penal substitution verses Christus Victor

[worshipjunkie]

Could someone (as objectively as possible- not looking to debate) explain to me the difference between these two theologies and what they mean? I know about penal substitution somewhat; not so much on Christus Victor.

And I, for the rest of this thread, will be using the abbreviations PS and CV because I don't want to type out the full names each time.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Could someone (as objectively as possible- not looking to debate) explain to me the difference between these two theologies and what they mean? I know about penal substitution somewhat; not so much on Christus Victor.

And I, for the rest of this thread, will be using the abbreviations PS and CV because I don't want to type out the full names each time.

The PS theory came about at the reformation.
In this theory God is mad at we humans and demands a sacrifice to satisfy His wrath. So Jesus dies to satisfy this wrath...and since the sin was so big, then the sacrifice has to be big too.

Jesus is punished in our place...thus satisfying God's justice. When we believe in Christ for our salvation, His righteousness is imputed to us.

Jesus is punished in our stead.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The CV theory Jesus dies in order to defeat the power of darkness and satan, which would be death, the power of sin, etc.

Mankind is in bondage to satan due to Adam's fall.
The cross somehow defeated evil and death (due to Jesus resurrection for example).

This is the idea of the early church.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I would just like to say that there are other theories and no one of them will satisfy scripture 100%...each theory has valid points.

I won't give my opinion since you don't care for debate and giving opinion might do just that.

 

[The Righterzpen]

In the context of the entirety of Scripture; Christ is Victor because of Penal Substitution. The concept of "ransom" isn't actually an opposing view of atonement to penal substitution. Ransom is just a different way of explaining what is accomplished; not how it's done. How it was done was through penal substitution.

Ransom:
Now, who is the ransom given to?

The ransom is not paid to Satan. The deliverance from the kingdom of Satan is because God is more powerful than Satan. Satan is destroyed in the lake of fire in the end; so. If God has the power and authority to destroy Satan, than to "pay him a ransom" is illogical.

The word "ransom" is used 16 times in the Scripture.

The ransom is paid to God:
Exodus 30:12
Psalm 49:7
Jeremiah 31:11. (God is the one who's stronger than "Jacob". This is Messianic. "Jacob" is Christ. This passage has to do with the atonement. "Time of Jacob's trouble" is "the great tribulation". Jesus is able to deliver His people from the wrath of God because of His own righteousness.)

The ransom delivers the soul from judgement:
Job 33:24

The ransom delivers from death:
Hosea 13:14

Riches won't pay your ransom:
Job 36:17-19

Good works won't pay your ransom (because you are a sinner):
Proverbs 6:34-35

If you had no sin, you could "pay your own ransom" (because you would not need a ransom for yourself). This verse is talking about Christ's righteousness.
Proverbs 13:7-9

Not exactly sure the context of the following verse? Either it's saying an exchange for the righteous is the wicked; (Jesus ransoms them) or this verse is saying the wicked are condemned for the sake of the righteous:
Proverbs 21:18

God is the one doing the ransoming; i.e. He's paying Himself:
Isaiah 35:10

The wicked are condemned for the sake of God's people:
Isaiah 43:3

What the ransom is paid for; (it has to do with appeasing the wrath of God):
Isaiah 51:10

Christ pays the ransom:
Mathew 20:28
Mark 10:45
1 Timothy 2:6

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Actually PS really came to fruition with Anselm of Canterbury in his work Cur Deus Homo (Why God was a Man). A finite being (Adam) had offended an infinite being (God), therefore an infinite sacrifice was needed (Jesus).

 

[FenderTL5]

Problem – In PSA, the big problem is the guilt that results from our violating the law and God’s wrath against guilty sinners.
In CV the big problem is our alienation from God who is Life, and our captivity to the Devil and Death.

Solution – In PSA, the solution is Jesus being punished on our behalf in order to pay the penalty we richly deserve.
In CV, the solution is Jesus’ dying on the Cross, his descent into Hades, the realm of Death, and his third-day Resurrection, in which the gates of Hell are shattered, captive humans set free from Death, and joined to Christ the Life of the World.

