Saturday, May 31, 2008

If You Only Knew What Eternal Security Taught: Part III

Dispelling Folk Assumptions

I made clear in both Part I and II of this series that most 'lay' Christians (I have found) who hold to the idea of 'eternal security' do so in a folklorish fashion; in other words, they don't really know what Eternal Security teaches, and I have suggested that if they did they would either readily reject that system or else reject the facts and choose to live in blissful ignorance. But I have held off until now on the specifics of what distinguishes 'folk eternal security' from Eternal Security as a reflective theological model. So for starters it is important to dispel the 'folk' assumptions and then reveal the distinction between the ‘common folk’ view of eternal security and the actual Calvinistic teaching on the subject.

It is not uncommon to hear lay ‘Calvinists’ or lay adherers to eternal security, (and of course those Arminian folk who argue against them and who are also confused on what eternal security teaches), to use phrases such as ‘once saved always saved’ to crudely express this view. Unfortunately, what is often implied and otherwise communicated is the idea that once a person is saved they will remain saved until they die and go to heaven (i.e. eternal security) despite the lifestyle they choose to live in the here and now.

In other words, and to use an extreme example to make a point, if a person was to say the ‘sinners prayer’ (if there were such a thing) then spend some time in church singing ‘hallelujah’ and shock everyone with an obvious transformation of lifestyle, then sometime afterward declare that he was ‘brainwashed’ and emotionally drunk, that he believed in Christ during a period of mental weakness, and then openly declares that Jesus is a phony and God does not exist. Then suppose that this person was to go on to write polemic books against the Christian God, and imagine this became his life mission until one day he dies an old rich man in bed. We must assume (according to folk eternal security) that because he said a ‘sinner’s prayer’ and showed himself to be ‘saved’ for a time, he therefore went to heaven. This of course is all due to God’s tremendous grace. He was once saved and therefore was always saved.


Calvinism Does Not Teach That!
Two Calvinists theologians, Robert Peterson and Michael Williams wrote a book titled, Why I Am Not an Arminian ©2004. In the introduction the authors make it clear that the title they preferred was, “Why I Am a Calvinist” (p.13), for the simple reason that the book itself is more a reflection and articulation of what Calvinists believe then it is a polemical attack on Arminians (p.10-13).

Concerning the subject at hand, the authors write, “Arminians and Calvinists agree that professed Christians must continue to the end in three areas if they are to be saved”. Right away this sentence should cause the folk eternal security guy to get chills down his spine and ask the question, ‘are not all professed Christians saved all the way to the end, as in once saved always saved?’ Not necessarily, lets read on. What three areas must a professed Christian continue in in order that they be saved? These Calvinist theologians write that a person must continue “believing the gospel, loving Christ and others, and living godly lives” (p.77, Italics added).

So Calvinists and Arminians alike agree that one cannot simply say a sinner’s prayer, go to church, sing hallelujahs, and do that for twenty years or so, then one day openly declare that they have, 1) stopped believing in the gospel; and/or 2) stopped loving Christ and others, and/or 3) begin to live consistant ungodly lives, and yet expect to go to heaven when they die. This high view of 'holy living to the end' is a prominent theme among most (if not all) Calvinistic writings. “Easy believism,” says Peterson and Williams, “the view that persons are to be regarded as Christians who have made professions of faith but whose lives are unchanged, is incompatible with biblical teaching. On this point Arminians and Calvinists agree” (p.81).

So much for folk eternal security that so many believe in, it simply does not exist as a model for either the Calvinist or the Arminian. It is wishful thinking on behalf of many well intended (albeit misguided) believers.


What Calvinists Teach on Eternal Security
Now that we've answered the question 'what eternal security is not', dispelling commenly believed assumptions, the question we now turn to is, what does Eternal Security teach?


The Arminian perspective seems to provide little comfort for many Christians because it teaches that an individual can choose to ‘fall from grace’ (that may be too crude of a description, but for brevity sake I'll let it stand). A fanciful doctrine of Eternal Security seems to provide the perceived security that many Christians are looking for - the sense that when they die they will go to heaven (I don’t like limiting our scope of the afterlife to the vague term ‘heaven’ as I have been doing, but that will have to be a discussion for a later date). It is unfortunate for them, that no biblical and professional theologian (at least none that I have heard of) would agree with them simply because this view of eternal security is unbiblical.

So the question becomes, what do Calvinists teach regarding Perseverance of the Saints (i.e. Eternal Security)? Calvinists theologian, John Frame states that “When God intends to bring someone to faith in Christ, he cannot fail… When God gives his people a new heart, it is certain that ‘they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws’” (No Other God: A Response to Open Theism, ©2001, p.117). In other words, when someone does truly ‘get saved’ they will continue to believe, continue to love Christ and others and continue to live a godly life to the very end!


But then the question arises, what about the countless examples of those who professed Christianity and lived it for a time but then seemed to walk away from it all? This is an obvious scenario that no credible Calvinist (or any other observant and reflective Christian for that matter) would deny because it has been happening ever since the beginning of Christianity.

The answer, says Frame is that “there are also situations where people who appear to be elect turn away from God and prove themselves not to be among his people. There are also cases where God chooses someone for a task and for a limited kind of fellowship with him, without the intention of giving him the full benefits of salvation” (Ibid. See his footnotes. Italics added). Stop right there and read the Calvinists answer again and think about the implications. Are you a Christian? Are you truly saved? How do you know? You could be a pastor, a missionary, a global evangelist, and prayer warrior, but none of this means you have been called to eternal life. On the contrary, you may have been called to a ‘limited kind of fellowship with him’ for whatever purpose he may have, though his ‘intention’ may never have been to give you the ‘full benefits of salvation’!

So where is your security? You won’t know if you are one of the elect until after you breathed your very last breath. And hopefully in the moments leading up to that final breath you will not deny God, but you may not have a choice in the matter. If God has called you for a purpose, a limited fellowship with him, a life of appearant election, but not to eternal life, then rest assured one day (no matter how faithful you are today) you will surly deny him and go to hell. But take comfort in the idea that your decreed dismissal from Gods presence only brings more glory to God - and so you have served him will in going to hell.

Welcome to the God of the Calvinist.

“If they don’t believe to the end, they have not come to share in Christ. This indicates not a loss of salvation but a demonstration that the professed Christians had not really been united to Christ in the first place” (Why I Am Not an Arminian, p.80, Italics added).

Are you united to Christ?


For the Calvinist, the answer is to cross his fingers and hope for the best.
For the Arminian, one simply chooses to continue in relationship with his God.



I love my God and am sure of my hope and my salvation. Are you?


Just a thought.


Derek
http://www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com/

Friday, May 30, 2008

If You Only Knew What Eternal Security Taught: Part II

In my last blog we defined the concept of 'folk' in general, and 'folk eternal security' in particular. I tried to make a distinction between it and what Eternal Security actually teaches, but I held off from showing exactley what this distiction involves until we could uncover who it is that teaches it (the subject of the current blog) and then what it teaches in contrast to the folk system we already hinted at.



Perseverance of the Saints:
The professional term for eternal security is Perseverance of the Saints and it is one of the five main tenants of a particular Christian belief known as Calvinism (named after its leader John Calvin). The five tenants of Calvinism are summed up (no matter how crudely) in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. (For the Calvinists model of T.U.L.I.P. 101 see R.C. Sproul’s book, Grace Unknown, ©1997, p.118 in particular) :

Tulip stands for:
T
otal depravity: We can never come to God apart from God’s first grace
Unconditional Election: God unconditionally elects some to heaven and some to hell
Limited Atonement: The atonement of the cross is limited to the elect only
Irresistible Grace: Whom God gives grace to is not able to resist salvation
Perseverance of the Saints: ‘Once saved always saved’

In the Calvinistic model above, 'Perseverance of the Saints' follows in logical sequence to the rest. Basically, if God wants to save you (unconditional election and limited atonement) he will make sure (irresistible grace) that when you are dead you will go to heaven (perseverance of the saints).

Arminians & Eternal Security
An Arminian (not to be confused with Armenian!) is someone who follows or at least agrees with the teachings of a Dutch Reformer named Jacob Arminius. Among other things, Arminius taught that humans have libertarian free-will, (defined as the ability to choose otherwise) to either accept the grace of God and thus be ‘saved’ or else reject the grace of God.

Now concerning the T.U.L.I.P. acronym, those who believe in libertarian free-will (such as an Arminian) accept the ‘T’ (Total depravity) but reject ‘U’ ‘L’ and ‘I’ and as a general rule they reject the ‘P’ as well. However, the latter one is not necessary. Some ‘Calvinists’ have abandoned the T.U.L.I.P. model as a whole while retaining the ‘T’ and the ‘P’ (Eternal Security). They still claim to be Calvinists (or Moderate Calvinists as they like to be called) but really they have jumped ship and become Arminians who happen to hold to the view of ‘Eternal Security’. Norman Geisler is such an Arminian who prefers the label ‘Moderate Calvinist’ (see his book Chosen but Free ©1999). Note: No such ‘blending’ of Calvinism and Arminianism is possible due to mutually exclusive belief systems. (For a full analysis of this see Arminian Theology ©2006 by Roger Olson and Why I Am Not an Arminian ©2004, by Peterson and Williams).

The point of all this is to say that while Arminians (those who believe that humans truly have libertarian free-will), at least some Arminians, may believe in Eternal Security, the doctrine itself is absolutely necessary for all Calvinists, in other words, from here on out I will refer to the doctrine of ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ or ‘Eternal Security’ as a Calvinist doctrine.

Recap:
Okay so let’s recap what we have so far: First of all, most lay Christians who hold to the doctrine of Eternal Security (otherwise know as Perseverance of the Saints) do not know what that doctrine truly teaches (I'll show this in my next blog). They have a folk understanding of eternal security, if you will, which is a caricature of its true teaching at best and a mutilation of it at worst. Secondly, the doctrine of Eternal Security is by and large a Calvinistic doctrine, the point being that the best way to express a particular view is directly out of the ‘horses’ mouth’ if you will. In other words, I as an Arminian may explain to you what Calvinists teach on the subject of Perseverance of the Saints, but anything I say could be tainted with bias. But what I love about many of the writings of Calvinists is their bluntness and clarity (usually) to stand behind a view no matter where it leads them (but not always). This will be the subject of my third and final part in this blogging series.

What is Eternal Security? Here it is as it is defined and understood by Calvinists…


Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

If You Only Knew What Eternal Security Taught: Part I

Hi friends,

In the spirit of changing gears, I've had something on my mind for several months now that I have been looking forward to getting out. So here it is in Thr3e parts.

Hey Folks!
I spent my formative Christian years engrossed in Pentecostalism, a movement that was born out of the Holiness movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Having roots in a holiness movement is by no means a bad thing; unfortunately many Pentecostal churches have been so concerned with the Holiness of God that they nearly leave out the Grace of God altogether - this speaks clear of the kind of personalities that I have attended church with for years; not always necessarily in the pulpit, by its leaders, or explicitly taught, but more of an undercurrent philosophy that speaks volumes in casual conversations mostly (though not exclusively) by the laity.

A holiness of God philosophy not seasoned with a grace of God philosophy, removed a hundred years from its roots combined with a conservative mindset which is slow to accept change and quick (almost anxious) to point out sin, (even maybe where there is none) can all work together to form a Fundamentalist environment where such small and insignificant things as card playing or movie theaters are raised from the status of ‘opinion’ to that of ‘dogma’ or ‘sin’. The situation becomes worse when double standards are added to the mix - solitaire is evil because cards are evil yet it is okay to play solitaire on the computer; movie theaters are evil yet it is okay to watch movies at home - resulting naturally in Pharisaical legalism, raising the traditions of man to the status of dogma. (See the difference between dogma, doctrine and opinion in Roger Olson’s book, Mosaic of Christian Belief ©2002, p.44).

It should not be that surprising from all this that when many Christians raised in the environment described above reach their ‘rebellion’ age, as I did around seventeen, they find a certain folk ‘eternal security’ philosophy appetizing to say the least. You see, on occasion folk Pentecostal religions boarder on semi-Pelagianism (that it is possible to attain God’s grace by works apart from the prevenient work of the Spirit), and what often results from this is the idea that when you sin you lose your grace status (and if you died soon after, before repenting, you would go to hell). Therefore you must ask forgiveness in order to receive that grace status again. Without given a viable and biblical alternative to this extreme imbalance, many Christians run full throttle away from this folk Pentecostal religion and straight into the arms of an equally disastrous folk ‘eternal security’ religion.

I have spent many-a-nights talking, working through and even debating with various friends over the years on this issue. Having that sense of holiness engrained within, and after reading the bible through and seeing both in the Old and New Testaments everywhere the motif that believers are to be image bearers of Christ, and not to mention two very explicit passages in Hebrews as well as elsewhere, I could never accept an eternal security philosophy that feeds into an easy-believism that pays little attention to a persons lifestyle. I think it is a great work of deceit on the part of the enemy to make someone believe they have obtained a one-way ticket to glory regardless of the lifestyle they live in the here and now. On the other side of the coin, I’m not prepared to say that just because someone has struggled with an issue for many years (such as smoking) that they are on a fast track to hell. There must be a balance between God’s Holiness and his Grace.

Deliberate Use of ‘Folk’
You may have noticed the term I deliberately and repeatedly used above: folk. Folk in most contexts means ‘common’, or ‘what the common people believe’ in this context. When I spoke of a ‘folk Pentecostal religion’ I was not targeting the official teachings of any particular Pentecostal denomination or its leaders (though they may hold to many folk ideas as well, I don’t know). So what ‘folk Pentecostals' believe may not be what is explicitly or officially taught by their creeds, but rather it is the assumed beliefs (such as clichés and the such) that many have handed down, held to and developed over the years, usually subconsciously and without reflection. (For a great discussion of the necessity of reflective Christianity and folk religion see Roger Olson’s book, Questions to all Your Answers, ©2007).

The same thing is equally as prominent among those who hold to a ‘folk eternal security’ philosophy - the way this philosophy is viewed by the lay Christian who holds to it is (I have found) a far cry from what Eternally Security actually teaches. Folk eternal security says that once a person ‘gets saved’ (whatever that means - another topic for another time I suppose), they will always be saved, irregardless of how someone chooses to live their life. I am convinced that if most lay Christians who hold to this view of eternal security knew what it actually taught, they would either turn a blind eye and deaf ear (preferring a belief system supported purely by emotions and fanciful or wishful thinking rather then proper biblical exegesis), or abandon the system altogether.

Before we answer what it is Eternal Security teaches, we must ask who it is that teaches it. This is the subject of Part II of this series.

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Monday, May 26, 2008

Concluding Christus Victor

In Conclusion to our Christus Victor exploration we began last month:

When I began blogging this subject I said that my desire was to examine the theology of the atonement as it is expressed by three men: Gustaf Aulen, Greg Boyd, and N.T. Wright. I spent most of our discussion examining Aulen’s book Christus Victor since it is here that this view received its formal name and current recognition. Then, throughout, I touched on Christus Victor as it is succinctly expressed by Greg Boyd in the Nature of the Atonement: Four Views; I chose to reference this book because of its succinct nature, but for a more in-depth study of Boyd’s perspective I recommend his God At War ©1997. All of this has left me with little room to continue on to our third personality - N.T. Wright - due to the nature of blogging I feel it is time to move on to a fresh subject and perhaps return to Christus Victor from a different angle at a later date.

However, before we move on I want to ask one more question: so what? Why does all this matter? What is the ‘dif’ between whether one holds to the view of Christus Victor or Penal Substitution? Unfortunately, this question is far too enormous to attempt a thorough answering here, but as a concluding statement (and in spite of the previous paragraph) allow me (in keeping with my original intention) to refer to N.T. Wright.

It is important to note here what was implied throughout this discussion; that Penal Substitution and Christus Victor are not two answers to the same question, but rather, each seeks to answer the question it is assumed to have been asked.

“… theories of the atonement”, says Wright, “of the meaning of the cross, are not simply a set of alternative answers to the same question. They give the answers they give because of the questions they ask. If the questions is, How can I get to heaven despite the sin because of which I deserve to be punished? the answer may well me, Because Jesus has been punished in your place. But if the question is, How can God’s plan to rescue and renew the entire world go ahead despite the corruption and decay that have come about because of human rebellion? the answer may well be, Because on the cross Jesus defeated the powers of evil, which have enslaved rebel humans and so ensured continuing corruption. Please note, these and other possible questions and answers are not mutually exclusive” (N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, ©2008, p.199).

The point of the previous paragraph is to say that there is nothing wrong with the Substitution view itself - it is not a case of ‘either/or’ but rather of ‘both/and’. The Substitution view answers the question it is asked, yet it is not large enough to answer the question posed to the Christus Victor view; on the contrary, the Christus Victor view is large enough to answer the question posed to the Substitution theory and its own question while at the same time it does not carry the "insurmountable" problems of a penal system (as Boyd put it).

So where does Wright stand on the issue? In his book, Evil and the Justice of God ©2006, Wright makes this statement: “I find myself compelled toward one of the well-known theories of atonement, of how God deals with evil through the death of Jesus, not as a replacement for the events or the stories nor as a single theory to trump all others, but as a theme which carries me further than the others toward the heart of it all. I refer to the Christus Victor theme, the belief that on the cross Jesus has won the victory over the powers of evil” (p.95). So let there be no mistake, N.T. Wright holds to the Christus Victor view of atonement, a view which permeates all of his writings (which I have read so far).

