So why did not God forgive unwilful sin by His love? Why did God prescribe sacrifices for unwilful sins?

John 3:18: 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Isaiah 53

Wounded for our transgressions, chastised for our peace, The lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. ( not in scripture order). You can read it you want.

​@New Eyes To See Hey! Wow, it's been 7 years since I left this comment and a lot has happened! I love Greg Boyd but I no longer believe the same things I did 7 years ago. I've spent the better part of the last decade studying the bible and religion (Bth. Hons. + Phd Philosophy) and I no longer consider myself a Christian - I wouldn't even call myself a theist. I do not believe Boyd is "lying" as you claim, he is simply interpreting his Jesus/God/Gospel/means of salvation etc. etc. in a way that makes sense to his lived experience and the narrative he identifies in the scriptures - in exactly the same way you do. We each have to thread together an as-coherent-as-possible worldview out of a library of diverse sources that each paint their theology/god/history/values in conflicting and sometimes even contradictory ways. You, Boyd and myself all arrive at different conclusions because the bible and the Christian story are both human constructs and our lived experience/education/predispositions + biases all mould our world-views into something that aligns as closely as possible to what we currently see as the evidence. You, I assume from your comment here, take it as fact that there was a flood caused(?) by God(?) that wiped out all of humanity barring a small incestuous family of a real historical 950 year old Jewish man named Noah who built a boat with a surface area of nearly 10 acres before gathering two of every animal species from across the globe (How!? also, where did all the water go?) And that is your *proof* that God probably did butcher another man several thousands of years later, named Jesus (but this time he needed the Roman's help), so that we, 2000 years on from that event, should we so happen to believe the right things, could one day, all exist in a post-terrestrial, post-death state with this omnipotent, murderer in heaven. I mean.... I'm not trying to be facetious here, and I know, I know, I am going to hell. But to use your own phrase, "Honestly man, wake up!!" Nonetheless, thanks for the throwback!

Jeremy Edgar Catholicism and Reformed Theology are LIES dear friends polluting the truth. Penal substitution lie leads to Satisfaction theory lie of atonement blaspheming the Father making him look bad... but Jesus the hero. Christus Victor makes the Father and Son the heroes, like a father sending his son into battled suffering as he waves good bye but proud of his Son... to fight the enemy holding the kinsmen prisoners to set them free and on his return, wins the kingdom from his father governing these people he saved. King Jesus!! Jesus gospel parables paint the Christus Victor view not Penal substitution/wrath satisfaction.

He did change his view. reknew.org/2008/10/a-christus-victor-and-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/

Why?

Care to reply to the above?

So your god is unjust to tolerate sins?

@@savedchristian4754 i'm not sure what you mean

Heresy. God did not owe Satan anything. Jesus died for a few reasons, the prime of which was to satisfy God's wrath. That's what the word propitiation means in 1 John 2:2. Jesus died to appease Himself, and in so doing He triumphed over Satan, gave an example of what it means to love God, gave an example of how much God loves us, and demonstrated how much God hates sin. However, none of those accomplishments make sense without penal substitutionary atonement. It's the lynchpin of what Jesus did on the cross. We already know God doesn't owe Satan anything. Let's look at some analogies to prove why the other theories are inadequate by themselves. If someone just ran down a dock you were on and jumped in the water while screaming "I LOVE YOU!" before drowning, you'd be like, "What was that?" However, if you are drowning, and the person jumped in and saved you but drowned in the process, then that person is noble and merciful. If you were guilty of a crime against the judge because you were an accomplice in a murder, it doesn't help if the judge's son imprisons the accomplices who coerced you to murder someone. You're still guilty before the judge. However, if the son pays your fine and throws your accomplices in jail, then that judge is just and the son is merciful. If a judge looked at you and said you deserve forty lashes, but then just beat the snot out of his son, then that is a bad judge. However, if the son volunteers to take your place, then the judge is just and the son is merciful. If a fireman runs into a house that is burning without knowing anyone is in the house and dies, that fireman is noble for running into the house but foolish for not having a reason for going into the burning house. However, if there is a disabled person inside that house, and the fireman goes in and saves him but dies in the process, then that fireman is noble and merciful. Jesus had to die as a substitute in the place of sinners. He had to die under His Father's wrath so He could forgive sinners. If anyone misses that truth, then they do not understand the gospel and are not born again.

