Featured Atonement theories?

Yeshua1 · Oct 3, 2012

Van said: ↑

Hey Yeshua1, I see you never tire of asking the same questions then ignoring the answer. Were you spiritually set apart in Christ? Please answer yes or no. When you were did you undergo the circumcision of Christ? Please answer yes or no. Did you then arise in Christ a new creation? Please answer yes or no. Now think real hard, what happened to the sin debt owed to God during your conversion to a child of God? Remained on you or washed away by the blood of Jesus. Think hard, Yeshua1, because you have asked this question several times under several names.

So when Jesus died, did he become the means of salvation for specific individuals or did He become the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Think hard Yeshua1. Did Jesus pay a ransom for all or just for some of the ungodly? Think hard Yeshua1. I know this is very hard for you to understand.

Jesus death was a propiation to God on behalf of those whom God would chose to save thru and by it...

His death completely fullfilled all obligations owed to God for breaking His law, and ALL that he died in stead of will be saved by that act!

God placed our indivudual debts of Sin upon him at the cross, he suffered just a sa sinner would seperated from god" IN Hell" while upon the Cross, and God chose each one inidividual basis to come to jesus and get saved!

Now why did Jesus have to die. Think really really hard, Yeshua1, is it possible you have never heard that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Click to expand...

How many times will Yeshua1 post the same silly questions, all of them answered in plan language in scripture. The answer my friends is blowing in the wind.
Click to expand...

the answer is plain from the bible that God chose us on an individual basis to be saved, as it is NOT corporate Election, but on an individual basis, as sinners to be saved by the death of Christ!

Michael Wrenn · Oct 4, 2012

Revmitchell said: ↑

At this point you can respond or not. You have na inability to have a discussion without saying someone is attacking or accusing you. Yet it is your posts that get edited. Your liberal view is not orthodox and you have the right and freedom to be wrong as along as you want.
Click to expand...

Well, that's about the funniest and most untrue thing I've ever heard.

Want to talk about who gets edited? You have apparently not read enough to comment on that.

Christus Victor is not a liberal view, and it is the most orthodox of views, having been held for the first millennium, and by the Eastern Orthodox Church! :laugh:

Michael Wrenn · Oct 4, 2012

OldRegular said: ↑

I believe that you have identified the source of your problem. You have let your inadequate, perhaps false, belief regarding obscure what Scripture teaches about the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. That is the reason I asked you earlier to address the Scripture that many have posted in response to your emotional outbursts against

I have no idea where you got your ideas concerning Latin Western-contrived theories but you do yourself and all on this Forum a disservice when you paint all with the broad brush of your mistaken views. Forget penal satisfaction. I do! That concept is simply the attempt of fallible man to understand what God did for us in Jesus Christ! Consider those Scripture that have been presented and address them.
Click to expand...

Every view after the first millennium is a contrivance by the Latin West. The oldest view and the only one completely consistent with scripture is Christus Victor.

Michael Wrenn · Oct 4, 2012

12strings said: ↑

So, it is the "being punished" part you disagree with...not necessarily the substitution that he "Died in our place," correct?

What of the following?

"But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to
be under a curse who practise idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If,then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God." - Justin Martyr

“And the Lamb of God not only did this, but 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 scourging, the insults, and the
dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down upon Himself the appointed curse, being
made a curse for us." - Eusebius of Caesarea

"Thus He offered Himself to the death of the accursed that He might break the curse of the Law, offering Himself voluntarily a victim to God the Father, in order that by means of a voluntary victim the curse which attended the discontinuance of the regular victim might be removed." - Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300-368)

"Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of
death, He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This
He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death
thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed,
it was thereafter voided of its power for men." - Athanasius

"If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave
his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and
the guilt as well, from him to his son (who was himself of no such character), that he
might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation; and then if,
having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and
advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received
such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths
rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude? This then let us also now consider with
ourselves, and groan bitterly for the provocations we have offered our Benefactor; nor let
us therefore presume, because though outraged he bears it with long-suffering; but rather
for this very reason be full of remorse." - John Chrysostom

"But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own
righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death. And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment." - Augustine of Hippo

(all citations from this article: http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj20i.pdf [admittedly, a pro-penal substitution article...but the quotations should stand and be dealt with on their own])

This is not to say other models of Atonement are invalid, but that a discussion of what Christ did on the cross has always INCLUDED speaking of his punishment on our behalf.
Click to expand...

