Video Upload Options

References

1. A. J. Wallace, R. D. Rusk, Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation (New Zealand: Bridgehead, 2011)
2. Michael Green, The Empty Cross of Jesus (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 2004; first published 1984), p. 64-5: 'The simplest and most obvious understanding of the cross is to see it as the supreme example....This is a favourite theme in the early Fathers, as H.E.W. Turner showed in The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption....It can scarcely be denied that much of the second century understanding of the cross was frankly exemplarist.'
3. J. F. Bethune-Baker, An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine to the time of the Council of Chalcedon (London: Methuen & Co, 1903), p. 351-2 : 'From this review of the teaching of the Church it will be seen that... in the earliest centuries... the main thought is that man is reconciled to God by the Atonement, not God to man. The change, that is, which it effects is a change in man rather than a change in God. It is God's unchangeable love for mankind that prompts the Atonement itself, is the cause of it, and ultimately determines the method by which it is effected.'
4. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. Gustaf Aulén. "All satisfactory accounts of the atonement...begin, but do not end, with the moral influence theory..."
5. Oxenham, Henry (1865). The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green. pp. xliv,114. https://books.google.com/books?id=GlYsAAAAYAAJ. 
6. H. N. Oxenham, The Catholic doctrine of the atonement (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1865), p. 114 https://books.google.com/books?id=GlYsAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
7. D. Smith, The atonement in the light of history and the modern spirit (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 96-7: 'THE FORENSIC THEORY...each successive period of history has produced its peculiar type of soteriological doctrine...the third period--the period ushered in by the Reformation.' https://archive.org/details/atonementinlight00smituoft
8. Vincent Taylor, The Cross of Christ (London: Macmillan & Co, 1956), p. 71-2: '...the four main types, which have persisted throughout the centuries. The oldest theory is the Ransom Theory...It held sway for a thousand years. [...] The Forensic Theory is that of the Reformers and their successors.'
9. L. W. Grensted, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1920), p. 191: 'Before the Reformation only a few hints of a Penal theory can be found.' https://books.google.com/books?id=PUW8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
10. H. N. Oxenham, The Catholic doctrine of the atonement (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1865), p. 112-3,119: '...we may pause to sum up briefly the main points of teaching on Christ's work of redemption to be gathered from the patristic literature of the first three centuries as a whole. And first, as to what it does not contain. There is no trace, as we have seen, of the notions of vicarious satisfaction, in the sense of our sins being imputed to Christ and His obedience imputed to us, which some of the Reformers made the very essence of Christianity; or, again, of the kindred notion that God was angry with His Son for our sakes, and inflicted on Him the punishment due to us ; nor is Isaiah s prophecy interpreted in this sense, as afterwards by Luther; on the contrary, there is much which expressly negatives this line of thought. There is no mention of the justice of God, in the forensic sense of the word; the Incarnation is in variably exclusively ascribed to His love; the term satisfaction does not occur in this connection at all, and where Christ is said to suffer for us, huper (not anti) is the word always used. It is not the payment of a debt, as in St. Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, but the restoration of our fallen nature, that is prominent in the minds of these writers, as the main object of the Incarnation. They always speak, with Scripture, of our being reconciled to God, not of God being reconciled to us.' [p. 112-3]; 'His [Jesus'] death was now [in the Reformation period], moreover, for the first time viewed as a vicarious punishment, inflicted by God on Him instead of on us.' [p. 119] https://books.google.com/books?id=GlYsAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
11. J. I. Packer, What did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution (Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture, 1973): '... Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it [i.e. the penal substitutionary theory]...What the Reformers did was to redefine satisfactio (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo?, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ’s satisfactio for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God’s holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice).'