Josh Peterson I know you made this comment a while ago, but would you mind explaining why the judge is just to punish his willing son with 40 lashes? I mean if this happened in a court tomorrow for some heinous crime, would people look on and be satisfied that justice was done? It seems to go against the rather intuitive notion that the perpetrator of a crime must pay. I've never heard somebody claim that justice requires that SOMEBODY has to pay, regardless of who they are. (Outside the PS view of the atonement. Also, Sorry for the caps, I don't mean to shout, I'm not sure KZfaq comments have italics).

@@joshpeterson2451 how dare you say that someone is not born again if they don't understand something the way you do. You had to resort to a bunch of finite analogies to try to make your point and yet if no one understands them they are not a True Believer? You're a very silly person. You think you know something and you have no idea what you are talking about. You won't even find one verse that says Jesus was punished in our place yet you get on your high pedestal and say that if someone doesn't understand the atonement that they are not even born again. You should stick a sock in your mouth. You should just shut up and study the Bible and not comment anymore for a long time. People like you... Never mind.

Mr. C, I have every right to say someone is not born again if that person changes the gospel. The gospel according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 includes Jesus dying “for our sins.” That is a very important word, huper. It means “in behalf of.” Jesus died in behalf of our sins. Jesus died as a substitute for our sins. How did He do that? What do our sins deserve? Death, both physically and spiritually under the wrath of the Father. Therefore, Jesus had to be punished by the Father to die “for our sins.” Penal substitutionary atonement is the only view of the atonement that has a full, true gospel. Anyone who rejects it has a truncated, false gospel.

@@joshpeterson2451 /// However, if the son volunteers to take your place [for the forty lashes], then the judge is just and the son is merciful. \\\ That doesn't seem like the Judge is just in that case. It seems to me like, under the penal substitutionary model, "Punishment" must be understood qua retributive rather than remedial. But that's an assumption that needs to be justified rather than assumed, otherwise it's just question-begging.

John 3:18: 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Randy, as I understand what you are saying, I sin because of death. Could you explain this more because I don't understand the mechanics of how death makes me sin? Thanks.

Randy, what book or books get into what you're talking about?

Churches of Christ have never taught original sin. We have always believed that just as Adam had to choose between good and evil (Genesis 3:22) so likewise, the only consequence that Adam gave to us is that we must also choose individually between good and evil. As the Romans 5:12 verse says, "death came to all men, because all sinned." It's actual sins committed that are held against us (Romans 3:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3; James 1:12-15).

I totally understand that death is the problem, but it still does not explain why there is no forgiveness without blood. Someone must explain that or I'll just quit having interest.

@@mr.e1220 Randy Churchill wants God to be unjust in order to tolerate sin!

Gordon J If you have np credible explanation for the purpose of Christ's death on the Cross, your point is what,exactly? I await your reply...

His point was that Jesus didn’t die so that God could forgive. I think that is pretty obvious.

@fredy gump /// why couldn't Jesus have just overcome the Devil directly, without being de-throned \\\ In a word, because love is gentle; love is kind. God's real power is in his relentless tenderness.

@@sergeantslaughter5695 Tenderness? SMH. That doesn't even make sense! Wow, that was a long time ago...but the point was....this theory has no substance. It literally is just, "Yeah, we think Jesus won, because the Bible says Jesus won." It fails to explain anything! How/ why is apparent failure actually a victory? It doesn't even attempt to explain! Usually it is the loser who dies, and in the Bible we have the son of God dying at the hand of his chosen people...and this is the ultimate victory...for God? This Christus Victor doesn't even have the components of a theory! It doesn't explain anything!

@@fredygump5578 That response seemed a little emotional. You could ask for clarity instead of writing things like "SMH"

@@sergeantslaughter5695 I literally smacked my head, just FYI. Your comment was perfectly clear. It is also silly. My previous (3 year old) comment was meant to convey that Christus Victor doesn't explain anything. It doesn't even try to explain anything! It is the theological equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "La lala la lalala la."

