DOCSLIB.ORG

HOW the CROSS DEFEATS the POWERS a Paper Submitted to Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HOW the CROSS DEFEATS the POWERS a Paper Submitted to Dr HOW THE CROSS DEFEATS THE POWERS A Paper Submitted to Dr. Alan Hawkins Global Awakening Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course BTHE 5253: Systematic Theology 2 By Max Cornell May 2021 1 Introduction The crucifixion of Jesus is the fulcrum around which history turns. It is a profoundly mysterious event that forever altered the story of humanity. Despite how obvious that may seem to modern Christians, in the early days after Jesus’ death and resurrection, it was not at all clear that much had changed. Further, modern secularists have argued that Christ’s effect on history is centered around the devotion of his followers, not the crucifixion or resurrection. Wright presses the issue when he asks poignantly, “Did anything actually happen on the cross that made a real difference in the world?”1 To use more technical language, “What, if any, are the objective aspects of the atonement?” Various answers have been given at varying times, from the ransom theory to the satisfaction theory to the penal substitution model.2 All models fall short of the full truth, but all bring helpful insights to the discussion.3 In his seminal work, Christus Victor, Gustaf Aulen surveys these various models and provides a nuanced version of what he calls the “classic view.” He seeks to recover the concept of the atonement as an objective victory over the demonic principalities and powers.4 In so doing, he restores what Greg Boyd calls the “warfare 1 N. T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus's Crucifixion (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2018), 46. 2 For a concise and lucid overview, see Randy Clark, Destined for the Cross: 16 Reasons Jesus Had to Die (Nashville, TN: Emanate Books, 2020), 51—53. 3 This paper will not evaluate the varying perspectives in comparison with one another. It simply grants the validity of the each and asserts that they can be constituted in fashions which are not mutually exclusive. 4 Gustaf Aulén, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003). 2 worldview” which was pervasive in ANE societies.5 Briefly, the idea is that humanity is held captive in some fashion to demonic agents and the atonement secures our liberty.6 Modern charismatics especially have embraced this understanding.7 If one grants that part of what Jesus accomplished through the atonement is a real objective victory within spacetime over the powers of darkness, there remains the pressing question of how precisely this victory was accomplished. Lack of clarity about this issue has resulted in sometimes eccentric perspectives wherein after the cross Jesus is either being tortured in Hell or, alternatively, doing violence to the devil in that same location. Further, understanding the mechanisms through which Jesus overcomes evil is essential if the believer is to participate Christ’s ongoing purpose to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8).8 Jesus and Paul insist that the location of the victory is the cross (John 12:31-32; Col 2:15). Thus, an essential Christian mystery is, how is it, given the apparent humiliation and degradation that Christ experienced, that the cross is actually his exaltation and the devil’s open shame? While it is impossible to answer these questions exhaustively, this paper will 5 Gregory Boyd, God at War: The Bible and Spiritual Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1997), 9—17. 6 Randy Clark, Destined for the Cross, 54. This perspective is easier to maintain if one accepts the personal nature of demonic entities. However, it is not entirely necessary. Wright is somewhat nebulous on this issue, calling the powers “quasi-personal.” N.T. Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, 205. Conversely, Boyd insists the powers must be fully personal otherwise we cannot account for natural evil within a warfare worldview. He sees all evil, including natural evil, as a function of “evil wills.” Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 290-292. 7 Space does not permit a detailed defense of the model itself. Aulen’s work is persuasive. This paper grants its general scriptural and historical grounding and seeks a nuanced understanding of how the model works. 8 All Scriptures are NASB unless otherwise noted. 