Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Christus Victor

[Canuckster1127]

In a recent thread Jlay suggested that it might be worthwhile to have a discussion about Penal Substitutionary Atonement as opposed to Christus Victor and to that end I'm starting this thread for any who want to take a look at that or for that matter, any of the other views of the atonement that have been prevelent within the church over the ages.

This is something I've spent a little time over the years taking a look at and considering. If any are interested and want to read a book that I think is a good introduction in book or Kindle form I recomment "A Community Called Atonement" by Scott McKnight. He goes through all of the major views of the atonement and discusses their history, their biblical moorings and also their connections to the culture, philosophy and thinking of the times in which they either arose or increased in importance.

I have a review here on Amazon for any who are interested: http://amzn.to/zALHFK

Atonement views are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In a sense the atonement is a huge theme in Scripture and some of these different views are in effect metaphors that help us to understand what the atonement is like when viewed from a particular perspective.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the view with which most Protestants and Evangelicals are familiar. Other may want to redefine or clarify but for the purposes of kicking this off for any interested here's the definitions of each from Wikipedia.

Penal substitution (sometimes, esp. in older writings, called forensic theory) is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology, developed with the Reformed tradition. It argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.

The term Christus Victor refers to a Christian understanding of the atonement which views Christ's death as the means by which the powers of evil, which held humankind under their dominion, were defeated. It is a model of the atonement that is dated to the Church Fathers, and it, or the related ransom theory, was the dominant theory of the atonement for a thousand years, until it was removed in the West by the eleventh-century Archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, and replaced with his "satisfaction" model.

So if any want to make comments or ask questions, then please go ahead.

[Canuckster1127]

Beuhler .... Beuhler .... Anyone?

No worries. If this isn't of interest to anyone that's cool.

[jlay]

I am using this as a topic of discussion in my men's group. Lots of blank stares. I think the problem is that we are so engrained in our Western thought that we never really stand back and ask, why have we always approached it this way. For myself I never really considered an alternative approach.

I will post a link to one of my friends from my congregation that I think addresses the deeper issue. It has nothing to do specifically with CV, but with our approach to the scriptures, and our arrogance.

http://clgibsontn.wordpress.com/2012/01 ... ark-place/

When I look at CV, in ways it does identify with my personal experience. When I came to KNOW Christ the reality of a Savior was and still is hard to put into words. There is definitely something lacking from the systematic approaches. A lot of what I have read seems to pit SA against CV and vice versa. I don't know that this is the right approach. Sin, the fall, is a cosmic problem. But it doesn't negate that sin is also a personal problem. The world does contaminate us, but in turn we contaminate the creation. Personal rebellion is a debt that falls upon the sinner.

•2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
•Rom. 4:25, "He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification."
Transgression is not simply being bent towards sin. It isn't just the fact that we are victims of a fallen world. This is directly shaking one's fist in the face of God. We aren't bound for wrath and Hell because we tripped and broke soemthing. In rebellion we have intentionally brought damage upon ourselves.

IMO, it is important to know that the cross is both extremely personal, and cosmically profound. God is, through the cross restoring all things in heaven and earth to Himself. (Eph 1:10) Within that, the individual sinner is also being made legally right. It is appointed for every man to die, and then the judgment. (Heb. 9:27)

The problems with SA, IMO, are not that it lacks merit in terms of vicarious atonement or legal satisfaction. It seems to rely more on proof texting to present the Gospel. And, at times imposes our Western ideas of justice, judge and judgment onto God. I've seen in cases how God and Jesus are pitted against each other. God's wrath, the angry judge, waiting to smash us over the head with a ball bat. But, Jesus is there to take the bludgeoning Himself. This doesn't mean there isn't a legal issue. It just fails to rightly show, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:19)

So, God is not unable to identify with our weakness. There is a truth that we are victims. We are bent towards self and thus sin. But there is another truth that we are culpable in our guilt. We have shaken our fist in the face of God. And that it is through this guilt that we are storing up wrath for ourselves for the day of wrath in which His righteous judgement will be revealed.

Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

[B. W.]

I am using this as a topic of discussion in my men's group. Lots of blank stares. I think the problem is that we are so engrained in our Western thought that we never really stand back and ask, why have we always approached it this way. For myself I never really considered an alternative approach.

I will post a link to one of my friends from my congregation that I think addresses the deeper issue. It has nothing to do specifically with CV, but with our approach to the scriptures, and our arrogance.

http://clgibsontn.wordpress.com/2012/01 ... ark-place/

When I look at CV, in ways it does identify with my personal experience. When I came to KNOW Christ the reality of a Savior was and still is hard to put into words. There is definitely something lacking from the systematic approaches. A lot of what I have read seems to pit SA against CV and vice versa. I don't know that this is the right approach. Sin, the fall, is a cosmic problem. But it doesn't negate that sin is also a personal problem. The world does contaminate us, but in turn we contaminate the creation. Personal rebellion is a debt that falls upon the sinner.

•2 Cor. 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
•Rom. 4:25, "He who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification."
Transgression is not simply being bent towards sin. It isn't just the fact that we are victims of a fallen world. This is directly shaking one's fist in the face of God. We aren't bound for wrath and Hell because we tripped and broke soemthing. In rebellion we have intentionally brought damage upon ourselves.