For instance, what was the point of saying "I literally smacked my head"? It just seems like instead of continuing to claim that it doesn't make sense, you could ask for clarity from someone who disagrees with your opinion, like myself.

Go victim, no way

Jesus did hang out with sinners but if they rejected His sacrifice on the cross, He will send them to eternal hell!!

John3:18:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Does god kill the animal ?

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Regarding the animal(s) in Gen. 3, the bible doesn't specifically say that God killed the animal, but that seems to be what happened. Concerning an animal that got too close to Mt. Sinai, those were to be stoned or shot with an arrow (Ex. 19:13).

interesting opinion. respect your stand. my view is the christus victor view of the atonement.

You said something interesting: you said "the Devil's contract." I suspect you are dancing around an important idea. Let me suggest that humanity signed on to that contract. The story of "The Fall" is really Adam and Eve signing a contract. Their choice to eat the fruit was their "signature", if you will. If you accept this, then you know something about what is on the contract. It is Satan's accusation against God, saying that God does not deserve the throne. God claims the throne based on his knowledg and wisdom, but Satan says God's law is arbitrary. Satan's way is just as good...and we can all do just as good. It is to join a mutiny, a revolt. And another idea--it isn't over yet! (No victory until it is over, right?) There is a final judgement, but who is judged? The verse "every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus us Lord"--I believe that is humanity judging between Jesus and Satan, saying Jesus is good, and Satan is evil. Apostle Paul even says, "Don't you know that we will judge angels?" There is only one God. If he seems different throughout, please adjust your presuppositions!

You say that God cannot pardon the wicked? Why not? If you say that God cannot pardon the wicked do you not believe that God is free? If you say that God is bound by some kind of Justice requirement you are really saying that God is subject to the actions of men. When you say that God must punish people you are saying that God is bound by necessity. If God's justice demands that He punish sin, then there is a higher force than God which demands what God can and cannot do. What you are saying is that If I do "A" then God must do "B" If I sin God must Punish. He does not have the freedom to do otherwise.Thus God's actions are bound and controlled by something outside of Himself I.e. My Actions.. The word Propitiation in Greek is hilasterion. It can also be translated "mercy seat" The mercy seat covered the ark of the covenant, which contained a copy of the ten commandments--the Law. The Law cried out against us demanding perfection to show us our shortcomings. The mercy seat covered those demands and our failure to live up to them. Was the mercy seat punished for our sins? Of course not. Likewise, Christ blood was not the punishment demanded by justice, but rather the ultimate mercy seat covering and forgiving our sins. This is why "propitiation" is sometimes more accurately translated as "expiation" in some verses of the Bible. Expiation implies the removal of our sins, while "propitiation" implies appeasing an angry deity or pagan god. Christ is the mercy seat who covers the justice requirements of the Law. God does not have to beat up Jesus on the cross for God to stop being angry at you. God is Free.

+Randy Churchill God cannot pardon the wicked because He is just. Provers 17:15 says, "He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord." God does not have a double standard for human judges. If human judges who justify wicked people are abominations, then God cannot simply pardon wicked people, which is all of humanity. Justice is not over God. Justice is part of who God is. Just as God is love, God is just. Love does not control God. Love is part of who God is. The same goes for justice. God must do justice because it is a part of who He is. The same reason why God cannot sin is the same reason why He cannot pardon the wicked. God is righteous, so He cannot sin. God is just, so He cannot pardon the wicked. This is the crux of the gospel You cannot apply the very rare definition of "mercy seat" for the word ἱλαστήριον as the sole definition of ἱλαστήριον. That is not letting a language speak for itself. That's like saying the word "trunk" can only mean an elephant's nose, not the storage area of a car. The word ἱλαστήριον in Greek, according to every lexicon you can ever look at, means "appeasement, sin offering, satisfaction." You say God is free, so does that mean God can sin?

