WHAT IS CHRISTUS VICTOR'S THEORY REGARDING SOLUTION FOR GOD'S WRATH ON HUMANS?

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps a review of the various theories of atonement would help. From Theopedia:

https://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ


The Atonement of Christ is the sacrificial work of Jesus for sinners. In his death on the cross, Christ atoned for the sins of humanity such that God is satisfied and reconciliation is accomplished for all who will be redeemed. The obedience and death of Christ on behalf of sinners is the ground of redemption.

Necessity of the atonement
As stated above, Jesus' death satisfied and reconciled sinners to God. Yet, in order to fully appreciate the doctrine of the atonement it must be made clear why the atonement was necessary.

See main pages: The Fall, Total depravity,Original sin


Theories of Atonement:

Historic theories
  • 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
  • The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), 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. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^ [1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith. See main page on Satisfaction theory
  • The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution. See main page on Penal substitution theory
  • The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died 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. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). See main page on Moral Influence theory
  • 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 onGovernmental theory of atonement
Modern theories
  • 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 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.
  • 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.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: SashaMaria
Upvote 0

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps a review of the various theories of atonement would help. From Theopedia:

https://www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ


The Atonement of Christ is the sacrificial work of Jesus for sinners. In his death on the cross, Christ atoned for the sins of humanity such that God is satisfied and reconciliation is accomplished for all who will be redeemed. The obedience and death of Christ on behalf of sinners is the ground of redemption.

Necessity of the atonement
As stated above, Jesus' death satisfied and reconciled sinners to God. Yet, in order to fully appreciate the doctrine of the atonement it must be made clear why the atonement was necessary.

See main pages: The Fall, Total depravity,Original sin


Theories of Atonement:

Historic theories
  • 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
  • The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), 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. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^ [1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith. See main page on Satisfaction theory
  • The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution. See main page on Penal substitution theory
  • The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died 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. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). See main page on Moral Influence theory
  • 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 onGovernmental theory of atonement
Modern theories
  • 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 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.
  • 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.

So you don't have specific answers to the following?

DOES CHRISTUS VICTOR THEORY (CVT) BELIEVE GOD WAS ANGRY AT ADAM EVE? Yes or no?

IF YES, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION PROPOSED IN CVT? Specific precise reply.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you don't have specific answers to the following?

DOES CHRISTUS VICTOR THEORY (CVT) BELIEVE GOD WAS ANGRY AT ADAM EVE? Yes or no?

IF YES, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION PROPOSED IN CVT? Specific precise reply.
The theory does not address satisfying God’s Justice. That is the weakness of the theory.

However, your question is loaded. What does anger have to do with justice?

Here’s more on Christus Victor.
 
Upvote 0

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
The theory does not address satisfying God’s Justice. That is the weakness of the theory.

However, your question is loaded. What does anger have to do with justice?

Here’s more on Christus Victor.

Are you denying God was angry with Adam Eve when He cursed them?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you denying God was angry with Adam Eve when He cursed them?
When reviewing Genesis 3, God only directly curses the serpent.

Eve would have pain in child birth and the land was cursed to where Adam would have to toil the soul to eat from it.

Yes this is judgment. No indication God was angry as we humans get angry.

And what this has to do with ‘Christus Victor' is puzzling to me.
 
Upvote 0

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
When reviewing Genesis 3, God only directly curses the serpent.

Eve would have pain in child birth and the land was cursed to where Adam would have to toil the soul to eat from it.

Yes this is judgment. No indication God was angry as we humans get angry.

And what this has to do with ‘Christus Victor' is puzzling to me.

Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life".

Didn't God directly curse them saying "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow"?

If yes wasn't God angry? If yes, how does christian victor solve it?
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Didn't God directly curse them saying "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow"?
Indeed judgment was upon them and mankind. We know this clearly from Romans 5.

If yes wasn't God angry? If yes, how does christian victor solve it?
Two fold question so will tackle the second part first. No CVT does not solve this and is an incomplete theory. Almost as if the theory wants to avoid addressing the Justice of a Holy God. Is CVT wrong? No, but incomplete.

First part of your question above. I would caution using the word “angry” as that evokes with some a human anger connotation.

Check our the below link to a thread I posed here on CF last year. I think it will address justice and anger.

The great wine press of the wrath of God
 
Upvote 0

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
Indeed judgment was upon them and mankind. We know this clearly from Romans 5.


Two fold question so will tackle the second part first. No CVT does not solve this and is an incomplete theory. Almost as if the theory wants to avoid addressing the Justice of a Holy God. Is CVT wrong? No, but incomplete.

First part of your question above. I would caution using the word “angry” as that evokes with some a human anger connotation.

Check our the below link to a thread I posed here on CF last year. I think it will address justice and anger.

The great wine press of the wrath of God

First part of your question above. I would caution using the word “angry” as that evokes with some a human anger connotation.
Romans 4:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression".

As per the above, God's wrath comes upon humans through the law. What do you mean by human anger connotation?

Without God being angry at Adam Eve, how would He curse them directly saying "I WILL greatly multiply thy sorrow"?
 
