It's true but when you say Christ crucified it's ipso facto that he was incarnated. Now we have to add risen from death after crucified and it's done
Many in the West want to isolate and compartmentalize the mission and life of Jesus. Many focus almost exclusively on the atonement, and the Western versions of it. Christus Victor is a much more "wholistic" view of the life of Jesus.
When I started to read reformed theology I found this too. I never gave much thought of Christ's life in my salvation, but learning about how Christ not only took away my sin but also gave me His perfect righteousness and why He had to live first, I appreciated all the more what Christ has done
I agree. The empty tomb is one of the greatest symbols of the Gospel I know of...but without the crib there could be no cross. Without the cross there could be no empty tomb. Without the empty tomb there would be no upper room...
I've come to think that the Gospel is "God became a man to save men, by no merit of mankind" - and all that implies, including victory over sin & death. Due to the accretion of prejudices and assumptions across the ages, must we become more nuanced, saying more than this? Is it necessary to develop exact formulaic descriptions of the Natures & Wills of Christ, etc., so as not to corrupt the Gospel of His Glory? If that were so, why did God not see fit to include these nuances in the Holy Scriptures?
And if you don't include the cross, there's no remission of sins. The significance of the Resurrection is dependant upon the ultimate sacrifice at Calvary.
Where do you get that I am excluding the atonement -- if that's what you're implying. The problem in the West is not that the atonement is not included; the problem is that the Incarnation and Resurrection are too often neglected and compartmentalized.
A similar accusation could be made of the East who pays little attention to the Cross but I'm honestly a bit tired of that quibbling.
That is absolutely untrue. The East which holds to Christus Victor atonement thus sees the cross as part of the whole of the life and work of Jesus.
That's why I said it was quibbling. Accusing the West of overlooking the Resurrection (or of having a compartimentalised view of the whole Incarnation) is a common piece of rhetoric of Eastern polemicists. I've been hearing it for years now and honestly I've lost any patience for it. I'm a bit surprised that an Anglican would pick up on that rhetoric but I guess that's life.
I felt the way I do about the Western view long before I studied the Eastern view and apart from it. I've heard many sermons in many Protestant churches, and they rarely focus on the resurrection; they are fixated on the crucifixion. The Resurrection is at the heart of the Gospel; it's what makes Christianity different from all other religions. If the Gospel had ended with Christ's death, it wouldn't be "Good News", would it?
And if Christianity were just about God rising from the dead, it would be hardly different from any other pagan religion. The Cross is the summit of our faith and the Resurrection validates it. Even the Eucharist, the most revered sacrament of the Christian religion, is about the Cross.
Well thank God that Jesus was born in a manger, died on the cross, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent the Holy Ghost....that way every body's covered.
I said "if one were to summarise the gospel," that is: all things considered (the whole life of Christ), what would best summarise the gospel? It is self-evident that the crucifixion would be of no avail if the resurrection hadn't happened: every Christian worthy of his name knows that "if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (1 Cor. 15:17) But the summit of our faith is the cross, it's where the whole gospel points to. The resurrection is the Father's validation of the Son's sacrifice but the cross is the reason for the incarnation itself. The miracles that Christ wrought during his life, even His astonishing transfiguration on the Tabor, were kept hidden from the majority of people by his own request. Why so? Because the purpose of his mission was not merely to preach sound doctrine and to cure those who were sick and afflicted, it was not merely about setting the perfect example of a holy life. No, the gospel that sinners ought to believe in order to be saved is not merely about God incarnate, or even about God who was raised from the dead, no matter how fantastic that idea might be, but about God hanging on a cross, crucified for our sins. That is foolishness, friends! Paul himself confesses it: "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor. 1:21-25)
You write as if you think I am trying to minimize the cross. What I am talking about is people trying to minimize the Resurrection. However, the cross is not the summit of our faith. The bodily resurrection is what distinguishes Christianity from all other religions, so that is the summit of the faith. But the incarnation, life, teachings, atonement, and resurrection must be taken as a whole to realize the significance of the Gospel and its uniqueness.
What distinguishes Christianity from the rest is that there's real forgiveness of sins, real reconciliation with God in grace. How? Through faith in Christ, the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, crucified in our behalf. To preach God resurrected from the death is not the same as preaching God crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. The whole life of Christ ought to be preached but the summit is Calvary. Read post #34.
If there had been no bodily resurrection, do you think Christianity would have become the religion that it is? No, it would have remained a sect of Judaism. I did read post #34.
We're going around in circles, Celtic. It's pointless. I've been saying that the resurrection is the validation of our faith, the assurance of knowing that He is who He is, but that the cross itself is the pinnacle or summit of faith: it's there that we find redemption from sin and reconciliation with the Father. I've summed up my thoughts in post #34 but you didn't seem to take notice.
I told you I read your post #34. I simply disagree with you about the cross being the summit of faith.
Gill's exposition on this passage is quite insightful: save Christ, and him crucified: he had a spiritual and experimental knowledge of Christ himself, and which he valued above all things else; and this qualified him to make him known to others; and which knowledge he was very willing and ready to communicate by preaching the Gospel, which is the means of making known Christ as God's salvation to the souls of men; and on this subject he chiefly insisted, and in which he took great delight and pleasure; he made known the things respecting the person of Christ, as that he was God, the Son of God, and truly man. God and man in one person; the things respecting his office, as that he was the Messiah, the mediator, prophet, priest, and King, the head, husband, Saviour, and Redeemer of his church and people; and the things respecting his work as such, and the blessings of grace procured by him; as that justification is by his righteousness, pardon by his blood, peace, reconciliation, and atonement by his sacrifice, and salvation alone and entirely by him. His determination was to preach none but Christ; not himself, nor man; nor the power and purity of human nature, the free will and works of the creature, but to exclude all and everything from being partners with Christ in the business of salvation. This was the doctrine he chose in the first place, and principally, to insist upon, even salvation by Christ, and him, as crucified: that which was the greatest offence to others was the most delightful to him, because salvation comes through and by the cross of Christ; and he dwelt upon this, and determined to do so; it being most for the glory of Christ, and what was owned for the conversion of sinners, the comfort of distressed minds, and is suitable food for faith, as he knew by his own experience.