Here are a couple of points made by Kim Fabricus, a minister at Bethel United Reformed Church in Swansea, Wales:





These bring out a couple of points which came to mind. The first is this (from the first paragraph):



The second is this:



So (assuming the correctness of the points made) there are problems with asserting that Calvin's ideas are merely a reformation of Anselm's (I agree with the point being made here, they are not), and also with the idea that patristic literature had in mind the same concepts as Calvin.

Some thoughts regarding "ransom" and "debt". As I was thinking about Jesus' comments, I thought about what His statement that He came not to be served but to serve, and give His life a ransom for man, would have been understood by His hearers. There is a 0% chance that they would have understood along the lines that Calvin laid out, that Christ's life was necessary in order for God to be able to legally pardon man. This line of thought would have been totally foreign to a 1st century Jew. So how would it have been understood?

The most natural understanding, it seems to me, is that it would have been understood in terms of releasing captives from bondage.

This is from a random sermon online:



Interestingly, the preacher ascribes to the penal substitution view, but I agree with the main observation made in this paragraph, that Christ is paying what the slaves cannot be in order that they may go free.

This begs a few questions:
a)What is it that holds the captives in bondage?
b)How does the giving of Christ's life free the captives?

It seems clear to me from Christ's teachings that what holds captives in bondage is sin. So Christ gave His life to free us from sin. This seems to me to be Christ's clear teaching.

To extrapolate from Christ's statement that He came not to serve but to be served and give His life as a ransom for many that He meant to communicate that His death was necessary in order for God to be able to legally forgive sin seems to be a gross form of eisegesis. No 1st century Jew would have understood Jesus' words in this way. Calvin's view seems to have been first formulated by Calvin himself.

I disagree with both points. Many times what happens is a gradual process, in which an idea is presented, another person builds upon it and modifies it, and thus successively, until a view is systematized. So yes, I believe there are elements of the penal substitution theory in the patristic literature, which are further developed in Anselm, and that Calvin built upon these previous ideas.

I missed (oversight on my part) responding to this earlier.



This just looks like you are agreeing with what I stated is the crux of our difference. I see the fate of the wicked as being determined by their own choice, which ruins their character, resulting in their death, not because of any special or different treatment which they receive from God. You are reiterating the point of view I said you have, which is that the wicked die because of God's treating them differently. To the wicked, He will manifest His abhorrence for their sins, which results in their death. To the righteous, who satisfied a specified condition, He won't do this.

His treatment of the two groups is what determines their fate. He treats the two groups differently because one group met with the condition specified, and the other didn't. I'm not understanding how what you wrote here is different from what I stated in regards to the difference of our views.




I agree with this too.

The key element is the price paid to free the slave. If someone had been sold as a slave because of a debt, the amount paid to free him had to be exactly equivalent to that debt.

Maybe it isn't. My point was that God will manifest His abhorrence of sin. However, if sin is no longer within you, if it was forgiven and no longer exists, this won't affect you.


Do you consider Christ's death as substitutive and meritorious?

God is obligated to Himself, to His law, and to His justice to enforce the execution of the death penalty upon sinners. This is one of the many reasons why Jesus died. Because Jesus paid our sin debt of death on the cross God can justify forgiving and saving penitent sinners (instead of having to execute them). It is a legal matter by virtue of the fact it involves the law.

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man’s stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” (1SM 340)

God is obligated to Himself, to His law, and to His justice to enforce the execution of the death penalty upon sinners. This is one of the many reasons why Jesus died. Because Jesus paid our sin debt of death on the cross God can justify forgiving and saving penitent sinners (instead of having to execute them). It is a legal matter by virtue of the fact it involves the law.

“By His word God has bound Himself to execute the penalty of the law on all transgressors.” (6BC 1095)

“In the plan of redemption there must be the shedding of blood, for death must come in consequence of man’s sin.” (CON 22)

“Justice demands that sin be not merely pardoned, but the death penalty must be executed. God, in the gift of His only-begotten Son, met both these requirements. By dying in man’s stead, Christ exhausted the penalty and provided a pardon.” (1SM 340)

Those who lived centuries before Calvin did not have his world view. They weren't lawyers. They didn't understand the system of justice under which Calvin operated. The would not have, and could not have, thought in the terms Calvin was thinking in.

Anselm's views was steeped in medieval feudalism.

As pointed out:



also



Regarding http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/bigger/punishedinourplace.htm, (Garry Williams article), an important point was not addressed. The Eastern Orthodox church does not accept Anslem's idea of satisfaction. Why not? Because they split off from the Catholic church before Anselm penned it. Their principle reason for rejecting the view is precisely because it doesn't appear in either the Scriptures or the writings of the fathers.

E.g.

The point is simply that Christ did what was necessary, which was to give His life, in order that we who were slaves to sin might be set free. Again, there would have been no concept in the mind of 1st century Jews that Christ was paying a price in order to provide a legal mechanism for God by which we could be pardoned.



Ok, you're last sentence agrees with my point of view. The problem in this case is simply to remove sin from us. How does this happen? We must be born again. How are we born again?



Here we see the role of the cross in our being saved from sin.



If a person is not clinging to sin, He will survive the judgment. A person needs to be freed from sin. As you correctly point out, if the sin is no longer within, then being in God's presence won't be a problem.