The Fourth Article – The Passion of Christ, the Salvation of Man

      Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, March 31, 2023

The Fourth Article – The Passion of Christ, the Salvation of Man

In our examination of the third Article of the Christian Creed we noted that grammatically it was the beginning of a long relative clause.   In the Latin of the Apostles’ Creed the relative clause includes the third through seventh Articles.   This is not reflected in the English translation in the Book of Common Prayer which inserts a sentence break after the fourth Article.   In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed the third Article begins with a definite article that functions in this context as a relative pronoun and is the subject of all the Articles from the third through the seventh.   In the conciliar Creed this is not a subordinate clause within the sentence that starts in the second Article in the Greek, however, because it has a sentence break at the end of the second.   Interestingly, here the English translation eliminates the sentence break.   These punctuation variations do not affect the meaning of the Creed. Whether it is a subordinate relative clause, a separate sentence, or even broken into several sentences, everything from the Incarnation in the third Article to the Second Coming in the seventh is affirmed about Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God.

We also observed that the counciliar Creed includes a declaration of the end that motivated the Son of God to come down from Heaven, become Incarnate as a Man, and do all that is affirmed of Him in these Articles.   This is the clause rendered in English as “for us men and for our salvation” found immediately after the definite article/relative pronoun.   As we saw, this statement was well placed in the third Article about the Incarnation because it was the Incarnation that made possible everything else the Son of God did for our salvation.   Now we shall look at the fourth Article which speaks of how the Incarnate Christ accomplished our salvation.

Compared to the other Articles we have seen there is very little difference between two versions of the Creed.   The Latin of the Apostles’ Creed is passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus which in the English of the Book of Common Prayer is “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.”  The Greek of the conciliar Creed is Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα which in English is “and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried”.     “Suffered” and “crucified” switch places in the two Creeds, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan specifies that He was crucified “for us” whereas the Apostles’ spells us out that He “died”, otherwise the only difference is that in the counciliar Creed each thing that is affirmed of Christ is joined to the others in the Article by a copula while in the Apostles’ they are put in a list and separated by commas with only one copula.    Passus and its Greek equivalent and cognate παθόντα which both mean “he suffered” are the source of the word “Passion” which we use to designate all the suffering Jesus Christ submitted to for our sake. (1)

Another noticeable contrast between this Article and those which preceded it is the absence of precise language chosen to avoid specific errors.   With one exception it affirms merely the basic historical facts of Christ’s suffering and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, His death and His burial.   The exception is the words “for us” in the Nicene Creed.   These words are an assertion of the soteriological significance of these events but the most basic and simple such assertion possible.   That God gave His Son to be our Saviour, that He saved us by dying for us, and that therefore His death was for us, is something upon which all Christians are in agreement.   It is over how Christ’s death accomplished this that there has been disagreement.     The New Testament is not silent on this question, but it uses many different types of language and imagery to explain Christ’s saving work.   The language of redemption depicts Christ’s death as a price paid to liberate man from slavery, that is to say, slavery to sin, death and the devil.   The language of sacrifice declares Christ’s death to be the final and effective sacrifice to which all the sacrifices of the Old Testament pointed.   The language of reconciliation speaks of Christ’s death as bringing God and man, separated by man’s sin, back into harmony.   The language of satisfaction depicts Christ’s death as a propitiation or expiation that appeases God for the offence that is man’s sin.   The language of substitution speaks of Christ as taking our sins upon Himself and bearing them in our place.   The New Testament uses each of these languages and all of this different imagery tells us that the answer to the question of how Christ’s death saved us is multifaceted.   It is good, therefore, that in the Creed, the basic confession of the Christian faith, the what of Christ’s death for us is affirmed without commentary as to the how.