The problem your having is that you are assuming that human justice, or our understanding of justice is the standard that defines God in His application of justice. That which is created can never ontologically be confused with that which is is uncreated. Saying that God is JUST does not mean that He has to apply justice according to your understanding of justice. God is free to show mercy. Jesus in the New Testament did not apply justice according to your assumptions. The story of the woman caught in adultery is a perfect example. It was actually the religious leaders who were demanding that the woman have the PENAL demands of the Law applied to her. YOU SOUND JUST LIKE THESE RELIGIOUS LEADERS in your response. The religious leaders were the ones trying to trick Jesus in this story. It was Jesus who wrote in the sand exposing everyone in the crowd as sinners, and thus all of the woman's accusers left. Jesus did not say to her, "I have to punish you because the TORAH demands punishment for your adultery." No, Jesus gave her mercy in the face of a capital crime. The woman's offense demanded the death penalty under Jewish Law. Jesus knew she was guilty because He commanded her to "go and sin no more." But Jesus shows the Freedom of God to forgive. Jesus is the mercy seat who covers the justice demands of the Law. The other problem your having is that your understanding of sin is very incomplete. You are thinking of sin only in terms of a juridical or judicial context. The other aspect your missing is that when Adam and Eve sinned they separated themselves from God''s life giving Spirit, thus subjecting themselves to the slavery and captivity of death. The Bible clearly teaches that Satan was responsible for bringing mankind under the power of death. Heb 2:14-15 says, "He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." 1 John 3:8 teaches that "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work." Christ work here is clearly defined as coming to defeat the "work of Satan" who had brought mankind under the slavery of death. It is death and the MORTAL NATURE we inherited from Adam that produces sin in our lives. In this sense sin comes from death. Paul the Apostle says the "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. .1 Cor 15:56. Here Paul says the sting of death is what produces sin in our lives. It is the Law that gives sin it's power because it is through the Law that we understand our culpability and guilt. The Law was not given because God thought we could keep it perfectly. It was given so that we could understand our sinfulness. In the ministry of Jesus you see Him doing miracles, raising the dead, and casting out demons. All of this is part of Jesus defeating the "works of the devil." Jesus is coming to bring JUSTICE to our oppressor, Satan. This is the justice your are not seeing in the Bible. The reason you see Jesus giving mercy in the face of justice is because we sin because of the curse of death. We have been brought under slavery. Jesus is conquering Satan and the principalities and powers in subjecting Himself to death on the cross. This is what Western Christians do not understand. All I'm giving you here is the theology of the early church on this subject.. If your a Protestant you never hear this side of redemption. You think that God had to beat up Jesus on the cross so that God could stop being angry at you. You think the cross is God pouring out His wrath on the Son. This is why your view of justice is wrong. In reality Jesus was defeating Satan, sin, and death. God in His love sent Jesus in the incarnation to deliver us from the work of Satan and the captivity he had brought mankind under. Your idea of justice is wrong. You ask the question "can God sin". This is really a silly question. God is light and pure life. His essence is unknowable by the human mind. So to even ask a question like this is to show that your understanding of God is to small. God is immutable. He never changes.

