the christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary view

I will present a counter case for the substitutionary view and support that both views have merit not that one is not better than the other. For the most part you have built your case referencing the bible so I will present a biblical case to counter yours. I am playing devils advocate and do not support either position. I do think that the biblical case is stronger for Substitutionary view. The Early Church accepted the Christos Victor model for the first 1000 years. Assuming for the moment that this is true how does this make the view better? I could just as easily argue that the view was primitive and modern interpretation of the scriptures has improved as in any other field. The fact that a view is archaic or that it was held for a long period of time in no way supports it’s accuracy or merit. The early church has been wrong before; they assumed that Jesus would return in their lifetime [1]. Slavery was accepted or tolerated by the church until 1839 [2] and was specifically endorsed by Paul in Colossians 3:22. The idea of purgatory was not introduced until around 1160 and remains in the Catholic Catechism. “Christus Victor is about overthrowing the power of the law, not about satisfying an obligation to it, arguably.” Then there are several scriptures that directly contradict your view. Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them… not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Also see Luke 24:44, Romans 10:4 and many others. The Bible: Propitiation To explain how the idea of propitiation got into the bible (Romans 3:25, John2:2 etc.) you reference this ‘source’: http://www.therebelgod.com...... This is just a link to a blog cover page. I could find no reference to propitiation using a word search but the blog does attack the infallibility of scripture. Essentially you’re pointing out that you believe there are errors in the bible and this may be one of them. This is ironic since you are using scriptures to support your case, should I throw out your passages as well? Not to mention that an error-ridden bible contradicts with the bulk Christendom including the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Catechism states, “the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God… [3]” Your problem with the view is that you see no need to turn aside God’s wrath, “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’s wrath against sin and sinners is referenced 585 times in the Old Testament alone [4]. In the New Testament see Romans 1:18, Ephesians 2:1-4, 1 Thessalonians 2:16, John 3:36, Revelation 14:9-10, 19:15. John 3:36 states: “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” It is very clear that Gods wrath and anger over sin is a major issue that needs to be dealt with in order to reconcile his relationship with mankind. The need for atoning sacrifice You argue that there is no need for sacrifice because God was often displeased with some sacrifices. You’re neglecting the context that God is displeased with sacrifices from sinful men and pleased with others. In Genesis, God was pleased with Abel’s sacrifices displeased with Cains, “ but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry… If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door… Genesis 4:5-7.” In context this is also true of your reference to Isa 1:11,13,16-17 and Psalm 51: 16-17. I concede that the God of the bible is often displeased with sacrifices but he also makes it clear pleasing sacrifices are necessary. God was pleased with many animal sacrifices, see Gen 8:20-21, 22:13-17, 46:1-4 and many others. God commands sacrifices, See Exodus 18, 21:24, 29:19, Leviticus 3:9, 4:10, 4:35, 7:29, 9:4-5 etc. It is clear that God has a lot of wrath against sin and sinners even though he also loves mankind. A sacrifice is required for the forgiveness of sins: Leviticus 4:35, “and the priest shall burn it on the altar, on top of the Lord’s food offerings. And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.” Hebrews 9:22, “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” There is strong biblical evidence that favors the position that Jesus is a substitute sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin: -Hebrews 7:27 indicates that Jesus is the final sacrifice needed for sin: “He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” -First Tim 2:5-6 indicates that Jesus was a mediator to reconcile men to God and acted as a ransom to satisfy God and supporting the case that he died intentionally: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.” -John 10:11 illustrates that Jesus death was intentional and for his followers: “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” -In Galatians 2:20 Paul takes credit for being crucified by referencing Jesus’ crucifixion: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God.” -Romans 4:25 reiterates that Jesus died in order to justify us for our sins: “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.” -First Corinthians 15:3 indicates that Jesus died for our sins: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” Second Corinthians 5:14 again indicates that Jesus died as a substitute: “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died” “Yahweh does not need a bribe to convince him to be just or merciful because he is the very definition of justice and mercy.” I concede that God makes it clear that he loves mankind and is full of mercy. You reference Math 5:44-45, 48, Colossians 2:1415, Romans 8:1, Eph 6:12 and Hosea 13:14. Then you elaborate explaining that Jesus’ act was one of love to reconcile our relationship, that he desires acts of charity toward the oppressed and that he ‘defeated’ death. I won’t dispute these points but I do not see how these support your view over Substitutionary Atonement. I agree that something like a legal requirement to satisfy God is part of the substitutionary view which I have demonstrated. You acknowledge both God’s Mercy and Justice. It is clear that God has wrath against sin because of his justice but mercifully offered a final sacrifice for sin. Unlike Satisfaction-Doctrine which focuses on the death of Jesus, the pivotal event of Christus Victor is the resurrection. I agree that the death of Jesus may be more important to those with a substitutionary view but I do not see how this supports your case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://internetbiblecollege.net...