The Classic View (just a summary)

[JonC]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. You are speaking of Christus Victor.

peace to you

Yes, as an overarching theme. I prefer Tertillian's Medical Substitution...but that's probably more obscure a lable. And to be fair, it is just one aspect.

When the Latin View was developed (Substitution Theory) the Moral Influence Theory (later Moral Exemplar) was articulated as a better theory (I don't think it was any better than Ransom Theory).

Many who hold the Classic View (what you refer to as Christus Victor) hold a combination of Ransom Theory and Moral Exemplar.

The problem with comparing Christus Victor with Atonement theories is that Christus Victor is not a specific theory of Atonement.

 

[JonC]

If it helps, Christus Victor is a theme - Christ suffered and died under the power of Satan, sin and death, but in the Resurrection He had won victory and freed us from its bonds.

That is simply a theme (it does not go into the how).

Just like the Latin View (that Christ died instead of us to restore some injury to God....His honor, His holiness, or His justice) is a theme.

The Classic View is a bit more. It is a common faith, perhaps more detailed.

Is that exactly "Christus Victor"?

I'm not sure. Now it would probably be. But when the title was coined, I'm not sure it was.


Anyway..., @canadyjd , what faults do you find in the view (the first three posts)? I know of a few, but I'll let you decide how to argue against it.

 

[Arthur King]

The Apostle Paul clearly taught PSA. Therefore, PSA is the very definition of traditional Christianity.

That others came along and taught strange doctrine, contrary to the truth of PSA, was also predicted by Paul so no one should be surprised these other, contrary doctrines appear in Church history.

Thank our Lord Jesus Christ and God Holy Spirit in leading us back to the truth of traditional, PSA, Christianity.

peace to you

See attached chart. The Bible does not teach substitution.

 

[taisto]

See attached chart. The Bible does not teach substitution.

Except for all the scripture where the Bible does teach substitution.
Substitutionary Atonement - The Gospel Coalition

 

[Arthur King]

Except for all the scripture where the Bible does teach substitution.
Substitutionary Atonement - The Gospel Coalition

I have responded to all his points in various posts:

5 Biblical Corrections to Penal Substitution

 

[taisto]

I have responded to all his points in various posts:

5 Biblical Corrections to Penal Substitution

Except for all the scripture that teaches substitution.

You and Jon can hold whatever theory you wish (It's not Traditional and it's not Classic), but the scriptures bleeds substituionary atonement from Genesis 3 to Revelation. The attempts to talk around scripture and explain it away are, in my perspective, silly attempts at being contentious for no reason.

 

[Arthur King]

Except for all the scripture that teaches substitution.

You and Jon can hold whatever theory you wish (It's not Traditional and it's not Classic), but the scriptures bleeds substituionary atonement from Genesis 3 to Revelation. The attempts to talk around scripture and explain it away are, in my perspective, silly attempts at being contentious for no reason.

A substitute does not say "take up your cross and follow me."

 

[taisto]

A substitute does not say "take up your cross and follow me."

The King of Kings was not talking about atonement when he said those words. Context is important.
Do you think Jesus was telling you that by carrying your own cross, you were supposed to atone for your own sins by your own merit?

 

[Arthur King]

The King of Kings was not talking about atonement when he said those words. Context is important.
Do you think Jesus was telling you that by carrying your own cross, you were supposed to atone for your own sins by your own merit?

It is true that I don't atone for my sins by my own merit. But that does not entail substitution.

I am drowning in a river (the river represents death). Jesus jumps in the river, grabs me, and pulls me out. Jesus is 100% the agent of my salvation. Jesus was not my "substitute" in this scenario. Jesus does not go into the river in my place.

 

[JD731]

It is true that I don't atone for my sins by my own merit. But that does not entail substitution.

I am drowning in a river (the river represents death). Jesus jumps in the river, grabs me, and pulls me out. Jesus is 100% the agent of my salvation. Jesus was not my "substitute" in this scenario. Jesus does not go into the river in my place.

Our Lord Jesus did not jump in with you, he jumped in for you. The penalty of sin is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire called the second death where soul and body is cast at the great white throne judgement. God says the life of the flesh is in the blood, and the embalmer got that, and the life of God is the Spirit of Christ and of God.
Here is what God says about the man who does not have his Spirit indwelling their bodies, provided through the crucified Christ who was resurrected from the dead. Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

But if the Spirit of him (God the Father - see Ga 1:1) that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he (God the Father) that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his (Christ's) Spirit that dwelleth in you.(Rom 8:11)

Jesus described the eternal abode of the damned who are paying the penalty of their own sin in the lake of fire by being bound hand and foot, having no foundation under their feet, loneliness, wandering stars, thirst, darkness, pain, hopelessness, fear, sameness, fire that symbolized the wrath of God, and forgotten of him. No one is in that place yet but this is the sentence of sinners and that is exactly what our wonderful savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, suffered for us on the cross as the substitute for all sinful mankind who had transgressed God's law, which he, Jesus our substitute, had not done.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

I am not sure how substitution can be missed.

