Christus Victor

from this blog

I’ve been reading Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén which deals with the subject of sin atonement from an historic perspective.

Below are some notes I made on the book.

Introduction

In 1930 Dr. Gustalf Aulén delivered a series of lectures entitled “Die drei Haupttypen des Christlichen versohnungsgedankens” (Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement) setting out a re-visitation of the classical Ransom View of sin-atonement and which became subsequently refereed to as Christus Victor. This perspective of sin-atonement is distinct from the Moral-influence and Penal Substitution views (and their variations) and as such has, or has the potential for, a distinctive influence on worship, liturgy and the pastoral treatment of sin.

It should be noted that each view is considered here as it is presented in Aulen’s work and in particular each view is considered in its historic span rather than in a strictly systematic method. Each of the identified sin-atonement views varies through time and, indeed, has variations.

View 1: Subjective

The first view considered by Aulén is the Subjective view. This is also known as the Moral Influence view and is most closely associated with the writings of Peter Abelard (1079-1142).

Abelard rejected any suggestion that through Christ’s atonement a ransom of any kind is paid. There is, he says, no ransom paid to the devil and no debt to God’s honour that needs to be satisfied.

In this view the cross, perhaps, can be considered as an act of Art. Not in any negative of insignificant sense, but in the view that there is no transaction taking place.

In this view sin-atonement is an act that changes the individual person by the means of influence and is mostly associated with Quakerism andsome other non-conformist denominations. The well known hymn “When I survey the wonders cross” reflects (only) the moral-influence.

This view is positive in tone and offers a positive starting point for considering corporate or individual sin (in contrast to the rather negative starting point of the classic Augustinian view).

Negatively this view could be thought of as being weak and or vague. Because it isn’t transactional it has the potential to be Plaigen in that the individual is the free agent of self change. Also, this view can lead to a bi-theist view separating the God of the Old Testament (who is angry) from the God of the New Testament (who is loving).

View 2: Objective

The second view is referred to by Aulén as the “latin” view and this is also known as Substitution Atonement, Penal Substitution and Vicarious atonement.

This view is particularly associated with Cur Deus Homo (1098) by Anselm of Canterbury. In this view no rights are given to Satan, instead God is considered the injured party. The cross is a transaction satisfying God and/or God’s divine law.

This view is the preference of the evangelical church but is often criticised for being a violent view of atonement for sin. Steve Chalke criticised the classic evangelical position on this view in his book “Lost Message of Jesus” referring to the cross as “divine child abuse”.

This view offers a recognition of the Gravity of sin. St Anslem “you have yet to recognise the gravity of sin”. It is clear and well defined and is transactional – grace comes from God. It is also, possibly, attractive to men – “God with a gun!”

Critically this is a violent view of sin where violence cannot be taken away from or ignored in the act of atonement. Is violence worshipped? This view opens the door to a view of limited atonement where only some can be saved.

It potentially suggests an unstable or double-minded God who is consumed with anger and then all loving. Transactionally this view is creedal and so requires an intelligent profession of faith – this then excludes children and those who are of diminished capacity. It can have a tendency to be individualistic and have a narrow view of salvation focussing in personal and individual sin and not, perhaps, redemption in the widest sense.

View 3: Classic

The third view is referred to as the classic view or Christus Victor – Christ the Victor. This was (arguably) the prominent view of the early church to the period before the Reformation. In consideration here is the cosmic battle between good and evil.

Sometimes called the Ransom Theory, different answers have been offered as to who was the ransom paid to. For Gregory the Great the cross disarmed Satan of power and authority using Jesus as the bait and his divinity as the hook. This raises the question “could God be party to a deception?”

Liturgically Christus Victor is the Easter motif – death where is your sting? The cross is a victory and sin-atonement changes the whole world. It has the danger of being universalistic and the advantage of being a non-violent view. It is most held by the Orthodox church and also the Roman Catholic church.

This view has the benefit of being non-violent, corporate and holistic (embracing all aspects of life). It is transactional, though not to the same degree as the Objective view.

It is related to liberation theology and in ideas to the so called New Perspective on Paul. Some would consider it a post-modern view. This view is strongly artistic, narrative based and inclusive to children and people of diminished capacity since it does not focus exclusively on a requirement for mental assent.

It does, perhaps, fail to offer an acknowledgement of the gravity of sin. Also, in this view, it is assumed that God gave or allowed Satan rights. Would God trick Satan? And where is the evidence of God’s rule as the victor in our world?

This view might be considered unsophisticated and tending towards universalism. Critics suggest that in defending this view Aulén overstates the degree to which this was the dominant patristic view.

Questions

1. Which motif do you identify with most?
2. What is our/your message about sin?
3. What happened on the cross?