Atonement theories?

[12strings]

Christus victor summary:

I recently read this article promoting Christus Victor, and it was helpful to understand somewhat of the argument for it: http://therebelgod.com/cross3.html

I would say in general, his description of the Christus Victor view makes some good biblical points about aspects of the cross, love, & justice that might be minimized or ignored by those who hold to a penal substitution/satisfaction model.

However, I believe he in the process makes some very unfair characterizations of those who hold to a satisfaction model, saying among other things that it is legalism, that it ignores the life of Christ and is concerned only with his death, that it is not concerned with love and grace, but only justice...very unfair to those holding any form of satisfaction model, I think.

Here are a few of his statements that may be helpful for those unfamiliar, like I was, with Christus Victor Theology (with a few of my responses inserted):

God does not need the cross to forgive us or love us. Jesus forgave and loved people before the cross. But some of us needed the cross to be able to really accept that forgiveness. God does not need the cross to love us: God has always loved us. But many of us needed the cross to really grasp that. God does not need the cross to be reconciled to us. But many of us needed the cross to be reconciled to Life, to break the cycle of rivalry and to heal our estranged authority image. The cross speaks to us at the point of our need. And while these are not God's problems, but our alienation, still for us that alienation is very real. So to the one wracked with guilt God says through the cross, "I take the blame. I pay the price." To the one who is locked in self-hate God says through the cross "I love you so much I would give my life defending you." To the one in rebellion to life God says through the cross, "See me here. I am not a threat; I am love."

-Based on the bolded statements above, it would seem this author would believe it possible for "SOME" people to not even need the cross, of only "many" of us need it to understand God's love.
-Also, he seems to be saying that "FOR US" alienation was very real...but that for God it wasn't...such that the cross is primarily about convincing us to come back...It makes me think of a man whose girlfriend just broke up with him, who stands on a bridge and says, "I'm willing to jump off this bridge for you...and if you don't take me back, I'm going to kill myself to show you how much I love you." Passionate, yes, emotionally moving, yes...but is it really necessary?
-But...I'm not saying the cross does not do this...but that it does not seem to be the only thing the cross does.

It is a window to heaven that gives us a glimpse of God's radical love sacrificing for us and conquering death. It is a vision of grace in action. If you want to know what God is like, then look at the human Jesus. Watch him as he kneels beside the empty faces and touches the broken, watch as he himself is broken. See the man dragging a half ton cross through spit and mud, and stick your fingers in the scars on his hands. That is what God is like. God was on that cross.

-I think this is right on.

While Christus Victor focuses on God in Christ come among us to save and reconcile the lost and the broken, Satisfaction Doctrine focuses on the man Jesus living a perfect life and thus bringing the perfect sacrifice to appease God's justice - a sacrifice offered from man to God and worked out in legal theory.

Probably fairly accurate final description of the satisfaction doctrine...but again, ignores the fact that those who hold to it would also affirm that "God in christ came among us to reconcile the lost and the broken."

Furthermore while Satisfaction Doctrine is very anthropological, centering around man's problem and how it can be solved, Christus Victor is much more broad sweeping, focusing on God's victory on a cosmic scale over "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible" (v16) and as a result of that complete victory we have been redeemed into God's kingdom.

Probably one of the strengths of the Christus Victor model...it is less individualistic and more cosmic...however I believe that each individual also has a sin problem that must be dealt with...God cannot redeem "his church" without redeeming individuals to make up that church.

In contrast to Satisfaction-Doctrine which focuses so much on Jesus' death that it makes his life seem almost irrelevant - as if Jesus came just to die. Christus Victor sees Christ's life and death in complete harmony with one another.

Again, I think this is a uncharacteristic of those who hold a satisfaction model. We see Christ's life as essential, He by virtue of his perfect life, possesses the righteousness that is imputed to us. (rom. 3, & 10...Phil. 3...A rightousness not my own...My hope is built on 2 things according to the old hymn (1) Jesus blood and (2) [jesus'] RIGHTEOUSNESS).

Jesus' way was the way of love, and Jesus knew full well that if he stayed on the road he was on, defending the poor and confronting spiritual corruption and evil, God did not require Jesus' death...Hate killed Jesus when he stood up for love. But God used this tragedy to bring about life. Hate killed Jesus when he stood up for love. But God used this tragedy to bring about life.

-I suppose the problem I see with this is that it assumes Jesus just lived his life in a way of pefect love, and people couldn't handle so much love, so the killed him...it seems to take away from Jesus' stating that is purpose was to lay down his life (though the author DOES say the cross was not an accident).

God raised Jesus from the dead so we could see that in the final analysis love is stronger than hate and death.

CONCLUSION: It seems from this article, that the author believes the primary purpose of the cross was for people to have something to look to that proves to them how much God loves them...and that the resurrection defeats death evil and Satan in the world.
-I think most of the things that the Christus Victor model says the cross did are actually right...and a good corrective to those who get so laser focused on the legal accomplishments of Jesus' death that they ignore important things...like the resurrection!
-But I think it seems to beg the question...did Jesus really have to die to do this?

One big question that was left unanswered in this article is "what of those who do not recognize God's gift of love on the cross?" Is there punishment for sin? And of course, a trend toward univeralism has often accompanied Christus Victor thinking...

DISCLAIMER: Being a Christus Victor novice, I have no way to know if this article is an accurate description of the view...but it seemed to be a well-written, thought-out article by someone who knew what they were talking about...not a nut-job.

 

[OldRegular]

I recently read this article promoting Christus Victor, and it was helpful to understand somewhat of the argument for it: http://therebelgod.com/cross3.html

I would say in general, his description of the Christus Victor view makes some good biblical points about aspects of the cross, love, & justice that might be minimized or ignored by those who hold to a penal substitution/satisfaction model.

God does not need the cross to forgive us or love us. Jesus forgave and loved people before the cross. But some of us needed the cross to be able to really accept that forgiveness. God does not need the cross to love us: God has always loved us. But many of us needed the cross to really grasp that. God does not need the cross to be reconciled to us. But many of us needed the cross to be reconciled to Life, to break the cycle of rivalry and to heal our estranged authority image. The cross speaks to us at the point of our need. And while these are not God's problems, but our alienation, still for us that alienation is very real. So to the one wracked with guilt God says through the cross, "I take the blame. I pay the price." To the one who is locked in self-hate God says through the cross "I love you so much I would give my life defending you." To the one in rebellion to life God says through the cross, "See me here. I am not a threat; I am love."

The above quotation is a bunch of "bull" and contrary to all of Scripture; in fact demonstrates a total and deliberate ignorance of the teaching of Scripture! Start with Genesis 1:1 and end with Revelation 22:21: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [John 8:32]

 

[Revmitchell]

The above quotation is a bunch of "bull" and contrary to all of Scripture; in fact demonstrates a total and deliberate ignorance of the teaching of Scripture! Start with Genesis 1:1 and end with Revelation 22:21: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [John 8:32]

I agree :thumbs:

 

[12strings]

The above quotation is a bunch of "bull" and contrary to all of Scripture; in fact demonstrates a total and deliberate ignorance of the teaching of Scripture! Start with Genesis 1:1 and end with Revelation 22:21: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. [John 8:32]

I agree, the complete absence and denial of the Cross making payment for sins is where Christus victor falls short...but could you please be more clear about how you REALLY feel? :tonofbricks:

 

[OldRegular]

I recently read this article promoting Christus Victor, and it was helpful to understand somewhat of the argument for it: http://therebelgod.com/cross3.html
CONCLUSION: It seems from this article, that the author believes the primary purpose of the cross was for people to have something to look to that proves to them how much God loves them...and that the resurrection defeats death evil and Satan in the world.
-I think most of the things that the Christus Victor model says the cross did are actually right...and a good corrective to those who get so laser focused on the legal accomplishments of Jesus' death that they ignore important things...like the resurrection!

