....OK. My bad perhaps.
God may have smote Jesus because He was really happy with Him because of His perfect obedience. I guess that's one way to look at it.
I agree. The emphasis must be on what God, in His love, is doing for us through Christ, rather than what He's demanding from us through Christ. Christ is God; God must do all the work to save His wayward creation because man is lost, totally incapable of saving himself.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.
What an absolute cop out to say that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint as their Bible..... .... The Septuagint doesn't say that which is why I told you to read it. Again, Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint as their Bible.
His student said: ↑
..........God may have smote Jesus because.........
What an absolute cop out to say that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint as their Bible.
Even if the Septuagint didn't teach penal substitution (which it clearly does) so what? You don't believe any other translation is the Word of God?
However ---- I've not only read it - I've quoted it to you several times now.
“He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we accounted Him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But He was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and by His bruises we were healed..........the Lord gave Him up for our sins....................because of the iniquities of my people He was led to death...........to justify the just One who serves many well; and He shall bear their sins...........His soul was delivered to death: and He was numbered among the transgressors; and He bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.”
Romans 1:18 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."
Romans 2:5-9 says, "But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil"
This, and so much more, is what is due sinners for their sins.
Do you think God just kind of winked at the sins He piled on Jesus? What exactly do you think God did with our unrighteous sins when He laid the iniquity of sinners on Jesus Christ? Just sort of dyed them a nice color so they would look good on His Son?
Of course we all know that you don't believe that men are storing up wrath for the day God judges them and their sins.
So it's pretty obvious why you feel you must reject the idea of God pouring out His wrath on our sins when He laid them on Jesus.
You need to repent and perhaps go down to the Jordan and have John baptize you to identify with the rest of us.
You need to understand that men are in need of being "saved" from something (and that something is the wrath of God according to the scriptures). Otherwise how or why would you be in need of a "Savior"?
It's not too late for you. You need to repent and receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and so escape the wrath of God that will surely be manifest against every sinner and every sin ever committed on this earth.
I have delivered the gospel to you. You're in God's hands now. I hope to see you around the throne of God someday.
But I have to tell you again - it's hard for me to imagine that you have believed on Christ as your Savior when you don't believe there's something to be saved from.
Absolutely. Praise the Lord for His indescribable grace toward us.By the way, man is saved from death.
We all must die so that we can be born again.Paul said that the wages of sin is death and God said that the soul that sins shall die. If Jesus paid that to God for the believer, why does the believer die?
Did satan kidnap adam & eve from God? Did God warn them about satan the kidnapper?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.
If Jesus didn't take death which was God's wrath meant to be upon us, why did He have to die on the cross?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.
Yes. Satan kidnapped Adam and Eve from God because they allowed him to.Did satan kidnap adam & eve from God? Did God warn them about satan the kidnapper?
Was God angry according to the law & loving according to His grace given through Christ's passion? Can His love be understood except in the background of His wrath?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).
Is there a verse for God warning them about satan?Yes. Satan kidnapped Adam and Eve from God because they allowed him to.
Yes. God warned them about satan. They didn't obey Him...just like many don't obey Him today.
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
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?
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.
God the Father needs something, so sends His Son to meet that need, because we could not.
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?
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.
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.
The biggest problem I find with PS is that it is essentially the same as that held by the pagans
There is a verse warning Adam not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.Is there a verse for God warning them about satan?
It is BOTH.Are you wrongly saying the problem is purely one of kidnapping and not one which is primarily moral?
This is a deep question and cannot be answered here.Was satan the cause or only an instrument to lead to the problem?
This is a great question but not addressed to me so we'll wait and see what the other member's response is.If God was never angry over us, why does Romans 4:15 say God's wrath came through the law? Why did God curse Adam & Eve with death for acquiring the knowledge of good and evil?
There is a verse warning Adam not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Genesis 2:17a
God told Adam that in the day he ate from that tree. Adam would surely die.
Genesis 2:17b
The bible does not have every single word that God has spoken or done..
John 21:25
For instance...God says DO NOT MURDER
But does not explain why in the command.
In the same way, He did not explain to Adam WHY he should not eat from the tree -- or maybe He did and we do not know -- In any case, it is explained later that THE SNAKE, satan, tempted Eve and so they both ate from the Tree.
As God explains WHY He says DO NOT MURDER in a different verse...
because the life is in the blood.
Genesis 9:4-6
It is BOTH.
When a person is not moral....
they are, in effect, being kidnapped by satan.
Romans 6:16 we are the slaves of the one we serve...God or satan
This is a deep question and cannot be answered here.
Let me just say that satan was the cause that led to the eating.
Even today, we are tempted....
God does not tempt us to be immoral, so it is satan that tempts us to be immoral and it is our free will that listens to him at times and acts on that temptation and so we sin.
I would also like to add here that you may be trying to decide which atonement theory you like the best. I find that every atonement theory is correct in one way or another. There are at least 7 or 8 theories --- each one has some truth in it.
When a person is not moral....
they are, in effect, being kidnapped by satan.
Let me just say that satan was the cause that led to the eating.
CVT seems to presume God never was angry with humans which is unscriptural.This is a great question but not addressed to me so we'll wait and see what the other member's response is.
Also, you ask very good questions...
to which you already know the answers, but it's a good discussion anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?