Victorious Christ - Atonement

[JonC]

Throught most of history there have two prevailing ways of looking at the Atonement. One is the "Classic" view and the other the "Latin" view. The contrast is easily seen in the different approaches to Christ's Work between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The " Classic" view approaches the Atonement through a Victorius Christ focus, that the work of the Christ was to redeem or ransom us from the bondage of sin and death. This view includes the Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Government Theory and Recapitulation.

The "Latin" view approaches the Atonement through the idea of appeasing or satisfying God. The basic view is the Satisfaction Theory, which developed into Substitution Theory and then (in the Reformation period) into Penal Substitution Theory.

This thread is intended to discuss the "Classic" view (the Victorius Christ" theme).

 

[ntchristian]

Throught most of history there have two prevailing ways of looking at the Atonement. One is the "Classic" view and the other the "Latin" view. The contrast is easily seen in the different approaches to Christ's Work between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The " Classic" view approaches the Atonement through a Victorius Christ focus, that the work of the Christ was to redeem or ransom us from the bondage of sin and death. This view includes the Ransom Theory, Moral Influence Theory, Government Theory and Recapitulation.

The "Latin" view approaches the Atonement through the idea of appeasing or satisfying God. The basic view is the Satisfaction Theory, which developed into Substitution Theory and then (in the Reformation period) into Penal Substitution Theory.

This thread is intended to discuss the "Classic" view (the Victorius Christ" theme).

Can't wait for this one to get started good.

Were it not for this atonement view, and the knowledge that it was the original view, I could not have remained a Christian. I will always be thankful to the EOC for preserving this most ancient atonement doctrine, and for the Anabaptist teaching of it, as well. Although, I don't hold to Denny Weaver's variation of it.

 

[JonC]

The Victorious Christ view is simple.

Christ shared in our infirmity, bore our sin in His body, suffered and died under the wages of sin in obedience to the Father (He is sinless) and was vindicated, becoming "a life giving Spirit", tge Firstborn.

The bondage of sin and death was broken, our enslavement ended, and Satan conquered. Death is still present but it has lost its sting.

This accounted for the "first death", for it is appointed man once to die and then the Judgment.

All judgment was given to Christ, in Whom there is no condemnation.

Those who are condemned are so already. This is the Judgment - that the Light has entered this world but men rejected the Light. But to al whi believe He gave the right to become children of God.

Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the World and in Him we escape the wrath to come (Judgment).

 

[DaveXR650]

Before this gets started it should be pointed out that the Victorious Christ view of the atonement is not opposed by those who believe the penal substitution view. For example, Martyn Lloyd Jones explains that view in sermon #7702 in his sermon archive. He also warns of the "recent" (one hundred years ago) effort to replace the penal substitution view with the Victorious Christ view. The Victorious Christ view is an additional help when trying to get a full view of all that Christ's atonement did accomplish but it does not replace or refute penal substitution and it would be false if someone tries to set it up that way.

 

[JonC]

Before this gets started it should be pointed out that the Victorious Christ view of the atonement is not opposed by those who believe the penal substitution view. For example, Martyn Lloyd Jones explains that view in sermon #7702 in his sermon archive. He also warns of the "recent" (one hundred years ago) effort to replace the penal substitution view with the Victorious Christ view. The Victorious Christ view is an additional help when trying to get a full view of all that Christ's atonement did accomplish but it does not replace or refute penal substitution and it would be false if someone tries to set it up that way.

In general it is not. Just like those who hold this view belueve that Christ I'd the Propitiation for our sins, we escape the wrath to come, He bore our sins etc. Penal Substitution Theorists also believe Christ was victorius.

But at its core these are fundamentally opposed views. Where the Victorious Christ views Jesus as sharing our infirmaty Penal Substitution Theory holds Christ experienced our infirmaty so we would not. Where Victorious Christ views see the Son being vindicated against an unjust death Penal Substitution Theory sees the Son as suffering God's wrath.

There is also a difference in how each view the consequences of sin. The "classic" view sees this as a physical death (which Christ overcame) and then a future Christ-centered Judgment. Penal Substitution Theory sees this as primarily a spiritual death, minimizing or ignoring physical death, that was in some way experienced by Christ in the form of divine judgment.

So while each affirms some of the other, the similarities ate somewhat superficial.

The Victorious Christ view is not new (it is as old as the Church) and it has existed in Early Church theology (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen), traditional Anabaptist theology, and tge Orthodox Church....to name a few.

But it has fairly recently gained favor in traditionally Penal Substitution Theory circles.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Before this gets started it should be pointed out that the Victorious Christ view of the atonement is not opposed by those who believe the penal substitution view. For example, Martyn Lloyd Jones explains that view in sermon #7702 in his sermon archive. He also warns of the "recent" (one hundred years ago) effort to replace the penal substitution view with the Victorious Christ view. The Victorious Christ view is an additional help when trying to get a full view of all that Christ's atonement did accomplish but it does not replace or refute penal substitution and it would be false if someone tries to set it up that way.

This is correct. The Victorious Christ Theory had been sidelined for hundreds of years, not as wrong - what Christian believes in a defeated Christ? - but as inadequate. It was resuscitated by a Swedish theologian called Gustav Aulen between the wars. It is Aulen's view that Lloyd-Jones was critiquing and calling 'recent.'

 

[JesusFan]

Can't wait for this one to get started good.

Were it not for this atonement view, and the knowledge that it was the original view, I could not have remained a Christian. I will always be thankful to the EOC for preserving this most ancient atonement doctrine, and for the Anabaptist teaching of it, as well. Although, I don't hold to Denny Weaver's variation of it.

Rome and Orthodox teach another Gospel though, as both deny Pauline Justification!

 

[JesusFan]

In general it is not. Just like those who hold this view belueve that Christ I'd the Propitiation for our sins, we escape the wrath to come, He bore our sins etc. Penal Substitution Theorists also believe Christ was victorius.

But at its core these are fundamentally opposed views. Where the Victorious Christ views Jesus as sharing our infirmaty Penal Substitution Theory holds Christ experienced our infirmaty so we would not. Where Victorious Christ views see the Son being vindicated against an unjust death Penal Substitution Theory sees the Son as suffering God's wrath.

There is also a difference in how each view the consequences of sin. The "classic" view sees this as a physical death (which Christ overcame) and then a future Christ-centered Judgment. Penal Substitution Theory sees this as primarily a spiritual death, minimizing or ignoring physical death, that was in some way experienced by Christ in the form of divine judgment.

So while each affirms some of the other, the similarities ate somewhat superficial.

The Victorious Christ view is not new (it is as old as the Church) and it has existed in Early Church theology (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen), traditional Anabaptist theology, and tge Orthodox Church....to name a few.

But it has fairly recently gained favor in traditionally Penal Substitution Theory circles.

I still cannot see on what basis the Father can justify lost sinners and stay Holy if not by the Psa atonement view?

 

[JesusFan]

This is correct. The Victorious Christ Theory had been sidelined for hundreds of years, not as wrong - what Christian believes in a defeated Christ? - but as inadequate. It was resuscitated by a Swedish theologian called Gustav Aulen between the wars. It is Aulen's view that Lloyd-Jones was critiquing and calling 'recent.'

How can the Father freely justify lost sinners and yet still be Holy under that view though, on what basis?

 

[DaveXR650]

How can the Father freely justify lost sinners and yet still be Holy under that view though, on what basis?

It doesn't replace PSA, but it brings in an additional aspect. You can also say for instance that Jesus dying on the cross shows God's great love for us. It's true but it can't stand alone.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

How can the Father freely justify lost sinners and yet still be Holy under that view though, on what basis?

Search me! Perhaps we shall find out in due course.

 

[JonC]

This is correct. The Victorious Christ Theory had been sidelined for hundreds of years, not as wrong - what Christian believes in a defeated Christ? - but as inadequate. It was resuscitated by a Swedish theologian called Gustav Aulen between the wars. It is Aulen's view that Lloyd-Jones was critiquing and calling 'recent.'

The problem is not that some believe in a defeated Christ (that shows you do not understand the Classic view of Atonement).

The Classic View stands in opposition to the Latin View. They cannot both be correct.

Where the Classic view looks at the Atonement as Christ sharing in our infirmity the Latin View views Christ experiencing our infirmaty instead of us.

Where the Classic View sees Christ's death as ransoming man from bondage to Satan or sin and death, the Latin View views Christ's death as ransoming man from God.

Where the Classic View views Christ as suffering and dying at the hands of wicked men by the will of God the Latin View (specifically Penal Substitution Theory) sees Christ as suffering God's wrath.

While the Classic View takes a literal approach to Scripture by seeing Christ as suffering the wages of sin as a physical death and then the Judgment Where Christ is vindicated the Latin View sees Christ as suffering a type of punishment equal to "the Second Death" (the judgment the lost will experience).
.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem is not that some believe in a defeated Christ (that shows you do not understand the Classic view of Atonement).

The Classic View stands in opposition to the Latin View. They cannot both be correct.

Where the Classic view looks at the Atonement as Christ sharing in our infirmity the Latin View views Christ experiencing our infirmaty [sic] instead of us.

Where the Classic View sees Christ's death as ransoming man from bondage to Satan or sin and death, the Latin View views Christ's death as ransoming man from God.

Where the Classic View views Christ as suffering and dying at the hands of wicked men by the will of God the Latin View (specifically Penal Substitution Theory) sees Christ as suffering God's wrath.

While the Classic View takes a literal approach to Scripture by seeing Christ as suffering the wages of sin as a physical death and then the Judgment Where Christ is vindicated the Latin View sees Christ as suffering a type of punishment equal to "the Second Death" (the judgment the lost will experience).
.

I think that if you want to promote Victorious Christ theory you need to spell out the doctrine in significantly more depth than you have done so far with some meaty quotes from the Bible and the Church fathers that you go on about.
The only support you have offered so far apart from vague generalizations as above is that you changed your view to support it, to which the obvious answer is Galatians 5:7, and your claim, unsupported by you so far, that the theory is ancient. So is Baptismal Regeneration, but that doesn't make it right