What is your view of atonement?

[hedrick]

Both Anselm and the supposed Calvinist theory (I’m not convinced that he actually taught penal substitution) are associated with the concept that Jesus’ death was the equivalent of OT sacrifice for sin, which was supposedly necessary for forgiveness.

However I’m not convinced that this is correct. The Words of Institution speak of the blood of the covenant / new covenant. This is normally taken to refer to Jer 31:31. 31:34 certainly speaks of forgiveness of sins, but the passage doesn’t connect that with atonement sacrifice. Rather, it’s part of the new Kingdom in which the law is written in our hearts, and the people are truly God’s people.

If you look carefully at Heb 9—10 you’ll see that the author understands Jesus’ sacrifice as a covenant sacrifice, establishing that new covenant.

The OT certainly has sin sacrifices, but Ps 51 and Jer 7:21-22 suggest that they aren’t necessary, and maybe even not desirable. All God really wants is a repentant heart. Based on that, I understand the sin sacrifice as being in effect a sacrament that demonstrates the worshipper’s repentance.

Of course Jesus died on our behalf. I accept that Is 53 applies to him. But not because God needs punishment, whether for honor violated or because justice demands it. Rather, per Rom 6 he accepts the consequences of our sin and triumphs over it. Through faith in him, we also die to sin and rise to new life. Hence his death and resurrection bring us into the new covenant.

 

[Serving Zion]

This question has been fascinating to me since my further study into Catholicism revealed the view something like the "Satisfaction Theory" or that is the classic description that comes the closest to what I have come to understand. Christ's infinite love and obedience satisfied God's judgement not his pain and suffering. through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:20

That is my personal view of Christ;s atonement, what is yours? I have looked up some popular theories or maybe you have your own? Let the board know what you believe, and what church you learned it in. Maybe you can leave some details as to what it means to you personally, why you believe that way, or how it affects your faith walk(?)

• 
  
  
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.

• 
  
  
  • 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).
  • 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.

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.

What I have found recently, central to this topic, is a popular misconception of the power of Christ's blood - why and how does it have power to make the perfect atonement?

The error is made in an idea that Jesus' blood empowers God to forgive, as though He is unable to forgive apart from it. But this is contradicted by examples of forgiveness and restoration of countenance before the crucifixion happened.

Truthfully, Jesus' blood does not empower God to forgive where He was previously lacking, but it empowers us to repent where previously we were not so obliged (Hebrews 10:4, Isaiah 1:11, Isaiah 1:16-17, Hebrews 10:29).

Disciples who understand love and justice, recognise that a remorse existed for a Jew under Moses' covenant, because their own failures have required the suffering and death of an innocent creature. This really should serve as a deterrent to sin, yet Mark 11:15-18 shows us that Jesus had found the industrialisation had become an offensive apostasy from the intended way.

Hebrews 10:26-29 explains that now it is not such common blood being offered on the altar. We conciously have to choose to trample Christ underfoot if we are willing to sin, and incur the consequence (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

Therefore, (because of our love for The Lord, our reverence for His glory, our commitment to His campaign), our repentance is perfected by His blood, and God can justly forgive our sin.

Additionally, our transgressions committed in ignorance are covered by Jesus' ransom sacrifice, because we have been disadvantaged: corrupted, tempted and led astray by the sin of the world, that is not owing to us nor of our deliberate desire (John 12:35, Daniel 9:26, Matthew 21:38-39, Luke 19:14, 2 Peter 2:1-3, John 15:22, James 4:17, 1 John 2:1) and therefore these are not of our accord "willful acts of sin that insult the spirit of grace". Rather, we repent with endurance, for growth, to strengthen the character of Christ in us.

Regarding substitution in atonement, we should emphasise more for The Kingdom's sake, that it goes both ways. Jesus takes the burden of our sin, while we take up our cross to come after Him, to be His hands, feet and voice. While He advocates for us in heaven, we represent Him on earth, with a view to fulfill Ephesians 4:10 & Ephesians 4:13. Philippians 2:19-21 is also relevant.

 

[FireDragon76]

The institution narrative seems to connect Jesus with the Passover and the entire Exodus narrative. But there is also a dimension that his people are in a state of bondage due to their own sins, and Jesus' blood is payment for that bondage.