Emphasis – This explains why PSA emphasizes justification by faith alone—the word “justification” puts the focus on the legal imputation of guilt, the requisite punishment for that guilt, and the imputation of Christ’s legal righteousness to those who have faith in Christ.
In CV, the emphasis is on our union with Christ who is Life, and on faith in Christ as faithfulness to Christ.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Actually PS really came to fruition with Anselm of Canterbury in his work Cur Deus Homo (Why God was a Man). A finite being (Adam) had offended an infinite being (God), therefore an infinite sacrifice was needed (Jesus).

The Satisfaction theory came from Anselm.
The Catholic church never considered God to be wrathful.

 

[FenderTL5]

The Satisfaction theory came from Anselm.
The Catholic church never considered God to be wrathful.

Agree.
PSA is an innovation of Anselm's Satisfaction Theory.
What GreekOrthodox ↑ said is still correct, since that was the origin. They are not the same, but PSA doesn't exist without Anselm (or someone else introducing the same) imho.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Could someone (as objectively as possible- not looking to debate) explain to me the difference between these two theologies and what they mean? I know about penal substitution somewhat; not so much on Christus Victor.

And I, for the rest of this thread, will be using the abbreviations PS and CV because I don't want to type out the full names each time.

I'd recommend Gustav Aulen's book Christus Victor to get a firm grasp of the idea of Christus Victor. The book is clearly biased, as Aulen's argument is that what he calls Christus Victor is an reemphasis of the ancient Christian ideas of the Atonement, namely Recapitulation and Ransom; and that this is superior to the comparatively more recent notions of Satisfaction and later Penal Substitution.

Since Christus Victor is really nothing more than a reemphasis of Recapitulation and Ransom, explaining these two perspectives might be beneficial.

Recapitulation Theory, most famously identified with St. Irenaeus of Lyons from the 2nd century, is effectively about how Jesus is the second Adam. Irenaeus' chief emphasis is on how Paul in the New Testament talks about how through one man's disobedience came sin and death, and that through one Man's obedience has come forgiveness and resurrection. Where Adam was disobedient, Christ was obedient; where Adam fell, Christ succeeded; where by Adam all died, in Christ all are made alive, etc. Thus Irenaeus sees in Christ the recapitulation of Adam and, indeed, the entire human nature and existence. That the Son of God in becoming man comes and redeems and heals ever facet of humanity; being conceived in the womb of Mary, born, growing up, becoming a child, an adolescent, and an adult, living, dying, and then rising from the dead. Jesus shares in the fullness of our humanity, even our own mortality, and overcomes death not only for Himself, but for us as well. Christ has become the new Adam, and those who are Christ's share in the new humanity of Christ, and so have the promise and hope of victory and resurrection.

Ransom Theory can be found throughout many of the ancient fathers; thematically it begins by stating that human beings, indeed the whole world, has become held in bondage to sin, death, and the devil. The devil wields his tyranny over man through death (see Hebrews 2:14). Thus the fall has, in a sense, meant that all of humanity has become captive to sin, death, and the devil, the devil is a cruel tyrant and warden. God, in His immense love toward the world, is unwilling to that His world be subject to such cruel tyranny. Christ is given as a ransom payment, since the devil wields the power of death the death of Christ is seen (in a sense) as God handing over His Son to become subject to the devil. The Son of God is a much bigger prize than the rest of humankind, and so the devil accepts this bargain, and Christ is killed. However the devil got far more than what he bargained for, for he did not gain a prize, but his own defeat and destruction. For Christ in dying, and His descent into the depths of Hades is, in fact, the ruin and harrowing of Hell itself. Christ binds the "strong man", that is the devil, and releases all the captives of death and Hades, and in rising from the dead has completely and totally defeated all the powers of sin, death, hell, and the devil. And all who belong to Him likewise have His victory.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GodsGrace101]

Agree.
PSA is an innovation of Anselm's Satisfaction Theory.
What GreekOrthodox ↑ said is still correct, since that was the origin. They are not the same, but PSA doesn't exist without Anselm (or someone else introducing the same) imho.