You and Wrenn seem to be hung up on the idea that Christians do not understand the resurrection. I would simply remind you that a common sermon topic is the impact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the Apostles.

I would further remind you of what Paul teaches in the following:

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
12. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

-But I think it seems to beg the question...did Jesus really have to die to do this?

Do you really believe that God the Son laid aside His Glory, made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: if it were not necessary that He die. Are we to throw away Scripture because of the foolish ramblings of sinful man? The necessity of a blood sacrifice for sin was demonstrated in Genesis 3. However, Scripture tells us that the blood of animals was insufficient to take away sin.

Hebrews 9:18-26
18. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Hebrews 10:1-12
1. For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12. But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

So the above Scripture is to be tossed out because of the foolish ramblings of sinful man? There is heresy being taught on this Forum and it should not be tolerated!

DISCLAIMER: Being a Christus Victor novice, I have no way to know if this article is an accurate description of the view...but it seemed to be a well-written, thought-out article by someone who knew what they were talking about...not a nut-job.

I would disagree. Any claim that the death of jesus christ is not necessary for the forgiveness of sin is a "nut job".

 

[12strings]

You and Wrenn seem to be hung up on the idea that Christians do not understand the resurrection. I would simply remind you that a common sermon topic is the impact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the Apostles.

Do you really believe that God the Son laid aside His Glory, made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: if it were not necessary that He die. Are we to throw away Scripture because of the foolish ramblings of sinful man?

So the above Scripture is to be tossed out because of the foolish ramblings of sinful man? There is heresy being taught on this Forum and it should not be tolerated!

1. Perhaps I was not clear in my big long post with lots of quotes: I DO NOT AGREE with Christus Victor. I believe it leaves out essential parts of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. When I said, "Did Jesus really have to die to do this?" I was questioning the reasoning of the article, which makes it sound as though he didn't. I posted the quotes for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the view, and posted quotes which I believe show some of its deficiencies.

2. That said, There are aspects of Christus Victor that are helpful to be reminded of, which while not necessarily absent from a satisfaction model, are not always emphasized...because we focus so much on the legal aspect of the cross itself...I have personally seen and heard preachers who I believe tend to isolate the cross from the ressurection. I'm glad that does not occur it in the circles you are familiar with.

3. So...Is the Christus Victor model correct when it says that Jesus' life, death and resurection defeated death and evil, and displays for us the love of God in an ultimate way? YES! But that's not the whole story.

I would disagree. Any claim that the death of jesus christ is not necessary for the forgiveness of sin is a "nut job".

I simply meant that he presented his mistaken view rationally and intellegently...:thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

1. Perhaps I was not clear in my big long post with lots of quotes: I DO NOT AGREE with Christus Victor. I believe it leaves out essential parts of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. When I said, "Did Jesus really have to die to do this?" I was questioning the reasoning of the article, which makes it sound as though he didn't. I posted the quotes for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the view, and posted quotes which I believe show some of its deficiencies.

2. That said, There are aspects of Christus Victor that are helpful to be reminded of, which while not necessarily absent from a satisfaction model, are not always emphasized...because we focus so much on the legal aspect of the cross itself...I have personally seen and heard preachers who I believe tend to isolate the cross from the ressurection. I'm glad that does not occur it in the circles you are familiar with.

3. So...Is the Christus Victor model correct when it says that Jesus' life, death and resurection defeated death and evil, and displays for us the love of God in an ultimate way? YES! But that's not the whole story.



I simply meant that he presented his mistaken view rationally and intellegently...:thumbs:

Thanks much for the above. I was surprised by your remarks and likely did not read as carefully as I should have.

