Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulén

Jan 20, 2014 Joel Wentz rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

This classic work of theology is indispensable reading for anyone who grew up in the Western church tradition. Aulen was a prominent theologian in the early 1900s, and this short book is one of his most well-known works, and for good reason! Growing up in the evangelical church, I had always assumed that "penal substitution" was simply the only way of understanding Christ's atoning work. As an historical overview, Christus Victor clearly shows that this tradition emerged from what Aulen calls th ...more

flag 7 likes · Like · see review

Jul 05, 2009 Judah Ivy rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: christian-doctrine

Aulen's book was a much-needed elucidation for me. Before reading it I'd only heard references and short descriptions of the "Christus Victor" view of Christs' work of atonement.
It's a very informative work. He details the origin and development of the three main types of atonement theology:
The Classic view, which he puts forward as the authentic type, and shows to have been the main idea of the atonement held by the early church fathers.
The Latin type: proposed in its detailed form by Anselm
Th Aulen's book was a much-needed elucidation for me. Before reading it I'd only heard references and short descriptions of the "Christus Victor" view of Christs' work of atonement.
It's a very informative work. He details the origin and development of the three main types of atonement theology:
The Classic view, which he puts forward as the authentic type, and shows to have been the main idea of the atonement held by the early church fathers.
The Latin type: proposed in its detailed form by Anselm
The Subjective type: proposed first by Abelard in opposition to Anselm, but not adopted as a main view until the enlightenment.
He states multiple times in the book that he's not writing an apologetic work in favor of the "classic" (Christus Victor) view of the atonement, but it's obvious to see where his sympathies lie.

The most confusing part of the book is that Aulen uses about three to five different names for each "Type" -referring to the Classic view as the "Dramatic/Luther's, The "Latin" view as the Objective/ Juridical/Orthodox/Anselmian/medieval, The "Subjective" view as the Liberal/Abelard's/humanistic.
Once you get the hang of it it all makes sense.

Aulen has me convinced that the "Classic" idea of the atonement is the most scriptural and true way of looking at the Work of Salvation/Atonement, however I have a couple reservations.
He keeps on saying that the "Classic" type (over against the "Latin" type) emphasizes the importance of the Incarnation, but I don't see how. To quote from the section "An Analysis of the Three Types":
"[in the classic type:]...His true manhood receives full emphasis. But yet again, this does not mean that the redemptive work of Christ is regarded as performed by him purely as man, or that it gains increased value through the association of the Deity with the Humanity."
That characterizes his explanation of the "classic" view throughout the book, but if it were true that the redemptive work of Christ took on no added meaning because of his Manhood, then what was the point of God becoming Man in Jesus Christ? Why not just defeat the "enemies" in His unveiled Godhood?

At the end of the book he points out that the "Classic" (Christus Victor) view has never been and will never be a "rational" theory or doctrine, but rather a motif, a theme, an Idea. Not because it is indefinite, but rather because of the pairs of apparent contradictions it involves (e.g. the absolute Sovereignty of God coinciding with the Dualistic view of his battle with the "enemies").

He ends with saying that "The images are but popular helps for the understanding of the idea, It is the Idea itself which is primary", which almost convinces me that C.S. Lewis read this book as well, considering this quote from Mere Christianity:
"We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself." ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Apr 14, 2020 Ryan Dufoe rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I gave it a 4 as a classic within the history of the church and NOT as a free-standing work. I think much better anthologies of thought on atonement theory have been written, but the importance this book has in bringing the Christus Victor view back into the conversation is part of the reason why the other books are so good. I appreciated the read among my other readings in the field for what it was. For a better read covering multiple theories, see Pugh's "The Atonement: A Way Through The Maze" ...more

flag 2 likes · Like · see review

Jul 28, 2020 Jackson Swain rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

A really great summary of the 3 main views of atonement throughout Church history. Aulen clearly has his opinion as to which should be considered the "correct" view of the modern Christian, but he doesn't let his opinion intrude on his academics. This book really opened my eyes to the ways the doctrine of atonement has evolved over the centuries, especially compared to how it was originally understood in the early church and how it appears to be understood by the authors of the New Testament. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Aug 04, 2011 Jacob Aitken added it · review of another edition

Triumphing over the powers, July 15, 2008
This book provides an historically-faithful alternative to the substitutionary and exemplary models of the atonement. Its strength lies in its presentation of a vivid and robust picture of the work of Christ. Its (the book, not the model) weakness is its simplistic reductions of other theologians' thoughts.

