The Classic View (just a summary)

[taisto]

If we are crucified with Christ then that is not substitution. Substitution is Christ being crucified instead of us, in our place, so we won't be.

It is absolutely substitution.

For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God. My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.
(Galatians 2:19-21)
There it is. Substitution.

If I go to the grocery store WITH my wife, then I cannot go to the grocery store instead of my wife at the same time.

Indeed. You are not God. God can go to the grocery store and be with you who stayed home.

Your comment on the prodigal son is irrelevant to the argument. The point is that Jesus calls him "dead" while he is in his sin.

Are you building your theory on a parable? The statement of the Father has nothing to do with the spiritual death of Ephesians 2, unless you are willing to state for the record that Christians can revert back to spiritual death after once being made alive. Can a Christian lose salvation by his actions and regain salvation by his actions? Your use of the prodigal son as your theological argument would preclude that very argument.

"You would have both the sinner and Jesus die, without either of them being redeemed or saved." Jesus pulls the sinner out of the river of death. That is analogous to his resurrection. We are raised with Christ.

No, Jesus dies in my place, and he raises to life. I am found in Christ because Christ redeemed me. The substitutionary act is a redemptive purchase of a debt that I could not ever pay off.

The problem is that we are dead in sin. Jesus dies with us, so that by his resurrection, we can rise with him. That is exactly what Ephesians 2:1-10 outlines. No substitution there.

Jesus dies for us. That is what scripture tells us.
"Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."


Your theory doesn't hold water and it certainly isn't a "classic view" no matter how much you and Jon want it to be. Call it by any name you want and it is still a view that very few people have ever held.

 

[JD731]

No, you are not taking sin seriously enough. We were already dead in our trespasses and sins (see Ephesians 2). Jesus cannot die in place of people who are already dead.

Probably not, if one accepts your definition of death, but I already know by your rhetoric that you do not understand the biblical definition of death.

Furthermore, see the attached verses. Those do not at all fit with substitution.

Posting a series of random verses without explaining how they make your point when they are not addressing the subject at all and completely ignoring, or worse yet, denying the passages that directly deals with the purpose of the cross, is not wise.

See the logic of the penitent criminal on the cross in Luke 23:40. His logic is not “in my place condemned he stands.” His logic is “we are under the same sentence of condemnation, me justly, him unjustly.”

Joh 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

This is what the penitent thief believed that justified him. It was the gospel of the kingdom, which Jesus and the disciples had been preaching to Israel for 3 1/2 years and for which he was put to death. Speaking of logic, he certainly was not justified by believing that Jesus was risen from the dead.

Jesus dies with us, only he alone dies unjustly as a perfectly innocent party.

That is not a Bible truth. Jesus dies for us.

1Co 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;
Ga 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jo 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.

Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

There is honor in accepting correction.

 

[Arthur King]

Probably not, if one accepts your definition of death, but I already know by your rhetoric that you do not understand the biblical definition of death.



Posting a series of random verses without explaining how they make your point when they are not addressing the subject at all and completely ignoring, or worse yet, denying the passages that directly deals with the purpose of the cross, is not wise.



Joh 19:19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

This is what the penitent thief believed that justified him. It was the gospel of the kingdom, which Jesus and the disciples had been preaching to Israel for 3 1/2 years and for which he was put to death. Speaking of logic, he certainly was not justified by believing that Jesus was risen from the dead.



That is not a Bible truth. Jesus dies for us.

1Co 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;
Ga 1:4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1Jo 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.

Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

There is honor in accepting correction.

That Jesus dies "for" us must be understood in conjunction with Jesus dying "with" us. "I have been co-crucified with Christ."

I can go to the grocery store with and for my wife. I cannot go to the store with and instead of my wife.

Propitiation simply means wrath aversion or wrath reversal. It does not entail substitution.

Again, a substitute does not say "take up your cross and follow me." A substitute says, "lay down your cross and stay put, for I will be crucified in your place."

"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple."

