The just and the justifier

[agedman]

In the treads on the Scriptures concerning the theories of atonement, there is one that has gotten (imo) little attention.

It isn't as well known as Penal Substitution Atonement and Satisfaction theories, which both developed 1000 years or more later then Christus Victor and Ransom theory.

So, the Christus Victor theory does present another aspect that should be attended.

Gustav Aulén (In 1931) considered that the Christus Victor was the classic view of the early church as recorded in this from Christus Victor: The Salvation of God and the Cross of Christ - Fuller Studio

The article presents this portion:

"In a nutshell, Aulén argued that Christus Victor, the classic view of the atonement, has at its center continuous divine action: from beginning to end, atonement is the act of God through Christ, in which the powers of sin, death, and the devil are overcome, and the world is reconciled to God. Paul’s statement that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” epitomizes this view. Aulén spoke of this view as “dramatic,” “dualistic,” and “objective”—dramatic and dualistic, because it assumed a narrative of conflict between God and the powers of evil, sin, and death, in which God triumphs over these powers; objective, because it posits that God took the initiative to decisively change the relationship between God and the world." (taken from the above referenced Fuller Studio article)
​

The underlying thinking of Christus Victor that the BB might desire to know:

• Christ's work was part of a continuum of redemption God started at creation.
• Christ was not just one who fulfilled the law, but stood in opposition to the law (much like Paul did when showing the law was a failed system, and Christ was superior.
• Christ does not satisfy nor does He pay the consequence of human sin, but overthrows the power of the law to condemn ("there is therefore no condemnation") sin.
• God and Christ are united in the Crucifixion that the whole system of both the evil and the law be overthrown, that the victory over sin, death and hell are keys now held by the one who is both just and the justifier.
• Christ did not need to satisfy the law nor the justice demands obliged by the law, rather, He is the redeemer from the demands, the victor who conquered and will conquer the bondage of the human to sin, self, and evil design.

Within the picture of redemption given in the NT, one can clearly be supportive of Christus Victor.
The believer was at one time held as slave to sin and at will of the evil forces of the Devil. Christ purchased the believer from the market of the slave trade, took that believer off the market to no longer be sold into the slave trade, and presented that believer as the adopted son and heir to all of the Father.

According to Aulén, the Christus Victor was held by the early church and taught by the early church fathers up to the time of the publishing of the "Satisfaction theory" approximately 1097. After that the RCC adopted the Satisfaction theory which was also held during the reformation and from which the basis of Penal Substitution Theory was developed. (Taken from a Wikipedia article - and no citation was given to get first hand source information)

According to Theopedia (https://www.theopedia.com/christus-victor) the early church fathers were divided into two groups. It states that the Ransom theory was held by the early church lead by the Greek fathers. It states that the Christus Victor theory was held by the Latin fathers of the same period.

Perhaps this is why the Satisfaction theory and the Penal Substitution theory developed from or out of the background of the Christus Victor and not the Ransom.

It is understood that a great and probably very necessary "stuff" was left out of the OP.

Perhaps others will add to this thread that the BB readers get more information at will.

​

 

[JonC]

Another interesting point (about the Christus Victor) position is that this aspect (Christ’s victory over sin and death) is seen more than any other aspect of the Atonement in the New Testament. Paul does use “sin” as an action warranting judgment, but he uses "sin" most often as a principle or a power that needs to be overcome. And it places the crux of the Christian faith not at the feet of the Cross but in our hope in the Resurrection as our guarantee of victory.

While I believe that Christus Victor as a motif is the correct position, I am not as confident with each theory under that overarching idea.I certainly question the contemporary models that have been offered ("non-violent Atonement" of those like Denny Weaver, the Reformed "Ontological Atonement" from people like Kleis, and Torrance's "Total Atonement"). We've discussed these (maybe not on the BB....I can't remember where) and each brings out some truths but also seem to simply try to rework old theories.

It is odd that when some see that God was patient with those prior to Jesus' Resurrection so that He would be just and the Justifier of those who have faith in Christ their mind is drawn to their idea of divine justice rather than to faith in Christ. It's almost as if we cannot escape what has been a part of our culture for so long.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[JonC]

More often contemporary scholarship points to the Christus Victor motif (an overarching purpose) rather than a more narrow theory.

So the Christus Victor motif can, and has, incorporated many of the theories of atonement without compromising that overall objective (freeing man from the bondage of sin and death).

