Its not just a academic historical debate.
Christus victor is the idea that on the cross and through the Resurrection Christ won victory over the enemies of humanity.
Penal substitution is the idea that Christ died on the cross to absorb God's wrath; God the Father punished him instead of sinners.
The article reports that evangelicals in England are splitting over which one of these is correct. I resonate with this statement by J.I. Packer:
According to J. I. Packer, British-born board of governors' theologian at Regent College and CT senior editor, various biblical understandings of the atonement need not conflict. Rather, penal substitution, Christus Victor, and other Scriptural views of atonement work together to present a fully orbed picture of Christ's work.
"To omit any part of this story," Packer said, "is to distort and damage the gospel."
I agree. Both are in the Scriptures, both amply supported in the Christian tradition and in Lutheran theology. I find in my preaching there are times to emphasize the one and at other times the other.
I normally do not like both/and solutions to theology but this one fits.
4 comments:
I normally do not like both/and solutions to theology but this one fits.
Both God and man.
Both bread and body.
Both wine and blood.
Both election and free will.
Both Saint and sinner.
Both Catholic and Evangelical.
Both Biblical and historic.
Lutheran theology IS both/and.
Yes, I agree with your comments.
I meant the kind of both/and sentiments that refuse to take a stand when truth is at stake.
As a pastor, sometimes I deal with folks who are agonizing over the power sin has over them---they sense its dominance and are nearing despair. Other times I deal with folks who are riddled with guilt/shame over the sins they have committed. The "both/and" you describe gives us a fuller gospel which allows us to proclaim "Christus Victor" to the former and "Christ, our Substitute" to the latter. Lose either of these clearly biblical facets of the Gospel, and you are hamstrung in your pastoral conversations.
Thanks for the interesting post. I agree with you comments wholeheartedly.
Rev. Tom Fast
Yeah, I'm with you and Packer. Both are right. Teaching courses on Paul and the Passion narratives, I'm amazed at how antogonistic even otherwise good theologians are to the Anselmic view of the atonement. It's a view that is taken up by classic liberals, as well as by many in the Eastern tradition. Sadly, it's promoted, it seems to me, only by Calvinists, who like the idea of an angry God who needs to be placated (sorry if that's too harsh). What needs to be promoted is a Lutheran understanding of Anselm, in which the payment for sins has to be made, yet recognizing the fact that the Father's love is actually prior to the Son's death. Btw, the atonement may also be exemplary, but in a minor way. (Any others?)
Post a Comment