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

I personally hold to the Healing view , Christus Victor ( also known as the Ransom view ) ,the Recapitulation view, the Moral Influence view , and the Satisfaction view .

 

[Si_monfaith]

I wonder where you got your list?

I'll have to be careful (maybe) not to say what I USUALLY say in regard to theories of Atonement, which is that Christ's death accomplished MANY things, but the foremost was perhaps the victory over death. Of course it is a matter of putting mankind back into right relationship with God as well. So I would have said Christus Victor was the most important, to me, but that all theories hold value and truth (sometimes in differing degrees) except that I absolutely reject Penal Substitution.

But your list ...

Christus Victor is not a modern theory. Many of the ones you list have not been included in any work I've ever read on Atonement theories. And some very important ones seem to be missing.

So with your list specifically in mind, I would NOT say the above.

I took a quick glance at Wikipedia and I see their Christus Victor page has been changed and suffers from some revisionary work, it seems. But the sidebar still includes classic theories.

Didn't Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead by a spoken word of authority? So why did He not defeat death by His word of authority & instead die on the cross in order to defeat death?

 

[Si_monfaith]

Oh, and Christ's victory was specifically over DEATH, not evil. I can't really relate to your list?

From Orthowiki:
This sermon is a fine example of the "Christ Victorious" model of the atonement that was the dominant image of the work of Christ among early Christians and among the Orthodox today. Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor and interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil. This is the reason for the festal hymn of the Resurrection being Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

Was God angry with Adam Eve for starting to have the forbidden knowledge of good and evil & cursed them with sufferings and death?

 

[Si_monfaith]

At any rate, considering such things as an actual "theory" that Christ's death was an unforseen accident, I should no longer say that all have merit. I'm glad, I guess, to have heard about it. But the "landscape" of Atonement theories seems strange to me.

I would put most emphasis on the Christus Victor which is victory over DEATH, but also heavily on Recapitulation, and to a lesser degree a number of others. Christ's death WAS a sacrifice for our sins, and that is also important.

Oh, I also just realized, Kinsman Redeemer is not there ...


As to what all of this meant to me, having grown up under the sole understanding of Penal Substitution, it was a whole new view of God that made such a change in my mind necessary. Frankly, I was first taught a rather bloodthirsty God the Father, who was determined that SOMEONE was going to DIE (and painfully at that!) and that He took satisfaction in that suffering and death, and only then would He be willing to forgive. It was rather like Christ stood up to protect us from His Father - a strange sort of battle going on within the Godhead itself - God forbid! And none of that ever REALLY made sense to me ...

Seeing God as good, and loving, and the One Who created all, who desires all men to repent and be saved and made the ultimate sacrifice to make that possible and to reconcile all creation to Him, was a major discovery to me. And all things fit into a reasonable story now when they never did before. And my heart is drawn to worship and prayer. It was quite revolutionary to me, and the differing atonement theories were a part of that.

Christ's death WAS a sacrifice for our sins, and that is also important.

"To whom" and "why" did Christ offer Himself as a sacrifice for our sins?

Seeing God as good, and loving, and the One Who created all

If God who is loving, know beforehand many would reject His Son & end up in hell, why did He create humans at all & why did He create hell with a possibility for humans to also end up there?

 

[Si_monfaith]

The Satisfaction speaks to me the most. In a way it's a form of substitution but not penal. In this theory, Jesus goes to the cross out of love for us and obedience to the Father. The thing is even though the act is the same,it'snot the suffering that redeems us but the perfect love and obedience. On Colossians 1:20 it says having made peace through the blood of His cross which to me gives even more significance to the Eucharist as a Sacrament. The Eucharist is so important to us Catholics and like I say through his blood by his perfect love and obedience our debt to God is paid.

A Catholic brother shared a video with the board in another thread I made specifically about the difference between penal substitution and satisfaction. On the video the guy explained it like if I had a son that threw a rock through someone's window. I can't go over there and accept his punishment. Only he can do that. However I can go over, pay for the window and nake it right with the neighbor and and my son to not throw rocks. So the same with Christ, he doesn't accept our punishment but he does pay our debt out of love. We respond by following the gospel and making disciples of others (I added my own stuff in that story but you get the picture I'm sure)

it'snot the suffering that redeems us but the perfect love and obedience.

The love & obedience of Jesus wasn't empty theory. He shed all His blood & died. Does love & obedience without His death make sense?

