(Monday, July 19, 2010, 7:34 AM)
"Christus Victor" (late fifth or early sixth-century), mosaic, Chapel of the Archbishop, Ravenna. Under Christ's feet you see the lion and the serpent, enemies mentioned in Psalm 91:13 -- a sign of victory.
Atonement, in Christianity, means reconciliation of humanity with God. There is a very high number of different "theories" of how this is accomplished. By far the predominant theory is the "satisfaction" theory of atonement, which, in different ways, considers that Jesus Christ "paid on our behalf" the debt that humanity had contracted with God, by the "original sin" and the consequent "fall". The two main variants of this theory are substitutionary atonement and penal substitution, which differ essentially on whether they consider the "satisfaction" in Christ a free self-sactifice or a true and proper punishment.
While the notion of substitutionary atonement, in the sense of free self-sactifice of Jesus, is not as abominable and objectionable as the penal substitution, I believe that ultimately they both depend on the wrong assumption that the Atonement is a matter of restoring God's Perfect Justice, "wronged" by the "original sin", whereas it is a matter of War. I am in favour of the Christus Victor theory of Atonement.
The "Penal Justice" Model, as we know, became predominant ONLY in the Middle Ages, with Anselm of Aosta/Bec/Canterbury. Here it is:
(both substitutionary atonement, and penal substitution, with different degrees)
Mankind: accused/defendant
Satan: accuser/prosecuting attorney
Jesus: defense attorney [and, eventually, "free substitute" or "compulsory substitute" for punishment]
God: judge
We stand accused by Satan. He has made His case. Therefore, we are guilty, says God. Enter the law of redemption--via Jesus. He is willing and able to mitigate the death sentence--essentially by "paying" restitution.
[source: beliefnet, thread "Sacrifice on the Cross?" Adelphe's post #162/DESC]
Try the "Liberation War Model" instead, essentially the position that was the original one of Christianity:
Mankind: Terrorized and Kidnapped
Satan: Dictator of the Terrorist (and Murderous) State of "This World" & Enslaver of Mankind
Jesus: The Liberator (Commander of the Liberation Army), he is appointed by the Father Executive Judge for when the War will the over.
God: Almighty King of the "Kingdom of Heaven", and Supreme Judge of the Kidnappers and also of the Kidnapped who have fallen for the "Stockholm syndrome".
NOTE: Humans who respond, with Faith and Hope, to the appeal of The Liberator, fight in a Liberation War against the Dictator of "This World" with purely Spiritual Weapons: Truth and Love.
[source: beliefnet, thread "Sacrifice on the Cross?" MdS' post #163/DESC]
I hope you can appreciate the substantial difference. I definitely opt for the "Liberation War Model".
"Christus Victor" (late fifth or early sixth-century), mosaic, Chapel of the Archbishop, Ravenna. Under Christ's feet you see the lion and the serpent, enemies mentioned in Psalm 91:13 -- a sign of victory.
Atonement, in Christianity, means reconciliation of humanity with God. There is a very high number of different "theories" of how this is accomplished. By far the predominant theory is the "satisfaction" theory of atonement, which, in different ways, considers that Jesus Christ "paid on our behalf" the debt that humanity had contracted with God, by the "original sin" and the consequent "fall". The two main variants of this theory are substitutionary atonement and penal substitution, which differ essentially on whether they consider the "satisfaction" in Christ a free self-sactifice or a true and proper punishment.
While the notion of substitutionary atonement, in the sense of free self-sactifice of Jesus, is not as abominable and objectionable as the penal substitution, I believe that ultimately they both depend on the wrong assumption that the Atonement is a matter of restoring God's Perfect Justice, "wronged" by the "original sin", whereas it is a matter of War. I am in favour of the Christus Victor theory of Atonement.
The "Penal Justice" Model, as we know, became predominant ONLY in the Middle Ages, with Anselm of Aosta/Bec/Canterbury. Here it is:
"Penal Justice" Model
(both substitutionary atonement, and penal substitution, with different degrees)
Mankind: accused/defendant
Satan: accuser/prosecuting attorney
Jesus: defense attorney [and, eventually, "free substitute" or "compulsory substitute" for punishment]
God: judge
We stand accused by Satan. He has made His case. Therefore, we are guilty, says God. Enter the law of redemption--via Jesus. He is willing and able to mitigate the death sentence--essentially by "paying" restitution.
[source: beliefnet, thread "Sacrifice on the Cross?" Adelphe's post #162/DESC]
Try the "Liberation War Model" instead, essentially the position that was the original one of Christianity:
"Liberation War" Model
Mankind: Terrorized and Kidnapped
Satan: Dictator of the Terrorist (and Murderous) State of "This World" & Enslaver of Mankind
Jesus: The Liberator (Commander of the Liberation Army), he is appointed by the Father Executive Judge for when the War will the over.
God: Almighty King of the "Kingdom of Heaven", and Supreme Judge of the Kidnappers and also of the Kidnapped who have fallen for the "Stockholm syndrome".
NOTE: Humans who respond, with Faith and Hope, to the appeal of The Liberator, fight in a Liberation War against the Dictator of "This World" with purely Spiritual Weapons: Truth and Love.
[source: beliefnet, thread "Sacrifice on the Cross?" MdS' post #163/DESC]
I hope you can appreciate the substantial difference. I definitely opt for the "Liberation War Model".
No comments:
Post a Comment