Featured The just and the justifier

There are obviously no theologians advocating a Christus Loser theology. Christ did emerge victorious from the tomb.
Gustav Aulen was a Swedish theologian who published Christus Victor back in 1931 (English version 1945). However, his views have been challenged by numerous theologians, including a guy named Henri Blocher in an article called Agnus Victor in 2002.

Blocher points to Satan's role as accuser in Zechariah 3. He writes,
'How is Satan's role as the accuser related to his power? If Satan's opposition to the Lord were a matter of mere power, the rebel's finite resources would equal zero confronted with infinity. But the accuser can appeal to justice. He may also indulge in slander but his force resides in the rightness of his accusation. Joshua is unclean, unspeakably unclean.....[Zechariah 3:4]. The righteous judge of all the earth, who can only do right, cannot refuse to hear the charges the accuser brings without denying Himself. In other words, the weapon in the devil's hand is God's own law, God's holy and perfect law-- hence the association in some passages of the law and inimical powers, which Aulen was not able to read aright.'

Satan appeals to God's justice, calling on Him to punish humanity as we deserve. Consequently the defeat of the devil must involve the removal of our sin, and that is exactly how the N.T presents it (e.g. 1 John 3:4-8). In Colossians 2:14-15, Christ's triumph on the cross is connected to the cancellation of our bond of debt. The defeat and 'disarming' of the 'powers and authorities,' chief of whom is Satan, is directly connected to the cross. In Revelation 12, the brethren have overcome Satan 'by the blood of the Lamb.' That was the price paid for the cancellation of our debt. In Hebrews 2:14, we are told that the Lord Jesus destroyed Satan 'by His death' and freed God's people from bondage to death.

Christ is indeed victor over Satan, but through His atoning death upon the cross. In John 12:31, in the shadow of the cross, the Lord Jesus declares, "Now is the time for judgement on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.' Satan can no longer accuse the brethren (Revelation 12:10) because Christ has paid the penalty for our sins in full.

 

Over and over we see that it was not until Christ came that men became sons of God, were forgiven their sins, and obtained eternal life through the Work of Christ.

I post these basic principles on this forum continuously.

Men were not continually being redeemed on an eternal basis, so this doctrine is but yet another doctrine of men and should be thoroughly rejected.

Whereas Scripture teaches that men were in need of Redemption all throughout the Old Testament and it was not until Christ came that they were eternally redeemed through remission of sins on an eternal basis:


Hebrews 9:12
King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


The theme of "perfection" in Hebrews makes it clear that the provision of the Old Testament could not make one complete in regards to remission of sins. WHat this means is that when the Justified of the Old Testament died, their sins were not yet forgiven, because the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins.

This is a basic principle of the Promise of God to forgive completely, seen in the Promise of the New Covenant (which we who are saved through Christ are in relationship to God through):


Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


Hebrews 10:15-18
King James Version (KJV)

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


The reason there is no more offering for sin is because Christ did what the Law could not do, nor the sacrifices that were offered prior to the Law, He has made us complete in regard to remission of sins...forever:


Hebrews 10
King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


Always Redemption is tied to the very Death of Jesus Christ on the Cross. There is simply no way to impose redemption on an eternal basis into the Old Testament.


Continued...

 

Christ said He came to fulfill the Law, and that is what He did on two counts: He obeyed it completely, and He fulfilled the Prophecy of the Law.

Paul did not stand in opposition to the Law either:


Romans 3:31
King James Version (KJV)

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


Again, the Promise of the New Covenant:


Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version (KJV)

31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


And the Promise of the Spirit:


Ezekiel 36:27
King James Version (KJV)

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


It is when we make the Law something by which we are saved through that we err. The principles laid down in the Law show the will of God for Man. We still adhere to "Love God and your neighbor as yourself" as valid instruction for all men, even Christians.

Just not the case. Just as all sacrifices of the Old Testament taught vicarious death, even so Christ has died in our stead, taking upon Himself the penalty we owed:


Romans 5:8
King James Version (KJV)

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.


2 Corinthians 5:13-14
King James Version (KJV)


14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.


1 Thessalonians 5:9-11
King James Version (KJV)

9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.

11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.


Old Testament sacrifice pictured the Sacrifice of Christ. The Hebrews who were still offering up sacrifice according to the Law were "crucifying Christ again unto themselves," because they continued in the type.


Continued...

 

This presents the Law as something bad, which is not the case:


Galatians 3:21
King James Version (KJV)

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.


Romans 7:11-12
King James Version (KJV)

11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.


The problem was not with the Law, but with men:


Hebrews 8:7-10
King James Version (KJV)

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


Praise God for the New Covenant.