But Christus Victor does not incorporate the Theory of Penal Substitution as well because that theory is subordinate to another religious ideology, the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.

My contention is that while the historical positions (and Scripture) include penal substitution, the overarching theme or goal of both is a reconciliation of mankind to God through Christ's victory over sin and death. In opposition, Satisfaction Theory views divine justice as the overall theme of redemptive history, and Theory of Penal Substitution redefines this theory by incorporating into it it's own theory of justice. Seeking to explain propitiation the Theory of Penal Substitution has become its own explanation (it became dependent on its own assumptions).

Where the Theory of Penal Substitution focuses on the Cross, Christus Victor looks to the Resurrection. So there is also a difference in focus.

I believe that several here view the subject is boring, or of no importance (as evidenced by several saying it was boring and of no importance). But I think that this debate will continue to expand. The reason is that there seems to be a growing divide. Many are abandoning the Theory of Penal Substitution, but they are finding a home in a Christus Victor Theory that is reactionary to what they see as abuses in the Theory of Penal Substitution. Where they end up is entertaining theories such as Denny Weaver's version of Christus Victor that ignores God's wrath directed at man. (This was the reason for the SBC's resolution affirming Penal Substitution Theory...or by their language, at least emphasizing the penal substitution Weaver left out of his theory). It is a topic worth looking at, and worth going through piece by piece (regardless of what theory one holds, or even if they choose to hold any).

 

[Darrell C]

The article presents this portion:
"In a nutshell, Aulén argued that Christus Victor, the classic view of the atonement, has at its center continuous divine action: from beginning to end, atonement is the act of God through Christ, in which the powers of sin, death, and the devil are overcome, and the world is reconciled to God. Paul’s statement that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” epitomizes this view. Aulén spoke of this view as “dramatic,” “dualistic,” and “objective”—dramatic and dualistic, because it assumed a narrative of conflict between God and the powers of evil, sin, and death, in which God triumphs over these powers; objective, because it posits that God took the initiative to decisively change the relationship between God and the world." (taken from the above referenced Fuller Studio article)

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.

The underlying thinking of Christus Victor that the BB might desire to know:

• Christ's work was part of a continuum of redemption God started at creation.

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...

 

[Darrell C]

Christ was not just one who fulfilled the law, but stood in opposition to the law (much like Paul did when showing the law was a failed system, and Christ was superior.

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.

Christ does not satisfy nor does He pay the consequence of human sin, but overthrows the power of the law to condemn ("there is therefore no condemnation") sin.

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...

 

[Darrell C]

God and Christ are united in the Crucifixion that the whole system of both the evil and the law be overthrown, that the victory over sin, death and hell are keys now held by the one who is both just and the justifier.

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...

 

[Darrell C]

Christ did not need to satisfy the law nor the justice demands obliged by the law, rather, He is the redeemer from the demands, the victor who conquered and will conquer the bondage of the human to sin, self, and evil design.

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

Within the picture of redemption given in the NT, one can clearly be supportive of Christus Victor.

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

The believer was at one time held as slave to sin and at will of the evil forces of the Devil. Christ purchased the believer from the market of the slave trade, took that believer off the market to no longer be sold into the slave trade, and presented that believer as the adopted son and heir to all of the Father.

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.

 

[JonC]

Here's an article about Christus Victor (to include the contemporary versions I was speaking of). Perhaps it may provide a little more insight into the diversity of positions.

Christus Victor: The Salvation of God and the Cross of Christ - Fuller Studio

I agree with this statement, and believe it is something often obscured by argument:

"The order of the action is important: God has rescued us; God has transferred us; in Christ we have redemption and forgiveness. Paul does not write, “God has forgiven us so that he may then rescue us.” Rather, God rescues us out of darkness and brings us into the kingdom of his beloved Son and that rescue act is our salvation."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

More often contemporary scholarship points to the Christus Victor motif (an overarching purpose) rather than a more narrow theory.

So the Christus Victor motif can, and has, incorporated many of the theories of atonement without compromising that overall objective (freeing man from the bondage of sin and death).

But Christus Victor does not incorporate the Theory of Penal Substitution as well because that theory is subordinate to another religious ideology, the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.

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.

My contention is that while the historical positions (and Scripture) include penal substitution, the overarching theme or goal of both is a reconciliation of mankind to God through Christ's victory over sin and death. In opposition, Satisfaction Theory views divine justice as the overall theme of redemptive history, and Theory of Penal Substitution redefines this theory by incorporating into it it's own theory of justice. Seeking to explain propitiation the Theory of Penal Substitution has become its own explanation (it became dependent on its own assumptions).