This was probably not intentional on the part of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Fathers.   At the time significant controversy over what we now call the theory or model of the Atonement was still centuries away.   Indeed, the history of theological debate over this matter is often thought to be divided into two periods, pre-Anselm and post-Anselm.   Anselm was the thirty-sixth Archbishop of Canterbury who held the See from 1093 to 1109 AD, shortly after both the Great Schism between the Western and the Eastern Churches and the passing of the English throne to the Norman dynasty of William the Conqueror.   About five years into his term in the Archbishop’s office, on the eve of the transition from the eleventh to the twelfth centuries he completed a work entitled Cur Deus Homo? (Why Did God Become Man?).   In this work, Anselm challenged what he believed to have been the main way in which the Atonement had been understood prior to him, i.e., the ransom model.   According to this model, Christ’s death was a ransom price paid by God to purchase the liberation of man from the bondage to sin, death, and the devil into which he had fallen in the Garden.    The extent to which this model was accepted before Anselm is debatable.   It is certainly found in the writings of Origen of Alexandria who lived in the third century.   St. Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century, the century that produced the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, notably opposed it.   Anselm’s objection to this model was that it made the death of Christ into a payment God made to Satan and thus suggested that the problem to which the Atonement was the solution was that someone, either us or God, owed a debt to Satan.   Sin is indeed depicted as a debt in the New Testament but the debt is owed by man to God not by anyone to Satan.   Anselm, who lived in feudal times, understood this to be a debt of honour.   Man had offended God’s honour by sinning and thus owed Him satisfaction.   .   By dying for us, Christ satisfied God’s honour, and so won for us reconciliation and forgiveness.    This is called the satisfaction model of the Atonement.  Since the understanding of the Atonement that has prevailed in the Roman Catholic Communion since Scholasticism has been Anselm’s model as interpreted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and the penal substitutionary model of the Protestant Reformation is Anselm’s model translated by John Calvin, a trained lawyer, from the honour language of feudal society to the legal language of contract society, (2) Anselm’s model can be said have dominated Western Christianity ever since.    The pre-Anselmic understanding of the Atonement remains the understanding in Eastern Christianity which broke Communion with Western Christianity a few decades prior to Anselm.   It would be a mistake, however, to think of the Eastern view as being predominately the ransom model.   The Eastern understanding includes the ransom model – it is found in their Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great – but other understandings of the Atonement are included elsewhere in the Eastern liturgy.

None of these models or theories are affirmed in the Creed – neither are any of them denied or rejected.   About a century ago a Swedish Lutheran bishop and theologian named Gustaf Aulén wrote a short influential book in which he argued that before Anselm the Church held to what he called the “classic view” of the Atonement which he claimed was taught in the Bible, by the Church Fathers and by Dr. Martin Luther.   This view has come to be called “Christus Victor”, which was also the title of Aulén’s book, and it basically is that the Atonement was a strategic military victory by Jesus Christ over sin, death, and the devil which brought about the liberation of those whom these forces of evil had held captive.   Of all the models that have been proposed this is the closest to being one that can claim to be affirmed in the Creed but this is only because it is not what Aulén purported it to be, an explanation of how Christ’s death saved us, but rather a re-wording of the assertion of the fact that it does.   Everyone who affirms the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds will affirm that in His death and resurrection, Jesus Christ triumphed over sin, death, and the devil (3) and set mankind free.   This includes, however, all those who think of the Atonement primarily as a ransom, as well as those who think of it primarily as satisfaction or substitution.    The weakness of Aulén’s book was that he treated his “classic view” as mutually exclusive with what he called the “Latin view” i.e., Anselm’s satisfaction and Calvin’s penal substitution models.   These are not mutually exclusive, and in his attempt to prove that they were, Aulén made claims which very much conflicted with Nicene orthodoxy.   He treated the Law as one of the enemies that needed to be defeated alongside Satan and sin in flat contradiction to St. Paul in the epistle to the Romans.   He argued that the satisfaction model made the Atonement into an act of man directed towards God rather than an act of God directed towards man, an argument that had both Nestorian and Docetist implications.     

Indeed, the most common objections to the satisfaction and substitution models that have been raised over the last century have rested upon assumptions that conflict with Nicene orthodoxy.   Think, for example, of the popular complaint that these explanations of the Atonement amount to “cosmic child abuse”.    Nicene orthodoxy is that Jesus Christ is God Who became a Man and Who is thus both God and Man.   Those who regard the substitutionary model of Atonement as speaking of a God Who is guilty of “cosmic child abuse” implicitly assume Jesus Christ to be neither God nor Man.  For if Jesus Christ is what the Nicene Creed says He is, “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, being of one substance with the Father” then the satisfactory and substitutionary model of the Atonement does not tell the story of a God Who refused to forgive men their sins unless an Innocent third party unjustly suffered instead but the story of a God, rightly offended by sin, Who becomes a man in order that He might Himself pay the penalty of sin on behalf of those who offended Him.

