Christus Victor

Christus Victor is associated with a Swedish theologian called Gustav Aulen who wrote a book of that name in 1948. The gist of it is that Christ has won over Satan where Adam was defeated; hence recapitulation: doing it again.
Obviously, the theory is not wrong; what Christian believes in Christus Loser? There is no doubt that Christ rose victorious from the tomb and we all sing hymns about it on Easter Sunday:

'Thine be the glory, risen conquering Son!
Endless is the victory thou o'er death hast won.'

But Aulen fails to show adequately just how the victory is won and what it achieves and how.

"And everybody praised the duke
Who this great fight did win."
"But what good came of it at last?"
Asked little Peterkin.
Ah! That I cannot tell," Said he;
But 'twas a famous victory."

But what is the victory that Christ achieved? In the Book What does it mean to be Saved? (ed. John G. Stackhouse, Baker, 2002), Henri Blocher points to Satan's defeat in Zechariah 3:

'How is Satan's role as the Accuser related to his power? If satan's opposition to the Lord were a matter of mere power, the rebel's finite resources would equal zero, confronted with infinity. But the accuser can appeal to justice. He may also indulge in slander, but his force resides in the rightness of his accusation. Joshua is unclean, unspeakably unclean.... (Zechyariah 3:4). The righteous judge of all the earth, who can only do right, cannot refuse to hear the charges the AQccuser brings without denying Himself. In other words, the weapon in the devil's hand is God's own law-- hence the association in some passages of the law, which Aulen was not able to read aright.

Satan appeals to God's justice, calling Him to punish humanity as we deserve. Consequently, the defeat of satan must involve the removal of our own guilt, and it is in exactly this way that the N.T. presents it. Christ has suffered on our behalf; He has paid in full the penalty of sin which we were liable to pay, and consequently we, like Joshua, we are clothed in a robe of the perfect righteousness of Christ (Isaiah 61:10), so that Satan no longer has that with which to accuse the brethren and is cast out. We have overcome him by the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 12:10-11).

 

Why did jesus then have to even die in order to be the victor, for would he not just come to earth as his glorified self and establish things his way at second coming?
And where is the wrath of God propiated/appeased for then?

 

Again, why the need for Jesus to have to die then, would he not be victorious by just being God?

 

Jesus though had to overcome the sin issue between God and man, so how was that done if not by Pst?

 

He could not be forced to die though being sinless, not unless He who knew no sin actually became sin on our behalf!

 

I understand what you are saying, but still cannot find out why Jesus had to die in your viewpoint, as God would really be going against His nature to just kill off a sinless man, IF he was not bearing sins as Pst holds!

 

FWIW, Irenaeus also wrote:
'The Lord redeemed us by His blood and gave His life for our life, His flesh for our flesh, and poured out the Spirit of the Father to unite us and reconcile God and man....................On our behalf He propitiated the Father, against whom we had sinned, and cancelled our disobedience by His obedience, restoring us to fellowship with our Maker and submission to Him' (Adversus Haereses v).

But then Irenaeus was also the chap who taught that our Lord had to be at least 50 years old when He suffered so that He could sanctify every stage of life-- infancy, childhood, youth, maturity and old age.

 

Whoops! Sorry! The book was written in 1931. My mistake!

 

Which is one of the reasons why the Patristic age was such a mixed bag. The early church fathers got some very important things right and some very important things wrong.

Two contemporary early church fathers, Irenaeus and Tertullian, had important opinions on issues like church tradition and apostolic succession. Both men agreed on many things, but they also had sharp differences. Irenaeus believed in something he called 'the canon of truth'. This governed how he looked at Christian revelation. Irenaeus held two rules when it came to Christian revelation. J.N.D. Kelly puts it this way

"First, the identity of oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. Secondly, an additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message was committed to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church's bishops are on his view Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed an infallible charism of truth (charisma veritatis certum)."1

Tertullian took a different tact in regards to Christian revelation. In his Adverus haereses, Tertullian made the point that the "real defense of orthodoxy was founded on Scripture."2

When one looks at Irenaeus, he sees a strong bent towards tradition (παραδοσις/paradosis) as equal in authority with Scripture. The problem this presents should be self-evident to any Christian. While Irenaeus believed that apostolic tradition was codified in Scripture, he believed that "Spirit-endowed" men are the sentinels of Scripture. Once again, this is proof of the mixture and error that was part and parcel of the Patristic age. There were some marvelous things that occurred during this age. The most notable is the defense of Homoousion (ὁμοούσιον) attributed to Nicean theology, as opposed to the Arian heresy. Nicean theology taught the sameness of the Godhead in relation to essence. It also taught that the Son was "begotten not made". The Church was agreed and united on Nicean theology. There was no such agreement and unity on a single atonement theory. This is why many finer points of doctrine were refined during and after the Reformation. Any serious student of church history should see this obvious conclusion.

1. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 37
2. ib., p. 38-39

edited to correct typos.

 

If I may be so bold as to quote myself, this is one of the reasons why I have no problem with the supposed "newness" of penal substitution. The mixture and error of the Patristic age did not settle a single atonement theory. After Rome began to multiple its heresies (at the end of the ecumenical councils), theology proper outside of Rome was almost extinct. This is why many theologians find the Reformation, post-Reformation, and Puritan ages to be so fascinating. The theological work that was done during this period refined much of what was unfinished (or not even started) during the Patristic age. If there is going to be a debate on the atonement, Scripture alone is judge and jury. At best, history is but a guide.

 

Romans 5

. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Saved by his LIFE.


Also notice we were reconciled to God.

Not one mention ever in all of scripture of God being reconciled to us, which Penal Sub insists.


2 Corinthians 5

18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.


Again Zero mention of God being reconciled to us. God doesn't have a problem with us. HE IS GOD, nothing shakes him.

We are the ones who have a problem with God.

 

Psalm 7:11. 'God is a just judge. And God is angry with sinners every day.'

Isaiah 12:1-3. 'And in that day you will say:
"O LORD, I will praise You; though You were angry with Me,
Your anger is turned away, and You comfort me.
Behold, God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid;
For YAH, the LORD, is my strength and my song;
He has also become my salvation."

Therefore with joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.'

When is 'that day'? If you look at Isaiah 11, it is clear that it is the day of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He who has turned away God's righteous anger from His people, by the atoning of Himself as Isaiah goes on to show in Chapter 53 etc.

 

I have no desire to injure your health, but when you wrongly claim that the ECFs knew nothing of Penal Substitution, I do not make 'claims.' I show the actual writings of these people that prove that they did.

Now @Reformed is absolutely right; the Church Fathers were a mixture of truth and error. The truth of a doctrine is not to be measured by its antiquity but by its faithfulness to Scripture. I only bring these extracts from the ECFs forward in the interest of truth because you continue to argue against their very words. I would much sooner discuss Scripture.