So what is the point? He goes on to say “we have tended to see what we call ‘atonement theology’ in one box (having to do with personal salvation from personal sin), and ‘the problem of evil,’ including so-called natural evil and the general wickedness of the world, in another box” (p.103) - the point being that we have narrowed the atonement to a personal experience for the salvation of an individual soul, and we keep it altogether separated from the so-called problem of evil in the world. We are satisfied saying “when I die I’ll go to heaven” and yet we as Christians are ill-equipped to appropriately tackle the question as to why there is so much evil (any kind of evil) in the world.

Since the disaster that befell the Chapman family (see my May 11 blog) I have heard more then a few Christians gasp and wonder how such a thing could happen to a Christian family. One lady even said, “Why would this happen? I suppose we’re not supposed to question God, but thank God that God is good and no evil will happen to us”. I wondered how could she make such a cold, condemning and illogical statement, as though because ‘God is good’ she and her friends and family will be spared from any evil, yet for whatever evil fell on the Chapman family (for example and by implication) must mean that they are not one of “us” - someone worthy of the good Gods protection against evil. Its poor theology and goes to show as an example just how ill-equipped we are to address such problems while holding on to many of our current systems of atonement.

But the Christus Victor view of the atonement fills in these gaps: “As I said there, I am inclined to see the theme of Christus Victor", says Wright, "the victory of Jesus Christ over all the powers of evil and darkness, as the central theme in atonement theology, around which all the other varied meanings of the cross find their particular niche” (p.114). Yes Christ came and died to save humans from our sins which separate us from God, but more then that, he came and died to make the world to rights, to redeem the cosmos - and this he accomplished by ‘binding the strong man’ - “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn. 3:8).

The cross is not about retreating (going to heaven) ... it's about redemption, restoration, and renewal. Not about a bodiless future, but a resurrected one - one that provides answers to the problem of evil and hope to a fallen creation. Christ is that Hope - We are that body - Today is that day!

Live victorious!

Derek

Critique of the Penal View

So what are some questions posed by the critics of the Penal Substitution view?

I have often read in books which affirm the Penal Substitution theory that it’s critics use derogatory phrases such as referring to the cross as “divine child abuse” (J.I. Packer; In My Place Condemned He Stood, ©2007, p.22). Some may have said this, but I have not read them and cannot vouch for these critics. My focus therefore is back to Gustaf Aulen and Greg Boyd and the respectable critique they pose. I will raise two objections (one from each) which I deem to be ‘serious flaws’ in the Penal view demanding (I believe) either reform or abandonment of its penal equation.

1. The primary critique which (I believe) Aulen brings to the table is the idea that the Penal view is basically a legalistic view of the atonement. God demands perfection from humans, yet all humans fall short of that mark resulting in God’s wrath being poured out them. Therefore, God became a man and lived a perfect life and died an innocent death so that God could pour out his wrath upon Christ instead of us [Christus Victor; p.82, 86 - here after as ‘CV’].

To put it another way; God demands infallible good works from us, something we cannot offer, so our salvation is based upon the good works of Christ instead. It is these good works or merits of Christ that are transferred on to us while our sins are placed squarely on him and this transference takes place at the cross where Christ, who is innocent, is punished in our stead, who are guilty. How this transfer is supposedly done is not completely clear. How exactly is it or in what way are our sins transferred to Christ and his merits to us?

It is important to remember that the basis for this view arose from the penance and merits system of Tertullian and Cyprian, in which our penance and merits can somehow ultimately be transferred to the dead in purgatory, and this naturally lead to indulgences in the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries. My point here is not to directly bring the charge of guilt by association, but it is prudent that we not ignore the consequences and implications of following a certain train of thought. Protestants have long done away with indulgences and even to some extent penance and merits - but the latter two still linger in the shadow of the Penal view which is so prominent and pervasive today.

I suppose the most clear and direct charge along Aulen’s critique in this regard is when he observes (though I doubt in all fairness that any advocate of the Penal view would agree) that the “[Penal view] provides for the remission of the punishment due to sins, but not for the taking away of sin itself” [CV, p.92].

All of its attention is focused on Gods wrath and the punishment due man for ‘missing the mark’. I my opinion this is a great exercise in missing the point! The cross of Christ was not ever meant to be a get-out-of-jail-free card which many have so easily (and perhaps innocently) turned it into. No, Christ came to set men free from the bondage of sin and death and to grant him authority over all the powers of the evil one. Not to ‘cover-up’ sin - but to break its hold on man that we may walk in freedom.

There is one more point of Aulen’s worth bring to light because it will lead us directly into our second major objection to the Penal view: in the Latin or Penal view God is faced with an ultimatum; either he forgives sin which would mean that God has not taken sin seriously enough and therefore tolerates it, or God’s wrath must be satisfied [CV p.89].

Put another way: “either a love which in forgiving violates the demands of justice, or else satisfaction. No other alternative is regarded as conceivable” [CV, p.129]. So God cannot love with a forgiving love unless his wrath is first satisfied.

2. This brings us to our second critique of the Penal view, or more accurately, a series of questions pointed out by Greg Boyd towards the idea that God cannot forgive without first having his wrath satisfied (See; Nature of the Atonement, ©2006, p.104).
  • How are we to understand sin and guilt literally being transferred from a guilty person to an innocent person (or animal in the O.T.)?
  • If it’s out of a sense of justice that God must punish a guilty person, then what sort of justice is it that punishes an innocent person (or animal) in place of a guilty one?
  • How do we reconcile the Fathers need to exact payment from or on behalf of his enemies with the teaching of Jesus to forgive our enemies without demanding payment?
  • How are we to reconcile the idea that God cannot be reconciled with sinners without his wrath first being satisfied with the pervasive depiction in scripture of God forgiving people without needing his wrath appeased (prodigal son for example)?

