Christus Victor

Exactly. The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He bore our sins in His flesh. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. God's wrath against sin is propitiated- not exercised- in Christ. Jesus is the appeasement. He shared in our "sickness" and is our Redeemer (Christus Victor).

Do you see the difference between God's wrath being appeased or propitiated and God's wrath being exercised against our sins laid on Christ? They are opposite ideas.

 

I agree with Scripture, brother. But I do not agree with the meaning you would assign to those passages (I believe your statements place Scripture into a context foreign to the text itself).

To illustrate - Steve Jeffery, in his book "Pierced for Our Transgressions", extracts a portion of Irenaeus’ words to claim a position while ignoring the larger context that is problematic to his desired end (he is not honest with the material he is referencing). I don't know why he does this - I doubt either of us would agree with Irenaeus' interpretation if taken as a whole. But he forces the words (the text) to mean something foreign to the meaning if taken in context (if taken with the explanation the original author himself provided).

So I cannot agree with you, even on the Scripture you provided, because I believe you superimpose a meaning upon the text. Any agreement would be superficial "double-speak".

That said, I do agree that Christ died for us and purchased us with His precious blood.

And to the topic - Christus Victor cannot be reconciled with Penal Substitution Theory except that one be removed from its own context - either Christus Victor simply means "God won" or Penal Substitution Theory simply means "Christ died for us". And neither would be fair to either.

I am the type of person who very much prefers honest disagreement to dishonest placation. One may not like what I have to say, but they will know (if they listen....sometimes real hard ) .....where I stand and why.

 

Yes, that is the book I am speaking of. Irenaeus is referenced on page 131 (dealing with his theory of Recapitulation). On page 343 this theory is presented as the framework of Penal Substitution Theory (it takes Irenaeus' ideas of Recipitulation and bends it for its own purposes).

Regardless (I'm not gong to go off on a tangent discussing the book) it was an illustration. I trusted (assumed) you had done your own reading as I know you to be capable. I didn't want to use you as a reference because I thought that would be unkind (it could be seen as questioning your honesty in dealing with the referenced material) as the entire explanation Irenaeus offers for the Atonement is very much contrary to Penal Substitution Theory (had you continued a bit further than what was quoted).

We can't say, for example, that Irenaeus affirmed Penal Substitution Theory when his conclusions (what he does with the passages and ideas common to the Theory) stand in opposition to the conclusions of Penal Substitution Theory. It just isn't historically accurate. And I do not know why you or anyone else would want to do it anyway. For one, it would be dishonest. But secondly, I don't think that either of us share Irenaeus' belief concerning the Atonement.

We have to look at history as history and not try to bend it, or alter other people's views to suit our theories. When we treat history subjectively then history itself has not only lost all value but it becomes dangerous.

Each of these theories (to include Christus Victor and Penal Substitution Theory) stand on their own. They represent a specific way of looking at the Atonement. They all contain elements of truth, they all are based on Scripture, and they share many ideas. But they also all stand as a whole (we can't take Irenaeus, Martyr, and Eusebius and claim they held to Penal Substitution Theory without becoming intellectually dishonest with the materials we are referencing).

Just like Scripture, we have to take theories like Christus Victor, Recipitulation, Penal Substitution Theory, Ontological Substitution Theory, etc., within the context each provides. Anything else is prejudiced, subjective, and wrong (morally and intellectually dishonest).

When we choose to reference or make claims concerning what other people believe we must do so responsibly. This is even more an issue here because these people cannot speak for themselves except for what has already been recorded. Fortunately we have, in their writings, their own explanations and conclusions. Unfortunately this is far too often ignored.

 

Sure, brother.

What portions of Irenaeus' words do I object to? I don’t object to Irenaeus’ words. I simply think that he drew wrong conclusions. Irenaeus’ theory (I refer to it as “Recapitulation” while you prefer “Penal Substitution”) taught that what Christ did was to recapitulate (or reverse) the evil brought about by Adam’s sin.

“Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Hiimself that law which he had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it to which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through the means of Himself – all, I say, who through Him are born again to God – infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age…(Against Heresies)”

“That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,-- was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary…(Against Heresies)”


Couched right between these two explanations we have the quote that you offered “proving” Irenaeus held Penal Substitution Theory. It is also “Against Heresies” that the book references as evidence Irenaeus provided the “framework” for Penal Substitution Theory.


1. Does Penal Substitution teach that the cross as a recapitulation of capital crime, that justification is based in Christ recapitulating (through experience) every age of human existence, that the revelation to Mary is the recapitulation of the deception of Eve?

2. Or does Penal Substitution Theory teach that Christ is our substitute who bore the wrath of God against our sins God Himself laid upon Christ in order to satisfy the demands of justice by paying our “sin debt”?


You tell me. If you choose #1 then I am wrong. If you choose #2 then you are wrong. It is really that simple.

I'll decline your second request. I don't mind touching on other theories, and Recapitulation is related to Christus Victor, but I am not changing the topic to discuss a book I believe poorly researched (at best).

 

First, none of the passages you provide state that Jesus' soul had died prior to His physical death.

Second (and more importantly) that has nothing to do with Christus Victor (Irenaesus' related view) because neither affirms Christ's experienced a "soul death" prior to a physical death. This is, in fact, contrary to what is taught through those theories.

 

In most of these theories God's wrath is propitiated by what Christ has done and is based on Christ Himself.

It is different from the theory to which you are accustomed in that wrath itself is propitiated rather than diverted.

 

Did Paul not base our redemption in the Resurrection? (1 Corinthians 15, Roman's 1, Philippians 3, 1 Corinthians 15).

Did Jesus die before or after the Resurrection?

 

I realize this, and I am not sure if I can explain these other views to you in a way that it will become clear.

Think of it this way - DID Christ appease/ propitiate God's wrath under Penal Substitution Theory? The answer, of course, is no. Instead Christ suffered/ bore God's wrath on our behalf. The reason is that God must punish our sins otherwise justice is not satisfied.

There are other theories that claim God's wrath itself could actually be propitiated. Luther offered one view when he claimed God's wrath towards us was swallowed and overpowered by Christ's holiness. Aquinas looked to Christ's merit as satisfying any charge against men. Irenaeus believed Christ reversed our condition through His obedience.

All of these view God's wrath itself as being propitiated. Penal Substitution Theory views God's wrath as beyond propitiation as divine wrath against sin MUST be exercised to satisfy divine justice.

I hope this helps you see the difference.