Medical Substitutionary Atonement in Irenaeus of Lyons (original) (raw)
Related papers
Irenaeus Of Lyons: A Defense of Recapitulation
This work sets out to explain the atonement theory of Irenaeus of Lyons. Irenaeus' atonement theology is often described simply as “Christus Victor” but I argue that is simply a narrow sliver of the wider atonement theory of recapitulation. In this thesis I systematically try to expound what it is Irenaeus believed and why he believed it. In the first chapter I explain the problem at hand and a short biography of the bishop. In the second chapter I seek to summarize the Gnostic school of Valentinianism, which is the key opponent against Irenaeus writes in his best-known work “Against Heresies.” In the third chapter I expound on Irenaeus' hamartiology. In the fourth chapter Irenaeus' theory of recapitulation is covered, looking at his understanding of the role of Christ, of Mary, and Christ's defeat of Satan. In the fifth chapter Irenaeus' understanding of deification is broken down. Finally in the sixth chapter we look at the role of the church in Irenaeus' soteriology.
Peter Walusimbi, 2020
Irenaeus of Lyons’ Christology, exhibited in his Magnum Opus, Against Heresies, specifically in Book three (chapters 16-19) and Book five (chapter 1), clarifies the true identity of the God-man and how He attained salvation for humanity as opposed to the Gnostics and the Ebionites’ mistaken identity of who Christ is.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Early Church Fathers, the Creeds, and Trinitarian Theology
The article is a revision of a paper delivered in response to Anabaptist philosopher Darrin Snyder Belousek presentation “Jesus’ Death and Christian Tradition: Ancient Creeds and Trinitarian Theology” at a symposium at Morling College, Sydney, in May 2014,organized by the Anabaptist Association of Australia and New Zealand. The article explores the relationship between Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) theory and the teachings of the early church, concluding that the writings of the fathers and the language of the creeds anticipate the themes of PSA but do not require it as the only possible theory consistent with Christian orthodoxy: new cultural contexts may occasion the formulation of new theories. In the formulation of such theories, it is argued that the contemporary cultural antipathy toward hierarchical institutions lends itself to a congregational hermeneutic along the lines of that argued for in the early writings of Balthasar Hubmaier.
The Problems of Atonement: Justification and Substitution
Matthew Darby, 2020
Atonement theology is quite controversial. Each tradition has its own way of explaining the historic and salvific event of the death and resurrection of Jesus. However, even within the realm of atonement theology there are a couple of issues that reign supreme as the center of most atonement controversies. These two subjects being: justification and substitution. What does it mean that sinners are justified by the blood of Christ? How is Christ a substitute for sinners? These two aspects of the atonement have received considerable scrutiny over the last century. These doctrines have been called unjust, incoherent, and many other slanderous terms. The question is though, are they right? In this essay I intend to give a defense for both the coherence and morality of both of these issues.
"Paving the Way? Penalty and Atonement in Thomas Aquinas's Soteriology"
Among the many issues over which tempers flare between Christians of differing theological and denominational commitments is that of atonement theory. Large numbers of diverse Christians regularly affirm that Christ "takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29), that "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8), and that the Son came "not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). While such affirmations are themselves shared, explanations of them often are embroiled in bitter controversy. One such theory is known as penal substitution. Proponents of this theory, which is commonly associated with the Reformers, hold that atonement is accomplished by Christ's functioning as a proxy who bears the sum total of the punishments required by the Father for human sin. That is, we are spared the execution of God's retributive justice since Jesus was, in our stead, the object of it. Recent decades have witnessed a mounting aversion among many theologians to this account of redemption, which is accused of portraying God as vindictive, juridical, and even blood-thirsty. In his Christology (1995) and again in Jesus Our Redeemer (2007), Gerald O'Collins connects this embattled theory with none other than Thomas Aquinas. Though O'Collins does not accuse Thomas of holding this theory, he suggests that some of Thomas's innovations, particularly modifications which Thomas made to Anselm's "satisfaction theory" (a theory which differs from penal substitution in several important respects), paved the way for the emergence of penal substitution proper. In response, Rik van Nieuwenhove has rejected O'Collins's genealogy, arguing that it egregiously misreads Thomas's project. In this presentation, I explore and assess O'Collins's charge and van Nieuwenhove's rebuttal in three parts. First, I examine the specific elements of O'Collins's criticism of Thomas and determine how (and whether) van Nieuwenhove addresses them. The main issues that emerge from this examination concern Thomas's use of "appeasement" or "placation" language (and the corresponding issue of propitiation vs. expiation), the introduction of "penal" elements into the concept of satisfaction, and the place of "incorporation" as a safeguard against purely objective and transactional substitution. Second, in the more substantive part of the presentation, I treat each of these topics by turning to Thomas's own writings, especially sections from the Secunda secundae and the Tertia pars of his Summa Theologiae. In doing so, I contend that although Thomas's use of appeasement language is more a linguistic issue for modern Anglophones than a perilous theological development, he does indeed import a significant penal dimension into Anselm's category of satisfaction. This move, I argue, places him (unwittingly) within a genealogy of development toward penal substitution theory.