"He who will save his life will lose it."

 

[DaveXR650]

I can go to the grocery store with and for my wife. I cannot go to the store with and instead of my wife.

To make the analogy work it would have to be that for some reason only you could deal with the grocer in order to obtain the groceries. Your wife was unable to do this. When you get home she partakes of the groceries because she is married to you and in unity with you. Her unity with you makes her a participant with you in your act of going to the grocery store.

You ere when you try to act as if a belief in the concept of the necessity of "being crucified with Christ" is some type of opposition or contradiction to penal substitution. Owen discusses being crucified with Christ 47 times in his works. MacArthur lists the concept of being crucified with Christ as central in all his books on importance of the lordship of Christ. The idea of us dying with Christ was not missed by the reformers or for that matter any Bible teacher I know of. What I don't understand is you and @JonC having such an aversion to penal substitution, which is also taught.

 

[JonC]

@taisto

Hopefully this will help you to understand a bit more of Church History so that you may, in the future, avoid some of your mistakes.

Christus Victor is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulén's book 1931). Aulén sought to draw attention back to the early church's Ransom theory (typically it is viewed only under one extreme position - God paying a ransom to the Devil - but this was not the only or even most common view initially).

Aulén argues that the classic Ransom theory is not a systematic theory but a theme, or motif.


The Ransom Theory was predominant in the early church and for the first thousand years of church history. This theory was supported by all Greek Church Fathers (men like Irenaeus, Origen, Athanadius, Basil, John Chrysostom).

The Christus Victor view was also dominant among the Latin Fathers of the Patristic period (men like Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory).

A major shift occurred when Anselm published Cur Deos Homo around 1097 AD.

This marks the point where the predominate understanding of the atonement shifted from the ransom theory to the Satisfaction Doctrine in the RCC and subsequently the Protestant Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox still holds to Ransom (Christus Victor) Atonement based on Irenaeus' Recapitulation.


So to pretend that very few people have held the Classic View, or that the term "Classic View" is somehow invented by a couple of members on this board, is dishonest even if that dishonesty is out of ignorance.

(Sources - Paul Eddy, Four Views of Atonement, Erickson Systematic Theology; Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, Theopedia)

 

[JonC]

To make the analogy work it would have to be that for some reason only you could deal with the grocer in order to obtain the groceries. Your wife was unable to do this. When you get home she partakes of the groceries because she is married to you and in unity with you. Her unity with you makes her a participant with you in your act of going to the grocery store.

You ere when you try to act as if a belief in the concept of the necessity of "being crucified with Christ" is some type of opposition or contradiction to penal substitution. Owen discusses being crucified with Christ 47 times in his works. MacArthur lists the concept of being crucified with Christ as central in all his books on importance of the lordship of Christ. The idea of us dying with Christ was not missed by the reformers or for that matter any Bible teacher I know of. What I don't understand is you and @JonC having such an aversion to penal substitution, which is also taught.

I can't answer for @Arthur King , but only for myself.

I grew up believing the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. For most of my Christian life I held the view.

There are two main reasons I argue against it now.

First, I believe that doctrines that are foundational, essential, or of major importance to the Christian faith need to be in the text of Scripture (im "what is written") rather than what we believe is taught by the Bible. I believe our view of the work of redemption falls into this category. If we make an error here then all other doctrines that are built upon this one is faulty. The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement does not pass this test. It is what people see as being taught by Scripture, but it can only be tested against what it's adherents view as the teachings (rather than what is actually written).

Second, and more importantly, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a substitution for what is actually written in God's Word. We can dismiss our differences by acknowledging that people holding the Classic View and people holding the Latin View can be Christians. And this is true. People can be saved despite their theology.

BUT the things that Penal Substitution Theory replaces are important. The main reason I oppose the Theory is that it obscures what is written in God's Word, and what is written on this topic is very important to the Christian life.



A third reason is that I have met people who attended Baptist churches in the past, held Penal Substitution Theory, but realized it was not in the Bible and abandoned "organized religion" all together because of the discrepancy. I work with one who is now an atheist. The reason was he realized what was taught was not in the Bible and he concluded all churches held the same hypocrisy (using the Bible as a source of authority but teaching something different than what is written). I am hoping to reach him so that he at least understands the nature of sin and redemption but that experience has made him hostile to religion all together. It is a philosophy that can become a stumbling block to people once they start reading the Bible. They end up feeling lied to.

I have also met Christians who have been carried away by Penal Substitution Theory in the sense that it is what they see as the gospel of Jesus Christ. They have drifted into heresies, even to the point that they view it as a sin to share the gospel. They have been carried away by vain philosophies.

I view the Theory as ultimately a danger. It is a danger to Christians because it obscures God's actual word by replacement. It is a danger to discipleship because one may realize what is taught is not actually biblical (cannot be tested against "what is written,"), and it is a danger to the local church as many (as we have witnessed over the last decade and a half) have declined as members seek a more biblical view. This leads to an additional danger - those abandoning the Theory may only destroy so in part (similar to how it came about in the first place), resulting in another amalgamation of philosophy and Scripture.

I do realize that most who hold the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement do so with a grain of salt. But even here it obscures "what is written".

 

[DaveXR650]

@JonC. I accept your answer as an honest answer. All I can say is that your posts (the first 3) I feel are inadequate in explaining how Jesus "saves his people from their sins". I also think the section in those posts explaining the sacrifices in the old testament is completely inadequate. I think the early church said a lot more about what Christ did for the condition of us being sinners than you put in those posts. So I find it inadequate.

When men of at least equal astuteness and sincerity as you do find in scripture evidence of penal substitution and say that it is the heart of the gospel, then you are saying, by your argument, that they have the gospel wrong. By definition, those of us who agree with them must believe that it is you who has the gospel wrong. I would at least ask you to accept the reality of that conclusion as you have freely expressed your side of it.

Christ suffered under the wages of sin, which is death. These were our wages, wages He did not earn. And suffering under the bondage of sin, the power of evil, of Satan, Christ died the death that we will die.

What do you think this actually did? You are not clear.

They esteemed Him as stricken by God, but He was suffering for their sins (not His own).

In you opinion, did this occur on purpose? If so, what exactly did it accomplish? I ask this because I think you are going to say he died the death we must die.

Christ died the death that we will die.

How does that help us deal with the problem of our sin?

See. You come close by saying that Christ suffered "our wages" and "was suffering for our sin" but yet that is not substitution. Well, fine. You can call it whatever you wish but at least allow that someone else may call it substitution.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

@taisto
I'm sure you know already, but the Doctrine of Penal Substitution was held by very many of the Church Fathers. Quotations of these people are readily available on line.
Most of these quotations do not come from extended treatments of the doctrine of the Cross. The ECFs were taken up with debates about the Trinity and the divinity of the Lord Jesus, which were the hot topics of the 3rd and 4th Centuries. But the fact that many of the quotations are passing references does not make them any the less true.

When Clement of Rome wrote. 'In love the Lord has taken us to Himself. It was because of His love for us that Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His soul for our souls,' he is not writing a treatise on salvation, he is commending love to the church at Corinth, but the penal nature of the Atonement and substitution are plainly to be seen. When Justin Martyr wrote a very clear, though brief, exposition of Penal Substitution, he was merely answering a query of Trypho the Jew as to why the Messiah should be cursed. But these examples, and others, show that Penal Substitution was the default position of most of the ECFs. They show that PSA was widely understood and generally uncontroversial among them.
.

 

[JonC]

@JonC. I accept your answer as an honest answer. All I can say is that your posts (the first 3) I feel are inadequate in explaining how Jesus "saves his people from their sins". I also think the section in those posts explaining the sacrifices in the old testament is completely inadequate. I think the early church said a lot more about what Christ did for the condition of us being sinners than you put in those posts. So I find it inadequate.

