Penal Substitution is incompatible with the Ecumenical Councils

Drake Shelton

New member
The Reformed/Penal view of the atonement was espoused by a Nestorian Hermias who debated this issue with Cyril. Cyril’s position is the official position of the early councils regarding the Incarnation as is clearly proved from the Council of Ephesus 431 A.D. and the subsequent councils that claimed allegiance to Cyril, especially his twelve anathemas. It cannot be denied. Cyril specifically acknowledged this position and rejected it as incompatible with the position of the early Church and the ecumenical councils. See Cyril of Alexandria, THAT CHRIST IS ONE by way of dispute with Hermias.

Take note dear reader how Cyril avoids Messiah enduring any penal forsaking when he says:

“the Only-Begotten having been made man, gave forth such words as one of us and in behalf of our whole nature, as though He said 49, The first man hath transgressed, he slipped down into disobedience, he heeded not the command given him, by the wiles of the dragon he was carried off into wilfulness: therefore fall rightly has he been subjected unto decay and has become subject to doom, but Thou didst plant Me a second beginning to them on the earth, I am called, Second Adam. In Me Thou seest the race of man purged, achieving sinlessness, holy, all-pure. Give now the good things of Thy Clemency, undo the forsaking, rebuke decay and let wrath reach its period. I have conquered Satan himself too who of old prevailed, for he found in Me no whit of what was his.”Such then, as I think, is the meaning of the Saviour’s words; for He was inviting the good favour of the Father not on Himself but on us rather.”


John of Damascus reiterates Cyril's doctrine:

Orthodox Faith, Book 3.24,

“Further, these words, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me Matthew 27:46? He said as making our personality His own. For neither would God be regarded with us as His Father, unless one were to discriminate with subtle imaginings of the mind between that which is seen and that which is thought, nor was He ever forsaken by His divinity: nay, it was we who were forsaken and disregarded. So that it was as appropriating our personality that He offered these prayers.”

So we see that the position held by the Seven Ecumenical Councils was the Messiah died as an example of martyrdom not as a propitiation. Which is why I deny the entire theology of the 7 ecumenical councils.
 
Top