The late Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Kallistos Ware suggested a number of helpful questions for evaluating theories of the Atonement.   The first of these was “Does it envision a change in God or us?”   Since the problem for which Christ’s death is the solution is in us, sin, rather than in God, a sound understanding of the Atonement requires that change us rather than God.   This might seem to be the point where Anselm’s model and those derived from it fail the test but this is only the case if the language of analogy that we use to speak of God is taken far more literally than it was ever intended to be.   If we take the language of Christ’s death as a propitiatory sacrifice that appeases God by satisfying His wrath, language which is used in the Scriptures themselves, at its most literal, then we will have a theory in which the Atonement works by effecting a change in God.  God is angry at us because of our sin, Christ’s death takes care of that, so that God is no longer angry at us anymore.   What we need to recognize is that while wrath or anger in us is a passion that stirs up in response to things other people do this is not what the wrath or anger of God is like.   When the Scriptures speak of the wrath of God they use the human passion as an analogy to speak of how God in His holiness, righteousness, and justice always looks upon sin.   It is not something that our sin stirs up in God, it is not an emotion or a passion, it is how God in His unchangeable goodness sees sin.   Therefore, when we speak of Christ’s death as appeasing God’s wrath, this too is analogous language.   We do not mean that Christ’s death effects a change in God so that His wrath is gone because that would mean that the immutable holiness, justice, and righteousness of God which reject and punish sin are gone, which would mean that God becomes less than perfectly Good, and this cannot be.   The language of appeasing God’s wrath is as analogous as the language of God’s wrath and it means that that which does the appeasing, Christ’s death, removes from us that which is the object of God’s wrath, our sin.   As long as we remember that the analogies and metaphors that we use to explain God in human terms have a point beyond which their literalness should not be pushed lest they cease to be helpful then there ought to be no problem with our using the various models – ransom, sacrifice, satisfaction, substitution, etc. – drawn from the very words of the New Testament to explain how God by becoming a Man and dying for us, saved us from the bondage of sin and death.

When it comes to confessing our faith in the Creed, however, it is sufficient that we confess the fact that Christ “suffered (for us) under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried”.

(1)     This is why oratorios in which the text of the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest, trial, scourging, and crucifixion are set to music are called Passions (J. S. Bach’s St. Matthew’s Passion and St. John’s Passion are examples), plays in which these events are acted out are called Passion plays, and Mel Gibson titled his film depicting the events of Good Friday The Passion of the Christ.

(2)     In Anselm’s model it was God’s honour that was offended by sin.   In John Calvin’s model it was God’s justice.   In both versions of this model the Atonement works by satisfying God.    In Anselm’s model God, having been satisfied by Christ’s Atonement, forgiveness man rather than punishing man for offending Him.   In Calvin’s model God’s justice is satisfied because Christ took the punishment due man on man’s behalf.   Otherwise they are the same basic concept.  Contrary to what is often asserted against the Protestant model the idea of the Atonement as Christ taking man’s punishment for him was not invented new in the sixteenth century.   The language of substitution is found in the New Testament – St. Paul uses it in 2 Corinthians 5:21, St. Peter uses it in 1 Peter 2:24 – and even in the Old in Isaiah 53:6, as well as in all the most important Church Fathers.   Where Calvin’s model is susceptible to the charge of novelty is its explanation of substitution in strictly legal terms.   By contrast, none of the New Testament or Patristic references to Christ taking our punishment for us place it in the context of a cold, formal, legal transaction.   St. Paul’s reference in 2 Corinthians, for example, places it in the context of reconciliation.