Where the Theory of Penal Substitution focuses on the Cross, Christus Victor looks to the Resurrection. So there is also a difference in focus.

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.

I believe that several here view the subject as boring, or of no importance (as evidenced by several saying it was boring and of no importance). But I think that this debate will continue to expand. The reason is that there seems to be a growing divide. Many are abandoning the Theory of Penal Substitution, but they are finding a home in a Christus Victor Theory that is reactionary to what they see as abuses in the Theory of Penal Substitution. Where they end up is entertaining theories such as Denny Weaver's version of Christus Victor that ignores God's wrath directed at man. (This was the reason for the SBC's resolution affirming Penal Substitution Theory...or by their language, at least emphasizing the penal substitution Weaver left out of his theory). It is a topic worth looking at, and worth going through piece by piece (regardless of what theory one holds, or even if they choose to hold any).

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?"

 

[JonC]

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 agree. There are no theories that hold to the idea Christ lost. None hold Christ failed to propitiate the wrath of God against us. None of these theories even come close to straying from the meaning, purpose, and vital importance of the Cross (insofar as redemption itself). Also, I agree that there is a strong relationship between Penal Substitution Theory and Anselm's Satisfaction Theory (and Aquinas' Substitution theory as well).

Anselm did not hold that Christ died in order to satisfy God's justice (except perhaps in the context men avoid wrath). "Justice" and "honor" have different meanings. Not only this, but the way in which Anselm viewed Christ as restoring God's honor is not the same as Penal Substitution Theory views Christ as satisfying God's justice. This becomes very evident when we look at the developments that took place within Satisfaction Theory after Anselm.

I am not sure that Anselm's idea of God's honor needing to be restored approaches the same category as God's justice injured (being that Anselm held IMHO, a more medieval idea of honor which would lean more to divine holiness rather than divine justice). But I do agree that the theory is very similar to the Theory of Penal Substitution. Anselm looked towards Christ to restore the honor mankind had taken from God, and in that sense Christ died on behalf of all mankind (not by suffering God's wrath, but by living the life we couldn't). Likewise, Aquinas' reworking of Anselm's theory looks to Christ's merit as overshadowing the wrath and sin against us (Aquinas' theory led to the RCC error of the "treasury of merit).

I agree with you that this is a subject of vital importance. It's a relevant issue. I have wondered (off hand) if one of the reason the younger generation has started moving from Penal Substitution Theory is that they often do not hold the same idea of justice (in a secular sense) that those my age and older typically held. It seems that the generations older than me cannot fathom another idea of justice than the one I've taken for granted. But the younger crowd often voices opposition to decisions and events we take for granted.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree. There are no theories that hold to the idea Christ lost. None hold Christ failed to propitiate the wrath of God against us. None of these theories even come close to straying from the meaning, purpose, and vital importance of the Cross. Also, I agree that there is a strong relationship between Penal Substitution Theory and Anselm's Satisfaction Theory (and Aquinas' Substitution theory as well).

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 am not sure that Anselm's idea of God's honor needing to be restored approaches the same category as God's justice injured (being that Anselm held IMHO, a more medieval idea of honor which would lean more to divine holiness rather than divine justice). But I do agree that the theory is very similar to the Theory of Penal Substitution. Anselm looked towards Christ to restore the honor mankind had taken from God, and in that sense Christ died on behalf of all mankind (not by suffering God's wrath, but by living the life we couldn't). Likewise, Aquinas' reworking of Anselm's theory looks to Christ's merit as overshadowing the wrath and sin against us (Aquinas' theory led to the RCC error of the "treasury of merit).

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.

I agree with you that this is a subject of vital importance. It's a relevant issue. I have wondered (off hand) if one of the reason the younger generation has started moving from Penal Substitution Theory is that they often do not hold the same idea of justice (in a secular sense) that those my age and older typically held.

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.

 

[JonC]

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 am also critical of Aluen's theory as I too do not see it as adequate in addressing the wrath that was to come. That said, I prefer the incompleteness of his theory over what the Theory of Penal Substitution introduces into the doctrine of the Atonement (and I hold neither).