When men of at least equal astuteness and sincerity as you do find in scripture evidence of penal substitution and say that it is the heart of the gospel, then you are saying, by your argument, that they have the gospel wrong. By definition, those of us who agree with them must believe that it is you who has the gospel wrong. I would at least ask you to accept the reality of that conclusion as you have freely expressed your side of it.

What do you think this actually did? You are not clear.

In you opinion, did this occur on purpose? If so, what exactly did it accomplish? I ask this because I think you are going to say he died the death we must die.

How does that help us deal with the problem of our sin?

See. You come close by saying that Christ suffered "our wages" and "was suffering for our sin" but yet that is not substitution. Well, fine. You can call it whatever you wish but at least allow that someone else may call it substitution.

I am not sure exactly how else I can say it.

If you have read the writings of the Early Church and understand what they wrote in regard to Jesus' work of redemption then I do not understand what you don't understand about my view

Yes, Jesus experienced the wages of sin....our sin. I don't see how you think this is close to substitution.

Substitution is not Jesus dying for us but instead of us.

It may sound close, but it isn't. Social and asocial sound close but they are opposite (just one little letter makes it that way).


How does the Classic View deal with our sin? In a few ways (different perspectives). One is through solidarity. Christ is our Mediator due to this unity. In Him we escape the wrath to come. But this is ontological (Tertullian used "medical"....same thing). We die to our sin and are recreated in Christ's image (as a brother), made alive in Christ. But the main way Scripture presents God dealing with our sin is through forgiveness.


And yes, I am saying that those who hold Penal Substitution Theory are wrong. I am not questioning their intelligence or honesty. Roman Catholic theologians are intelligent and honest as well. But they are wrong.

The reason is that Penal Substitution theorists do not come by their theory via Scripture. They may think otherwise, but it is not true. Otherwise they could point to Scripture stating their view without having to go into "but it teaches" or "but it means".

What if Scripture means what it states (what is written)? Then the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is wrong.


Think about the OT sacrifice system. What does Penal Substitution Theory find valuable? Sacrificing animals as a means of appeasing God to gain forgiveness. BUT what does the Bible point to as the significance? The blood to cleanse. Why? For God's presence.

This points to Christ.

 

[JonC]

@taisto
I'm sure you know already, but the Doctrine of Penal Substitution was held by very many of the Church Fathers. Quotations of these people are readily available on line.
Most of these quotations do not come from extended treatments of the doctrine of the Cross. The ECFs were taken up with debates about the Trinity and the divinity of the Lord Jesus, which were the hot topics of the 3rd and 4th Centuries. But the fact that many of the quotations are passing references does not make them any the less true.

When Clement of Rome wrote. 'In love the Lord has taken us to Himself. It was because of His love for us that Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God, His flesh for our flesh, His soul for our souls,' he is not writing a treatise on salvation, he is commending love to the church at Corinth, but the penal nature of the Atonement and substitution are plainly to be seen. When Justin Martyr wrote a very clear, though brief, exposition of Penal Substitution, he was merely answering a query of Trypho the Jew as to why the Messiah should be cursed. But these examples, and others, show that Penal Substitution was the default position of most of the ECFs. They show that PSA was widely understood and generally uncontroversial among them.
.

Yes ....theologians were wrong until Protestants started questioning the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. Now Irenaeus didn't really hold Recapitulation but Penal Substitution Theory. Tertullian didn't really hold Medical Substitution but Penal Substitution Theory.

Why? Because they affirm passages we all affirm.

We have heard this old song and dance before.

And over the past decade you still have not come up with even one theologian before the 16th that wrote God punished Jesus.

 

[DaveXR650]

How does the Classic View deal with our sin? In a few ways (different perspectives). One is through solidarity. Christ is our Mediator due to this unity. In Him we escape the wrath to come. But this is ontological (Tertullian used "medical"....same thing). We die to our sin and are recreated in Christ's image (as a brother), made alive in Christ. But the main way Scripture presents God dealing with our sin is through forgiveness.

