• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atonement theories.

Which Atonement theory do you agree with?

  • The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Governmental Theory

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Let's talk Atonement theories. There are many. Which theory do you adhere to? Have you come up with your own? I'm allowing multiple choice on this poll because the theories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and many denominations and people blend them.

I spent some time reading about this last night and it seems to me, particularly in Western Christianity, that we all agree that Christ is our Savior from sin, but we disagree and aren't really sure about how He saves us from sin.

Here are the common theories:

Penal substitutionary atonement:

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

Satisfaction theory of the atonement:

The Satisfaction (or Commercial) theory of the atonement was formulated by the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. ‘Why the God Man’). In his view, God’s offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

Anslem believed that humans could not render to God more than what was due to him. The satisfaction due to God was greater than what all created beings are capable of doing, since they can only do what is already required of them. Therefore, God had to make satisfaction for himself. Yet if this satisfaction was going to avail for humans, it had to be made by a human. Therefore only a being that was both God and man could satisfy God and give him the honor that is due him.

Moral Influence theory of atonement:

The Moral influence theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. In this view, the purpose and result of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action.

Christus Victor:

Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulén's groundbreaking book, first published in 1931, where he drew attention back to the early church's Ransom theory. In Christus Victor, the atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. Aulén argues that the classic Ransom theory is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin. As Gustav Aulén writes, "the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil."^[1]^

The Ransom Theory:

The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.


The Recapitulation Theory:

Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. See main page on Recapitulation theory of atonement


Less common/modern theories:

The Governmental Theory:

God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism. See main page on Governmental theory of atonement

The Declaratory Theory:

A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).

The Guaranty Theory:

Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).

The Vicarious Repentance Theory:

by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.

The Accident Theory:

Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

The Martyr Theory:

Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ

My opinion:

Personally, when I evaluate an Atonement theory, I look for two things:

First, that it factors in the whole of Christ's life in His saving work and doesn't obsess over the crucifixion to the point where everything else is glossed over or placed in the backdrop. After all, Christianity has always understood Easter to be the centerpiece of the liturgical calender, not Good Friday. Unfortunately, Western Christianity makes it a habit of focusing on the crucifixion to the point of nearly ignoring the Resurrection. This is not good. Our Eastern brothers and sisters don't do this and we would do much good to be like them in this matter. Eastern Christianity is much more optimistic and hopeful than Western Christianity tends to be and that is how it was in the early Church. I think it's past time to return to our ancient roots on this matter.

Second, the theory can't imagine God to be like some bloodthirsty, wrathful pagan god. That is obscene and offensive and an affront to the New Testament God of mercy and compassion, the God Who loves us so much that He would die to show us the depths of His love.

So, that in mind, the Satisfaction theories and the Penal Substitution theories are out the window. Both take a legalistic view of God as demanding a blood sacrifice of His Son. Both pretty much ignore the Resurrection and the teachings of Christ's life. Both make salvation into just being a legal transaction or even a financial transaction. So those two theories should be dismissed out of hand. All the criticism about it making it seem like God is demanding a human sacrifice is true. Even Benedict XVI made the same criticism of the Satisfaction theory.

To be honest, I don't recall ever being taught Anselm's Satisfaction theory or the Penal Substitution theory. (I never would've been taught the Penal theory as that is a Calvinist invention that is rejected by the Church.) How I always understood it is that Christ's sacrifice was one of limitless love to the Father, Who found this more pleasing than the imperfect animal sacrifices given. He did not have the sins of humanity laid upon Him, but rather became one with our sinful nature in a mysterious way while remaining sinless Himself. This ties into Christ being the New Adam Who succeeded where Adam failed (Mary is the New Eve who succeeded where Eve failed.) So already, my position is closer to the Recapitulation theory. There's nothing about a legalistic idea of God's wrath (such as in the Penal theory) or God's honor being offended (Satisfaction theory). 3 days after that, He triumphed over death, thus destroying the power of evil in the world. In this too, He reveals Himself as the New Adam Who makes humanity anew. So there's elements of the Christus Victor theory in my belief. As for Moral Influence, His life is one of perfect moral example to us that causes inner change when we meditate upon it and follow Christ.
 
Last edited:

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
I have some really interesting material about Christus Victor theory by Walter Wink, I am going to dig it up and do some sharing. In his version of the theory Christ not only exposes and defeats the corrupted powers but actually set them back on their right course and redeems them.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I have some really interesting material about Christus Victor theory by Walter Wink, I am going to dig it up and do some sharing. In his version of the theory Christ not only exposes and defeats the corrupted powers but actually set them back on their right course and redeems them.

Yes, please share! :)
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I hold to Christus Victor, Ransom, Recapitulation and Moral Influence. These together form the composite view which was originally held in Christianity, as evidenced in the writings of the New Testament and the testimonies of the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers.

I agree that both the satisfaction theory and the penal substitution theories paint God as being overly legalistic and controlled by His own anger and feelings of being offended, which tarnishes both His omnipotence and His lovingkindness. And to add insult to injury, if one takes these two models of the atonement as true, then it means that God has the problem, not us--God has to save us from Himself, not from sin or death!

They also don't function logically; if an innocent man pays the price for a guilty man, then justice has not been satisfied. Rather, a double-injustice has been committed, so therefore, it is impossible that Christ's death could have satisfied justice for the sins of the rest of mankind, if He Himself had no sin.

I believe that Jesus' taking on the penalties of our sins and dying for us didn't satisfy any wrath or feelings of offense on God's part; rather, when He took on our sins and nailed them to the cross in His death, He took away the alienation that existed between man and God as a result of our sin, thus restoring our relationship with God and bridging the chasm of separation which no man could cross, reopening for us the way upward to Heaven.

Ultimately, Christ's death was the culmination of His assuming our human nature. He took on our human nature, was born as a man, experienced all that we do in our human lives, and even died for us as one of us, that we might become like Him in theosis, be reborn in Him, experience all that He does in His Divine Life, and be resurrected from the dead on the Last Day into eternal life, as heirs of the eternal Kingdom. Adam led us into death, corruption, sin and separation from God, and now Christ leads us into eternal life, incorruption, holiness, and communion with God, as we were meant to have it.

And, regarding Christus Victor, saint_frankenstein already said it, but I want St. John Chrysostom to say it too. :D From his Paschal sermon, read every year in the Eastern Orthodox Church at Paschal Matins (as well as in all Eastern Catholic parishes of the Byzantine Rite) :

Let none lament his poverty;
for the universal Kingdom is revealed.
Let none bewail his transgressions;
for the light of forgiveness has risen from the tomb.
Let none fear death;
for death of the Saviour has set us free.
He has destroyed death by undergoing death.
He has despoiled hell by descending into hell.
He vexed it even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he cried:
Hell was filled with bitterness when it met Thee face to face below;
filled with bitterness, for it was brought to nothing;
filled with bitterness, for it was mocked;
filled with bitterness, for it was overthrown;
filled with bitterness, for it was put in chains.
Hell received a body, and encountered God. It received earth, and confronted heaven.
O death, where is your sting?
O hell, where is your victory?
Christ is risen! And you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is risen! And the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is risen! And the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen! And life is liberated!
Christ is risen! And the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
To Him be Glory and Power, now and forever, and from all ages to all ages.
Amen!
 
Last edited:

Norrin-6-

Member
Theologically speaking I had to go with Moral-Influence.

Being an agnostic-atheist, my view of Christ's death is probably closer to the Accident theory, although I wouldn't class it as a theory of Atonement. Just an unfortunate fate.

Yes, I still view Christianity with a religious lens from time to time event though I don't believe. It's fun to exercise my mind that way.
 

Phil25

Active Member
I am not really knowledgeable about Christian Theology. All atonement theories look similar to me.:p
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
I am not really knowledgeable about Christian Theology. All atonement theories look similar to me.:p

Why aren't you? Some Atonement Theories are in direct confrontation with others. I cannot reconcile Moral Influence with Penal Substitution.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
The gospel teachings centered around agape, or unconditional love. The story of his life reflected this internal struggle to more fully realize the mind of God through the Spirit. The torture and crucifixion were not really necessary parts of the Atonement principle because it is always in effect regardless. The gospel merely reveals the Truth, which can only be hidden but never lost. It wasn't really an accident either, but caused by the ignorance of the masses. In a final act of love, upon dying, Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of their ignorance so that the Children of God may forget their partial minds and remember holiness again. The historical person of Jesus died on the cross and never returned. Only Christ resurrected because real ideas are crucifix-proof and God only wills that which is real.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
I am actually really surprised to see that neither Satisfaction theory nor Penal Substitution have even a single vote. Those are about the only two views you ever hear in American Protestantism.
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
I believe the penal-substitution theory. Where would we be without the sacrifice of Jesus? Doesn't it say that the wages of sin is death in Romans? It is obvious to me from that verse that the sacrifice of Jesus was a part of God's sovereign plan to substitute himself because sin is a God sized problem. If those animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were good enough to remove our sin from our credit then there was absolutely no reason for Christ to die.

I like the Moral influence theory. The story of the Cross is meant to convict people of their sin. (Primarily because that is the reason why Christ died) The death of Jesus was for both God and man. It was for God so that he could justify the sinner, it was for the sinner to look and see the anger of God against sin, but also for the sinner to look and see the love of God in the person of Jesus. Who willingly died for us.

Ultimately I have to agree with Saint Frankenstein. Even in his death Jesus triumphs. And He is victorious over the darkness in that moment and for all time. Death is not defeat in Jesus, death is not the end in Jesus. Why? Because I am hidden in Christ, the risen King. When Jesus both died and rose again he called many to life. Jesus is the victor. And for that I have to also adhere to the Christus Victor theory.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
So, that in mind, the Satisfaction theories and the Penal Substitution theories are out the window. Both take a legalistic view of God as demanding a blood sacrifice of His Son. Both pretty much ignore the Resurrection and the teachings of Christ's life. Both make salvation into just being a legal transaction or even a financial transaction. So those two theories should be dismissed out of hand. All the criticism about it making it seem like God is demanding a human sacrifice is true. Even Benedict XVI made the same criticism of the Satisfaction theory.

To be honest, I don't recall ever being taught Anselm's Satisfaction theory or the Penal Substitution theory.
I just now noticed this, but I find it amazing that Pope Benedict criticized the Satisfaction theory. I am noticing a much, much more prevalent theme in Roman Catholicism about God being love--in fact, I would say that that's the defining characteristic of Catholicism's view of God.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I just now noticed this, but I find it amazing that Pope Benedict criticized the Satisfaction theory. I am noticing a much, much more prevalent theme in Roman Catholicism about God being love--in fact, I would say that that's the defining characteristic of Catholicism's view of God.
There is change afoot in the Church. ;)
 

sudakar

God's faithful
Let's talk Atonement theories. There are many. Which theory do you adhere to? Have you come up with your own? I'm allowing multiple choice on this poll because the theories aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and many denominations and people blend them.

I spent some time reading about this last night and it seems to me, particularly in Western Christianity, that we all agree that Christ is our Savior from sin, but we disagree and aren't really sure about how He saves us from sin.

Here are the common theories:

Penal substitutionary atonement:

Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners. God imputed the guilt of our sins to Christ, and he, in our place, bore the punishment that we deserve. This was a full payment for sins, which satisfied both the wrath and the righteousness of God, so that He could forgive sinners without compromising His own holy standard.

Satisfaction theory of the atonement:

The Satisfaction (or Commercial) theory of the atonement was formulated by the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. ‘Why the God Man’). In his view, God’s offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ.

Anslem believed that humans could not render to God more than what was due to him. The satisfaction due to God was greater than what all created beings are capable of doing, since they can only do what is already required of them. Therefore, God had to make satisfaction for himself. Yet if this satisfaction was going to avail for humans, it had to be made by a human. Therefore only a being that was both God and man could satisfy God and give him the honor that is due him.

Moral Influence theory of atonement:

The Moral influence theory of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ. In this view, the purpose and result of Christ's death was to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action.

Christus Victor:

Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulén's groundbreaking book, first published in 1931, where he drew attention back to the early church's Ransom theory. In Christus Victor, the atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. Aulén argues that the classic Ransom theory is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin. As Gustav Aulén writes, "the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil."^[1]^

The Ransom Theory:

The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.


The Recapitulation Theory:

Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. See main page on Recapitulation theory of atonement


Less common/modern theories:

The Governmental Theory:

God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism. See main page on Governmental theory of atonement

The Declaratory Theory:

A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).

The Guaranty Theory:

Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).

The Vicarious Repentance Theory:

by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.

The Accident Theory:

Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

The Martyr Theory:

Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ

My opinion:

Personally, when I evaluate an Atonement theory, I look for two things:

First, that it factors in the whole of Christ's life in His saving work and doesn't obsess over the crucifixion to the point where everything else is glossed over or placed in the backdrop. After all, Christianity has always understood Easter to be the centerpiece of the liturgical calender, not Good Friday. Unfortunately, Western Christianity makes it a habit of focusing on the crucifixion to the point of nearly ignoring the Resurrection. This is not good. Our Eastern brothers and sisters don't do this and we would do much good to be like them in this matter. Eastern Christianity is much more optimistic and hopeful than Western Christianity tends to be and that is how it was in the early Church. I think it's past time to return to our ancient roots on this matter.