+Randy Churchill So you think God has a double standard. You think God considers every judge who simply pardons condemned people an abomination, but God Himself simply pardons condemned people. Logically, you must believe that God is a hypocrite. John 7:53-8:11 is not original and, therefore, not inspired. If you disagree, I can prove this. Regardless, in John 8:1-11, Jesus is teaching that the hypocritical Pharisees think they're perfect and want to kill the adulterous woman, but in actuality the Pharisees are just as wicked if not more. That has nothing to do with God's justice. God is patient with people currently, but He will condemn the wicked, which is why people need to repent and trust in Christ so they can be declared innocent by having Jesus' perfection credited to their account. Yes, Jesus died to disarm Satan and undo Satan's work. How did Jesus do that though? That is something the Christus Victor stance can never explain by itself. I agree that Jesus defeated Satan, sin, and death. He did that by bearing the wrath sin deserved so that humans can be forgiven of their sins by God. By making pardon available to humans, Jesus undid Satan's work by offering redemption from the Fall, which Satan caused. By atoning for sin, Jesus destroyed sin's and death's power because humans can be spared from spiritual death in hell forever. The only way those victories are won is if Jesus pays the penalty for humans on their behalf by taking the punishment for sin. The relationship this has with the Law is very important. Like you said, the Law shows us how sinful we are, and it is what we will be judged by. The unbeliever will be judged by his actions and the Law according to Revelation 20:11-15. The believer will have been forgiven because the curse of the Law that he should bear was born by Jesus on the cross according to Galatians 3:10-14. That's how the early church interpreted Jesus' death, and I have quotes to prove it. I do believe that God has to unleash His holy, righteous, just, and loving fury on Jesus in order to make forgiveness of sins possible. Satan is not our problem. Satan will not judge humanity one day. God will judge humanity one day. He is the One who has been offended, and He is the One who must be appeased. Not Satan. How is asking if God can sin a silly question? If God is immutable, which you say He is, then the attributes He possesses cannot change. If God is righteous, which He is according to Psalm 145:17 and a slew of other verses, then He cannot do anything to change His righteousness. Therefore, God cannot sin, because that would mean God is no longer righteous and, therefore, changed. The same goes for God's justice. If God is just, which He is according to Deuteronomy 32:4 and Psalm 9:7-8, then He cannot do anything to change His justice. Therefore, God cannot simply pardon condemned people without payment. Otherwise, He would change and no longer be just. I am glad you agree that God is immutable, because it makes your argument laughably easy to pick apart. My last question is this: What was in the cup that Jesus asked to be taken away from Him while He was in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before His crucifixion?