What you are describing is what happens in our direction. We agree with the idea of unity with Christ, dying to our sin, being born again and now walking in a new life because of our being "in Christ". But we also believe that Godward, there was work Jesus was doing on our behalf. And we believe scripture describes that. And it is penal substitution.

Yes, Jesus experienced the wages of sin....our sin. I don't see how you think this is close to substitution.

Because he experienced them instead of us. That is why you flounder in trying to narrowly define "death" so that it will, in your mind, make it possible to salvage your theory. That being that you need to claim Jesus did this for us and the way to get out of the idea of substitution is claim that because we will still die physically it could not have been "substitution". Such mental gyrations are astounding.

The concept of this being solidarity works except that it doesn't tell all of what happens. Christ dies with us, suffers with us and by our uniting with him by faith we are saved. I'm with you there. But why does that save us? Because it was unjustly done to him as opposed to what we deserve as wages? OK. How is that in any way effective for us? For it to be effective for us it must in some way satisfy God that this happens. If not, then it wasn't necessary that it did happen.
So, it could be that the guilt and punishment of our sin was on Jesus and thus the Triune God accepted that as sufficient for reconciliation to himself. And/or it could be that this satisfied a need in God's nature and sense of justice that somehow the sin of ours must be judged and judgment put on either the substitute or the guilty party. So there you have penal substitution and some elements of governmental substitution. What you do is stop short and claim the aspects of Christ bearing our sin in his own body aren't there. Except it is there.

In Him we escape the wrath to come.

Yes. But that doesn't stand by itself. Did he take the wrath? How? If not, was the cross necessary?

 

[JonC]

What you are describing is what happens in our direction. We agree with the idea of unity with Christ, dying to our sin, being born again and now walking in a new life because of our being "in Christ". But we also believe that Godward, there was work Jesus was doing on our behalf. And we believe scripture describes that. And it is penal substitution.

Because he experienced them instead of us. That is why you flounder in trying to narrowly define "death" so that it will, in your mind, make it possible to salvage your theory. That being that you need to claim Jesus did this for us and the way to get out of the idea of substitution is claim that because we will still die physically it could not have been "substitution". Such mental gyrations are astounding.

The concept of this being solidarity works except that it doesn't tell all of what happens. Christ dies with us, suffers with us and by our uniting with him by faith we are saved. I'm with you there. But why does that save us? Because it was unjustly done to him as opposed to what we deserve as wages? OK. How is that in any way effective for us? For it to be effective for us it must in some way satisfy God that this happens. If not, then it wasn't necessary that it did happen.
So, it could be that the guilt and punishment of our sin was on Jesus and thus the Triune God accepted that as sufficient for reconciliation to himself. And/or it could be that this satisfied a need in God's nature and sense of justice that somehow the sin of ours must be judged and judgment put on either the substitute or the guilty party. So there you have penal substitution and some elements of governmental substitution. What you do is stop short and claim the aspects of Christ bearing our sin in his own body aren't there. Except it is there.

Yes. But that doesn't stand by itself. Did he take the wrath? How? If not, was the cross necessary?

Why do you believe that somebody has to take God's wrath?

When wrath is propitiated it is avoided, not experienced. It is "turned aside'.

Yes, even without Christ experiencing God's wrath the cross is necessary. The reason is solidarity - Christ suffering the wages of sin. Satan authored sin by deceiving Eve. Christ had to die, and on a Roman cross.

The reason is that Jesus needed to come into our world, be made flesh, under the curse that we suffer, under the dominion of sin and death. And here Christ also needed to be perfectly obedient to God. And He accomplished all of that. Having died under the curse, under the consequences of sin, under the wages we deserve, He was vindicated and raised on the third day having gained victory over sin and death. We share in His victory.

Had Christ not died as a consequence of our sins we would have no Savior.

 

[taisto]

@taisto

Hopefully this will help you to understand a bit more of Church History so that you may, in the future, avoid some of your mistakes.