Second, the theory can't imagine God to be like some bloodthirsty, wrathful pagan god. That is obscene and offensive and an affront to the New Testament God of mercy and compassion, the God Who loves us so much that He would die to show us the depths of His love.

So, that in mind, the Satisfaction theories and the Penal Substitution theories are out the window. Both take a legalistic view of God as demanding a blood sacrifice of His Son. Both pretty much ignore the Resurrection and the teachings of Christ's life. Both make salvation into just being a legal transaction or even a financial transaction. So those two theories should be dismissed out of hand. All the criticism about it making it seem like God is demanding a human sacrifice is true. Even Benedict XVI made the same criticism of the Satisfaction theory.

To be honest, I don't recall ever being taught Anselm's Satisfaction theory or the Penal Substitution theory. (I never would've been taught the Penal theory as that is a Calvinist invention that is rejected by the Church.) How I always understood it is that Christ's sacrifice was one of limitless love to the Father, Who found this more pleasing than the imperfect animal sacrifices given. He did not have the sins of humanity laid upon Him, but rather became one with our sinful nature in a mysterious way while remaining sinless Himself. This ties into Christ being the New Adam Who succeeded where Adam failed (Mary is the New Eve who succeeded where Eve failed.) So already, my position is closer to the Recapitulation theory. There's nothing about a legalistic idea of God's wrath (such as in the Penal theory) or God's honor being offended (Satisfaction theory). 3 days after that, He triumphed over death, thus destroying the power of evil in the world. In this too, He reveals Himself as the New Adam Who makes humanity anew. So there's elements of the Christus Victor theory in my belief. As for Moral Influence, His life is one of perfect moral example to us that causes inner change when we meditate upon it and follow Christ.

Second, the theory can't imagine God to be like some bloodthirsty, wrathful pagan god.

So was God making a demand because He was unable/unwilling to defeat sin, death & satan without sending Jesus to torture, suffering and death?

Was God the Father bloodthirsty and simply demanding SOMEONE suffer "or else" He will refuse to defeat sin, death & satan?
 

sudakar

God's faithful
I hold to Christus Victor, Ransom, Recapitulation and Moral Influence. These together form the composite view which was originally held in Christianity, as evidenced in the writings of the New Testament and the testimonies of the Apostolic Fathers and the Early Church Fathers.

I agree that both the satisfaction theory and the penal substitution theories paint God as being overly legalistic and controlled by His own anger and feelings of being offended, which tarnishes both His omnipotence and His lovingkindness. And to add insult to injury, if one takes these two models of the atonement as true, then it means that God has the problem, not us--God has to save us from Himself, not from sin or death!

They also don't function logically; if an innocent man pays the price for a guilty man, then justice has not been satisfied. Rather, a double-injustice has been committed, so therefore, it is impossible that Christ's death could have satisfied justice for the sins of the rest of mankind, if He Himself had no sin.

I believe that Jesus' taking on the penalties of our sins and dying for us didn't satisfy any wrath or feelings of offense on God's part; rather, when He took on our sins and nailed them to the cross in His death, He took away the alienation that existed between man and God as a result of our sin, thus restoring our relationship with God and bridging the chasm of separation which no man could cross, reopening for us the way upward to Heaven.

Ultimately, Christ's death was the culmination of His assuming our human nature. He took on our human nature, was born as a man, experienced all that we do in our human lives, and even died for us as one of us, that we might become like Him in theosis, be reborn in Him, experience all that He does in His Divine Life, and be resurrected from the dead on the Last Day into eternal life, as heirs of the eternal Kingdom. Adam led us into death, corruption, sin and separation from God, and now Christ leads us into eternal life, incorruption, holiness, and communion with God, as we were meant to have it.

