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.