not like a wikipedia article, but like a very one sided argument in favor of penal substitution written by a single author. I propose that this article needs a major overhaul with an attempt at some objectivity.
As to the above discussion on penal substitution, what is being missed here imho is that while the early church believed in substitutionary atonement, they did so within the context of Christus Victor not penal substitution. Simply finding themes of vicariousness and bearing punishment in the fathers does not equal penal substitution which is rooted in the idea of God's wrath being appeased through vicarious punishment. That idea is absent in the church fathers, and instead we have substitution understood in the context of ransom, which becomes plain if the entire work of Athanasius or Augustine is read instead of simply cheery picking as the authors of "pierced for our transgressions" do. Sharktacos (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: bias

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

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

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

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

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

message: The quote from Chalke and Mann (2003) is from page 182, not page 16, I have the book here in front of me.
:Thanks.  I don't have the book, but a Google search seems to support your "page 182" note.  I've adjusted it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page number is incorrect for Chalke and Mann quote 

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

message: :There are six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. 
*ELpoints #3) states: 
*LINKFARM states: 
*WP:ELMIN: . 
*WP:ELCITE:  -- Otr500 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links