Atonement Theories
Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by Earth Wind and Fire, Aug 10, 2018.
Page 2 of 9
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
You mean when both identified jesus as being the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, the clearest expression of PST foiund in entire Bible?
-
I understand that there seveal different views, but the primary one of jesus and the Apostle was Pst!
-
were ANY of the ECF inspired?
-
PST fits what happened on the Cross the best!
-
I believe every supporter believes their view fits what happened on the Cross the best. That's why they hold their view.
-
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite SupporterI don't know anyone who believes in the "Christus Loser" View, but Christ is only the Victor because He fulfilled the will of the Father by laying down His life to redeem those whom the Father gave Him (John 10:11-18 etc.). This He did by paying the penalty for their sins in full on the cross (1 Peter 2:24 etc.).
More detail here: The Theological and Biblical Basis of Penal Substitution
and here: Penal Substitution and the Trinity -
The Christus Victor view entails much more than "Jesus won". Each theory is known for its focus.
Moral Influence theory looks towards moral transformation through Christ's teaching as the primary focus of Jesus' mission. Christus Victor looks towards God overcoming sin and evil that held man captive.
Satisfaction theory looks to Jesus' work as satisfying the demands of sin and death against man. Substitution theory (more a general theme) focuses on Christ as our substitute (the two most popular substitution theories are the Ransom theory and the Theory of Penal Substitution). The Ransom theory focuses on Christ as a substitute in the form of a ransom or price paid on our behalf (a general payment' paid to God, paid to "sin and death", or more common Origen's version paid to Satan). The Theory of Penal Substitution focuses on God satisfying the demands of divine justice by taking our punishment upon Himself (the Father punishing the Son) in our stead.
Hope that helps. The "no one holds the Christus Loser" idea is cute but meaningless. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite SupporterNot really. I had already read EWF's link.
I disagree (though it is kinda cute; thanks! :)). My point is that Christus Victor is meaningless-- we all agree that Jesus won-- unless Christ has also fulfilled the will of the Father, which was to crush Him and put Him to grief (Isaiah 53:10). -
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite SupporterHah Funny...:Laugh
Jon, our British brother could have gotten that content from reading the Wiki source I posted initially. Of course he scoffed at it. Would have saved you the time... however I did enjoy your post:Thumbsup -
All believe it was God's will to crush Him. But all don't hold to the Theory of Penal Substitution. All believe Christ conquered sin and death, but not all hold the Christus Victor view. All believe Jesus to be the "last Adam", but not all hold to recapitulation theory. All believe Jesus' teachings to be moral teachings for us to follow, but not all hold to the Moral Influence Theory.
Typically those who hold to Penal Substitution Theory believe that the opponent to natural man is ultimately God (because of man's rebellion). The problem is how God can be just and yet justify sinners. Christus Victor doesn't look in this direction. Instead the problem is sin and the need is for God to overcome evil (rather than satisfying divine justice). God is just and justified, but because of a righteousness apart from the Law (in a different manner than the theory of penal substitution). Historically (and apart from the neo-theories that have been developing over the past 2 decades) these two theories mix like oil and water. -
I aim to please. I almost mentioned watching Blazing Saddles last night on the political forum. :Biggrin
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporteri am presuming a fart joke? :Sneaky
-
I was actually thinking about this scene:
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
:Thumbsup
I like the Moral Influence Theory.
What I’m really , and for the 1st time in my life, wondering about is the doctrine of original sin. Why would God not forgive the human race and not teach love . I mean is Suffering and death really necessary in order to make us perfect? I don’t know but penal substitution theory is really tied to sacrificial lamb/ Old Testament stuff where we still have to shed blood. Christ cannot just be Lord, just be exemplary and pure... no he has to die -
There are aspects of the Moral Influence Theory that I agree with (and that is ignored largely today). I do believe that Christ's death was necessary as a "ransom", paying the penalty due mankind (suffering the consequences of sin, which is death) and being raised as the last Adam. So I'd disagree, perhaps, in that I do believe that the cross is a major focus and Christ's death necessary (but again, Paul presents this as a moral example of obedience). Our hope, however, is not based on the cross but on the resurrection (1 Cor. 15).
The only theory that doesn't "play well with others" is Penal Substitution Theory (perhaps it's predecessor). Those who hold the view have to redefine other theories in order to find some aspect of agreement (e.g., "no one holds Christus-loser"). I believe the reason is that penal substitution theory is very much a reaction to (or a revision of) RCC doctrine. It had a false start. -
All good questions. First: God is Holy and just and righteous. The sin must be punished, otherwise God is going against His nature of righteousness and justice.
Second: Because of the fall and sin entering into the world, God demonstrates that He loves us so much that He is willing to take on humanity, be as we are, and die for us. Without suffering and death we could not know the full extent of God's love, that He would suffer and die, taking His righteous punishment on Himself, for our benefit.
Third: Did the death of Jesus actually accomplish something or did it only potentionally accomplish something?
I don't know a lot about the moral influence theory, so correct me if necessary, but it seems to indicate the life and death of Jesus was an example that we should follow. By following the example of Jesus there is a potential for His death to make atonement for sins.
Substitution states His death made atonement for sins; Not potentionally, but actually. Atonement has been made. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite SupporterIt shouldn't really be necessary to point out that without the death of Christ, the resurrection would be really tricky.
Theology 101 tells us that in order to find the truth of every doctrine, we have to compare Scripture with Scripture.
Romans 5:6-8. 'For when we were still without strength, Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. Much more then, having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.'' Now of course, Romans 4:25, tells us that Christ was 'raised because of our justification,' and Romans 5:19 tells us that 'by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.' So what does this mean for us? It means that our hope is based on the perfect life, substitutionary death and resurrection as the firstfruits from the dead. All three are absolutely necessary for our salvation. and to try to suggest that one is more important than the other is lunacy.
Penal Substitution cannot be a reaction to RCC doctrine since it pre-dates it, most importantly in the Bible. I have shown several times that any number of ECFs, beginning with Justin Martyr taught P.S. I suppose I can trot them all out again if necessary, but the interested reader can find them for himself in the archives.
That our Lord's death should move us to live better lives in not at issue. That Christ rose 'victoriously' from the dead is beyond doubt. That a ransom was paid (not to Satan of course, but to God's justice) is there in the Bible. But if Christ has not paid the penalty for my sins in full, I shall have to pay for them myself. But, praise God, my sins have been paid for in full by Christ. 'Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Peter 2:24). -
Yes. All Christian's realize that Christ was crucified and raised on the third day. Our redemption incorporates Christ from cradle through the cross and resurrection to Him as our High Priest. Paul even tells us that this resurrection is our hope. That is why believers can be invited in Christ while disagreeing on other issues. But the fact that Christ died and was resurrected is nonnegotiable- one can't deny Christ's death and resurrection and be Christian.
Page 2 of 9