"Christus Victor" the key to UR? Atonement instead of Satisfaction?

[Msandino]

Perusing the Internet --as I have taken to doing to distract myself from the miserable reality that my friends and family think I'm whacko to go against "thousands of years of solid Christianity" -- to read about righteous men and women in history who championed the Sovereign Goodness of God and the full merit of Christ's sacrifice, I found a new one today:

The noted George MacDonald, whom CS Lewis called his "master," believed that the Atonement should be understood in a model similar to that called Christus Victor, as opposed to the "Satisfaction theory of atonement" from Anselm of Canterbury, further developed by Calvin.

The notion that Christ's sacrifice was more about ransom than about "bearing the full wrath of God on the cross" makes so much more sense to me.

It would also make UR much more obvious, if we didn't have a wrathful God who needed to unleash his Holy Anger so he could deal with us. That Jesus' sacrifice really was a ransom for all, not protection from God's wrath that we have to accept in order to escape damnation.

When I first gave up on Unification Church Doctrine (Sun Myung Moon) and came to accept that Jesus's death was God's will, I was surprised to hear my Christian mentors talk about Jesus' suffering on the cross being a moment when he bore that wrath in our place. Kind of creepy and I wondered -- Where exactly in the Bible it said that? Did they come up with that as a way of explaining Jesus' words, "Why have you forsaken me? "

It seems like the Atonement, Christus Victor, would be the essential foundation for understanding the eventual salvation and restoration of all things.

Isn't that crucial?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Martha

PS here I am reading and researching instead of doing my job...back to work...

[Ross]

Atonement by Christ was indeed complete. No margin of error.

1 Cor 15 is a key about much, along with Romans 5, which ALL say what Christ achieved and did for us was greater than Adam's error.
The work of Christ being greater than the failings of Adam. Just like a parent

[Ross]

Romans 5;19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, so through the obedience of the
                    One the many shall be  constituted righteous.

1 Cor 15;22 For just as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall be made alive.

[jabcat]

Isaiah 53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 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....

Romans 3:25  God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--

[Seth]

Perusing the Internet --as I have taken to doing to distract myself from the miserable reality that my friends and family think I'm whacko to go against "thousands of years of solid Christianity" -- to read about righteous men and women in history who championed the Sovereign Goodness of God and the full merit of Christ's sacrifice, I found a new one today:

The noted George MacDonald, whom CS Lewis called his "master," believed that the Atonement should be understood in a model similar to that called Christus Victor, as opposed to the "Satisfaction theory of atonement" from Anselm of Canterbury, further developed by Calvin.

The notion that Christ's sacrifice was more about ransom than about "bearing the full wrath of God on the cross" makes so much more sense to me.

It would also make UR much more obvious, if we didn't have a wrathful God who needed to unleash his Holy Anger so he could deal with us. That Jesus' sacrifice really was a ransom for all, not protection from God's wrath that we have to accept in order to escape damnation.

When I first gave up on Unification Church Doctrine (Sun Myung Moon) and came to accept that Jesus's death was God's will, I was surprised to hear my Christian mentors talk about Jesus' suffering on the cross being a moment when he bore that wrath in our place. Kind of creepy and I wondered -- Where exactly in the Bible it said that? Did they come up with that as a way of explaining Jesus' words, "Why have you forsaken me? "

It seems like the Atonement, Christus Victor, would be the essential foundation for understanding the eventual salvation and restoration of all things.

Isn't that crucial?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Martha

PS here I am reading and researching instead of doing my job...back to work...

I agree. Calvin's understanding seems flawed, as Christ did not bear the full wrath of God if that involves eternal torment in hell. In fact, it would mean he bore eternal torment in hell, minus the eternal and the hell, so....it would definitely be minus the "full wrath."

My understanding of the atonement is that Christ bore the punishment required by the Law, a lamb sacrifice, required blood for the forgiveness of sin, in order to satisfy the Law while also providing a new way to healing from sin.

[Seth]

Here is a description of the Satisfaction Theory from Wikipedia. I have to say, I wasn't taught this as a kid. I think Penal Substitution replaced it.