So the same with Christ, he doesn't accept our punishment but he does pay our debt out of love.

Is paying our debt a reward for Him? Paying our debt is indeed taking our punishment upon Himself.

 

[Si_monfaith]

I think you explained that well.

As long as there is no focus on necessary torture or suffering, as though THAT is what makes it right, I accept those theories as being worthwhile.

So is torture & suffering ok if it was to defeat death?

 

[Si_monfaith]

Like Anastasia, I think that multiple things were going on in the Atonement, so several of the theories have some element of truth to them. With that said...

The statement of the atonement that means the most to me is that He became what we are, that we might become what He is. (This is a paraphrased rendition of a quote from Athanasius and Irenaeus.) The Incarnation is the central act, and in the Incarnation God joins himself to humanity in a way that transforms all of us. I'm not sure which theory-label goes with this; maybe Recapitulation, but I confess that Irenaeus says some things about recapitulation that I don't quite follow.

The Christus Victor theory is also compelling to me. It has the drawback that it makes Satan a major player in the story (and Aulen has that reservation too, as I recall), but if you think of Satan as a storyteller's way of talking about the corrupting hold that evil has on us, then the story works for me.

I do not like St Anselm's idea of God requiring the death of (the incarnation of) himself in order to pay a debt to himself -- God is twisted into too many strange knots in that picture.

Was God angry with Adam Eve when He cursed them with death?

 

[Si_monfaith]

A Theory I endorse which you hadn't mention is the Unjustified Suffering Theory in which God's judicial nature is viewed as having two arms. One being the punishment of the wicked, and the other being compensating victims of unjustified suffering. The second going along with things like justice for the poor. So justice involves more than just punishment.

This being the case, when the innocent suffer unjustly they are entitled to compensatation as a matter of satisfying justice. Jesus' death being the ultimate and infinite example of unjustified suffering he was entitled to compensation of which he used to pay for the sins of the world. Essentially one arm of God's judicial nature paying off the other arm.

In this case God is not viewed as pretending that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world, as some popular theories may have it. Nor was he involved in pouring out wrath on Jesus, but rather as Peter put it, "you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." God was not viewed as one of the wicked men that crucified him, but rather, as Jesus put in on the cross, God kept his hands off, allowing Jesus to be tortured to death by the wicked, as an innocent victim, in order to win his entitlement to compensation to pay for the sins of the world.

In this case God is not viewed as pretending that Jesus was guilty of the sins of the world

2 Corinthians5:21 "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".

Didn't Jesus take God's wrath upon Him on our behalf?

Nor was he involved in pouring out wrath on Jesus

Acts 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain".

Wasn't crucifixion God's eternal plan?

 

[marineimaging]

This question has been fascinating to me since my further study into Catholicism revealed the view something like the "Satisfaction Theory" or that is the classic description that comes the closest to what I have come to understand. Christ's infinite love and obedience satisfied God's judgement not his pain and suffering. through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:20

That is my personal view of Christ;s atonement, what is yours?...

Step outside the box and view "Justice" as being a real entity, something of substance and not just subjective and ethereal? In order for mankind to have the possibility of eternal life Justice had to be satisfied about man's original sin and throughout the time from Adam to the time of Jesus, the men who were alive proved that Justice could not be satisfied. Why? Simply because of mankind's broken relationship with God. Next, God as God could not be on earth as God and could not satisfy Justice as He is perfect, incapable of sin. Therefore the Son had to offer himself, to be born onto earth, capable of sin yet remaining sinless, while living as a human in order to take up the cross so that Justice could be satisfied. Jesus proved that men could live without sinning, then, when He went to the cross, his death was not for His sins, but for the sins of all mankind and why? To satisfy Justice. Again, why? Because God is Creator, God is Just, God is Kind, God is Love and an eternity without all of these things, including justice, is void.

 

[~Anastasia~]

So is torture & suffering ok if it was to defeat death?

Well you're asking about a post 3-1/2 years old so I might not be able to address exactly the flow of conversation back then.

The problem is when we believe that torture and suffering where a demand made by God the Father, and He was unable/unwilling to forgive without them.

Yes, Jesus suffered torture, torment, and death as part of the Crucifixion.

But it's not as though God the Father was bloodthirsty and simply demanding SOMEONE suffer "or else" He will refuse to forgive.

