Christus Victor

[JonC]

Pst also states that atonement is based upon who Jesus is, and what he done in our behalf!

Yes, but in a different way. The significance of Christ to Penal Substitution Theory is that He lay down His life. The basis, however, is that God punishes Him. That is how we are forgiven.

Recapitulation views Christ as having a more active role in redeeming man. So does Christus Victor and Moral Influence Theory.

 

[JonC]

And if Jesus Himself did not bear our sin penalty and appease the very wrath of god towards us, will we not all still be under that wrath?

Yes. Unless it was possible that God's wrath itself be propitiated. Christus Victor (along with other theories) believe it can.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I'll decline your second request. I don't mind touching on other theories, and Recapitulation is related to Christus Victor, but I am not changing the topic to discuss a book I believe poorly researched (at best)

Well I hope I'm wrong, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you're trying to spoof us. There are three reasons for this.
1. You say that Pierced for our Transgressions was written by Steve Jeffrey. This is incorrect; it was written by him, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach. Until his recent death, Mike Ovey was the Principal of Oak Hill Theological Seminary. Jeffrey and Sach were two of his PhD students. It would seem that you got your info from the Amazon website which also contains your error
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pierced-our-transgressions-Rediscovering-Substitution/dp/B00SLVW6LG but if you look at the photo of the boofk you can see the names of the three authors. If you possessed the book you could not have made the mistake.
2. The book has no quotations from Irenaeus. His name is mentioned in passing on page 133 (not 131) as the originator of recapitulation, but that is all.
3. Page 343 is the bibliography!

It therefore seems that you have never read the book, yet you have not hesitated to slag off Steve Jeffrey for a quote he did not make, and the book as a whole. if this is so, I don't think this is fitting for a moderator and it might tend to make people wonder how much of the other stuff you write is accurate.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I realize this, and I am not sure if I can explain these other views to you in a way that it will become clear.

Think of it this way - DID Christ appease/ propitiate God's wrath under Penal Substitution Theory? The answer, of course, is no. Instead Christ suffered/ bore God's wrath on our behalf. The reason is that God must punish our sins otherwise justice is not satisfied.

There are other theories that claim God's wrath itself could actually be propitiated. Luther offered one view when he claimed God's wrath towards us was swallowed and overpowered by Christ's holiness. Aquinas looked to Christ's merit as satisfying any charge against men. Irenaeus believed Christ reversed our condition through His obedience.

All of these view God's wrath itself as being propitiated. Penal Substitution Theory views God's wrath as beyond propitiation as divine wrath against sin MUST be exercised to satisfy divine justice.

I hope this helps you see the difference.

This is almost incredibly wrong. Christ is the propitiation. He is the sacrifice that turns away God's righteous anger, not against Him, but against sin. God is propitiated by the suffering of Christ which satisfies His justice.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, but in a different way. The significance of Christ to Penal Substitution Theory is that He lay down His life. The basis, however, is that God punishes Him. That is how we are forgiven.

Recapitulation views Christ as having a more active role in redeeming man. So does Christus Victor and Moral Influence Theory.

Again, spectacularly wrong! In order to be an acceptable propitiation to God, Christ must prevail where Adam failed, and He must live the life of impeccable obedience and righteousness that we cannot live Please!

And God does not punish Christ; He punishes sin in Christ.

 

[JonC]

Well I hope I'm wrong, but I'm coming to the conclusion that you're trying to spoof us. There are three reasons for this.
1. You say that Pierced for our Transgressions was written by Steve Jeffrey. This is incorrect; it was written by him, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach. Until his recent death, Mike Ovey was the Principal of Oak Hill Theological Seminary. Jeffrey and Sach were two of his PhD students. It would seem that you got your info from the Amazon website which also contains your error
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pierced-our-transgressions-Rediscovering-Substitution/dp/B00SLVW6LG but if you look at the photo of the boofk you can see the names of the three authors. If you possessed the book you could not have made the mistake.
2. The book has no quotations from Irenaeus. His name is mentioned in passing on page 133 (not 131) as the originator of recapitulation, but that is all.
3. Page 343 is the bibliography!

It therefore seems that you have never read the book, yet you have not hesitated to slag off Steve Jeffrey for a quote he did not make, and the book as a whole. if this is so, I don't think this is fitting for a moderator and it might tend to make people wonder how much of the other stuff you write is accurate.

