Christus Victor

The “Christus Victor” View of the Atonement

God accomplished many things by having his Son become incarnate and die on Calvary. Through Christ God revealed the definitive truth about himself (Rom 5:8, cf. Jn 14:7-10); reconciled all things, including humans, to himself (2 Cor 5:18-19; Col 1:20-22), forgave us our sins (Ac 13:38; Eph 1:7); healed us from our sin-diseased nature (1 Pet 2:24); poured his Spirit upon us and empowered us to live in relation to himself (Rom 8:2-16 ); and gave us an example of what it looks like when we live in the kingdom (Eph 5:1-2; 1 Pet 2:21). Yet, I believe all these facets of Christ’s work can be understand as aspects of the most fundamental thing Christ came to accomplish: namely, to defeat the devil and his minions (Heb 2:14; 1 Jn 3:8). He came to overcome evil with love.
This is known as the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is victorious”) view of the atonement. In this essay I will spell out why I believe it expresses the biblical view of Christ and why I think this is important.

Hostile Waters, Monsters and Gods

The Christus Victor view of the atonement cannot be understood without an appreciation for the broader spiritual warfare motif that runs throughout Scripture. Though the motif of spiritual warfare is rarely given its full due, the biblical narrative could in fact be accurately described as a story of God’s on-going conflict with, and ultimate victory over, cosmic and human agents who oppose him and who threaten his creation. (1)

In the Old Testament, this warfare is usually depicted in terms of God’s battle with hostile waters and vicious sea monsters that were believed to surround and threaten the earth. Whereas non-Israelites looked to various deities (e.g. Marduck, Baal) to resist these sinister cosmic forces, the Hebrews declared that it was Yahweh alone who warred against, rebuked, guarded, and trampled on the malevolent waters and who vanquished the cosmic monsters (e.g. Ps 29:3-4, 10; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9; Prov 8:27-29; Job 7:12; 9:8, 13; 26:12-13; 38:6-11; 40:-41; Ezek. 29:3; 32:2; Jer 51:34; Hab. 3:8-15; Na 1:4). We also read a great deal about rebel gods with whom God and his heavenly host must do battle. As is the case with the hostile waters and cosmic monsters, ancient Israelites never separated battles that took place on earth from battles that took place among the gods (e.g. 2 Sam 5:23-24; I Chron 12:22; Judg. 11:21-24). (2)

These depictions are obviously heavily influenced by standard Ancient Near Eastern mythological imagery, but they nevertheless powerfully communicate the understanding that the earth and its inhabitants exist in a cosmic war zone. Order in the cosmos and the preservation of Israel depend on God continually fighting against these evil cosmic forces. It’s clear biblical authors understood Yahweh’s victory over these forces to be praiseworthy precisely because they believed these opposing cosmic forces were formidable and that the battles in the spiritual realm were real.

Satan in the New Testament

Owing to a number of historical factors, the understanding that the earth is a war zone between good and evil cosmic forces intensified significantly among Jews in the two centuries leading up to Christ, commonly referred to as the apocalyptic period. (3) All indications are that Jesus and his earliest followers shared, and in some respects even intensified, this worldview.

For example, the role given to Satan by Jesus and his followers is without precedent in previous apocalyptic writings. According to John, Jesus believed that Satan was “the prince of this world” (Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). The word translated “prince” (archon) customarily referred to “the highest official in a city or a region in the Greco-Roman world.” While Jesus and his followers of course believed that God was the ultimate Lord over all creation, they clearly viewed Satan as the functional lord of the earth at the present time.

Along the same lines, Satan is depicted as possessing “all the kingdoms of the world” — to the point where he gives authority to rule these kingdoms to anyone he pleases (Lk 4:5-6). In fact, the various kingdoms of the world can be described as a single kingdom under Satan’s rule (Rev. 11:15, cf. Rev. 13). John goes so far as to claim that the entire world is “under the power of the evil one” (I Jn 5:19) while Paul doesn’t shy away from labeling Satan “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4) and “the ruler of the kingdom of the air” (Eph. 2:2). It is because of this pervasive and oppressive diabolic influence that Paul, in typical apocalyptic fashion, depicts this present world system as fundamentally evil (Gal 1:4; Eph 5:6).
Everything Jesus was about was centered on vanquishing this empire, taking back the world that Satan had seized, and restoring its rightful viceroys – humans – to their position of guardians of the earth (Gen. 1:26-28, cf. 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 5:10). Each one of Jesus’ many healings and deliverances were understood to diminish Satan’s hold on the world and to liberate people, to whatever degree, from his stronghold. (4) Peter succinctly summarized Jesus’ ministry to Cornelius when he said that Jesus “went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil…” (Ac 10:38, emphasis added). Gustaf Wingren captures the point well when he writes:

When Jesus heals the sick and drives out evil spirits, Satan’s dominion is departing and God’s kingdom is coming (Mt 12:22-29). All Christ’s activity is therefore a conflict with the Devil (Acts 10:38). God’s Son took flesh and became man that he might overthrow the power of the Devil, and bring an end to his works (Heb 2.14f.; I John 3.8). (5) …

Christ’s Victory Over the Powers

According to the New Testament, the central thing Jesus did was drive out the “prince of this world” (Jn 12:31). He came to “destroy the works of the devil” (I Jn 3:8). He came to “destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” in order to “free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death” (Heb. 2:14-15). Jesus lived, died and rose again to establish a new reign that would ultimately “put all his enemies under his feet” (I Cor 15:25). Though “the strong man” was “fully armed,” one who was “stronger than he” had finally arrived who could attack and overpower him” (Lk 11:21-22). While the cosmic “thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy,” Jesus came into the world to vanquish the thief so that all “may have life and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them…” (Col 2:15). In a word, Jesus came to end the cosmic war that had been raging from time immemorial and to set Satan’s captives free ( Lk 4:18; Eph 4:8).

The first messianic prophecy given in Scripture — indeed, the first prophecy given, period — announced just this: a descendant of Eve would crush the head of the serpent who originally deceived humanity into joining in his rebellion (Gen. 3:15). (9) It is therefore not surprising that the original disciples expressed what the messiah accomplished in terms of a victory over the ancient serpent.

The very first Christian sermon, according to Luke, centered on this cosmic victory. After the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost, Peter stood up and preached:
This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool.” ’
Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Ac 2:32-36).

The central thing Jesus did, according to Peter, was fulfill Psalms 110:1. Jesus had been raised to a position of divine power (the Lord’s “right hand”) over his defeated and humiliated enemies (who are now his “footstool”). In an apocalyptic Jewish context, this is simply what it meant to say that Jesus brought the kingdom of God. To say the kingdom of God has come was to say the kingdom of Satan has been defeated.

This theme of victory over cosmic foes pervades the entire New Testament. Indeed, Psalms 110 is the most frequently cited passage in the New Testament, and it always, in a variety of ways, is used to express the truth that Christ is Lord because he has defeated God’s enemies (e.g. Mt 22:41-45; Mk 12:35-37; Lk 20:41-44; I Cor 15:22-25; Heb 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15,17,21; Heb 10:12-13, cf. . Mt 26:64; Mk 14:62; Lk 22:69; Ac 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; I Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12-13; I Pet 3:22; Rev. 3:21.).
The significance of this is difficult to overstate. In the words of Oscar Cullman:

“Nothing shows more clearly how the concept of the present Lordship of Christ and also of his consequent victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought than the frequent citation of Ps. 110:1, not only in isolated books, but in the entire NT.” (10)

Through his incarnation, life, teachings, death and resurrection, Jesus manifested the power of God over Satan, demons and the entire spectrum of rebellious principalities and powers. The one who created “thrones…dominions …rulers…[and] powers” (Col 1:16) became incarnate, died and was resurrected in order for God “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (Col. 1:20). This is what Christ accomplished. In the words of Karl Heim, the cross is “God’s final settlement of the Satanic opposing power which has arisen against God.” (11) …

Salvation as a Cosmic and Anthropological Reality
The New Testament concept of salvation does not first and foremost mean “salvation from God’s wrath” and/or “salvation from hell” as many western Christians take it to mean – often with negative consequences for their mental picture of God and/or antinomian consequences for their life. Rather, it is a holistic concept that addresses Christ’s cosmic victory and our participation in it. As James Kallas says,

“…. since the cosmos itself is in bondage, depressed under evil forces, the essential content of the word “salvation” is that the world itself will be rescued, or renewed, or set free. Salvation is a cosmic event affecting the whole of creation…Salvation is not simply the overcoming of my rebellion and the forgiveness of my guilt, but salvation is the liberation of the whole world process of which I am only a small part. (12)

