The Christus Victor View of Atonement

[Yoder777]

Romans 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Where in these verses does it say that Jesus was sacrificed to God to appease God's wrath?

 

[Hammster]

Where in these verses does it say that Jesus was sacrificed to God to appease God's wrath?

Do you see a common word being used? Look it up.

 

[Yoder777]

Do you see a common word being used? Look it up.

Where in those verses does it specify to whom Jesus was being sacrificed? John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. It is to the world, not to an angry God, that Jesus is sacrificed.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I think there is room for a variety of explanatory models. Christus victor, ransom, substitution, propitiation, exemplar, etc. My Church at least has never dogmatically defined one of them as being the be all end all of the matter. The Bible itself looks at the matter through various lenses, using differing metaphors and symbols (legal, relational, etc..). We have always viewed salvation primarily as communion and deification though so all models are viewed in that light. We also consider love to be the prime motivator for the incarnation , death, and resurrection - "For God so loved the world....".

 

[heymikey80]

Where in Scripture does it say that Jesus was sacrificed to appease God? Instead, it's God in Jesus reconciling the world to himself.

As for what I initially asserted:

Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. Ep 5:2​

It's never a good idea to go beyond what was asserted.

 

[heymikey80]

I think there is room for a variety of explanatory models. Christus victor, ransom, substitution, propitiation, exemplar, etc. My Church at least has never dogmatically defined one of them as being the be all end all of the matter. The Bible itself looks at the matter through various lenses, using differing metaphors and symbols (legal, relational, etc..). We have always viewed salvation primarily as communion and deification though so all models are viewed in that light. We also consider love to be the prime motivator for the incarnation , death, and resurrection - "For God so loved the world....".

Bingo. Consistency with the models is what's a Scriptural theology.

There are attempts to unify the models, that's essentially how the doctrinal assertions are coordinated into a wider systematic that covers more than one model. PSA is one of those systematics.

Frankly, I'm not objecting to the components of CV, I think integrating it may actually be possible when some clarity of thought comes after the divisiveness and strife over different views. I'm just saying it's not a comprehensive system, not even to the point of comprehending all other models appearing in Scripture.

I haven't been very enamored of the attack on ransom as to "who's it paid to?" He did what was necessary to accomplish the salvation of His people -- whatever that was. Though the result ends up being, "Who set up the system whereby this kind of thing had to happen?" I don't think this kind of question is exactly avoided by other systems. It does always end up ultimately back with God, and back with our doing the wrong thing and needing this profound action to happen.

 

[Yoder777]

Where does Ephesians 5:2 claim that Jesus was punished for man's sin to appease an angry God?

 

[Christos Anesti]

Frankly, I'm not objecting to the components of CV, I think integrating it may actually be possible when some clarity of thought comes after the divisiveness and strife over different views. I'm just saying it's not a comprehensive system, not even to the point of comprehending all other models appearing in Scripture

I agree.

There are attempts to unify the models, that's essentially how the doctrinal assertions are coordinated into a wider systematic that covers more than one model. PSA is one of those systematics.

Thats dangerous ground to walk on though. To reduce all of them to a single consistant rational system. We might explain away some of the confusion but end up reducing the mystery to something much less than it is. I think there has to be a degree of acceptance of the idea that we might not be able to figure everything out down to the last iota and that this isn't a problem. Maybe there is a reason the Bible isn't written in the manner of a scholastic theology book?

 

[heymikey80]

Where does Ephesians 5:2 claim that Jesus was punished for man's sin to appease an angry God?

The answer is supplied. QED. Jesus is a sacrifice to God. How does this comport with the CV model?

An attack on another view without provocation doesn't seem to be a reasonable method of argument. If a position can only be sustained by attacking other positions -- then it's already fallen. It can't be sustained on its own. Therefore it's implausible.

The idea God has no wrath toward sinful people does not conform with Scripture.

 

[heymikey80]

Thats dangerous ground to walk on though. To reduce all of them to a single consistant rational system. We might explain away some of the confusion but end up reducing the mystery to something much less than it is. I think there has to be a degree of acceptance of the idea that we might not be able to figure everything out down to the last iota and that this isn't a problem. Maybe there is a reason the Bible isn't written in the manner of a scholastic theology book?

Well, I don't think it's a dangerous ground to walk on to attempt a unifying way of thinking about things. It's generally a reaction to avoid misunderstanding and inconsistency.

 

[Hammster]

Where in those verses does it specify to whom Jesus was being sacrificed? John 3:16 says that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. It is to the world, not to an angry God, that Jesus is sacrificed.

Well, He was a propitiation to someone, as the verses clearly teach. Whose wrath do you think He was satisfying?