Issues With Aulen's Christus Victor

Hello fellow theological buffs!

Continuing on with our discussion of Christus Victor, there are three areas of contention I have with Aulen’s model, but none of these “contentious” areas in any way (in my opinion) alter the essence of the Christus Victor doctrine of Atonement.

I think I’ve gone deep enough into this subject now to suggest that if you are a first time blogger here then you might want to “catch up” as it were. Click here to go to the first blog in this discussion.

Areas of Contention:
1. All Determining God and Rejection of Reason:

According to Aulen; God is sovereign (in the omni-determining sense) and therefore the true and most awful ‘tyrant’ of them all is God Himself! Or more specifically: God’s Divine Wrath, which is at war with His Divine Love [114]. This is contradictory and irrational, Aulen agrees and bluntly affirms that this is a ‘mystery’ we must accept – I beg to differ.

There is not enough space here, not to mention it would take us way off track, to begin a discussion on divine omni-determinism. But suffice it to say, it is impossible to hold to a high view of divine omni-determinism while at the same time affirming the Christus Victor view of atonement (in which the universe is caught up in a dramatic and dualistic conflict between the forces of good and the forces of evil), and still be considered reasonable. Aulen himself acknowledges this fact when he says of Luther, “for him, the God of revelation is altogether not to be identified with the God of reason” [155] and that for Aulen (and Luther) the Christus Victor model is riddled with contradictions [154] yet must be accepted without question.

Here is where I part ways most adamantly with Aulen: it is not Christus Victor that is riddled with contradictions, but rather it is Aulens high determinism that riddles his view of Christus Victor with contradictions. In other words, when the Christus Victor doctrine is blended with a view of God as One who meticulously controls and determines all things then the Christus Victor model becomes a haven of contradictions. But, when that doctrine known as Christus Victor is understood within the context of a God of Love who allows libertarian free will of sentient beings, spiritual or otherwise, and who battles against the forces of evil, then the conflict and victory motif that pervades the entire Word of God because actual rather then illusionary.

I also strenuously object to Aulen’s denial of ‘reason’. Respected theologian, Roger Olson says “logic, including the law of non-contradiction, is fundamental to communication” for example “If someone says, ‘This man is guilty of a terrible crime but he is innocent of it,’ you are perfectly justified is saying, “Huh?’” Or more relevant to Aulen’s Christus Victor where God is both the good, ‘Divine Love’ and the evil tyrant, ‘Divine Wrath’, Olson says, “If someone says, ‘God is good but also evil,’ I have no idea what they are saying” (Olson, Questions to All Your Answers, Zondervan ©2007, p.37-39). We can allow for ‘mystery’, but to bluntly deny reason is to lose the ability to coherently communicate with anyone else, and even yourself; for before you can explain a view to another you must have first reasoned it within yourself.

I should note here in response to his assertion that the God of revelation is not to be identified with the God of reason: the scriptures are clear to the contrary; the Greek word Logos, often translated in John 1:1 as Word, also means ‘reason’ or ‘logic’. So Reason and Logic are particularly identified with God: “In the beginning was the Logic…” according to John 1:1.

2. God the Deceiver:

According to Aulen, Luther and many of the early Fathers, if the devil had known that Christ was God he would have never harmed him knowing it would lead to his defeat; therefore, God deceived the devil by “hiding” himself in Christ. God deceived the devil?

I cannot reconcile this idea of ‘God the deceiver’ with the Bible for the most obvious reason that it would make God guilty of a sin and that the demonic forces knew full well who Jesus is, but as Greg Boyd affirms, it seems they had “no idea why he’s come into their domain (Mk 1:23-24; 3:11; 5:7; Lk 8:28)” (Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, IVP ©2006, p.36).

Take for example the account of a demonic confrontation with Jesus in Mark 1:24, when the demon filled man in church (anachronistically speaking) saw Jesus he cried out “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” This verse proves the point nicely: the demonic realm knew who Jesus was, but not why Jesus had come! This point is crucial because the assumption made by those who say that God had to deceive the devil is based on the idea that the devil would have known that murdering Jesus would result in his defeat. I don’t believe this assumption is warranted. The devil saw an opportunity to take a more direct approach against God by crucifying the Incarnate, not knowing that His death would lead to His resurrection and subsequently to the devils own defeat.

This idea that God deceived the devil is not necessary for the Christus Victor view of Atonement and not substantiated by scripture.

3. Christ Paid the Devil Off:

Because the devil earned certain rights over this world at the fall, God had to ‘purchase’ man back, therefore, Christ paid a ransom to the devil – maybe, but I think there is a better way to interpret the ransom Christ paid.

The early church Fathers were actually somewhat divided on this issue of who the ransom was paid to. Most believed that Christ paid the ransom to the devil, but a few rejected this position: the devil is a thief and God owes him nothing. If God is going to defeat the devil (raid his home) what point would there be in paying a ransom to him? So is the ransom paid to God as many today suppose? These Fathers rejected this as well, if the children have been kidnapped what sense is there in paying a ransom to the parents? We are not bound to God so it makes no sense paying a ransom to God. So who is the ransom paid to? Their answer: what ransom? In other words, these Fathers did away with a ransom altogether [p.45-50].

The problem with this of course is the fact the ransom was paid and Christ did pay it—of this much the bible is clear (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; cf.1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 9:15).

So what is the solution: If the ransom had to be paid to someone I would be inclined to agree with the majority of the early Fathers, that since the devil has earned certain "rights" over us it would make sense that the ransom was paid to the devil by Christ. I also agree that the ransome could not have been paid to God since we were not "bound" to God, rather it is God who seeks reconciliation with the world. And to be sure, a ransom was paid! That much the bible is clear on (Mark 10:45). However, there is a problem with everything I just said: it is all based on the assumption that a ransom was paid to someone. We know a ransom was paid but the scriptures say nothing of to whom it was paid to (which is usually where the confusion comes in).

I am once again indepted to Greg Boyd for this line of thought: "So too" he says, "the Christus Victor model can wholeheartedly affirm that Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many, but without supposing that Jesus literally had to in some sense buy off either God or the devil... The word ransom simply means 'the price to release'... He 'paid the price' needed to bring us and the whole of creation into God's salvation" (Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, IVP ©2006, p.44).

So the Messiah paid a ransom in the sense that 'He did what it took' to reconcile all of creation to Himself.

Contentous Conclusion:

By rejecting Aulen's all-determining view of God; by acknowledging the necessity to 'reason'; by rejecting the idea that God 'deceived' the devil and by embracing the fact that Christ 'did what it took' to reconcile creation to himself without having to 'pay off God or the devil'; the doctrine of Christus Victor can only be strengthened.

All of creation is literally, actually, caught up in a cosmic war between the forces of good (God's Kingdom) and the forces of evil (Satan's Kingdom). Christ entered the enemies domain that he might 'destroy the works of the devil', though the demonic realm seemed unaware of His intention, and taking advantage to do harm to God, they crucified the Incarnate. It is by means of this 'unside down victor'--in that life and victory are accomplished by means of death and appearant defeat--that the decisive 'blow' was dealt by Christ against the devil. In this way Christ 'did what it took' to reconcile creation to himself.

And so we see that the Christus Victor model of the atonement stands stronger now then when we first began, even after reform, especially after reform. Will the Penal Substitution model of the atonement be able to boast the same? Will it survive reform?

Till then...

Derek.