Christus Victor

Part of a series on
Atonement in Christianity
Theories Classic paradigm
Ransom (Patristic)
Christus Victor (20th century)
Recapitulation (Patristic) Objective paradigm
Satisfaction (Scholastic / Anselmian)
Reformed / Arminian )
Governmental (Arminian) Subjective paradigm
Moral influence (Mixed)
Moral example (Socinian)
Types
Limited (Scholastic / Reformed)
Unlimited (E. Orthodox / Catholic / Arminian)
v t e

Christus Victor is a book by

Aulén interpreted the ransom theory as a "victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil."[4] According to Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the Christus Victor way of seeing the cross."^[5] It is sometimes known as the fishhook theory of atonement, since Church Fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory of Nyssa envisioned Christ as bait on a fishhook, luring Satan to take the bait and destroy himself.^[6][7]

Aulen's book, Christus Victor

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (January 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Atonement theories

In his book, Aulén identifies three main types of atonement theories:^[8][9]

• The earliest was what Aulén called the "classic" view of the atonement, more commonly known as the
  ransom theory, or since Aulén's work, it is known sometimes as the "Christus Victor" theory: this is the theory that Adam and Eve made humanity subject to the Devil during the fall, and that God, in order to redeem humanity, sent Christ as a "ransom" or "bait" so that the Devil, not knowing Christ could not die permanently, would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the resurrection
  .
• A second theory is the "Latin" or "objective" view, more commonly known as
  Protestants as penal substitution
  (that Christ is punished instead of humanity, thus satisfying the demands of justice so that God can justly forgive).
• A third is the "subjective" theory, commonly known as the
  moral influence view, that Christ's passion was an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it. This view was put forward in opposition to Anselm's view by Peter Abelard.^[10]

Aulén argues that the "classic view" was the predominant view of the early church for the first thousand years of church history, and was supported by nearly every

.

Christus Victor

Aulén argues that theologians have incorrectly concluded that the early

, and sickness, of sin.

Role of the Trinity

Aulén states that the chief distinction between Christus Victor and the satisfaction view is the contrary emphasis given to the Trinity and the Law. The satisfaction view, Aulén claims, contains a 'divine discontinuity' and a 'legal continuity' while Christus Victor emphasizes a 'divine continuity' and a 'legal discontinuity'. He points to the emerging theology of penance in the Latin Church as the root of Anselm's ideas, particularly in the writings of Cyprian. In Anselm's logical but revolutionary extension of penance theology, God is unable or unwilling to pardon humanity without having his Kingship honored by a payment of blood, later this would take the form of "penal substitution", the Reformation idea that God's justice, not his honor, is at stake in the atonement. Since only a man can fulfill mankind's obligations to the Law and to God, Christ must become a man in order to offer perfect penance to God. He does this by satisfying the demands of the Law for a sinless life and by suffering the wrath of the Father for past sins. Aulén takes exception to this model, arguing that the incarnation (and also the resurrection) becomes a legal exercise, a piece of a theological equation based on law theories.

Aulén goes on to argue that Christus Victor reverses this view by uniting Jesus and His Father during the Crucifixion in a subversive condemnation of the unjust powers of darkness. This is followed by the natural emphasis of Christus Victor: the Father's vindication of Jesus in his victorious and bodily resurrection. Advocates of the satisfaction view do not agree with Aulén's characterization, arguing that the satisfaction model does not, in fact, create opposition between the Father and the Son (there has been less disagreement on the "legal continuity" or emphasis of satisfaction atonement, although

has notably argued for a version of satisfaction theory with less legal emphasis). In their view, the "divine opposition" is only apparent since the Father desires reconciliation with mankind and Jesus willingly offers himself as a penal substitute. By contrast, Christus Victor depicts Christ's sacrifice, not as a legal offering to God in order to placate his justice, but as the decisive moment in a war against the powers of darkness; the law included.

Writings of the Church Fathers

Aulén points to the writings of Paul and the Church Fathers as examples of early Christianity's view of the Law as an enemy which must be defeated in order for mankind's salvation to be secured. He seeks to demonstrate that the penance systems of satisfaction theory and penal substitution place an undue emphasis on man's obligation to offer payment to God and on God's obligation to Law. Instead by suffering a death that, before the Law, meant an accursed status, Christ, instead of satisfying an obligation, overthrew the power of the Law, since its condemnation of a perfect man was unjust. Furthermore, death, sin, and the Devil (personalized forces in Christus Victor), are overthrown since Jesus' subsequent resurrection breaks the dominion they once held over human life. Since the resurrection is a mark of the Father's favor despite the Law's curse on crucified men, the atonement, far from reinforcing the Law, deprives and subverts the Law of its ability to condemn. Thus God the Father and God the Son are not set at odds by the cross with the first in the role of Judge and the second in the role of sinner, but are united in seeking the downfall of the Devil's system of sin, death, and Law that enslaves humanity. This view, Aulén maintains, keeps from the errors of penance systems emphasizing Law and man, and reveals the unity within the Trinity's redemptive plan and the freedom of the forgiveness shown to us by God through Christ.

The Incarnation

Unlike the

and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Aulén argues that the Christus Victor view of the atonement is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the Powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin.

As Gustav Aulén writes: "The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil.[4]

Development of the Christus Victor view after Aulén

The Christus Victor theory is becoming increasingly popular with both

writes,

for [the Christus Victor] view, the domination system, understood as something much larger than the Roman governor and the temple aristocracy, is responsible for the death of Jesus [...] The domination system killed Jesus and thereby disclosed its

moral bankruptcy and ultimate defeat.^[11]

The

References

Citations

Sources

• Aulén, Gustaf (1969) [1931], 'Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, translated by Hebert, A. G., Macmillan
• Beilby, James K.; Eddy, Paul R. (2009), The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, InterVarsity Press
• Pugh, Ben (2015), Atonement Theories: A Way through the Maze, James Clarke & Co
• Weaver, J. Denny (2001), The Nonviolent Atonement, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

External links

• The Christus Victor View of Atonement by Greg Boyd
• Healing the Gospel by Derek Flood
• Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor