A Note to the Reader: This report examines Joshua Schooping’s defense of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) in his book “An Existential Soteriology: Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Light of the Mystical Theology of the Church Fathers.” While I will present his arguments fairly and thoroughly, my own theological position aligns more closely with Fleming’s non-penal substitutionary view, which maintains that Christ died as our substitute without being punished by God for our sins.
Introduction: Understanding the Context and Importance of This Discussion
Joshua Schooping’s “An Existential Soteriology” represents a significant attempt to defend Penal Substitutionary Atonement from within the Eastern Orthodox tradition. This is notable because PSA is often criticized or rejected by Orthodox theologians as a Western innovation. Schooping, however, argues that PSA is not only compatible with Orthodox theology but is actually an essential part of the patristic tradition that predates Western formulations.
Before we dive into Schooping’s arguments, it’s important to understand what we mean by Penal Substitutionary Atonement. According to Schooping’s definition in his Introduction (Chapter 1), PSA involves three key elements: First, Penal refers to penalty, chastisement, and just punishment. Second, Substitutionary means Christ taking our place, standing where we otherwise justly deserve to stand. Third, Atonement refers to the reuniting of God with man and man with God.
What makes Schooping’s work particularly interesting is his personal journey to this position. In his Introduction, he shares that he actually came to Orthodoxy partly because he was repelled by the Protestant teaching of PSA. He writes about how the doctrine “appeared absurd to think of an angry God meting out punishment upon His Son in order to save man from his sins. It seemed so arbitrary, so shallow, so harsh, so legalistic, so cruel.”
However, his extensive reading of the Church Fathers, particularly St. Symeon the New Theologian, led him to reconsider. He discovered what he calls “Patristic exposition of what could only really be explained as Penal Substitutionary Atonement” in Orthodox sources that predated Western theologians like Anselm of Canterbury by a century. This discovery forced him to wrestle with whether PSA might actually be an authentic Orthodox teaching that had been unfairly dismissed.
Part I: Schooping’s Foundation – God’s Justice and Human Sin
Chapter 2: God’s Just Wrath According to St. Gregory Palamas
Schooping begins his theological argument by establishing the reality of God’s wrath and justice through the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. This is strategic because Palamas lived in the 14th century, well after the Great Schism, and was a defender of Orthodox mystical theology. If Palamas taught PSA-compatible ideas, it would be hard to dismiss them as Western influence.
In Chapter 2, “God’s Just Wrath: St. Gregory Palamas on Divine Justice,” Schooping notes that one would expect Palamas to reject vicarious satisfaction or penal substitution if these were truly foreign to Orthodoxy. However, Schooping demonstrates that Palamas actually affirmed these concepts. He argues that Palamas understood God’s justice as something real that requires satisfaction, not merely a metaphor or pedagogical tool.
Key Point from Palamas: According to Schooping’s reading, Palamas taught that God’s wrath is real and must be addressed. This wrath is not arbitrary or vindictive but is the just response of a holy God to sin. The justice of God requires that sin be dealt with, not simply overlooked.
Schooping emphasizes that for Palamas, divine justice is not opposed to divine love but is actually an expression of it. When God’s love is resisted, it is experienced as wrath. This is an important distinction because it addresses one of the main criticisms of PSA – that it presents God as vindictive or cruel.
Chapters 3-5: The Nature of Human Freedom and Sin
In these chapters, Schooping establishes the anthropological foundation for understanding why atonement is necessary. Chapter 3, “Disturbed: On the Freedom of the Will,” explores how human freedom has been damaged by sin. He argues against what he calls “Neo-Pelagian Libertarianism” in Chapter 4, “Free But Bent: Contra Neo-Pelagian Libertarianism.”
Schooping’s argument here is that humans are not simply free to choose good or evil at any moment. Rather, our will has been bent or distorted by sin. We are free, but our freedom is compromised. This means we cannot simply save ourselves through good choices – we need divine intervention.
In Chapter 5, “Eastern Orthodoxy Contra Pelagianism: The Canonical Grounding,” Schooping provides canonical evidence that the Orthodox Church has consistently rejected Pelagianism – the idea that humans can achieve salvation through their own efforts. This sets up his argument that some form of substitutionary atonement is necessary because humans cannot save themselves.
Part II: The Heart of Schooping’s Argument – Patristic Evidence for PSA
Chapter 6: Existential Soteriology – Setting the Framework
In Chapter 6, “Existential Soteriology: An Introduction to Basic Themes,” Schooping introduces his unique approach to understanding PSA. He argues that PSA should not be understood in purely legal or transactional terms but in existential terms – that is, in terms of how it addresses the human condition and transforms human existence.
Schooping writes that sin is not just breaking rules but is “the power of death working itself out in us through the passions.” Christ’s atonement, therefore, is not just about satisfying an abstract principle of justice but about entering into our condition of death and transforming it from within. He states: “Christ, being God in the flesh, goes down into death, takes on the consequence and penalty of sin which is none other than curse and death and, since He is Life, defeats our death by His death.”
Chapter 7: Hymnographic and Patristic Teaching on PSA
This chapter, “Thy Dread Dispensation: Hymnographic and Patristic Teaching on Penal Substitutionary Atonement,” is one of Schooping’s most important. He begins by quoting from the Orthodox Festal Menaion: “Come, all ye peoples, and let us venerate the blessed Wood, through which the eternal justice has been brought to pass.”
Schooping argues that Orthodox liturgical texts consistently affirm that Christ’s death satisfied divine justice. He provides extensive analysis of hymns and prayers that speak of Christ bearing our punishment, taking our curse upon Himself, and satisfying the demands of justice.
