Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig.

Today, the Doctrine of Christ, part 14.

For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonable faith.org.

We are discussing the doctrine of the atonement, and we've just begun a survey of Christian thinking about the

atonement over the centuries. And we want to start with the church fathers. Now, to review what I said

last week, the dominant view among the church fathers was that Christ's death was a sacrificial offering to God.

And this was often construed in terms of substitutionary punishment.

For example, I quoted from the church father Eusebius in his treatise the demonstration of the gospel.

Eusebius wrote, the Lamb of God was chastised on our behalf and suffered a penalty he did not

owe but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins.

And so he became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins because he received death for us

and transferred to himself the scourgings, the insults, and the dishonor which were due to us, and drew down

on himself the apportioned curse being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price

of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person, and quoting here Isaiah 53, by his

stripes, we were healed and the Lord delivered him for our sins. That's from demonstration

of the gospel chapter 10, section 1. Similar sentiments were expressed by church fathers such as Oregon,

Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and others. For example, Oregon, who is usually associated with

the so-called ransom theory of the atonement, actually connects the idea of sacrifice with penal substitution

as he founded in Isaiah 53.

This is what Oregon had to say.

What has never been related in any history is that one suffered death for the whole world and that the whole world was cleansed by this sacrifice, whereas without such a sacrifice it must perforce have perished.

Christ only could receive on the cross the burden of the sins of all.

...