And, regarding Christus Victor, saint_frankenstein already said it, but I want St. John Chrysostom to say it too. :D From his Paschal sermon, read every year in the Eastern Orthodox Church at Paschal Matins (as well as in all Eastern Catholic parishes of the Byzantine Rite) :

Let none lament his poverty;
for the universal Kingdom is revealed.
Let none bewail his transgressions;
for the light of forgiveness has risen from the tomb.
Let none fear death;
for death of the Saviour has set us free.
He has destroyed death by undergoing death.
He has despoiled hell by descending into hell.
He vexed it even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he cried:
Hell was filled with bitterness when it met Thee face to face below;
filled with bitterness, for it was brought to nothing;
filled with bitterness, for it was mocked;
filled with bitterness, for it was overthrown;
filled with bitterness, for it was put in chains.
Hell received a body, and encountered God. It received earth, and confronted heaven.
O death, where is your sting?
O hell, where is your victory?
Christ is risen! And you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is risen! And the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is risen! And the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen! And life is liberated!
Christ is risen! And the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
To Him be Glory and Power, now and forever, and from all ages to all ages.
Amen!


Death didn't come all of a sudden. Instead death followed God's wrath. Wrath followed the knowledge of good and evil (kge).
But christus victor abruptly jumps to address death without addressing kge & God's wrath. Why?
 

sudakar

God's faithful
I believe the penal-substitution theory. Where would we be without the sacrifice of Jesus? Doesn't it say that the wages of sin is death in Romans? It is obvious to me from that verse that the sacrifice of Jesus was a part of God's sovereign plan to substitute himself because sin is a God sized problem. If those animal sacrifices in the Old Testament were good enough to remove our sin from our credit then there was absolutely no reason for Christ to die.

I like the Moral influence theory. The story of the Cross is meant to convict people of their sin. (Primarily because that is the reason why Christ died) The death of Jesus was for both God and man. It was for God so that he could justify the sinner, it was for the sinner to look and see the anger of God against sin, but also for the sinner to look and see the love of God in the person of Jesus. Who willingly died for us.

Ultimately I have to agree with Saint Frankenstein. Even in his death Jesus triumphs. And He is victorious over the darkness in that moment and for all time. Death is not defeat in Jesus, death is not the end in Jesus. Why? Because I am hidden in Christ, the risen King. When Jesus both died and rose again he called many to life. Jesus is the victor. And for that I have to also adhere to the Christus Victor theory.

Does PS deny Christ's victory over sin, death & satan? Does not CV deny PS?
 

sudakar

God's faithful
The gospel teachings centered around agape, or unconditional love. The story of his life reflected this internal struggle to more fully realize the mind of God through the Spirit. The torture and crucifixion were not really necessary parts of the Atonement principle because it is always in effect regardless. The gospel merely reveals the Truth, which can only be hidden but never lost. It wasn't really an accident either, but caused by the ignorance of the masses. In a final act of love, upon dying, Jesus prayed for the forgiveness of their ignorance so that the Children of God may forget their partial minds and remember holiness again. The historical person of Jesus died on the cross and never returned. Only Christ resurrected because real ideas are crucifix-proof and God only wills that which is real.

You mean to say Christ's death was only to show God's love?
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
Almost missed this thread.
I voted for Christus Victor theory. My reasoning at this time:
  • By no means do I deny, belittle, or attempt to replace what God did in freeing the Jews from their Egyptian masters.
    • That said, IMO, Jesus' death effected the salvation of all who avail themselves of that salvation by each person's acknowledgment that it occurred at Jesus' death and by claiming it, each for him- or herself.
  • In the specific case of Jews in Egypt, I read:
    • Exodus 12:1-2. HaShem tells Moses and Aaron how to start counting Jewish months.
    • Then, in verse 3, HaShem instructs them to "Speak to the entire community of Israel, ..." telling them to do what? to select unblemished lambs, from the sheep or goats, and on a specific day, to slaughter the animals and put some the blood on the doorposts and lintel of the Israelites' homes.
    • And He tells them: "I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night, and I will smite every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast, and upon all the gods of Egypt will I wreak judgments I, the Lord."
    • The blood was essential to distinguish those in captivity from their captors.
    • For those of us willing to believe, accept, and trust in him, Jesus is our "Passover Lamb" and by his blood, we are set free from the bondage of and slavery to sin.
    • Having been freed, we each have yet to make the journey through the desert, remembering that Jesus Christ's death freed us to begin that journey. The journey is impossible with out the freedom to make it. The freedom to make the journey is wasted on us if we don't make it.
      • Philippians 2:
        • 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
        • 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
        • 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
        • 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
        • 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
        • 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
        • 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
        • 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
        • 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
  • Christus Victor, from beginning to end.
 
Top