the christus victor model of atonement is better than substitutionary view

Fulfillment of the law is the key issue that separates our positions: You said- “Fulfilling the law or overthrowing the power of the law not doesn't mean CV is right or wrong. If you want to insist that Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law, then I won't argue the point.” You don’t seem to understand that this is central to the debate. The view of CV that you presented did not allow a need for the fulfillment of the law and this is the main reason why I accepted the debate. To quote your source, “By contrast, Christus Victor depicts Christ's sacrifice, not as a legal offering to God in order to placate his justice, but as the decisive moment in a war against the powers of darkness [7].” You clearly argued that a sacrifice was not necessary and stated that CV is about tossing the Law out and not fulfilling it which is consistent with your source. The key issue is how atonement is achieved. You argued that there is no need to fulfill the law, which I refuted. The Wikipedia page was the only source you referenced to clarify your position and makes it clear that CV has a specific view of atonement that does not include fulfillment of the law. CV is about overthrowing the power of the law and the Devil whereas in Substitutionary Atonement (SA) Christ fulfills the law [7]. See section on Atonement theories that pits the two views as different methods to achieve the goal, SA is referred to as the, “Satisfaction Theory,” (theory number Two). The section on the Role of the Trinity further clarifies: “(In SA) Christ must become a man in order to offer perfect penance to God. He does this by satisfying the demands of the Law for a sinless life and by suffering the wrath of the Father for past sins... Aulén goes on to argue that Christus Victor reverses this view by uniting Jesus and His Father during the Crucifixion in a subversive condemnation of the unjust powers of darkness.” Christus Victor does not offer or require any satisfaction of the law or God’s wrath. Again there are 613 commandments in the old testament and 585 references to God’s wrath against those breaking them with sin[4]. How is it that the law does not need to be satisfied even though Jesus clearly stated that the law must be satisfied in 5:17-18? “as to how wrath or sin is dealt with.” Here you concede that there is a need to satisfy wrath or sin, which is consistent with my position, and suggest that karma and death satisfy God’s wrath. The idea that the natural consequences of our behavior bring justice is absurd. There should be no need to bring up any number of atrocities that punish fairly innocent people and reward criminals etc. You may well be familiar with the, “Problem of Evil,” and the apologetics that attempt to resolve the issue [8]. Life clearly does deal out justice. “As to the earliest beliefs, we shouldn’t assume unless we have reason to think otherwise, that the earliest Christians were wrong.” Again, this is just a brazen assertion with nothing to back it up and you haven’t attempted to refute my arguments that the early church was less reliable or presented any evidence to support your position. “and suddenly when things that should be praised are praised, emphasize and Christianity itself makes more sense.” You have essentially hedged back to the position that CV makes more sense to you and allows you to feel better about God. How does your position make more sense when you have completely conceded biblical accuracy to me? How do you feel better about God when the law has not been fulfilled and the bible makes it clear that it must be? If it is just personal preference then you should read another book. The Book of Mormon allows you to become a God and inherit your own planet which sounds a lot better to me. If your view is better then it must make sense given your book. I would have even been ok with some references to the apocrypha. "So how did the word "propitiation" get into Romans 3:25? This is more of a side note; I just want to be sure I addressed this. You have still not built an augment there was a mistranslation and many translations that do not use the word still support my case. I would also trust the linguists who translated the bible without strong evidence. My position in no way depends on this verse or John 2:2 that also references the word in some translations. - You have done nothing to make your case credible. You have essentially conceded biblical accuracy to me doing nothing to refute the scriptures that clearly support my position. You cite the Early Church as an authority with no evidence and have not refuted my arguments that they are not an authority. [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org...