Christ has in principle freed the cosmos from its demonic oppression and thus freed all inhabitants of the cosmos who will simply submit to this new loving reign. …
Everything about Jesus’ life must be understood as an act of defiance against the powers, precisely because everything about his life was an act of self-sacrificial love. He rightfully owned the entire cosmos, but in loving service to others had no place to lay his head (Mt. 8:20). Though he had all power in heaven and earth, John reminds us, he used it to wash the dirty, smelly feet of his disciples – the very ones who would abandon him in a couple of hours (Jn 13:3-5). When Peter cut off a guard’s ear in self-defense, Jesus lovingly healed the attacker’s ear and rebuked Peter (Lk 22:50-51). When he could have called legions of angels to fight for him, out of love Jesus instead let himself be crucified (Mt 26:53). Forsaking the use of power over others for the sake of expressing the power of love towards others — this is what the kingdom of God looks like. And when it is manifested, as it is most decisively on Calvary, it defeats the rebellious gods of this age….

Jesus Substitutionary Death

Most evangelicals today understand Jesus’ death on Calvary in substitutionary terms (Jesus died in our place), not in Christus Victor terms. The Christus Victor model affirms that Jesus died as our substitute, bore our sin and guilt, was sacrificed for our forgiveness and was punished by the Father in our place (e.g Isa 53:4-5, 10; Rom 3:23-25; 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 2:17; 9:26; I Jn 2:2). But unlike the common substitutionary view espoused by many today, the Christus Victor view can affirm these important truths while avoiding a number of paradoxes that accompany the common substitutionary view — that is, without supposing that our individual sins, guilt and just punishment were somehow literally transferred onto Jesus and without supposing that Jesus had to literally placate the Father’s wrath.

In the Christus Victor view, Jesus died as our substitute and bore our sin and guilt by voluntarily experiencing the full force of the rebel kingdom we have all allowed to reign on the earth. To save us, he experienced the full consequences of sin that we otherwise would have experienced. In so doing, he broke open the gates of hell, destroyed the power of sin, erased the law that stood against us, and thereby freed us to receive the Holy Spirit and walk in right relatedness with God.
Along the same lines, in the Christus Victor view, Jesus was afflicted by the Father not in the sense that the Father’s rage burned directly toward his Son, but in the sense that God allowed evil agents to have their way with him for a greater good. This is how God’s wrath was usually expressed toward Israel in the Old Testament (e.g. Jud 2:11-19; Isa 10:5-6). It’s just that with Jesus, the greater good was not to teach Jesus obedience, as it usually was with Israel in the Old Testament. Instead, God the Son bore the Father’s wrath, expressed through the powers, for the greater good of demonstrating God’s righteousness against the powers and sin (Rom 3:25) while defeating the powers and setting humans free from their oppression. (17)

So too, the Christus Victor model can wholeheartedly affirm that Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many, but without supposing that Jesus literally had to buy off either God or the devil (Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28; cf. I Tim. 2:6; Heb 9:15). The word “ransom” simply means “the price of release” and was most commonly used when purchasing slaves from the slave market. (18) Hence, the Christus Victor model can simply take this to mean that Christ did whatever it took to release us from slavery to the powers, and this he did by become incarnate, living an outrageously loving life in defiance of the powers, freeing people from the oppression of the devil through healings and exorcisms, teaching the way of self-sacrificial love, and most definitively by his sacrificial death and victorious resurrection.

The Practical Signficance of the Christus Victor View
I’ll conclude by sharing a brief word about the practical significance of the Christus Victor model of the atonement.
One of the foremost problems with the western church today is that people understand what Jesus came to accomplish in legal terms. God is viewed as an austere and angry judge who wants to send us to hell, we are seen as guilty defendants deserving of hell, and Jesus is viewed as our defense attorney who wants to find a way to “get us off the hook” from going to hell. So he works out an arrangement whereby the Judge gets to vent his wrath, receiving full payment for sin, yet the guilty defendants are freed from their eternal sentence.
Now, there’s many problems associated with this legal-arrangement view of Jesus (such as, if the Father gets payed by Jesus’ death, did he really forgive our sin?). But what concerns me most is that this view easily divorces justification from sanctification. That is, so long as a person believes Jesus died as their substitute, they’re off the hook. How they actually live isn’t central to the legal arrangement. Given this view, it’s hardly surprising that there are millions of people in America who profess faith in Jesus but whose lives are indistinguishable from their pagan neighbors.