I am comfortable in saying that it is obvious that Jesus died on the cross and we did not. If He died in our place, then we should not still have to die. I can agree only with certain aspects of substitution, as these are compatible with Christus Victor.

About the quotes of the Fathers: I have already answered this many times. Some people want to read penal substitution, a 16th century invention of Calvin, back into the writings of some of the Fathers, but to do so, they have to take their comments out of the context in which they were written.

I've posted this before, but go here and click on the PDF article to see the truth of what I said in my preceding paragraph. This article by Derek Flood is illuminating and answers your questions: http://www.therebelgod.com/2010/04/substitutionary-atonement-and-church.html

Here is the article in direct download (hope it works): http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html...ebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf&images=yes

Michael Wrenn · Oct 4, 2012

Look, I really don't want to say anything bad about anyone on here.

I have become friends with two people whom I had serious run-ins with. If it could happen with them, I wouldn't want to say it couldn't happen with the Rev and OR.

Revmitchell · Oct 4, 2012

Michael Wrenn said: ↑

Look, I really don't want to say anything bad about anyone on here.

I have become friends with two people whom I had serious run-ins with. If it could happen with them, I wouldn't want to say it couldn't happen with the Rev and OR.
Click to expand...

Brother it doesn't bother me that you are wrong. We are good! :thumbsup:

saturneptune · Oct 4, 2012

Revmitchell said: ↑

At this point you can respond or not. You have na inability to have a discussion without saying someone is attacking or accusing you. Yet it is your posts that get edited. Your liberal view is not orthodox and you have the right and freedom to be wrong as along as you want.
Click to expand...

I will give you this. It takes a lot of nerve to say someone is attacking are accusing. At least someone with a liberal view who understands the issue makes a sensible post. No doubt all appreciate your allowing the freedom to disagree with your always accurate theological views.

12strings · Oct 4, 2012

Michael Wrenn said: ↑

I am comfortable in saying that it is obvious that Jesus died on the cross and we did not. If He died in our place, then we should not still have to die. I can agree only with certain aspects of substitution, as these are compatible with Christus Victor.

About the quotes of the Fathers: I have already answered this many times. Some people want to read penal substitution, a 16th century invention of Calvin, back into the writings of some of the Fathers, but to do so, they have to take their comments out of the context in which they were written.

I've posted this before, but go here and click on the PDF article to see the truth of what I said in my preceding paragraph. This article by Derek Flood is illuminating and answers your questions: http://www.therebelgod.com/2010/04/substitutionary-atonement-and-church.html
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

THOUGHTS ON THE ARTICLE:

1. I again, as in Derek Floods other article on Christus Victor, feel that he unfairly represents the Penal Substitution view a view that rejects all other accomplishments of the cross, for example:

The implications here are staggering: condemnation itself is wholly destroyed, dissolved, undone. This effectively takes us out of the bounds of any theory of the satisfaction of legal retribution. It is the overturning of the economy of wrath with the superior economy of grace. Christ became condemnation-itself in order to abolish condemnation-itself.
Click to expand...

I would think one who holds to penal substitution would likely also agree with these other effects of the Cross.

2. The following quote, is an admission the even centuries before Anselm, a view that the cross satisfied some requirement of God was partially understood...Which is similar to what I am say...It is not either-or, there were bits and pieces of several atonement views...which is probably as it should be, since the accomplisments of Christ's death were multi-faceted:

Although the satisfaction view of the atonement first emerges as a fully developed theory in Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, the seeds of that thought can be found quite early in Latin church fathers such as Ambrose. What is questionable, is whether this trend in the Latin Fathers can be understood as teaching a Calvinist understanding of penal substitution. In a certain sense, Jeffery, Ovey, and Sach are correct in claiming that Ambrose teaches penal substitution in that we find the idea of Christ bearing punishment as a satisfaction of retributive justice. Such language is common among the Latin Fathers. At the same time, we need to ask in what context this idea is understood
Click to expand...

3. The following ideas were a new way to think about it for me. They do not seem to be Derek's main point, but perhaps they are...These quotes FINALLY, for me, show why Christ's death was absolutely necessary under the Christus Victor model:

With Augustine this is reversed. It is not the appeasement of God’s wrath that allows God to forgive, it is the healing of our sin that removes the cause of God’s righteous anger.

But in a restorative model it is through God’s action to transform and heal our sin that our relationship with God is set right, rather than through retribution. A real change in us, effected by God, effects a real change in our relationship with God.
Click to expand...