Upvote 0

mcarans

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2018
539
226
47
Wellington
✟136,444.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You may find this helpful:
A More Christlike God by Brad Jersak: Review and Long Summary : cruciformity
"Similarly to Greg Boyd, Brad sees divine wrath as a metaphor for God letting us face the consequences (wages) of our sins so that we "find out own bottom" and then willingly "surrender to the arms of grace". He observes that many read verses about peace figuratively yet take ones on wrath literally. Reading the Bible literally is symptomatic of mythic-literal faith (stage 2 of James Fowler's "Stages of Faith") and we must learn to use the lens of "cruciform consent". Where Jersak differs from Boyd is that he does not believe God withdraws his mercy to allow sin to run its course but rather that we consciously or unconsciously decide to reject it - our "free agency coupled with cause and effect creates results". Acts of God's active wrath are God consenting to the natural and supernatural (Satan) consequences of human decisions. God allows violence as a byproduct of human freedom but also subverts and overcomes it."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
You may find this helpful:
A More Christlike God by Brad Jersak: Review and Long Summary : cruciformity
"Similarly to Greg Boyd, Brad sees divine wrath as a metaphor for God letting us face the consequences (wages) of our sins so that we "find out own bottom" and then willingly "surrender to the arms of grace". He observes that many read verses about peace figuratively yet take ones on wrath literally. Reading the Bible literally is symptomatic of mythic-literal faith (stage 2 of James Fowler's "Stages of Faith") and we must learn to use the lens of "cruciform consent". Where Jersak differs from Boyd is that he does not believe God withdraws his mercy to allow sin to run its course but rather that we consciously or unconsciously decide to reject it - our "free agency coupled with cause and effect creates results". Acts of God's active wrath are God consenting to the natural and supernatural (Satan) consequences of human decisions. God allows violence as a byproduct of human freedom but also subverts and overcomes it."

Brad sees divine wrath as a metaphor

So God's wrath and the consequences like the curses upon Adam Eve & the entire human race are only metaphors perhaps like fiction & figment of imagination & aren't real? Is such a theory empathetical towards human suffering?

Acts of God's active wrath are God consenting to the natural and supernatural (Satan) consequences of human decisions.

Job 1: 8 "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?"

Did God consent to satan's plan or was it God who started the discussion about Job with satan? Doesn't God have a plan for human suffering & history?
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,239
1,818
✟831,748.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life".

Didn't God directly curse them saying "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow"?

If yes wasn't God angry? If yes, how does christian victor solve it?
Is it "bad" to feel "sorrow" or is it helpful?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,236
9,223
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,164,889.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
DOES CHRISTUS VICTOR THEORY (CVT) BELIEVE GOD WAS ANGRY AT ADAM EVE?

IF YES, WHAT IS THE SOLUTION PROPOSED IN CVT?
One way to understand when there are many theories, and you can see some truths in more than one of them, is that all of the true things are correct, and no one theory encompasses God. In other words, this is not an Either/Or choice.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SashaMaria
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,239
1,818
✟831,748.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
One way to understand when there are many theories, and you can see some truths in more than one of them, is that all of the true things are correct, and no one theory encompasses God. In other words, this is not an Either/Or choice.
So all are wrong?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,236
9,223
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,164,889.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So all are wrong?
To my way of thinking, several have parts of the truth. But also, I accept, believe, that we cannot really encompass God's thoughts -- Isaiah 55 NIV -- and this is very real. So, we literally cannot understand fully. This is part of the meaning of the word "mystery" -- things that are ultimately above our thinking, though over time we can grow so that we can begin to understand partly, begin to understand some things we did not when younger. Not total understanding, but some things are so sublime it can seem as if we've got it when we reach those.
 
Upvote 0

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
Is it "bad" to feel "sorrow" or is it helpful?

You mean God felt sorrow & wasn't angry when He cursed them with sufferings & death?

Romans 4:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression". Are you denying God's wrath?
 
Upvote 0

Si_monfaith

Let God alone answer through us
Feb 27, 2016
2,274
210
33
Australia
✟25,925.00
Country
India
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Single
One way to understand when there are many theories, and you can see some truths in more than one of them, is that all of the true things are correct, and no one theory encompasses God. In other words, this is not an Either/Or choice.

What is the use of proposing the defeat of sin/death/satan when humans are yet under God's wrath that came through acquiring the forbidden knowledge of good and evil which only God had (Genesis 3:22)? Will it save them from eternal hell?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,236
9,223
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,164,889.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What is the use of proposing the defeat of sin/death/satan when humans are yet under God's wrath that came through acquiring the forbidden knowledge of good and evil which only God had (Genesis 3:22)? Will it save them from eternal hell?
To me, the Garden of Eden story is about whether one trusts God, or instead trusts one's own....self over God. The temptation from the serpent was to distrust God, and put oneself in His place. See? Adam and Eve broke faith, by trusting themselves to take up such weighty things as judging others. They separated themselves from communion with God in that way. This is something we all can stumble into at times, so the Garden story is a story of each one of us also. We need this life experience to learn better, in one sense, I think. Or rather, it's one thing we could learn here in these mortal bodies.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,239
1,818
✟831,748.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You mean God felt sorrow & wasn't angry when He cursed them with sufferings & death?

Romans 4:15 "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression". Are you denying God's wrath?
You seem to use God's wrath, God's cures, and people being sorrowful interchangeably?
What ever God does for willing humans including cursing, being wrathful or causing us sorrow here on earth is to help us fulfill our objective.

The "Old Law" showed us how bad we really are and deserving of God's wrath, so in that way the Law works wrath upon us, but that also helps us seeking out God's mercy and forgiveness.
 
Upvote 0