Christus Victor is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulén's book 1931). Aulén sought to draw attention back to the early church's Ransom theory (typically it is viewed only under one extreme position - God paying a ransom to the Devil - but this was not the only or even most common view initially).

Aulén argues that the classic Ransom theory is not a systematic theory but a theme, or motif.


The Ransom Theory was predominant in the early church and for the first thousand years of church history. This theory was supported by all Greek Church Fathers (men like Irenaeus, Origen, Athanadius, Basil, John Chrysostom).

The Christus Victor view was also dominant among the Latin Fathers of the Patristic period (men like Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory).

A major shift occurred when Anselm published Cur Deos Homo around 1097 AD.

This marks the point where the predominate understanding of the atonement shifted from the ransom theory to the Satisfaction Doctrine in the RCC and subsequently the Protestant Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox still holds to Ransom (Christus Victor) Atonement based on Irenaeus' Recapitulation.


So to pretend that very few people have held the Classic View, or that the term "Classic View" is somehow invented by a couple of members on this board, is dishonest even if that dishonesty is out of ignorance.

(Sources - Paul Eddy, Four Views of Atonement, Erickson Systematic Theology; Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, Theopedia)

Do you hold the Christus Victor view or the Ransom Theory? Those are two old views presented in ancient writings. You have coined the "Classic View" when in reality it's just your own picking and choosing of points from other views that you like.
You coin words and make it seem as though the majority of Christianity holds your view when in fact very few people in all Christendom hold your view of atonement.
You have not been forthright, but you have created many threads that keep beating your horse. At what point in time will you drop this and admit that you haven't convinced anyone other than Arthur King who may be a "very close" friend of yours.
The Bible very clearly shows us Christ's substitutionary atonement for his brothers and sisters. Whether you believe it or not is of no concern to me. However, we've been provided more than enough topic threads to read your opinion.

 

[taisto]

Why do you believe that somebody has to take God's wrath?

When wrath is propitiated it is avoided, not experienced. It is "turned aside'.

Yes, even without Christ experiencing God's wrath the cross is necessary. The reason is solidarity - Christ suffering the wages of sin. Satan authored sin by deceiving Eve. Christ had to die, and on a Roman cross.

The reason is that Jesus needed to come into our world, be made flesh, under the curse that we suffer, under the dominion of sin and death. And here Christ also needed to be perfectly obedient to God. And He accomplished all of that. Having died under the curse, under the consequences of sin, under the wages we deserve, He was vindicated and raised on the third day having gained victory over sin and death. We share in His victory.

Had Christ not died as a consequence of our sins we would have no Savior.

Jon, simply because it doesn't make sense to you does not make it wrong. It would be nice if you would stop looking down on those who disagree with you.

 

[JonC]

Do you hold the Christus Victor view or the Ransom Theory?

This does not make sense.

Please clarify your question.

Christus Victor is a title taken from Gustaf Aulén's book (published in 1931) as a revival of Ransom Theory within Protestant churches. It is not a specific theory of Atonement but a motif or theme.

If one holds to any of the types of Ransom Theory then they hold to Christus Victor. Same with Recapitulation.

It has been called the "Classic View" since the 1930's. I am too young to have coined the term.

 

[JonC]

Jon, simply because it doesn't make sense to you does not make it wrong. It would be nice if you would stop looking down on those who disagree with you.

It does make sense to me. I held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement for most of my life, through all of my time as a seminary student, through much of my time as a preacher.

I didn't abandon the theory because it doesn't make sense but because it is not in the Bible.

I do not look down on Penal Substitution theorists. I feel sorry for them because of what they miss concerning the power of the gospel of Christ, but I don't look down on them. I do look down on the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, but that is because it is a corruption of Scripture. I also look down on Roman Catholic doctrine while not looking down on Roman Catholics.

 

[taisto]

This does not make sense.

Please clarify your question.

