What are your thoughts on the Christus Victor theory of atonement?

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Share your thoughts after you've watched this video.

 

[Josiah]

My perspective...

Jesus is the Savior. HE saves us. But exactly HOW this is done, well, that's not clearly spelled out. The Bible seems clear that this work involves His incarnation, His morally perfect life, His death and especially His resurrection, but exactly WHY it does isn't clearly spelled out.

During the Middle Ages, several theories arose. In theology, these are known as "Atonement Theories." I've looked at all these, and it seems to me they all are biblical, they all make sense - but they all seem to fall short of a full explanation. For example, modern "Evangelicalism" is very fond of the "Vicarious Atonement" theory. I like it too but it entirely leaves out Easter, His resurrection is irrelevant in that theory even though it seems to be very central in the Bible. Luther and Calvin both seemed to like the Christus Victor theory and it too seems biblical but also falls short.

There's that saying about blind people experiencing an elephant. I think sometimes, we humans over estimate our own brilliance, we give WAY too much credit to our brains - especially when it comes to the things of God. Simply too prideful to admit we simply can't fully wrap our brains around divine truth. I see all these theories as ATTEMPTS (very good ones!) to understand what is probably not fully understandable: and that TAKEN TOGETHER, they do help. But no one theory alone does that.


A blessed Easter to you and yours....


Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

The part about MLKing is fanciful, quite "politically correct" although not very accurate; but as for the part concerning the Cross, men have tried to describe the cause and effect of Christ's death in more ordinary terms, ones that we humans can more easily identify with. However, that's all they are. Christ was perfect and innocent but gave his life to pay the price that the rest of us owe. It's not actually a lot more complicated than that.

I also agree with Josiah that there is more to the story, in that the Resurrection continues the consequences of Christ's death, but since the question here seemed to be asking about the atonement in the narrower sense, I confined my reply to that.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

but gave his life to pay the price that the rest of us owe

Whom did we owe a price to?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

There's that saying about blind people experiencing an elephant. I think sometimes, we humans over estimate our own brilliance, we give WAY too much credit to our brains - especially when it comes to the things of God. Simply too prideful to admit we simply can't fully wrap our brains around divine truth.

Then why could the disciples understand it?

 

[Josiah]

Then why could the disciples understand it?

Who said they did? I think they "understood" as much as we do: Jesus is the Savior! Jesus does the saving! And this involved His incarnation, His perfect/moral life, His death and (especially) His resurrection. EXACTLY WHY all of that was necessary for this... well, the Scriptures say they do but not fully, exactly why.

I think an important part of this is that early Christians seemed more humble, less affirming of their own brilliance and supreme intelligence and IQ, less certain that they could entirely wrap God around their enormous, magnificent, brain. I think they were more willing to affirm "the mysteries of God". Perhaps.



.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Who said they did?.

The Bible does.

Luke 24:45

Also, Luke 24:27 says that Jesus explained to the two disciples on the road to Emaus the things about Himself from the Jewish Scripture. If the two disciples were physically unable to understand what He was telling them due to the fact that the human brains not designed to comprehend the reasons for the things that happened, was Jesus doing an exercise in futility by explaining the Scriptures to two disciples?

 

[Albion]

Whom did we owe a price to?

God

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

God

Why did we owe God a price?

 

[Albion]

Why did we owe God a price?

God is just. And as concerns us, his creatures, he has laid his law before us.

We, however, do not keep his laws. Not consistently and not perfectly. That is why we needed a Savior to do for us what we cannot do.

Luke 24:45

Also, Luke 24:27 says that Jesus explained to the two disciples on the road to Emaus the things about Himself from the Jewish Scripture.

So far as these verses are concerned, we are told that Jesus explained the scriptures and himself, but there is no reason to conclude from these verses that the hearers were made conversant with all the fine points of this great spiritual undertaking that they were dealing with. I personally think that this is affirmed by the fact that, near to his death, Jesus told his closest followers just to trust him.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

God is just. And as concerns us, his creatures, he has laid his law before us.

We, however, do not keep his laws. Not consistently and not perfectly. That is why we needed a Savior to do for us what we cannot do.

How can we keep His laws if we inherit the sin-prone nature caused by the fall and we live in a world in which satan roams around tempting us to sin? How is it rational to punish beings for not doing something that is very difficult for them to do? And how is it just to punish someone in someone else's place? And how is it logical to not be willing to simply forgive without requiring a sacrifice, but also demand that the beings who are flawed to simply forgive each other?

So far as these verses are concerned, we are told that Jesus explained the scriptures and himself, but there is no reason to conclude from these verses that the hearers were made conversant with all the fine points of this great spiritual undertaking that they were dealing with. I personally think that this is affirmed by the fact that, near to his death, Jesus told his closest followers just to trust him.

Luke 24:45 mentions that the disciples were made to understand.

 

[Lees]

Why did we owe God a price?

How can we keep His laws if we inherit the sin-prone nature caused by the fall and we live in a world in which satan roams around tempting us to sin? How is it rational to punish beings for not doing something that is very difficult for them to do? And how is it just to punish someone else in exchange for them? And how is it logical to not be willing to simply forgive without requiring a sacrifice, but also demand the beings who are flawed to simply forgive each other?


Luke 24:45 mentions that the disciples were made to understand.

Our 'logic' and 'rationale' play no role in God's plan of salvation and it's implementation. The justice of it revolves around God alone. All sin is against God. Even our sin against our fellow man is sin against God.

Because God is God He cannot forgive without requiring the payment, the Sacrifice. Fallen man forgives that way, but God cannot. Why? Because it wouldn't work. If God just said no need for a Sacrifice, Ill just forgive them for everything, then when you die and enter His presence you would be destroyed immediately. His Holy and Righteouss nature would demand it. He cannot change Who He is.

So you see the seriousness of the problem. It's not only how does God let man live with Him forever. It is how can God let man live with Him forever and He still be just and righteous in doing so.

(Rom. 3:24-26) "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemmption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

Lees

 

[Josiah]

The Bible does.

Luke 24:45

Also, Luke 24:27 says that Jesus explained to the two disciples on the road to Emaus the things about Himself from the Jewish Scripture. If the two disciples were physically unable to understand what He was telling them due to the fact that the human brains not designed to comprehend the reasons for the things that happened, was Jesus doing an exercise in futility by explaining the Scriptures to two disciples?

Luke 24:27 and 45 do not say that anyone understood exactly HOW Jesus provides salvation; exactly WHY Jesus' incarnation and perfect/loving life and dead and resurrection provides such. It seems most likely that Jesus' enabled these 2 people to understand how He fulfilled prophecy - not that He specifically empowered them to comprehend the reason(s) why His incarnation/two natures, His perfect and loving life, His death and His resurrection were all necessary for Atonement - and exactly why.



.

 

[Josiah]

How can we keep His laws

We can't.

Thus there is sin...and the need for SALVATION.

How is it rational to punish beings for not doing something that is very difficult for them to do?

"Punishment" is a natural consequence. When someone is 115 years old, it is likely they won't live much longer. Is it "rational" for someone to die when they couldn't do anything to prevent it? "The wages of sin is death."



.

 

[Albion]

How can we keep His laws if we inherit the sin-prone nature caused by the fall and we live in a world in which satan roams around tempting us to sin?

Well, the fact is that we can keep them some of the time and to some degree. But that still leaves us as imperfect and therefore unworthy of God.

How is it rational to punish beings for not doing something that is very difficult for them to do?

It's done all the time by us in our ordinary lives. But offering alibis for humans who fail God's requirements still doesn't change the fact that they failed.

And how is it just to punish someone in someone else's place?

If God, to whom our performance is owed, volunteers to take it upon himself, then it's just.

And how is it logical to not be willing to simply forgive without requiring a sacrifice, but also demand that the beings who are flawed to simply forgive each other?

The 'bottom line' here is that this isn't about relations between mortals (concerning which your questions might apply) but between God who is ultimate in all respects and his own creation. All the "How is it logical?" questions have to be seen in that light.

 

[Josiah]

The part about MLKing is fanciful, quite "politically correct" although not very accurate; but as for the part concerning the Cross, men have tried to describe the cause and effect of Christ's death in more ordinary terms, ones that we humans can more easily identify with. However, that's all they are. Christ was perfect and innocent but gave his life to pay the price that the rest of us owe. It's not actually a lot more complicated than that.

I also agree with Josiah that there is more to the story, in that the Resurrection continues the consequences of Christ's death, but since the question here seemed to be asking about the atonement in the narrower sense, I confined my reply to that.

The Catholic video of the opening post actually somewhat misrepresents the Christus Victor view. The VICTORY of Christ was not 'won' on Good Friday, but on EASTER. Actually, Good Friday is a problem for the Christus Victor view because the Cross is NOT about Jesus kicking the devil's rear end and being victorious over the death... it's quite the opposite. BUT (as hopefully all know), it's not the end of the story! Christ ROSE (hum, remember Easter?), EASTER is usually embraced as one of Victory over sin, death and Satan - not Good Friday as the Catholic wrongly attributes to that Atonement Theory.

I find that all the various Atonement Theories have something going for them (they each can quote lots of Scriptures) BUT fall quite short.



Here is ONE explanation of some of these theories. He speaks of 7 theories (there are more) - and notes the problems with each (individually). I don't fully agree with his summaries but close enough. A point: the first he mentions actually has 2 variations: The Love Theory that notes that all His doing is LOVE and that LOVE is what atones. Another variation is that we are SICK and Jesus is the Great Physican and that these acts of morality and love bring some level of healing. Anyway, he speaks of 7. All inadequate.

A blessed Easter to all ...


- Josiah



.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

What a nonsensical belief system! I'm supposed to believe in the existence of an omniscient Being Who is bound by irrational laws that even our earthly legal system finds flawed. I cannot do that.

 

[Lees]

What a nonsensical belief system! I'm supposed to believe in the existence of an omniscient Being Who is bound by an irrational laws that even our earthly legal system finds flawed. I cannot do that.

That's fine. Don't believe it. That is always your decision to make. All the believers can do is declare it to you. The rest is up to you and the Holy Spirit.

(1 Cor. 2:14) "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him...."

(1 Cor. 3:19) "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God...."

Lees

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

That's fine. Don't believe it. That is always your decision to make.

No, it's not. I have no control over my beliefs. They are not volitional.

Make yourself believe with all your mind that Hinduism is the true religion for one minute. Then revert your beliefs back to Christianity. See if you can do it.

 

[Albion]

Make yourself believe with all your mind that Hinduism is the true religion for one minute. Then revert your beliefs back to Christianity. See if you can do it.

I have no control over my beliefs. They are not volitional.

What a nonsensical belief system! I'm supposed to believe in the existence of an omniscient Being Who is bound by irrational laws that even our earthly legal system finds flawed. I cannot do that.

Those are ideas worth us considering, all right; but OTOH changing your personal data to a "No" answer concerning belief in the Trinity and acceptance of the Nicene Creed would be fairly easy for you to do.