Theology for the Soul

For the First Time… Again

Though I have designed these blog to be theological in nature, every once in a while something touches my heart so that I feel compelled to share it with you. Having said that, in keeping with the spirit of theological reflection, what follows is a refection of how some deeper theological insights bring with them deeper spiritual significance that penetrates my soul.

This past week I visited a small church in town (in which as a side note, the pastors’ sermon was superb!) and one of the songs for worship was the hymn In Christ Alone. I have known the song for many years and have sung it countless times, but this was the first time I’ve sung it (all its’ verse) since I have dug deeper into theological matters of the Atonement. The result were flowing tears as the full significance of what Christ came to accomplish was realized again – for the first time. (It’s always an experience worth noting whenever “the first time” repeats itself).

Theological Background

You may recall when I first began to blog, the subject was the Atonement of Christ, and namely, what theory should be held prominent above the others. At the time I was introduced to the theory of the Atonement known now as Christus Victor, that the primary purpose for Christ’ life, death and resurrection was to overcome the forces of evil, sin and the devil so that Christ did not simply take our punishment, but he also (and more importantly perhaps) gave us victory over the chains that bound us. This view seemed to have been pitted against the popular Reformed view Penal Substitution which teaches that the Atonement was the single act of God pouring out His wrath on Christ on the cross; some authors would go so far as to except the “Substitution” part of this system but reject the “Penal” element; not wanting to portray God as a wrathful tyrant (Greg Boyd champions this view). As I tried to work out my own system I allowed that last part to linger, accepted Christus Victor and moved on to another subject.

Later I read Scot McKnights’ book, A Community Called Atonement, in which he attempts to show how all the theories of the Atonement are equally acceptable and work in conjunction with one another (though I got the sneaking suspicion that McKnight was raising the Penal Substitution view above Christus Victor).

Today I agree with McKnight; God is Holy, no sin can stand in his presence and his dikaiosyne – his justice or righteousness – compels him to judge sin and grant the sinner their wish – separation from his eternal and holy presence. But it is the introduction to the theory of Christus Victor that has truly gripped my heart and I wish it were taught more in churches today; that while Christ did take our punishment on the cross, he also destroyed in one fell swoop the power of the devil and any hold he had on me, breaking the chains of darkness, evil and sin and granting us authority which is found in Him – through his victory which was revealed in the resurrection – and through this God did not simply cover my sins – Jesus did not simply take my deserved punishment – but more fully, He re-created me into a new person in the image of His Son Jesus Christ by means of Christus Victor.

How This Caused Tears To Flow

Sunday morning, with Christ' Atoning work floating around in the back of my mind, we began to sing “In Christ Alone”, and as we did the words of what I was saying suddenly carried with it more meaning then ever before!

When we sang...

In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied; [Penal Substitution]
For ev'ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.

I stared at those words while singing with such a glorious realization! But then, when the next set of lyrics appeared I became choked up with tears and could sing no more, I grabbed my chest and closed my eyes tightly in meditation as the communion of singing saints worshipped:

There in the ground His body lay,
Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me; [Christus Victor!]
For I am His and He is mine—
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.

Hallelujah and Amen!

Reflective Christianity – theological Christianity – if I fails to result in practical application that drives us closer to the heart of God revealed in Christ, it is good for nothing.

Praise God and Amen!

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Greg's continued thinking of Christus Victor

Hey folks,

I came across a short and interesting blog on Christus Victor and Penal Substitution (and a little Open Theism), and thought, for those who are interested in this stuff you may enjoy it.

http://www.gregboyd.org/uncategorized/a-christus-victor-and-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/

D.

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

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.

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.

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.