Overview:
The Christus Victor model presents the work of Christ as a triumph over the devil, powers (demons), bondage of sin, and the "law." Accordingly ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 27, 2015 James rated it really liked it · review of another edition

I finally got around to reading this book. Aulen's stated purpose is to outline the classic view of the atonement and to compare it to the objective (latin) model and the subjective (exemplar) model. Aulen does an excellent job of describing the patriotic view and the development of penal substitution. One major difference he sees between the classic model and the later penal models is an emphasis on Christ's divinity in the former and Christ's humanity in the latter. The classic view posits tha ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Mar 12, 2019 Ispeakinglish added it · review of another edition

I mean this isn't light reading or anything, but it is a good explanation of the history of the theology of Atonement. ...more

flag 1 like · Like · see review

Apr 25, 2018 Chungsoo Lee rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: christianity

2000 years of theological history in 162 pages--this alone is quite an accomplishment. But after all these years, do we really understand the meaning of the Cross or have we exhausted all of its meaning? Aulén is a great thinker of categories. He is able to see through the complex, symbolic, and loose language of theologians (both ancient and modern) and categorize and trace the theme of atonement into three groups: the "classical," the Latin, and the "subjective." The progression of these three 2000 years of theological history in 162 pages--this alone is quite an accomplishment. But after all these years, do we really understand the meaning of the Cross or have we exhausted all of its meaning? Aulén is a great thinker of categories. He is able to see through the complex, symbolic, and loose language of theologians (both ancient and modern) and categorize and trace the theme of atonement into three groups: the "classical," the Latin, and the "subjective." The progression of these three groups or categories roughly align chronologically with the exception of Luther, who, according to Aulén, returns to the classical view of atonement proposed by the early church (Greek) Fathers, starting with Irenaeus. Another exception to this linear progression is Tertullian, who along with Gregory the Great, started the motif of the judicial or legalistic view of atonement, which was later picked up and fully developed by Anselm of Canterbury, thus consolidating the view for the whole medieval period. The judicial view is later further rationalized by the Protestant Orthodox, including Calvin (despite their protest against the medieval Catholicism). The subjective view of atonement is championed by Schleiermacher in the 19th century and, wittingly or not, still dominates to the present day, including the American Evangelicals such as Billy Graham.

The book is subtitled: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement. It comprises of Aulén's 1930 lectures he delivered at University of Lund, Sweden, where he taught as Professor of Systematic Theology. His contemporary Karl Barth is briefly mentioned at the end as a dialectical theologian but is not categorized in any of the three groups. After all, Barth had completely revised his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which was published in 1922 (the second edition); and his work on the Church Dogmatics only began sometime between 1930-35 at Bonn where he held a short tenure as Professor of Systematic Theology before taking a post in Basel, Switzerland.

The book's title, Christus Victor, represents the "classical" view of atonement Aulén champions. The idea is that Christ, the second Adam, defeated the power of sin and death that subjugated humanity ever since the first Adam. Adam fell at the forbidden tree; and creation was lost as result. But Christ conquered death on the cross, rescuing humanity from the bondage of evil and thus restoring creation back to life and reconciling humanity to God. The key that Aulén emphasizes is that God himself reconciles humanity and creation back to himself and that He is both reconciler and the reconciled: "He is reconciled by the very act in which He reconciles the world to Himself" (5). Atonement is an act of God offered to human, not human offering it to God, through which God reconciles the world to Himself. Just like Abraham sacrificing his own son, Isaac, God himself sacrifices Himself in his Son, to reconcile Himself with humanity: "... in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). This idea is traced back to Irenaeus, who wrote:

Man had been created by God that he might have life. If now, having lost life, and having been harmed by the serpent, he were not to return to life, but were to be wholly abandoned to death, then God would have been defeated, ad the malice of the serpent would have overcome God's will. But since God is both invincible and magnanimous, He showed His magnanimity in correcting man, and in proving all men, as we have said; but through the Second Man He bound the strong one, and spoiled his goods, and annihilated death, bringing life to man who had become subject to death. For Adam had become the devil's possession, and the devil held him under his power, by having wrongfully practised deceit upon him, and by the offer of immortality made him subject to death. For by promising that they should be as gods, which did not lie in his power, he worked death in them. Wherefore he who had taken man captive was himself taken captive by God, and man who had been taken captive was set from the bondage of condemnation" (as quoted on 9-10).

Irenaeus wrote:

God recapitulated in Himself the ancient formation of man, that He might kill sin, deprive death of its power, and vivify man” (Against Heresies, ed. Paul A. Böer, Sr., (Veritatis Splendor Pub., 2012), III, XVIII, 7, p. 273).