The Christus Victor understanding of the atonement avoids this completely. In this view, what Christ does for us cannot be separated, even theoretically, from what Christ does in us. One either participates in Christ’s cosmic victory over the powers or they do not. If they do, their lives by definition will be increasingly characterized by the ability and willingness to overcome evil with good as they imitate the Calvary-quality life of Jesus Christ (Eph 5:1-2). (19) The idea that one is “saved” by intellectually believing in the legal transaction Jesus allegedly engaged in with God the Father can thus be dismissed as magic.

MM asked that the Christus Victor theme be explained, so I grabbed the above from here: http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-jesus/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/

I condensed it as much as I could, while still trying to keep the gist of it. I'd highly recommend reading the complete article.

i took the last part and put all of it up. i would ask that we all take it part by part and see if there is anything we would disagree with.

Yes, this is a huge difference, so Jesus is neither a Biblical propitiation nor did he exhaust God's judgement on sin.

The Bible story of God, man, sin and grace is so complex, so multifacetted, so multilayered, that this essay appears to be trying to avoid Evangelical theology - justification by faith is a legal status of pardon/forgiveness and that sort of thing, and not an inner change and renewal, so just an intellectual agreement that God is right.

Including the work of Jesus' Spirit within us, doesn't prevent a necessary legal transaction taking place, since it's the legal basis of that new life. Actually, this essay fails to elborate on what justification itself is, since it blurs it with sanctification - perpetuating another evangelical confusion! - but one can imply if one really wants to that it's talking of justification as an experience. The implication of the essay is that justification is not internal, but sanctification is, and must be included in our gospel experience.

This is hopeless, as the evangelicals, rightly, refuse to do so, already, making sanctification essential to the gospel for us, based on their own teachings, since they limit justification to our perfection "in Christ", personally, physically, representatively - but not put in us, and perfect obedience is therefore not an option. Evangelicals have other points which exclude perfect obedience, too, but this is enough for now.

On this combination - legal and personal justification, our church agrees and has always agreed, but doesn't say so much. This essay tries to do the same, but appears to have failed, making sanctification, not justification, the even of our renewal. Maybe it's just this writer being quoted.

On the meaning of substitution itself, the Bible, and our church, has always taught Jesus suffered God's holy wrath against sin and God's judgement against sin, unlike this theory...

Interesting how the lake of fire and annihilation of the wicked there, plus Ellen White's mention also of proportional punishment there, depict God's holy judgement of and punishment against sin.

Now..., where in this essay is any mention of the death to sin which our Saviour daily chose and suffered on the cross for us which we experience by faith in him? Yes, not suffering the full affects of sin, but dying to sin itself?

Colin, it doesn't appear to me that you've understood what the author was trying to communicate. Before finding fault with what he's saying, it would be good to at least understand the points he's trying to make. What do you think his main points were?

Regarding the points you find fault with, let's consider what the Scriptures have to say. The author was able to support his POV with scores of Scripture texts from the Gospels. He went of what Jesus' own teaching was regarding His death, and demonstrated from Jesus' own words the Christus Victor concept. Can you do the same for penal substitution?

Yes, let's do these here, as you wanted to comment?

Ok. There's too many to do all at once, so I'll do them a bit at a time.



My understanding of this I think is best explained by the following:



As this is rather a long quote (I'd really like to quote the whole chapter, entitled "The Sacrifice of Christ Honors God's Law") I underlined some key points.

In the first paragraph is an answer to a question that's often asked, which is that, if God is forgiveness personified and doesn't need Christ's blood in order to pardon our sins, why didn't He just do so?

The rest of the quote deals with the question of how justice and mercy are united in Christ's death, which is what EGW's quote is addressing.

The second quote has to do with the Day of Atonement, which a whole subject in and of itself. I'll just comment briefly that I belief the Day of Atonement ministry of Christ has primarily to do with preparing the way for Christ to come again, and that this involves the preparation of a people who will stand before God without a Mediator. I believe Christ's ministry in the MHP involves bringing His people into perfect harmony with the law.

I don't think this quote has anything to do with penal substitution, and, indeed, 99%+ of those who believe in penal substitution wouldn't agree with this quote. It seems a bit out of place.

I guess a similar comment would apply to quote number three. I think discussing the Day of Atonement would merit a thread of its own. Obviously the application of Christ's blood is not literal; He didn't have a pail of blood in heaven.