3 contend that Jesus defeated the powers by inaugurating God’s eschatological kingdom, forgiving sin, and crucifying our idolatrous conceptions of God. The Nature of the Problem Before one can understand how Jesus’ death and resurrection liberates people from demonic captivity, it is necessary to describe the nature of that bondage. The New Testament says that Satan is the “god of this age” (2 Cor 4:4), that before Christ humans were part of the “domain of darkness” (Col 1:13), and that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19).9 This is indeed a sorry state, but how did it happen? Why is it that the powers hold such sway over humankind? Clarity about that question will go a long way to illuminate how the cross rescues people. To find that clarity, one must consider the fall. Walton has shown that the language used in Genesis 1 strongly suggests that the author conceived of the creation as a kind of cosmic temple.10 Picking up on this theme, Wright suggests that humans are the images in the temple and that this position constitutes our “covenant of vocation.”11 It is not simply that man is created to obey a set of rules. (That perspective “moralizes our anthropology.”12) Rather, man is God’s image-bearer, created to worship Him, and, through that relational intimacy, man must exercise wise governance over 9 KJV has “lieth in wickedness,” depersonalizing the nature of the bondage. Most translations have something like the above. 10 John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 77-82. 11 Wright, The Day the Revolution Began, 76. Wright contrasts this with the Westminster “works- contract” view, which he feels is reductionist. 12 Ibid., 147. 4 God’s creation.13 Unfortunately, man has failed, worshiping the creation rather than the creator (Rom 1:25). “The name for this [failure]” Wright summarizes, “is idolatry. The result is slavery and finally death.”14 Why? Because idolatry “results in giving to the idols—'forces’ within the creation—a power over humans and the world that was rightfully that of genuine humans.”15 For Wright then, man is enslaved to demonic powers because he has failed to function properly within the temple-like structure of the universe. Sin is not simple moral infringement. It is the yielding of one’s authority to another power through worship.16 As a result, the entire cosmos/temple is out of joint and varying forms of evil have been loosed upon the world. If Wright is correct, Genesis 3 should support his view. Can Adam and Eve’s sin be considered idolatry? Heiser shows that the serpent in Genesis 3 is a personal, divine being who was likely a member of God’s heavenly council.17 He comes to Eve and declares that God has lied to her, that she will not die if she eats the fruit, and that God’s motivation for lying is that he does not want humans to be like himself (Gen 3:4-5). The serpent mounts an assault on the character of God, bolstered by Eve’s self-interest. Tragically, she chooses to believe these lies, 13 Ibid., 76. 14 Ibid., 77. 15 Ibid., 86. 16 In Romans 6:16, Paul explains that yielding to sin or, by implication, obeying the devil, results in enslavement. Similarly, Jesus depicts all those who commit sin as enslaved to it (John 8:34). 17 Michael S. Heiser, Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 87-91. 5 acting apparently on a desire to exalt herself. Adam follows suit, and the result is they are expelled from the garden.18 Is this failure idolatry? Idolatry may be defined as the worship of a false image of God. In a telling example, Aaron fashioned a golden calf and then declared, “This is your god, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt” (Ex 32:4). The people proceeded to worship it and offer it sacrifices. Aaron did not say that Baal or Ashtaroth led them out of Egypt. Instead, he created an image of God which was less than the truth and told people it was what God looked like. Similarly, the serpent constructed a picture of God in Eve’s heart. She believed this sinful picture which led to her rebellions actions because worship entails and empowers obedience. Adam and Eve were idolators, not in the most literal sense, but because they believed demonically inspired lies about God, themselves, and the nature of the world. Boyd supports this perspective. He argues that the serpent attacked Adan and Eve’s “mental picture of God.”19 This assault worked because “we take on the image of the God we mentally envision.”20 They pictured a selfish God and thereby made a selfish choice. As a result of this choice, they were now under the penalty of sin, which is death, and under in the grip of the devil, who’s “domain is death.”21 18 The garden may be conceived of as the “holy of holies” within the temple concept because the divine presence dwelt there.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critique of Aulen's Christus Victor by GEORGE O
    Concol2()io Theological Monthly OCTOBER • 1957 A Critique of Aulen's Christus Victor By GEORGE o . EVENSON NE of the most significant theological books published in O recent decades is Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen. In it he suggests that there are three main ideas or theories of the atonement: the classic, the Latin, and the subjective-humanistic. That which makes the book both significant and controversial is the author's contention that the authentic Scriptural doctrine of the atonement is the classic idea, that Luther was an exponent of the classic idea, and that therefore the orthodox Lutheran doctrine of the atonement differs markedly both from Scripture and from Luther. Aulen asserts that "the doctrine of Lutheranism became a very different thing from that of Luther." 1 The translator in his preface informs us that "Dr. Aulen shows how sharp is the contrast between Luther and the Lutherans" (p. ix). Hence Christus Victor faces us with an insistent challenge to seriously re-examine and re-evaluate the "traditional" Lutheran doctrine of the atonement. That the question cannot be avoided is made clear by Edgar Carlson's assertion that Aulen's view of the atone­ ment is in the main taken for granted in present-day Lundensian theology (Seminarian, pp. 36 f.). This article is only incidentally a defense of the doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction. It is primarily a criticism of the methodology and theology presented in Christus Victor. This critical position does not mean that this reviewer finds nothing to commend in the book. In it there is much for which to be thankful.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching the Death and Resurrection of Jesus to Children
    Teaching the death and resurrection of Jesus to children Carrie Martens W hat do we believe about how Jesus died? What do we under- stand about how Christ’s death relates to our daily lives? When asking ourselves these questions, we often neglect to examine underlying presuppositions about God and Jesus that we devel- oped as children, and to consider how those assumptions influ- ence our adult understandings of the atonement. A child’s concept of the divine is formed early in life through interactions with family and environment. Our early understand- ings form the basis for future learning and are If the church is often remarkably resilient. If the church is concerned with how concerned with how adults understand the adults understand atoning work of Jesus, then we must be the atoning work of equally concerned—if not more concerned— Jesus, then we must with how Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection be equally con- are taught to and understood by children. cerned—if not more Popular theologies of the atonement, such concerned—with as Christus victor and Anselm’s satisfaction how Jesus’ life, theory (which includes the language of death, and resurrec- substitution and sacrifice), have dominated tion are taught to the theological landscape for centuries. Many and understood by contemporary theologians have pointed to children. problems in these formulations. Yet these theories remain prominent in Christian children’s materials. As we consider the impact these theories have on adult experience, we must also ask ourselves how these theories might shape a child’s understanding of God and relationship to the divine.
    [Show full text]
  • Christus Victor: Christ Our Ransom, Mediator and King
    Christus Victor: Christ our Ransom, Mediator and King December 8, 2019 Fort Langley Evangelical Free Church Christmas is the opening move in God’s invasion of a fallen world subject to sin, death and the Devil. Why the invasion of Christmas was needed: “The situation on the ground” God created this world good (Genesis 1:1-25), and created human beings “in His image” (Genesis 1:26-28). God’s image bearers rebelled against Him, and subject to sin, death, and the Devil. God made a plan: He chose Abraham and his descendants to explain his character, love and intentions and create the blueprint for what redemption requires. Then he sent his Son: “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God. Gal. 4:4-7 Why did God send his son to be born and then die on the cross? How will he liberate planet Earth? Today’s message will look at Christmas from some of the aspects of God’s amazing “secret invasion” of our world in the incarnation of His Son. 1. To Ransom us from Sin’s Penalty and Satan’s Grasp “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45 There’s a sense then in which our rebellion has made us hostages to Satan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Atonement Debate Within Contemporary Evangelicalism Mick Taylor September 2006