For Irenaeus, ‘recapitulation’ means Christ gathering up the old humanity in order to ‘recapitulate’ or ‘sum up’ (by way of repetition as done in a rhetorical summation) the humanity into a new and complete formation. See below:

He was not to be born but that, according to the promise of God, from David’s belly the King eternal is raised up, who sums up all things in Himself, and has gathered into Himself the ancient formation [of man] (Id., III, XXI, 9, p. 283).

Or,

… it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul ‘the figure of Him that was to come,’ because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God; God having predestined that the first man should be of all animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One (Id., III, XXII, 3, p. 285).

The Incarnation is part of God's atoning work. He must become man to rescue man from the bondage of the evil. "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death," the Eastern Orthodox Easter hymns goes. By death death is conquered. By the Second Adam's obedience the first Adam's fall is corrected. Salvation is effectuated by "recapitulation," where the fallen or lost creation (to the devil) is restored and perfected. (The Hebrew word "tikkun olam," repairing the world, has the same idea, except that there is no 'fall' in the Hebrew conception of redemption and that we are the co-creators with God in the ongoing creation of the world, as in the prayer of blessing that endows God's creative power in the creaturely beings.) If Christ's death on the cross defeats the power of death, His resurrection perfects the creation through the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the entire life of Christ--from his birth to death and through resurrection and ascension--is the work of atonement through which God reconciles himself with the redeemed world.

The classical view of atonement is sometimes referred to as the "ransom" theory, because Christ's life is offered as "a ransom for many," as Mark 10:45 says. Then, the absurd question arises: who is paying whom? Such a question distorts the classical view. The idea of purchase at a price is foreign to the classical view held by the Greek Fathers. Christ is not paying the devil; rather, He is claiming back the world away from the bondage of sin and death. Christ is victorious; and the satan is defeated. However, the dualism implied in this ransom theory is not a metaphysical dualism (such as Infinite and finite or spirit and matter) or absolute dualism (such as Good and Evil as in Zoroastrianism or Manicheanism). Aulén cautions the readers:

[Dualism] is used in the sense in which the idea constantly occurs in Scripture, of the opposition between God and that which in His own created world resists His will; between the Divine Love and the rebellion of created wills against Him. This Dualism is an altogether radical opposition, but it is not an absolute Dualism; for in the scriptural view evil has not an eternal existence (5, n.).

Luther is a master of juxtaposing the opposites: between God's Love and Justice, God Wrath and Mercy, Freedom and Bondage, the Law and faith, etc.--the rhetorical skill that he employes to retrieve the forgotten classical view of atonement that the Greek Fathers, whom he read and frequently quoted, held. For example, Luther wrote:

What is it now to be a 'Lord'? It is this, that He has redeemed me from sin, from the devil, from death and all oe. For before, I had not yet had any Lord, nor King, but had been held captive under the devil's power, doomed to death, ensnared in sin and blindness... Now, therefore, those tyrants and gaolers are all crushed, and in their place is come Jesus Christ, a Lord of Life, righteousness, all good and holiness, and He has snatched us poor lost men from the jaws of hell, won us, made us free, and brought us back to the Father's goodness and grace (quoted on 105).

In summarizing Luther's view of atonement, Aulén makes the following two observations:

First, that we are again listening to the classic idea of the Atonement--indeed, we get the impression that it is being presented with a greater intensity and power than ever before; and, second, that the dramatic view of the work of Christ, which Luther so emphatically expresses, is organically and inseparably connected with his doctrine of Justification. That we are justified through Christ is, he says, one and the same thing as to say that He is the conqueror of sin, death, and the everlasting curse (107).

Irenaeus and Luther's view of atonement is to be contrasted with Anselm's view, which Aulén labels the "classical" view. It is a familiar idea we hear in Protestant churches. Aulén summarizes:

Men are not able to make the necessary satisfaction, because they are all sinful.
If men cannot do it, then God must do it. But, on the other hand, the satisfaction must be made by man, because man is guilty. The only solution is that God becomes man; this is the answer to the question Cur Deus homo? [which is his book title ("Why God-man?")] (86)

Aulén emphasizes, "the whole structure [of the argument] is built on the basis of the penitential system" (86). Someone must pay the wages of sin. Since man sinned, man must pay it. But no man can pay because no man can carry the weight of sin of the entire humanity. Thus God becomes a man and offers himself to propitiate for human sin. The Reformers later rationalized further and reduced the Latin or judicial theory of atonement almost to a science. Crucial to Aulén is the shift of the work of atonement as from God's action to human action. It is humanity in Christ that atones for sin. Christ's sacrifice is the penance offered to God for human sin: "... it is absolutely necessary that satisfaction be made by man to God's justice" (89). The Latin view also isolates Christ death from the rest of his life as the atoning work. The Incarnation or resurrection does not figure into the work of salvation. In short, "[t]he relation of man to God is treated by Anselm as essentially a legal relation, for his whole effort is to prove that the atoning work is in accordance with justice" (90). The Latin view was held by the later medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and is dominant in Catholic theology, as is expressed in the Mass. It was still later developed into a tight rationalistic system by the 18th century Protestants (132).