Boyd asked these questions after having brought into light the fact that C.S. Lewis himself held to the Christus Victor view of the atonement; and furthermore, Lewis expressed this view powerfully in his classic Narnia Series, the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe: After a boy had broken the law of the land, a law which both the Witch (Satan) and Aslan (Christ) acknowledged, the child now belong to the Witch who demanded the law be satisfied - the requirement being death. However, the boys’ life is spared when Aslan offers himself to the Witch in his stead - Aslan being a much greater prize, and in whose death it would appear that the Witch would finally be the uncontested ruler of Narnia - she agreed to the exchange. Aslan is then brutally abused and then killed on the Stone Tablet where the justice is always carried out - but later the Stone Tablet is broken and Aslan defeats death by coming back to life. He explains that the law (deep magic) was overcome by a deeper magic still (self-sacrificing death of an innocent person).

In this story the Christus Victor view of the Atonement is beautifully expressed: The Devil, not God, demands that justice be served; the Devil, not God, demands his wrath be satisfied.

So like the Penal Substitution, Christus Victor acknowledges the necessity of a substituting death, but without the problems created by the penal aspect of the Penal Substitution - reflected in the questions above.

These are much more questions then the ones posed here, but even if these questions can be answered to any degree of satisfaction, the Penal Substitution view (as well see in my next and concluding blog on this subject) still falls far short of answering or even address the 'big picture' of what it was Christ died for.

Till then...

Derek

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Tragic Accident In The Chapman Family


MARIA SUE CHAPMAN, DAUGHTER OF STEVEN CURTIS CHAPMAN, DIES IN ACCIDENT AT FAMILY HOME
NASHVILLE, TN...5/21/08...

At approximately 5pm on the afternoon of Wednesday May 21st, Maria Sue Chapman, 5 years old and the youngest daughter to Steven and Mary Beth Chapman was struck in the driveway of the Chapman home in Franklin, TN. Maria was rushed to Vanderbilt Children's Hospital in Nashville, transported by LifeFlight, but died of her injuries there. Maria is one of the close knit family’s six children and one of their three adopted daughters.

More than five years ago, Chapman and his wife MaryBeth founded The Shaohannah’s Hope Ministry after bringing their first adopted daughter, Shaohannah, home from China. The ministry’s goal is to help families reduce the financial barrier of adoption, and has provided grants to over 1700 families wishing to adopt orphans from around the world. Chapman is a five-time GRAMMY ® winner and 54-time Dove Award winning artist who has sold over 10 million albums and garnered 44 No. 1 singles.

(Above: compliments of Steven Curtis Chapman's home page)

This story grips my heart with feelings of sorrow not least because I (like thousands of others) have invited Steven Curtis Chapman into my living room ever since I first became a Christian back in the early 90's. My life has been shaped and impacted by songs like the Great Adventure and For the Sake of the Call which press us to abandon everything, not least our family and even our own lives, for the sake of the call.

It is during times like these that our faith is pushed to the limits, the mediocre cliches we so causally toss around in our communities become shallow and empty. So many say things like "God is in control" - which is easy to say when such tragedy has not happened to us, nonetheless, these people need a reality check - is God good? If the answer is 'yes' then God cannot always in complete control!

And so it is here that our theological rubber meets the reality road - hard! Theology attempts to answer these tough 'why' questions, but in order to do this, we must leave the confines of our cliches, our churches and our seminaries and face head-on the consequences, the repercutions and the implications of those beliefs.

Our prayers go out to the Chapman family, and if you are a believer in a God who works in and through all things for the better - even in the evil to bring relief to the suffering - then pray too that the Spirit of Christ will in this time help Chapman's 15 year old son to forgive himself, for the family to forgive him, and that God would grant them all a sense of serenity knowing that Maria is fully embraced in the arms of Jesus.

In our prayers.

Derek

"In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world" - Jesus.
(John 16:33; ESV)

Friday, May 16, 2008

What is Penal Substitution?

Welcome back, hope you enjoyed a break from this 'atonement' exploration. Back to the meat!

Let me begin my critique of the Penal Substitution view of atonement by saying that one of the (if not the single) greatest distinction between itself and Christus Victor is emphasis. The Christus Victor model of the atonement places its emphasis on Christ’s victory over ‘hostile forces’ and through this victory he reconciles all of creation to himself. In this way we are among the first fruits to experience the new creation, and so Christ’s substitution for mans ‘sin’ is incorporated into the overall scheme of Christus Victor. The Penal Substitution on the other hand places all its emphasis on Christ’s penal substituting work of the cross on man’s behalf to reconcile man to himself. In this view the atonement is a separate work of God from the incarnation, the resurrection, the on going work of the Spirit and the eschatology. In other words, the Penal Substitution places all its emphasis on Christ’s death as a sin offering in which Christ paid the penalty that was due me (via God’s wrath) because of my sin, and so he substituted himself in my place. Victory over the hostile forces i.e. the devil and demonic realm, not to mention the question of ‘what of the rest of the cosmos?’ etc, hardly receives a foot note among this view – but I’ll get to that in a moment.

Let me also reiterate that I believe this view of the atonement is best understood within a much grander scheme – that of the Christus Victor – and that it hardly captures the biblical motif of the atonement except perhaps in a very narrow sense. Having said that, I must conclude this introduction by commending the Penal Substitution for its commitment to biblical exegesis (in that narrow sense), its emphatic acknowledgment of the seriousness of sin, the holiness of God and the work of Christ on the cross as a substitution for mankind.

The Penal Substitution In Point Form: Here I have reworded and broadened the outline I borrowed from J.I. Packer’s book, In My Place Condemned He Stood, in my May 5th blog. Nearly every book which one might pick up on the Penal Substitution atonement vary from one another (often ever so slightly) and this is why my outline is broad, that I may reach the ‘essence’ of the view without having to nit-pick over every minor difference of opinion.

1. God is holy and just.
2. Humans are sinful by their disobedience to Gods holy law.
3. Gods’ holy and just nature requires ‘a kill’ (capital punishment) of those who break his laws in order to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law (i.e. satisfy his wrath).
4. God is also love. He became a man so that he may die in the place of humans as a substitute so that the he could take our just penalty (i.e. the wrath of God could be poured out on him instead of us).
5. God then places on us the righteousness of Christ, while at the same time placing on Christ the sin of humankind – the great exchange.