-Ie, according to this view, God DOES have wrath toward sin, but the answer is not to punish someone else for our sin, but to remove our sin so that the cause of God's wrath is no longer there...I am curious as to how this works out with life-long sanctification: I am not completely free of sin now, so is God partially still angry with me until I am perfected?

4. IN conclusion, I do not deny that Christ's death does these things, but I think, even after Derek can show a few (not all) early Fathers who seemed to explicitly deny substitutionary punishment, we are left with some significant Scriptural passages, which unlike the fathers, are inspired Words from God, that seem to speak of God chastising his son for us. So I would say the Christus Victor model accurately describes lots of the effects of the Cross, except where it explicitly denies the inclusion of Christ's death satisfying God's Justice by taking the punishment we deserved.

12strings · Oct 4, 2012

Lingering questions about Christus Victor:

1. Does this view necessarily lead to universalism? The articles I have read do not discuss what happens to those who reject Christ's sacrifice, but they do minimize or negate God's wrath toward sinners, so in this model, what is hell?

2. Does it bother conservative holders of Christus victor that their model is THE primary model adopted by liberal theologians?

3. Early Ransom Theory held that Christ paid a ransom to Satan for our souls. Modern Chrstus Victor does not exactly believe this, correct?

Michael Wrenn · Oct 6, 2012

THOUGHTS ON THE ARTICLE:

1. I again, as in Derek Floods other article on Christus Victor, feel that he unfairly represents the Penal Substitution view a view that rejects all other accomplishments of the cross, for example:

I would think one who holds to penal substitution would likely also agree with these other effects of the Cross.

2. The following quote, is an admission the even centuries before Anselm, a view that the cross satisfied some requirement of God was partially understood...Which is similar to what I am say...It is not either-or, there were bits and pieces of several atonement views...which is probably as it should be, since the accomplisments of Christ's death were multi-faceted:

3. The following ideas were a new way to think about it for me. They do not seem to be Derek's main point, but perhaps they are...These quotes FINALLY, for me, show why Christ's death was absolutely necessary under the Christus Victor model:

And I'm glad you see that. I have stated it, but it had been denied.

-Ie, according to this view, God DOES have wrath toward sin, but the answer is not to punish someone else for our sin, but to remove our sin so that the cause of God's wrath is no longer there...I am curious as to how this works out with life-long sanctification: I am not completely free of sin now, so is God partially still angry with me until I am perfected?

4. IN conclusion, I do not deny that Christ's death does these things, but I think, even after Derek can show a few (not all) early Fathers who seemed to explicitly deny substitutionary punishment, we are left with some significant Scriptural passages, which unlike the fathers, are inspired Words from God, that seem to speak of God chastising his son for us. So I would say the Christus Victor model accurately describes lots of the effects of the Cross, except where it explicitly denies the inclusion of Christ's death satisfying God's Justice by taking the punishment we deserved.[/QUOTE]

See my answer above, in red.

Michael Wrenn · Oct 6, 2012

12strings said: ↑

Lingering questions about Christus Victor:

1. Does this view necessarily lead to universalism? The articles I have read do not discuss what happens to those who reject Christ's sacrifice, but they do minimize or negate God's wrath toward sinners, so in this model, what is hell?

Answer: No. And hell is the same here as in the other theories.

2. Does it bother conservative holders of Christus victor that their model is THE primary model adopted by liberal theologians?

This is not true. A few liberals of late have adopted it, but the primary liberal view of the atonement is the Example Theory, a very old theory.

3. Early Ransom Theory held that Christ paid a ransom to Satan for our souls. Modern Chrstus Victor does not exactly believe this, correct?
Click to expand...

That is correct.

It should also be mentioned that many in the historic "peace churches" hold to the Christus Victor view.

Van · Oct 6, 2012

Pitchback

Yeshua1 said: ↑

the answer is plain from the bible that God chose us on an individual basis to be saved, as it is NOT corporate Election, but on an individual basis, as sinners to be saved by the death of Christ!
Click to expand...

Did anyone say God did not choose us individually? Nope, yet Yeshua1 rails against his misrepresentation. Note, he did not address the answer to his question. On and on he goes, simply posting falsehood.

Only when a person is spiritually placed in Christ are their sins removed by the circumcision of Christ. This does not nullify the fact Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

All mankind has been set apart under the new Covenant in His blood, but only those spiritually placed in Christ receive the reconciliation provided.

Van · Oct 6, 2012

Did Christ have to die to set mankind free of the hostile powers? Nope.

Why is mankind fallen? The many (mankind) were made sinners. Who made us sinners? The devil? The world? The flesh? Or God?