Oh, and she isn't "my" lady theologian (although I believe she articulates the issue well, to include issues with Aluen's position). The reason for Christ's death, per Christus Victor (to redeem mankind from the curse by becoming a curse for us - a representative of man) is no less present than the reason Penasl Substitution Theory holds (God has to punish sin). I also struggled with the concept, and I also held to Penal Substitution Theory's explanation (for decades). When I moved away from that theory I was amazed at the depth I had overlooked.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. There are no theories that hold to the idea Christ lost. None hold Christ failed to propitiate the wrath of God against us. None of these theories even come close to straying from the meaning, purpose, and vital importance of the Cross (insofar as redemption itself). Also, I agree that there is a strong relationship between Penal Substitution Theory and Anselm's Satisfaction Theory (and Aquinas' Substitution theory as well).

Anselm did not hold that Christ died in order to satisfy God's justice (except perhaps in the context men avoid wrath). "Justice" and "honor" have different meanings. Not only this, but the way in which Anselm viewed Christ as restoring God's honor is not the same as Penal Substitution Theory views Christ as satisfying God's justice. This becomes very evident when we look at the developments that took place within Satisfaction Theory after Anselm.

I am not sure that Anselm's idea of God's honor needing to be restored approaches the same category as God's justice injured (being that Anselm held IMHO, a more medieval idea of honor which would lean more to divine holiness rather than divine justice). But I do agree that the theory is very similar to the Theory of Penal Substitution. Anselm looked towards Christ to restore the honor mankind had taken from God, and in that sense Christ died on behalf of all mankind (not by suffering God's wrath, but by living the life we couldn't). Likewise, Aquinas' reworking of Anselm's theory looks to Christ's merit as overshadowing the wrath and sin against us (Aquinas' theory led to the RCC error of the "treasury of merit).

I agree with you that this is a subject of vital importance. It's a relevant issue. I have wondered (off hand) if one of the reason the younger generation has started moving from Penal Substitution Theory is that they often do not hold the same idea of justice (in a secular sense) that those my age and older typically held. It seems that the generations older than me cannot fathom another idea of justice than the one I've taken for granted. But the younger crowd often voices opposition to decisions and events we take for granted.

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!

 

[JonC]

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!

I actually don't know much of the view that N. T. Wright made popular. I have read some of the exchange between him and Piper, but this was on a different topic.

If I were to choose someone as an influencer (someone who I thought embodied the idea of a Christus Victor motif apart, from the biblical authors), I'd probably point to Eusebius. But as much as I enjoy the early stuff, in terms of gaining an appreciation of the Christus Victor approach, I'd have to say it was the writings of Anabaptists, particularly just before the Reformation and through the " Radical Reformation.

What have you read of N.T. Wright and how does he depart from the traditional view of Christus Victor? What books of his would you recommend to understand his theory?

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[JonC]

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!

You've lost me, Y1.

What book are you talking about? Which one are you saying is the theory of Atonement that N.T. Wright made popular? How does N.T. Wright's view of the Atonement differ from the traditional/classic view of Christus Victor?

I'm not saying you are wrong about the guy, but I have not seen anyone here (yet, anyway) arguing for Wright's position. Maybe your comments would make more sense addressed to the Theory he made popular (I assume with Anglicans?).

 

[Yeshua1]

You've lost me, Y1.

What book are you talking about? Which one are you saying is the theory of Atonement that N.T. Wright made popular? How does N.T. Wright's view of the Atonement differ from the traditional/classic view of Christus Victor?

I'm not saying you are wrong about the guy, but I have not seen anyone here (yet, anyway) arguing for Wright's position. Maybe your comments would make more sense addressed to the Theory he made popular (I assume with Anglicans?).

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!

 

[JonC]

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!

I have never read that book. Regardless, there is no one "Reformed theory of Atonement" (e.g., Hugo Grotius was also Reformed).

And, if understand correctly, your claim is that Penal Substitution Theory exists outside of Reformed Theology. Wright does not have to be Reformed in order to hold to PST.

But what's the deal with Wright anyway? We've been discussing the Theory of Penal Substitution and Christus Victor - both popular long before Wright's theory (whatever it may be).

I guess I'm just missing the point of where Wright fits into this discussion. You brought it up for a reason, I'm sure, but I have no idea where you are going with it.

You do realize we are on the Baptist side of the forum, right?

 

[JonC]

Here's an interesting (I think) dissertation supporting the necessity of penal substitution in the atonement.

https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1413&context=luc_diss