Although this view is very logical and seems biblical through and through, there are at least two major 'beefs' I have with it as a scheme which I’ll return to in my next blog. For now, let me provide, in the briefest of fashions, the history of the development of this view.

Tertullian:
The Penal Substation theory has its roots in the penance and merits systems conjured up by a church Father name Tertullian [Christus Victor p.81 - all page referrences are from this book]. Because of the penalty due us as a result of sin we must do ‘penance’ in order to escape the eternal penalty. Related to this are merits (good works). As long as you keep the commands of the law you have no need to do penance. However, Tertullian says, it is possible to store up for yourself a ‘superfluous’ amount of merits by going ‘above and beyond the call of duty (law)’ such as choosing to live celibate, fasting, and the ultimate merit – martyrdom.

Cyprian:
Later on a church leader named Cyprian adopted Tertullians ‘penance and merits’ idea, especially including ‘superfluous merits’, and expanded it to include a new idea, that it was possible, says Cyprian, to transfer such ‘superfluous merits’ from one person onto another. Think of your moral life as a bank account: when you sin your account drops into the negative and you ‘owe’ the bank, when you keep the law (i.e. merits) your account remains in the positive, and when you earn a superfluous amount of merits you’ve now stored extra merits in a savings account which can be transferred to your regular account or even transferred to another persons account anytime. Cyprian then applied this concept to Christ: since Christ was innocent and yet still died a martyr’s death (the ultimate superfluous act) the ‘merit’ or ‘good work’ of Christ could be transferred upon the rest of the human race [p. 82].

Anselm and the Reformers:
Anselm is unequivocally recognized as the first person to systemize this view (Aulen refers to it as the ‘Penal’ or ‘Latin’ theory [p.1]) which, until then (1033-1109), had not become the dominate view of atonement (over Christus Victor). This view was then expanded further and given a ‘legal’ twist by the reformers and took on the title “Penal Substitution” as we know it today (in its various forms) [p.129].

So now we have sketched the ‘essence’ of the Penal Substitution system and accompanied it with a brief survey (hardly doing any justice to it unfortunately) of it’s developed thought and history. With this in mind, what are some of the criticism levied against the Penal Substitution view? And if its system is found ‘wanting’, will it survive reform?

???

Derek

Food for thought: Is satisfaction of God’s wrath necessary for God to forgive sin?

Monday, May 12, 2008

Books Kill The Tree Spirits

Well, I had an interesting encounter today which I feel warranted a break from our "deep" stuff.

In my occupation (Christian Market Place) I occasionally encounter what I would deem as "weird" (at least weird to me) personalities and belief systems. If you are reading this blog and get offended by some of the beliefs which I deem "weird" because you may hold them then I apologize in advance.

Top FIVE Weird Encounters:

#5: The "Magic" of St. Joseph
If you've tired to sell your home recently (and happen to live in Southern Ontario) you would be well aware of just how difficult our market is right now. Now imagine there was a means to "magically" sell your home with easy... thanks to a little $8.99 statue of St. Joseph. But be careful because this little guy comes with very specific instructions. You must dig a hole somewhere in your yard and drop him in, but be warned: too close to the surface or too deep or too close to the house or too far and "whoops!" little Joseph boy won't do ya much good (he's very particular about where you put him). But that's right, if you do things correctly you'll have yourself a "sold" home in no time. This one is definitely on my top 5 of weird things people purchase when they come into my workplace.

#4: The Screamer
Shortly after I was hired I had received a very weird phone call. It was an elderly lady on the other end with a strong accent who began screaming into the phone. I had no idea what she was saying but every once in a while I could make out a word: "yard", "book", "TV", "slippers", etc. I attempted to slow her down: "Miss. Excuse me, miss, can't... no miss, can you please slow down... miss" - to no avail. Finally she said (quite abruptly) "okay then thank you Ba-bye" - click. I slowly put the phone down and turned just as my manager was walking by, "I just had a really weird call" to began to explain, "Was it the screamer?" she asked knowingly. Apparently this woman has been calling for years and still to this day I have the pleasure of entertaining one of her calls, the conversation now goes something like this: "huh, uh. Ooh, okay. Yeah? Cool. Okay bye now."

#3: We're All RIGHT and You're All WRONG
To make a blanket statement: folk Christians are among the most opinionated people I know. For starters, they all have their opinions of what a Christan resource store should carry. Secondly, all of their opinions are taught clearly as 'black and white' in the bible. And thirdly (the clincher) they all disagree with one another. Ponder what might result from those three points and you may get a glimpse of what I've gone through from time to time.

Allow me to present an actual case in point:

A customer had purchased a book about a man who was in a car accident, died (or so he claims), spent some time in Heaven and then revived to tell about it. About a week later she returned with the book in hand and threw it at me over the counter raving about the man's qualification's, "this man was a realtor for God's sake! Who is he to write a theology book on Heaven? You should not carry this title and if you continue to do so I'll write to your head-office informing them of my decision to go elsewhere!" My first thought was, if the man actually visited heaven, then what difference does it make whether he was a realtor or theologian?

But wait, my story is not over. The very next day (no less) a customer came in looking for the very same book, fortunate for her we now had one in stock. She already had a copy and was now buying one for a friend. She began ranting and raving about how incredible this book is and how much she learned about heaven that the bible doesn't reveal. Then she strongly encouraged (almost demanded) that we order a whole shipment of just the one book because "it's the best book ever". My first thought here was, if he's 'revealing' things about heaven that the bible does not teach then how are we to examine his claims? We can't. What he claims about heaven is now a "new revelation" and has taken up a position of authority along side the bible - at lease for that woman.