"The classic Anselmian formulation of the satisfaction view should be distinguished from penal substitution. Both are forms of satisfaction theory 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. Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit.

Hence Christ's death is substitutionary; he pays the honour to the Father instead of us paying. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ's death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin (e.g., Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23). The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative to punishment, "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow." By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement

I notice that both theories focus much attention on avoiding punishment and give little attention to the concept of healing from sin. Thus the Gospel is all about avoiding an angry God who is ready to pounce and throttle the sinner and send him to hell, and being delivered from sin itself is a secondary benefit to being saved from hell. So when the Bible says, "He shall be called Jesus for he shall save his people from their sin" that becomes a nice addition to being saved from hell, rather than it being Christ's main mission. When I was a kid I heard more about being saved from hell (punishment) than relying on the Spirit for healing from sin.

[marie glen]

Amen He is the full atonement.. redeeming all.. When I think of how Jesus said "If I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to me" (Jn 12:32) I think of Jesus on the cross as an image that is able to (ultimately) pierce every psyche.. and not as God who required a sacrifice, but we ourselves, so our conscience would be cleansed.. That's just the way I've come to think of it, as psychological.. But of course, not any less true! But to set me free.. I had to "believe".. It's an image that has great impact? to one's heart and psyche?

I notice that both theories focus much attention on avoiding punishment and give little attention to the concept of healing from sin. Thus the Gospel is all about avoiding an angry God who is ready to pounce and throttle the sinner and send him to hell, and being delivered from sin itself is a secondary benefit to being saved from hell. So when the Bible says, "He shall be called Jesus for he shall save his people from their sin" that becomes a nice addition to being saved from hell, rather than it being Christ's main mission. When I was a kid I heard more about being saved from hell (punishment) than relying on the Spirit for healing from sin.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: and  :thumbsup:

[jabcat]

I guess I don't label my beliefs in this area, other than things like this;

Jesus was the Lamb slain, the perfect sacrifice.  He atoned for our sins. He paid the price we couldn't and can't pay.  By His stripes we are healed.  He's the only way to the Father.

[Seth]

I agree with all the above. Where I disagree with the penal substitution system of thought is that God cannot stand to be in the presence of sinners, and so Jesus died to make God able to that. I think that's a way to justify the hell doctrine (e.g. he created hell because the had to avoid sin cooties) but it doesn't make sense to me.

[Seth]

If someone sins against me, like insults me or whatever, I can simply forgive that person without requiring anything from him. I can forgive freely. But according to the penal substitution theory God cannot do that. I could do it, but he can't. I prefer an understanding of the atonement that doesn't put God into a corner that I am not even in.

[Msandino]

My understanding of the atonement is that Christ bore the punishment required by the Law, a lamb sacrifice, required blood for the forgiveness of sin, in order to satisfy the Law while also providing a new way to healing from sin.

Wow - you're right! It's double jeopardy!!! If it was about appeasing wrath (how Pagean is THAT??), then why wasn't it appeased?

[Msandino]

I notice that both theories focus much attention on avoiding punishment and give little attention to the concept of healing from sin. Thus the Gospel is all about avoiding an angry God who is ready to pounce and throttle the sinner and send him to hell, and being delivered from sin itself is a secondary benefit to being saved from hell. So when the Bible says, "He shall be called Jesus for he shall save his people from their sin" that becomes a nice addition to being saved from hell, rather than it being Christ's main mission. When I was a kid I heard more about being saved from hell (punishment) than relying on the Spirit for healing from sin.

Yes: either one is about an Angry God. But I read the original theory of Atonement is more about ransom. Which would correlate with the Hebrew understanding. Good Gracious: where do people come up with all this Pi##ed Off God stuff??

[Msandino]

(e.g. he created hell because the had to avoid sin cooties) but it doesn't make sense to me.

