Featured The just and the justifier

How so?

If I recall, in our previous discussion we spoke about how Wright viewed the events of the Cross as focusing more on the historical event and how it related to Israel and Rome. I also recall saying this is one of other issues I have with what I know of Wright's position but that I did not know enough of his view to be very critical.

My view of the Atonement was quite simple - Jesus bore our sins, freed us from the bondage of sin and death, and through Him God was reconciling mankind to Himself.

So just off hand, we know that my view point of the theory of the Atonement differs from N.T. Wrights because I do not view the historical context (the relationship of Rome to Israel) as key to understanding the Cross.

But I can't help but notice that your view, that God was punishing Jesus, is virtually a carbon copy of the view Kenneth Copeland holds about the punishment of the Cross. Do you see how silly things can get when you rely on false assumptions and ignore what was said in the past?

Are you aware that people held to an understanding within the Christus Victor motif for over two thousand years before N.T. Wright was born?

 

Then my view is obviously different from N.T. Wright's view. Again, why do you constantly introduce Wright's position on this topic when no one here claims to hold his view?

If it helps, I also don't hold Denny Weaver's position. Please be careful how you treat other's beliefs (especially when I have taken the time to discuss this very thing with you last year).


Thanks

 

I am not aware of any Christus Victor Theory that has God pouring His wrath, due to us, on Christ instead of us to satisfy the sin debt. That sounds like Penal Substitution Theory to me.

And yes, each theory needs to be defined in order to have meaning. I agree completely. I think we ran into this issue in distingushind "penal substitution" (which everyone believes) from the Theory of Penal Substitution (which is a newer theory).

 

Good - because the way I expressed it was by offering 3 bible verses. I'm surprised you object.

But why not say "your idea looks identical to classic Anabaptist ideas of the Atonement"....or, "that's identical to what Paul wrote"? What is your fascination with N.T. Wright?

AND, knowing I disagree with Wright on this topic, why do you repeatedly force him into these threads?

Insofar as the Resurrection being the vindication of the Father towards the Son, I think this a common Christian belief.

 

Hey Martin,

Don't take this wrong, but who cares what Gustav Aulen believed? His view is as relevant to Christus Victor today as is the understanding that Christ literally descended into Hell where He was tortured for three days defines Penal Substitution Theory. Just as other authors contributed to Penal Substitution Theory, so also did Aulen contribute to the Christus Victor dialogue. But just as you are not dependent on John Calvin, so also am I not dependent on Aulen. I know of many scholars who hold to Christus Victor, but I do not know of any who hold to it as Aulen theorized.

I don't know of any Christian who denies Christ bore our sins, the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, He took the penalty we deserved, and by His stripes we are healed. But that is not Penal Substitution Theory (otherwise it has no distinction at all).

But I will try to explain the difference between Christus Victor and Satisfaction Theory (to include it's derivatives). First, we have to understand that we are looking at things from a very different perspective. You can't evaluate Christus Victor from the perspective of Penal Substitution Theory (i.e., how does this satisfy what God's justice demands) any more than you can evaluate the Theory of Penal Substitution from a Christus Victor perspective.

Consider Blumenthal's words:

“The theologian must…accept the position of speaking from within a tradition or some part of it, garnering whatever authority, epistemic reasoning and evidence is possible whilst acknowledging inevitable and necessary limitations and listening to the inner resonances of the tradition in order to measure their own music against the inner tones of the tradition to the best of their ability, recognizing the scale of the task and its endemic dangers and pitfalls.” (David Blumenthal, Facing the Abusing God)

You simply have to set aside the presuppositions that are inherent in the Theory of Penal Substitution to argue the issue. But here's the difference:

Christus Victor articulates the Atonement within a “ransom” context – that is, Christ purchased us by His blood. Think of the word “redeem” which indicates a “buying back”. Christ bore our sins, our chastisement fell upon Him, and through this work God was reconciling mankind to Himself. Although it took many forms (many theories), this idea or context was the main view for the first millennia of Church history.

Christus Victor is different from the Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and the Theory of Penal Substitution in that it does not regard the idea of “ransom” in the sense of a business transaction. It differs from Origen’s Ransom Theory in the same way. It views this ransom as a liberation or freeing of humanity from the slavery of sin and death.

Unlike the Satisfaction, Substitution, or Penal-Substitution Theories, Christus Victor is not rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of divine justice. Instead this motif is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into humanity, thus redeeming it from bondage.

I hope this helps.

John

 

I don't object to the penal substitution part as taught by the ECF's, and I have less an issue with some Reformers than I have with others.

What you are objecting to, however, is that Christus Victor does not deal with divine justice as Penal Substitution Theory deals with it. And you are right there (wrong that it isn't dealt with).

 

Scripture teaches that God is faithful to forgive those who repent and turn to Him. This is a part of divine justice. Jesus was offered for us. It was God's will to crush Him. He bore our sins and became a curse for us - not to prevent us from dying under the curse but to redeem us out of it. This is why we read "death, where is your sting". We are not spared from dying but given life in Christ Jesus.

Divine Justice satisfied in Christ, Scripture also tells us of the wrath to come, which is centered in Christ as the Father judges no one but all judgment is given to the Son. This judgment results in the "second death" for all who are not in Christ.

Have you ever considered the understanding Irenaeus held (Recalitulation)? I think his view helpful in understanding the fundamental difference between the Theory of Penal Substitution and the traditional views.

 

You don't understand the difference between preventing us from dying under the curse and redeeming us out of it?

This is what I mean. You can't seem to see outside of the Theory of Penal Substitution.

In one instance we do not die under the curse. In the other we die under the curse yet live in Christ with our hope in the present being His resurrection - that in dying we might live.

 

Your answer is in Ephesians 2:4-8, not on one extracted verse in the middle of a statement. Read it as a whole.

(Give a man a fish vs teaching him to fish)

The difference is that I know how the Theory of Penal Substitution speaks of this redemption because I once held and taught that theory. You can't see, however, how Christus Victor teaches redemption as evidenced by your posts. I explain it, but you still ask "where?". You are not looking in the right places.