That is something that crept into some theologies rather recently and was not a traditional understanding of the early Christians.

Was God angry with Adam Eve when He cursed them with death?

He did not curse them with death in anger at being defied. Death was (1) a natural consequence of separating themselves from God, Who is the Source of Life (in themselves they were not inherently immortal, though God did not create them to die), and just as important (2) death was a MERCY in that case, so that sin did not go on and on unchecked, leaving humans with no opportunity for resurrection (and salvation).

It was always God's plan and desire for people to live forever in communion with Him. He desires this for every person. But we have the choice to accept it or not.

 

[rturner76]

Jesus proved that men could live without sinning,

I think even some non believers believe this

Both views are forms of satisfaction in that they speak of how Christ's death was satisfactory, but penal substitution and Anselmian satisfaction offer different understandings of how Christ's death was satisfactory. ... In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.

Anselm of Canterbury first articulated the satisfaction view in his Cur Deus Homo?, as a modification to the ransom theory that was postulated at the time in the West. The then-current ransom theory of the atonement held that Jesus' death paid a ransom to Satan, allowing God to rescue those under Satan's bondage.

Satisfaction theory was more akin to curing a sickness in that we are stained with the sickness of sin and Christ's obedience washes us clean.

The Reformer's Penal Substitution said it was the satisfaction of justice or Christ paying the penalty for your sin or satisfying the need for justice.

Most Protestant theology comes from Catholicism. It's just that different Preacher's changed anything they didn't agree within their individual denominations

 

[Si_monfaith]

Step outside the box and view "Justice" as being a real entity, something of substance and not just subjective and ethereal? In order for mankind to have the possibility of eternal life Justice had to be satisfied about man's original sin and throughout the time from Adam to the time of Jesus, the men who were alive proved that Justice could not be satisfied. Why? Simply because of mankind's broken relationship with God. Next, God as God could not be on earth as God and could not satisfy Justice as He is perfect, incapable of sin. Therefore the Son had to offer himself, to be born onto earth, capable of sin yet remaining sinless, while living as a human in order to take up the cross so that Justice could be satisfied. Jesus proved that men could live without sinning, then, when He went to the cross, his death was not for His sins, but for the sins of all mankind and why? To satisfy Justice. Again, why? Because God is Creator, God is Just, God is Kind, God is Love and an eternity without all of these things, including justice, is void.

Jesus proved that men could live without sinning,

Didn't Jesus He alone could live without sinning and be our propitiatory sacrifice?

 

[hedrick]

The Reformer's Penal Substitution said it was the satisfaction of justice or Christ paying the penalty for your sin or satisfying the need for justice

That's not the Reformers' only theory. Despite what you've heard about Calvin, most scholars think he used all the theories. And in his chapter on the atonement in the Institutes, he said that Christ's obedience was applied to us (I believe both imputed to us and actually changing us) via our mystical union with Christ. This seems like Rom 6 to me, which is a kind of Christus Victor.

Calvin says some things you may find surprising.

• When Scripture speaks of God being our enemy until reconciled, this is not literal, but a way of emphasizing the difficulty of our condition. If he didn't still love us, he would never have given us son for us. Of course God does hate the corruption that is within us. "But as the Lord wills not to destroy in us that which is his own, he still finds something in us which in kindness he can love"
• The atonement was accomplished by Christ's obedience. Not just his obedience in death, but during his whole life.
• In fellowship with him, in his death we are buried to sin. Sin was abolished and death annihilated.
• In his resurrection, righteousness is restored and life revived. When only Christ's death is mentioned in Scripture, resurrection is also implied.
• "We do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him."

This sounds rather like Christus Victor. (Most of these bullet points constitute a summary of Institutes 2.16. The final quote is from 3.11.10.) This is the overall outline of his argument. In the course of a fairly long and complex chapter he does also speak of his taking punishment that we deserved.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Well you're asking about a post 3-1/2 years old so I might not be able to address exactly the flow of conversation back then.

The problem is when we believe that torture and suffering where a demand made by God the Father, and He was unable/unwilling to forgive without them.

Yes, Jesus suffered torture, torment, and death as part of the Crucifixion.

But it's not as though God the Father was bloodthirsty and simply demanding SOMEONE suffer "or else" He will refuse to forgive.