:laugh: :laugh: :LH:
Yes! Brilliant  :thumbsup:

[Seth]

I notice that both theories focus much attention on avoiding punishment and give little attention to the concept of healing from sin. Thus the Gospel is all about avoiding an angry God who is ready to pounce and throttle the sinner and send him to hell, and being delivered from sin itself is a secondary benefit to being saved from hell. So when the Bible says, "He shall be called Jesus for he shall save his people from their sin" that becomes a nice addition to being saved from hell, rather than it being Christ's main mission. When I was a kid I heard more about being saved from hell (punishment) than relying on the Spirit for healing from sin.

Yes: either one is about an Angry God. But I read the original theory of Atonement is more about ransom. Which would correlate with the Hebrew understanding. Good Gracious: where do people come up with all this Pi##ed Off God stuff??

I think it's a way to explain the existence of Hell, especially from a Calvinistic point of view where God predestines most people to go there forever. It's a really fancy and involved way to say "God HAD to create Hell or the whole things loses balance and becomes a legal mess."

My understanding of the atonement is that God can forgive anyone at any time. He has total veto power. But, he chose to incorporate animal sacrifice into the Law of Moses to bring about an awareness of sin and desire for salvation. At which point, he sent Jesus to be the substitute for the lambs, for our benefit (dying for our sins), to sunset the Law of Moses and bring about a new way to be forgiven and healed of sin through faith and the Spirit.

The thing I don't like about the Ransom theory is that it has God indebted to the devil, whereas I see the devil as subservient to the Lord.

[Seth]

(e.g. he created hell because the had to avoid sin cooties) but it doesn't make sense to me.

:laugh: :laugh: :LH:
Yes! Brilliant  :thumbsup:

:laughing7:

[Lazarus Short]

It's a really fancy and involved way to say "God HAD to create Hell or the whole things loses balance and becomes a legal mess."

Remember that I pointed out in Heaven, Yes - Hell, No, that God nowhere claims to have created Hell, and John 1:3 states that if God did make it, then no one else did.  Let's put that spurious little bit of pagan doctrine to rest.

[darryl]

...so, God's really angry at us,furious in fact,  cos we sin..yet He made us knowing we are prone to sinning,knowing we will sin..after all, we are  stubborn creatures, a bit contrary...so, God takes all His fury n rage out on His Son...now God is satisfied n can forgive us..however, God is still furious with those who reject His son and will torture them forever without pity or mercy..and God foreknew the ones who would end up being tormented forever, in fact God predestined them to such an incomprehensibly awful fate...wow, this sounds kinda messed up. ...thank God it's not true..God is a loving God not a messed up psychopath with anger issues.

[Lazarus Short]

...so, God's really angry at us,furious in fact,  cos we sin..yet He made us knowing we are prone to sinning,knowing we will sin..after all, we are  stubborn creatures, a bit contrary...so, God takes all His fury n rage out on His Son...now God is satisfied n can forgive us..however, God is still furious with those who reject His son and will torture them forever without pity or mercy..and God foreknew the ones who would end up being tormented forever, in fact God predestined them to such an incomprehensibly awful fate...wow, this sounds kinda messed up. ...thank God it's not true..God is a loving God not a messed up psychopath with anger issues.

Calvin was the psychopath on a predestined path.  :laughing7:

[jabcat]

To me, it may be in the extremes of either view where most of the problems lie.  Parts of one, tempered with the other, and vice versa - focusing on all that is scriptural rather than our own wishes or imagination - may hold a good explanation.

I personally think this is a pretty balanced article, with of course much more that could (and probably will :laugh:) be said.  But I personally kind of fall in with this post and article.

---The Problem with Christus Victor
An increasingly popular view of the atonement forces the question: What are we saved from?
Mark Galli/ APRIL 7, 2011
Universalism is not the only topic in Rob Bell's Love Wins that deserves comment, though given the buzz, you'd think that's all he discusses. Among other things, the book also attacks "toxic" forms of substitutionary atonement, and advocates the use of a plurality of atonement theories. In this, Mr. Bell is repeating decades-old arguments in our movement, arguments that seem to be winning the day. One atonement theory in particular has exploded in popularity, in fact. Hardly an atonement discussion goes by that I don't hear an evangelical say they doubt the usefulness of substitutionary atonement and now favor Christus Victor.

