Christus Victor or Penal Substitution?

[Pericles]

The Christus Victor view of salvation holds that in his death and ressurection Christ defeated the powers of evil and set us free. Penal substitution teaches that Christ had to die in our place as satisfaction for our sins. The former was the most widely believed in the Patristic age and the latter is a western concept promoted by St Anselm.

What are the relative values of each and which it more compatable with Orthodoxy?

In my own opinion I prefer a victorious Christ to one that was compelled to die. Also penal substitution is based on Jewish sacrificial thinking that belongs in the temple, not the Church of Christ!

[NicholasMyra]

The Christus Victor view of salvation holds that in his death and ressurection Christ defeated the powers of evil and set us free. Penal substitution teaches that Christ had to die in our place as satisfaction for our sins.

Specifically, penal substitution is the notion that Christ had to die vicariously in order to fulfill a need that God had to get revenge against sinful beings through punishment. The corollary is that Old Testament sacrifices involved animals being vicariously punished for the avenging of sins and offenses.

Orthodox and Roman Catholics and most theologically-inclined Anglicans and many Lutherans and many Protestants today disagree with this.

The former was the most widely believed in the Patristic age and the latter is a western concept promoted by St Anselm.

True penal substitution didn't really emerge until after the Reformation.

What are the relative values of each and which it more compatable with Orthodoxy?

The former (Christus Victor) is incomplete, the latter (Penal Substitution) is unacceptable.

penal substitution is based on Jewish sacrificial thinking

I would disagree with that.

[Alpo]

Subscribed.

[Nephi]

Penal substitution teaches that Christ had to die in our place as satisfaction for our sins. The former was the most widely believed in the Patristic age and the latter is a western concept promoted by St Anselm.

Penal Substitution and Anselm's Satisfaction Theory are significantly different theories about the atonement. In Penal Substitution Christ bears the Father's punishment of sin, but in Satisfaction Theory he offers himself as a satisfactory sacrifice to the Father. A very important distinction.

What are the relative values of each and which it more compatable with Orthodoxy?

In my own opinion I prefer a victorious Christ to one that was compelled to die. Also penal substitution is based on Jewish sacrificial thinking that belongs in the temple, not the Church of Christ!

Penal substitution is simply not taught, and condemned, by Orthodoxy. Christus Victor is only one (necessary) aspect of the atonement, and by itself is insufficient.

[Pericles]

Christus Victor is only one (necessary) aspect of the atonement, and by itself is insufficient.

In what way is it insufficient?

[Nephi]

Christus Victor is only one (necessary) aspect of the atonement, and by itself is insufficient.

In what way is it insufficient?

It speaks primarily of defeating sin, death, Satan and the powers of evil.

It does not adequately, by itself, explain the healing of humanity's corruption nor the deification of humanity - for a couple examples.

[Pericles]

It speaks primarily of defeating sin, death, Satan and the powers of evil.

It does not adequately, by itself, explain the healing of humanity's corruption nor the deification of humanity - for a couple examples.

It explains the healing of humanity's corruption in the defeat of evil as the source of that corruption.
I'm not sure it needs to explain sanctification as a theology of atonement.

[Nephi]

It explains the healing of humanity's corruption in the defeat of evil as the source of that corruption.
I'm not sure it needs to explain sanctification as a theology of atonement.

The healing of humanity, and our subsequent deification, is necessarily the result of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection. It's not, however, the necessary result of Christ defeating evil. Read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" and you'll understand what I'm saying. It has to do with the Incarnate Word taking flesh, and sanctifying humanity from corruption, and our being joined with him.

Further, the Fathers speak of sacrificial and substitutionary elements of the Atonement that would not be addressed with a solely Christus Victor atonement.

[Pericles]

The healing of humanity, and our subsequent deification, is necessarily the result of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection. It's not, however, the necessary result of Christ defeating evil.

According to Christus Victor theology Christ defeated evil by his incarnation, death and resurrection.

[Nephi]

The healing of humanity, and our subsequent deification, is necessarily the result of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection. It's not, however, the necessary result of Christ defeating evil.

According to Christus Victor theology Christ defeated evil by his incarnation, death and resurrection.

My point is that many aspects of the atonement (minus Penal Substitution/Satisfaction Theory) must be considered together to fully understand the atonement. You cannot just ascribe to "Christus Victor" to present an Orthodox atonement.

[Pericles]

My point is that many aspects of the atonement (minus Penal Substitution/Satisfaction Theory) must be considered together to fully understand the atonement. You cannot just ascribe to "Christus Victor" to present an Orthodox atonement.

Point taken.

[Hinterlander]

How does the Ransom view relate to this?  Is this synonymous with one of the views already mentioned?

[Pericles]

How does the Ransom view relate to this?  Is this synonymous with one of the views already mentioned?

Yes ransom theory is Christus Victor.

[thethinker]

The healing of humanity, and our subsequent deification, is necessarily the result of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection.

What do you mean by your term "our subsequent deification"? The deification language sounds Mormon.

[Armchair Theologian]

Even as a protestant I never believed in penal substitution or the satisfaction theory. It always made me cringe to hear a preacher make it sound like Christ came to save us from God, as apposed to sin and death and the devil, since it was God who so loved the world that he gave his Son, and who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself according to scripture. It's true that there are places in scripture that talk about Christ essentially getting what we deserved, but that doesn't instantly translate into penal substitution. I wish more western Christians understood that there are different ways of looking at it.   

[Nephi]

The healing of humanity, and our subsequent deification, is necessarily the result of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection.

What do you mean by your term "our subsequent deification"? The deification language sounds Mormon.

Deification = theosis.

[thethinker]

It's true that there are places in scripture that talk about Christ essentially getting what we deserved, but that doesn't instantly translate into penal substitution.

Even then I don't like saying that Christ got what we deserved. It implies that God needed to vent anger.

I wish more western Christians understood that there are different ways of looking at it.

I am Reformed and have had some tense discourse with my Reformed brothers about this. They insist that God had to punish.

[thethinker]

The healing of humanity, and our subsequent deification, is necessarily the result of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection.

What do you mean by your term "our subsequent deification"? The deification language sounds Mormon.

Deification = theosis.

Okay thanks, I looked it up. 

[Nephi]

Okay thanks, I looked it up. 

No problem. Mormons often refer to Christian deification/theosis in order to justify and normalize their Exaltation doctrine, but it is misleading as there are fundamental differences.

[john_mo]

Penal substitution in a nutshell: God killed God in order to please God.

Notice how the focus is on the punishment (the death) and not the resurrection.

[Daedelus1138]

   There is definitely a place in the early Fathers for the idea that Christ is punished in our place or for us.   I also don't believe it is entirely foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.  It is regrettable when certain Orthodox theologians dispute this, as it is needlessly polemical and distorting.    The rhetoric of "being saved from God" is rather an unfair distortion of what many Protestants actually believe.    For what it's worth, I don't care for explaining the atonement in terms of penal substitution... but I don't see it as wrong per se.

  Christus Victor- Christ is only a victor if he had to deal with something.  Otherwise there is no atonement, reconciliation to God, going on for the believer.  The Cross is not merely dealing with death, it is also dealing with sin and disobedience.   

[podkarpatska]

Fr. Jonathan's blog post today is on this very subject. Long, but worthwhile.. http://janotec.typepad.com/terrace/2013/04/the-cross-peace-over-violence.html

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Topic: Christus Victor or Penal Substitution?