A lot of leaders who reject Penal Substitution will say that it was invented by Calvin or Anselm and that the early church held to Christus Victor or Ransom theories of the atonement. This turns out to be a painful distortion of history. I mean, this is pure historical revisionism in the name of teaching bad theology! I was shocked to find out how badly church history has been twisted by progressive leaders who, whether they realize it or not, are teaching unbiblical views of how we are saved.
In this video, you’ll hear quotes from many church fathers on the topic of whether the cross included a penal and substitutionary aspect. You’ll get needed clarity to help you see through the historical revisionism of guys like Greg Boyd, Steve Chalke, and others. And you’ll be equipped to head into the next video in this series on Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which will probably be on the topic of “Does the Bible Teach Penal Substitution?”
- Here’s an article on this topic from The Masters Seminary Journal.
- Here is Gary Williams’ defense of his own work on PSA in the early church fathers.
- Here’s Joseph Mitros’ content on how people misrepresent the church fathers on this.