Atonement

[Michael Wrenn]

Here are two articles on the atonement. I totally reject all Western theories; my views are those of the Eastern church, and many Anabaptists -- the oldest views of the atonement. I'm not posting this to start a mudslinging contest but just to show where I stand and why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement

 

[The Biblicist]

Here are two articles on the atonement. I totally reject all Western theories; my views are those of the Eastern church, and many Anabaptists -- the oldest views of the atonement. I'm not posting this to start a mudslinging contest but just to show where I stand and why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransom_theory_of_atonement

Satan has no LEGAL claim on this world or on humanity. He is a usurper. His rights did not come from God but from Adam's disobedience to God and willful submission to Satan. Hence, what man willfully forfeited by disobedience man willfully reclaimed by obedience and satisfaction of the divine law.

Isaiah 53 repudiates your whole theory.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Satan has no LEGAL claim on this world or on humanity. He is a usurper. His rights did not come from God but from Adam's disobedience to God and willful submission to Satan. Hence, what man willfully forfeited by disobedience man willfully reclaimed by obedience and satisfaction of the divine law.

Isaiah 53 repudiates your whole theory.

"My" theory? The earliest churches which could read Isaiah 53 and all other relevant scripture didn't see it the way you do, and neither did the church for the first millenium.

Your theory is the johnny-come-lately one. Church history bears that out.

 

[DHK]

"My" theory? The earliest churches which could read Isaiah 53 and all other relevant scripture didn't see it the way you do, and neither did the church for the first millenium.

Your theory is the johnny-come-lately one. Church history bears that out.

"Theories" can from anywhere: early churches, tradition, paganism, etc. You name it, a theory can come from anywhere.
Sound doctrine comes from the Word of God no matter who says what.
Is the doctrine based on "theories" of men, or the doctrine of God? That is the real question.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Your contending that God hands humans over to the devil & that he takes over ownership? HUH???

Hard for me to believe Michael that the Devil has control of anything but deception.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Your contending that God hands humans over to the devil & that he takes over ownership? HUH???

Hard for me to believe Michael that the Devil has control of anything but deception.

I believe in the Christus Victor view, as I have stated here many times.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

"Theories" can from anywhere: early churches, tradition, paganism, etc. You name it, a theory can come from anywhere.
Sound doctrine comes from the Word of God no matter who says what.
Is the doctrine based on "theories" of men, or the doctrine of God? That is the real question.

Yes, and all the theories that came after the first millenium, including penal substitution, were theories of men, unknown in the early churches and for the first thousand years after Jesus.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes, and all the theories that came after the first millenium, including penal substitution, were theories of men, unknown in the early churches and for the first thousand years after Jesus.

OK I have no wish to insult your beliefs however you do see how this prospective implies that God shares His authority with the devil....surely you must see this.

My own theology stresses the Sovereignty of God. So I would be hard pressed to accept this particular doctrine.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

OK I have no wish to insult your beliefs however you do see how this prospective implies that God shares His authority with the devil....surely you must see this.

My own theology stresses the Sovereignty of God. So I would be hard pressed to accept this particular doctrine.

That's why I do not hold to the Ransom view as the ransom being paid to the devil. I hold to Christus Victor.

I don't want to insult anyone's beliefs, either; that's why I said I didn't want this to degenerate into a mudslinging match. I think it's possible to state why you don't believe something without making it a personal attack.

 

[DHK]

Yes, and all the theories that came after the first millenium, including penal substitution, were theories of men, unknown in the early churches and for the first thousand years after Jesus.

Don't you just hate those "universal absolutes" which are impossible to prove. You would be wiser to say "All the theories that I am acquainted with," which might only be two or three for all I am concerned. To say all theories before the first millennium did not teach such doctrine as penal substitution simply means you have not done your homework and cannot possible prove it. How are you going to go back into that one thousand time period and interview every Christian that ever lived as to what theory of the atonement they believed. Most never wrote it down. Your position is impossible and ludicrous.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Yes but this is just to show you alternative belief systems. Michael, do Mennonites subscribe to this particular viewpoint?

