Christus Victor

Well, first of all, if you think those were insults, you should get about more. But time after time you ascribe views to me that not only do I not believe, but which I actively oppose. You then apologize, but do the very same thing again almost immediately.
As I pointed out earlier, the word 'Trinity' was coined by Tertullian around 200AD. Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus and others had never heard of 'The Doctrine of the Trinity.' But that doesn't mean that they were all Unitarians! Had the doctrine as it was agreed at the various church councils been presented to them, then no doubt they would have endorsed it. The definition of Penal Substitution which I have used comes from the Pierced for our Transgressions book, and the very term 'Penal Substitution is of no great vintage. But that doesn't mean that the ECFs didn't believe that Christ suffered instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. Indeed, they did because they wrote in similar terms. Irenaeus is very brief, but he writes of 'The Lord redeem[ing] us by His blood and [giving] His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh.' That is the very essence of penal substitution. I know he wrote some other stuff that I disagree with, but he also wrote this, and he wrote it because he knew that penal substitution-- even if he didn't know the term-- was absolutely vital for our salvation. So did Justin Martyr and several other ECFs..

How you can think that I can't imagine. But again, if you want me to clarify something, all you have to do is ask. But to misrepresent me over and over and over again on a public forum despite being asked to stop over and over again is not acceptable and you need to stop.

It is indeed, and you should stop doing it. whatever Irenaeus wrote elsewhere, he wrote what I have quoted above. You can't ignore it because he wrote something else as well.

The simple answer to your question is that I am not required to agree with everything that Irenaeus wrote, nor to reject everything. There is some merit in Irenaeus' idea of recapitulation --Christ is indeed the last Adam-- but not in the way he expresses it and he carries it much too far. But Recapitulation and Christus Victor both have their merits. Part of your error is supposing that these teachings are mutually exclusive. They're not..

 

I think you'll find it does. God's actual wrath is propitiated by the sacrifice of Christ in respect of those for whom He died.

That is because it is a type.

Yes! God's hatred of sin is clearly expressed in Christ's suffering as the sin-bearer. God has not suddenly become soft on sin! He hates it to this very day, and will hate it and punish it on the Last day in those who have no covering for their sin. But Christ's sacrifice has propitiated Him towards those for whom Christ died..

 

Thank you for re-opening the thread so that I may answer your questions.

When we began these discussions about two years ago, I made it clear that I was no expert on the Church Fathers. I had done some study on them but found them to be a mess of contradictions. As you now know I researched the quotation from Irenaeus and to find it I had to read a fair bit of the surrounding detail.

I can accept certain parts of the Recapitulation theory, namely, Christ as the last Adam, but Irenaeus carries his theory miles too far. As I remarked before, not only does he try to balance Eve and Mary, but he also claims that Christ had to be more than 50 years old in order to redeem old men. That is loony. But I have no qualms at all about dining a la carte from Irenaeus or any other Church Father. It isn't an either/or situation. I agree with Irenaeus that Christ 'redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh' while disagreeing with the various other bits. I'm sure that if you and I tried hard enough we could find something that we agree about, but that would not mean that we were being inconsistent concerning the other bits.

And that is one of the sources of your error.