 

[taisto]

It is true that I don't atone for my sins by my own merit. But that does not entail substitution.

I am drowning in a river (the river represents death). Jesus jumps in the river, grabs me, and pulls me out. Jesus is 100% the agent of my salvation. Jesus was not my "substitute" in this scenario. Jesus does not go into the river in my place.

Why does the river represent death. Why doesn't it represent Sin?
However, in your story, Jesus should die since that is what He did. What did He die for? He died for your sins. He substituted Himself in the river of your sins so that you would be saved from your sins. Jesus 100% goes into the river in your place.

I am reminded of a story a teacher told about what teachers do. She said, "We see children drowning and we jump in the river to save them. Meanwhile there are others on the riverbank who do nothing but tell us how we ought to be saving the kids."

Your theory sounds like the person's on the bank who are making up all types of theories about how to save people while Jesus is jumping in the river and saving people by taking their sins upon himself.

 

[Arthur King]

Our Lord Jesus did not jump in with you, he jumped in for you. The penalty of sin is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire called the second death where soul and body is cast at the great white throne judgement. God says the life of the flesh is in the blood, and the embalmer got that, and the life of God is the Spirit of Christ and of God.
Here is what God says about the man who does not have his Spirit indwelling their bodies, provided through the crucified Christ who was resurrected from the dead. Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

But if the Spirit of him (God the Father - see Ga 1:1) that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he (God the Father) that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his (Christ's) Spirit that dwelleth in you.(Rom 8:11)

Jesus described the eternal abode of the damned who are paying the penalty of their own sin in the lake of fire by being bound hand and foot, having no foundation under their feet, loneliness, wandering stars, thirst, darkness, pain, hopelessness, fear, sameness, fire that symbolized the wrath of God, and forgotten of him. No one is in that place yet but this is the sentence of sinners and that is exactly what our wonderful savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, suffered for us on the cross as the substitute for all sinful mankind who had transgressed God's law, which he, Jesus our substitute, had not done.

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

I am not sure how substitution can be missed.

No, you are not taking sin seriously enough. We were already dead in our trespasses and sins (see Ephesians 2). Jesus cannot die in place of people who are already dead.

Furthermore, see the attached verses. Those do not at all fit with substitution.

See the logic of the penitent criminal on the cross in Luke 23:40. His logic is not “in my place condemned he stands.” His logic is “we are under the same sentence of condemnation, me justly, him unjustly.”

Jesus dies with us, only he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent party.

 

[Arthur King]

Why does the river represent death. Why doesn't it represent Sin?
However, in your story, Jesus should die since that is what He did. What did He die for? He died for your sins. He substituted Himself in the river of your sins so that you would be saved from your sins. Jesus 100% goes into the river in your place.

I am reminded of a story a teacher told about what teachers do. She said, "We see children drowning and we jump in the river to save them. Meanwhile there are others on the riverbank who do nothing but tell us how we ought to be saving the kids."

Your theory sounds like the person's on the bank who are making up all types of theories about how to save people while Jesus is jumping in the river and saving people by taking their sins upon himself.

To be in sin is to be dead in trespasses and sins. See Ephesians 2:1. See the parable of the prodigal son, in which Jesus refers to the rebellious son, while he is in sin, as "dead." In my story, Jesus jumping into the river of death represents his death.

Jesus doesn't die so we will avoid death. Jesus dies so we will be resurrected from death with him.

 

[taisto]

To be in sin is to be dead in trespasses and sins. See Ephesians 2:1. See the parable of the prodigal son, in which Jesus refers to the rebellious son, while he is in sin, as "dead." In my story, Jesus jumping into the river of death represents his death.

Jesus doesn't die so we will avoid death. Jesus dies so we will be resurrected from death with him.

Paul says that we all were dead in our trespasses and sins. "But God" made us alive with Christ." Paul also tells us that we were crucified with Christ. Our lives exchanged for Christ's. That's substitution.

