• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The “Christus Victor” View of the Atonement

Only sort of ... killing an animal never settled the legal debt owed God for a sin committed:
Lol, of course it didn't, it was a picture of what Christ would do. Your argument here fails. You've yet to address a single Scripture I've given, you're simply conjecturizing.
It caused PUNISHMENT to pass over for a season (until Jesus came).
Um, yeah, until He took OUR punishment for us.
So the OT sacrifice was really more "propitiation" than "penal substitution". Nobody ever tortured the lamb or doves because the sin deserved it. The analogy to "penal substitution" seems a bit forced.
Throwing in "torture" is another fail. Penal substitution is literally fitting because that is what it pictures and entails. You need to read Gordon Wenham on this.

By the way, no one is saying the substitute "deserved" the punishment.
However, there is already a topic about PENAL SUBSTUTUTION, this is a topic about CHRIST VICTORIOUS as a reason for the Atonement.
Of course.
Jesus died to accomplish what He did accomplish.
Yes, He took our sins and curse upon Himself. Galatians 3:13.
God forgives because God said he would forgive ... sin was defeated and God loves US ... there is no DEBT to anyone (except the debt to love as we are loved).
OK, but this proves nothing against PSA.
That is what Jesus and the NT teaches without needing to interpret symbolism from the OT to change what the NT says.
LOL!!!!!!!! The ENTIRETY of the argument in Hebrews completely refutes your above.

Come on pollard.
 
Throwing in "torture" is another fail.
:rolleyes: So in Penal Substitution, the beating and plucking beard and spitting and scourging wasn't necessary ... God was just feeling sadistic towards Jesus that morning? The Priest should have cut his throat mercifully, like a lamb. :sleep: (spare me your 'fails' ... it is YOU that are not accepting what the verses actually SAY.)
[See, I told you I was mean].
 
OK, but this proves nothing against PSA.
How would you set out to prove that there are no invisible unicorns in my house?
That is how much I want to prove that there is no PSA in the Bible (when you prove there are no unicorns, I will prove there is no PSA). :cool:
 
:rolleyes: So in Penal Substitution, the beating and plucking beard and spitting and scourging wasn't necessary ... God was just feeling sadistic towards Jesus that morning?
You're getting out of control, and you've yet to deal with the texts of Scripture.
The Priest should have cut his throat mercifully, like a lamb.
You're now bordering on blasphemy.
:sleep: (spare me your 'fails' ... it is YOU that are not accepting what the verses actually SAY.)
I acutally showed why your arguments failed, all you are doing is hitting back with ridicule. I focused on what the verse MEANS, not what it SAYS. That is the difference, I don't accept what you think it MEANS.
[See, I told you I was mean].
No need to try and prove it.

The fact is pollard, you're not dealing with what I said, nor the texts, but offering ridicule as a retort.
 
How would you set out to prove that there are no invisible unicorns in my house?
That is how much I want to prove that there is no PSA in the Bible (when you prove there are no unicorns, I will prove there is no PSA). :cool:
You do realize the above callow silliness is unprofitable, correct?
 
The fact is pollard, you're not dealing with what I said, nor the texts, but offering ridicule as a retort.
You do realize the above callow silliness is unprofitable, correct?
You win ... EVERY THREAD has to be about Penal Substitution.
Since I don't want to argue about what isn't there (invisible unicorns), I quit.
 
Cool!
... EVERY THREAD has to be about Penal Substitution.
You brought it up, not me:
It is PENAL SUBSTITUTION that comes from the Reformation [Luther and Calvin] era.
See that?
Since I don't want to argue about what isn't there (invisible unicorns), I quit.
OK, and you still don't address the clear Scriptures that refute you. Lots and lots of "unicorns" out there. ;)
 
This is often mentioned as a prime example of Cristus Victory view of atonement:

The Catechetical Sermon of St. John Chrysostom is read during Matins of Pascha.

If any man be devout and love God, let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast. If any man be a wise servant, let him rejoicing enter into the joy of his Lord. If any have labored long in fasting, let him now receive his recompense. If any have wrought from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward. If any have come at the third hour, let him with thankfulness keep the feast. If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings; because he shall in nowise be deprived thereof. If any have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing. If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even as the first; He gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has wrought from the first hour.

And He shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first; and to the one He gives, and upon the other He bestows gifts. And He both accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises the offering. Wherefore, enter you all into the joy of your Lord; and receive your reward, both the first, and likewise the second. You rich and poor together, hold high festival. You sober and you heedless, honor the day. Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast. The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously. The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.

Enjoy ye all the feast of faith: Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness. let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shown forth from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free. He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive. He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh. And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry: Hell, said he, was embittered, when it encountered Thee in the lower regions. It was embittered, for it was abolished. It was embittered, for it was mocked. It was embittered, for it was slain. It was embittered, for it was overthrown. It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains. It took a body, and met God face to face. It took earth, and encountered Heaven. It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.
 
Meh ... that's like saying that TULIP didn't exist until the 1930's when the Acrostic became vernacular. The PHRASE didn't exist ... the THEORY did.
Chrysostom's view was Christus Victor and predates the Reformation by a day or two :)
 
Chrysostom's view was Christus Victor and predates the Reformation by a day or two :)
All the various views of the atonement have some merit otherwise they would of never been accepted by Christendom as orthodoxy. Its the same with eschatology. :)
 
Thank you for the accusation and false narrative, but no.

I am PARTICULAR BAPTIST.
It is PENAL SUBSTITUTION that comes from the Reformation [Luther and Calvin] era.
Christus Victor as an Atonement theory far predates that.
Isaiah 53 is a real problem for the Christus Victor view; it clearly teaches penal substitutionary atonement.
 
Isaiah 53 is a real problem for the Christus Victor view; it clearly teaches penal substitutionary atonement.
As @civic said, the Cross of Christ accomplished more than just one view of atonement.
I believe both Christus Victor and Penal Substitution have Scriptural support.
 
As @civic said, the Cross of Christ accomplished more than just one view of atonement.
I believe both Christus Victor and Penal Substitution have Scriptural support.
The positive points in Christus Victor are part of PSA, but PSA includes vital elements omitted by CV.
 
Perhaps you could enumerate the positive points of Christus Victor, and the points you think are omitted?
Essentially, all the things that Christus Victor says that Jesus accomplished (victory over sin, death, hell and the powers of darkness; that Jesus died as our substitute and bore our sins and guilt, on the cross; and that Jesus was punished in our place) are positive points. There is no problem with any of this.

What is omitted, however, is very important too:

1) When the Bible says that Jesus bore our sins, it means exactly that, not in some figurative sense (what would that even mean?) but really. Jesus bore the sins of all his elect, on the cross; in other words, the Father imputed those sins to Jesus, as if he had committed them, so that he could impute his righteousness to us, as if we had been righteous.

2) Jesus was not only punished in our place; but, he bore the just punishments due to his elect, for our sins (otherwise what was he punished for, if not our sins?).

3) God's wrath was poured out upon Jesus, in our place, which is why the Father's wrath against us was propitiated and we have peace with God.
 
Back
Top