Christus VIctor

I just finished reading the book Christus Victor. It was written by a Swedish theologian, Bishop Gustaf Aulen, and was originally published in 1931. So its not a new release, but a modern classic on the subject of the Atonement. The basic premise of the book is to show, through historical analysis, that the "Christus Victor" view of the atonement (also called the "classic idea") was the view held by the Apostalic Church and the early church fathers. Over time however, this view lost its place in the forefront of Christian theology, but has never been completely lost. I'd like to share a basic explanation of "the classic idea" of the atonement put forth by Bishop Aulen and then also give a brief description of the other two dominating theories he describes.

The Classic Idea

This is a very basic summary of the idea that Aulen calls the genuine, authentic Christian faith. I use a couple of quotes from the 2nd century church father Iraneus. God became man "That He might destroy sin, overcome death, and give life to man." "The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil." This perspective is entirely a work of God from beginning to end. In His love, God becomes man to do what was necessary to rescue us from the dominion of the devil, which we sold ourselves into through sin. Christ sets us free from the above mentioned powers, enabling us to be reconciled to Him, enabling us to be who He created us to be and usher in the restoration of the world He created. In this view, it is easy to see that His love exceeds His wrath. God is the reconciler (Jesus) and the reconciled (the Father who is in relationship with those who believe in His Son). The early church did not have a thorough doctrinal statement on this because it cannot be grasped fully in any way, let alone be worked out in a completely rational explanation. Thus it was communicated and grasped more through story, symbols, and imagery for centuries.

The Latin Doctrine

This theory is finds its first complete articulation in the work of Anselm of Canterbury during the middle ages (around 1000 A.D.). It is an attempt to wholly rationalize Christ's work and base it primarily on legal terms, because during those times, the concepts of love, passion, sacrifice were thought of as weak compared to rational and judicial terms. Terms you may have heard that are associated with this atonement doctrine are "Penal substitution" and "Satisfaction Theory." On a basic level this theory says, no man has performed perfectly according to God's law, so God demands a payment for it or else we go to hell. God sent His Son, as a man, to make the appeasement to God needed to keep us from hell. This then allowed Him to forgive us because Jesus had paid the price for our sins, as a man, to God. Since Jesus was the God=man who lived a sinless life, He produced an infinite amount of merit that could be applied to those who believed in Him. Many people who have heard this description of the gospel see God as a distant, bloodthirsty judge and Jesus as some sort of separate victim/mediator. In this doctrine, God's love is overshadowed by His need for "justice" (as defined in Middle Ages terms). Biblically however, we see that when God speaks of justice, it usually involves acts of mercy and making things right rather than making sure that people are punished to the fullest measure in accordance with their sins.

The Subjective View

Those who took issue with the "Latin Doctrine" developed a theory that more or less minimized God's hatred of sin and focused more on man's ability to be right with God if they would choose to live morally. Jesus was the perfect human example of obedience. By his example people can choose to turn their life around and go from being repelled from God's presence (because of their moral corruption) to being in good standing because their character and actions have changed and are now morally good.

Again, this is my feeble attempt to summarize the basic ideas of atonement that have remained since the resurrection of Jesus. If you're really interested in learning more about this, read Christus Victor. I also found a blog that has an extensive paper discussing this topic here, though I do not claim to agree with all the details, since I only speed-read through it.

So, which of these three views do you see being expressed in your church's worship content?

Which one do you see most clearly in the bible? Keep in mind all these ideas claim to have root in the scriptures.

Which one do you see prevailing in your own personal understanding/beliefs?