View Single Post
  #17  
Old 06-23-2009, 02:35 PM
nmwolfboy's Avatar
nmwolfboy nmwolfboy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Corrales, NM USA
Posts: 423
Default

i didn't say that i disbelieved that Christ is the Savior, only with the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, specifically the idea of penal substitution.

Christus Victor, from Theopedia:
Quote:
Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) is a view of the atonement taken from the title of Gustaf Aulén's groundbreaking book, first published in 1931, where he drew attention back to the early church's Ransom theory. In Christus Victor, the atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. Aulén argues that the classic Ransom theory is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin. As Gustav Aulén writes, "the work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil."[1]

The Ransom Theory was predominant in the early church and for the first thousand years of church history and supported by all Greek Church Fathers from Irenaeus to John of Damascus. To mention only the most important names Origen, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom. The Christus Victor view was also dominant among the Latin Fathers of the Patristic period including Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, and Gregory the Great.

A major shift occurred when Anselm of Canterbury published his Cur Deos Homo around 1097 AD which marks the point where the predominate understanding of the atonement shifted from the ransom theory to the Satisfaction Doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church and subsequently the Protestant Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church still holds to the Ransom or Christus Victor view. This is built upon the understanding of the atonement put forward by Irenaeus, called "recapitulation".[1]

As the term Christus Victor indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Unlike the Satisfaction or Penal-substitution views of the atonement rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the Christus Victor view is rooted in the incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Irenaeus called this "Recapitulation" (re-creation). As it is often expressed: "Jesus became what we are so that we could become what he is".
These might seem like really tiny theological differences, but i see them as increasingly divergent. The Eastern Orthodox Church still maintains a ransom/Christus Victor stance, though the Western church relegated it into the background around the time of the great East/West Schism.
__________________
The demand for equal rights in every vocation of life is just and fair; but, after all, the most vital right is the right to love and be loved.
Emma Goldman (1869-1940)
Reply With Quote