Christus Victor (Ransom Theory/ Classic View)

On another thread @taisto stated that I invented and am the sole believer in the Christus Victor view of Atonement.

Aulén wrote a book titled Den kristna försoningstanken (The Christian idea of the Atonement, in English it is titled Christus Victor) in which he defended what he referred to as the "Classic View" of the Atonement.

This theory was historically called the Ransom Theory (although there are several views within this theory). But since Aulén's book it has simply been referred to as "Christus Victor".

The theory holds that Adam made man subject to the powers of sin and death, which is under the domain of Satan. In order to redeem man God sent His Son to unite with man (God-man) forming solidarity to overcome the powers of sin and death.

Christus Victor is the most common view throughout Christian history, perhaps excluding Roman Catholicism.

I post this because @taisto may not be the only member unaware of the theory. Put simple, the few on this board who expressed a belief in the Christus Victor theory did not invent the doctrine.

It is the oldest view of the Atonement known (that does not make it correct, but it does mean it isn't new). It is the only view we know of that existed within baptistic churches prior to the 16th Century.

 

Information on the theory (from those who actually hold the theory) is widely available

 

Glad you came to understand that Christus Victor did not originated with me.

Often it only takes minimal effort to remedy a lack of knowledge. Too many stick with ignorance. Koodos to you for fixing your previous claim.


At one time I rejected the "classic view" (or Ransom Theory). For most of my life I held a different theory (the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement). I was also a Calvinist. I wound up arriving at the classic view by reading Scripture absent the Penal Substitution Theory (I had rejected Penal Substitution Theory and started over). Reading church history I realized all Early Church writers held the Ransom Theory but most didn't view it as God literally paying a ransom to Satan (although that would become the major idea by 9th Century).

It is a view, along with Penal Substitution Theory, that I believe all should honestly consider. Too often Christians want to keep people in ignorance when it comes to opposing positions. I find this very dishonest.

Those who believe Penal Substitution Theory are no more or less Christian than those, like me, who hold Christus Victor, or Satisfaction, or Moral Influence. Our theories of the Atonement are not what saves us.

 

Note: this thread is to discuss the classic view, to answer and explore questions. NOT to hijack it by discussing another Atonement view.

Put simply, stick to the topic. Discuss how the classic view addresses this, or that. Eat the meat, spit out the bones.

Nobody is being asked to believe the theory correct. Just allow another view to be discussed.

 

That is the theologian that wrote Den kristna försoningstanken.

Since then what he called "the classic view" has been called Christus Victor. He was greatly influenced by the works of Martin Luther.

I think it is obvious that Random Theory suffers from the prominent Baptist theory of Atonement based simply on the powers under which Christ suffered.

A mistake I believe people often make on both sides is placing one view in the structure of the other to defeat it.

That is why I believe it is important to look at these theories on their own first. Then look at differences once each is fully explored in their own right.

 

No, I have not changed the title of my position. I have used several titles (but they all apply).

Ransom Theory is the oldest position. But it has taken several forms. In the Early Church it was expressed in sermons as God paying a ransom to the Devil, as Christ paying a ransom to sin and death, and as Christ paying a ransom (a price) but not to an entity.

The problem is context. In the first several centuries of the Church "Satan" or "the Devil" was used as a personification of sin and death (not God literally paying Satan).

You have to remember that many, like Gregory, who held Ransom Theory strongly stressed this was not a ransom paid to Satan.

BUT some did hold that view (Augustine very famously framed the Atonement on this ground). And by the 9th Century Ransom Theory had come to mean, at least by the laity, as God paying Satan (literally).



The title "Christus Victor" has been used since the publishing of Den kristna försoningstanken in 1930 for this position. Most use it to distinguish from the characterization some have of Ransom Theory and to focus on the purpose of the ransom.

The "Classic View" was how this position was titled in Den kristna försoningstanken.


But you are wrong in your post about Scripture. The Bible DOES NOT state that Christ paid a ransom to God. The Bible also does not state Christ paid a ransom to Satan. Both are misunderstandings of Scripture.

The Bible states that we are ransomed from the power of death.



The basic idea of my position is that Christ suffered under the powers of Satan (sin and death) as a ransom (the price suffered for us) to free us from its bonds, thereby achieving victory over those powers for man.