IMO, it is important to know that the cross is both extremely personal, and cosmically profound. God is, through the cross restoring all things in heaven and earth to Himself. (Eph 1:10) Within that, the individual sinner is also being made legally right. It is appointed for every man to die, and then the judgment. (Heb. 9:27)

The problems with SA, IMO, are not that it lacks merit in terms of vicarious atonement or legal satisfaction. It seems to rely more on proof texting to present the Gospel. And, at times imposes our Western ideas of justice, judge and judgment onto God. I've seen in cases how God and Jesus are pitted against each other. God's wrath, the angry judge, waiting to smash us over the head with a ball bat. But, Jesus is there to take the bludgeoning Himself. This doesn't mean there isn't a legal issue. It just fails to rightly show, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:19)

So, God is not unable to identify with our weakness. There is a truth that we are victims. We are bent towards self and thus sin. But there is another truth that we are culpable in our guilt. We have shaken our fist in the face of God. And that it is through this guilt that we are storing up wrath for ourselves for the day of wrath in which His righteous judgement will be revealed.

Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Jlay, you bring up a very good point in everything you wrote. You expressed a gnawing unease about PSA that many feel but unable to express due to the make up of PSA that proclaims that any unease one feels about it is evidence of selfish prideful man hurt feelings that must be crushed unremorsefully.

When I was a young atheist, Christians would present the Romans Road approach witnessing to me. That method holds the tenant of PSA. I could not understand it and soon discovered that it was one of the easiest methods to counter viva argument because most Christians presenting it would stumble once asked difficult questions. At the time, such witnessing techniques, reminded me of sword fighting and a Christians use of the sword was easily parried.

The reason was its utter complexity. It was more like presenting a legal brief using the language of lawyer legalese. After become Born Again, one was expected to learn this legal language to present the simplicity of Christ to the masses. Due to the nature of my conversion to Christ, I stumbled in this presentation, a lot.

I kept remembering the simplicity of Christ phrase mentioned in the bible and just began presenting the gospel as best I could, showing people that humanity hated God by how Christ was treated within the 24 hours before the cross. We did the trial, we did the beating, we did the mocking, we did the scourging, we drove the nails, we showed the contempt, we bore false witness, we divided the goods, and Jesus did say you done this to others, you do so to me.

That was a far more effective manner because people could be awakened by it without the legalese getting in the way. So it would be interesting to see how Bart continues with this as I hope it will help Christians better understand how to present the simplicity of the gospel message of Christ. Both PSA and CV have merits.
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

Blog article I saw this morning that touches on PSA in the context of Marc Driscoll and the Neo-reformed movement.

http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/the ... -movement/

It mentions as well the book I reference by Scot McKnight, "A community of atonement."

[Canuckster1127]

I appreciate what you're saying as well too Jlay.

I don't look at Christus Victor so much as an "alternative" approach as it is a corallary approach. Penal Substitutionary Atonement focuses upon God's Justice and Holiness, which are legitimate things to focus upon, but if that become the whole of the atonement one result can be a sense of separation between Christ the Son and God the Father to where the atonement is reduced to God sending Jesus to the woodshed to take our whipping for us.

In my mind anyway, I think the prevelance of the view to the supression if not exclusion of others, explains why sometimes, at least to me anyway, that God is made distant and unapproachable, sort of like Zeus on the mountaintop who deigns to look down upon us and alternatively cast lightenbolts or blessings down from on high.

The Trinity is a mystery and all analogies that help us to understand it, must break down if the analogies are taken too singlemindedly. Jesus was not just "human" in his presence and work upon the Cross. He didn't cease to be God and God wasn't separate from the event standing at a distance looking upon Christ bearing the sin of the world. God was a part of Christ's presence and suffering and this element, in my opinion, while it too can be overemphasized, cannot be left out, dispensed with or minimized to just a footnote.

[domokunrox]

You know, I'm sorry I don't have something very significant to add to the subject. PSA and CV are IMO both very much supported as valid ways to view the passion story. I don't see any glaring contradictions and there isn't any contextual critism to support one idea over the other. Does anyone actually have a problem with either?

Just on a more open note. CV reminds me of a hymn I really love (Victory in Jesus).

[jlay]

Dom,

It depends. A lot of the commentary I've read from those promoting CV are condeming some or all aspects of PS. For example one article I read was titled, Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor And the same can be said of PS proponents in their critique of CV. It seems for me and the rest here, that both are two sides to the same coin. That there are definately legal aspects to the cross, yet there is also a broader picture. Also, that perhaps the legal aspects in PS have been too mingled with man's own ideas on justice.

http://therebelgod.com/cross_intro.shtml

[domokunrox]

Well, to add to it, an argument of this sort where one is denied for the other view is IMO very Christian "post modern". The passion story is without doubt the most important part of Christianity, but there remains what is factual.

1. God came in the form of man
2. He was perfect
3. His people ordered his judgement, humiliation, and execution
4. He was buried
5. He rose from the dead 3 days later
6. He left us with rich instruction to obtain the gift of everlasting life
7. He promised us a comforter and fulfilled it
8. We are awaiting his return

Sure we can flesh out context, but why does it matter? Knowing the above facts? Judgement and victory are both very prominent as amazing aspects of God.

I see no fruit in arguing that God isn't victorious or isn't perfectly just in any instance. Its why I call it "post modern". To me it sounds like arguing just to argue.

[jlay]

The article I linked is quite lenghty. The author goes into more detail.

[B. W.]

Dom,

It depends. A lot of the commentary I've read from those promoting CV are condeming some or all aspects of PS. For example one article I read was titled, Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor And the same can be said of PS proponents in their critique of CV. It seems for me and the rest here, that both are two sides to the same coin. That there are definately legal aspects to the cross, yet there is also a broader picture. Also, that perhaps the legal aspects in PS have been too mingled with man's own ideas on justice.

http://therebelgod.com/cross_intro.shtml

That was a very good article, Jlay...
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

I don't think I've seen very many who advocate Christus Victor state that Penal Substitionary Atonement has no validity. What I do see quite often is the concern that Penal Substitionary Atonement when taken as a primary view, to the diminishing or exclusion of other views, portrays a view of God that is quite different from the Character of God as displayed and demonstrated in Jesus Christ.