WeOrthodox
EN UA
Eastern Orthodoxy Daily He/Who/Is with timotheosxc Instagram

Orthodox response to penal substitutionary atonement

What the video says

The speaker defines penal substitutionary atonement as Jesus receiving the penalty for human sin in place of humanity to achieve peace with God. He notes that some Orthodox Christians reject this model as unbiblical and Trinitarianly problematic, preferring to see Christ's death as an example. In response, the speaker explains that Orthodoxy does not deny substitution, sacrifice, or language about God's wrath, citing St. Gregory the Theologian and the Council of Blachernae.

The Orthodox concern is that making the satisfaction of divine justice through penal substitution the exclusive lens for the cross is reductive. The broader Orthodox view, described as economic atonement, includes Christ assuming humanity, entering death, healing corruption, reconciling humanity to God, and restoring what Adam lost.

Father Daniel Cecil is quoted saying substitutionary atonement is not heresy but an accurate though not exhaustive expression of orthodoxy.

Key moments

  1. The speaker defines penal substitutionary atonement: penal means penalty for wrongdoing, substitutionary means in the place of, so Jesus receives the penalty in our place for atonement and peace with God.
  2. Some Orthodox Christians deny penal substitution, calling it wrong, unbiblical, and a violation of the Trinity, and they offer no biblical argument; they prefer to view Christ's death as an example.
  3. The speaker cites Isaiah 53:5 as clear biblical evidence that Christ bore the wrath of God.
  4. Orthodoxy does not deny substitution, sacrifice, satisfaction, or language about the wrath of God; the Fathers use all of that language.
  5. St. Gregory the Theologian asks to whom the blood was offered and why, and says the Father accepts Christ but neither asked for him nor demanded him.
  6. The Council of Blachernae in 1157 affirmed that Christ offers himself in his humanity, and the Son receives that same sacrifice with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
  7. Orthodox writers such as Craig Trulia describe economic atonement as the whole saving work of God in Christ: Christ assumes humanity, enters death, heals corruption, reconciles us to God, and restores what Adam lost.
  8. St. Gregory says Christ came to deliver us and overcome the tyrant; the cross is not exhausted by punishment, and Father Daniel Cecil states substitutionary atonement is not heresy but an accurate though not exhaustive expression of orthodoxy.

The speaker defines penal substitutionary atonement: penal means penalty for wrongdoing, substitutionary means in the place of, so Jesus receives the penalty in our place for atonement and peace with God. Some Orthodox Christians deny penal substitution, calling it wrong, unbiblical, and a violation of the Trinity, and they offer no biblical argument; they prefer to view Christ's death as an example.

The speaker cites Isaiah 53:5 as clear biblical evidence that Christ bore the wrath of God. Orthodoxy does not deny substitution, sacrifice, satisfaction, or language about the wrath of God; the Fathers use all of that language. St. Gregory the Theologian asks to whom the blood was offered and why, and says the Father accepts Christ but neither asked for him nor demanded him.

The Council of Blachernae in 1157 affirmed that Christ offers himself in his humanity, and the Son receives that same sacrifice with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Orthodox writers such as Craig Trulia describe economic atonement as the whole saving work of God in Christ: Christ assumes humanity, enters death, heals corruption, reconciles us to God, and restores what Adam lost.

St. Gregory says Christ came to deliver us and overcome the tyrant; the cross is not exhausted by punishment. Father Daniel Cecil states substitutionary atonement is not heresy but an accurate though not exhaustive expression of orthodoxy.

Main points

  • Speaker defines penal substitutionary atonement as Jesus receiving sin's penalty in humanity's place
  • Some Orthodox reject the model as unbiblical and Trinitarianly problematic, preferring Christ's death as example
  • Orthodoxy does not deny substitution, sacrifice, satisfaction, or wrath language; cites St. Gregory the Theologian and Council of Blachernae (1157)
  • Orthodox concern: making penal substitution the exclusive lens for the cross is reductive
  • Broader Orthodox view of economic atonement includes Christ assuming humanity, entering death, healing corruption, reconciling, and restoring what Adam lost; Fr. Daniel Cecil calls substitutionary atonement accurate but not exhaustive
18 opinions in the discussion 18 participants, 3 replies to each other The opinion with the most support Isn't the problem also the language of the Father damning the Son? Read the discussion
88 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 18

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

  • opinion#1415

    Isn't the problem also the language of the Father damning the Son?

