Sin and Substitutionary Atonement salvation

[Michael Wrenn]

Any view that regulates the death of Christ (=shedding of blood) to be merely proof of humanity and but denies it is absolutely necessary without which there could be no other way for our salvation is a reproach to God.

You are misstating the Christus Victor view.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Your salvation only depends upon whether this is the view you held when you professed salvation. If it is, and that is the basis of your salvation then there is no doubt you are merely a religious lost person.

However, I have better hopes for you. I think you were simply led astray after you were saved and need to return to the truth of your actual salvation.

You don't know when I was saved. I walked the aisle during a revival when I was ten because I was kind of prompted to after my sister did it, but that's not when I was saved.

However, I firmly hold to the Christus Victor view and will not change my mind as I believe it is the view which does the most justice to the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and to God's character.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are misstating the Christus Victor view.

Ok, I will ask you again. According to the Christus Victor view is the death of Christ = actual shedding his blood unto death, absolutely necessary to save sinners and without none could be saved?

Please don't respond that it was necessary in the sense to prove he was human as there are many other characteristics that prove he was human.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Ok, I will ask you again. According to the Christus Victor view is the death of Christ = actual shedding his blood unto death, absolutely necessary to save sinners and without none could be saved?

Please don't respond that it was necessary in the sense to prove he was human as there are many other characteristics that prove he was human.

Read about it for yourself since you don't believe I am a Christian if I hold to it. And I'm not being mean; you just don't believe anything I say.

 

[The Biblicist]

Read about it for yourself since you don't believe I am a Christian if I hold to it. And I'm not being mean; you just don't believe anything I say.

I have read it several times and long before I came on this forum. This false atonement theory is no atonement at all as it completely denies that Christ had to shed his blood unto death to save anyone. Indeed, this theory places more emphasis on the EXAMPLE of Christ and his resurrection power over sin but not on His death. The scriptures do not merely place emphasis on his death but absolutely deny salvation is possible apart from him shedding his blood unto death.

 

[The Biblicist]

Read about it for yourself since you don't believe I am a Christian if I hold to it. And I'm not being mean; you just don't believe anything I say.

First, I never denied you were a Christian. That is your straw man argument. There are many saved people who have since salvation been led astray but are still saved. If you will revisit my post, I said I optimistically assume you are saved but just messed up theologically.

Second, This "victim" concept of humanity, victimized by sin, Death and Satan with God coming to the rescue is a complete distortion.

Third, the life of Christ as some kind of moral example instead of necessary to satisfy the righteous demands of God's law misses the point entirely.

Fourth, the biblical emphasis on the death of Christ is there is no remission from sins apart from the shedding of blood whereas the resurrection justifies that Christ completely satisfied the full JUST demands of God toward sin and salvation.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have read it several times and long before I came on this forum. This false atonement theory is no atonement at all as it completely denies that Christ had to shed his blood unto death to save anyone. Indeed, this theory places more emphasis on the EXAMPLE of Christ and his resurrection power over sin but not on His death. The scriptures do not merely place emphasis on his death but absolutely deny salvation is possible apart from him shedding his blood unto death.

The Christus Victor view is not the Example view.

Here are two good articles; the first is by Greg Boyd. Now I know you probably hate Boyd, but read through this; it is excellent.

http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/

The second article: http://loveacceptforgive.com/2009/09/16/the-christus-victor-view-of-atonement/

 

[Michael Wrenn]

First, I never denied you were a Christian. That is your straw man argument. There are many saved people who have since salvation been led astray but are still saved. If you will revisit my post, I said I optimistically assume you are saved but just messed up theologically.

Second, This "victim" concept of humanity, victimized by sin, Death and Satan with God coming to the rescue is a complete distortion.

Third, the life of Christ as some kind of moral example instead of necessary to satisfy the righteous demands of God's law misses the point entirely.

Fourth, the biblical emphasis on the death of Christ is there is no remission from sins apart from the shedding of blood whereas the resurrection justifies that Christ completely satisfied the full JUST demands of God toward sin and salvation.

You said the Christus Victor view presents another Jesus and another gospel. So, if I hold to it, you are saying I am not a true Christian, are you not?

