Christus Victor

[37818]

EXACTLY!!!!! You get it (or, at least you said/ typed it). Those verses deny Penal Substitution while affirming Christus Victor (the subject of this thread).

Under Christus Victor God's wrath IS Propitiated. Not so under Penal Substitution Theory (under which God's wrath is still directed at our sin as it is poured out on Christ).

Christ has wiped out the certificate of debt with its requirements that was against us. He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

Christ had ours placed on Him in our place. Isaiah 53:6.

 

[JonC]

Christ had ours placed on Him in our place. Isaiah 53:6.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

So we are agreed, I presume, that Christ has the sins of His people laid upon Him. We agree that He bore those sins. That is substitution. Where did He bear them? Did He just carry them around for a while until He felt better? No! He bore them on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), which is a reference to the curse of God upon sinners in Galatians 3:10-14. Christ became a curse for us-- that is substitution. He, the sinless one, is punished-- that is penal-- and we the guilty become the righteousness of God-- that is substitution. Penal Substitution. What's not to like?

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.

Not at all. They are the same idea. God's wrath is exercised against against our sins laid on Christ, 'that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.' But at the ninth hour, the sun comes out again and our Lord cries, "It is finished!" God's wrath (which was never against Christ, but against sin) has been propitiated. Justice has been satisfied. there is no more for Christ to do but commend His spirit to His Father and give it up to Him (Luke 23:46; John 19:30).

Just a word on the meaning of 'propitiation.' Suppose you met a tough-looking guy carrying a bunch of flowers and a box of chocs. You might ask him where he's taking them. "Ah!" He answers, "They're a propitiation for the Missus."
Now all is clear. This man has spent all his wife's housekeeping money down at Harry's bar or on some three-legged horse at the local race-track. Now he fears his wife's righteous anger, and so he has spent what money he has left on gifts in an effort to propitiate her. So what's a propitiation? It's a sacrifice to turn away wrath.

Now of course, this man doesn't know if his gifts are going to propitiate his wife. She might throw him out of the house, saying, "Don't think you're going to get round me like that!" But we know that God is propitiated by the suffering of Christ, because 'God set Him forth as a propitiation by His blood'

Finally, 'We agree that a comprehensive doctrine of the atonement must include other themes beside penal substitution. But then again, we have never read a proponent of P.S. who claims that [it] is the only motif connected with the atonement in the Scriptures' (Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach). It's just that the other doctrines don't work without Penal Substitution.

 

[JonC]

So we are agreed, I presume,

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.

 

[utilyan]

". . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ." -- Isaiah 53:6.

Indeed he did. Which still does not equate to God pouring out his wrath on Jesus.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

Could you find me the page number for this, please? I assume you are speaking of the book by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. It's quite a large book, but according to the index of people, Irenaeus only appears twice in the notes and is not quoted at all. The quotations I have produced from Irenaeus are all from my own research.

 

[JonC]

Could you find me the page number for this, please? I assume you are speaking of the book by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach. It's quite a large book, but according to the index of people, Irenaeus only appears twice in the notes and is not quoted at all. The quotations I have produced from Irenaeus are all from my own research.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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).

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 Recapitulation and bends it for its own purposes).

I'll be grateful if you would give the 'portion of Irenaeus' words' that you are objecting to, and also give a brief summary of Jeffrey's argument on page 343 that uses Irenaeus' work and bends it to his own purposes.

 

[JonC]

I'll be grateful if you would give the 'portion of Irenaeus' words' that you are objecting to, and also give a brief summary of Jeffrey's argument on page 343 that uses Irenaeus' work and bends it to his own purposes.

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).

 

[37818]

Indeed he did. Which still does not equate to God pouring out his wrath on Jesus.

[edited] When Jesus was forsaken on the cross by God, He was bearing our sins. He in His soul had died and He completed this before He physically died. (Psalm 22:1; Isaiah 53:10; John 19:30).

