07_work_0110_xIntro

This week, we are discussing the work of Christ, specifically the Atonement, which is closely related to the person of Christ. We will focus on three theologians: Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Anselm, who all had different perspectives on the work of Christ. Before delving into their views, it's important to understand the broader context of the historical theology of the Atonement. The goal is not to defend penal substitutionary Atonement against modern objections, but rather to show that the idea of substitution in the Atonement is not new and has been a widely accepted view in the Church since its early days. Last week we covered the person of Christ. This week we're going to cover the work of Christ, the Atonement. These two doctrines are highly dependent on each other, and we're going to spend the majority of our time today on three theologians to see how they viewed the work of Christ and how they connected it to the person of Christ. We're going to cover Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Anselm. Irenaeus and Athanasius are patristics, so the second and the fourth centuries, and Anselm is a medieval scholastic writing in the 11th century. But before I do that and get into those three theologians, I want to contextualize what we're doing within the larger discussion of everything you could discuss when it comes to the historical theology of the Atonement. It's mostly just me giving you a list of things we're not going to cover today. My goal is not to have you leave here today with an arsenal of answers defending penal substitutionary Atonement against the objections of modern liberalism. Rather, my main goal is to have you see that the view of the Atonement as substitution is not something new. It's very old and goes back to the earliest of the Church Fathers, and it continued to be the mainstream view of the Church from then on.