Christus Victor

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

The definition that I have used throughout our discussions and quoted any number of times is this: 'The doctrine of Penal Substitution states that God gave Himself in the person of His Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.' I have no doubt that Justin and many other ECFs would have endorsed that had it been presented to them.

@Martin Marprelate , who is no biblical slouch, also affirmed that the Early Church was not privy to the Theory (although he has no doubt that many "would have endorsed that had it been presented to them").

I made no such comment. Please read my posts #45 and #59. If your comprehension skills are so bad that you cannot reconcile them, all you have to do is ask and I will explain.

BUT DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT I DID NOT SAY.

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.

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..

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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..

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Fact remains, however, that this does not meet the definition of propitiating God's actual wrath.

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.

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

That is because it is a type.

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

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..

 

[JonC]

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..

The simple point is that Irenaeus used the words you quote to demonstrate Recipitulation. You took the quote severely out of context (if you quoted a couple of paragraphs before or after the text you chose to lift from the book you would have invalidated your own point - which is why I suspect you stopped when you did.

Did you ever figure out how Irenaeus' Penal Substitution Theory balanced the deception of Eve with the revelation of Mary, how the Cross was but one stage of Christ's redemptive recipitulation of all ages?

Or did you forget the claim (the "lifted" quote from Irenaeus that "proved" he held to Penal Substitution Theory)? Have you even read the entire chapter from which you quoted (not even asking about the book....just the chapter that you selected from which to extract a few sentences)?

My point is that Christus Victor and Recipitulation (and Penal Substitution Theory) stand on their own. And each interprets Scripture differently.

 

[JonC]

Getting back to the topic of this thread (there is another active thread discussing Penal Substitution Theory and the ECF's) :

How does Christus Victor view God's wrath ad being propitiated?

God's wrath itself is appeased (or propitiated) by Christ becoming the "second Adam" (our representative, taking on our nature, coming 8n the likeness of "sinful flesh") and His obedience even to death on the Cross. God laid our iniquities on Him, He bears our sins in His flesh, He suffers not only the cross but also our "infirmities" (He truly becomes man) , and by the will of the Father lays down His life as a guilt offering for (to use Martyr) the "human family", thereby propitiating God's wrath itself and freeing men from the bondage of sin and death.

It is for this reason, this victory over sin and death under which we were in bondage, that (under this theory) Christ had to become flesh (the Incarnation), live for the Father's will (His ministry), suffer the Cross (become a curse for us) and be raised on the third day (vindication of the Father).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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

The simple point is that Irenaeus used the words you quote to demonstrate Recipitulation. You took the quote severely out of context (if you quoted a couple of paragraphs before or after the text you chose to lift from the book you would have invalidated your own point - which is why I suspect you stopped when you did.

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.

Did you ever figure out how Irenaeus' Penal Substitution Theory balanced the deception of Eve with the revelation of Mary, how the Cross was but one stage of Christ's redemptive recapitulation of all ages?

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.

My point is that Christus Victor and Recapitulation (and Penal Substitution Theory) stand on their own. And each interprets Scripture differently.

And that is one of the sources of your error.

 

[JonC]

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.

Your error is that you take these theories apart, remove them from the author's context, conclusions, and interpretations, to find agreement with the elements (while disagreeing with the interpretations and conclusions).

Neither of us hold Irenaeus' theory. And yes, it did stand on its own. Neither of us hold Origen's theory (the Ransom Theory). And yes, it did stand on its own. But both of us hold elements of those theories (those points we see as affirmed in Scripture).

The Roman Catholic Church holds many aspects of Penal Substitution Theory to be true. But they do not hold Penal Substitution Theory to be true. Anabaptist theology holds many aspects of Penal Substitution Theory to be true, but the Anabaptists have traditionally been one of the Theories strongest opponents.

Every theory has points of truth because they are based on the same Scripture. But each is a theory because of what it does with the "hard data".

You are assuming a very dangerous stance, in terms of doctrine, by trying to incorporate such competing ideas into your contemporary view. This is what is wrong with the Church today - to you doctrine (what each theory taught)- doesn't matter as long biblical elements were there.

This is how we get Baptists in Texas (I think it was Texas) baptizing infants. This is how Baptists blend with Pentecostals. This is how churches die - toss out doctrine and unite under elements of truth. It creates a very weak theology, and ultimately a very week faith that can incorporate Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Baptists, Catholic, and recently Muslims under the same "Christian" doctrines.

It is liberal Christianity, and it is a dangerous way of thinking.

 

[JonC]

This thread has gone off topic (go figure). IMHO it is beyond repair. So, I'm closing this one, Folks are free to pick up from where this thread leaves off.

Here is the existing thread which deals with penal Substitution Theory and the ECF's :

Penal Substitution & the ECFs