 

[Van]

Just a quick note on what God "had" to do! As we know God does as He pleases, rather than being restricted to some superior requirement. Thus God keeps His promises, and behaves consistent with His revealed attributes of Love, Mercy and Justice.

We know God chose the Word to be His Lamb before creation, before the Fall, and therefore was part of God's plan of redemption. To debate whether this ransom for the sin of the world was required by God's attribute of perfect justice seems akin to debating from silence.

Speculation is the mother of false doctrine. We know what God did, He sent His Son to die for the ungodly. This provided reconciliation for the world and whoever among mankind that receives the reconciliation is justified and made righteous, without blemish or flaw.

Asking questions like why without the shedding of blood is there no forgiveness of sin, simply asks us to speculate if God could have provided a different redemption plan. Lets stick with what God has revealed until we see Him face to face.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I recently read this article promoting Christus Victor, and it was helpful to understand somewhat of the argument for it: http://therebelgod.com/cross3.html

I would say in general, his description of the Christus Victor view makes some good biblical points about aspects of the cross, love, & justice that might be minimized or ignored by those who hold to a penal substitution/satisfaction model.

However, I believe he in the process makes some very unfair characterizations of those who hold to a satisfaction model, saying among other things that it is legalism, that it ignores the life of Christ and is concerned only with his death, that it is not concerned with love and grace, but only justice...very unfair to those holding any form of satisfaction model, I think.

Here are a few of his statements that may be helpful for those unfamiliar, like I was, with Christus Victor Theology (with a few of my responses inserted):



-Based on the bolded statements above, it would seem this author would believe it possible for "SOME" people to not even need the cross, of only "many" of us need it to understand God's love.
-Also, he seems to be saying that "FOR US" alienation was very real...but that for God it wasn't...such that the cross is primarily about convincing us to come back...It makes me think of a man whose girlfriend just broke up with him, who stands on a bridge and says, "I'm willing to jump off this bridge for you...and if you don't take me back, I'm going to kill myself to show you how much I love you." Passionate, yes, emotionally moving, yes...but is it really necessary?
-But...I'm not saying the cross does not do this...but that it does not seem to be the only thing the cross does.



-I think this is right on.



Probably fairly accurate final description of the satisfaction doctrine...but again, ignores the fact that those who hold to it would also affirm that "God in christ came among us to reconcile the lost and the broken."



Probably one of the strengths of the Christus Victor model...it is less individualistic and more cosmic...however I believe that each individual also has a sin problem that must be dealt with...God cannot redeem "his church" without redeeming individuals to make up that church.



Again, I think this is a uncharacteristic of those who hold a satisfaction model. We see Christ's life as essential, He by virtue of his perfect life, possesses the righteousness that is imputed to us. (rom. 3, & 10...Phil. 3...A rightousness not my own...My hope is built on 2 things according to the old hymn (1) Jesus blood and (2) [jesus'] RIGHTEOUSNESS).



-I suppose the problem I see with this is that it assumes Jesus just lived his life in a way of pefect love, and people couldn't handle so much love, so the killed him...it seems to take away from Jesus' stating that is purpose was to lay down his life (though the author DOES say the cross was not an accident).



CONCLUSION: It seems from this article, that the author believes the primary purpose of the cross was for people to have something to look to that proves to them how much God loves them...and that the resurrection defeats death evil and Satan in the world.
-I think most of the things that the Christus Victor model says the cross did are actually right...and a good corrective to those who get so laser focused on the legal accomplishments of Jesus' death that they ignore important things...like the resurrection!
-But I think it seems to beg the question...did Jesus really have to die to do this?

One big question that was left unanswered in this article is "what of those who do not recognize God's gift of love on the cross?" Is there punishment for sin? And of course, a trend toward univeralism has often accompanied Christus Victor thinking...

DISCLAIMER: Being a Christus Victor novice, I have no way to know if this article is an accurate description of the view...but it seemed to be a well-written, thought-out article by someone who knew what they were talking about...not a nut-job.