Important Liturgical Evidence: Schooping shows that the Orthodox Church’s worship consistently uses language of Christ bearing our penalty, taking our punishment, and satisfying divine justice. This liturgical evidence is particularly significant because it represents the living tradition of the Church, not just the opinion of individual theologians.
In this chapter, Schooping also addresses what he sees as strawman arguments against PSA. He argues that critics often attack caricatures of the doctrine rather than engaging with its more sophisticated formulations. He distinguishes between crude popular presentations and the more nuanced understanding found in the Fathers.
Chapter 8: St. Symeon the New Theologian’s Teaching
Chapter 8, “A Great and Fearful Mystery: St. Symeon the New Theologian on Penal Substitutionary Atonement,” provides Schooping’s most detailed patristic analysis. St. Symeon (949-1022) is particularly important because he was a mystical theologian who predated Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), often blamed for introducing PSA to Christian theology.
Schooping quotes extensively from St. Symeon’s Homily 1, “The Transgression of Adam and Our Redemption by Jesus Christ.” According to Schooping, Symeon clearly teaches that “When God condemns for something, he gives also a sentence, and His sentence becomes deed and an eternal chastisement.”
The significance of this cannot be overstated in Schooping’s argument. Here is an Eastern mystical theologian, writing before the supposed Western “invention” of PSA, using explicitly legal and penal language to describe the atonement. Symeon speaks of God’s sentence, condemnation, and chastisement – all key concepts in PSA.
Schooping emphasizes that for Symeon, Christ took upon Himself the sentence that was meant for us. This is not just bearing the consequences of sin in a general sense, but specifically taking the punishment that divine justice required. Symeon describes how Christ “suffered in our place, took on the punishment due to us, took on our sentence.”
Chapter 9: St. Cyril of Alexandria on God’s Wrath and PSA
In Chapter 9, “For Us and In Our Place: St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Doctrine of God’s Wrath and Penal Substitutionary Atonement,” Schooping examines the teachings of this fifth-century Church Father. St. Cyril is particularly important because of his role in defining Orthodox Christology at the Council of Ephesus.
Schooping shows that Cyril explicitly used substitutionary language, speaking of Christ dying “in our place” and bearing “the punishment due to us.” Cyril writes about Christ “transferring to Himself what was our due” – language that clearly indicates substitutionary atonement.
One of Schooping’s key quotes from Cyril states: “Christ transferred to Himself what was our due, and laid down His life, that we might be sent away from death and destruction.” This is unambiguous substitutionary language – Christ took what was ours (punishment for sin) so that we could receive what was His (life and freedom from death).
Chapters 10-12: The Concept of Forensic Imputation
These chapters address one of the most controversial aspects of PSA – the idea of forensic or legal imputation. Chapter 10, “The Levitical Doctrine of Forensic Imputation,” examines the Old Testament background, particularly the scapegoat ritual in Leviticus 16.
Schooping argues that the concept of imputation – legally transferring guilt from one party to another – is not a Protestant invention but is found in Scripture itself. He provides detailed analysis of Hebrew and Greek terms related to imputation, showing how they are used in both Old and New Testaments.
In Chapter 11, “Appropriating Man’s Curse: St. John of Damascus on Forensic Imputation,” Schooping shows that this eighth-century Father understood Christ as taking our curse upon Himself in a legal or forensic sense. John of Damascus distinguishes between two kinds of appropriation – natural (Christ truly becoming human) and relative (Christ taking our legal position before God).
Chapter 12, “As If He Were Also Captive: Forensic Imputation According to Scripture and St. Maximus the Confessor,” continues this theme. Schooping quotes Maximus saying that Christ “was born among captives as if He were also a captive, and He was ‘reckoned among transgressors.'” The phrase “as if” is crucial – Christ was not actually a sinner but was legally counted as one for our sake.
The Imputation Debate: While Schooping makes a strong case that the Church Fathers understood some form of imputation, critics might argue that he reads Protestant categories back into patristic texts. The Fathers may have used this language analogically rather than in the strict legal sense that PSA requires. This is where my own position, following Fleming, would distinguish between Christ bearing the consequences of sin and Christ being punished by God.
Chapters 13-14: Addressing Common Objections
In Chapter 13, “Questions and Difficulties: On The Atonement As It Relates To Deuteronomic Case Law,” Schooping addresses biblical passages that seem to contradict PSA, particularly Deuteronomy 24:16: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Schooping argues that this law refers to immediate culpability in human courts, not to the principle of vicarious atonement in divine redemption. He distinguishes between confusing guilt (making someone actually guilty of another’s sin) and imputing guilt (legally transferring the penalty for sin).
Chapter 14, “God’s Pleasure Was Not In the Act of Bruising: Resolving Misconceptions of Christ’s Suffering,” addresses the disturbing idea that God took pleasure in punishing Christ. Schooping argues that this is a misreading of Isaiah 53:10. God’s pleasure was not in the suffering itself but in what it accomplished – the salvation of humanity.
Chapter 15: The Trinity and PSA
In “False Dilemma: Refuting the Objection of Nestorianism and Intra-Trinitarian Division,” Schooping addresses one of the most serious theological objections to PSA – that it divides the Trinity, pitting an angry Father against a loving Son.
Schooping argues that this is a caricature. In proper PSA, the entire Trinity is involved in redemption. The Father sends the Son out of love, the Son willingly offers Himself, and the Spirit applies the benefits of redemption. There is no division but rather a unified divine action for human salvation.
He emphasizes that the Father suffers with the Son (though impassibly) and that the sacrifice of the Cross reveals the love of the entire Trinity, not just the Son. This Trinitarian emphasis helps address concerns that PSA presents God as divided against Himself.