Agreed.
I would like to say that the Substitution Theory is similar to the Penal Subs Theory but is a lot "softer".
Here God's JUSTICE is satisfied instead of His WRATH.

Humanity owed a debt to God,,,and Jesus paid it.

 

[Not David]

Agree.
PSA is an innovation of Anselm's Satisfaction Theory.
What GreekOrthodox ↑ said is still correct, since that was the origin. They are not the same, but PSA doesn't exist without Anselm (or someone else introducing the same) imho.

I thought Satisfaction Theory was about God being offended by sin so Jesus died to satisfy that offense.

 

[-Sasha-]

I see the difference as such: was Christ's work to defeat death and the devil so as to set us free from the hole we'd dug ourselves into via Adam and Eve - a work we ourselves were not capable of doing, or was His work to repay our debt and save us from God's retribution? Was the cross love, or was it punishment? Was His death victory, or was it suffering? Did Christ come to save us from sin itself, or from the penalties for sin? Did He come to enable our forgiveness and restore us to the image and likeness of God, or only to enable forgiveness? Did He come to effect a real ontological change in our being, or to effect an external legal action? Did He act as our champion in a battle against sin and death which we could never have won, or only to satisfy our debt to God by receiving our punishment?

Was the death of Christ for us an act of supreme love, a voluntary sacrifice to stand before us as a shield from harm, or was it an act of obligation to shield us from God Himself?

 

[FenderTL5]

I thought Satisfaction Theory was about God being offended by sin so Jesus died to satisfy that offense.

It is. PSA takes that further; God is not only offended and demands justice but is so angered and full of wrath that He requires a propitiation. Only Jesus, being sinless, can be that sacrifice.

I tend to think that all of the atonement theories have a substitutionary element.
What is different, is the problem being rectified.

 

[peregrinus2017]

What has never really made sense to me, though it could very well be my poor understanding, is that satisfaction theory seems to make it that God the Father needs something, so sends His Son to meet that need, because we could not. With CV on the other hand the need is ours.

 

[bling]

Could someone (as objectively as possible- not looking to debate) explain to me the difference between these two theologies and what they mean? I know about penal substitution somewhat; not so much on Christus Victor.

And I, for the rest of this thread, will be using the abbreviations PS and CV because I don't want to type out the full names each time.

Christus Victor Theory of Atonement really covers the whole life of Christ and is not specific to the cross. It is more about the resurrection, and oh by the way Christ had to die first. Atonement specifically is addressing the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ which CV leaves to the Ransom Theory of atonement.

1. Satan and/or evil are made out to be almost equal to God, so is that true?

I don't see where that comes from

This goes back to “what is the huge problem that cannot be overcome any other way them by having Christ go to the cross”?

The Christus Victor makes the problem out to be sin/evil/satan and not man being the problem or man having the problem and God not able to solve this problem any other way?

Somehow this evil/sin/satan is way out there above all other solutions.

The Bible seems to make it out to be man’s fault that Christ had to go to the cross while Christus Victor theory would make it sin’s fault or evil’s fault and/or satan’s fault. Did sin cause the problem and need, did Adam and Eve cause the problem and need, does man cause the problem and need, or does God have a problem?

Explain to me please the relationship between God forgiving sin and Christus Victor Theory of Atonement?

Since CV is virtually the Ransom Theory of atonement let’s look at it:

There was a temple tax called a ransom payment in the Old Testament, but the People of the New Testament times were very familiar with ransom payment (Julius Caesar as ransomed when he was 21). The ransom payment of Jesus going to the cross is not like a small tax paid by the individual, but a huge payment, paid by God/Christ, to set the person free. This is describing a kidnapping scenario.

In the first few centuries some Christians suggested there was a war going on in heaven, so satan was taking captives, but scripture does not support such an idea and God can control satan, so there is no on going battle.


Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe Christ going to the cross as a literal ransom payment so:

Who is being paid with a tortured Christ?

Who is holding the sinner captive (the kidnapper)?

How and why are sinners being held captive?

Why this payment of Christ going to the cross has value to any kidnapper? Why are only some released or how are all released and yet some are lost? In other words: was more ransom needed to release more, did the kidnaper not accept the ransom for some, or was everyone released?