 

[The Biblicist]

The Christus Victor view is not the Example view.

I understand they are not the same view but the bottom line is that the Christus Victor view includes the Example view as one of its primary emphasis.

http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/

As I said previously, there is much I agree with in this view except its fundemnetal bases.

1. Satan's power in this world was established by Adam and Eve's choice to advocate their inheritance/rule rights and yeild them to Satan. Eve only was deceived but not Adam - this was yeild by willful consent. Hence, Satan's rule is by consent of those he rules over. They are captives by CONSENT! They are "SERVANTS" by nature (Eph. 2:2-3). Their servitude is JUST because it is by willful consent. It is man that has rebelled against God by willful consent to Satan's rule and that is the GUILT of their JUST bondage.

Hence, they are not VICTIMS as this theory presents them but they are ACCOMPLICES in open rebellion against God.



2. Moreover these words show the deviousness of this theory:

Salvation clearly involves forgiveness of sins, but this forgiveness is itself rooted in a person getting freed from Satan’s grip

Not so! It is rooted in the redemptive work of Christ and freedom is a consequence not the cause or root of forgiveness. Remission of sins is rooted in the blood of Christ shed in order to obtain remission of sins.

Christ as the "second" Adam provides the JUST basis to reclaim what Adam forfeited for all humanity as the appointed representative of mankind and willfully so by rebellion against God. God's wrath is justly revealed from heaven against sin. That wrath is satisfied by the a RIGHTEOUS man taking upon himself the JUST consequences of sin for those he represents as the "second" Adam thus reclaiming the inheritance God gave to man through the resurrection. Satan's reign is by WILLFUL CONSENT BY THE GOVERNED but Christ is the one human being who does not give that consent and acts as a Second Adam to reclaim the inheritance through refusal to bow to Satan and then to reclaim it for those he represents by satisfying the wrath of God against their WILLFUL CONSENT to submit to Satan (sin) and restore them to their former position through His death and resurrection.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I understand they are not the same view but the bottom line is that the Christus Victor view includes the Example view as one of its primary emphasis.




As I said previously, there is much I agree with in this view except its fundemnetal bases.

1. Satan's power in this world was established by Adam and Eve's choice to advocate their inheritance/rule rights and yeild them to Satan. Eve only was deceived but not Adam - this was yeild by willful consent. Hence, Satan's rule is by consent of those he rules over. They are captives by CONSENT! They are "SERVANTS" by nature (Eph. 2:2-3). Their servitude is JUST because it is by willful consent. It is man that has rebelled against God by willful consent to Satan's rule and that is the GUILT of their JUST bondage.

Hence, they are not VICTIMS as this theory presents them but they are ACCOMPLICES in open rebellion against God.



2. Moreover these words show the deviousness of this theory:

Salvation clearly involves forgiveness of sins, but this forgiveness is itself rooted in a person getting freed from Satan’s grip

Not so! It is rooted in the redemptive work of Christ and freedom is a consequence not the cause or root of forgiveness. Remission of sins is rooted in the blood of Christ shed in order to obtain remission of sins.

Christ as the "second" Adam provides the JUST basis to reclaim what Adam forfeited for all humanity as the appointed representative of mankind and willfully so by rebellion against God. God's wrath is justly revealed from heaven against sin. That wrath is satisfied by the a RIGHTEOUS man taking upon himself the JUST consequences of sin for those he represents as the "second" Adam thus reclaiming the inheritance God gave to man through the resurrection. Satan's reign is by WILLFUL CONSENT BY THE GOVERNED but Christ is the one human being who does not give that consent and acts as a Second Adam to reclaim the inheritance through refusal to bow to Satan and then to reclaim it for those he represents by satisfying the wrath of God against their WILLFUL CONSENT to submit to Satan (sin) and restore them to their former position through His death and resurrection.

I guess further discussion is not necessary because we'll never agree. I agree with some of what you say but only some.

 

[The Biblicist]

I guess further discussion is not necessary because we'll never agree. I agree with some of what you say but only some.

I guess not!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I guess not!