    The Atonement Debate within Contemporary Evangelicalism Mick Taylor September 2006 The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil. (The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann p182-183) It was this quote from a brief section, in the last chapter of a short book that turned academic debate into public controversy. Over the last 20 years there had been developing within British and North American evangelical academia a discussion over what is the correct way to understand the work of Christ on the cross? The chief concern was the status of the doctrine of penal substitution, is it the best model? The only model? Is it scriptural? Is it helpful or harmful? The Lost Message of Jesus by Steve Chalke and Alan Mann and Steve’s subsequent article on the atonement in the Christianity magazine fathered mountains of correspondence, an EA sponsored debate then in July 2005 a 3 day symposium at the London School of Theology.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosmic Reconciliation Through Penal Substitution and Christus Victor David Schrock
    The Cross in Colossians: Cosmic Reconciliation through Penal Substitution and Christus Victor David Schrock ince Gustaf Aulén published his work Christus to explain all the ways that PSA and CV intersect, SVictor, the view that Christ died to defeat the but neither is it necessary since there are several fine powers and principalities has enjoyed a rise in the- works written on the subject.4 Instead, I will con- ology and popular thought.1 Among evangelicals sider the cross of Christ in the letter to the Colos- (broadly defined), advocates of the view known as sians. I will argue that in this epistle Paul describes Christus Victor (henceforth CV) might be classified the cosmic reach of the cross with its twin designs in three ways: (1) those who reject penal substitu- of saving God’s people and defeating the enemies of tionary atonement (henceforth PSA) outright, and God. More precisely, I will argue that in agreement argue instead for CV (e.g., Steve Chalke, Joel Green, with PSA, Christ died to atone for the sins of his Darrin W. Snyder Belousek), (2) “chosen ones” (3:9), that is, his people, and in keep- David Schrock is the senior pastor those who advocate CV but retain ing with CV, his death defeated his enemies and of Calvary Baptist Church in a secondary place for PSA (e.g., put them to open shame. In other words, through Seymour, Indiana. Gregory Boyd, Hans Boersma, a theological reading of Colossians 1:15-2:15, I will He earned his Ph.D. from The Ron Sider),2 (3) and those who argue that together PSA and CV are the twin means Southern Baptist Theological stress the centrality of PSA while by which Christ’s death brings peace to the cosmos Seminary.
    [Show full text]
  • Abellán, José Luis (Spanish Philosopher), 86-87 Acevedo
    INDEX Abellán, José Luis (Spanish anti-intellectualism, 26, 69, 85, 142, philosopher), 86-87 143 Acevedo, Jesus (Mexican Caso’s a., 140 writer), 95 Unamuno’s a., 140 adaptation, 127 antinom(ies)(y), 113, 115 a. has for its final cause, 118 a. between egoism and morality, 114 a. is the utilitarian law, 118 a. between eternal and advocacy, 70, 72, 156 temporal, 114 a. defends a thesis, 70 Apologie de la Religion degenerating into a., 70 Chrétienne (Pascal), aesthetics, 5, 44, 106 52 agonía [agony], 64, 79, 117 Aquinas, Thomas, 33 a. of Christianity, 74 Aristotle, 38, 95, 114 a. means struggle, 74 art, 135 Agony of Christianity a. and logic, 132 (Unamuno), 73-75 a. for art’s sake, 131 Almas Jovenes (article) Ateneo de Juventud (Ortega y Gasset), 86 [Atheneum of altruism, 103, 112, 139, 145 Youth], 96, 97, 98 a. or self-sacrifice, 135 Athanasius (Church Father), 59, 60, 61, a. shifts the emphasis, 94 62 absolute a., 82 De Incarnatione, 61 Caso’s concept of a., 94 atheis(m)(t)(s), 46, 75, 155 defense of Christian a., 112 attitude(s), 1, 114, 154, 156 egoism and a., 143 Augustine of Hippo, 33, 111 the good is simply a., 134 Ávila, Theresa de (Spanish mystic), 23, moral a., 139 24, 49 possibility of a., 40 pure a., 136 Bacon, Francis, 8 reconciling egoism and a., Balfour, Arthur James (English 131 philosopher), 46 amor de Dios [love of God], The Foundation of Belief, 46 25, 49 Barreda, Gabino (Mexican Amor y Pedagogía [Love and educator), 6, 7, 8, 91, Pedagogy] (Unamuno), 10 92 An Enquiry Concerning Human beauty, 71, 106, 107, 108, Understanding (Hume), 29 contemplation of b., 115 analogy, 150, 155, 156 b.