The Christus Victor model has much to commend it. The idea is this: Christ is victor. Christ in his death and resurrection overcame over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection, those powers variously understood as the devil, sin, the law, and death. While the model assumes humanity's guilt for getting ourselves into this predicament—beginning with the original sin of Adam and Eve—the theory's anthropology (view of humanity) emphasizes not our guilt but our victimhood, at least the way it is often discussed today. The main human problem is that we are trapped and we need to be rescued: "Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery" (Heb. 2:14-15) .

Indeed, we are enslaved to powers beyond our control, both personally and corporately. This model also highlights big picture atonement: Christ's death isn't merely about me and my salvation. It's about the redemption of the cosmos: "He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him" (Col. 2:15).

On the other hand, "neurotic substitutionary atonement" needs to be abandoned. The picture of a wrathful Father having his anger appeased by the death of his Son is wrong on many fronts. Here's one:  It separates the work of the Father from the Son, as if they have competing concerns—the Father with righteousness, the son with compassion. It sounds like the Son saves us from the Father! This is manifestly unbiblical, for Paul clearly says that "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). While we were sinners, God took action. God would not have come to us in Christ had he not already determined to reconcile with us. This is not the behavior of a God who stands aloof in a huff, waiting for propitiation before he'll have anything to do with us.

With these clarifications, biblical substitutionary atonement in all its nuances (the Bible frames it in subtly different ways: as sacrifice, propitiation, and payment) remains the dominant metaphor for atonement in Scripture. When he wanted to demonstrate his love for us, God substituted himself for us on the cross. It is an especially fitting move, given who God is—both just and merciful: "[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 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. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:24-26).

Many interesting comparisons can be made between the two theories. Both actually include dimensions of personal guilt and victimhood, but as I listen to the discussion today, it seems that Christus Victor highlights our state as victims. Substitutionary atonement focuses on our guilt. In Christus Victor, we are liberated from hostile powers out there. In substitution, we are forgiven, and liberation is from ourselves and our addiction to our sin. Naturally, both models speak to truths of the human condition! And both have nuances worth exploring. But I'm concerned at the rising popularity of Christus Victor when it comes at the [total] expense of substitution. [emphasis mine]

[eaglesway]

Funny that in the creation story there is no hell, as Laz pointed out in his thread, "Heaven yes, Hell no".

Yet while there are several places that say God created the heavens, the kosmos, the ages, the world and humanity - there is not one place where it says God created Hell.

So if God did not create Hell in the beginning, when was it created? Who created it? Did God rest on the seventh day or what?

People want to be literal when it suits them and dogmatic when it suits them- but when someone shows them their dogmatism is unfounded in fact they will call you a heretic and threaten you with Hell for not believing in Hell.

If God was threatening Adam and Eve with eternal torment in Hell, and if a majority of the people who ever were to come into the earth were going to wind up there- wouldnt it be mentioned somewhere? Jesus spoke of aionian fire and John spoke of the lake of fire- metaphors for the judgment of God(which most universalists affirm)- but nowhere is Hell mentioned in the Bible- it is always "sheol" or "gehenna" translated as hell, and neither of those words means "Hell".

God will judge the wicked, but He will not torment them forever. They will be in the fire of His light and His presence until "every knee bows, whether in heaven or earth or under the earth, and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father".

Jesus has satisfied the judgment of God, and everyone will receive the "at-one-ment" He provides, "by the blood of His cross"(Col 1:20)
just as soon as they bow their knee and confess, with joy unspeakable and full of glory- "Jesus is Lord!"(Phil 2:9-11)

In this God is satified and man is made one with Him, until He becomes "all in all"(1 Cor 15:28)

In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things(gathering together into one- kjv) in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. Eph 1

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

We are saved into Christ. Grafted into the vine. Ehp 1 says all things, whether in heaven or on earth, will be "gathered into one in Christ." \o/

[Dandelion]

Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise.......and, the fulfillment of the Law.

