What a good read. After hearing about Christus Victor on here ha while back I did some research into it, since the only atonement model I've really come across was the Evangelical view of Penal Substitution. I found Christus Victor really resonated with me, and I thought it was an excellent way of looking at the cross, potentially helping Church to tell the fantastic news of salvation, so I've been doing a bit more research on it.
But that doesn't mean I was going to dump Penal Substitution in the bin, because it is still a good way at looking at the atonement.
I think like some others that all the views of the atonement have their place. And as is often the case with the things of God, it only gets more confusing because as God himself put it, 'My ways are not your ways'
But as you say Dave, it's all just extra details. he crux of the matter is that Jesus died for us!
Good post, but I would add one thing: the Catholic view does not endorse Penal Substituion, that's a "Calvinist" error and misreading of Anselm. You did make somewhat of a distinction, but I'm just further clarifying.
All contemporary models of atonement theory(s) have an in common denominator error. The error is the false assumption that the death of a man caused by bloodshed is a direct benefit to an individual who thinks that it is. There a several statements of fact that have been disregarded in these models. "And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." Gen. 9:5 NIV. This promise was not made to Noah since he did not loose his life by bloodshed. " When he come he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin." Jn. 16:8 If it is true that the crucifixion of Jesus has resolved all of your consequence of sin as your theories state. Then this phrase he has stated is a lie. But according to him the issue of guilt relative to sin remains as the outstanding issue to be resolved after his crucifixion. Your theories, however, are direct objections to what he says is the world's condition AFTER his crucifixion. The point of fact present is that not one of these theories is worth a tinkers damn. And for the persons teaching them as fact and those that believe them as true have accepted a lie for the truth. You cannot make any progress toward having life as a gift until you have been persuaded that the sin of Jesus' murder is a unilaterally accountable sin. And for the man who refuses to give God the account he has demanded by Jesus' crucifixion. That man commits a violation of an added law that has no possibility of forgiveness. "It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13
3 comments:
What a good read. After hearing about Christus Victor on here ha while back I did some research into it, since the only atonement model I've really come across was the Evangelical view of Penal Substitution. I found Christus Victor really resonated with me, and I thought it was an excellent way of looking at the cross, potentially helping Church to tell the fantastic news of salvation, so I've been doing a bit more research on it.
But that doesn't mean I was going to dump Penal Substitution in the bin, because it is still a good way at looking at the atonement.
I think like some others that all the views of the atonement have their place. And as is often the case with the things of God, it only gets more confusing because as God himself put it, 'My ways are not your ways'
But as you say Dave, it's all just extra details. he crux of the matter is that Jesus died for us!
Good post, but I would add one thing: the Catholic view does not endorse Penal Substituion, that's a "Calvinist" error and misreading of Anselm. You did make somewhat of a distinction, but I'm just further clarifying.
For those who are interested, this Article shows why Penal Substitution is flatly incompatible with Scripture.
All contemporary models of atonement theory(s) have an in common denominator error. The error is the false assumption that the death of a man caused by bloodshed is a direct benefit to an individual who thinks that it is.
There a several statements of fact that have been disregarded in these models.
"And for Your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." Gen. 9:5 NIV. This promise was not made to Noah since he did not loose his life by bloodshed.
" When he come he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin." Jn. 16:8 If it is true that the crucifixion of Jesus has resolved all of your consequence of sin as your theories state. Then this phrase he has stated is a lie. But according to him the issue of guilt relative to sin remains as the outstanding issue to be resolved after his crucifixion. Your theories, however, are direct objections to what he says is the world's condition AFTER his crucifixion.
The point of fact present is that not one of these theories is worth a tinkers damn. And for the persons teaching them as fact and those that believe them as true have accepted a lie for the truth.
You cannot make any progress toward having life as a gift until you have been persuaded that the sin of Jesus' murder is a unilaterally accountable sin. And for the man who refuses to give God the account he has demanded by Jesus' crucifixion. That man commits a violation of an added law that has no possibility of forgiveness.
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13
Post a Comment