 

[JonC]

[edited] When Jesus was forsaken on the cross by God, He was bearing our sins. He in His soul had died and He completed this before He physically died. (Psalm 22:1; Isaiah 53:10; John 19:30).

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

The sinner dies to sin and is made alive or "born again" in Christ.

When is the wrath of God towards them propiated though. by what basis?

 

[37818]

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

Did or did not Jesus say it was "finished" prior to His physical death? (John 19:30; John 19:28.)

 

[Yeshua1]

That does not answer Yeshua1's question. He asked how is the wrath of God towards sin and sinner [get] appeased? The sinner dying to sin and being born again is not an act of appeasement. I do not want to derail the OP too much, but appeasement is a hallmark of penal substitution. Perhaps a better word is propitiation or satisfaction. I will not advocate for penal substitution in this thread, but I do want to make the point that appeasement is not something we do. It is something Christ did.

I honestly do not see why Jesus even had to die on the Cross if not to appease/satisfy the wrath of God towards sin, for he did not have to die for his won sins?
And still how can God appease his divine wrath if not upon Jesus, would it not still be upon all of sinners?

 

[Yeshua1]

". . . And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . ." -- 1 John 2:2.
". . . Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . ." -- 1 John 5:1.

And if Jesus Himself did not bear our sin penalty and appease the very wrath of god towards us, will we not all still be under that wrath?

 

[Yeshua1]

I mentioned Zechariah 3 in post #21. Also important is Colossians 2:14-15.
'.....Having wiped out the certificate of debt [NKJV margin] with its requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us,. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.'
These verses connect Christ's triumph to the cross, and precisely to the bond of our debt, as defined by the ordinances of the law. when He was crucified. It is then and there that the principalities and powers, the chief of whom is Satan, were 'disarmed.'

This concerns judicial claims. Since God is expected to uphold the rules that He has set, we can also expect that the cancellation of the claims was obtained by the payment of the legal debt. This is confirmed by the many 'ransom' sayings that declare that the life or blood of Christ was the price paid to free human beings from bondage.

What is the image presented of a certificate of debt being nailed to the cross? It is that of a bill being nailed there, marked tetelestai-- 'paid in full.'

Revelation 12 reflects the same understanding. How have the brethren overcome the devil and hid forces? Not by superior power, but 'by the blood of the Lamb' (v.11). Satan was the accuser of the brethren (v.10), and he could prevail as long as he could point to their (the brethren's) sins. But the blood of the Lamb was the price paid for the cancellation of their debt. Christ's suffering and death wiped out the guilt of their sins forever, and the devil has been disarmed.

Similarly, Hebrews 2:14 stresses that the Lord Jesus has deprived Satan of his power through His death and we are told that 'He is the Mediator of the new covenant , by means of [His] death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first [Mosaic] covenant , that those who are called may receive the promised inheritance' (Hebrews 9:15), His blood obtaining the remission of their sins (Hebrews 9:22, 27-28).

So Christ is indeed victorious; He has disarmed Satan and his forces, but He has done so by satisfying the demands of God's justice, thereby depriving Satan of his power to accuse the brethren.

Irenaeus seems to have understood this when he wrote, 'He who was powerful Word and also truly man redeemed us by His own blood.......and gave Himself as a ransom for those who had been taken into captivity.........The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh.....' It is a pity that Irenaeus' followers of recent times, like Gustav Aulen, did not have his perception.

Pst seems to be the only Atonement theory that permits God to stay Holy and also freely justify the lost sinner...

 

[JonC]

When is the wrath of God towards them propiated though. by what basis?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

In Recapitulation the w

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.

Pst also states that atonement is based upon who Jesus is, and what he done in our behalf!

 

[JonC]

Did or did not Jesus say it was "finished" prior to His physical death? (John 19:30; John 19:28.)

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?

 

[JonC]

I honestly do not see why Jesus even had to die on the Cross if not to appease/satisfy the wrath of God towards sin, for he did not have to die for his won sins?
And still how can God appease his divine wrath if not upon Jesus, would it not still be upon all of sinners?

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.