Christus Victor Theory

[Nilloc]

What is the Christus Victor Theory of the Atonement and is compatible with Reformed Soteriology?

 

[student ad x]

What is the Christus Victor Theory of the Atonement and is compatible with Reformed Soteriology?

I thought it was Christ's ransom sacrifice ...... Is this wrong?

 

[Nilloc]

I thought it was Christ's ransom sacrifice ...... Is this wrong?

The very little that I know about the theory says, to my understanding, that the Cross was God demonstrating His power over the worldly kingdoms by raising Jesus even after such a violent death. There must be more to it than that, but that's really all I know.

 

[kenrapoza]

As a theory in and of itself it is insufficient and incompatible with Reformed theology because it loses the penal substitution aspect. It comes from a different paradigm that does not presuppose that God's wrath needs to be propitiated. However, there is certain a Christus Victor aspect to the atonement. Certainly Christ was shown victorious over the powers of darkness by his death and resurrection. Christus Victor is a complement to the atonement, but it is not the atonement itself.

 

[Nilloc]

As a theory in and of itself it is insufficient and incompatible with Reformed theology because it loses the penal substitution aspect. It comes from a different paradigm that does not presuppose that God's wrath needs to be propitiated. However, there is certain a Christus Victor aspect to the atonement. Certainly Christ was shown victorious over the powers of darkness by his death and resurrection. Christus Victor is a complement to the atonement, but it is not the atonement itself.

So they deny that the Cross appeased God's wrath againist sin in any way? How would they deal with a passage like Romans 3:24-25?

 

[hedrick]

So they deny that the Cross appeased God's wrath againist sin in any way? How would they deal with a passage like Romans 3:24-25?

No one doubts that Christ died as an atonement. However the passage you quote doesn't say that this is because God's wrath had to be appeased.

Paul refers to the atonement many places. Most are like this one, references without giving details about how it works. The most explicit is probably Rom 6:1ff. As I read it, this says that because we are in Christ, we die and are raised with him. We die to sin and are raised to new life. This suggests that the atonement works chiefly as rebirth into new life.

There's plenty of evidence that we deserve death, and that God arranges to take that death on himself. However I don't see the Biblical evidence for focusing exclusively on Christ's death as vicarious punishment, nor on the concept that God has to punish someone, so he punished Christ. Calvin's discussion in the Institutes is more balanced. He notes that although Christ's death is the key, in fact the atonement includes his entire life of obedience. Even the essay on the atonement in The Fundamentals disclaims the more extreme versions of "appeasing God's wrath."

 

[Nilloc]

No one doubts that Christ died as an atonement. However the passage you quote doesn't say that this is because God's wrath had to be appeased.

So Christus Victor advocates do believe Christ's death was an atonement. Okay. I only quoted Romans 3 to show that His death was a propitiation, not that that God's wrath nessessarly had to be appeased.

Paul refers to the atonement many places. Most are like this one, references without giving details about how it works. The most explicit is probably Rom 6:1ff. As I read it, this says that because we are in Christ, we die and are raised with him. We die to sin and are raised to new life. This suggests that the atonement works chiefly as rebirth into new life.

There's plenty of evidence that we deserve death, and that God arranges to take that death on himself. However I don't see the Biblical evidence for focusing exclusively on Christ's death as vicarious punishment, nor on the concept that God has to punish someone, so he punished Christ. Calvin's discussion in the Institutes is more balanced. He notes that although Christ's death is the key, in fact the atonement includes his entire life of obedience. Even the essay on the atonement in The Fundamentals disclaims the more extreme versions of "appeasing God's wrath."

Is this what Christus Victor advocates believe about the atonement, and if so, how would this be connected to Christ's triumph over the worldly powers?

 

[hedrick]

So Christus Victor advocates do believe Christ's death was an atonement. Okay. I only quoted Romans 3 to show that His death was a propitiation, not that that God's wrath nessessarly had to be appeased.

Is this what Christus Victor advocates believe about the atonement, and if so, how would this be connected to Christ's triumph over the worldly powers?

You're better off to talk to an EO person for specifics on Christus Victor. I'm Reformed. I'm just not the kind of Reformed you may be used to, as I'm closer to Calvin than many recent Reformed theologians.

I accept recent scholarship on Calvin, which sees the center of his theology in our union with Christ rather than election. (Of course he did teach election, and it was important to him.) Similarly he had a more complex view of the atonement, which is more closely based on our union with Christ, than some recent people who think they're Reformed.

Obviously the atonement is closely connected to Christ's victory. Part of what Paul says is that by our union with Christ, we experience and are over time are transformed by, his victory. (I'm not saying that this is the only meaning of the atonement, but that it is an important one.) However this passage, and his writing as a whole, emphasizes the importance both of Christ's death for us and his resurrection for us. Penal substitution tends to emphasize the death, and Christus Victor the resurrection. But for a full account both are needed.

I note that Internet defenders are often more extreme than professionals. You'll see plenty of Reformed advocates who think the only view that matters is that God demands punishment, and Christ accepted it. You'll see EO advocates who say that the only acceptable view is Christus Victor, and penal substitution is wrong. In fact most real theologians acknowledge that Christ's atonement was a complex thing, where many explanations apply. I recently looked this issue up on one of the official EO web sites, and they said, as I do, that there are several legitimate models of the atonement. However both they and many Reformed theologians reject the more extreme versions of penal substitution. The following is taken from the essay on the atonement in "The Fundamentals." I use this because The Fundamentals are the inspiration for "fundamentalism", and surely can't reasonably be regarded as liberal:

While the Christian world in general believes in a substitutionary atonement, it is less inclined than it once was to regard any existing theory of substitution as entirely adequate. It accepts the substitution of Christ as a fact, and it tends to esteem the theories concerning it only as glimpses of a truth larger than all of them. It observes that an early theory found the necessity of the atonement in the veracity of God, that a later one found it in the honor of God, and that a still later one found it in the government of God, and it deems all these speculations helpful, while it yearns for further light.
​

I believe this is consistent with my concept that we surely must agree that we deserve punishment, and the Christ suffered what we deserve, but that some of the explanations of this do not seem right. The worst one in my view is that sin is so serious that God has to punish someone, and he doesn't much care whether the person is guilty or innocent.

When this essay insisted on the primacy of penal substitution, they were considering "moral influence" as the primary alternative. I agree that while moral influence is true, it can't be the main thing that's going on in the atonement. But Christus Victor is not the moral influence theory. At the time the Fundamentals was written, Protestants hadn't taken up Christus Victor broadly. I believe the author would be more sympathetic. However he will demand that even if you find Christus Victor helpful, you have to acknowledge that sin makes us deserve punishment, and that Christ suffered punishment on our behalf.

 

[dodari]

What does EO stand for? Eastern Orthodox? I just am not familiar with this acronym, I admit my ignorance on this one.

Thanks.

 

[hedrick]

What does EO stand for? Eastern Orthodox? I just am not familiar with this acronym, I admit my ignorance on this one.

Thanks.

Yes. Sorry for the confusion.