Atonement Theories

You mean when both identified jesus as being the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, the clearest expression of PST foiund in entire Bible?

 

I understand that there seveal different views, but the primary one of jesus and the Apostle was Pst!

 

were ANY of the ECF inspired?

 

PST fits what happened on the Cross the best!

 

I don't know anyone who believes in the "Christus Loser" View, but Christ is only the Victor because He fulfilled the will of the Father by laying down His life to redeem those whom the Father gave Him (John 10:11-18 etc.). This He did by paying the penalty for their sins in full on the cross (1 Peter 2:24 etc.).

More detail here: The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution
and here: Penal Substitution and the Trinity

 

Not really. I had already read EWF's link.

I disagree (though it is kinda cute; thanks! ). My point is that Christus Victor is meaningless-- we all agree that Jesus won-- unless Christ has also fulfilled the will of the Father, which was to crush Him and put Him to grief (Isaiah 53:10).

 

All good questions. First: God is Holy and just and righteous. The sin must be punished, otherwise God is going against His nature of righteousness and justice.

Second: Because of the fall and sin entering into the world, God demonstrates that He loves us so much that He is willing to take on humanity, be as we are, and die for us. Without suffering and death we could not know the full extent of God's love, that He would suffer and die, taking His righteous punishment on Himself, for our benefit.

Third: Did the death of Jesus actually accomplish something or did it only potentionally accomplish something?

I don't know a lot about the moral influence theory, so correct me if necessary, but it seems to indicate the life and death of Jesus was an example that we should follow. By following the example of Jesus there is a potential for His death to make atonement for sins.

Substitution states His death made atonement for sins; Not potentionally, but actually. Atonement has been made.

 

It shouldn't really be necessary to point out that without the death of Christ, the resurrection would be really tricky.
Theology 101 tells us that in order to find the truth of every doctrine, we have to compare Scripture with Scripture.
Romans 5:6-8. 'For when we were still without strength, Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. Much more then, having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.'' Now of course, Romans 4:25, tells us that Christ was 'raised because of our justification,' and Romans 5:19 tells us that 'by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.' So what does this mean for us? It means that our hope is based on the perfect life, substitutionary death and resurrection as the firstfruits from the dead. All three are absolutely necessary for our salvation. and to try to suggest that one is more important than the other is lunacy.

Penal Substitution cannot be a reaction to RCC doctrine since it pre-dates it, most importantly in the Bible. I have shown several times that any number of ECFs, beginning with Justin Martyr taught P.S. I suppose I can trot them all out again if necessary, but the interested reader can find them for himself in the archives.

That our Lord's death should move us to live better lives in not at issue. That Christ rose 'victoriously' from the dead is beyond doubt. That a ransom was paid (not to Satan of course, but to God's justice) is there in the Bible. But if Christ has not paid the penalty for my sins in full, I shall have to pay for them myself. But, praise God, my sins have been paid for in full by Christ. 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24).