Derek Flood is one of my favorite authors. Here is his bio page from the same site: http://therebelgod.com/derek-floodBio.html

Derek says this: "I've been a longtime voice in the post-conservative evangelical movement, focusing on wrestling with questions of faith and doubt, violence in the Bible, relational theology, and understanding the cross from the perspective of grace and restorative justice. This is the focus of my book Healing the Gospel which offers a major critique of penal substitution, and the corresponding idea that the gospel is about satisfying an angry God's demand for retribution and violence, instead proposing that the gospel is actually about God's demonstration of grace and enemy love in Jesus."

I am in full accord with him here. I also am in accord with him in feeling that I don't fit with the religious right or the religious left.

In no way does Christus Victor teach that Jesus did not have to die. Jesus came here to identify with us in every way; His Incarnation was the first step on His journey to death, but also to Resurrection. When He became man, he had to die.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Despite the fundamentalist haters' injection of their venom into this thread, it has still been a good one.

And there is still some misunderstanding of Christus Victor here. Again, to quote Flood: "I've been a longtime voice in the post-conservative evangelical movement, focusing on wrestling with questions of faith and doubt, violence in the Bible, relational theology, and understanding the cross from the perspective of grace and restorative justice. This is the focus of my book Healing the Gospel which offers a major critique of penal substitution, and the corresponding idea that the gospel is about satisfying an angry God's demand for retribution and violence, instead proposing that the gospel is actually about God's demonstration of grace and enemy love in Jesus."

 

[12strings]

In no way does Christus Victor teach that Jesus did not have to die. Jesus came here to identify with us in every way; His Incarnation was the first step on His journey to death, but also to Resurrection. When He became man, he had to die.

Here's where I don't get the necessity of the cross in Christus Victor:

1. To defeat death, to triumph over satan, Jesus had to rise from the dead...and you can't rise from the dead, unless you're dead, right?
2. But when it comes to individuals...is the gist of the argument that Each of us could have, at any time, returned to God in repentance...but we would not do it until we saw God demonstrate his love with the ultimate sacrifice? That apart from the cross, I could have turned back to God, and he would accept me immediately because of his unfailing love..., but until I saw the cross, I would have no motivation for doing so? (I base these questions on the quote below)

God does not need the cross to forgive us or love us. Jesus forgave and loved people before the cross. But some of us needed the cross to be able to really accept that forgiveness. God does not need the cross to love us: God has always loved us. But many of us needed the cross to really grasp that. God does not need the cross to be reconciled to us. But many of us needed the cross to be reconciled to Life, to break the cycle of rivalry and to heal our estranged authority image. The cross speaks to us at the point of our need. And while these are not God's problems, but our alienation, still for us that alienation is very real.

 

[12strings]

Despite the fundamentalist haters' injection of their venom into this thread, it has still been a good one.

"HAS BEEN"!!!????

Are you declaring it dead?:laugh:

 

[Van]

What is the wages of sin? Death

What is spiritual death? Separation from God

What is the penalty for breaking one tiny point of the law? Same as breaking every Law on the books.

What is the penalty for sin then? Death, separation from God.

How was this problem presented in scripture. Your iniquity has caused a separation.

When the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world, what is accomplished? Did we stop sinning?

Whatever aspect of sin that causes a separation was taken away by the blood of Christ, thus in Christ we are justified and made righteous and alive, no longer separated from God.

 

[OldRegular]

Penal substitution is maybe the most common atonement theory among baptists, would you say this is correct?

I have heard a lot about Christus Victor recently, and ran across this site which lists more than 10 (I didn't know there were that many)

Which do you think fits the Biblical revelation the best?

Can it be said better than this:

1 Corinthians 15:3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1 Corinthians 5:7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Romans 3:23-26.
23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

1 John 4:10. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Romans 5:8-10
8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.[/]u
10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Look how much we lose when we attempt to reduce Scripture to a "slogan" or "sound byte".