#2: The KJV'er!
If someone wants to purchase a King James bible all the power to them. I understand that a lot of people are simply "familiar" with that particular translation and many others (out of their own ignorance, and perhaps a little laziness in the 'research' area) see how it differs from other translations and therefore believes the KJV is the bible Paul used, and all the others will 'burn in hell' (as I was once told). But number #2 of the top weird personalities and beliefs I encounter are the KJV Only advocates. Those who believe that the King James bible dropped out of heaven in a "re-inspiration of the text" sort-a-way. Entire cults gather around turning the tree-turned-paper-and-ink-and-bonded leather into some glorified relic, but only if it has the words "Authorized King James Version" inscribed in gold on the spine of the book.

During a major Bible Marketing scheme that swept across the country some time back, the way in which bibles were to be displayed was to change. Instead of categorizing bibles by translation (KJV, NIV, NASB, NLT, etc), we were now to categorize them by type (Bibles for man, for women, devotional bibles, youth bibles, large print bibles, etc). The problem here of course was that the KJV no longer enjoyed its exclusive and segregated space on the shelf, rather it was now 'reduced' to the level of the NIV and others. The very hour which I finished categorizing the bible department, a head strong KJV Only advocate entered the bible area and ran from it horrified. He sought me out (in the gift department on the other side of the store), dragged me over to the Bibles, picked up a KJV and then challenged me to "grab a bible any bible" so he could show me all the differences in them - I had the joy of being raked back and forth over the coals of hell for good hour and a half until my manager finally 'rescued me' - I haven't seem him since.

And Finally, #1: The Billion Year Old Space Cadet
This one takes the cake. Today I was cashing out a customer and had a bit of a line up (two young ladies and an elderly couple behind them) when a middle aged (and dirty) man entered the store and began pacing up and down our book isles. He then began "butting" in line as it were and without warning he started flailing his arms about while yelling at the top of his lungs: "ALL THESE BOOKS ARE FROM HELL! GODS GONNA CONDEMN YOU ALL TO HELL! COMMENTARIES, COMMENTARIES, BOOKS, BOOKS THEY ARE ALL FROM THE DEVIL!" Then "I NEED A BIBLE, A NEW KING JAMES, I NEED IT NOW! I'LL NEVER FIND IT, I'LL NEVER FIND IT!!!" The elderly couple squeezed up close to the two young ladies in front of them horrified that this man might pull out a gun and start shooting; one of the young ladies leaned over the counter and whispered "good luck" before she left the store.

My manager came out of the offices and walked the man over to the bibles, he was still raving to her that he is going to leave God behind when he leaves the store and that God is going to Judge us all to hell for our books. She smiled and said "well that's your opinion", his response: "NOT MY OPINION, GOD'S OPINION! AND GOD AND I HAVE BEEN DOING BATTLE FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS OUT IN SPACE! AND GODS GOING TO JUDGE THIS PLACE FOR ALL IT'S BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES" - Then he bought a bible.

But before he Left he continued on about other stuff (I tried to pay attention but lost most of it altogether), about how he tested his 13 year old son with dope, how we are never to mention money to him because he is rich thanks to his pension and finally, as if to make sure we wouldn't forget he declared one last time: "THESE BOOKS ARE ALL FROM THE DEVIL. THEY KILL THE TREE SPIRITS AND GOD WILL JUDGE YOU ALL FOR THAT. GET RID OF THEM ALL NOW!"

Who was I to argue with a man who's been fighting side by side with God in a spaceship on other planets for billions of years - I'm only 29.

There you have it, the top five weird personalities and beliefs which I've encountered working in a Christian Market Place.

Derek

Friday, May 9, 2008

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.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Christus Victor According to Gustaf Aulen

I have asked the question in every blog since I began this subject: What is Christus Victor? Without further ado I have sketched this view of Atonement in point form as it is found in Gustaf Aulen’s book, Christus Victor: an Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, orig. ©1931 (Wipf and Stock ©2003), all page references in the current blog are from this book.

I want to make two points before I sketch this view:

1. This is the Christus Victor view as Aulen sees it (or rather as I understand it through him) and is open to critique and revision. If there are flaws found in the following expression of this view remember that it is not always necessary to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We may hold to the Christus Victor view while not necessarily to every point which Aulen makes.

2. I want to make a confession: I am humbled by the scholastic intelligence of Bishop Aulen, I am so far beneath his thinking that I fear it all too possible that in some way I may have misrepresented him in these following points. I have read through his book twice very carefully and it is with a great deal of caution that I criticize any part of it.

Sketching Christus Victor:

1. Christus Victor views the Atonement through the lens of a cosmic conflict between the forces of good and evil. [4, 11]

2. When the serpent deceived Adam and Eve he earned certain rights over this world, the rights which were originally Adam’s. [48]

3. The devil holds mankind in bondage in sin and death; these are viewed as ‘tyrants’ which need to be overcome. [44]

4. The law is good, but since breaking the law results in sin which in turn also results in death, the law too is a tyrant which needs to be overcome. [108]

5. Because God’s Divine Wrath is poured out on those who are guilty of the law, His Wrath is also viewed as a tyrant who must be overcome. [108, 114]

6. Because the devil has earned certain “rights” over this world which God recognizes, the only way to save mankind from the devils bonds is to redeem us from him. [42, 45]

7. God did this by taking on human form in Jesus Christ and allowing the devil to kill Him. [28]

8. Because Jesus was perfect (He did not break any of Gods laws) the devil had no “rights” over Him to harm him as he did the rest of humanity; therefore the devil stepped beyond his bounds by violating his rights and he lost all “rights” to this world. [45, 51]

9. In this way Christ redeemed us back by offering Himself to the devil as a sacrifice. [30]

10. But had the devil known the plan he surely would not have harmed Christ because it would have meant his certain defeat, so God “hid” Himself in Christ thus deceiving the devil. [103, 110]

11. Death is not merely mortality, but rather death is separation from God; life is not merely immortality, but rather life is fellowship with God. [25]

12. Through the defeat of the devil the bonds which held mankind captive were broken (the sin and death which separated man from God) because man now has fellowship with God. [30]

13. In this way God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself. God is both the reconciler and the reconciled. [4, 30]

14. With the Incarnation came the Kingdom of God and all who follow Jesus become members in that Kingdom. [19]

15. Anyone who lives under the devils bonds (of sin and death) are members of the devils kingdom because they are doing the work of the devil. [1 John iii; 8]

16. Anyone who rejects the devils authority and submits to the authority of God and becomes a follower of Jesus is Justified (forgiven) and sanctified (bonds of sin broken) and therefore are united with God (reconciled). [30, 119]

17. In conclusion then: the Atonement, according to the Christus Victor view, is God reconciling the world to Himself in Christ through his conflict and victory: the Incarnation, life, death (in which the decisive blow was dealt), resurrection, glorification and continued Justification and Sanctification by His carrying on of that conflict and victory through the work of the Holy Spirit are all viewed as one continual act of God - that "In Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19) - Atonement. [4, 30, 107, 119]

This is Christus Victor as it was expressed through the late Lutheran Bishop, Gustaf Aulen, and is not without its faults.

In my next blog I want to examine both “Christus Victor” and “Penal Substitution”; I will argue that while Aulen’s view of the Atonement may need to undergo slight reform, the system as a whole still stands; the antithesis of this is that the Penal System has some fatal flaws which would not survive a reform of sorts and therefore must be rejected as a system, while parts of it may be absorbed into and adopted under the umbrella of the Christus Victor view of the Atonement.

Remain Victorious!

Derek.

Monday, May 5, 2008

In The Beginning... Christus Victor

In my last blog I stated my intention: What is Christus Victor?

Here is the answer in the most narrow sense: Christus Victor is a term coined by a Lutheran Bishop named Gustaf Aulen in his book titled Christus Victor: an Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, originally published back in 1931 [4], and is given to that idea of atonement which he consistently refers to as the ‘classic’ idea throughout his book. (Note: all page references in this blog are from Gustaf’s book; Christus Victor orig. ©1931)

Because Aulen coined the term which this view of Atonement is now known by, and since he examines the history of this view in contrast to two other popular views, and since his book is (so far as I know) the first developed expression of this view; I have decided it was the best place to examine the question: For what purpose did Christ come down from Heaven?

The Thr3e Idea’s of the Atonement

Aulen presents what he views as the three main ideas of the Atonement: The first he refers to as the Objective or Latin theory. This is the most common view that I have encountered in all protestant churches, for it is out of this view that the Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement has come: “it was regarded as ‘the church doctrine’ of the Atonement par excellence, as if it and it alone had been the teaching of orthodox Christians through all the centuries” [133]. Aulen’s goal is to uncover the truth, which he believes, is that the Latin theory of the Atonement was not “the church doctrine through all the centuries”, but rather has it’s fixed beginnings in a guy named Anselm (1033-1109 AD), but that the Christus Victor idea “was, in fact, the ruling idea of the Atonement for the first 1000 years of Christian history” [6], thus the term ‘classic’.

The third view is known as the Subjective theory of the Atonement and I will hardly make mention of it because in my opinion it is nearly altogether irrelevant, it hardly represents any Biblical portrayal of the Atonement at all. Let me just say that this theory is as its name suggests, subjective. In this view reconciliation is a change within a man by conversion or amendment of lifestyle. Christ’ work on the cross accomplished nothing by way of God directly reconciling man to himself, but rather Christ is viewed as “the perfect Example, the Ideal Man, the Head of the race” and by Christ’ heroic action God now views man in a different light [146].

Throughout Aulen’s book then, the primary interest lie in comparing the first two ideas mentioned: the Latin (Penal Substitution) and the ‘classic’ (Christus Victor).

Before I go any further in attempting to answer our question, what is Christus Victor? I think is important to at least sketch what the Penal Substitution theory is so that the comparison between the two views will make sense.

Sketching Penal Substitution

Basically, if you have ever taken any type of formal teaching on the core beliefs of Christianity, you were probably explicitly taught this view, and so you would be familiar with the term “Penal Substitution”. If however you have not had formal teaching on the atonement, you may be unfamiliar with the term, nonetheless, you have most likely been indoctrinated into this view without even knowing it. In either case, chances are you hold to the doctrine of the Atonement called Penal Substitution, whether you know it or not, and will probably nod with approval at what I am about to sketch of that view.

1. God “condones nothing” but judges all sin as it deserves.
2. My sins merit ultimate rejection and penalty from God’s presence.
3. My sins penalty was paid for me by Christ on the cross.
4. Because of this I am made the righteousness of God in him.
5. Christ took the Wrath of God upon himself so that I would not spend eternity in hell.
6. My faith in Christ is God’s gift to me, procured by the cross.
7. Christ’ death shows the depth of God’s love for me.
(The above seven points are paraphrased from J.I. Packer in his book; In My Place Condemned He Stood (c)2007, p.25. I left out two points which are strongly Calvinistic in tone and not necessary for the Penal view.)

To summarize further in paragraph form: God as Judge deems me, a sinful man who violates the Laws of God, guilty and worthy of his Divine Wrath. But because of God’s Divine Love for me He sent His Son to become man to offer up to God His perfect life in my place. In other words, Jesus paid the penalty (Penal) of my sins and substituted (Substitution) Himself for me. In this way God imputes upon me the righteousness of Christ (Christus Victor, p.127). The entire transaction plays out like a court case, therefore it is known as the Judicial doctrine of the Atonement.

This view, which sounds so “nice” “normal” and even “biblical” has an interesting history and is not without its flaws. But leaving that well alone for now, our next task is to continue on what we began in the previous blog: what is the Christus Victor idea? Now the stage is set for us to understand its history and comparison to that of the Penal Substitution doctrine.

Did Christ became man to die as a man on mankind’s behalf, to take our punishment and grant God the judicial right to forgive us our sins; or is there more to the story of the Atoning work of Christ?

Til next time.

Derek.

Followers