# Christus Victor - Confronting my brother



## hammondjones (Nov 6, 2013)

> Christ's sacrificial death, in which He bore the punishment due to sinners, is the only and all-sufficient basis of God's provision of salvation for all people of every culture and age, expressing His love and satisfying His justice.



My brother is going to resign from the mission field because he feels he can no longer assent to the above statement (from the mission's Statement of Faith); he now ascribes to 'Christus Victor' and repudiates Penal Substitution. He particularly objects to the underlined portions. 

This seems to me to be a very serious error, and I'm frankly not sure what to even say to him. I don't know if this is just a stage of being fascinated by Patristic theology (or Aulen's interpretation of it), or what. But, I do know that his wife and in-laws, near whom they now live, are very liberal, and are coaching him down this path. We grew up in the same household, so I'm assuming that, as I did, he has a poor understanding of the OT and anything covenantal. 

My current line of thinking is to inquire what he makes of Is. 53, the entire OT sacrificial system, mercy-seat/propitiation, etc., but *I would welcome any suggestions* on other angles to take. Prayers welcomed also.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 6, 2013)

The Christus Victor theme was present in Patristic writings, alongside PSA.

Henri Blocher, somewhere (I believe it is in the book Pierced for our Transgressions), has a piece on how CV relates to PSA, calling it instead Agnus Victor.

It amazes me that people who advocate CV are minimizing the life and death of Christ, while those who hold to PSA retain all of it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 6, 2013)

1. Why do some think that one motif related to Christ's atonement (or some other loci) _precludes_ or _excludes_ another?

2. A lot of people today want a Jesus whose presence or centrality is not brought on or in any way necessitated by divine *wrath*.

3. An integrated Bible, a common faith (essentially/principially the same) for both OT and NT saints, is a foreign concept to many modern Christians. If the coming of Jesus introduces a different kind of religion or relating to God--for whatever reason: e.g. dispensational "Messiah rejection" bringing in a church-age parenthesis--then no appeal to OT concepts by which Christ may (ought to) be understood will be seen as legitimate. Jesus has to "break out" of even the concepts by which someone like Isaiah presents him to an OT audience. Not even apostolic "appropriation" of the OT is seen as validating the prophets, but more like "adaptation," unless such use is viewed as little more than residual reflexive appeal to (outmoded) authority, while waiting for a new body of NT literature.

4. A common tactic for those seeking to replace one view by something else, is the _ad fontes_ appeal. After all, this is what the Reformers used in the 16th century against Rome. One frequently hears that _Christus victor_ was the dominant theme for the atonement in the early church. This depends, of course, on how one defines "early," and it also calls for an explanation of "dominant." Also, why does some particular view have said dominance?

By no means is the early church record devoid of the language of substitution, and payment for sin. Note, it is not the Penal-Substitutionists who feel the need to "explain away" statements of various ECFs that highlight a CV theme. There is no sense of a need to exclude such a thing from the historical notices. However, like Romanists trying to explain away "by-faith-alone" statements of the ECFs, some modern CV proponents cannot live with the idea that "richness" of Atonement themes is as old as the first fabric of Christian theology.


In the end, I suppose that the real issue is the reality that the true message of Christianity is _*offensive*_. It always has been, note 1Cor.1. But people today--even those who go out to preach--believe something different. When they encounter dramatic resistance to basic concepts of Christianity, their theological grounding in vague and sentimental "God is love" ideas (which are not the biblical notions that gave us that language originally) cannot be reconciled to their experience. The old message of guilt and grace is, accordingly, too "out of step" with the nature of the men to whom they were sent with the appeal of the gospel.

And so (they decide) the message is the wrong one, at least for the audience of the present hour. God isn't dealing with us as his ENEMIES, but treats us entirely as his darlings who have been cruelly taken by his foe and ours. There is no room in this view for the difficult truth that when God comes to save us, we love our sin despite the horrific damage it does. And we are at that time in no way disposed to accept God's offer to save us--especially when it comes with a very clear demand for submission, servitude, even slavery to God. We prefer our "freedom" under Satan, the original rebellion by which we believed his lie and fell from our first estate. It takes an act of God to open our eyes to the harsh reality that we've been deceived the whole time.

Christus victor is one facet of the the Atonement that Penal Substitutionists don't need to jettison; any more than they would shy away from Satisfaction (Anselm). However, Penal Substitution deserves the emphasis is has received, because as far back as Paul (Rom.1-3) God's wrath against sin _in rebels themselves_, along with the OT legal treatment of sin's consequences, highlights the grace of the gospel in stark relief. Losing that contrast will be the high cost of lowering (or worse, eliminating) PS's profile in our message. It is a consequent lessening of the power of the gospel.


I think the deeper issues are tied right in to TULIP, and the consistency of the message.


