tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post4722203747514454537..comments2013-02-14T09:44:37.238-08:00Comments on Reflections in Exile: Eusebius of Caesarea Contra AulenBaddelimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00401080005530162767noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-47534668843613785122007-11-08T02:30:00.000-08:002007-11-08T02:30:00.000-08:00(I also find curious and a little embarassing that...(I also find curious and a little embarassing that, in the PFOT list they do not mention Luther, and then after you get to John Owen in the 17th Century the list turns into a bunch of preachers rather than theologians: Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, Stott etc. The list gets more sectarian as you go along, so that the doctrine looks like it has less and less orthodox consensus. )michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-43015786173264131642007-11-07T02:50:00.000-08:002007-11-07T02:50:00.000-08:00I think it is fairly clear that any notiong of the...I think it <I>is</I> fairly clear that any notiong of the atonement being directed to God rather than to evil spiritual forces is in minor key in the Early Church. But I don't think it worries me if the view is not at the centre of their thinking.<BR/><BR/>My problem with the Constantine argument is, as McCulloch pointed out in this week's lecture which you missed (small dig there, in case you missed it :) ), is that it is the argument used to attack Nicaea and Chalcedon and exactly the same (in my view conspiracy theory) argument could be levelled against Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity.<BR/><BR/>I need fairly substantial evidence that the Church's theologising was broadly affected by Constantinism to conisder it.<BR/><BR/>One could put forward the opposite view--as the Church reaches a key degree of clarity on who Jesus is, the atonement starts to come into better focus. That theory at leasts fits better with how we see the other theological things associated with Constantism--Nicaea and Chalcedon.<BR/><BR/>But it would be nice to have some more penal comments turn up pre-Nicaea.<BR/><BR/>in Christ,<BR/>MarkBaddelimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401080005530162767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-35017492165765294442007-11-06T16:02:00.000-08:002007-11-06T16:02:00.000-08:00Yes. The Pierced for Our Transgressions list of an...Yes. The Pierced for Our Transgressions list of ancient writers who used PSA looks impressive at first glance; however, someone said somewhere that only ONE of the list is pre-Constantine. And they were making the case that PSA or forms thereof were actually a result of (or a prop for) Constantinianism (which for some these days is the gravest heresy of all!). Eusebius falls under that category in their book. Further, the argument was - 'look, you may have found some passing references to the doctrine in these thinkers - but is it in fact the central theme of their atonement theology?' <BR/>So, I would be interested in pre-Nicene appearances of propitiatory language.michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-60185104466834088692007-11-06T01:20:00.000-08:002007-11-06T01:20:00.000-08:00Heh, for such a partisan book, it is amazing how c...Heh, for such a partisan book, it is amazing how completely people take it on.<BR/><BR/>I think you're right about the penal bit. This isn't couched in legal terms and there's nothing explicit about God's wrath, so it couldn't be seen as a form of <I>penal</I> substitution.<BR/><BR/>But I think it is a form of <I>substitution</I> (not just representative), is sacrificial, and is directed toward the Father primarily rather than to satan etc. That puts it firmly in the camp that says that the basic problem was our relationship with God and the atonement was primarily directed to fixing that problem.<BR/><BR/>That's enough for me - one quote can't do <I>all</I> the work! <BR/><BR/>There's probably other stuff out there that shows some penal understanding as well. My supervisor showed me a passage in Irenaeus which seems a brief but fairly straightforward statement of propitiation (albeit possibly expiation).<BR/><BR/>in Christ,<BR/>MarkBaddelimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00401080005530162767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1481633930458110395.post-20173463788610353972007-11-05T21:57:00.000-08:002007-11-05T21:57:00.000-08:00It is annoying to hear Aulen trotted out as cliche...It is annoying to hear Aulen trotted out as cliche!<BR/><BR/>But Eusebius does exactly use an idea of penal substitution here does he? There is not a mention of the wrath of God at all, (other than 'smitten of God').<BR/><BR/>So, it may be 'sacrifice', but it doesn't seems to me to be satisfaction or penal substitution... Are the three synonymous?michael jensenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15379361601019023165noreply@blogger.com