Continued...

 

Its very simple, He died in our stead for our sins.

Not at all. Not if I am understanding how it is being presented. If I am not, then I would appreciate being shown why.

Doesn't correlate to our salvation completely, because we are still faced with our flesh not yet being redeemed.

My primary point in rejecting this doctrinal position is that there is no concept of continual redemption found in the Old Testament, aside from the physical redemption God constantly effected. Eternal Redemption is through Christ alone, and that did not begin to be bestowed upon men until Christ died, arose, ascended back to Heaven, and sent the Promised Spirit.


God bless.

 

As I said before, where is the theology that promotes Christus Loser? If we are talking about Christus Victor being an 'overarching purpose' then just about every theory supports it, including Penal Substitution. Philippians 2:9-11 is in everybody's Bible. But Aulen's theory, as I understand it, goes beyond that. Are you distancing yourself from Aulen's particular position? I have no desire to get into a discussion about a fairly obscure Swedish theologian unless I have to.

With regard to P.S. and Satisfaction Theory, Anselm's theory is quite different to P.S. I think you may be confused by the fact that many of the Reformers and Puritans spoke of the 'satisfaction' of Christ. A.W. Pink's best work on the subject has that very name. He wrote, '[satisfaction] is much to be preferred first because the word 'Atonement' is ambiguous. In the O.T. it is used for an Hebrew word which signifies to 'cover by expiation.' In the N.T. it occurs but once, Romans 5:11, and there it is given as the rendering for a Greek word meaning 'reconciliation.' But reconciliation is the effect of the sin-expiating and God-propitiating work of Christ. On the other hand 'satisfaction' is not ambiguous. It always signifies that complete work which Christ did in order to secure the salvation of His people, as that work stands in relation to the will and nature of God.'

Anselm's Satisfaction Theory held that the cross was to satisfy God's honour; P.S. holds that it is to satisfy His justice.

Without the cross there is no resurrection, and if one goes astray concerning the meaning and purpose of the cross, one will never come to a proper understanding of the Resurrection.

The topic is of vital importance. The cross will always be the focus of attack by liberals, as it has been in Britain by Steve Chalke's Lost Message of Jesus with its enthusiastic foreword by N.T. Wright. Now every time one speaks about the cross, one gets 'Cosmic child abuse' thrown in one's face, and the Lord Jesus Christ is reduced to a sort of autistic teenager who says, "I love you so much I'm going to throw myself off the Golden Gate Bridge for you!" To which one might reply, "That's very impressive; but why would it prove how much you love me?"

 

I disagree. Aulen's Christus Victor does not really establish why there needs to be a propitiation and we're left with my autistic teenager (post #10). I read through you're link to Fuller Seminary, and that is wrong on so many levels. Here's a quote from your lady theologian: 'On the cross, Jesus revealed the depths to which he would go to protect his threatened flock from death: the life of the world would be given in death, bringing the work of the life-giving Word to completion (19:30). It just begs the question "Why?" It's either Jesus saying, "I'm going to kill myself and then you'll be sorry!" or God crucifying Jesus and saying to mankind, "Look what you've done!" This is why I never became a Christian for so many years. People would say to me, "Jesus loves you so much that He died for you!" and I would think, "Why would He do that? And what good does it do?" It wasn't until I realised that I was a guilty sinner rightly under the wrath of God that I understood that Christ had come to pay the penalty for my sin, and at that point I became a Christian.

I would ascribe that error to Anselm. If I've understood correctly, the satisfaction was Christ's infinitely valuable life, but not as a punishment for sin. But at least Anselm asks the question "why." Christus Victor neither asks nor answers it IMO.

The situation in Britain is very different to that in the USA. Over here, the more liberal churches are in free-fall, but the truly evangelical churches are holding their own. In University cities, there are quite big churches with loads of students, but these are the very ones who would tend to hold to P.S.

 

The viewpoint made popular though by NT Wright would be by definition a denial of the substitution death of Jesus on our behalf, and find it very ironic and sad that he denies that Calvin and most of the reformers views regarding the Cross were wrong, and that somehow God revealed to him the right view all those years later!

 

what saint paul really said, as he hammers home that we from time of the reformers forward totally missed the meaning of Pauline Justification, as calvin and others saw it as Paul describing how a sinners come to salvation in Jesus, but paul was really addressing how we identify one as a Christian, more like a community of faith salvation model...
This book pretty much lays our all of his errors in Justification!

 

Actually, the Book is titles What did Saint paul really say, and Wright is trying very hard to have himself viewed as being reformed, but he denys the reformed position on the aatonement!