----------



## ZackF (Nov 6, 2013)

Regarding the OP, how does your brother get CV, or CV only without PSA, from Scripture?


----------



## MarieP (Nov 6, 2013)

hammondjones said:


> Christ's sacrificial death, in which He bore the punishment due to sinners, is the only and all-sufficient basis of God's provision of salvation for all people of every culture and age, expressing His love and satisfying His justice.



I'd ask him how he believes God's justice is satisfied.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Why do some think that one motif related to Christ's atonement (or some other loci) precludes or excludes another?



Amen! I'd say that paying the penalty for our sins would not be possible unless Christ is Victor, and that Christ would not be Victor without paying the penalty for our sins. All things must be put under His feet, and that includes the curse and how it relates to His people. He could not bring many sons to glory unless He dealt with the relationship between God and rebels.


----------



## hammondjones (Nov 7, 2013)

KS_Presby said:


> Regarding the OP, how does your brother get CV, or CV only without PSA, from Scripture?



I've not yet spoken with him in person, but this appears to be the very problem. He is letting his presuppositions about what God is like dictate what the Bible could possibly say.


He is opposed to the idea that the Father would hate the Son and any sort of inter-trinitarian conflict.

He doesn't want to 'put God in a box' by human determinations what God must or must not do. So, he rejects the idea that God is obliged in any way to satisfy his justice with punishment, for example. I guess he wants to elevate God's being love over God's being holy. 


He underwent some spiritual and physical attacks overseas, and seems to be really fighting God right now. With respect to my parents, we did not receive the full gospel message growing up, and I think he's suffering from 'I'-trouble in his understanding of God. I know that was the case with me.


----------



## ZackF (Nov 7, 2013)

hammondjones said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the OP, how does your brother get CV, or CV only without PSA, from Scripture?
> ...



A difficult situation. The not "putting God in a box" crowd usually does exactly that. They put God in a box where he cannot punish sin, violate freewill or whatever other thing that comes to mind. From what I can see, my advice is to just say, "it sounds like things are difficult these days but I'd love to discuss the work of Christ. We must get our answers from Scripture and so can we get a beer/coffee and work through them together." Okay maybe that's a little schmaltzy but you know your brother. I will be praying for you.


----------



## MW (Nov 7, 2013)

Following Rev. Buchanan's lead, and going in one specific direction, I would argue that it is impossible to properly affirm Christ as Victor unless it is based on penal substitution. Man's bondage must be an act of divine justice. The alternative would be that fallen man is bound to creatures which operate outside of divine moral government, which is preposterous. If man's bondage is an act of punishment which has been enacted in divine justice his release from that bondage could only be possible by the remitting of divine punishment through the satisfaction of justice. Otherwise Christ's victory would be something other than just. It is only on the basis of penal substitution, then, that the Christus Victor doctrine can be of any value or meaning. Christ redeemed by price and by power.


----------



## arapahoepark (Nov 17, 2013)

arap said:


> The Christus Victor theme was present in Patristic writings, alongside PSA.
> 
> Henri Blocher, somewhere (I believe it is in the book Pierced for our Transgressions), has a piece on how CV relates to PSA, calling it instead Agnus Victor.
> 
> It amazes me that people who advocate CV are minimizing the life and death of Christ, while those who hold to PSA retain all of it.



I stand corrected. Henri Blocher's essay titled: Agnus Victor: the Atonement as Victory and Vicarious Punishment is in the book What Does it Mean to be Saved edited by John Stackhouse


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Nov 17, 2013)

hammondjones said:


> He is opposed to the idea that the Father would hate the Son and any sort of inter-trinitarian conflict.



Well, I too am opposed to the idea of the Father hating the Son and inter-trinitarian conflict. Aren't you? This is not what the penal substitutionary atonement means. That God poured out His wrath on Him who was constitued judicially guilty on our behalf is not properly expressed by "the Father hated the Son." Your language needs to be far more careful here.

And, of course, there can be no inter-trinitarian conflict. This, too, is bad theology and even the word of dereliction ("My God why hast Thou forsaken me?") does not mean "inter-trinitarian conflict." You need, brother, to bone up on the proper way of speaking here. 

I am not imagining that your brother's problems are purely semantic, but precision of expression is quite important in theology and we simply must not speak in terms of "the Father hating the Son" or "inter-trinitarian conflict." Our sin is a serious matter and must be dealt with--and is in our Lord's PSA-- but this does not mean that sin is so powerful that it causes the Father to hate the Son or to disrupt the essential unity of the Blessed, Holy, Undivided Trinity, neither of which is possible. Indeed the Father pours out His wrath on Christ and does not smile upon Him as He suffer for us on the cross, but He does not hate Him or essentially divide from Him. 

Peace,
Alan


----------

