Discussion Questions
The speaker says, “from the very beginning, penal substitutionary atonement is part of the whole Christus Victor… how that is accomplished is through the death of Jesus Christ for our sins.” What picture of God’s “victory” does that assume—victory over what, and by what means—and how does that challenge the way you personally talk about the cross? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does God’s “victory” look like here—victory over what, and won by what means? How does that push you to talk differently about the cross?
The speaker claims the “kingdom/Anabaptist” world has “swung the pendulum” so far toward Christus Victor that it’s “not representing the patristic sources properly,” and he connects that swing to changes in “worship,” “piety,” and “relationship to Jesus Christ.” Where have you seen (or felt) that shift show up in the way Christians pray, sing, repent, or speak about grace? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you noticed Christians talk or act as if Christus Victor is all that matters? How has that changed the way people pray, sing, repent, or talk about grace?
The speaker tells the story of a church that “ripped the pages from the hymnal” that referenced “the blood of Jesus” and more “Protestant themes.” What does that reaction reveal about the fears driving some non-PSA instincts, and what might it reveal about what God is like (or is not like) in their imagination? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why would a church want to remove hymns about Jesus’ blood and other “Protestant themes”? What does that show about what they fear, and what kind of God they picture?
The speaker argues that it’s not “either/or” between Christus Victor and penal substitution, citing N.T. Wright’s later reflection that “many people have thought… we mustn’t believe in Christus Victor. That’s completely wrong.” What concrete theological losses happen when you force an either/or, and what risks (or confusions) arise when you try to hold “both”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What do we lose if we say it has to be either Christus Victor or penal substitution? What new problems might happen if we try to believe both at the same time?
The speaker contrasts “systematic” vs “historical” theology and says the patristic writers weren’t in modern “silos,” even using the Fiddler-on-the-Roof-style line, “they can’t both be right… you’re also right.” What would it look like for your church to actively resist “silos” without collapsing into vagueness or contradiction? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like for your church to avoid putting theology into separate boxes (like “systematic” vs “historical”)? How could you do that without becoming unclear or self-contradicting?
The speaker frames the controversy pastorally: losing themes like “Christ taking the curse,” “the penalty… upon him,” and “imputed righteousness” reduces “worshipful adoration.” What would repentance and assurance look like in a community that truly believed those themes—how would confession, baptism, communion, or mutual accountability change? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a church truly believed “Christ took the curse,” “the penalty fell on him,” and “imputed righteousness,” how would repentance and assurance change? How might confession, baptism, communion, and accountability look different?
When discussing “cosmic child abuse” concerns, the speaker brings in Gregory of Nyssa’s “inseparable operations of the Trinity,” insisting the Father never acts “by himself” apart from the Son and Spirit. How does that patristic Trinitarian assumption reframe modern objections that pit “the Father’s wrath” against “the Son’s love”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea that the Father, Son, and Spirit always act together change the “cosmic child abuse” objection? How does it challenge the picture of an angry Father and a loving Son?
The speaker proposes his SCAR hermeneutic (Scripture, Christocentric, Antiquity, Real) and says, “Nothing should be required from us for salvation that’s outside of scripture… if Origen says something and it can’t be proved in scripture, forget about it.” How does that ordering of authorities confront typical Anabaptist appeals to “the early church,” and where might it also confront evangelical habits that ignore how doctrine “worked out in reality”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the SCAR approach (Scripture first, then the early church) challenge the way Anabaptists appeal to “the early church”? How might it also challenge evangelicals who ignore how doctrines play out in real life?
In the Barnabas quotes, the speaker emphasizes “cleansed from sins… through the blood of his sprinkling” and reads the sacrificial imagery as “plain.” If early Christians could speak so naturally about OT sacrifice and remission of sins, what assumptions did they have about guilt, cleansing, and God’s justice that modern Christians (including Anabaptists) tend to avoid? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What did early Christians assume about guilt, cleansing, and God’s justice when they spoke easily about sacrifice and forgiveness through Jesus’ blood? Why do many modern Christians try to avoid those ideas?
In the Letter to Diognetus excerpt, the speaker highlights, “He himself took on him the burdens and our iniquities… gave his own Son as a ransom… the righteous one for the unrighteous… covering our sins.” How do you reconcile the text’s emphasis on sin, punishment, and substitution with the Christus Victor focus on liberation from Satan and death—and what personal habits of repentance or worship would have to change if you let both emphases stand? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can a text that stresses sin, punishment, and substitution fit with Christus Victor’s focus on freedom from Satan and death? If you held both together, what would need to change in your repentance or worship habits?