 

[OldRegular]

Asking questions like why without the shedding of blood is there no forgiveness of sin, simply asks us to speculate if God could have provided a different redemption plan. Lets stick with what God has revealed until we see Him face to face.

:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup::thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

Despite the fundamentalist haters' injection of their venom into this thread, it has still been a good one.

Contrary to Wrenn's venpm above I want all to know that I do not, do not, hate fundamentalists!

And there is nothing good about the stuff that Wrenn spews! It simply is not consistent with Scripture,

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Contrary to Wrenn's venpm above I want all to know that I do not, do not, hate fundamentalists!

And there is nothing good about the stuff that Wrenn spews! It simply is not consistent with Scripture,

No, no, what I meant was that you are a fundamentalist who hates. Clear now?

What is not consistent with scripture is the abhorrent penal substitution theory.

Now you may continue to rip me and condemn me. Hope it makes you feel good, justified, and all-righteous.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here's where I don't get the necessity of the cross in Christus Victor:

1. To defeat death, to triumph over satan, Jesus had to rise from the dead...and you can't rise from the dead, unless you're dead, right?
2. But when it comes to individuals...is the gist of the argument that Each of us could have, at any time, returned to God in repentance...but we would not do it until we saw God demonstrate his love with the ultimate sacrifice? That apart from the cross, I could have turned back to God, and he would accept me immediately because of his unfailing love..., but until I saw the cross, I would have no motivation for doing so? (I base these questions on the quote below)

I don't know of any atonement theory or any theology which believes that the death of Jesus was not necessary. When Jesus became man, that made His death necessary, if He was to identify completely with us.

The entire life of Jesus -- His Incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection -- was the basis of our reconciliation with God. Why does it matter so much to some how He died? Is it not enough that He died and rose again? If Jesus had come here as a human being and died of old age and rose again, would the at-one-ment, the reconciliation, been any less real, effective, or provided for?

Does not the human condition provide enough sorrow, agony, suffering and finally death so that Jesus going through that, in whatever manner, was enough to provide for our salvation?

Jesus died on the cross,and His death there was one of the steps in His work that provides for our reconciliation, salvation, and resurrection. The question is, what did His death mean? I steadfastly deny that it was satisfaction, penalty, and punishment to appease an angry, legalistic, vengeful, feudal God.

 

[OldRegular]

No, no, what I meant was that you are a fundamentalist who hates. Clear now?

I am not sure the fundamentalists would claim me but I do believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. As for hating; is it permissible to hate what God hates?

Proverbs 6:16-19
16. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17. A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19. A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

What is not consistent with scripture is the abhorrent penal substitution theory.

You are entitled to your opinion MW!

I simply point you to my post above. Well it is so good I will simply post it again!

Can it be said better than this:

1 Corinthians 15:3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

1 Corinthians 5:7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Romans 3:23-26.
23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

1 John 4:10. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Romans 5:8-10
8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.[/]u
10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Look how much we lose when we attempt to reduce Scripture to a "slogan" or "sound byte".

Even such names as "Christus Victor"! I am not sure that these folks believe that Jesus Christ was the victor over anything!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I am not sure the fundamentalists would claim me but I do believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. As for hating; is it permissible to hate what God hates?

Proverbs 6:16-19
16. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17. A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19. A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.




You are entitled to your opinion MW!

I simply point you to my post above. Well it is so good I will simply post it again!



Even such names as "Christus Victor"! I am not sure that these folks believe that Jesus Christ was the victor over anything!

Thank you for posting the scripture. Now go have a look in the mirror for an example of it.

Jesus Christ was the victor over sin, suffering, death, the devil, and hell. That's what Christus Victor teaches.

The penal substitution theory sows discord among the brethren. It was a 16th century invention of Calvin which was unknown and untaught by the earliest churches and for 1500 years.

I don't care what you think of me, so continue with your thoughts, and your words, if you feel you need to.