Part III: Historical Evidence for Orthodox PSA
Chapter 16: PSA in Orthodox Responses to Protestantism
One of Schooping’s most interesting arguments comes in Chapter 16, “A Point of Agreement: Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the 16th/17th Century Orthodox Responses to Protestantism.” He shows that when Orthodox hierarchs dialogued with early Protestants, they did not reject PSA but actually affirmed it.
Schooping quotes Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople writing to the Lutherans with an analogy that clearly teaches PSA: “One might see a bandit or criminal being punished, and the king himself give his beloved, only-begotten, and legitimate son, who was not like that, to be put to death, transferring the guilt from the wicked man to the son in order to save the condemned criminal.”
This is remarkable because if PSA were truly foreign to Orthodoxy, we would expect the Patriarch to reject it when dialoguing with Protestants. Instead, he presents it as the Orthodox view. Schooping argues this shows PSA was not controversial between East and West at this time – both accepted it as biblical teaching.
The same pattern appears in the Confession of Dositheus (1672), which Schooping analyzes. This Orthodox confession, formulated in response to Protestantism, affirms that Christ is “the propitiation for our sins” and that “through His blood He hath made a reconciliation between God and man.”
Chapter 17: St. John Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians 5:21
In “Penal Substitution: St. John Chrysostom’s Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:21,” Schooping examines how this fourth-century Father interpreted Paul’s statement that God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.”
Chrysostom’s interpretation is clearly substitutionary. He speaks of Christ taking our punishment, bearing our curse, and dying in our place. Schooping argues that Chrysostom’s homilies on this passage are some of the clearest patristic statements of PSA.
What’s particularly significant is that Chrysostom was not engaged in controversy about the atonement – he was simply explaining Scripture to his congregation. This suggests that substitutionary understanding was the natural, uncontroversial reading of these texts in the early Church.
Chapters 18-19: Hell and Divine Justice
These chapters address the relationship between PSA and the doctrine of hell. In Chapter 18, “The Cup of Divine Wrath: St. Philaret of Moscow and the Proportionality of Hell,” Schooping argues that PSA is necessary to maintain the biblical teaching about eternal punishment.
If God can simply forgive sin without satisfaction of justice, why is there a hell? Schooping argues that PSA explains how God can be both just (requiring punishment for sin) and merciful (providing that punishment through Christ). Without PSA, either God’s justice or His mercy must be compromised.
Chapter 19, “The Horror of Hell: St. Gregory Palamas on God’s Retributive Justice Contra Hyper-Therapeuticism,” continues this theme. Schooping critiques what he calls “hyper-therapeuticism” – the view that all of God’s actions toward sinners are purely therapeutic or medicinal, never retributive.
He argues that Palamas maintained that God’s justice includes real retribution for sin, not just therapeutic discipline. This retributive aspect of divine justice is what necessitates PSA – Christ bears the retribution we deserve so that we can receive mercy.
Chapter 20: Orthodox Rejection of Universalism
In “Eastern Orthodoxy Contra Universalism (Apocatastasis): The Canonical Grounding,” Schooping argues that the Orthodox Church has consistently rejected universalism – the idea that all will eventually be saved. This is relevant because PSA maintains that Christ’s sacrifice was necessary precisely because not all will be saved apart from faith in Christ.
He provides canonical evidence that the Church has condemned universalism as heresy. This supports PSA because it maintains that divine justice really does require satisfaction – hell is real for those who reject Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice.
Part IV: The Theological Synthesis
Chapter 21: The Necessity of PSA for Orthodox Theology
“The Transcendental Realism of God’s Economy: The Necessity of Penal Substitutionary Atonement in Relation to Orthodox Theology” represents Schooping’s attempt to show that PSA is not just compatible with Orthodoxy but necessary for it.
He argues that without PSA, several key Orthodox doctrines become incoherent. How can we maintain that God is just if sin is not punished? How can we say Christ’s death was necessary if God could have forgiven without it? How can we understand the biblical language of propitiation, ransom, and sacrifice without some form of PSA?
Schooping’s argument is that PSA provides the theological framework that makes sense of biblical and liturgical language about the atonement. Without it, we’re left with metaphors that don’t really mean what they seem to say.
A Critical Assessment: While Schooping makes a forceful argument here, critics might respond that he creates a false dilemma. One can maintain divine justice and the necessity of Christ’s death without accepting that God punished Christ. Fleming’s position, which I find more persuasive, is that Christ bore the consequences of sin (death, alienation, suffering) without being the object of divine wrath. The Cross reveals both justice and mercy without requiring that the Father punish the Son.
Part V: PSA and the Spiritual Life
Chapter 22: The Mystical Theology of PSA
One of Schooping’s most original contributions comes in Chapter 22, “The Mystical Theology of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.” Here he argues that PSA, far from being a dry legal doctrine, actually provides the foundation for Orthodox mystical theology.
His argument is that understanding Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice creates the gratitude and love that fuel the spiritual life. When we realize the depth of what Christ has done for us – bearing our punishment, taking our curse – we are moved to profound thanksgiving and desire for union with Him.
Schooping connects PSA with theosis (deification), arguing that Christ’s bearing of our punishment opens the way for us to share in His divine life. He took what was ours (sin and death) so that we could receive what is His (righteousness and life). This exchange is at the heart of both PSA and theosis.
Chapters 23-27: PSA and Christian Living
These chapters explore how PSA relates to various aspects of Christian life. Chapter 23, “Unbelieving Believers: Conversion and the Desire for Christ,” argues that truly understanding PSA is essential for genuine conversion. We must understand what we’re saved from (divine judgment) to appreciate what we’re saved for (union with God).
Chapter 24, “The Mind is Fractured: The Jesus Prayer, Conversion, and Suffering,” connects PSA with the Orthodox practice of the Jesus Prayer. Schooping argues that the plea “have mercy on me, a sinner” assumes that we deserve judgment and need Christ’s substitutionary work.
