Christus Victor

Yes, but in a different way. The significance of Christ to Penal Substitution Theory is that He lay down His life. The basis, however, is that God punishes Him. That is how we are forgiven.

Recapitulation views Christ as having a more active role in redeeming man. So does Christus Victor and Moral Influence Theory.

 

Yes. Unless it was possible that God's wrath itself be propitiated. Christus Victor (along with other theories) believe it can.

 

Yes, and what does that reference (put on your "thinking cap" brother....but don't stroke out - I'll give you the answer.

The book points to Irenaeus as providing the "theological framework for penal substitution" and references Against Heresies Book 5. This is the exact reference that you have selected (well, the middle part anyway), so I believe that you are familiar with the work. If not, then PM me and I will walk you through that chapter.

And no, I did not "get my info" from the Amazon website. Please be very careful before making false assumptions (notice - I have not accused you of lifting materials from the several websites that present, almost exactly, what you have selected). I did some post-graduate work (never got a PhD) and have the materials at my home to do my own research. This is a topic I enjoy.

And I was pointing to a book - not submitting a thesis. And I was doing so as an illustration - not to argue about the book.

I love you like a brother, but you need to stop trying to change the topic every time things are brought up that challenge something you have said.

 

Define "propitiation".

Does it mean "prevail where others have failed"? Or is it an atoning sacrifice that appeases wrath?

Words have meanings. We can't just make up what ever we want as long as they suit our theories.

If God pours out His wrath on someone then that wrath is exercised - NOT propitiated. YOUR POST just proved my point - God does not punish Christ but He punishes OUR sin in Christ. This is not propitiation.

If you don't have a dictionary, they can be had cheap online....

 

The problem, I believe, is that they (@37818 and @Martin Marprelate ) do not realize that the words they cite don't convey the meaning they ascribe. They do not get that others have interpreted the same verses without the same lens.

People who are unable to identify their own presuppositions are unable to grasp why or how other interpretations exist. When we examine other views there is a principle that it is necessary to first examine how we are different from the environment that produced the writings or ideas. Those who cannot do this have simply not learned to read.

 

Ok…..here is another illustration (to get away from the “smoke screen” of “you didn’t name all of the authors and they are not responsible for what is referenced” nonsense.

I took your comment “I have no doubt that Justin and many other ECFs would have endorsed that had it been presented to them” to mean that while you believed Justin and other ECF’s would have endorsed the Theory had it been presented to them you were aware it had not. You responded with insult after insult.

And I still read your comments that way (I’ve tried to look at it differently, but it appears to me you seemed to realize at least for a moment the difference in views). Just think how you, knowing we are both believers in Christ, responded to my mistake. You have the opportunity to speak up. The ECFs don’t except through their works. We can’t ignore their own explanations. To do so is morally wrong.

Now, if you sincerely believe that Irenaeus held to Penal Substitution Theory then please answer the questions already posed assuming that is your belief (since you said it was). How does the Theory of Penal Substitution balance the deception of Eve with the obedience of Mary? How does it recapitulate the ages?

 

No, that is not how it works, brother.

This thread is about Christus Victor (and I let it go into Recapitulation). It is looking at what THEY believed and why.

When we state a belief then it is up to US to say why it is correct. You have not been able to see how, throughout history, Christians have affirmed the same passages that you hold to be true. That is not my problem. It is yours. I say "problem" because when we cannot grasp how these other views work then we cannot rightfully defend our view against them.

I believe Recapitulation wrong. I believe it takes more into consideration than is warranted through Scripture. But I understand why Irenaeus believed it absolutely necessary that Christ die (for one, he explains this in Against Heresies book 5).

I do believe Christus Victor to be the primary way Scripture presents the work of Christ in redemption. And I understand why Christus Victor also holds the Cross as a necessity. I understand how this position holds God as putting forth Christ as a propitiation. I understand the necessity of the blood.

I also understand why the Theory of Penal Substitution holds the Cross as necessary (I held and taught this position for years).

What you are telling me, over and over again, is that you do not understand how any other theory also holds as true those passages you provide. You are essentially saying " if they believed those verses then they would hold to Penal Substitution Theory."

That is a problem, but it is not my problem to correct. It is yours. Until you can understand and articulate how a theory interprets Scripture, and here how these theories affirm by a different interpretation the same passages you believe, you are not qualified to an opinion except that you like your theory.

I can say that I love my Ford truck, but I can't say it is better than a Dodge unless I am also familiar with Dodge trucks. Perhaps ignorance is, as some suggest, bliss. But the blissfully ignorant cannot argue against the thing of which they are unfamiliar.

 

When I was in seminary we had an interesting exercise (one that I use even now). To argue against a position you first had to argue for it.

In other words, you had to do your homework. You had to learn what that view believed and why they held their views. This eliminated many of the "straw-man" arguments. It is how I came to hold the doctrine of "particular redemption".

If you cannot grasp how Christus Victor necessitates the Cross and presents Christ as the Propitiation for our sins then you cannot argue against Christus Victor.

 

How is God's actual wrath propitiated rather than poured out on Christ against our sins?

Those are, after all, very different things.

 

So wrath is not actually propitiated.

 

Fact remains, however, that this does not meet the definition of propitiating God's actual wrath. God's wrath against our sins is not appeased, but instead is exercised (just as it will be exercised against the lost at judgment). Words have meaning, brother.

The OT sacrifice does because God's wrath isn't expressed on the offering.

What you are calling wrath propitiated is in fact wrath hitting its target (the wrath is still expressed on the sin).