 

[billwald]

Christus Victor theory makes the best sense.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Don't you just hate those "universal absolutes" which are impossible to prove. You would be wiser to say "All the theories that I am acquainted with," which might only be two or three for all I am concerned. To say all theories before the first millennium did not teach such doctrine as penal substitution simply means you have not done your homework and cannot possible prove it. How are you going to go back into that one thousand time period and interview every Christian that ever lived as to what theory of the atonement they believed. Most never wrote it down. Your position is impossible and ludicrous.

It is quite possible that a hermit living in a cave somewhere had a different belief. But scholarship and church history proves that Ransom/Christus Victor is the oldest view of the atonement and was held for the first millenium. Anselm formulated the Satisfaction view afterward, and then penal substitution came much later, along with other views such as the Governmental view.

Those are the facts. You can argue with church history and scholarship, but to no avail; you can't change facts.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Yes but this is just to show you alternative belief systems. Michael, do Mennonites subscribe to this particular viewpoint?

Many do. Also, many in the other historic "peace" churches do.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Christus Victor theory makes the best sense.

I think so, too, and it is a wholistic view, whereas many of the others are not.

Since the earliest churches held it and it continued to be held for a millenium, I am confident that it is the true view. The earliest churches had the same scriptures that we have today, and this view is their interpretation of Jesus's birth, life, death, and resurrection. The other views see God mainly as a Governor, or a Judge, or some other legalistic variant.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think so, too, and it is a wholistic view, whereas many of the others are not.

Since the earliest churches held it and it continued to be held for a millenium, I am confident that it is the true view. The earliest churches had the same scriptures that we have today, and this view is their interpretation of Jesus's birth, life, death, and resurrection. The other views see God mainly as a Governor, or a Judge, or some other legalistic variant.

You are making yourself both judge and jury. You have arbritrarily decided that the penal substutitionary atonement position is not biblical but you cannot prove that, so you just assert it. You cannot prove the "earliest churches" which are the churches in the New Testament believed what you believe so you just assert it. You cannot prove penal substitutionary atonement is not found in the selective history preserved by Roman Catholics so you just assert it.

You have arbritrarily decided that the Christus Victor theory is the earliest theory but can you even find the words "Christus Victor" even used by anyone in the first 1000 years of recorded Roman Catholic history????

Isaiah 53 and the whole book of Leviticus destroy your theory from the Old Testament perspective. The New Testament equally destroys it as the New Testament places the emphasis upon Christ's death for our sins while your theory really regards the death of Christ as non-essential for the salvation of the elect, which sufficiently proves where that theory really originates (1 Tim. 4:1).

Finally, your whole line of argument is a HISTORICAL and PHILOSOPHICAL instead of a Biblical based line of argument. This is true with much of what you believe. You choose to argue from an UNINSPIRED basis than from an INSPIRED basis. That is the earmark of most heresies simply because they cannot be supported Biblically.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You are making yourself both judge and jury. You have arbritrarily decided that the penal substutitionary atonement position is not biblical but you cannot prove that, so you just assert it. You cannot prove the "earliest churches" which are the churches in the New Testament believed what you believe so you just assert it. You cannot prove penal substitutionary atonement is not found in the selective history preserved by Roman Catholics so you just assert it.

You have arbritrarily decided that the Christus Victor theory is the earliest theory but can you even find the words "Christus Victor" even used by anyone in the first 1000 years of recorded Roman Catholic history????

Isaiah 53 and the whole book of Leviticus destroy your theory from the Old Testament perspective. The New Testament equally destroys it as the New Testament places the emphasis upon Christ's death for our sins while your theory really regards the death of Christ as non-essential for the salvation of the elect, which sufficiently proves where that theory really originates (1 Tim. 4:1).

Finally, your whole line of argument is a HISTORICAL and PHILOSOPHICAL instead of a Biblical based line of argument. This is true with much of what you believe. You choose to argue from an UNINSPIRED basis than from an INSPIRED basis. That is the earmark of most heresies simply because they cannot be supported Biblically.

It has been proved by scholarship and church history that the earliest churches which had the same scriptures we have did not believe penal substitution nor any of the other legalist theories. The Ransom/Christus Victor view is the oldest view and was taught for the first millenium - that's a fact. Neither the terms "Christus Victor" nor "penal substitution" were used, but the concept of Christus Victor was believed and taught from the beginning. It and such beliefs/terms as "recapitulation" were variants of the Ransom view. Anselm's Satisfaction theory came after the first millenium, and penal substitution was invented by Calvin. All of these later theories were based on a legalistic and mechanical view of God as feudal lord, governor, or judge.