The Law was how the people in the Old Testament came to God.....But through Christ, we have the completion of the Law.....Love embodied.....the summation of Law is LOVE.

33Little children, I am with you only a little while longer. You will look for Me, and as I said to the Jews, so now I say to you: 'Where I am going, you cannot come.'

34A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another. 35By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another." John 13: 33 -35
[/b][/u]

And, love was shown through the sacrifice of both the Father, by giving His only Son, as well as by Jesus, humbling Himself to become a man, to suffer and die for us, and in the process, to teach us all how to become God's children.

Christ is the Lamb of God, the sacrifice of sacrifices, as the Old Testament always required. The final sacrifice, for when Jesus died, He said, It is Finished, and it was finished......at that moment the curtain in the Holy of Holiest places was torn in the Temple, and God and Man were reconciled.

Christ is the Lamb, but He is also the Priest. The perfect and pleasing sacrifice, who had no sin, because He was God, and yet, represented humanity, because He too was human.....He became one of us.

19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way opened for us through the curtain of His body, 21and since we have a high priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
Hebrews 10:19 - 22

18Therefore, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The Law was given so that the trespass would increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness, to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:18 -21


I marvel at His plan......the most beautiful story of Love, which we could not have even imagined.

Whatever you would like to call this, this is the essence of how I see Jesus' sacrifice. I see Seth posted something similar.

There is nothing else to compare this to. It is a 'once in the history of mankind' event. However man tries to label it, I don't believe we will ever come close to doing it justice, or containing it. And, in doing so, we might leave out aspects of it. Whichever section of the spectrum of theories we can have, I think the main thing is to know that whatever God does, He does out of love.

:cloud9:

D.

[Seth]

Dandelion  :thumbsup:

[marie glen]

Amen to so much/all of the above!

And I believe it was for the purpose of - "let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.." Hebrews 10:22

and so "In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence."

"Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" Hebrews 10:8

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," Hebrews 1):16


Baptism is perfect also..

From Mark 1:2-8

As it is written in the Prophets:
"Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You."
3 "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: [he came from outside of the system(s) in play..]
'Prepare the way of the Lord;
Make His paths straight.'"
4 John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
5 Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River,
confessing their sins.   [[Surely not "confessing" as standing around on the banks of the Jordan discussing their myriad sins..
but the "confession" and acknowledgment was the act of being baptized..

"But as for me, I am poor and needy;
    come quickly to me, O God.
You are my help and my deliverer;
    Lord, do not delay." Psalm 70:5

6 Now John was clothed with camel's hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, "There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols." Ezekiel 36:25 (how does water cleanse? by metaphor?)

"And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name." Acts 22:16

"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences, from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!" Hebrews 9:14

..does the blood alone cleanse, and all are now cleansed, or is the blood and also knowing about the blood..

I don't think blood was required by God "sacrifice you did not desire" nor because the adversary required it.. but I think because our human psyche 'required' it.. Jesus on the cross an image strong enough to ultimately pierce every lost and wandering psyche..

   :2c: :gsmile:

[marie glen]

If someone sins against me, like insults me or whatever, I can simply forgive that person without requiring anything from him. I can forgive freely. But according to the penal substitution theory God cannot do that. I could do it, but he can't. I prefer an understanding of the atonement that doesn't put God into a corner that I am not even in.

amen.. none of those corners / God backed into any, do not make any sense at all!  ..And since He can only be perfect, the 'end' result of all this can (surely?) only be the very best one possible..

[Seth]

If someone sins against me, like insults me or whatever, I can simply forgive that person without requiring anything from him. I can forgive freely. But according to the penal substitution theory God cannot do that. I could do it, but he can't. I prefer an understanding of the atonement that doesn't put God into a corner that I am not even in.

amen.. none of those corners / God backed into any, do not make any sense at all!  ..And since He can only be perfect, the 'end' result of all this can (surely?) only be the very best one possible..

:2thumbs: