Christ Victorious

Well, now that I have fixed some formatting issues along with a few typos, I can finally re-post this. Below is a paper I wrote for my Christian Theology class concerning the Christus Victor view of the Atonement and why it is a relevant, Scripturally sound, albeit incomplete, view that adds more richness to the Christian faith. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CHRISTUS VICTOR VIEW OF ATONEMENT 

Introduction 

Finding salvation through Jesus is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, but many people seeking faith and those who are living an atheistic, or agnostic lifestyle may not understand why they need to be saved, or what s/he needs to be saved from. The next issue for these people may happen to be the issue of what Christ’s sacrifice on the cross does for their potential salvation. For the church today, we are blessed by God to have been given many great thinkers over the past twenty centuries that have mulled over these issues and created detailed accounts of how the Atonement of Christ works, such as the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory created by John Calvin, or the Ransom theory held by the early church fathers.[1] While theories like Calvin’s along with other major theories like the Satisfaction theory are sacred within the modern Church and are even supported biblically, they perhaps do not encompass the full spiritual scope of what Christ’s atonement did for humanity. The purpose of this paper is to not reduce those theories, or even to say that Christus Victor trumps the others, but to show why the Christus Victor view of the atonement, with its often overlooked emphasis of spiritual warfare, is a vital accompaniment to the more transactional theories.[2]

The Conception of Christus Victor 

Swedish theologian, Gustaf Aulén, is credited for the most detailed description of Christus Victor with his 1931 book “Christus Victor: A Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, which supposedly drew the attention back to what the early church fathers believed as the “Ransom Theory.” [3] Church father Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254) of Alexandria, Egypt expressed that Adam and Eve’s sin affected humankind which enabled Satan to subjugate humanity, Christ’s death then served as a payment to release us, he wrote, “The payment could not be [made] to God [be]cause God was not holding sinners for a ransom, so the payment had to be made to the devil.”[4] This sentiment was created from a verse Jesus spoke about himself, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many,” (Mk 10:45) and to Origen and others, such as Irenaeus, this was meant to take literally and became a central tenet of the Atonement.[5]

The question next becomes, how does Christ’s payment of himself become a victory for God, especially if it is paid to the devil? The answer from Gregory the Great (ca 540-604) suggests a “bait and hook” approach in the sense that since Christ is human, the devil claimed authority, but didn’t notice the divinity of Christ until it’s too late, after the release of humanity.[6] However, as many books on Christian theology will tell you, theologians in the middle ages, like Anselm, became uncomfortable from God paying a ransom to Satan, or even Him stooping to a level of deception. Rather than paying a ransom to Satan however, Aulén reintroduces in the Christus Victor view that concentrates on God/Christ crossing over into enemy territory to conquer His enemies because as Aulén states about what the Lord reveals in the Bible “it is God who fights against them.” [7] The events of the cross defeat the forces of evil, setting humanity free, and the “ransom” was Christ doing what was necessary to secure that, which meant becoming incarnate and living a life of heavenly love in the face of Satan’s influence over the world.[8]

Christus Victor in the World of Theology 

In the realm of theology that covers the Atonement, especially in the Western world, the topic of the Atonement usually involves violence as the general assumption is that the “salvation of sinners” happened because Christ was killed.[9] The largest Christian denominations in the United States are Catholic Church, which reports to have close to seventy million members, and next in line is the Southern Baptist Convention, which reports around sixteen million members.[10] The reason why this is significant is because both of these denominations mostly ascribe to either a medieval, or Reformed view of the Atonement, Catholics following Anselm’s Satisfaction theory and Baptists following Calvin’s Penal Substitution theory.[11] Both of these views depend on either punishment, or satisfying God’s wrath and both had time to shape much of European theological thought, and by extension American theological thought. With Christus Victor shifting focus off of the violence of the Atonement and onto spiritual warfare it has threatened traditional thinking of the significance of Christ’s death on the cross. As a result Aulén’s view has picked up steam over the last eighty four years in Christian denominations that shun violence, such as the Mennonites.[12] It has also had impacts of theologians like Gregory Boyd, a former professor at Bethel University who now champions this view over traditional transactional views.[13]

With the Christus Victor’s view increasing popularity comes increasing scrutiny of it as not everyone is on board with casting aside the Reformed views. Critics of CV, like Christianity Today’s editor Mark Galli, suggests the CV view, as it is discussed in today’s world, emphasizes victimhood rather than our guilt and that it leaves out forgiveness from the sin we are addicted to.[14] In fact critics keep pressing the factor of the CV’s lack of acknowledging sin and guilt hard saying that the two are downplayed and that it is too easy to depict enslavement to sin as victimhood than it is to acknowledge our own guilt.[15] Critics of believers who promote Christus Victor cannot, however, dismiss its depiction of what happened on the cross can be in an initial presentation of the Gospel, such as coming into contact with people who have a fascination with darker supernatural forces.[16] With this evidence coming to light, it would seem that there is a definite need accept the Christus Victor view of the Atonement and to use it where necessary. 

Reflection on the Christus Victor View 

As expressed above, the Penal Substitution Atonement and Satisfaction theories of the atonement have had a lot of time in the Church to permeate in the minds of believers, perhaps a little too much time. It is the opinion of this writer that placing almost all of the emphasis on the punishment of guilt and sin has damaged the Christian Church, or at least in its relationship to the world it is supposed to serve and even to the believers. There is no doubt that humanity needs to accept that it has a sinful nature, but how many sermons can a believer take in, which only concentrate on sin and guilt until they start to resent their salvation? In church believers read the words of the Apostle Paul: 

…our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:12). 

And yet this gets put on the back burner. Critics may argue that CV concentrates on victimhood, but they forget that humans born after Adam and Eve are in fact victims and not of their initial making. Meaning, humankind inherited a curse that was begotten out of deception and human will, but also developed a type Stockholm syndrome, and started to willingly sin, then started enjoy the sin being committed. So, sin became human nature, but God says it is not our nature as humanity was once considered good in His eyes (Gen 1:31). Individuals must hold themselves accountable for their actions, but they also must know who fights against them being from justified and who fights with them to be justified. In order for individuals to overcome sin in their lives they must know about the forces that helps sin along will be conquered, and that is where the Christus Victor view of the Atonement comes in.[17]

Our Chains our Gone 

By the same token, the Christus Victor view holds a high regard for the Resurrection of Christ through the Eucharist, which was celebrated by the earliest believers because they had seen their resurrected Lord who was victorious over death and also sin.[18] The danger of only promoting the violent transactional theories of Atonement is the stifling of remembering that the Lord Jesus is alive with the Father (God), but also alive in believers just as believers are alive in him (Eph 2:6). Once believers’ sin is nailed to the old rugged cross it no longer hold humanity in captivity just as Chris Tomlin’s version of “Amazing Grace” says, “My chains are gone, I’ve been set free. My God, My Savior has ransomed me.” So, as Christians progress in their faith walk with God and have acknowledged sin, a believer should not let the past guilt of committing sin become new chains, but instead focus on the one who broke those chains (Jesus) and know that the enemy (Satan) who used sin against us has no more power over us because he has been defeated.[19] The Christus Victor view not only celebrates the wiping out of the Satan and the forces of evil, but that what Christ does for us cannot be separated from what Christ does in us.[20]

Conclusion 

It is hard to contend that the Satisfaction theories along with the Penal Substitution theory aren’t representative of what was happening at the cross when Christ gave up his life for sinners. Calvin’s Penal Substitution view has rich scriptural support that spans both the Old Testament and New Testament. The belief of transactional views that God himself provided a spotless sacrifice on the behalf of sinners through Himself displays both His justice and his overabundance of mercy towards humankind. However, in the grand scheme of things they are not the only explanation of what happened during the Atonement and should not be considered a complete doctrine on the subject. Scripture also reports through both the Old and New Testament that God and humanity are fighting a very real spiritual enemy that comes to “steal, kill and destroy” as it says in the Gospel of John. Christ’s resurrection was the decisive blow to Satan that freed believers from his grasp of them and the Christus Victor view is the best model of the Atonement to represent that reality. The latter view is just the rest of the story of the Atonement and even though Aulén himself that the CV is not meant to be a full doctrine, it is just as important view that belongs with the rest in order to get a fuller picture of God’s perfect love.[21]

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

"Atonement: What Is the Christus Victor View?" ReKnew.org, 04 June 2014, http://reknew.org/2014/06/atonement-what-is-the-christus-victor-view/. 

Aulen, G. "Chaos and Cosmos: The Drama of the Atonement." Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 4.2 (1950): 156-67. 

Boyd, Greg. "The “Christus Victor” View of the Atonement." ReKnew.org, 08 Jan, 2008. http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/. 

Boyd, Greg. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy. Downers Grove: IVP Academic Publishers, 2006. 

Cherry, Constance M. The Worship Architect: A Blueprint for Designing Culturally Relevant and Biblically Faithful Services. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Publishers, 2010. 

Galli, Mark. "The Problem with Christus Victor." ChristianityToday.com, 7 Apr. 2011, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/aprilwebonly/christusvicarious.html. 