That is something that crept into some theologies rather recently and was not a traditional understanding of the early Christians.



He did not curse them with death in anger at being defied. Death was (1) a natural consequence of separating themselves from God, Who is the Source of Life (in themselves they were not inherently immortal, though God did not create them to die), and just as important (2) death was a MERCY in that case, so that sin did not go on and on unchecked, leaving humans with no opportunity for resurrection (and salvation).

It was always God's plan and desire for people to live forever in communion with Him. He desires this for every person. But we have the choice to accept it or not.

where a demand made by God the Father, and He was unable/unwilling to forgive without them.

So was God making a demand because He was unable/unwilling to defeat sin, death & satan without sending Jesus to torture, suffering and death?

Father was bloodthirsty and simply demanding SOMEONE suffer "or else" He will refuse to forgive.

Was God the Father bloodthirsty and simply demanding SOMEONE suffer "or else" He will refuse to defeat sin, death & satan?

Death was (1) a natural consequence of separating themselves from God,

If human sufferings & death are natural consequences as if God was helpless, why did He say directly "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.
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 (Genesis 3:16,17)?

death was a MERCY

So eternal hell is also MERCY?

 

[marineimaging]

I think even some non believers believe this

Both views are forms of satisfaction in that they speak of how Christ's death was satisfactory, but penal substitution and Anselmian satisfaction offer different understandings of how Christ's death was satisfactory. ... In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.

Anselm of Canterbury first articulated the satisfaction view in his Cur Deus Homo?, as a modification to the ransom theory that was postulated at the time in the West. The then-current ransom theory of the atonement held that Jesus' death paid a ransom to Satan, allowing God to rescue those under Satan's bondage.

Satisfaction theory was more akin to curing a sickness in that we are stained with the sickness of sin and Christ's obedience washes us clean.

The Reformer's Penal Substitution said it was the satisfaction of justice or Christ paying the penalty for your sin or satisfying the need for justice.

Most Protestant theology comes from Catholicism. It's just that different Preacher's changed anything they didn't agree within their individual denominations

If Jesus paid a ransom to the devil then the Bible would have said so. No, it was an action required to be visible and ultimately to free all of mankind and give us all hope for eternal salvation.

 

[rturner76]

If Jesus paid a ransom to the devil then the Bible would have said so. No, it was an action required to be visible and ultimately to free all of mankind and give us all hope for eternal salvation.

Correct, the Ransom theory was being applied in the Church until the Substitutionary Atonement theory was published.

Almost all of the atonement theory is based on Paul's writings on "Participation." THrough CHrist we participate in faithfulness.

 

[rturner76]

That's not the Reformers' only theory. Despite what you've heard about Calvin, most scholars think he used all the theories. And in his chapter on the atonement in the Institutes, he said that Christ's obedience was applied to us (I believe both imputed to us and actually changing us) via our mystical union with Christ. This seems like Rom 6 to me, which is a kind of Christus Victor.

Calvin says some things you may find surprising.

• When Scripture speaks of God being our enemy until reconciled, this is not literal, but a way of emphasizing the difficulty of our condition. If he didn't still love us, he would never have given us son for us. Of course God does hate the corruption that is within us. "But as the Lord wills not to destroy in us that which is his own, he still finds something in us which in kindness he can love"
• The atonement was accomplished by Christ's obedience. Not just his obedience in death, but during his whole life.
• In fellowship with him, in his death we are buried to sin. Sin was abolished and death annihilated.
• In his resurrection, righteousness is restored and life revived. When only Christ's death is mentioned in Scripture, resurrection is also implied.
• "We do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him."

This sounds rather like Christus Victor. (Most of these bullet points constitute a summary of Institutes 2.16. The final quote is from 3.11.10.) This is the overall outline of his argument. In the course of a fairly long and complex chapter he does also speak of his taking punishment that we deserved.

I was always under the impression that Calvin said we are exclusively under Penal Substitution but the above also talks about Satisfaction through Christ's obedience. His view is not so extreme as I have been lead to believe by some of the things I have read.

All of the Church Doctors have so much material available to read. It has always been daunting for me to read some of these men's writings and translations of writings. It would seem that many of the summaries I read are taking a certain view and contrasting another view.

I would do well to begin reading a more comprehensive set of writings where the entire theory is sussed out.