christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary
Debate Rounds (3)
here is a general website that contrasts CV and penal views.
christus victor was the predominent view of atonement for the first thousand years of christianity, and still remains so in the eastern church. and more on CV...
we shouldnt assume unless we have reson to think otherwise, that the earliest christians were wrong. if they thought something we should defer to them. penal advocates just have obscure academic reasons for not deferring to them. i have just as much basis there. so, we should defer to them.
it brings back the essence of the "good news". we can rise from the dead?? as jesus rose?? and he preached a kingdom of God based on love of each other etc?? great!
'It should be clarified that from a Jewish perspective the purpose of the sacrifices was never to appease God, which is a Pagan concept, but to cleanse us (cf. Heb 9:13-14) and draw us near to God.'
the origianl idea behind sacrifices was giving up of self for another's benefit, or honor. but not in an appeasing wrath kind of way. yes sacrifices are good, even Jesus' sacrifice... but it's all just not done for the reasons thought of westerners.
"Propitiation is a word that in not in common use today. Proponents of Penal Substitution use it frequently, primarily referring to Romans 3:25"
"(Christ Jesus) Whom God hath 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"
"Propitiation literally means "to make favorable". It is similar to words like appeasement (Lit "to make peace") and Pacify (again to bring peace). However with all of these the context is placed on the idea of turning aside another's wrath usually through a gift or offering. The immediate difficulty with such as idea is that God does not need to be "made favorable" since he is the initiator of reconciliation. God is the one who "first loved us"."
"So how did the word "propitiation" get into Romans 3:25? The original Greek word is hilasterion. Hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Luther in his translation of the Bible renders Hilasterion as "Gnadenstuhl" which is German for Mercy Seat. In context this means that "God has set forth Jesus as the mercy seat (the place where atonement and expiation happen) through faith in his blood". Jesus is thus "the place where we find mercy"."
So we see that propiation works just as well under CV.
as to how wrath or sin is dealt with. you get what you put in, and people get what they deserve, to quote kid rock. i know that's not an official source, but it says it well. God's wrath is fulfilled when people die and are not resurrected, or when they are put where they belong. are you a robber who is put with other robbers? you got what you deserve etc. many believe in levels to heaven and hell, the consequences of sin, and wrath.
not to mention that as God said, "you are dust, and to dust you shall return", that we are not guaranteed anything in life. if God just lets us live oru natural lives and then die as anaimals are considered to do, how can we really complain? we are not entitled to anything, far as we can see. and if we are given anything, karma's a bitch when we get what we deserve. etc.
Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice or technical sacrifice doesn't mean too much to God. But for 'turning the other cheek' and self sacrifice and honor, it means a lot.
"The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me?" says the Lord . "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats" Stop bringing meaningless offerings!... wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isa 1:11,13,16-17)
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God, more than burnt offering". (Hosea 6:6)
"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise". (Psalm 51: 16-17)
Yahweh does not need a bribe to convince him to be just or merciful because he is the very definition of justice and mercy. God does not need an appeasement to forgive. On the contrary Jesus tells us that Yahweh is our model for loving our enemies:
" But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteousA533; Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. " (Math 5:44-45, 48)
"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2:15)
By the cross God triumphed over the System and crucified it, he nailed the law to the cross.
"Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14)
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:1).
"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12)
"I will ransom them from Hell. I will redeem them from Death
O Death I will be thy plague. O Hell I will be thy destruction" (Hosea 13:14)
The true gift to God is to "wash and make yourselves clean" and to seek justice by defending the oppressed and the broken. The Hebrew word translated as "sacrifice" is korban. The root karev means to "draw close." Sacrifices are to help us draw close to God. The New Testament understanding of sacrifice as an act of self-sacrificing love traces back to this Old Testament understanding of the korban. There is certainly here the concept of vicarious atonement, meaning that through the sacrifice we are reconciled to God, but not understood in the legal context of a requirement or an appeasement but as an act of communion.
"Unlike Satisfaction-Doctrine which focuses on the death of Jesus, the pivotal event of Christus Victor is the resurrection. It was through the resurrection that death was overcome and where love emerged as victor. It was in the power and hope of the resurrection that the first-century church set their hope that they too would be raised up.
My first movement will be defense for the substitutionary view, and my second will be an attack on the christus model. Now, even as someone who is not religious, I can see the benefits of the sub. viewpoint. Firts of all, it would show God's true devotion and love for his people by giving up his own son, as he had previously asked Abraham to do the same, and while Abraham only offered to do it, God showed that he returns favors and values covenants and agreements. Now, the sub view also means that humans can sin and still be accepted into heaven. Jesus died for our sins, so if humans don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. This means that no one is morally perfect, not even God, but he shows that no one has to strictly follow his teachings, but they can still receive paradise and eternal life. This seems to be a good choice, but was capitalised by priests who demanded feelings of guilt for it.
Now, Christus Victor seems to portray God as someone who cheats on deals, trickin the devil who punishes sinners into releasing humanity, rather that the previous sub view which does acknowledge both humanity and god's sins, redeeming both. This new viewpoint creates a much more sneaky, deceptive God, not one I or anyone else would swear loyalty, because he may just trick us too.
Awaiting your response, Duncan.
i'm trying to argue, that early church beliefs should give deference to CV, and that CV seems more in line with the good news as orginally understood, and it should be viewed that way still.
is it really better to say that Jesus' death was the only way to pay the price of a legal requiremet? what was actually accomplshed? and the bible says innocent people should not be held accountable for other's sins, so i doubt others could take the punishment. a pointless death to satisfy a technical requirement just does not seem what a truly loving and forgiving God would do.
i'm not sure what you mean 'no one is morally perfect, not even God'. as most accept that God is morally perfect. this doesn't really seem to be much to teh essence of the debate, but it's good debate form I suppose to bring up points that are too off for good argument.
i dont see how CV says that Jesus died for nothing. only by dying could he defeat sin. only by dying could he give himself as a sacrifice for God and others. only by dying could he turn the other cheek to his attackers.
this point is only to stress the importance/necessity of his sacrice in another way, not that sub view doesn't include the reasoning. as Jesus said, he gave up his life voluntarily, no one made him do it. in fact, he by most standards of christianity would be entitled to self defense, but he choose not to opt into that option, in favor of letting his captures prevail in his life. and favoring not confusing everyone as to whether he was someone who was willing to cheek turn or let things slide or forgive etc. (i do know some question the view that self defense is a christain belief, but i'm making the point, to emphasize the voluntary nature of it)
and so not a good theory for this purpose.
Oh yeah, some rule about multiple debates with the same person stopped me from accepting your other debate, but once this one is finished I will. Awaiting your response,
i could go into how it's probably not sins you are seeing, but this point is so off it's not really worth getting into it.
as i said in the comments section, you are focusing too much on some of the theories of CV, like bargaining with the devil or bribing the devil etc. i gave my best view in the comment section on the theory behind CV. CV is the best in love thine own enemy view,cause it is love and forgiveness that conquers death, and Jesus chose to let people kill him than to fight back. sub view has to get into legalities and pointless deaths and appeasing God's wrath before forgiveness can be given... worst on loving thine own enemies.
your response against the good news point doesn't really follow. the old testament has some issues in it, therefore it's not good news, therefore sub view beats out CV? i can concede the OT has some issues in it, but it doesn't have anything to do with which atonement theory is best. i could see some tenuous arguments trying to branch off from what you said, but you need to make yoru own points.
But just saying love thine enemy? That conquers death? Don't make me laugh. Love has not conquered death. Neither has forgiveness. You cannot deny the demise that spreads worldwide by just sitting in church asking people to forgive. That does not eliminate death, a process as natural and infinite as God himself. What would god do when people forgave? Fire Azrael, his chief Angel of Death? No. God says in CV theory (or only part of it, does that mean the title should be "a specfic bit of christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary"?)
love thine enemy, and every day, Christians pray for forgiveness to God. Do you see the same conclusion that I see to this? God sees the people of Earth as enemies, and when his son returns, he will judge the living and the dead. I suppose if he kills everyone, then no one can die anymore. Is that how he intends to conquer death? By outright then and there deciding who is to enter the afterlife. And as Judge, he stands above us. As a clear superior. I, and I am sure others stand with me that a God that has atoned for his crimes has more of an appeal than one who just says, oh I don't need to apologize, you need to forgive your enemy (so forgive me without my apology), and acknowledges that while perfection is a goal all strive for, none may obtain it, a goal as distant as the heavens.
Sub view and CV disagree on the portrayal of God. I know that you do not fully support CV theory, as you will only accept one part of the theory, and reject the majority. If even you ditch half your theory, then you must be admitting the flaws of it. Sub theory atones for its flaws, and for this reason, I find it the better theory to follow.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.