You know, I've been asking time and time again for an explanation of what this symbolizes, so it seems fair to me that I be given an explanation, since I asked first. Regarding my thoughts on the matter, I've offered a starting point in saying I believe the blood represents Christ's life.

i find this question to be very enlightening and the core of the whole issue.

what, exactly, did Christ die to? "sin" is rather vague. what "sins" exactly did He die to?

i believe this quote, not to mention much of the article, contradicts the conclusion presented.


this is a very real reality for much of the "christian" world and the author is dealing with that. that is why this bothers me so much also.



and no, dedication, i dont "have it in for you". i dont "hate you", or any other conclusion you have come to about me when i disagree with you. that statement doesnt tell anyone what Christ died to, what He suffered. (im not even sure its legitimate. Christ "died to sin" every moment of His life....when He physically died that is something else. 1Pe 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;)


lets get on the same page with this gentleman and what he is addressing, por please.

are there people who believe

For me the expression that Christ died to sin means that He said no to every temptation to sin, the most severe of which He experienced on the cross.

Continuing this quote, the next two sentences say:



I think the underlined portion is key to understanding Ellen White's comment here. I don't think Ellen White's comment can be understood as saying that God could not have pardoned man without Christ's death, as if this were something necessary on God's part, because the same issue would have applied to Lucifer, so some other explanation needs to be found.



I agree with this statement. Few have a real understanding. I'll certainly include myself among those who need to understand this better.

Again, I think it's clear that the statement here is not to be understood literally. Christ does not literally stand before the Father, presenting His blood to Him. Obviously this is symbolism. The question is, what is the point of the symbolism.

We don't really think the Father needs to here from Christ of His blood, do we? Surely the Father knows of Christ's sacrifice, and of Christ's blood. So this statement is written to communicate something to us. What is it trying to communicate?

A great deal could be written about this, but surely a key point is that our acceptance with God, nor any of the blessings which we receive, are not dependent upon our own merits, but rather upon the gift of Christ.

The sinfulness of his adopted humanity, basically: how do you understand it? I have further thoughts but which direction are you thinking in?

In a similar vein of perfect action by him, what sort of repentance did he make at his baptism of repentance by john the Baptist, whose baptism was exclusively for repentance?

I don't like that paragraph either...: it opened the way for me to question the conclusion's strength, after reading the article, too. What is your concern with it, or just what you're aware of poor examples in the Christian community?

I'm not sure who said the above, other than Colin posted it, I think. I'm just providing this for context. Beneath the above, you (teresaq) wrote:




I'm finding this a bit cryptic. Please clarify: What is "this quote"? What is the conclusion presented, and what is contradicting the conclusion.

on rereading this i can see the confusion, and i wrote it.

colin was responding to boyds comment and i was responding to colins question. i was pointing out that we say "sins" but we dont seem to really know what that entails. what sins are we talking about? do we know what sin really is, or do we have an extremely limited view of what sin is? or we so busy discussing how its done and dont actually think about what....

i believe that boyd made it clear whether he believed in "dying to sin itself" in the second quote by him above. unless we arent clear about sanctification.

boyds second quote above is a very real reality for much of the christian world as well as for some of us in the church.

Ok, so you were doing two things. One was pointing out an ambiguity (not having to do with Boyd), and the other was you were agreeing with Boyd's point in regards to the disconnect between profession and reality.

What I like about the Christus Victor theme (which we know as "The Great Contoversy") is that everything ties together. The SOP says that the "whole purpose" of Christ's mission was the revelation of God. This agrees with Boyd's formulation of things, as he points out His purpose was to defeat the enemy, which was done by His "outrageous love."

bump

One of the pains about moving is losing stuff. An upside is finding something you thought had been lost.

I came across "Christus Victor" by Gustaf Aulen, who is responsible for bringing this view of the atonement back into public view, so am re-reading it, a great joy, since I was afraid it had been lost. Despite the fact that it was the dominant view of the atonement for nearly a thousand years (the first thousand years, following Christ's death), it had been lost sight of, and, even today, most people generally think in terms of only two atonement models, one objective (penal substitution) and the other subjective (moral influence theory). There's a third model which combines the best points of both the objective and subjective model, while avoiding their flaws (this is Aulen's premise, at any rate!).

I'll be trying to share some things from the book, time allowing.

I'll just check again what Boyd says for himself on dying to self and J&S, not forgetting that true Christian witness isn't at its best yet!

What is sin....: sin principally is both "lawlessness" and "transgression of the law". It's also selfish pride and selfishness altogether. To glory in Christ is healthy pride, so there's the true version! Sin also mental as well as active, of course. It's even spiritual, making oneself the whole of one's realm of interest and importance, shutting out anyone or anything external: that is dead spirituality since it doesn't connect but it is spiritual, all the same.