12. See for example, John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.15.5-8
13. H. N. Oxenham, ‘‘The Catholic doctrine of the atonement’’ (London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, and Green, 1865), p. 114-118
14. E.g., James Bethune-Baker, An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine to the time of the Council of Chalcedon (London: Methuen & Co, 1903), p. 334: 'Just as mankind in Adam lost its birthright, so in Christ mankind recovers its original condition'. https://archive.org/stream/anintroductionto00bethuoft
15. Robert S. Franks, A history of the doctrine of the work of Christ in its ecclesiastical development vol. 1 (London: Hodder and Stoughton), p. 37-38 https://archive.org/stream/historyofdoctrin01franuoft
16. Domenic Marbaniang, "Cross and Atonement: A Theological Perspective", Revive, Vol.11, No.5, May 2018. Kumbanad. p.12
17. Trammel, Madison, 'Cross Purposes' in Christianity Today, 2 Jul 2007. (accessed 20/12/10) http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/july/7.15.html
18. J. Kenneth Grider, The Governmental Theory. http://www.libraryoftheology.com/writings/atonement/Governmental_Theory_Explained-KenGrider.pdf
19. Oliver Chase Quick, Doctrines of the Creed, London: Nisbet; New York: Scribners, 1938, p.222.
20. James F. McGrath, 'What's Wrong With Penal Substitution?' on Exploring Our Matrix Friday, December 14, 2007 (accessed 30/12/10) http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/12/whats-wrong-with-penal-substitution.html
21. Mark M. Mattison, The Meaning of the Atonement (accessed 30/12/10). See section entitled Substitution or Participation? http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html
22. J. Kenneth Grider, The Governmental Theory: 'At the same time, [the governmental theory] is not so eclectic that it has any affinity for the main elements of two of the major Atonement theories: the payment of a debt in the `satisfaction' theory; and Christ's being punished, as in the `punishment' theory'; '...the governmental theory cannot incorporate into itself the understanding that Christ paid the penalty for us, or that He paid a debt for us...'. http://www.libraryoftheology.com/writings/atonement/Governmental_Theory_Explained-KenGrider.pdf
23. J. K. Mozley, The doctrine of the atonement (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1916), p. 94-5: 'The same or similar words may point to the same or similar ideas; but not necessarily so, since a word which has been at one time the expression of one idea, may, to a less or greater extent, alter its meaning under the influence of another idea. Hence it follows that the preservation of a word does not, as a matter of course, involve the preservation of the idea which the word was originally intended to convey. In such respects no doctrine demands more careful treatment than that of the Atonement.' https://archive.org/stream/doctrineatoneme00mozlgoog#page/n106/mode/2up
24. Mark Dever and Michael Lawrence, It Is Well: Expositions on Substitutionary Atonement (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010), p. 15: 'What we hope to do in the fourteen expositional messages in this book is simply to show that the doctrine of penal substitution is clearly taught in the Bible' -- compare with title of book: Expositions on Substitutionary Atonement.
25. Mark David Baker (ed), Proclaiming the scandal of the cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006): '...many assume that "substitutionary atonement" is merely a shorthand way to refer to "penal substitutionary atonement." [...] Substitution is a broad term that one can use with reference to a variety of metaphors.' https://books.google.com/books?id=AXont-aAtfoC&lpg=PT18&dq=%22substitutionary%20atonement%22&pg=PT18#v=onepage&q=%22substitutionary%20atonement%22&f=false
26. Derek Flood, Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor (accessed 31/12/10): 'This hurtful image of God is largely based on a way of understanding the cross that is known as "Vicarious Atonement", "Penal Substitution", or "Satisfaction-Doctrine".' http://therebelgod.com/cross_intro.shtml
27. John Launchbury, Change us, not God (WCF Publishing, 2009), p. 7: '...Anselm...introduced the Satisfaction Theory' https://books.google.com/books?id=KeYvQAAACAAJ&dq=change+us+not+god+launchbury&hl=en&ei=tDIdTfaUM4OqhAezrpG3Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA
28. D. Flood, 'Substitutionary atonement and the Church Fathers' in Evangelical Quarterly 82.2 (2010), p. 141,143,153 http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf
29. Vincent Taylor, The Cross of Christ (London: Macmillan & Co, 1956), p. 31. Compare J. I. Packer: 'It would ... clarify discussion if all who hold that Jesus by dying did something for us which we needed to do but could not, would agree that they are regarding Christ’s death as substitutionary, and differing only on the nature of the action which Jesus performed in our place and also, perhaps, on the way we enter into the benefit that flows from it.' ('What did the Cross Achieve? The Logic of Penal Substitution' [1973])
30. D. W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice, and Peace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), p. 96 n. 2: 'James states that "historic orthodox Christianity" rests upon the doctrine of "vicarious atonement." As such, we agree -- that Christ died "for us" is the ancient apostolic faith reflected in the orthodox creeds. But as to the vicarious character of this "for us," James narrows the idea of vicarious atonement to penal substitution...'.