    • opinion#1417

      Yes, that's why I mentioned Blachernae 1157

  • opinion#1414

    Everything in Orthodox teaching is deeper and more connected... Protestants just don't go deep enough and end up leaving a lot out

  • opinion#1407

    This isn't the confessional position of magisterial Protestantism. PSA is one aspect, Christus Victor is also true, and both are realities of the cross.

    • opinion#1418

      I'm curious how Christus Victor actually works out in practice when the WCF describes the atonement in forensic terms. Death and hades end up more or less on the sidelines since the transaction happens between the Father and the Son. At best Christus Victor is derivative.

    • opinion#1419

      The WCF does not describe the atonement as merely forensic, that's the exact strawman some EO make. It describes the atonement as both forensic and as a means of victory and love. For us these aren't mutually exclusive but intertwined realities. See WCF CH20 section 1: "The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access unto God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind." Also chapter 8 section 8 frames it explicitly as Christ's death overcoming all enemies by His wisdom and power: "To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable…

  • opinion#1406

    Truglia's video on economic atonement helped me reconcile the very clear substitutionary atonement with the fuller non-reductionist view centered on the incarnation, the harrowing of hades and the ascension. Saying PSA can be orthodox isn't wrong, but the Reformers were reductive. They ignored the physical reality of Christ and heaven meeting earth. Great video brother ☦️🤲❤️

  • opinion#1409

    It turns the Father into a tyrant. PSA is heresy, even Dyer would say so. All its conclusions fall along heretical lines.

  • opinion#1411

    Great video on how the fathers also spoke of propitiation. That's why I think PSA and CV work together at the same time. You handled this well, because most Orthodox creators don't represent the fathers properly on this. Good stuff bro

  • opinion#1404

    PSA is Orthodox. Calvin got everything right on PSA except denying the harrowing of hades. The only real reason we reject the reformers' PSA is that their theology slides into nominalism, giving us a nominalist PSA.

  • opinion#1410

    I'd recommend Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Pomazansky. It handles this subject well.

  • opinion#1416

    I don't get how they believe Christ appeased the Father's wrath in a way where all sins are forgiven, because that would make turning away from God impossible. If every sin is forgiven, even disbelief or apostasy, then they draw an arbitrary line saying you must have faith, while also claiming you can't do anything to get to heaven. That would make faith something to boast about, instead of the Orthodox view of sanctification.

  • opinion#1403

    An uncle of mine went to a reformed seminary and didn't actually believe in penal substitution. The school itself taught it and held back his graduation over it. He finished eventually and told me about it when I was a hardcore reformed Protestant myself. Ha. I flat out couldn't accept what he was saying. It was so alien to how I thought that it kept me up that night. I was so full of pride! But when I started looking into the Orthodox Church, I found out his view was basically their position too. It blew my mind! He's not Orthodox himself, but my wife and I are now catechumens. I had a great talk with him recently about our journey! Lord have mercy on my uncle.

  • opinion#1405

    As a Protestant, I can admit that in trying to reform the Catholic Church, the Protestant traditions actually built on its errors here. The problem with PSA is the 'Penal' part, as was said. Scripture doesn't support retribution or vengeance as the necessary (let alone sufficient) condition for atoning for sin, in either testament. Especially since atonement by definition is about purification and cleansing so the Divine Presence can be welcomed.

  • opinion#1408

    Love your videos, man. Clearly a lot of research went into this. I'm not sure I'd use the language of substitution, or of penalty meaning anything other than death. But I could probably dig a bit deeper myself. Anyway, hope to see you at Holy Nativity soon

  • opinion#1412

    Why do some Orthodox hate PSA (like Jay Dyer) while others, like you, see it as a non-exhaustive reason for Christ's death? Is there uniformity on this teaching, or does the Orthodox Church allow freedom of interpretation? Genuine question.

  • opinion#1413

    "Without exception, neo-Christians reject the expiatory sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, which He offered in propitiation for our sins. For them, the notion that Divine Justice demanded the punishment of sinners, which the innocent Christ voluntarily took upon Himself, is a mark of 'paganism.'" - Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev, On the New Marcionism

  • opinion#1402

    The west has lost touch with what sin actually is, so it can't even grasp what punishment means, and any discussion on this just ends with everyone talking past each other. As St. Irenaeus put it in Against Heresies: God doesn't punish them directly Himself; the punishment comes on them because they lack everything good.