Featured Christ's victory over Satan

I like the "Christus Victor" theme, but we have to remember it is a theme. It was the way the Church up to the Eleventh Century viewed Christ's work and included the Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Medical (Ontological) Substitution, Recapitulation, the Government Theory and combinations of these ideas.

The opposing theories (the Theories that stand in opposition to those under the "Christus Victor" theme) are the Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory.

Some mistakes are made when those who view these theories by supplying their own context

Some do not recognize that the theories under Christus Victor address divine judgment, wrath, and justice.

Some do not recognize that Substitution Theory makes a distinction between substitution and penal substitution (denying the latter) and between simple punishment and satisfactory punishment (denying the former).

Some do not recognize that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is in no way "cosmic child abuse" as it views the overall atonement as God taking upon Himself the punishment due us.

Lastly, some seek a compromise where none can legitimately exist. The theories under the Christus Victor theme can coexist. But Satisfaction Theory, Substitution Theory, and Penal Substitution Theory cannot. Each are standalone theories that deny fundamental aspects of every other understanding.

 

There is a condition worse than blindness, and that is, seeing something that isn't there. Thomas Hardy

 

I agree.

It appears that some do not understand that Christianity for fifteen hundred years before the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement believed that the chastisement for our well being fell upon Christ.

Instead they believe that Penal Substitution Theory has discovered Christ being punished, Christ dying for our sins, Christ as our substitute, Christ as our Propitiation, as our escape from the coming wrath.

Their philosophy has made them fools.

They see Penal Substitution Theory in every statement made by Christians concerning punishment and substitution, unable to come close to grasping the truth.

This is why God warned us about being carried away by vain philosophy.

Many will say "Lord, Lord, didn't I . . ." only to hear the words "I never knew you".

That is the danger when men trust in their theories. It is why I argue so strongly on this topic. Not that all who believe these theories are lost (I was saved believing Penal Substitution Theory), but that the possibility of being carried away by these vain philosophies is greater when they are so prominent.

But yes, Scripture teaches us that God has saved us by being punished, not by punishing. God has saved us by humbling Himself to becoming one of us so that He will be another Adam, a different and better representative of a different and better mankind.


We need to be more blind to philosophes and theories, to "theologies", and more open to God's Word.

Few barriers have been constructed, few millstones to hang around the necks of men, more damming than the "theologies" of men.

 

There is always a reason for discussion. As Christians that is what we do. We discuss our beliefs with the desire to constantly reevaluate our own beliefs against the Word of God. It isn't a "I found some theology to follow so I'll stick with it" religion. That is why we had a Reformation. ALWAYS and CONSTANTLY reconsider your understanding.

But yes, I was saved believing in the Penal Substitution Theory and free-will. Most Baptists were. But we should grow from our original views through studying God's Word.

Faith is not a stagnant thing. We see dimly as through a glass in this life, but this does not mean that we do not grow.

 

Christ died satisfy divine justice on our behalf. All Christians believe this, even those who reject the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

You have a bad habit of posting as if Penal Substitution theorists are the only Christians who believe that it is in Christ we escape the coming wrath, that Christ satisfied divine justice on our behalf, that the chastisement for our well being fell upon Him, that He died for our sins.

Instead you avoid like the plague what makes Penal Substitution Theory stand apart from traditional Christian belief.

What is the difference between Gregory of Nazianzus' Ontological (Medical) substitution and Penal Substitution?

Until you are able to identify that you will remain ignorant of the issues at hand.

 

You do not understand.

What you hold is the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (you hold it as doctrine just as others hold Ransom Theory as doctrine).

"Doctrine" is a set of beliefs. That does not mean a set of beliefs is not theory.

Since it is clear you are unfamiliar with Christian Theology I will help you out here as you are way over your head not knowing these things.

There are several theories of Atonement. These include (not limited to):

1. Ransom Theory
2. Moral Influence Theory
3. Recapitulation
4. Government Theory
5. Medical/ Ontological Substitution
6. Satisfaction Theory
7. Substitution Theory
8. Penal Substitution Theory

1 through 5 are often held in common (with an emphasis on one or another).