The Christus Victor atonement does convolute what is happening with the cross and has to bring in the resurrection as part of atonement and really all of Christ’s life, yet scripture presents the idea of the cross being the atonement, so how is that reconciled? The resurrection did happen to show and assure us of victory over death, but the torture, humiliation and death on the cross is the atonement sacrifice and Christ said “it is finished” before he died.

Think for a moment:
When you go to a nonbelieving sinner, are you trying to sell him on some theology, some doctrine, some list of rules or are you trying to get him to accept “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”?

“Jesus Christ and Him crucified” is literally the ransom payment.

If the undeserving nonbelieving sinner refuses the “payment”, will that mean a child of God is kept out of His Kingdom?

If the underserving nonbelieving sinner accepts “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” will a child be freed to go to enter the Kingdom and be with God?

Who is holding that child back?

 

[Not David]

What's interesting is that Evangelical boomers are the ones who support Penal Substitution the most, while a lot of young people support an idea of Christus Victor with some PS influence (like when I went to a meeting and everyone was singing about how God and Jesus love you while the preacher mentions how God is angry and wants to punish us).

 

[Butch5]

Could someone (as objectively as possible- not looking to debate) explain to me the difference between these two theologies and what they mean? I know about penal substitution somewhat; not so much on Christus Victor.

And I, for the rest of this thread, will be using the abbreviations PS and CV because I don't want to type out the full names each time.

I hold to the CV model of the atonement. The biggest problem I find with PS is that it is essentially the same as that held by the pagans. In pagan worship it was often necessary to offer human sacrifices to appease the wrath of their gods. PS says the same thing. It holds that God is angry and wrathful towards mankind and that a sacrifice is needed to appease that anger. Anselm submitted that a mere human was not sufficient since the offense was so great. Therefore only the Son of God could accomplish it. In the end it boils down to a human sacrifice to appease the wrath of a god. Also, it's a relatively new concept.

David Bercot teaches a series on, 'What the Early Christians Believed' Here are a few links to his series on the atonement.

 

[His student]

The PS theory came about at the reformation. In this theory God is mad at we humans and demands a sacrifice to satisfy His wrath. So Jesus dies to satisfy this wrath...and since the sin was so big, then the sacrifice has to be big too. Jesus is punished in our place...thus satisfying God's justice. When we believe in Christ for our salvation, His righteousness is imputed to us. Jesus is punished in our stead.

Actually penal substitution is not a theory at all. It is a scripture based fact.

It did not "come about" at the reformation. It was simply expounded during that time and after from what was taught by Isaiah almost 8 centuries before Christ even lived.

"...............Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors."

 

[His student]

The biggest problem I find with PS is that it is essentially the same as that held by the pagans. In pagan worship it was often necessary to offer human sacrifices to appease the wrath of their gods. PS says the same thing. It holds that God is angry and wrathful towards mankind and that a sacrifice is needed to appease that anger. Anselm submitted that a mere human was not sufficient since the offense was so great. Therefore only the Son of God could accomplish it. In the end it boils down to a human sacrifice to appease the wrath of a god. Also, it's a relatively new concept.

It's not a new concept at all and if some pagans happened to have that idea it only means that they didn't have everything wrong.

Anselm did not originate the idea of PS any more than the reformers did.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Actually penal substitution is not a theory at all. It is a scripture based fact.

It did not "come about" at the reformation. It was simply expounded during that time and after from what was taught by Isaiah almost 8 centuries before Christ even lived.

"...............Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors."

"Theory" does not mean it's not so.
It could be idea, or thoughts, or you could replace it with many words.

Anything you can say about the atonement will be correct because there are at least 7 "theories" that I can think of, and all biblical ideas are included within all of them.

The above is partly the Substitution Theory.

 

[Butch5]

It's not a new concept at all and if some pagans happened to have that idea it only means that they didn't have everything wrong.

Anselm did not originate the idea of PS any more than the reformers did.

Do you have any evidence? For the first thousand years the church didn't hold to Penal substitution. I don't mind having the discussion but you need to get your facts correct.