christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary

Playing Devils advocate, I don’t support either position but it is clear that the bible supports Substitutionary Atonement (SA). The major problem with your position is that you cannot reconcile the Old and New testaments. You state that Jesus’ sacrifice was not to satisfy a legal requirement and you misrepresent the problem of sin. Consistent with Christus Victor (CV) you stress that God initiated reconciliation but omit God’s anger and dissatisfaction with mankind, which is the major theme of the Old Testament. You concede that Jesus’ sacrifice reconciles man and God but argue that this is not a legal requirement. The Entirety of the Old Testament is focused on legal requirements and God’s anger at men who break his moral law. CV does not explain how these legal requirements are satisfied. Substitutionary Atonement The major point at which SA is in disagreement is that Jesus satisfied the requirements of the law because mankind could not. This is clearly presented in scripture and the only way to reconcile the demanding wrathful God of the Old Testament with the kind and loving savior presented in the New Testament. God’s dissatisfaction with man because of sin is the major theme of the Old Testament The Majority of the bible deals with God’s frustration with mankind for not living up to his standards of righteousness. There are 603 Commandments in addition to the 10 most people are familiar with. Clearly God takes sin very seriously; the death penalty was a common requirement arguably for minor offenses. The death penalty was commanded for anyone who worked on Saturday (Exodus 31:15), worshiped another god (Deuteronomy 17:1-5) or ‘cursed’ his or her parents (Exodus 21:17). God’s vengeful anger/retributionary punishment (wrath) against mankind is mentioned 585 times in the Old Testament [1]. He commanded the early Jewish tribes to exterminate entire civilizations on multiple occasions because they were worshipping other God’s or committing other sins (1 Samuel 15). God personally executed out the entire population of the Earth (except for Noah and his family) In Genesis 6 as retribution for Sin. For references to wrath 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.” In response to God’s wrath you suggest that a version of karma satisfies God’s wrath “As to how wrath or sin is dealt with. you get what you put in, and people get what they deserve.” Not only is this assertion not true, people do not get what they deserve, but how do you reconcile this with the Old Testament where God’s wrath was satisfied by death. Why has this changed? A sacrificial death is clearly required by law. 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 Animal Sacrifice was a legal requirement to atone for sin and That Jesus was the final sacrifice. This theme is also clear. In Leviticus 4:32-35 The Israelites were commanded to sacrifice a lamb as a ‘sin offering,’ saying that, “In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.” Hebrews 9:22 clarifies, “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Jesus indicates that his very purpose for coming was to fulfill the law and that the law must be satisfied. In 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. Hebrews 7:27 indicates that Jesus is the final sacrifice legally required to atone 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.” Notice this passage refers back to the legal requirement to sacrifice a lamb for sin and indicates that Jesus satisfies this requirement once and for all. The Early Church accepted the Christos Victor model for the first 1000 years. This is just an assumption presented without evidence. I understand Wikipedia points this out but I may argue against this assertion next round if you can demonstrate that the Early Church was a legitimate authority. 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 [2]. Slavery was accepted or tolerated by the church until 1839 [3] 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. The early years of the church were chaotic and a variety of contradictory views were supported [4]. All modern doctrines were questioned from the divinity of Jesus to ironically the meaning of Jesus’ death. The early church operated based on word of mouth since there was no accepted New Testament scripture or doctrine until 400AD [5]. There were many books in circulation that were read by churches as teaching but not ultimately accepted as part of the bible. Paul himself warned of the forged letters in circulation which were not reliable in 2 Thessalonians 3:17. Propitiation I Haven’t referenced Romans 3:25 or John 2:2 so there is no need to address this issue. The passages are not needed to support SA. “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 SA. 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. [1] http://internetbiblecollege.net... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.amazon.com... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org...