Jenkins, Philip E. "Trends Continue in Church Membership Growth or Decline, Reports 2011 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches." National Council of Churches, 14 Feb. 2011, http://www.ncccusa.org/news/110210yearbook2011.html. 

Jones, Tony. "A Better Atonement: Christus Victor," Patheos, 29 Feb, 2012, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2012/02/29/a-better-atonement-christus-victor/. 

McGrath, Alister E. Theology: The Basics. 3rd edition, Malden: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2012. 

Mouw, Richard. "Why Christus Victor Is Not Enough," Christianity Today, 56, no.5 (2012): 28-31, (No DOI given). 

Olson, Roger E. The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Academic Publishers, 2002. 

Robinson, B.A. "The Ransom Theory (a.k.a. Classical Theory)." The Christian Concept of Atonement: The Ransom Theory. ReligiousTolerance.org, 16 Oct 2007, http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone7.htm. 

Weaver, J. Denny. The Nonviolent Atonement, Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 2001.

Notes

[1] Roger E. Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), pp 236-238. 

[2] Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief, pp 237. 

The complaint is that Christus Victor is too subjective to rationally explain the response of guilt to sin, or why Christ had to die. 

[3] Tony Jones, “A Better Atonement: Christus Victor,” Patheos, last modified February, 15, 2012, 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2012/02/29/a-better-atonement-christus-victor/ 

[4] B.A. Robinson. “The Concept of Christian Atonement: The Ransom Theory,” Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, last modified October 16, 2007 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone7.htm 

[5] Alister E. McGrath, Theology: The Basics, (Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2012), pp79. 

[6] McAlister, Theology: The Basics, pp 80. Jesus makes himself into a hook coming in the form of man. The devil oversteps his authority and takes the bait, releasing humanity, but is forced to forfeit his claim on Christ when it is revealed that Christ is sinless. 

[7] Gustaf Aulén, “Chaos and Cosmos: The Drama of Atonement,” Interpretation: A journal of bible & theology 4, no. 2 (1950): 156-167. 

[8] Greg Boyd, “The ‘Christus Victor’ View of the Atonement,” Reknew, last modified January 8, 2008, 

http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/ 

[9] J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids, 2001), pp 2. 

[10] Philip E. Jenkins, “Trends continue in church membership growth or decline,

reports 2011 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches,” National Council of Churches, last modified February 14, 2011, 

http://www.ncccusa.org/news/110210yearbook2011.html 

[11] Olson, The Mosaic of Christian Belief, pp 237-238. Olson notes that the Catholic Church does allow for some room of the other theories and that unless some Baptists churches are liberalized then they will mostly stick to Calvin’s PSA since he is the golden boy of Reformed theology, a staple of the Baptist denomination. 

[12] J. Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement, pp 3. According to Weaver, Gordon Kaufman, a Mennonite, developed a revision of the “classic theory” (Christus Victor) that avoided “compensatory violence of satisfaction atonement.” 

[13] “What is the Christus Victor View,” Reknew.com, last modified June 4, 2014, 

http://reknew.org/2014/06/atonement-what-is-the-christus-victor-view/. 

[14] Mark Galli, “The Problem With Christus Victor,” Christianity Today, last modified April 7, 2011, 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/aprilweb-only/christusvicarious.html?start=1. 

[15] Richard Mouw, “Why Christus Victor is Not Enough,” Christianity Today 56, no.5 (2012): 28-31. 

[16] Mouw, “Why Christus Victor is Not Enough,” pp 30. Mouw explains that Young Life workers testify about how kids who obsess over vampires and even witch craft have come to faith when presented with the CV view of the atonement. The same with those who have encounter cultures steeped in animism. 

[17] Greg Boyd, “The Christus Victor View of the Atonement,” Reknew, last modified June 08, 2008. 

http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/ 

[18] Constance M. Cherry, The Worship Architect, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), pp. 108. 

[19] Greg Boyd, “The Nature of the Atonement,” ed. Paul R Eddy, James Beilby. (Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 2009), pp. 34. 

[20] Boyd, “The Christus Victor View of the Atonement,” Greg Boyd focuses a lot on the cosmic implications of what Christ’s death and resurrection does to reconcile creation back to the Father and what it means in terms of destroying the work of the devil (1 Jn 3:8). He suggests that we need to participate in Christ’s victory so that our lives can be characterized by the willingness to triumph over evil with good as we imitate the “Calvary quality of life” of Jesus. 

[21] Aulén, “Chaos and Cosmos,” pp. 157. Here Aulén argues that the CV view was never intended to be a complete doctrine, but that the drama of God fighting the forces of evil should be a perspective that is never omitted.