Those passages are essentially a key part of the Christus Victor view as well. But that position stands in contrast to PSA. That is what I mean about the passages are common to both views while both views cannot be correct.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How is the Wrath Of the Father Appeased if Not PST Atonement?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
I'm not exactly sure why you'e asking me these questions. Neither the O.P. nor the texts you quoted were written by me.
But saying, this is the wrong question; please give me one I can answer more easily, is one way of debating, I suppose.
37818
Well-Known Member
You seem to conflate the escatology of day of wrath with the lost in the final judgement, Revelation 20:11-15. The finial judgement is a subset of the day of wrath, the saved are exempt from the day of wrath because of the resurrection precedes that day, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, Revelation 6:17, Revelation 11:18, Revelation 16:19, Revelation 19:15.
37818
Well-Known Member
Excplain the conflict. How is one true and the other not? You claim PSA, i.e. Scriptures noted, is a part of Christus Victor view.
My apologies.I'm not exactly sure why you'e asking me these questions. Neither the O.P. nor the texts you quoted were written by me.
But saying, this is the wrong question; please give me one I can answer more easily, is one way of debating, I suppose.
I am on my phone brouser and it makes the thread titled:
How is the Wrath Of the Father Appeased if Not PST Atonement?
And the reply:
To appear that you started the thread. When I get to a computer I will address the writer of the OP. I guess he withdrew but it makes your post look like the first.
Again, my apologies.
Yes. But not yet on this thread
.
You misunderstood what I was saying (sorry, that was my fault). I do not claim PSA (the Theory of Penal Substitution Atonement) to be a part of Christus Victor. I am claiming that Christus Victor includes penal and substitutionary aspects because they are biblical. PSA and Christus Victor are competing theories (they cannot be reconciled because they view redemption entirely differently).
PSA views the cross as Jesus taking upon Himself the punishment demanded under God's law (divine justice against sin) so that our debt as a result of sin is paid.
Christus Victor views God as sending Christ to come in the likeness of sinful flesh and experience the full weight of the powers of darkness (the powers of this world, sin and death, the wages of sin) and then be vindicated having victory over those powers.
Where PSA views salvation a matter of God's righteousness manifested through the law as Jesus suffers the judicial punishment instead of us, Christus Victor views salvation as a matter of God's righteous manifested apart from the law as all who are "in him" are "reckoned" to have died and been raised with Him so that from God's perspective their sins are no longer accounted against them and they stand on resurrection ground.
Those are competing views.
37818
Well-Known Member
I wondered what happened to that.
"To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned?"
37818
Well-Known Member
Now that has no Biblical support in regards to Christ on the cross. Now connecting references need to be drawn in. 1 John 3:8, Colossians 2:15, PSA does not deny.
But.
You are, of course, wrong. But it may be in how I worded my claim (if so, I apologize. I may not have been clear to someone not holding my position). Let me use different words:
Colossians 2:8-15 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. .... He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
I understand that PSA does not deny the passages that Christus Victor use.
That is my point. The difference is not Scripture at all.
The difference is how we interpret Scripture.
I cannot answer for you, I can only answer questions about my view that you may have.
Likewise, you cannot answer for me. But hopefully you can answer my questions of your view.
Why do you believe that the cross is God's punishment when Peter (in Acts) tells the Jews that they are guilty of handing Christ over to godless men who killed him, but that this was in accordance to God's predetermined plan and God vindicated Christ by raising Him from the dead.
It seems that you are putting God in place of "godless men" in that passage (but again, I am not saying you are, just asking for clarification).
How is the wrath of God accounted for though in that Christ is Victor standpoint?
Again, how cam the holiness of God and His wrath towards sin be accomplished in the Non Pst atonement view?
Jesus as the Sin bearer experienced something far more than overcoming forces of darkness and death, as he literally had to bear the very wrath of God for His own people!
Scripture says we who are in Christ escape the wrath to come.
Again, Scripture says we who are in Christ escape the wrath to come. Those who are not in Christ experience God's wrath.
37818
Well-Known Member
It is not an either or. The Blblical truth of what Christ actually did is not any of the myopic theoies. It is like three blind men touching an elephant. One touching its tail, another a leg and the other its trunk.
To an great extent I agree.
I agree that PSA focuses more on one aspect of the atonement and Christus Victor another. I have always suspected one reason the Early Church held to a Christus Victor view (in the form of one of a few ransom theories) is because of what it was going through.
But at the same time there are aspects of PSA that cannot be true if Christus Victor is true (and vice versa).
I think we consider the views and text them the best we can against Scripture. When I do, I come out with the Christus Victor view. For most of my life I came out with the PSA view. But I came to see some of my basic assumptions wrong, and that changed my position. Others come out with the PSA view.
We can discuss our differences and disagree without being disagreeable and hopefully come to understand what the other believes and why. Until assumptions change beliefs will not change.
To quote Everlast (always popular on Christian forums
) "You know where it ends ,Yo, it usually depends on where you start"
37818
Well-Known Member
What the word of God says is true. Some things assumed that the Scripture is silent on, may not be true.
Why are we able to avoid that wrath though? as His wrath has to be directed towards someone!
True, but to get to Jesus as being victorious, he has to be the Sin bearer first!
37818
Well-Known Member
I am not hearing where Christus Victor view denies that. It is agreed the Biblical view is the correct view. How to interpret the Biblical view is in disagreement here and on other points as well.
v
- Status