Chapter 25, “Lucid Living: The Ascension as Present Life,” explores how Christ’s completed work (including His bearing our punishment) enables us to live in freedom and joy. Chapter 26, “Accepted in the Beloved: The Relation Between the Gospel and Self-Acceptance,” argues that PSA provides the only solid foundation for self-acceptance – we are accepted because Christ bore our rejection.
Chapter 27, “Watchfulness and Stillness: The Orthodox Method of Deconstructing the False Self,” connects PSA with hesychastic spirituality. Schooping argues that knowing Christ bore our punishment frees us from the need to justify ourselves, allowing us to enter into watchfulness and stillness.
Part VI: Theological Anthropology and Apophatic Theology
Chapters 28-31: The Depths of Human Nature
The final section of Schooping’s book explores the anthropological implications of PSA. Chapter 28, “Attending to the Mysterious Depths of Human Being,” argues that PSA takes seriously the depth of human sinfulness and need for redemption.
Chapters 29-30 explore “apophatic anthropology” through the work of Andre Scrima and Dumitru Staniloae. Schooping argues that just as we cannot fully comprehend God (apophatic theology), we cannot fully comprehend the depths of human sinfulness and the corresponding greatness of Christ’s substitutionary work.
Chapter 31, “From Theology to Methodology and Technology,” discusses how PSA should shape Orthodox theological method and spiritual technology (practices). Schooping argues that taking PSA seriously would revitalize Orthodox theology and spirituality.
Critical Analysis: Strengths of Schooping’s Argument
Having examined Schooping’s argument in detail, we can identify several significant strengths in his presentation:
1. Extensive Patristic Documentation
Schooping’s greatest strength is his extensive use of patristic sources. He doesn’t rely on one or two proof texts but provides detailed analysis of multiple Church Fathers across different centuries and contexts. His use of St. Symeon the New Theologian is particularly effective, as Symeon predates Western scholastic theology and was a mystical theologian, not a systematic theologian concerned with legal categories.
The breadth of his patristic evidence is impressive. He cites Fathers from the fourth century (Chrysostom, Athanasius) through the fourteenth century (Palamas), showing that PSA-compatible language appears throughout the patristic period. This makes it difficult to dismiss PSA as a late Western innovation.
2. Liturgical Evidence
Schooping’s use of liturgical texts strengthens his argument considerably. The Orthodox Church’s lex orandi, lex credendi principle (the law of prayer is the law of belief) means that liturgical texts carry special authority. When he shows that Orthodox hymns and prayers regularly use substitutionary and penal language, he’s demonstrating that this theology is embedded in Orthodox worship, not just in theological treatises.
3. Historical Context
His analysis of sixteenth and seventeenth-century Orthodox responses to Protestantism is particularly clever. By showing that Orthodox hierarchs affirmed PSA when dialoguing with Protestants, he undermines the narrative that PSA is a distinctively Protestant doctrine that Orthodox must reject.
4. Theological Integration
Schooping doesn’t treat PSA in isolation but shows how it connects with other aspects of Orthodox theology – theosis, the Jesus Prayer, hesychasm, etc. This integration suggests that PSA might be more central to Orthodoxy than its critics suppose.
5. Addressing Objections
Throughout the book, Schooping anticipates and addresses common objections to PSA. He distinguishes his position from crude caricatures and shows awareness of the theological concerns that lead many to reject PSA. This makes his argument more credible and harder to dismiss.
Critical Analysis: Weaknesses and Concerns
Despite these strengths, there are several areas where Schooping’s argument is less convincing:
1. Selective Reading of the Fathers
While Schooping provides extensive patristic quotes, critics might argue that he’s reading the Fathers selectively. The same Fathers he quotes also use other images for the atonement – Christus Victor, theosis, moral influence, etc. By focusing on passages that support PSA, he may be giving a skewed picture of patristic theology.
Furthermore, when the Fathers use legal or penal language, they may be using it analogically or metaphorically rather than in the strict sense required by PSA. Fleming’s critique is relevant here – the Fathers may speak of Christ bearing our curse without meaning that God punished Christ.
The Hermeneutical Question: The key interpretive issue is whether patristic language about Christ bearing our punishment should be taken literally (as Schooping does) or as metaphorical language describing Christ’s solidarity with sinful humanity (as Fleming and others argue). This is not easily resolved by quoting texts – it requires careful analysis of how the Fathers use language and what they mean by key terms.
2. The Problem of Development
Even if we grant that PSA elements exist in the Fathers, there’s a significant difference between scattered elements and a fully developed doctrine. The Reformed tradition’s systematic presentation of PSA goes beyond anything in the Fathers. Schooping may be reading a developed doctrine back into texts that contain only its seeds.
3. Theological Concerns
Several theological concerns remain inadequately addressed:
The Unity of the Trinity: While Schooping argues that PSA doesn’t divide the Trinity, the language of the Father punishing the Son remains problematic. How can the Father punish the Son when they share the same divine nature and will? Schooping’s response – that the whole Trinity is involved in redemption – doesn’t fully resolve this issue.
Divine Impassibility: Orthodox theology maintains that God cannot suffer or change. How then can God’s wrath be “satisfied” or His attitude toward sinners change because of Christ’s death? Schooping touches on this but doesn’t provide a fully satisfactory answer.
The Nature of Justice: Schooping assumes a retributive view of justice – that justice requires punishment for wrongdoing. But is this the only or best understanding of divine justice? Fleming and others argue for a restorative view of justice that doesn’t require punishment.
4. Pastoral Problems
Schooping doesn’t adequately address the pastoral problems that PSA can create. The doctrine has been used to justify abuse (“God punished Jesus, so suffering is redemptive”), to create unhealthy guilt, and to present God as vindictive. While these may be misuses of the doctrine, they’re common enough to warrant serious consideration.
5. Alternative Interpretations
Schooping doesn’t give sufficient attention to alternative Orthodox interpretations of the atonement. Many Orthodox theologians have developed sophisticated non-penal understandings that take seriously the biblical and patristic texts Schooping cites. His tendency to present PSA as necessary for Orthodox coherence doesn’t do justice to these alternatives.
The Alternative View: Fleming’s Non-Penal Substitution
Having examined Schooping’s argument, it’s important to present the alternative view that I find more convincing – Fleming’s non-penal substitutionary atonement. This view maintains that Christ died as our substitute without being punished by God for our sins.
Key Distinctions
Fleming makes several crucial distinctions that Schooping tends to blur:
Consequences vs. Punishment: Christ bore the consequences of sin (death, suffering, alienation) without being punished by God. Death is the natural result of sin, not a punishment inflicted by God. Christ entered into our condition of death to transform it from within.
Solidarity vs. Substitution: While maintaining substitutionary language, Fleming emphasizes Christ’s solidarity with humanity. Christ doesn’t stand in our place to receive punishment but enters into our situation to transform it. He goes where we are to bring us where He is.
Love vs. Wrath: The Cross primarily reveals God’s love, not His wrath. God doesn’t need to punish someone to forgive – the Cross shows the extent of God’s love in entering into our condition to save us.
Addressing Schooping’s Evidence
Fleming’s approach can account for much of the evidence Schooping presents:
Patristic Language: When the Fathers speak of Christ bearing our punishment or curse, they mean He entered into the human condition under the curse of death and sin. This doesn’t require that God actively punished Christ.
Liturgical Texts: The liturgical language of Christ bearing our sins and satisfying justice can be understood in terms of Christ dealing with the reality of sin and death, not appeasing divine wrath.
Biblical Texts: Passages about Christ being made sin or becoming a curse describe His identification with sinful humanity, not God punishing Him for our sins.
Theological Advantages
Fleming’s view has several theological advantages:
Preserves Divine Unity: There’s no division in the Trinity – Father, Son, and Spirit work together to rescue humanity from sin and death.
Maintains Divine Love: God’s love is consistent throughout – He doesn’t need to punish to forgive but enters into our condition to save us.
Avoids Crude Mechanism: Salvation isn’t a legal transaction but a personal divine action to restore humanity.
Better Pastoral Implications: This view presents God as consistently loving rather than wrathful, which can be more helpful for those struggling with guilt or trauma.
Synthesizing the Discussion: What Can We Learn?
Having examined both Schooping’s defense of PSA and the alternative non-penal view, what conclusions can we draw?
1. The Complexity of the Tradition
Schooping demonstrates convincingly that the Christian tradition, including the Eastern Orthodox tradition, contains significant elements that support substitutionary atonement. The Fathers do use legal language, speak of Christ bearing our punishment, and describe salvation in terms of satisfying divine justice. This language cannot be simply dismissed or explained away.
However, the tradition is complex and multifaceted. The same Fathers use many different images and models for the atonement. No single model, including PSA, captures the full mystery of Christ’s saving work.
2. The Importance of Interpretation
The key issue is not whether the Fathers use penal or substitutionary language – they clearly do. The question is how to interpret this language. Is it meant literally, as Schooping argues, or is it metaphorical, as Fleming and others maintain?
This interpretive question cannot be settled simply by collecting quotes. It requires careful attention to context, genre, and the overall theological framework of each Father. Different readers, approaching the texts with different assumptions, will reach different conclusions.
3. The Need for Balance
Perhaps the truth lies somewhere between the positions of Schooping and Fleming. The atonement may include penal elements without being reduced to PSA. Christ’s death may satisfy divine justice in some sense without God directly punishing Christ.
The Orthodox tradition’s emphasis on mystery is helpful here. The atonement is ultimately a mystery that transcends our categories and models. We need multiple images and approaches to begin to grasp its significance.
4. Pastoral Sensitivity
Whatever our theological position, we must be sensitive to how atonement theology affects people’s spiritual lives. PSA has been helpful for many, convincing them of God’s justice and the seriousness of sin. But it has been harmful for others, contributing to unhealthy guilt or distorted images of God.
Good theology must be not only true but also healing. We need to present the atonement in ways that lead people to gratitude, love, and transformation, not to fear, guilt, or despair.
5. Ecumenical Implications
Schooping’s work has important ecumenical implications. If he’s right that PSA is part of the Orthodox tradition, this could provide common ground between Orthodox and Protestant Christians. However, if PSA is imposed on the Orthodox tradition from outside, insisting on it could create unnecessary division.
The way forward may be to recognize that different Christian traditions emphasize different aspects of the atonement, and that this diversity can be enriching rather than divisive. We can learn from each other while maintaining our distinctive emphases.
Detailed Analysis of Schooping’s Use of St. Symeon the New Theologian
Given the centrality of St. Symeon to Schooping’s argument, it’s worth examining his use of this Father in more detail. Schooping presents Symeon as providing “perhaps the longest and clearest exposition” of PSA in the patristic tradition.
Symeon’s Two Deaths Doctrine
According to Schooping’s analysis in Chapter 8, Symeon teaches that Adam’s sin brought two types of death – physical and spiritual. Both were passed on to all humanity as an inheritance. This sets up the need for Christ to deal with both types of death in His atoning work.
Symeon writes that “When God condemns for something, he gives also a sentence, and His sentence becomes deed and an eternal chastisement.” Schooping sees this as clear evidence that Symeon understood divine justice in legal terms – God sentences sinners to punishment, and this sentence must be carried out.
The Transfer of Punishment
Schooping emphasizes Symeon’s teaching that Christ took upon Himself the sentence meant for humanity. This is not just bearing consequences but specifically receiving the punishment decreed by divine justice. Symeon describes Christ as standing in the place of condemned humanity, receiving the chastisement they deserved.
However, a closer reading of Symeon reveals complexity. While he does use legal language, he also emphasizes the therapeutic and transformative aspects of salvation. Christ enters into death not just to bear punishment but to destroy death from within through His divine life.
Alternative Reading: Fleming might argue that Symeon’s legal language should be understood in the context of his overall mystical theology. The “sentence” and “chastisement” could refer to the natural consequences of sin rather than punishment inflicted by God. Christ bears these consequences to transform them, not to appease divine wrath.
The Mystical Context
What’s often missing in Schooping’s analysis is sufficient attention to Symeon’s mystical framework. Symeon was primarily concerned with theosis – the deification of humanity through union with Christ. His discussion of the atonement serves this larger purpose.
For Symeon, the legal aspects of salvation are real but not ultimate. They serve the greater purpose of enabling mystical union with God. Christ deals with the legal problem of sin so that humans can enter into transformative relationship with the Trinity.
Examining Schooping’s Use of Liturgical Evidence
Schooping places significant weight on liturgical evidence, arguing that Orthodox worship regularly affirms PSA. Let’s examine this claim more closely.
The Festal Menaion
Schooping quotes from the Festal Menaion: “Come, all ye peoples, and let us venerate the blessed Wood, through which the eternal justice has been brought to pass.” He sees this as affirming that the Cross satisfied eternal justice.
However, “eternal justice being brought to pass” could mean various things. It might mean that God’s justice in condemning sin was revealed at the Cross. Or it might mean that God’s restorative justice – His plan to restore creation – was accomplished through the Cross. The text doesn’t explicitly say that Christ was punished to satisfy justice.
Holy Week Hymns
Schooping cites various Holy Week hymns that speak of Christ bearing our sins, taking our curse, and suffering in our place. These texts do use substitutionary language, and this is significant. The Orthodox Church does sing of Christ as our substitute.
But again, the question is what this means. When we sing that Christ “bore our sins,” does this mean God punished Him for our sins? Or does it mean He entered into our sinful condition to heal it? The hymns themselves don’t always make this distinction clear.
The Anaphora of St. Basil
The Eucharistic prayer of St. Basil speaks of Christ “giving Himself as a ransom to death, by which we were held captive, sold under sin.” This is substitutionary language – Christ gives Himself as our ransom.
But notice that the ransom is paid to death, not to God. This fits better with the Christus Victor model (Christ defeating the powers of death and evil) than with PSA (Christ being punished by God). Schooping doesn’t adequately address this distinction.
The Patristic Evidence: A Closer Look
Let’s examine more carefully how Schooping uses other Church Fathers to support his argument.
St. Gregory Palamas on Divine Justice
Schooping’s use of Palamas in Chapter 2 is strategic. Palamas is a pillar of Orthodox theology, especially regarding the essence-energies distinction and hesychastic practice. If Palamas taught PSA, this would be strong evidence for its Orthodox character.
Schooping argues that Palamas understood God’s justice as requiring satisfaction. Divine wrath is real and must be addressed. However, Palamas also taught that God’s wrath is not like human anger – it’s the way divine love is experienced by those who reject it.
This is a crucial nuance. If God’s wrath is really wounded love, then Christ doesn’t need to be punished to appease it. Rather, Christ enters into the condition of those experiencing divine love as wrath in order to transform their condition from within.
St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Substitutionary Language
In Chapter 9, Schooping presents extensive quotes from St. Cyril about Christ taking our place and bearing our punishment. Cyril does use strongly substitutionary language, speaking of Christ “transferring to Himself what was our due.”
However, Cyril also emphasizes the incarnational aspect of salvation. The Word became flesh to heal human nature from within. The substitutionary aspect serves the larger purpose of incarnational transformation. Christ takes our place not just to bear punishment but to transform humanity through His divine presence.
St. John of Damascus on Appropriation
Schooping’s analysis of Damascus in Chapter 11 focuses on the concept of “appropriation.” Damascus distinguishes between natural appropriation (Christ truly becoming human) and relative appropriation (Christ taking our position before God).
This distinction is important and does support some form of substitution. Christ relates to our condition without being essentially changed by it. However, Damascus also emphasizes that Christ was never actually forsaken by the Father or made sinful. The appropriation is “relative” and “apparent,” which raises questions about how real the penal aspect is.
St. Maximus the Confessor on Imputation
Chapter 12 examines Maximus’s use of imputation language. Maximus speaks of Christ being “reckoned among transgressors” while remaining sinless. This is important evidence for some concept of imputation in Orthodox theology.
However, Maximus’s overall theology emphasizes the cosmic and incarnational dimensions of salvation. Christ assumes human nature to restore it to its proper relationship with God. The legal aspects serve this larger restorative purpose.
The Biblical Foundation: Examining Schooping’s Exegesis
Schooping grounds his argument in biblical exegesis, particularly certain key passages. Let’s examine his interpretation of these texts.
Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant
Schooping sees Isaiah 53 as clearly teaching PSA. The Servant is “wounded for our transgressions,” “bruised for our iniquities,” and “the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”
This is indeed substitutionary language. The Servant suffers for others’ sins. However, does the text say God is punishing the Servant? Or is the Servant entering into solidarity with sinners, bearing the consequences of their sins?
The text is actually ambiguous on this point. It says the Servant bears our sins and sorrows, but it doesn’t explicitly say God is punishing Him. The suffering could be from human violence and the natural consequences of sin rather than divine punishment.
2 Corinthians 5:21: “Made Sin for Us”
Paul’s statement that God “made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us” is central to Schooping’s argument. He sees this as clearly teaching that our sin was imputed to Christ.
However, there are other ways to read this text. “Made sin” could mean that Christ fully entered into the human condition under sin’s power. He became what we are (though without sinning) so we could become what He is. This is incarnational exchange rather than penal substitution.
Galatians 3:13: “Became a Curse for Us”
Paul says Christ “became a curse for us” by hanging on a tree. Schooping sees this as PSA – Christ bearing the curse of divine judgment we deserved.
But Paul may be saying something different. Under the law, anyone hung on a tree is cursed. By being crucified, Christ entered into the place of the cursed – not because God cursed Him, but because human violence and the law’s judgment placed Him there. He transforms the curse into blessing through His resurrection.
Romans 3:25: “Propitiation”
The term “propitiation” (hilasterion) is often cited as evidence for PSA. If Christ is a propitiation, doesn’t this mean He appeases God’s wrath?
However, in the Greek Old Testament, hilasterion refers to the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant – the place where God meets with His people. Paul may be saying that Christ is the new meeting place between God and humanity, not that He appeases divine wrath.
Theological Implications: What’s at Stake?
The debate over PSA is not merely academic. It has significant implications for how we understand God, salvation, and the Christian life.
The Nature of God
PSA presents God as requiring punishment for sin before He can forgive. Critics argue this makes God seem vindictive or bound by necessity. Defenders argue it upholds divine justice and holiness.
The alternative view presents God as freely forgiving out of love, with the Cross revealing the extent of that love rather than satisfying divine requirements. This may be more consistent with Jesus’s teaching about God freely forgiving and His own practice of forgiving sins without requiring satisfaction.
The Nature of Salvation
PSA tends toward a legal/forensic understanding of salvation – we are declared righteous because Christ bore our punishment. The emphasis is on change of status before God.
The alternative emphasizes transformation and healing. Salvation is not just change of status but change of being. We are not just declared righteous but made righteous through union with Christ.
The Nature of the Christian Life
If PSA is true, gratitude for Christ bearing our punishment becomes central to Christian motivation. We serve God because He saved us from deserved wrath.
The alternative emphasizes love and transformation as motivations. We serve God because His love has transformed us and we want to share in His life and mission.
The Problem of Evil and Suffering
PSA can imply that suffering is punishment from God – if not for our sins (since Christ bore that punishment), then as discipline or testing. This can be problematic for those experiencing innocent suffering.
The alternative sees suffering as consequence of living in a fallen world, with God entering into our suffering to transform it rather than inflicting it as punishment.
Historical Development: How Did We Get Here?
Understanding the historical development of atonement theology helps contextualize the current debate.
The Early Church
The early Church used multiple images for the atonement without systematizing them into a single theory. The Fathers spoke of ransom, victory over death and Satan, deification, moral example, and sacrifice. Different Fathers emphasized different aspects.
Legal and substitutionary language appears early, but it’s not systematized into PSA. The Fathers who use this language also use other images and don’t always clarify exactly what they mean by it.
Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) developed the satisfaction theory – Christ’s death satisfies God’s offended honor. This is not yet PSA, as the emphasis is on satisfaction rather than punishment.
Schooping argues that Anselm was systematizing ideas already present in the tradition. Critics argue he introduced foreign legal concepts from feudal society.
The Reformation
The Reformers, particularly Calvin, developed PSA as we know it today. They shifted from Anselm’s satisfaction of honor to satisfaction of justice through punishment. Christ bears the punishment sinners deserve, satisfying divine justice.
This development coincided with changes in legal theory and practice in Europe. Criminal justice was becoming more retributive, focused on punishment rather than restoration.
Orthodox Responses
The Orthodox world had varied responses to PSA. As Schooping shows, some Orthodox hierarchs in dialogue with Protestants affirmed it. Others, especially in the twentieth century, rejected it as Western innovation.
The modern Orthodox rejection of PSA is partly a reaction against Western influence and partly a recovery of patristic sources that emphasize other aspects of the atonement.
Contemporary Relevance: Why This Matters Today
The debate over PSA is not merely historical or academic. It has significant relevance for contemporary Christianity.
Evangelism and Mission
How we understand the atonement affects how we present the gospel. PSA provides a clear narrative: you deserve punishment, Christ bore it, believe and be saved. This clarity can be effective in evangelism.
However, PSA can also be a barrier, especially in cultures that don’t share Western legal assumptions or for people who have experienced abuse. Alternative presentations may be more effective in these contexts.
Pastoral Care
PSA can be pastorally helpful for those struggling with guilt, providing assurance that their punishment has been borne by Christ. But it can be harmful for those struggling with shame or trauma, reinforcing negative self-image or distorted views of God.
Pastoral wisdom requires sensitivity to how different people receive theological teaching. What helps one person may harm another.
Ecumenical Dialogue
The atonement is a key issue in ecumenical dialogue. If Schooping is right that PSA is part of the Orthodox tradition, this could facilitate Orthodox-Protestant dialogue. If he’s wrong, insisting on PSA could hinder such dialogue.
Perhaps the way forward is to recognize legitimate diversity in atonement theology while maintaining core convictions about Christ’s saving work.
Social Justice
Atonement theology has implications for how we approach justice in society. PSA’s retributive framework may support punitive approaches to criminal justice. Alternative views may support restorative justice approaches.
This doesn’t determine the debate, but it shows that theological positions have practical consequences for how we organize society and treat offenders.
Personal Reflections: Wrestling with These Questions
As someone who has studied these questions deeply, I find myself appreciating both Schooping’s careful scholarship and the concerns of PSA’s critics. This is not an easy issue to resolve.
What Schooping Gets Right
Schooping is correct that the Orthodox tradition contains significant substitutionary and even penal elements. We cannot simply dismiss this language or explain it away. The Fathers do speak of Christ bearing our punishment, taking our curse, and satisfying divine justice.
He’s also right that many criticisms of PSA attack caricatures rather than sophisticated versions. Not all PSA proponents present God as vindictive or divide the Trinity.
Furthermore, Schooping’s integration of PSA with Orthodox mystical theology is creative and thought-provoking. He shows that PSA need not be merely legal but can serve mystical and transformative purposes.
Where I Part Ways
However, I’m not convinced that the patristic evidence requires PSA as Schooping understands it. The Fathers’ language can be interpreted in ways that maintain substitution without penal satisfaction.
Fleming’s distinction between bearing consequences and being punished seems crucial. Christ can bear our sins and their consequences without God punishing Him. This preserves the substitutionary aspect while avoiding the problematic implications of divine punishment.
I’m also concerned about the pastoral implications of PSA. While it may help some, I’ve seen it harm others, contributing to distorted images of God and unhealthy spirituality.
A Way Forward?
Perhaps we need not choose definitively between PSA and its alternatives. The atonement is a mystery that transcends our theories. Different models highlight different aspects of Christ’s saving work.
We can affirm that Christ died for us, in our place, bearing our sins and their consequences, without insisting that God punished Him. We can maintain divine justice without making it retributive. We can proclaim substitution without penal satisfaction.
This approach requires theological humility and pastoral sensitivity. We must be willing to hold our theories lightly while holding fast to the reality of Christ’s saving work.
Conclusion: The Ongoing Conversation
Joshua Schooping’s “An Existential Soteriology” makes a significant contribution to the discussion of atonement theology. His extensive use of patristic sources, careful engagement with objections, and integration with Orthodox spirituality deserve serious consideration.
However, the questions he raises are not definitively settled by his work. The interpretation of patristic and biblical texts remains contested. The theological and pastoral implications of PSA continue to generate debate.
What Schooping accomplishes is to show that PSA cannot be simply dismissed as Western innovation foreign to Orthodoxy. Elements of PSA appear throughout the tradition and must be accounted for in any comprehensive atonement theology.
At the same time, critics of PSA raise important concerns that cannot be ignored. The potential for PSA to distort our image of God, divide the Trinity, and harm vulnerable people must be taken seriously.
The conversation must continue with careful scholarship, theological humility, and pastoral sensitivity. We must be willing to learn from different perspectives while maintaining core convictions about Christ’s saving work.
Ultimately, the atonement remains a mystery that our theories can approach but never fully comprehend. Christ’s death and resurrection accomplish more than any single model can express. Whether we emphasize penal substitution, Christus Victor, theosis, or moral influence, we are attempting to describe an infinite reality with finite concepts.
What matters most is not which theory we hold but whether we experience the transforming power of Christ’s saving work. The Cross reveals God’s love, defeats the powers of evil, opens the way to union with God, and enables us to love as we have been loved.
Schooping’s work challenges us to take seriously the substitutionary and even penal elements in our tradition. Even if we don’t accept his full argument, we must wrestle with the evidence he presents. The Fathers do use this language, and we must account for it.
At the same time, we must be careful not to reduce the atonement to a single model or to impose systematic precision on patristic texts that often speak in images and metaphors. The tradition is rich and multifaceted, offering various perspectives on Christ’s saving work.
Final Thoughts: The debate over PSA ultimately points us back to the Cross itself. There, in Christ’s death and resurrection, we encounter a mystery that transcends our theological categories. Whether we speak of substitution, satisfaction, victory, or transformation, we are attempting to articulate the inarticulable – God’s infinite love working to save finite, fallen humanity.
Schooping’s defense of PSA deserves respect even from those who disagree. He has shown that the tradition is more complex than either side in the debate often acknowledges. The Fathers use penal and substitutionary language, but they also use many other images. The task is not to choose one over all others but to hold them together in creative tension.
As we continue to reflect on these questions, may we do so with humility, charity, and dedication to truth. The atonement is too important to be reduced to theological warfare. It is the heart of the gospel, the source of our hope, and the foundation of our transformation. Whatever our theoretical understanding, may we never lose sight of the practical reality – in Christ, God has acted to save us, and this salvation is available to all who turn to Him in faith and love.
Appendix: Key Terms and Concepts
For readers who may be unfamiliar with some of the theological terminology used in this discussion, here are some key terms defined:
Atonement: The reconciliation between God and humanity accomplished through Christ’s death and resurrection.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA): The view that Christ bore the punishment for sin that humanity deserved, satisfying divine justice so that God can forgive sinners.
Substitution: The idea that Christ died in our place, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.
Imputation: The legal or forensic transfer of guilt (to Christ) or righteousness (to believers).
Propitiation: The appeasing or satisfaction of divine wrath through sacrifice.
Expiation: The removal or cleansing of sin through sacrifice.
Christus Victor: The view that Christ’s death and resurrection constitute victory over sin, death, and Satan.
Theosis/Deification: The Orthodox teaching that humans are called to participation in the divine life, becoming by grace what God is by nature.
Forensic: Legal or judicial; relating to courts of law and legal proceedings.
Vicarious: Done on behalf of or in place of another.
Soteriology: The theological study of salvation.
Patristic: Relating to the Church Fathers, the early Christian theologians and bishops.
Apophatic: The theological approach that emphasizes what cannot be said about God (negative theology).
Hesychasm: The Orthodox tradition of mystical prayer and spiritual practice aimed at union with God.
© 2025, LearnTheology.com. All rights reserved.