(3)     Except perhaps those liberals who try to disguise their liberalism by limiting it to truths not affirmed in the Creeds.   The Creeds are not intended to be exhaustive and comprehensive statements of all Christian truth.   Rev. Austin Farrer explained well the difference between the sort of truths that made it into the Creeds and those that did not:   “Christians profess a creedal belief in God and resurrection to eternal life.  They do not profess such belief in the devil or in everlasting torment.   The doctrine of hell has certainly found a place in authoritative statements of Christian teaching; it has never formed part of a creed properly so called (the Athanasian creed is not a creed, whatever it may be).  Try the experiment of tacking on to the Apostles Creed or the Nicene ‘and in one devil, tempter and enemy of souls; and in damnation to hell everlasting.’   Now say the whole creed and see what it feels like.  I can promise you it will feel pretty queer; and the queerness will be due to a swapping of horses in midstream; you jump from one act of belief to a different sort of act, when you pass from the God-and-heaven clauses to the devil-and-hell clauses.  The belief which is expressed by creedal profession is a laying hold on the objects of belief; or still more, perhaps, a laying of ourselves open to be laid hold of by them.  But there is no question of our laying ourselves out to be laid hold of by hell or by Satan.  That cannot be the object of the exercise.  Christians may believe there is a hall.  They do not believe in hell as they believe in heaven.  For they do not put their faith in it.” (Saving Belief, 1964, pp.150-151).   Liberalism, as the term is used in religion rather than politics, is the unbelief generated by Modern rationalistic philosophy, crept into Churches and sects, disguised as an updated form of belief.   The classic example is the liberal who claims that he believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ in a sense, but that sense does not include Jesus’ body having been re-animated and leaving the tomb, thus the liberal’s “belief” is actually unbelief.  A more subtle form of liberalism is the kind that is careful not to contradict or redefine the Creed like this, but which feels free to reject anything and everything not included by the Creed, and which more specifically throws out or disregards all the most negative truths of Christianity like the devil and the sinfulness of man.   It would be difficult for someone who holds to this kind of liberalism to affirm the Christus Victor view of Christ’s saving work, however, because they have thrown out everything over which Christ could have been Victor. — Gerry T. Neal

Christians Must Learn To Hate Evil Again

Christians Must Learn To Hate Evil Again

By: Andrew Torba

As Christians we are called to stand firm in our faith even in the midst of turmoil and chaos of the world around us. Recent news of the horrific massacre of six Christians including three young children in Nashville, the news of President Trump’s sham indictment, and the conviction of Douglas Mackey may be discouraging and disheartening, but in these moments we must remember that our hope and our strength come from a higher power.

This week was a difficult week for me both as a Christian and as a father of young children. I looked everywhere for a response from so-called “Christian leaders” and at best I found silence while at worst I found those supporting the “trans community” instead of our own brothers and sisters in Christ.

Christians are called to respond to tragedy with compassion, empathy, and love, but what happens when that tragedy is being celebrated by the mainstream media, the culture, our own government, and perhaps even some of our churches, friends, and family?

When trans flags are being risen at schools, organizations, businesses, and even government buildings across our nation just days after a member of that community carried out a horrific injustice against a Christian community—ending the lives of six of our brothers and sisters in Christ—how are we to respond? 

As my good friend Pastor Andrew Isker wrote this week, being winsome and nice won’t cut it anymore.

Cowardly Christian “leaders” may be silent on these issues, but God’s Word is not–and I refuse to be. The first thing we must remember is that our hope and strength come from God. We must turn to Him in prayer and seek His guidance as we navigate these difficult situations. 

As the Bible says in Philippians 4:6-7, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.”

In addition to prayer we must also remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:44, “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Even when the media, businesses, schools, and the government seem to be celebrating a senseless tragedy, we must respond with love and compassion, not hatred or anger.

We must also take action to address the injustice that is being celebrated by the wicked. This may mean speaking out against the mainstream narrative, supporting organizations that are working to bring about change, or even taking part in peaceful protests or demonstrations. When we do these things it’s crucial that our actions are rooted in love and compassion, not in anger or violence. We must be bold and share the Gospel, speak the Truth, and let go of our fear. 

We must remember that we are not alone in our struggle. This is what our enemies want us to desperately believe: that we have no one standing up on behalf of the victims and on behalf of God’s Word. Nothing could be further from the truth. As members of the body of Christ we are part of a larger community of believers who can support and encourage us. By staying connected to other believers, we can find strength and hope in times of struggle and persecution. I encourage you to do so not only in your local Church and community, but also with believers around the world on Gab and other online platforms. We need each other now more than ever.

Reject the Blackpill

It’s very easy to feel demoralized and blackpilled when we see the evil in the world around us. But as followers of Christ, we must hold fast to the truth that Christ is King. He has overcome the world, and in Him, we can find hope and strength to face whatever comes our way. Christians are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves, to forgive those who wrong us, and to turn the other cheek. However, we are also called to hate evil with a righteous hatred while not giving in to despair or hopelessness.

The Bible tells us in Psalm 97:10, “Let those who love the Lord hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.” But what does it mean to hate evil? Does it mean that we should hate the people who commit evil acts? Absolutely not. As Christians, we are called to love all people, even those who do wrong. When we are commanded to hate evil we are being called to hate the things that are contrary to God’s will and God’s character. We are called to hate sin and all that it represents – destruction, death, and separation from God.