Why were we separated, i.e. put into a sinful state? Our iniquity caused a separation with God.

So why do we need to be "reconciled" to God? Because we are "ungodly" and the size of our sin debt, depends upon how we have sinned volitionally.

How are we reconciled, forgiven, and made perfect, i.e. without any flaw that would require separation? When God puts us spiritually in Christ, we undergo the circumcision of Christ and the body of flesh (sin) is removed. Thus when God puts us spiritually in Christ we are united with Christ, and reconciled to God. Thus we are reconciled with God.

Steven_15 · Mar 3, 2020

Michael Wrenn said: ↑

The earliest Christians had those scriptures, and yet they didn't see them as teaching penal substitution. It took 1000 years for anyone to see "Satisfaction" (Anselm) in the Bible, and 1500 years before someone (Calvin) saw Penal Substitution there.

Don't know if you want me on this thread; I'll probably bring out discord.
Click to expand...

Does that matter? Isn't PS true?

Steven_15 · Mar 3, 2020

jaigner said: ↑

Theories of atonement are supposed to be theories. They were never meant to be creedal in importance. They are illustrations to help us understand an event that is otherwise incomprehensible.

I think penal substitution is helpful to a point, but it still falls short. In fact, it wasn't really ever articulated in the early church. Anselm's satisfaction theory was similar, but without the forensic element. There are others that are also very helpful: Christus Victor, recapitulation, etc.

I think a healthy view of atonement takes many theories into account without forgetting that any human explanation falls short of the mystery.
Click to expand...

However christus victor seem to deny PS firmly!

Steven_15 · Mar 3, 2020

12strings said: ↑

Penal substitution is maybe the most common atonement theory among baptists, would you say this is correct?

I have heard a lot about Christus Victor recently, and ran across this site which lists more than 10 (I didn't know there were that many)

Which do you think fits the Biblical revelation the best?
Click to expand...

Such discussions help those large number of people who hold on to the christus victor & deny PS see further truth.

Steven_15 · Mar 3, 2020

awaken said: ↑

Jesus never sinned during His life on earth, and He did not become a sinner on the cross. He paid our ransom by becoming our Substitute, and His ruthless torture and brutal execution on the cross perfectly satisfied the Father's righteous requirement.

The Father did not punish Jesus as a sinner, but instead the Father punished sin itself through Jesus' atoning sacrifice.

Since Jesus did not become a sinner on the cross, He did not experience the same punishment that sinners deserve, and sinners will not experience what Jesus experienced.
Click to expand...

Isaiah 53:6: "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all".

Was only sin punished? Wasn't Jesus punished as our substitute?

Steven_15 · Mar 3, 2020

awaken said: ↑

Here's another way to look at it. The Bible tells us that Jesus was ruthlessly tortured and humiliated, and then He was brutally executed on a cross, and His body stayed in a tomb for 3 days, and it appears that He spent some time in Hades but without suffering, and then He rose from the dead and spent a period of time on the earth in His glorified body (John 20:19, 24-28, Acts 1:1-4), and then He visibly rose up into the sky and took His place beside the Father in heaven. Notice that none of those things which Jesus experienced after He died will be experienced by any sinners after they die. So again, Jesus did not experience the same punishment that sinners deserve, and sinners will not experience what Jesus experienced.
Click to expand...

awaken said: ↑

Notice that none of those things which Jesus experienced after He died will be experienced by any sinners after they die.
Click to expand...

Sinners will be in eternal hell. They won't experience the other things because they aren't on a mission of redemption ad Jesus was.

Yeshua1 · Mar 3, 2020

12strings said: ↑

Penal substitution is maybe the most common atonement theory among baptists, would you say this is correct?

I have heard a lot about Christus Victor recently, and ran across this site which lists more than 10 (I didn't know there were that many)

Which do you think fits the Biblical revelation the best?
Click to expand...

Most popular among Baptists, especially among Calvinists and reformed types!

Featured Atonement theories?

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Michael Wrenn New Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

saturneptune New Member

12strings Active Member

12strings Active Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Steven_15 Member

Steven_15 Member

Steven_15 Member

Steven_15 Member

Steven_15 Member

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Featured Atonement theories?

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Michael Wrenn New Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Revmitchell Well-Known Member Site Supporter

saturneptune New Member

12strings Active Member

12strings Active Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Michael Wrenn New Member

Van Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Van Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Steven_15 Member

Steven_15 Member

Steven_15 Member

Steven_15 Member

Steven_15 Member

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Revmitchell Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Van Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter