The Anselm Myth

It is a common argument among modern Eastern Orthodox, laymen and apologists alike, to argue that there was no concept of an atonement (specifically the substitutionary atonement) for sins until the time of the Church Father Anselm, or (as some put it) at least by the tenth or eleventh century (around the time that Anselm lived). I covered this extensively in my podcast episode where I reviewed an audio of Eastern Orthodox apologist Frederica Mathewes-Green, who often repeats this contention in her writings and lectures.

However, the idea that the atonement was a foreign concept within Patristics is patently false. Below are some quotes from Church Fathers regarding this topic. I will most likely be adding to this list as research continues.

"Let us reverence the Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us..." [Clement of Rome; First Epistle, Ch. 21]

"On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls." [ibid; Ch. 49]

“He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” [Methetes; Epistle to Diognetus, Ch. 9]

“But again, showing that Christ did suffer, and was Himself the Son of God, who died for us, and redeemed us with His blood at the time appointed beforehand, he says: ‘For how is it, that Christ, when we were yet without strength, in due time died for the ungodly? But God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.’” [Irenaeus; Against Heresies, Book III, Ch. 16, Section 9]

“We were enemies of God by means of Sin; and God ordained that the sinner should die. Of two things, then, one must needs have happened; either that God should adhere to His word, and destroy all men, or that by giving scope to His benignity He should annul His sentence. But see the wisdom of God. He secured, at once, reality for His sentence, and active operation for His benignity. Christ 'took on Himself our sins in His body, on the Tree, that we, being dead to sins' through His death, 'should live unto righteousness.' He that died for our sakes was not of small account. He was not a literal sheep, He was not a mere man, He was not simply an Angel, but He was God Incarnate. The iniquity of the sinners was not so great as was the righteousness of Him that died for them. Our sins did not equal the amount of His righteousness, who laid down His life for us, who laid it down when He pleased, and when He pleased resumed it.” [Cyril of Jerusalem; Lecture 13, 53]

The Original Original Source

I recently came across some Thomas Jefferson quotes regarding the Constitution (taken from here). One such quote:

On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

And another quote:

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

The gist of it is this: the Constitution is a historical document which had a history behind it. We are to understand the Constitution not according to how later generations defined it, but to how its writers defined it. We are not to read backwards in history and force our current situation into the Constitution, but we are to look forward in history, and see what led up to the formation of the Constitution. Most of all, we are to hold everything by the wording of the Constitution and what the Constitution says, not how we choose to define it.

There are many Christians today who would gladly adhere this way to the Constitution...but not to the Bible. They would never take uncritically what a modern-day Democrat said about the Constitution and what it means, and yet they would gladly accept uncritically what someone a few hundred years after the writing of the last books of the Bible said. They would never accept what a politician a hundred years after the writing of the Constitution had to say about it if it contradicted the context and historical background of the document, and yet they would gladly accept words and explanations which clearly contradict the Bible. Once I was asked by someone if I believe a Christian can lose their salvation - I said no, to which they asked, "Oh, then you disagree with what such-and-such Church Father said?" I replied, "I agree with what Jesus said."

Obviously we should read the works of men who come after a document - don't mistake my words here as a certain extreme. As I wrote before, we should not dismiss all Church Fathers, Reformers, modern theologians, etc. Many of them have wonderful insight. However, we need discernment, and we need scripture to be our source for discernment. If scripture says x, and a later theologian says y, we should immediately accept x. When we see a later theologian handling a theological subject, or looking at a passage of scripture, we should ask ourselves, honestly, "Is this person treating the scriptural passage/the teaching of scripture with honesty and clarity?" If we find something lacking or contradictory, we should dismiss it - it is as simple as that.

Next time you want to treat the Bible solely through the lens of later generations - be it 200 years after Christ or 2000 years after Christ - just ask yourself, "Would I treat the Constitution this way?"

The Role of Past Divines

In the preface to Jonathan Edwards's aptly named Humble Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Membership in the Visible Church, Edwards quotes his grandfather and predecessor to the pastoral office in Northampton, a quote which deals with the Church Fathers. The quote, as Edwards cited it, was as follows:

It may possibly be a fault to depart from the ways of our fathers: But it may also be a virtue, and an eminent act of obedience, to depart from them in some things. Men are wont to make a great noise, that we are bringing in innovations, and depart from the old way: But it is beyond me to find out wherein the iniquity does lie. We may see cause to alter some practices of our fathers, without despising of them, without priding ourselves in our wisdom, without apostasy, without abusing abusing the advantages God has given us, without a spirit of compliance with corrupt men, without inclination of superstition, without making disturbance in the church of God: And there is no reason, that it should be turned as a reproach upon us. Surely it is commendable for us to examine the practices of our fathers...If the practices of our fathers in any particulars were mistaken, it is fit that they should be rejected; if they be not, they will bear examination.

The point in Edwards quoting this is related to the background of Humble Inquiry: Edwards was entering a debate with many in his congregation regarding whether communion should be taken only by those who had made "a profession of sanctifying grace" (Edwards's own position), or if it was in fact "a converting ordinance" (as the people of Northampton held) and hence such a profession was not necessary from those partaking it. One of the arguments made by opponents was that Stoddard had argued in favor of their position (indeed, he had been the one to introduce it). Stoddard had been a well respected and much beloved pastor in Northampton, and so they considered, in practice, his opinion as canon. Edwards therefore quoted Stoddard against them, pointing out that Stoddard did not believe in such glorification of the words of men, and would in fact be perfectly fine with Edwards's own evaluation of Stoddard's words and beliefs. As Edwards himself wrote:

Thus in these very seasonable and apposite sayings, Mr. Stoddard, though dead, yet speaketh: And here (to apply them to my own case) he tells me, that I am not at all blameable, for not taking his principles on trust; that notwithstanding the high character justly belonging to him, I ought not to look on his principles as oracles, as though he could not miss it...nay, surely that I am even commended, for examining his practice, and judging for myself; that it would be ill become me, to do otherwise...