As for the prodigal son. The key to understanding is that both the children are already sons of the Father. They both receive their inheritance. They aren't outside of the family. So, neither child represents the unredeemed. They represent Christians and how we relate to the Father.

So your analogy has the river (sin) as death. You would have both the sinner and Jesus die, without either of them being redeemed or saved. Both die in your scenario. Your analogy is terribly flawed and empty of any substance. I suggest you look for another analogy because yours is not in alignment with scripture.

You are free to hold whatever unconventional theory of atonement you wish to hold, but your theory is not convincing in the least.

 

[canadyjd]

See attached chart. The Bible does not teach substitution.

I do need a chart. Scripture is sufficient and scripture very clearly teaches PSA.

However, the OP is not about PSA so let’s not get off topic.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I do need a chart. Scripture is sufficient and scripture very clearly teaches PSA.

However, the OP is not about PSA so let’s not get off topic.

peace to you

His post was misworded. The attachment is a list of passages describing Classic Christianity.

It'd be cool to have a chart, but you are right that that type of chart should be on a comparison of Atonement theories. I think that thread (and chart) already exists, but am not sure.

 

[Van]

I searched through the first few posts for a definition of "the classic view" of Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA).
Here is perhaps the view:

Christ suffered under the wages of sin, which is death. These were our wages, wages He did not earn. And suffering under the bondage of sin, the power of evil, of Satan, Christ died the death that we will die. The Serpent indeed crushed Him, crushed His heel.​

So, if this is close to the view being explained, once again the "us" in "He won for us," is not defined. Did He win for humanity victory in that He provided the means of salvation from the wages of sin, or did He win for previously chosen elect individuals, victory in that He paid for their specific sins only?

 

[JonC]

I searched through the first few posts for a definition of "the classic view" of Penal Substitution Atonement (PSA).
Here is perhaps the view:

Christ suffered under the wages of sin, which is death. These were our wages, wages He did not earn. And suffering under the bondage of sin, the power of evil, of Satan, Christ died the death that we will die. The Serpent indeed crushed Him, crushed His heel.​

So, if this is close to the view being explained, once again the "us" in "He won for us," is not defined. Did He win for humanity victory in that He provided the means of salvation from the wages of sin, or did He win for previously chosen elect individuals, victory in that He paid for their specific sins only?

He won for mankind the victory (Martyr used "the human family"). But we have that victory only in Him.

To illustrate, a medicine may be the cure for everyone who has the sickness, but only those who take the medicine will be cured. The fault is not in the medicine but people who reject the medicine.

 

[Arthur King]

Paul says that we all were dead in our trespasses and sins. "But God" made us alive with Christ." Paul also tells us that we were crucified with Christ. Our lives exchanged for Christ's. That's substitution.

As for the prodigal son. The key to understanding is that both the children are already sons of the Father. They both receive their inheritance. They aren't outside of the family. So, neither child represents the unredeemed. They represent Christians and how we relate to the Father.

So your analogy has the river (sin) as death. You would have both the sinner and Jesus die, without either of them being redeemed or saved. Both die in your scenario. Your analogy is terribly flawed and empty of any substance. I suggest you look for another analogy because yours is not in alignment with scripture.

You are free to hold whatever unconventional theory of atonement you wish to hold, but your theory is not convincing in the least.

If we are crucified with Christ then that is not substitution. Substitution is Christ being crucified instead of us, in our place, so we won't be.

If I go to the grocery store WITH my wife, then I cannot go to the grocery store instead of my wife at the same time.

Your comment on the prodigal son is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that Jesus calls him "dead" while he is in his sin.

"You would have both the sinner and Jesus die, without either of them being redeemed or saved." Jesus pulls the sinner out of the river of death. That is analogous to his resurrection. We are raised with Christ.

The problem is that we are dead in sin. Jesus dies with us, so that by his resurrection, we can rise with him. That is exactly what Ephesians 2:1-10 outlines. No substitution there.

 

[DaveXR650]

Being crucified with Christ is talking about the union with Christ which we all desire. The idea that if we be dead with Christ, in other words our union with Christ is such that his death secures our deliverance from the penalty and power of sin, we believe we shall also live with him. So while it's true that this unity with Christ is the great prize for us, as symbolized when it is said at a believers baptism "buried with him in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life"; that does not say anything about how that occurs. It occurs by the transfer of our sin and guilt and punishment to Christ as he died in our stead and as other verses clearly show. To claim that being crucified with Christ disproves the concept of substitution, when so many other verses indicate otherwise is incorrect. Read some Charles Hodge on Romans 6 for further explanation.