On specifics: sinfulness for us in both our nature and our sinful character. Our nature is a sinful being; our lives and actions are sinful choices. Therefore, as you may have heard before, it's not the case that "we sin because we're sinners; we're sinners because we sin", since this prevents us from chosing not to sin. Truth: "we sin because we're sinful; we're sinners because we sin." Human nature is sinful, but we are sinful also by actions.

Jesus took the former, but refused the latter. He daily died to the former, and completed that with his death on the cross. He also died for sin, since that's what the law requires, since Adam had to sacrifice that first lamb by faith in the promised Messiah's sacrifice for sin, once and for all. He died for us, for sin and gave us the righteous example of dying to sin, which we experience by our living faith in him.

Ok, that hasn't actually answered your question, has it, or was it alright?

hello, my brother, what a conciliatory move!! my quick skim through boyds thoughts as presented there seemed very much in line with the sop as i understand it. it seems to me we should go through his thoughts and establish what we know to be right and then pick at what we believe to be error.



ok, i can agree with that for the moment. its a little technical and i dont know that the average joe i run into could understand the nuances, which is always my concern. the way i would state it is, we are going to sin from the moment we are born.

also, do you think we could allow the other person to see things differently no matter how bad we might think that teaching to be? i mean, i disagree with you on antitrinitarianism but should i do to you what you did to tom? should anyone treat you that way?

maybe stating, i disagree with --------because-------and leave it there? which could give the other an opportunity to clear up those particular issues if possible.

Still have to study Boyd again, thanks, and yes, keep the good and not the bad.

On sin, Teresa, that bit you put in red simply means: we're sinful by nature, we're not sinners by nature - we're sinners by choice.

On "Tom", agreeing to disagree wasn't happening from his end, that I could see, while everyone else could see our definitions were different for the same words we were using. Tom avoided this fact all he could, seeming to claim it wasn't relevant, as he supported a short paragraphed, voted statement, which had zero detail in it. That he didn't give the chapter, explaining the short #9 FB "note", any validity as being the proper explanation of what is believed by the church under FB #9, really ended the discussion. That's what dragged it on as far as it did.

If he doesn't follow my wording 75% of the time or more, it also drags the discussion on forever! A difference on the meaning of Christ's death changes understandings on virtually everything, despite a few similar points.

you are difficult to understand, for me, and so is tom many times.

as for the definitions being different, are we talking about the understanding of what those words mean? ive never studied what the church believes and wants its members to believe. it makes me very sad when i read certain "declarations" in church papers and people study those and accept them instead of praying about it and doing their own studies to see "if that is so".

many of ellen whites statements have really hit home with me and i try to stay with the bible/sop instead of relying on others understandings.

this is one:
Search the Scriptures for yourselves. You have altogether too limited knowledge of yourself. Know for yourselves what is truth. Do not take any man's words, any man's prejudices, any man's arguments, any man's theories. This has been done by ministers to the injury of their experience, and it has left them novices when they should be wise in the Scriptures and in the power of God. Take your Bibles, humble yourselves, and weep and fast and pray before the Lord, as did Nathanael, seeking to know the truth. Jesus' divine eye saw Nathanael praying, and answered his prayer.--EGW'88 141. {PaM 22.2}

Right, looked at Boyd again, carefully.

All the way down to "Jesus Substitutionary Death", and below it, with the exception of the interpretation of 1 Pet 2:24 - where Isaiah's poetry cannot alone accurately speak for that spiritual & legal reality, everything is agreeable: God does the right thing, somewhat unsurprisingly!

For the rest: principally, how can God effect our redemption from his law's demands by unleashing Satan himself against his own Son? Is Satan actually the agent of the death of the wicked in hell? No, he's not: God is judge.


Yes, all men are responsible for the death of God's Son on Calvary - even on behalf of the mid-night Sanhedrin...! Satan himself murdering God's Son now become flesh isn't what saves us from death by faith in Christ our Substitute. Even while we're demonstrating selfishness and pride in putting Jesus on the cross, even though Jesus himself proves that God is agape by being rejected by the Jews despite his 3 year ministry, does that save us from God's justice? No, it does not.