The point Edwards was trying to make against his critics was simply this: Stoddard was a noble and spiritual man, but he was still a man first and foremost, and his theology should not have been treated on the same level as scripture. In critiquing or reviewing what he taught on a few subjects, Edwards was not declaring Stoddard erroneous in toto, let alone was he questioning the sincerity of Stoddard's salvation. All the same, Stoddard's high standing, whether among his studies or among his congregation, did not make what he said automatically canon.

The issue continues today on how we treat past divines. While individual persons who hold to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., may subscribe to an ideology that might be referred to jokingly as Sola Patres, Protestants are just as guilty in some regard. There are those who will quote the Reformers more than they will scripture, and some base their theological positions on "Well, the Reformers believed this, so I guess I should too." While studying the history of the orthodox Christian faith and how Christian doctrine has been understood through the ages is important, there's a danger in attempting to group men together under labels they themselves would never apply to themselves, or reading backwards into history beliefs or definitions which are not as the individual divines themselves may have understood them. It is likewise dangerous to group men together in such a way that we ignore differences (regardless of how small) there exist between them.

This leads us to the opposite extreme, seen in treating past divines in a harsh manner. One can see an example of this with how the team at The Berean Call treat the Church Fathers, writing them all off as heretics since they do not see eye to eye with them on every single theological matter. If a Church Father isn't a Premillennial Dispensationalist General Baptist, then they must be a heretic who's burning in hell as we speak. The Church Fathers aren't alone in receiving this kind of abuse: some think John Calvin is in hell simply for being a paedobaptist, while some think John Wesley is in hell for not being a Calvinist.

Should we read, honor and respect men like the Church Fathers, the Reformers, or any great theologian who lived after them? Of course. It is vital not only for the study of church history (and history often repeats itself), but to build upon that which has already been laid for us. Does that mean we have to accept everything that was said before us? Not at all. We should hold everything by the standard of scripture and what Holy Writ speaks to us - anything else is the work of man and should be treated accordingly. Many are hesitant to do this, because they desire to see scripture through a certain filter, and instead of reading the works of men with the discernment of God's holy word says, they will permit the opinions of later men to affect how they view the plain reading of a text. If the words of an uninspired man is true and in accordance with the will of God, then we should not fear it being held to the light of scripture, for the two will prove compatible. As Edwards's grandfather wrote: "If the practices of our fathers in any particulars were mistaken, it is fit that they should be rejected; if they be not, they will bear examination."

Permit me to join with this the sayings of some men in centuries past - in fact, I'll let them have the last word:

"Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." [Basil of Caesarea; On the Spirit]

"Those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them." [Basil of Caesarea; Ascetical Works]

"...let us come to ground that is common to both [of us], the testimony of the Holy Scriptures." [Augustine; To Maximin the Arian]

"Let us not hear: This I say, this you say; but, thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe." [Augustine; De Unitate Ecclesiae]

"Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God." [Augustine; ibid]

Denying Individual Trinitarian Personhood

Many people who argue universalism like to present the vague idea of "God" as being the Father, and try to teach that, despite not believing in Jesus or the Holy Spirit, a person is still saved for their faith in the Father. This is especially true among "hopeful universalists" who try to argue that Jews and Muslims will still go to heaven because of their belief in "God," despite their denial of the divinity and individual Personhood of the Son and Holy Spirit.

My usual argument against this boils down to a metaphor: the Trinity is not a buffet. That is, a person cannot decide that they want the Father - but not the Son and Holy Spirit. The individual Persons represent the fullness of the deity, and to deny one is to deny them all. This is both theologically, confessionally, and - most importantly - scripturally sound. In this regard, I went and dug up this quote by late fourth century Church Father Basil the Great, taken from his work On the Holy Spirit.

Who has woe? Who are afflicted? Who are headed for agony, darkness, eternal damnation? The transgressors; those who deny the faith. What is the proof of their denial? They have abandoned what they professed when they entered God's household. What did they profess? Faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They uttered these saving words when they renounced the devil and his angels. How can the children of light describe such men? They are transgressors, since they have broken the saving covenant. What else can denying God, denying Christ, be called, but transgressing? How do you wish me to label those who deny the Spirit? They must be described in the same way, for they have broken their covenant with God. Professing faith in Him wins the blessings of true religion, but damnation will be the wages of the godless who have denied Him. To forsake the profession of faith is a fearful thing, and they have abandoned it not through fear of fire, or sword, or cross, or flogging, or the wheel, or the rack, but only because they have been led astray by the deceitful sophistries of the Spirit-deniers. I swear to every man who confesses Christ but denies the Father: Christ will profit him nothing. If a man calls upon God, but rejects the Son, his faith is empty. If someone rejects the Spirit, his faith in the Father and the Son is made useless; it is impossible to believe in the Father and the Son without the presence of the Spirit. He who rejects the Spirit rejects the Son, and he who rejects the Son rejects the Father. "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit" [1 Cor 2:3], and "no one has ever seen God; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has make Him known" [John 1:18]. Such a person has no part in true worship. It is impossible to worship the Son except in the Holy Spirit; it is impossible to call upon the Father except in the Spirit of adoption. [27]