We Are Commanded To Hate Evil

Many people in our culture, and even some Christian leaders, promote a hippie version of love that emphasizes tolerance and acceptance at all costs. They believe that love means accepting everyone and everything, no matter how evil or wicked it may be. However, this view is not biblical, and it does not reflect the true nature of God. The fear of the Lord is a healthy respect and reverence for God, and it leads us to hate what He hates.

God is often portrayed in our culture as being fully focused on love and grace, but the Bible teaches us that there are indeed things that God hates. While this might be a difficult concept for some to grasp, it is important to understand that God’s hatred is not arbitrary or capricious. His hatred is based on His perfect nature and His desire for us to live according to His will.

While God loves us unconditionally, He hates the sin that separates us from Him. Sin is anything that goes against God’s will, and it is something that we should strive to avoid. When we sin, we are rebelling against God and His plan for our lives. As Christians, we should strive to avoid the things that God hates and to live lives that are pleasing to Him. We should seek to love what God loves and hate what God hates, and in doing so, we will be living in obedience to His will.

Proverbs 8:13 – “To fear the Lord is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech.”

Romans 12:9 – “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.”

Psalm 101:3 – “I will not look with approval on anything that is vile. I hate what faithless people do; I will have no part in it.”

Amos 5:15 – “Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts. Perhaps the Lord God Almighty will have mercy on the remnant of Joseph.”

Proverbs 13:5 – “The righteous hate what is false, but the wicked make themselves a stench and bring shame on themselves.”

Psalm 119:104 – “I gain understanding from your precepts; therefore I hate every wrong path.”

When we hate evil we are not allowing it to have a foothold in our lives. We are not tolerating it or excusing it, but instead, we are actively fighting against it. We are standing up for what is right and what is just, even when it is difficult. When we hate evil we are acknowledging the reality of the brokenness of our world. We recognize that sin and evil do exist and that they cause pain and suffering.

But we also know that God has overcome sin and evil through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We should look to the example of Jesus Himself, who drove out the money changers from the temple with a whip (John 2:15). He did not tolerate their wickedness and corruption but took action to remove it from the house of God.

By hating evil, we are living out our faith in a tangible way. We are demonstrating our commitment to God’s values and His character. We are standing up for justice, compassion, and righteousness in a world that is often marked by selfishness, greed, and violence.

Now is the time for Christians to not only start hating evil again, but actively waging spiritual warfare against it. 

We need to focus on building up our communities, praying for one another, and growing together in faith. We must not let the news of the day distract us from the work that God has called us to do. We are called to be a light in the darkness, to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to spread the good news of the gospel to all nations. That is our mission and we must not take our eyes off the prize of eternal glory with our King. 

Ultimately we can take comfort in the fact that we can and will overcome because Christ has already overcome. As the Bible says in 1 John 4:4, “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.” No matter what happens in the world around us, we can have confidence that God is with us, and that He will see us through to victory.

Let us not be demoralized or blackpilled by the news of the day. Instead let us focus on Christ and His Kingdom, and let us continue to build, pray, and grow in our faith together. 

By the grace of God, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Victory of Jesus Christ our King we too shall overcome and see victory. 

God bless you. Keep the faith. 

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab.com
Jesus Christ is King of kings

Freedom Rallies: Kelowna, April 1 & Penticton, April 2

Meet at Main & Warren – at 10:15 a.m. this coming Saturday to

CONVOY TO KELOWNA THIS SATURDAY, APRIL 1

TO ATTEND THE

CLEAR RALLY, FIRST SATURDAY OF THE MONTH

APRIL 1 AT NOON – STUART PARK, KELOWNA

4bf8016b-22ef-434c-827d-c250b6de93e1.jpg

——————————- o0o————————————-

RALLY – Penticton4Freedom – every Sunday at 1.

image.png
Sunday, April 2nd, 1 to 3 p.m. 2020 Main Street, Corner of Main & Warren, Penticton.Surprise speakers are a common occurrence at our rallies.  Miss a week and you miss a lot!Fighting for freedom is more fun with friends. Bring a few.Suggest a topic or a speaker, and we’ll be happy to find to share their knowledge with us.

Mary Lou Gutscher