Christ saved us from our very own guilt, having been made sin for us, with our guilt. That personal guilt can't be switched for all the forces of evil against Jesus, if the idea is to save all us sinners from our own guilt. For all the cosmic controversy, living a life of righteousness by faith in Christ must start with him bearing our guilt-ridden death penalty: that's the justice of God's holy law. Christ bearing our actual guilt to his death makes forgiveness possible, as this essay admits but won't support.

The cold, austere, angry God problem isn't solved by switching the obviously wrong view for no judge at all. Using evil agents to punish isn't judgement, it's just proof of evil, at least in Israel of old. God doesn't judge the world for its unrepentant, final evil by trying to teach it to obey: that's the wrong cart & horse, forget about getting them back to front!

The cosmic issues are real, but so are the legal demands on his creatures, particularly on earth!! Rom 7:1-6 could not be clearer, Tom: I haven't heard or noticed a word from you on that text, these days and weeks of discussing this. It's not the forces of evil that died in Christ on Calvary: it's all men, whose death in Christ satisfied a legal requirement of justice against us all.

Two more issues in Evangelicalism trouble Boyd: Christ taking the place but not representing in his person the guilty he is substituting - the sinless human natured innocent in place of the guilty sinful humanity: this is the basis the penal substitution objection in Boyd's theory and practice. Adventism should know to teach that Christ took sinful flesh to corporately represent all men in his body, and be able legally to bear their guilt, etc.: Biblical substitution means one representing all: hence the Two Adams truth of Rom 5, for example. What each did legally impacted the entire human race, under God's laws. The good news half of it requires faith to be experienced, of course.

The second issue is "divorcing" J&S, which Boyd doesn't solve, either. Basically, Boyd complains that the sanctified life isn't required in the Evangelical gospel: correct, it isn't. He doesn't manage to explain how he would include it as a requirement...! He just wants it to be, as we here all do, too! He does make clear that what God does "in us" is sanctification and what God "for us" is justification. That way he's definitely stuck with the Evangelical exlcusion of the sanctified life from the gospel, as that's their formula!!

The solution he wants is God's work "in us" starting with subjective justification by faith of the new heart, etc, based on the death to sin & self we died in Christ, who bore our guilt to his death (which Boyd dismisses as not for his theory). That's the path of salvation from our sinful nature to the sanctified life.

Yes, always study any claims if they aren't obviously Biblical! I've learned to seek out those church writers, in addition to SOP, who find she is backed by Scripture on the gospel truths. Herbert Douglass is hopefully a name you may have heard of: he was deputy editor of the Review (yes, the magazine), with Thomas Davis, when Kenneth Wood was main editor, 1966-83. He is a champion of Ellen White and my view of the gospel is built also on his books; he's still alive, though Wood has passed away recently.

Here is a good, objective explanation of Douglass theology, with other angles of his views on neighbouring pages at that website. I don't endorse that website's general outlook, but it has some useful material.
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/webster/ccac05-IIa.htm

In fact, the whole book featured in this link examines EGW, EJ Wagggoner, AT Jones, and Edward Heppenstall, a very prominent 20th century lecturer: the book shows how Heppenstall changed direction from those before him, while Douglass was a contemporary with him, but he's also passed away a few years ago.

Basically, some good writers around today - just got to know who they are! It does all go back to the Bible and studying God's truth from it!!

It's not God's justice that we need to be saved from, but sin.



What did you have in mind here? (talking about the underlined portion). Please quote where you see the essay "admitting, but not supporting" that Christ bearing our actual guilt to his death makes forgiveness possible. I didn't see anywhere where it was asserted that "Christ bearing our actual guilt to his death makes forgiveness possible."



Have you asked? I've responded to all your posts directed to me. When you ask about something, I respond (unless I miss it by oversight). If you'd like a comment on something, all you have to do is ask!

As I've stated several times, I agree with Waggoner on this question. Regarding the section in question, Waggoner writes:



I agree completely with this.



On the contrary, Boyd writes:



Far from "just wanting it," Boyd asserts "what Christ does for us cannot be separated, even theoretically, from what Christ does in us."



Not at all! The solution doesn't start with subjective justification by faith, but starts with Christ defeating the devil. This was asserted throughout the essay. For example:



Here's an example of his making a direct application of this to one's person experience:



The emphasis throughout the essay is on Christ's victory of the enemy and our participation in that victory.

Here you are: the underlined bits, of course, not forgetting the words in between.

"Without" our individual sinful record and "just punishment" being "somehow literally transferred" - like by law and grace! - there's no same effect as penal substitution of Christ being sacrificed for our forgiveness. The direct effects of sin do not equal our just punishment! - nor do they amount to salvivic substitution for us at all! Sin in all its fury is not a basis for our forgiveness, as no justice has occurred against us in Christ that we may be forgiven our guilt.

Oh, this...

...ignores the text saying that at the cross justice and mercy kissed.

On Boyd wanting the sanctified life to be fully part of the subjective gospel experience, he's got the wrong basis for that.


I referred to this in just my last post and you ignored it: you asked for it, so now you have it. Boyd doesn't teach a subjective justification, from the wording he's using, since "what Christ does in us" is sanctification and the "for us" is objective justification: These are the external and internal gospel elements Boyd says he wants kept together, remember, since Evangelicalism divorces them?!

Since Boyd refers to justification as void of a heart change in us and thus a poor witness, he appeals to inclusive sanctification for that ellusive new heart, "...in us". Your logic, Tom, is missing key details here. If you miss it this time, you're clearly avoiding the facts and we'll have at least nothing further to discuss here.

The SDA church teaches internal, subjective justification by faith. Boyd is with the Evangelicals, who exclude it by their very definitons: tough luck.

Regarding your point about Boyd's admitting but not supporting Christ's bearing our actual guilt to his death makes forgiveness possible, I didn't get your point. Regarding the quote itself, it says:



This says that Christ was sacrificed for our forgiveness (we need it), not to make forgiveness possible (i.e., that God needs it to be able to legally pardon). Regarding that Christ's sacrifice was needed for us to be forgiven, there's no doubt about that, if we're talking about our need. The question is if *God* needed the sacrifice, to enable Him to do something, and I don't see Boyd asserting that anywhere.



It doesn't "ignore it," but is understands the issues differently. I liked the way Ty Gibson puts this. The justice of God (His holiness, His righteousness) is too much for us to take in without bathing in His grace. Why? Because of our own ugliness. His beauty of character makes clear the ugliness of our own, and we can't bear that without grace (or mercy). So justice and mercy kiss in Christ, in whom we can behold the justice of God, and still not be destroyed.



Boyd's point is that one can believe the penal substitution view without having any lifestyle change logically following from that. Whereas in the CV view, this isn't even theoretically possible, because the viewpoint itself involves living as Christ lived.

Here's an explanation. The "whole purpose" of Christ's earthly mission was the revelation of God, to set men right. Men are drawn to God as they behold the character and love of God. This revelation of God's character dispels the deceptions of the enemy, which is the power he uses to ensnare us. Once the enemy's deceptions are unmasked, we, if we choose to believe, are freed. Once free (assuming we believe in the CV perspective) we will work alongside of Christ to do the same thing He was doing, which is to reveal God's character and love.

So it is not possible, even theoretically, to divorce what Christ does for us (He freed us from the snares of the enemy) for what Christ does in us (He enables us to live as He lived, cooperating in His work), because this is what CV is all about: defeating the enemy.

regarding this "legal" stuff, which i would like to strongly reiterate that i have never seen that in the bible/sop, this came to mind last night....

while Christ is standing between the Father and us, why? who is He presenting the "blood" to, the Father or the adversary?

who is claiming us as his own to do with as he wills...

is it really safe to rely on others understandings of what happened and what they believe regarding anything? i mean, they are only human and there may be issues they didnt feel were important that may be very important....

bump for MM

They're just good leaders finding the Bible backs up SOP, and that understanding of the Bible - like the high calling to perfect Christlikeness of the Gospel of Christ, supported by many, reliable, senior pastors and members of the church, is what Adventism is about. Bible study has to be paramount, but the leadership of teaching that power of the gospel also boosts one's faith: it just sounds Biblically correct, covering every angle, from God's character and law and justice, the whole Bible history and all aspects of salvation.

There does remain a split on that high calling..., since the 50s more or less, but the leadership on the high calling remains.

no thanks. it is a lot better when one does ones own research and study with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That's your prerogative. Was just saying that those I call good leaders and authors are such for defending the Advent Message, as I'm convicted by the Holy Spirit of the truth they present. Dangers lurk everywhere, but a group effort, online and hard copy, reduce the risk considerably.

Thereby, to name just one hazard out there, I've learned how to spot the errors in salvation teaching (never mind prophecy!) of Desmond Ford, that former SDA pastor, theologian and church member. I understand from fellow members with him at PUC that he took his name off the books there in about 2000.