    [Show full text]
  • House SD Dth Thesis
    THEORIES OF ATONEMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOTERIOLOGICAL PARADIGMS: IMPLICATIONS OF A PENTECOSTAL APPROPRIATION OF THE CHRISTUS VICTOR MODEL by SEAN DAVID HOUSE submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY in the subject SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROF E VAN NIEKERK NOVEMBER 2011 Student Number: 3600-206-2 I declare that THEORIES OF ATONEMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOTERIOLOGICAL PARADIGMS: IMPLICATIONS OF A PENTECOSTAL APPROPRIATION OF THE CHRISTUS VICTOR MODEL is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. November 1, 2011 SEAN DAVID HOUSE DATE i SUMMARY Atonement theories have great implications for the soteriological paradigms associated with them, but their significance has not always been recognized in the formulation of theological systems, the lack of dogmatic definition by ecumenical council encouraging diversification and isolation from other doctrinal loci. The strongest coherence between an atonement model and soteriology can be seen in the reformed tradition, and its theory of penal substitution has become the standard accepted by many non-reformed protestant groups, including classical pentecostalism. Tensions persist in the theological system of pentecostalism because of its pairing of penal substitution with the soteriological paradigm of its foundational symbol of faith, the full gospel of Jesus as savior, sanctifier, baptizer with the Spirit, healer, and coming king. This vision of salvation is broader than that of protestant orthodoxy, which through its atonement theory deleteriously separates the death of Christ from his work in life and strictly limits the subjects and nature of salvation, specifically to addressal of elect individuals’ sins.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of the Historic Theories of the Atonement William F
    Butler University Digital Commons @ Butler University Graduate Thesis Collection Graduate Scholarship 1-1-1956 A Study of the Historic Theories of the Atonement William F. Bromley Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/grtheses Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Bromley, William F., "A Study of the Historic Theories of the Atonement" (1956). Graduate Thesis Collection. 438. http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/grtheses/438 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Thesis Collection by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. (This certification-sheet is to be bound with the thesis. The major pro- fessor should have it filled out at the oral exarnination.) Name 01 candidate 'vJJ.t~ i- ~ e .................................................................................. ~, Oral examination: Date ~L ~.~..: . Committee: ........~~ , Chairman r., _ .......~7 fS\: LZ\..~rr..~t .. ........'fs.:: ~.d. r..~g.R.~.!t....~.. , . Thesis title: .....It. :0.!<~, 4,dt~\..~:~l~ .., .....~'-S.~} j~r.rlr:Y.I&.~r v Thesis approved in final form: Date n:.-pa~g lk.fb. t ~ ..~~ . Major Professor l~~b~:~.~~ . (Please return this certification-sheet, along with two
    [Show full text]
  • THE CHRISTUS VICTOR in AFRICA Rev Daniel A. K. L. Gomis Africa West Field Strategy Coordinator, Church of the Nazarene
    1 THE CHRISTUS VICTOR IN AFRICA Rev Daniel A. K. L. Gomis Africa West Field Strategy Coordinator, Church of the Nazarene I. Introduction Sub-Saharan Africa is still considered by many as the “Dark Continent” because of the atmosphere of fear, superstition, and belief in the spirit world pervading every aspect of the society. Most African Christians are aware of their forgiveness from sins, but very few are freed from the fear of death, demons, and Satan, a freedom Christ obtained by defeating these three enemies. The Christus Victor perspective of the atonement viewed as Christ’s destruction of sin and defeat of Satan and death is a solution to the needs of African Christians. In the content of sermons and songs in churches, one notices an insistence on Jesus’ victory over Satan. A constant opposition exists between Jesus and Satan, and African churches celebrate the cross by using terms like victory, destruction, authority, domination, and binding. However, churches heavily influenced by Western missionaries rarely mention the victory of Christ over Satan, even though this is ever-present in the worldview and life of Africans. This has created a void and leaves African Christians needing adequate answers from the Bible, Christian traditions, reason, and experience. The symbolism of Christus Victor – Christ's victory over the demonic powers – may overcome this deficiency. This paper examines the biblical and historical aspects of the Christus Victor model of the atonement, demonstrating its crucial place in the African worldview and closing with applications of the Christus Victor concept in the life of Africans. II.
    [Show full text]
  • Christus Victor
    “CHRISTUS VICTOR: A WESLEYAN APPRAISAL OF SUB-SAHARAN POWER CHRISTOLOGY” James Gregory Crofford, Director, Institut Théologique Nazaréen Africa Region, Church of the Nazarene I. Introduction: structure of the investigation Why do so many Christians in Africa turn to spiritism in times of crisis? Glenn Schwartz asked this probing question and concluded: “So long as the principal power at the center is anyone other than Jesus Christ - even shared with Jesus Christ - the African Christian is open to having his spiritual life subverted by Satan and his myriad of spirits.”1 Underscored by Schwartz is a concept crucial to the sub-Saharan worldview, namely, power. A brief visit to Accra, Ghana or Lagos, Nigeria is all it takes to see how Christian churches – particularly those founded locally – have placed the theme of power front-and-center. Often, power is associated with the person and work of Jesus Christ, producing what may be termed “power Christology.” In Jesus of Africa: Voices of Contemporary African Christology , Diane Stinton examined numerous versions of Jesus as seen through African eyes, including Jesus as healer, Jesus as chief, Jesus as king, and Jesus as liberator. 2 What each of these images has in common is an emphasis upon power, or what might be termed “Jesus power.” This 21 st century concern overlaps with the 20 th century work of Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén, who in the classic view of the atonement espoused by Irenaeus saw a decisive victory over sin, death, and the devil, our Lord becoming the Christus Victor.3 The topic of power Christology is many faceted.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Violence and the Christus Victor Atonement Model
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Middlesex University Research Repository DIVINE VIOLENCE AND THE CHRISTUS VICTOR ATONEMENT MODEL. A Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Martyn John Smith Middlesex University Supervised at London School of Theology May 2015 i Abstract Martyn John Smith Divine Violence and the Christus Victor Atonement Model Doctor of Philosophy Middlesex University/London School of Theology 2015 More recently, there has been in some quarters a theological move away from the Penal Substitution model of atonement primarily due to the concerns it raises about God’s character. This is paralleled by a desire to replace it with a less violent approach to soteriology, with the concomitant representation of a less coercive God. This thesis addresses the biblical manifestations of divine violence across both Testaments in order to present God as one for whom violence is an extrinsic, accommodated function. Divine violence is particularly manifested soteriologically, finding its fullest expression, therefore, in the atonement. The Christus Victor Model is offered as the one best able to explicate and accommodate this divine violence. The main atonement models are assessed, revealing how each has sought to engage with, or deny, divine violence. Firstly, God and violence are explored in order to provide an ideological, linguistic and epistemological foundation for understanding what violence is. Biblical examples of violence are then examined including both Testaments along with consideration of the Satan and the demonic realm; showing how God utilises violence in order to overcome these ontological enemies.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Substitution in Church History
    TMSJ 20/2 (Fall 2009) 199-214 PENAL SUBSTITUTION IN CHURCH HISTORY Michael J. Vlach Assistant Professor of Theology Recently, at least since the eighteenth-century liberalism gained a place in Protestantism, the penal-substitution view of Christ’s atonement has come under attack. The claim that the doctrine was unknown in the ancient church has emerged along with the idea that such a teaching was invented by the Reformers. The fact that the first thousand years of ancient Christianity frequently espoused the teaching that Jesus suffered death, punishment, and a curse for fallen humanity as the penalty for human sin shows the falsity of such a claim. The fact that early Christians supported other views of the atonement did not exclude the possibility of their supporting penal substitution also. Other views of the atonement include the classic/ransom, the satisfaction, the moral influence, and the governmental theories. Without discussing penal substitution thoroughly, the following church fathers and writings expressed their support for the theory: Ignatius, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Hilary of Poitiers, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Cyril of Alexandria, Severus of Antioch, and Oecumenius. Martin Luther wrote during the second Christian millennium, but he too endorsed penal substitution. Available writings show clearly that the early church supported a penal-substitution view of Christ’s death. * * * * * Since the rise of Protestant liberalism in the eighteenth century, it has become common for some to claim that penal substitution, the view that Christ died on behalf of sinners, is not a biblical doctrine.
    [Show full text]