Featured Atonement

Satan has no LEGAL claim on this world or on humanity. He is a usurper. His rights did not come from God but from Adam's disobedience to God and willful submission to Satan. Hence, what man willfully forfeited by disobedience man willfully reclaimed by obedience and satisfaction of the divine law.

Isaiah 53 repudiates your whole theory.

 

"Theories" can from anywhere: early churches, tradition, paganism, etc. You name it, a theory can come from anywhere.
Sound doctrine comes from the Word of God no matter who says what.
Is the doctrine based on "theories" of men, or the doctrine of God? That is the real question.

 

Your contending that God hands humans over to the devil & that he takes over ownership? HUH???

Hard for me to believe Michael that the Devil has control of anything but deception.

 

OK I have no wish to insult your beliefs however you do see how this prospective implies that God shares His authority with the devil....surely you must see this.

My own theology stresses the Sovereignty of God. So I would be hard pressed to accept this particular doctrine.

 

Don't you just hate those "universal absolutes" which are impossible to prove. You would be wiser to say "All the theories that I am acquainted with," which might only be two or three for all I am concerned. To say all theories before the first millennium did not teach such doctrine as penal substitution simply means you have not done your homework and cannot possible prove it. How are you going to go back into that one thousand time period and interview every Christian that ever lived as to what theory of the atonement they believed. Most never wrote it down. Your position is impossible and ludicrous.

 

Yes but this is just to show you alternative belief systems. Michael, do Mennonites subscribe to this particular viewpoint?

 

Christus Victor theory makes the best sense.

 

You are making yourself both judge and jury. You have arbritrarily decided that the penal substutitionary atonement position is not biblical but you cannot prove that, so you just assert it. You cannot prove the "earliest churches" which are the churches in the New Testament believed what you believe so you just assert it. You cannot prove penal substitutionary atonement is not found in the selective history preserved by Roman Catholics so you just assert it.

You have arbritrarily decided that the Christus Victor theory is the earliest theory but can you even find the words "Christus Victor" even used by anyone in the first 1000 years of recorded Roman Catholic history????

Isaiah 53 and the whole book of Leviticus destroy your theory from the Old Testament perspective. The New Testament equally destroys it as the New Testament places the emphasis upon Christ's death for our sins while your theory really regards the death of Christ as non-essential for the salvation of the elect, which sufficiently proves where that theory really originates (1 Tim. 4:1).

Finally, your whole line of argument is a HISTORICAL and PHILOSOPHICAL instead of a Biblical based line of argument. This is true with much of what you believe. You choose to argue from an UNINSPIRED basis than from an INSPIRED basis. That is the earmark of most heresies simply because they cannot be supported Biblically.

 

Im going to make this statement that I "Think" (IE I cannot say for certain) but I again think that this is the type of atonement taught to me by the RC Church just prior to "Vatican II" because I have veuge recollections of the nuns expressing this & I questioned them as I am now questioning Michael. Next I have most of my late mothers Catechism Books (again pre Vat 2) &infant baptism during this time was really a staged exorcism. Of course its evolved since the 60's but Michaels Christus Victor doctrines are ringing bells & setting off alarms inside my memory.

I will just make the statement that from a "Personal Prospective" these would be doctrines that always confounded me & caused me to walk away from the Roman Catholic Church in the 1st place buts thats my own personal decision. I have a friend or two (one who passed away 3 yrs ago) who were in active revolt from the more modern RC Church & have not walked lock step with them. They would have probably preferred Christus Victor theology where my Great Great Grandfather (A Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Pastor) would have called it nonsense.

Interesting topic I should research more. Thanks for the tip Michael.

 

Wasnt Menno a RC Priest prior to his conversion?