Yes, and what does that reference (put on your "thinking cap" brother....but don't stroke out - I'll give you the answer.

The book points to Irenaeus as providing the "theological framework for penal substitution" and references Against Heresies Book 5. This is the exact reference that you have selected (well, the middle part anyway), so I believe that you are familiar with the work. If not, then PM me and I will walk you through that chapter.

And no, I did not "get my info" from the Amazon website. Please be very careful before making false assumptions (notice - I have not accused you of lifting materials from the several websites that present, almost exactly, what you have selected). I did some post-graduate work (never got a PhD) and have the materials at my home to do my own research. This is a topic I enjoy.

And I was pointing to a book - not submitting a thesis. And I was doing so as an illustration - not to argue about the book.

I love you like a brother, but you need to stop trying to change the topic every time things are brought up that challenge something you have said.

 

[JonC]

Again, spectacularly wrong! In order to be an acceptable propitiation to God, Christ must prevail where Adam failed, and He must live the life of impeccable obedience and righteousness that we cannot live Please!

And God does not punish Christ; He punishes sin in Christ.

Define "propitiation".

Does it mean "prevail where others have failed"? Or is it an atoning sacrifice that appeases wrath?

Words have meanings. We can't just make up what ever we want as long as they suit our theories.

If God pours out His wrath on someone then that wrath is exercised - NOT propitiated. YOUR POST just proved my point - God does not punish Christ but He punishes OUR sin in Christ. This is not propitiation.

If you don't have a dictionary, they can be had cheap online....

 

[utilyan]

[edited] When Jesus was forsaken on the cross by God, He was bearing our sins. He in His soul had died and He completed this before He physically died. (Psalm 22:1; Isaiah 53:10; John 19:30).

He can bear that and multiply it by a million. That still does not equate to GOD POURING OUT HIS WRATH on Jesus.

If its taught that God poured out his wrath on Jesus.....all you got to do is cite it.

 

[JonC]

He can bear that and multiply it by a million. That still does not equate to GOD POURING OUT HIS WRATH on Jesus.

If its taught that God poured out his wrath on Jesus.....all you got to do is cite it.

The problem, I believe, is that they (@37818 and @Martin Marprelate ) do not realize that the words they cite don't convey the meaning they ascribe. They do not get that others have interpreted the same verses without the same lens.

People who are unable to identify their own presuppositions are unable to grasp why or how other interpretations exist. When we examine other views there is a principle that it is necessary to first examine how we are different from the environment that produced the writings or ideas. Those who cannot do this have simply not learned to read.

 

[JonC]

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.

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). 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.

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?

 

[37818]

The problem, I believe, is that they (@37818 and @Martin Marprelate ) do not realize that the words they cite don't convey the meaning they ascribe. They do not get that others have interpreted the same verses without the same lens.

People who are unable to identify their own presuppositions are unable to grasp why or how other interpretations exist. When we examine other views there is a principle that it is necessary to first examine how we are different from the environment that produced the writings or ideas. Those who cannot do this have simply not learned to read.

Claiming meaning does not mean what it means does not change the meaning. What you need to do is to show what you think is the wrong meaning as to what truth it must deny.

 

[JonC]

Claiming meaning does not mean what it means does not change the meaning. What you need to do is to show what you think is the wrong meaning as to what truth it must deny.

No, that is not how it works, brother.

This thread is about Christus Victor (and I let it go into Recapitulation). It is looking at what THEY believed and why.

When we state a belief then it is up to US to say why it is correct. You have not been able to see how, throughout history, Christians have affirmed the same passages that you hold to be true. That is not my problem. It is yours. I say "problem" because when we cannot grasp how these other views work then we cannot rightfully defend our view against them.

I believe Recapitulation wrong. I believe it takes more into consideration than is warranted through Scripture. But I understand why Irenaeus believed it absolutely necessary that Christ die (for one, he explains this in Against Heresies book 5).

I do believe Christus Victor to be the primary way Scripture presents the work of Christ in redemption. And I understand why Christus Victor also holds the Cross as a necessity. I understand how this position holds God as putting forth Christ as a propitiation. I understand the necessity of the blood.

I also understand why the Theory of Penal Substitution holds the Cross as necessary (I held and taught this position for years).

What you are telling me, over and over again, is that you do not understand how any other theory also holds as true those passages you provide. You are essentially saying " if they believed those verses then they would hold to Penal Substitution Theory."

