Do you Hold to A Substitutionary View On the Atonement?

[humblethinker]

Generally, the Idea of Christus Victor, that Chist's death accomplished victory over sin & death, is Biblical...but the view that takes that name as its title also explicitly denies penal substitution.

So I would say that both Penal Substitution & Christus Victor describe important accomplishments of Christ on the cross.

I like what you're saying. Do we really think that with the current view of Penal Substitution or any singular view exhaustively defines the atonement? Really? BB: Is the work of theology complete? If so, please tell me when it reached that point.

 

[OldRegular]

Generally, the Idea of Christus Victor, that Chist's death accomplished victory over sin & death, is Biblical...but the view that takes that name as its title also explicitly denies penal substitution.

So I would say that both Penal Substitution & Christus Victor describe important accomplishments of Christ on the cross.

I agree that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross accomplished victory over sin and death. However, the term "Christus Victor" was used by Michael Wrenn to deny the necessity of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ!

 

[DHK]

I agree that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross accomplished victory over sin and death. However, the term "Christus Victor" was used by Michael Wrenn to deny the necessity of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ!

And it does, at least as far as I have read up on it. Through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ he engaged in battle with the forces of darkness, evil, sin, and Satan, and became the victor. He overcame them. But so what, if there is no payment made for our sins. Isn't that what is important? His argument is that that what was believed for the first 1000 years of history, and that penal or substitutionary atonement was something made up by the Reformers. At this point I don't care who made up what. The question is: "What saith the Lord?"

 

[12strings]

I agree that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross accomplished victory over sin and death. However, the term "Christus Victor" was used by Michael Wrenn to deny the necessity of the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ!

So are you going to let Michael monopolize the term so that you can no longer use it? ...or will you use the term and define it more biblically?

 

[humblethinker]

And it does, at least as far as I have read up on it. Through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ he engaged in battle with the forces of darkness, evil, sin, and Satan, and became the victor. He overcame them. But so what, if there is no payment made for our sins. Isn't that what is important? His argument is that that what was believed for the first 1000 years of history, and that penal or substitutionary atonement was something made up by the Reformers. At this point I don't care who made up what. The question is: "What saith the Lord?"

And so, you hold both, Christus Victor and Penal Substitution to be biblically defensible, but not exhaustive, views of atonement? What is the harm in this?

 

[OldRegular]

And it does, at least as far as I have read up on it. Through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ he engaged in battle with the forces of darkness, evil, sin, and Satan, and became the victor. He overcame them. But so what, if there is no payment made for our sins. Isn't that what is important? His argument is that that what was believed for the first 1000 years of history, and that penal or substitutionary atonement was something made up by the Reformers. At this point I don't care who made up what. The question is: "What saith the Lord?"

I agree. If the atonement was not substitutionary are we not all still dead in sin?

 

[OldRegular]

So are you going to let Michael monopolize the term so that you can no longer use it? ...or will you use the term and define it more biblically?

I might use the term Victory in Jesus and on occasion sing it [monoonically]; but I will not use the term Chistus Victor. I have visited the site that MW referenced and see nothing there of particular merit insofar as atonement is concerned!

 

[kyredneck]

There are a number of legitimate ways of understanding and framing the atonement.

While my preference is for a substitutionary atonement, I appreciate other views which give us other dimensions of the atonement.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1787891#post1787891

 

[quantumfaith]

It's OK, preachinjesus, I understand completely how one can get confused with all the theological terms and semantics we deal with. Penal "or" Substitution, just claim the mathematical "or". One can even "evolve" with their position, which too is just fine.

Blessings

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm not sure I understand either of you to be sarcastic or serious here.

Semi-serious. I regocnize the Moral Influence view, et al, but my question "Is there any other kind" was meant to convey that the "other kind" didn't have much, if any, validity.

 

[OldRegular]

I would urge all who doubt that the death of Jesus Christ is substitutionary to read Isaiah 53.

 

[Tom Butler]

I would urge all who doubt that the death of Jesus Christ is substitutionary to read Isaiah 53.

To me, Isaiah 53 settles the argument.