Christus Victor is a title taken from Gustaf Aulén's book (published in 1931) as a revival of Ransom Theory within Protestant churches. It is not a specific theory of Atonement but a motif or theme.

If one holds to any of the types of Ransom Theory then they hold to Christus Victor. Same with Recapitulation.

It has been called the "Classic View" since the 1930's. I am too young to have coined the term.

Thanks for the clarification. So your view was non existent until 1931.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for the clarification. So your view was non existent until 1931.

???

No. His book was about the Classic View of the Atonement. The title of his book was Christus Victor.

Before being called "Christus Victor" (from the book) it was called the "Classic View". Before 1079 there was not a "Latin View" and it was simply assumed with scholars having different focuses (Ransom, Recapitulation).


This "Classic View" (specifically one of the Random theories) was the predominant in the early church and for the first thousand years of church history. This view was supported by all Greek Church Fathers (men like Irenaeus, Origen, Athanadius, Basil, John Chrysostom) and dominant among the Latin Fathers of the Patristic period (men like Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory).

This changed when Anselm wrote Cur Deos Homo (1097 AD), which marks the point where the predominate understanding of the atonement shifted from the ransom theory to the Satisfaction Doctrine of the RCC.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do you believe that somebody has to take God's wrath?

Wrath when referring to God is only expressing his reaction to sin and rebellion. You might be able to surmise that God just needs to get over it but we also believe that his wrath is a proper and just reaction and therefore yes, somebody has to take God's wrath. If you want to dismiss that as equivalent to kicking your dog if you had a bad day at work then I suppose you could but I wouldn't advise it.

When wrath is propitiated it is avoided, not experienced. It is "turned aside'.

Yes, but as I said, it is avoided for a reason because God's wrath is just and therefore should be. It's not like our wrath which may be just or may be nothing but a release of catecholamines and will pass when they are broken down. And us going along in solidarity is not a reason.

Yes, even without Christ experiencing God's wrath the cross is necessary. The reason is solidarity - Christ suffering the wages of sin. Satan authored sin by deceiving Eve. Christ had to die, and on a Roman cross.

It's amazing how it seems ridiculous to you that someone would have to take the wrath of God if we don't yet you turn right around and agree to elaborate plans of how solidarity has to work to reverse all these things that have happened and therefore Christ had to die on a Roman cross. You get all that out of scripture yet won't accept the relatively simple idea that Christ took upon himself our sin and suffered God's wrath in our place. The issues of solidarity may have merit, but they simply cannot sufficiently explain our reconciliation with God. Solidarity by itself won't deal with our sin. It's not the "reason".

Having died under the curse, under the consequences of sin, under the wages we deserve, He was vindicated and raised on the third day having gained victory over sin and death. We share in His victory.

Where you are lacking is that with what you say we could identify with Christ in his victory over sin and death without him having to be under any kind of curse or under consequences of sin - because as soon as you make that a necessity you are looking at substitution and a necessity of his actual death, in accomplishing something on our behalf. At least Arthur is honest in that he just claims the whole thing was an unjust thing men did and the only purpose was to get Christ to a place where he could triumph over death (which although important is not a sufficient explanation for our redemption).

This is why even the modern guys like Torrance, who you used to use, still leave room for penal substitution in our redemption.

 

[JonC]

Wrath when referring to God is only expressing his reaction to sin and rebellion. You might be able to surmise that God just needs to get over it . . ..

I never suggested God "needs to get over it". God does judge the wicked. Much of Jesus' words centered on that Day. The wicked will perish, and rightly so.

I certainly did not offer any elaborate plans about Christ being made man.

What I do say is that God does not punish crimes except that He punished the criminal. And I insist that to escape punishment the criminal must die and a new person created in his place.

That Christ had to become as one of us, share our infirmitiy, is not some elaborate plan.


Why do you believe that Christ needing to become the "Second Adam" is more preposterous than God taking our sinful actions, putting those actions on Jesus, punishing Jesus in order to forgive sins?