• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Christus Victor

Status
Not open for further replies.

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
"As the term Christus Victor indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Unlike the Satisfaction or Penal-substitution views of the atonement rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Irenaeuscalled this "Recapitulation" (re-creation). "

As C.S. Lewis (who held a Christus Victor view) wrote "Aslan is not a tame lion" - God does not submit to human expectations.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
They are all true and taught in scripture through the plain reading of scripture.
Yes. All are based in truth. But the thing is each contradicts the other. One cannot hold to Penal Substitution Theory as a whole and Christus Victor at the same time...without being extraordinarily inconsistent - but one can see elements of Scripture in all of the theories (because what differs is the reasoning, not the Scriptures).
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes. All are based in truth. But the thing is each contradicts the other. One cannot hold to Penal Substitution Theory as a whole and Christus Victor at the same time...without being extraordinarily inconsistent - but one can see elements of Scripture in all of the theories (because what differs is the reasoning, not the Scriptures).

Sorry I don't see inconsistency
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
They are all true and taught in scripture through the plain reading of scripture.

Like a multi-faceted gem, depending on which facet you want to look through.

Which view presents Christ as REDEEMER? Or is Christ as Redeemer another facet of it's own?:

44 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field; which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Mt 13

28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. Acts 20

19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;
20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. 1 Cor 6
23 Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men. 1 Cor 7

7 in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
14 which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God`s own possession, unto the praise of his glory. Eph 1

14 who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works. Titus 2

18 knowing that ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers;
19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb without spot, even the blood of Christ: 1 Pet 1
9 But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God`s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1 Pet 2

9 And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, Rev 5
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Sorry I don't see inconsistency
No need to apologize. Many probably don't.

I find it inconsistent to believe that God had to punish sin to satisfy divine justice so that He could (or as the process of) forgive man along with the belief that God could forgive man without satisfying the demands of justice by entering into humanity itself and gaining victory over the powers of sin and death.

I also find it inconsistent to believe that Christ suffered under the curse so that we would not suffer its consequences while also believing that Christ suffered under the curse so that its consequences become benign as we are saved through them.

It's a bit inconsistent also to believe that divine justice demands sin be punished because it violates the law while also believing God forgives without punishing sin because it is a personal affront to God rather than to the law.

So while many may very well reconcile these competing ideas, I simply can't.

That said, I am not the sharpest fool in the shed. So take my inability for what it's worth.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I'm leaving the conversation to you guys.

I just wanted to post a definition of Christus Victor to help contrast with another thread.

Peace out....dudes. :Biggrin
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No need to apologize. Many probably don't.

I find it inconsistent to believe that God had to punish sin to satisfy divine justice so that He could (or as the process of) forgive man along with the belief that God could forgive man without satisfying the demands of justice by entering into humanity itself and gaining victory over the powers of sin and death.

Umm I think you have misunderstood something. You cannot divorce the incarnation from penal substitution. The victory is found in overcoming the sin penalty by destroying the need to further punish sin for those that believe.

The very idea of appeasing a wrathful God is found in Romans 3:25 with the word propitiation. Further, the shedding of blood means a life must be lost in order for reconciliation to be had. The mere requirement of blood shed speaks to penal substitution.

You are over thinking all of this my friend.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Umm I think you have misunderstood something. You cannot divorce the incarnation from penal substitution. The victory is found in overcoming the sin penalty by destroying the need to further punish sin for those that believe.

The very idea of appeasing a wrathful God is found in Romans 3:25 with the word propitiation. Further, the shedding of blood means a life must be lost in order for reconciliation to be had. The mere requirement of blood shed speaks to penal substitution.

You are over thinking all of this my friend.
I agree you can't. I'm not explaining my view but offering a distinction between the two here.

Some (like Weaver) take a Christus Victor position void of the Blood (which is wrong). But there is a difference between Atonement views.

And just when I think I'm out they keep pulling me back in :Laugh
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
...like @Martin Marprelate provided for Penal Substitution in the other thread.
The term Christus Victor indicates the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Rather than being rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it.

I suppose a better definition may be provided by people holding the theory. If you like antiquity then read Irenaeus. If you prefer more contemporary explanations study Anabaptist theology or Mennonite teachings of the Atonement (many are more liberal as they react to Penal Substitution Theory, but you can still get the gist of it).

But - you asked and I did my best to provide. The rest is up to y'all. I am only interested in defending my belief on this topic - so while your dogs are hunting mine are sunning in the back yard (I don't have a dog in this hunt...except an appreciation of history). So I'll keep ole HighBall at home.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Egad man, it's your thread!

I liked @Martin Marprelate 's definition much better. Your's not such much.

Martin says we've been substituted. You say we've been ransomed. I like the idea that I've been bought.
You asked me for a definition of Christus Victor.

I hereby deed the thread to you. It's yours now. :Biggrin
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's your thread :Biggrin.

Did you watch my Jerry Clower video? That's worth all the weariness.

Lol, one thing for sure, you and Martin have one thing in common, you both have to have the last word! (undoubtedly why sooooo many long threads on this topic)
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
They made my eel role with a big piece of eel hanging out. The reason I get eel roles is because they taste good, are always cooked, and I can pretend they are something else. I've never even seen an eel.....until now. :(

I'm stuck in a 4 cylinder mini-van-thing while my truck is in the shop, and now lunch is ruined.

Happy Monday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top