T
thephilosopher6
Guest
What theory of atonement do you hold to? I hold to the Christus Victor theory. Anyone who holds to another theory? Perhaps we could have a theological discussion.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I prefer Moral Influence. It doesn’t project onto God any needs like punishment or justice, satisfaction or ransom.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
The Moral Influence Theory is associated with Liberal Theology. I think the Moral Influence entirely takes away the purpose of the incarnation and the redemptive death of Christ. That’s why so many liberal theologians and Unitarians have adopted it. The Christus Victor, on the other hand, has showed how Jesus, through his incarnation and his entire life, how he defeated sin and death. And in the cross it all came together, he totally conquered sin and defeated it. He was victorious. It was held in the early Church and was the dominate theory of atonement until Saint Anselm introduced his Satisfaction theory. Our eastern Christian brethren still hold to it today and it was introduced back into the west by Lutheran Theologian, Gustaf Aulen.I prefer Moral Influence. It doesn’t project onto God any needs like punishment or justice, satisfaction or ransom.
G
grannymh
Guest
What exactly is atonement?What theory of atonement do you hold to? I hold to the Christus Victor theory. Anyone who holds to another theory? Perhaps we could have a theological discussion.
Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Michael, don’t you want to be ransomed?
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
But what does his victory have to do with us other than provide a moral example to follow?The Moral Influence Theory is associated with Liberal Theology. I think the Moral Influence entirely takes away the purpose of the incarnation and the redemptive death of Christ. That’s why so many liberal theologians and Unitarians have adopted it. The Christus Victor, on the other hand, has showed how Jesus, through his incarnation and his entire life, how he defeated sin and death. And in the cross it all came together, he totally conquered sin and defeated it. He was victorious. It was held in the early Church and was the dominate theory of atonement until Saint Anselm introduced his Satisfaction theory. Our eastern Christian brethren still hold to it today and it was introduced back into the west by Lutheran Theologian, Gustaf Aulen.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Unfortunately, if you don’t hold the Christus Victor view in the sense that some folks do (of Course Christ is the Victor!), some folks (read, a very nice and busy Orthodox priest I know) will accuse you of being legalistic. I think that may just be a misunderstanding. I don’t pretend to know the mind of God, so I am not too worried about trying to figure that out. I find it better we serve him.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
God makes a deal with Satan to give his own son to free us? I don’t think God needs to make any deals with SatanMichael, don’t you want to be ransomed?
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Because sin is a real problem. Giving us a moral example to follow does not solve the problem of sin. If it was, then there would be no need to have Jesus. I think the Moral Influence theory is borderline heresy.But what does his victory have to do with us other than provide a moral example to follow?
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
“God became man, so man could become gods” - Athanasius of AlexandriaWhat exactly is atonement?
Who? How? What? When? Where? and Why?
Christ, who is God incarnate, was perfect in everyway. He endured all the suffering and temptations of man. And in the cross, all the sin and death and suffering came together, and he succeeded where Adam and all man kind has failed. He overcame sin and therefore defeated it. He lifted the emnity between God and man.
This was the theory the entire early Church held. Our eastern Christian brothers and sisters still hold it. It was reintroduced into the west in the 20th century.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
But gain what does his victory have to do with us and our sin? All that ransom and atoning God’s justice makes God sound small. This what atheist find most absurd, that God had to sacrifice his own son to fulfill his own justice…to repay a debt owed to himself, unless you go ransom to Satan.Because sin is a real problem. Giving us a moral example to follow does not solve the problem of sin. If it was, then there would be no need to have Jesus. I think the Moral Influence theory is borderline heresy.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
He defeated it but we did not. And how is enmity lifted when He Himself is God? If anything, it ought to be worse since humans cruficied Him.“God became man, so man could become gods” - Athanasius of Alexandria
Christ, who is God incarnate, was perfect in everyway. He endured all the suffering and temptations of man. And in the cross, all the sin and death and suffering came together, and he succeeded where Adam and all man kind has failed. He overcame sin and therefore defeated it. He lifted the emnity between God and man.
This was the theory the entire early Church held. Our eastern Christian brothers and sisters still hold it. It was reintroduced into the west in the 20th century.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
So God had to punish someone to be satisfied?
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
He defeated sin as a whole, he being the God-man, perfect in all ways, was victorious over sin and so the chains of sin and death could not longer hold man. Jesus broke them and now the forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life is possible. This was the position of the early Church. The Moral Influence theory was started in the enlightenment by Unitarians and liberal theologians. It is unorthodox.He defeated it but we did not. And how is enmity lifted when He Himself is God? If anything, it ought to be worse since humans cruficied Him.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
Maybe John Duns Scotus had something, Christ was intended to incarnate from the very beginning, the fullness of humanity in God and not just to pay a debt, ransom or take on a need for someone else’s punishment.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Here is a better summary I found:He defeated it but we did not. And how is enmity lifted when He Himself is God? If anything, it ought to be worse since humans cruficied Him.
Christ’s death is God’s victory over sin and death. God conquers death by fully entering into it. God conquers Satan by using the very means employed by the Evil One.
Thus, the crucifixion is not a necessary transaction to appease a wrathful and justice-demanding deity, but an act of divine love.
God entered fully into the bondage of death, turned it inside out by making it a moment of victory, and thereby liberates humanity to live lives of love without the fear of death.
It’s a beautiful thing, the crucifixion, in this view. And, for those of us who are robustly trinitarian, it maintains an egalitarian view of the Trinity — one in which the Son and Spirit are not junior partners in the atonement.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
It still makes little sense. So before the death of Jesus sins could not be forgiven? What changed in the mechanics of forgiveness by the death of Jesus? It can only be that God was now able to forgive us when before He could not. God Himself had to incarnate and suffer for us in order for us to be forgiven.He defeated sin as a whole, he being the God-man, perfect in all ways, was victorious over sin and so the chains of sin and death could not longer hold man. Jesus broke them and now the forgiveness of sins and the hope of eternal life is possible. This was the position of the early Church. The Moral Influence theory was started in the enlightenment by Unitarians and liberal theologians. It is unorthodox.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
No. Jesus death defeated sin once and for all. I’m not saying you have to hold Christus Victor, but the Moral Influence theory is unorthodox.It still makes little sense. So before the death of Jesus sins could not be forgiven? What changed in the mechanics of forgiveness by the death of Jesus? It can only be that God was now able to forgive us when before He could not. God Himself had to incarnate and suffer for us in order for us to be forgiven.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
That is better but How is humanity liberated to live lives of love if not through the example of Christ? Yes Christ is victorious but it only involves us if we follow.Here is a better summary I found:
Christ’s death is God’s victory over sin and death. God conquers death by fully entering into it. God conquers Satan by using the very means employed by the Evil One.
Thus, the crucifixion is not a necessary transaction to appease a wrathful and justice-demanding deity, but an act of divine love.
God entered fully into the bondage of death, turned it inside out by making it a moment of victory, and thereby liberates humanity to live lives of love without the fear of death.
It’s a beautiful thing, the crucifixion, in this view. And, for those of us who are robustly trinitarian, it maintains an egalitarian view of the Trinity — one in which the Son and Spirit are not junior partners in the atonement.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
We still have to follow Christ, or we lose salvation. Those who have not been baptized do not have the forgiveness of sins.That is better but How is humanity liberated to live lives of love if not through the example of Christ? Yes Christ is victorious but it only involves us if we follow.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.