You'll see me in heaven, despite the error of my ways.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It seems this discussion is about atonement and how that works. I'm personally not aware of a Christus Victor view however by the words I think I get its meaning and based on just the title seems to match a little of my view. The last thread we discussed atonement we weren't really discussing this aspect but the larger "how is one saved". Atonement is one aspect and I want to give more substance to the specific topic of Atonement

What is my view? Well, to be honest I'm still working it out. However, I will express to the best of my ability how I see it. As biblicist points out at the begining of this thread in order to understand the christian doctrine of Atonement we must first discussed what is being atoned. In the begining we see that man was made in the image of God. The likeness of God. When we sinned several things happened. We corrupted the image of God in us, we fell under the bondage of corruption and death, we became slaves to sin, we seperated our selves from God, and we became enemies of God. This being the case what does God do then?
Well, from the Catholic Encyclopedia we see that

The word atonement, which is almost the only theological term of English origin, has a curious history. The verb "atone", from the adverbial phrase "at one" (M.E. at oon), at first meant to reconcile, or make "at one";

or More plainly put God wants to reunite man to himself. He wants to restore us back to carrying his image and being united to himself. Keeping this in mind I think that Atonement didn't happen just at Calvary but began with the Incarnation and completed at the resurrection. By the incarnation Jesus unites himself to humanity. Our view of redeeming something we can pay to get it back or take it by force conqure it back so to speak. To whom does Jesus pay to get back humanity? Satan? I find that repulsive. No when Jesus became incarnate uniting himself with us he "invaded" our world and takes us back. Which follows his Motus Operandi. He took Israel from Pharaoh by force he didn't buy them back from Pharaoh. They were taken away from bondage. Yet this leads to the question of why Jesus had to die? Two points of thought occur to me with regard to this. The first is that by his death and resurrection he defeats death since he is united with humanity at his incarnation. Secondly There is the connection of Calvary to the Pascal sacrifice of the Jews and the slain lamb. With this in mind at this point I favor Aquinas

I answer that, He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (46, 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”... Christ’s satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head, as stated above (1). Now the members must be conformed to their head. Consequently, as Christ first had grace in His soul with bodily passibility, and through the Passion attained to the glory of immortality, so we likewise, who are His members, are freed by His Passion from all debt of punishment, yet so that we first receive in our souls “the spirit of adoption of sons,” whereby our names are written down for the inheritance of immortal glory, while we yet have a passible and mortal body: but afterwards, “being made conformable” to the sufferings and death of Christ, we are brought into immortal glory, according to the saying of the Apostle (Rm. 8:17): “And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him.” Summa Theologica, Part 3, Q 49.3 .

However, I'm still formulating it in my mind.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Christus Victor view is not the Example view.

Here are two good articles; the first is by Greg Boyd. Now I know you probably hate Boyd, but read through this; it is excellent.

http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/

The second article: http://loveacceptforgive.com/2009/09/16/the-christus-victor-view-of-atonement/

by what BASIS then in your views are the sins of sinners actual remitted by gopd towards their behalf?

 

[Yeshua1]

It seems this discussion is about atonement and how that works. I'm personally not aware of a Christus Victor view however by the words I think I get its meaning and based on just the title seems to match a little of my view. The last thread we discussed atonement we weren't really discussing this aspect but the larger "how is one saved". Atonement is one aspect and I want to give more substance to the specific topic of Atonement

What is my view? Well, to be honest I'm still working it out. However, I will express to the best of my ability how I see it. As biblicist points out at the begining of this thread in order to understand the christian doctrine of Atonement we must first discussed what is being atoned. In the begining we see that man was made in the image of God. The likeness of God. When we sinned several things happened. We corrupted the image of God in us, we fell under the bondage of corruption and death, we became slaves to sin, we seperated our selves from God, and we became enemies of God. This being the case what does God do then?
Well, from the Catholic Encyclopedia we see that or More plainly put God wants to reunite man to himself. He wants to restore us back to carrying his image and being united to himself. Keeping this in mind I think that Atonement didn't happen just at Calvary but began with the Incarnation and completed at the resurrection. By the incarnation Jesus unites himself to humanity. Our view of redeeming something we can pay to get it back or take it by force conqure it back so to speak. To whom does Jesus pay to get back humanity? Satan? I find that repulsive. No when Jesus became incarnate uniting himself with us he "invaded" our world and takes us back. Which follows his Motus Operandi. He took Israel from Pharaoh by force he didn't buy them back from Pharaoh. They were taken away from bondage. Yet this leads to the question of why Jesus had to die? Two points of thought occur to me with regard to this. The first is that by his death and resurrection he defeats death since he is united with humanity at his incarnation. Secondly There is the connection of Calvary to the Pascal sacrifice of the Jews and the slain lamb. With this in mind at this point I favor Aquinas However, I'm still formulating it in my mind.

Withiout the shedding of blood, NO remission for sins...

the blood of goats/lambs did NOT have the means to remit sins, ONLY the blood of jesus!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Withiout the shedding of blood, NO remission for sins...

the blood of goats/lambs did NOT have the means to remit sins, ONLY the blood of jesus!

Did I say anything about no shedding of blood? I clearly indicated that there is the connection between the passover lamb (sacrificed lamb) and Jesus at calvary. I did say that his death and resurrection defeated death. I also showed satisfaction. So I don't know what your beef is. On the on the other hand I don't believe that God was so angry with us that he needed to beat up Jesus and kill him instead of us. That would make God insane. In the later view Grace is a result of sacrifice. In my view love and Grace lead to sacrifice.

 

[Yeshua1]

Did I say anything about no shedding of blood? I clearly indicated that there is the connection between the passover lamb (sacrificed lamb) and Jesus at calvary. I did say that his death and resurrection defeated death. I also showed satisfaction. So I don't know what your beef is. On the on the other hand I don't believe that God was so angry with us that he needed to beat up Jesus and kill him instead of us. That would make God insane. In the later view Grace is a result of sacrifice. In my view love and Grace lead to sacrifice.

God wrath was upon jesus, and he did indeed get "beat up", but He took it as a willing person, knowing salvation for sinners would result by his brutal death!

For it pleased the father to have jesus bruised/wound/bloodied/and killed for our sins and iniquities, and jesus came to earth to willingly do that for those to come that would get saved by His death on their behalf!

 

[The Biblicist]

On the on the other hand I don't believe that God was so angry with us that he needed to beat up Jesus and kill him instead of us. That would make God insane. In the later view Grace is a result of sacrifice. In my view love and Grace lead to sacrifice.

Isa. 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

Divine pleasure and satisfaction refer to his HOLY pleasure in seeing JUSTICE administered against sin - and our inquitties were "LAID UPON HIM". His justice was "satisfied" in pouring out his wrath upon the Substitute for sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

Isa. 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

Divine pleasure and satisfaction refer to his HOLY pleasure in seeing JUSTICE administered against sin - and our inquitties were "LAID UPON HIM". His justice was "satisfied" in pouring out his wrath upon the Substitute for sin.

God the father did NOT order to Son to die, he willingly came to die !

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Isa. 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:

Divine pleasure and satisfaction refer to his HOLY pleasure in seeing JUSTICE administered against sin - and our inquitties were "LAID UPON HIM". His justice was "satisfied" in pouring out his wrath upon the Substitute for sin.

So lets see if I get this straight. This is your view of God.

I have a son I tell him not to take the fruit off the table and he does. I'm so angry that I have to kill something and nothing will work except I kill my son. So his brother says hey. Kill me instead. So I beat him up and kill him to satiate my anger? Because it makes me happy to torture and kill someone when I get angry. Does that sound like God to you? If someone did that where I live not only would he be thrown in jail but he would need to visit the shrink.
I like what one blogger said

God's wrath is appeased, but not because the torture of Christ was somehow the quantitative sum of all of the torture deserved by you and I. No. God's wrath was appeased because in Christ -- our Paschal Victim -- God received the perfect sacrifice that could atone for our sins. That perfect sacrifice was Himself.

first let me note that hebrews 9 says

22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

and also note that Romans says

25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished–

in short there is an offence to justice. However, it wasn't because God was so angry that he needed to kill someone. But rather he joined us with himself at his incarnation as it says in Is.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

and hebrews states

15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.

and Colosians

19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

So by joining with us he lifts us up making satisfaction to Divine Justice by his shed blood. Which follows with Romans

25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

As I've said I'm still resolving this in my mind.