31. Theology and Narrative (Oxford: OUP, 1993), p. 248: 'Nor does Frei ever explain what he means by the word "vicarious," which is especially puzzling in light of his apparent rejection of the notion (or at least one notion) of "penal substitution," with which the term "vicarious" is often synonymous...'
32. Cf. D. Flood, 'Substitutionary Atonement and the Church Fathers' in Evangelical Quarterly 82.2 (2010), p. 144: 'It is not enough to simply identify substitutionary or even penal themes in the writings of the church fathers, and assume that this is an endorsement of the Reformed understanding of penal substitution. Instead, one must look at how a patristic author is using these concepts within their own understanding of the atonement and ask: what salvic purpose does Christ bearing our suffering, sin, and death have for this author? Rather than simply ‘proof-texting’ we need to seek to understand how these statements fit into the larger thought-world of an author. In short, it is a matter of context. The main task of this essay, therefore, is to explore the context in which the church fathers understood substitutionary atonement.' http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf
33. Kent, William. "Doctrine of the Atonement." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 30 August 2016 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm
34. Ann Ball, 2003 Encyclopedia of Catholic Devotions and Practices ISBN:0-87973-910-X
35. Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor (08/05/1928) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_08051928_miserentissimus-redemptor_en.html
36. Vatican archives "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2008-05-02. https://web.archive.org/web/20080502234831/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20001021_riparatrici_en.html. Retrieved 2008-05-08. 
37. Fr. James Bernstein, author of Surprised by Christ: My journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity, The Illumined Heart Podcast, May 22, 2008. See also Clark Carlton. The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity - An Orthodox Catechism (Salisbury, MA) Regina Orthodox Press, 1997. 139-146.
38. Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 1993. pp. 144–145. 
39. What Does the Bible Really Teach?. Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. 2005. p. 32. 
40. "The Watchtower 1973, page 724" – "Declaration and resolution", The Watchtower, December 1, 1973, page 724.
41. Penton, M. James (1997) [1985]. Apocalypse Delayed (2nd. ed.). University of Toronto Press. pp. 26–29. ISBN 0802079733. 
42. "Angels—How They Affect Us". The Watchtower: 7. January 15, 2006. 
43. ADAM – jw.org. Retrieved 10 January 2013. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000089
44. The Watchtower 6/1/00 p. 11 par. 6 Keep Your “Hope of Salvation” Bright!
45. The Watchtower, March 15, 1989, p. 31 Call on Jehovah’s Name and Get Away Safe! “The Way of Salvation”
46. "James Urges Clean and Active Worship,", The Watchtower 3/1/83 p. 13, "Faith that does not prompt us to do good works is not genuine and will not result in our salvation."
47. "Meetings to Help Us Make Disciples", Our Kingdom Ministry, January 1979, p. 2.
48. The Watchtower, May 15, 2006 pp. 28-29 par. 12
49. The Watchtower 2/15/83 p. 12 You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth—But How?
50. Wood, Darren Cushman (2007). "John Wesley's Use of Atonement" (in English). The Asbury Journal 62 (2): 55–70. 
51. Leon Morris, 'Theories of the Atonement' in Elwell Evangelical Dictionary.
52. Our Doctrinal Foundation - United Pentecostal Church International. Retrieved 16 October 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20110612115253/http://upci.org/about-us/beliefs/21-about-us/beliefs/91