That is a problem, but it is not my problem to correct. It is yours. Until you can understand and articulate how a theory interprets Scripture, and here how these theories affirm by a different interpretation the same passages you believe, you are not qualified to an opinion except that you like your theory.

I can say that I love my Ford truck, but I can't say it is better than a Dodge unless I am also familiar with Dodge trucks. Perhaps ignorance is, as some suggest, bliss. But the blissfully ignorant cannot argue against the thing of which they are unfamiliar.

 

[JonC]

When I was in seminary we had an interesting exercise (one that I use even now). To argue against a position you first had to argue for it.

In other words, you had to do your homework. You had to learn what that view believed and why they held their views. This eliminated many of the "straw-man" arguments. It is how I came to hold the doctrine of "particular redemption".

If you cannot grasp how Christus Victor necessitates the Cross and presents Christ as the Propitiation for our sins then you cannot argue against Christus Victor.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. Unless it was possible that God's wrath itself be propitiated. Christus Victor (along with other theories) believe it can.

Yes, by someone willing to take and receive the sin penalty due to us for breaking the law of God!

 

[JonC]

Yes, by someone willing to take and receive the sin penalty due to us for breaking the law of God!

How is God's actual wrath propitiated rather than poured out on Christ against our sins?

Those are, after all, very different things.

 

[Yeshua1]

How is God's actual wrath propitiated rather than poured out on Christ against our sins?

Those are, after all, very different things.

By Jesus receiving the full blunt of His poured out wrath against sins and sinners, that appeases Him!

 

[JonC]

By Jesus receiving the full blunt of His poured out wrath against sins and sinners, that appeases Him!

So wrath is not actually propitiated.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Define "propitiation".

Does it mean "prevail where others have failed"? Or is it an atoning sacrifice that appeases wrath?

Words have meanings. We can't just make up what ever we want as long as they suit our theories.

If God pours out His wrath on someone then that wrath is exercised - NOT propitiated. YOUR POST just proved my point - God does not punish Christ but He punishes OUR sin in Christ. This is not propitiation.

If you don't have a dictionary, they can be had cheap online....

Propitiation certainly means a sacrifice that turns away wrath. God's wrath against sinners is propitiated by the suffering and death of Christ. God's wrath was exercised against Christ, and thereby propitiated towards us. 'By His wounds we are healed.' what is so difficult to understand in that?

'Indeed, Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.' 'sacrificed' = penal; 'for us' = substitution. God's wrath is turned away from His people by the sacrifice of Christ. When God passed through the land of Egypt that first Passover, He did not need to see the blood on the doorposts and lintels of the Israelites' houses. He knew perfectly well where they lived. The blood was a sign to the Israelites that a penal substitution had taken place. That an innocent lamb had died that the first-born of each house might live. If no penal substitution were needed, God could still have passed over them without the blood. But the Israelites were sinners just as the Egyptians were (c.f. Deuteronomy 9:4), and without a penal substitute they would have suffered the same fate.

But the lamb had to be of a certain quality or it would not have been acceptable to God as a penal substitute. It had to be a male 'without blemish' (Exodus 12:5). So Jesus Christ had to be 'a Lamb without blemish and without spot' (1 Peter 1:19). The physical perfections of the lamb spoke of the moral and spiritual perfections of the Saviour. Therefore, as I said, He had to prevail where Adam failed. That is the reason that after His baptism, 'immediately the Spirit drove Him out into the wilderness' (Mark 1:12) to face Satan. It is unthinkable that He should have failed that test, but had He not done so, He would not have been an acceptable sacrifice to God. He was 'in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin' (Hebrews 4:15). Read The Temptation of Christ by Thomas Manton.

Now all this is theology 101. But all you need to remember is that God's wrath was exercised against Christ, and thereby propitiated towards us. That is the essence of Penal Substitution. Now stop being so silly.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How is God's actual wrath propitiated rather than poured out on Christ against our sins?

See my post above. God's wrath against His sinful people is propitiated precisely by being directed against the Substitute made sin for us.

So wrath is not actually propitiated.

I think you'll find it is.

 

[JonC]

See my post above. God's wrath against His sinful people is propitiated precisely by being directed against the Substitute made sin for us.

I think you'll find it is.

Fact remains, however, that this does not meet the definition of propitiating God's actual wrath. God's wrath against our sins is not appeased, but instead is exercised (just as it will be exercised against the lost at judgment). Words have meaning, brother.

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

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