God is not a hypocrite. God is free to show mercy. There is no doubt that God will judge the wicked. I’m am not denying that there will be judgment for people who are rebellious and do not look to Jesus for mercy and forgiveness. But your view of justice is that God cannot forgive unless He meats out justice for every sin in word, thought and deed that people commit. You say: John 7:53-8:11 "is not original and, therefore, not inspired. I have never heard any scholar hold that position. You would have to give some scholarly references on that claim otherwise your simply denying the authority of scripture on the basis of an arbitrary personal claim. The doctrine of Original Sin is a false doctrine. It was formulated by Augustine. I deal with this false doctrine here: The Idea of Original Sin came from Augustine. No one before him who wrote in the early church used the term Original Sin nor do you find any reference to the idea of imputed guilt to the whole human race in their writings. The early church saw death as the problem or disease, not sin. The text that Augustine used to justify his doctrine of Original Sin was Romans 5:12. Augustine formulated that Romans 5:12 taught that we all sinned "in" Adam. All of western Christianity is built on this one idea that we all sinned "in" Adam. The church before Augustine taught that Romans 5:12 should be interpreted that we sinned "because" Adam sinned. The reason they maintained this was because of the two verses that follow Romans 5:12. From Romans 5:13-14 It seems strange that Augustine formulated a doctrine that implies Imputed guilt to the whole human race. In these verses Paul the Apostle says that all the people who lived from Adam to Moses were struggling with sin. However, that sin and guilt was NOT imputed or reckoned to them since the Torah had not been given. How can this be? Did Augustine read vs 13 and 14? It seems he missed the point of these verses. If Augustine did read vs 13 &;14 how could he interpret vs 12 to mean that all men universally have guilt accounted to them on the basis of Adams sin? Romans 5:13 &amd;14 teach the very opposite of what Augustine taught in vs 12. But in verse 14 Paul says,;Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come". The people who lived from Adam to Moses the overriding emphasis is on the fact that these people were under the dominion of death. They were under the mortality that Adams sin had brought upon them. "Sin reigned through death." (Romans 5:21). It is not imputed guilt in verses 13 & amd;14 that men receive from Adam. It is the curse and slavery of death. The following observations can be made here. Paul defines death as the problem that ruled over these men who lived from Adam to Moses. Sin came from death. Romans 5:21.They had no imputed guilt. The Torah had not been given yet. Also this passage Identifies Adam as a Type of the one who is to come. This is universally interpreted to mean that Adam was a TYPE of Christ, The one who is to come or the second Adam. The next observation here is that Adam is a TYPE who sets up a PATTERN of the one who is to come. Adam is set apart here from other men in three ways. He was the first man. Secondly, He was the first man to sin. Thirdly his first sin brought other men after him under the dominion of death. They had no guilt reckoned to them. In this sense Adam has Headship. But not Federal Headship. Federal Headship is the byproduct of the doctrine of imputed guilt. This pattern from Headship is confirmed by Paul the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 15:21 “For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being”; Christ who is the second Adam. The fulfillment of the pattern between the first and second Adam here is obvious. Adams sin brings death. Christ brings life. The early church believed that sin comes from the curse and slavery of death. For Adam the wages of sin was death. Adams first sin brought death into creation, but for us the "sting of death is sin" 1 Cor 15:56. This is the two dimensional aspect of sin. So we sin because the condition of creation was cursed by the first sin of Adam. The men who lived from Adam to Moses did not sin after the "similitude" of Adam because Adams sin was different. It brought death. This is why the Bible teaches " that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until the present time". Romans 8:21,22. Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became "diseased...through the sin of one". It is not guilt that is passed on, for the church fathers; it is a condition, a disease". The creation itself has been warped now that death is here, and since we are part of creation our relation to it is not the same. We are not in Eden any longer. So the early church taught that Adams and Eve were guilty for their own sins. We in turn are guilty for ours. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of every man and woman. This early church view of sin is not taught in the western churches today. It is because of the doctrines of Original Sin that the western churches teach doctrines that have been invented such as the Federal Headship of Adam, Forensic Justification and Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The cross has become about God punishing the Son instead of God in Jesus Christ conquering death, sin and Satan. The early church did not believe that God had to beat up Jesus on the cross so that God could stop being mad at you. Hebrews 2:14,15 says, "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death-that is, the devil- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death". Here we see the purpose of Christ death, He was in fact bringing justice to our oppressor Satan himself. Satan was more than a tempter. Satan had brought mankind under the power and slavery of death thus holding that power over us. Christ by defeating death. defeats sin providing forgiveness of sins. Death, sin and Satan as the unholy trinity were defeated. ,There is no doubt that Paul the Apostle talks about death as the central problem. For even after he describes the struggle with sin in Romans 7 he ends the chapter by saying, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of this death?" . The Augustinian view of Original Sin is false doctrine.? You ask,: "My last question is this: What was in the cup that Jesus asked to be taken away from Him while He was in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before His crucifixion?" The Protestant tradition says that the cup that Jesus was going to drink was the cup of God's wrath. I totally disagree. There is no scripture that makes this claim. The cup according to the theology of the early church was the cup of suffering. Jesus was simply telling His disciples that if they followed him they would also suffer and die for Him. Nothing more. Part of the problem your having here is that you have bought into the satisfaction theory of the Atonement. The western church has poured certain ideas into the word Atonement that the early church would never recognize. There is no other language in the world that has the word Atonement in it's dialect. The concept of Atonement actually means to be at ONEMENT with God or to be in union with God through Jesus Christ. But the western churches have bought into the idea that the Atonement means to satisfy the justice of God. The idea of satisfaction is a pagan idea and all the pagan gods demanded payment so that they could be satisfied. It was Anselm in the Roman Catholic church that first theorized that the cross was some kind of satisfaction. Later the Protestant Reformers developed the idea of Penal Substitutionary Atonement which was a completely new theology that no had ever heard of. Once you accept the idea of Original Sin you get other false doctrines from that original false doctrine. This is why you get the Federal Headship of Adam instead of Adams Headship. You get forensic Justification instead of Justification, and you get Penal Substitutionary Atonement instead of Christ as our substitute in Conquering Satan, sin, and victory over the power of Satan in our lives. The early church never had any reference to satisfying the wrath of God in their view of the work of Christ. They believed in the Ancestral Sin or the Sin of our Forefather Adam. They did not have any theology that even came close to what Augustine invented. Before Augustine there was no controversy over the doctrine of sin. It was a settled doctrine in the church. When Augustine formulated his doctrine of Original Sin it was a totally foreign concept to the early church. The Eastern Orthodox Church never accepted it as church doctrine and they have always defined it as false doctrine. The reason Protestants hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is because it allows them to maintain their autonomy apart from any reference back to the early church and what they believed. The Protestant Reformation is nothing more than an Augustinian echo chamber. . If they could ever get out of that chamber they might discover a much different idea of what happened on the cross.

Wounded Ego I agree