6 through 7 are independent of any other theory (they contradict and are contradicted by other views.

What you believe is called the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. The reason it is a theory is it chooses one element of Atonement as it's focus (as does the rest) and it also rests on philosophical ideas of justice (humanistic law philosophy).

 

Sorry, I didn't answer your question (I was interrupted....running errands)

The reason I will not hit the "agree button" for your comment that Christ died to satisfy divine justice on your behalf is that it is not biblical.

Christ died for us, on our behalf. He bore our sins bodily. God was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief. He who knew no sin was made sin for us. He became a curse for us. He shared our infirmary. The chastening for our well being fell upon Him. By His stripes we are healed and in Him we escape the wrath to come.

BUT you cannot accept God's Word without adding to it "Christ died to satisfy devine justice instead of us". You care more about your philosophy than you do God's Word.

And you are being dishonest. I already explained the Ontological Substitution of Gregory of Nazianzus and the Ransom Theory of Gregory of Nyssa. Yes, I forgot for a moment about which Gregory we were speaking, but I recognized that mistake and corrected it.

You never realized that none of the Cappadocian Fathers believed Penal Substitution and you compound your lack of integrity by admitting you are not interested in learning about their views (you only want to misquote them for your advantage).

If you are not interested in learning what the Early Church believed that is fine. Just stop extracting words to give a new context as that is not honest. When we deal with another person's belief we are obligated to first learn their belief. You state here you are not. So don't deal with their beliefs.

 

I have told you not only my belief (Classic View) but also how it differs from Penal Substitution.

I will once again tell you (in summary form).

I believe the Early Church was correct in their overall view of Christ's work. This means I believe Ontological (Medical) Substitution as the way that men are saved and justified. His flesh for our flesh. It is unity and solidarity (reconciliation).

I believe all of the theories under the Classic View have something legitimate to offer (primarily the Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, and Recapitulation). They focus on different aspects of the Atonement, and I am not convinced that we should prioritize these aspects.

So I believe that:

1. Christ ransomed us from the bondage of sin and death
2. We are purchased with His blood
3. We are saved for the purpose of good works preordained for us
4. Christ bore our sins bodily
5. Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world
6. God gave His Son as a sacrifice
7. Christ gave Himself in obedience as a guilt offering
8. Christ died for our sins
9. God lain upon Him our iniquity
10. God was pleased to crush Him, to put Him to grief
11. Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us
12. The chastening for our well being fell upon Him
13. He took the stroke due us
14. By His stripes we are healed
15. Christ became a curse for us
16. In Christ we escape the wrath to come
17. Christ rose from the grave in the third day
18. Christ defeated the powers of darkness
19. Christ removed the sting from death
20. Christ is a Life Giving Spirit
21. The New Covenant is God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law
22. Christ died for us

What I do not believe:

1. God punished Christ instead of punishing us
2. Redemption centers on satisfying the demands of the Law
3. Sins were transferred from man to God
4. God separated from Jesus on the cross
6. Christ died instead of us
7. Divine justice is 16th century retributive justice in form


How hard is that to grasp?? How much clearer can I be?

 

I am aware that we see the first instance of praying to Mary in Gregory of Nazianzus, if that is what you mean (I realize you hold reformed Roman Catholic theology)

But as most who have actually studied theological and the writings of earlier Christians know, Gregory of Nazianzus held Medical Substitution (Ontological Substitution) rather than Penal Substitution.

Like you said, you are not even interested in learning what Gregory of Nazianzus held (or Justin Martyr who articulated the idea even further....or Irenaeus who formed Recapitulation from Medical Substitution).

You prefer to remain willfully ignorant so you can feel better about misquoting those people by pretending Penal Substitution is the same as Medical Substitution because the same passages are used.

You miss out on so much by insisting on reading Scripture through your theory. There is a reason your tradition is relatively new to the Christian faith, and your self-indoctrination into philosophy (even if it is "Christian" philosophy) is preventing you from even understanding traditional Christianity.

Your theory, being relatively new, doesn't mean it is wrong. But until you can grasp traditional Christianity you have no basis of comparison.