All of these later theories were absent from the beliefs and teaching of the earliest churches who had the same scriptures that we have.

One more thing: You clearly misrepresent what Christus Victor teaches when you state that it "regards the death of Christ as non-essential". This view regards the entirety of Jesus's life and work as essential, from His Incarnation, to His Atonement, to his Resurrection, as He completely identified with humans and took on our identity so that He might redeem us and provide for our resurrection. It is a wholistic view of the work of Jesus, not isolating one aspect from the rest or overemphasizing one aspect at the expense of another.

Further, to state as you do that CV comes from the devil, based on your first false statement about the death of Christ, is a vile thing to say. You condemn the earliest believers and the first millenium of believers by saying such a thing.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It has been proved by scholarship and church history that the earliest churches which had the same scriptures we have did not believe penal substitution nor any of the other legalist theories. The Ransom/Christus Victor view is the oldest view and was taught for the first millenium - that's a fact. Neither the terms "Christus Victor" nor "penal substitution" were used, but the concept of Christus Victor was believed and taught from the beginning. It and such beliefs/terms as "recapitulation" were variants of the Ransom view. Anselm's Satisfaction theory came after the first millenium, and penal substitution was invented by Calvin. All of these later theories were based on a legalistic and mechanical view of God as feudal lord, governor, or judge.

All of these later theories were absent from the beliefs and teaching of the earliest churches who had the same scriptures that we have.

One more thing: You clearly misrepresent what Christus Victor teaches when you state that it "regards the death of Christ as non-essential". This view regards the entirety of Jesus's life and work as essential, from His Incarnation, to His Atonement, to his Resurrection, as He completely identified with humans and took on our identity so that He might redeem us and provide for our resurrection. It is a wholistic view of the work of Jesus, not isolating one aspect from the rest or overemphasizing one aspect at the expense of another.

Further, to state as you do that CV comes from the devil, based on your first false statement about the death of Christ, is a vile thing to say. You condemn the earliest believers and the first millenium of believers by saying such a thing.

Im going to make this statement that I "Think" (IE I cannot say for certain) but I again think that this is the type of atonement taught to me by the RC Church just prior to "Vatican II" because I have veuge recollections of the nuns expressing this & I questioned them as I am now questioning Michael. Next I have most of my late mothers Catechism Books (again pre Vat 2) &infant baptism during this time was really a staged exorcism. Of course its evolved since the 60's but Michaels Christus Victor doctrines are ringing bells & setting off alarms inside my memory.

I will just make the statement that from a "Personal Prospective" these would be doctrines that always confounded me & caused me to walk away from the Roman Catholic Church in the 1st place buts thats my own personal decision. I have a friend or two (one who passed away 3 yrs ago) who were in active revolt from the more modern RC Church & have not walked lock step with them. They would have probably preferred Christus Victor theology where my Great Great Grandfather (A Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Pastor) would have called it nonsense.

Interesting topic I should research more. Thanks for the tip Michael.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Many do. Also, many in the other historic "peace" churches do.

Wasnt Menno a RC Priest prior to his conversion?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Im going to make this statement that I "Think" (IE I cannot say for certain) but I again think that this is the type of atonement taught to me by the RC Church just prior to "Vatican II" because I have veuge recollections of the nuns expressing this & I questioned them as I am now questioning Michael. Next I have most of my late mothers Catechism Books (again pre Vat 2) &infant baptism during this time was really a staged exorcism. Of course its evolved since the 60's but Michaels Christus Victor doctrines are ringing bells & setting off alarms inside my memory.

I will just make the statement that from a "Personal Prospective" these would be doctrines that always confounded me & caused me to walk away from the Roman Catholic Church in the 1st place buts thats my own personal decision. I have a friend or two (one who passed away 3 yrs ago) who were in active revolt from the more modern RC Church & have not walked lock step with them. They would have probably preferred Christus Victor theology where my Great Great Grandfather (A Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Pastor) would have called it nonsense.

Interesting topic I should research more. Thanks for the tip Michael.

Christus Victor is the atonement view of the EOC and has been from ancient times. It is not the predominant view of the RCC.

You're welcome for the tip.