The "subjective" view of atonement has its origin in Pietism that emphasized the idea of New Birth (Wiedergeburt or born again) rather than justification (134). Thus, the atonement became a matter of subjective process. In the 19th century, Schleiermacher championed this view. As Aulén summarizes:

Atonement, or Reconciliation, becomes essentially a sense of being at home in the cosmos, gained through the uplift of the soul, or a new attitude to life, characterised by harmony with the universe. Man comes to understand that all things are dependent on God, and, therefore, that which seems to disturb the harmony of things does so only in appearance (137).

The work of salvation thus rest entirely on man. In 1906 the Swedish Archbishop Ekman proposed, as Aulén quotes:

...'it is simply the conversion of men that effects the Atonement;' hence 'God gives up His displeasure against a man, and reverses His sentence of judgment, when the man confesses his sin and asks for pardon, recognizes that he has rightly deserved to suffer for his sin, and earnestly applies himself to do God's will' (140).

Billy Graham falls squarely within this "subjective" view of atonement with his emphasis on the conversion that he seeks to bring about by his famous 'altar calls.' Salvation is entirely a matter of subjective conversion that must be renewed and re-affirmed and thus creating perpetual insecurity with regards to one's assurance of salvation. One can never be sure of his salvation because it is entirely dependent on human's subjective or psychological process: "... the extent to which 'atonement' is effected depends upon that which is done in and by men, on their penitence, their conversion; therefore God's attitude to men is really made to depend on men's attitude to God" (142).

What is surprising about Aulén's swift survey of the theological history of the concept of atonement is the complete silence on Paul's account of Christ's kenosis (emptiness) in humility (Phil. 2:6-8), which is preached and practiced by Jesus himself. If the Incarnation is a vital part of Christ atonement, as Irenaeus shows in the "classical" view, why is this passage entirely missing in any of the accounts of atonement, especially in the "classical" view? In fact, this passage specifically describes how Christ descends and becomes the atoning sacrifice for humanity--by "taking the form of a slave, [and] being born in human likeness" (Phil. 2:7). God's descent to becoming a man and ultimately dying for humanity is the way of humility, Christ's act of emptying himself "to the point of death ... on the cross" (Phil. 2:8). The atoning sacrifice is the ultimate expression of God's humility. God dies on the cross for humanity: "Behold the Lamb of God" (John 1:36). But atoning sacrifice preceded human civilization, as God killed an animal to clothe Adam and Eve before the exile (Gen. 3:21). There, too, it is God who offers the sacrifice (to Himself). Is not "'being able to die' subject to sacrifice" the birth of human subject prior to, beyond, or otherwise than being? (Levinas, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 128). Did not Christ come to fulfill the Law by becoming a burnt offering himself, as prescribed in Leviticus (chapters 1 and 4)? The notion of the substitutional atonement as the substitutional subject or as "one-for-the-other" must be revisited apart from the Latin view of Anselm and of the Protestant Orthodox. It stands all by itself outside the above three categories Aulén skillfully surveyed: substitution as atonement that recapitulates. Or, Levinas' ethics of substitution may contribute toward the Christian theory of atonement by merging the "classical" theory of recapitulation with the idea of sacrifice. This is possible if Levinas's ethics is understood in terms of the Jewish theology of 'tikkun olam,' 'to repair the world.' In taking up and recapitulating the world, did not Christ repair the broken world? In participating in His death and resurrection, are we not called to do the same? ...more

flag Like · see review

Sep 20, 2019 Lee Irons rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: read-2014

I’m sure you’ve noticed the rising popularity of the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. It is has always been the standard view in Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is making inroads in Mennonite circles and in the left wing of the evangelical movement who are trying to develop non-penal and non-violent ways of understanding the atonement. N. T. Wright holds to his own particular version of it. So I decided I really needed to read this book for myself.

Swedish theologian Gustav Aulén (1879–1977) wr I’m sure you’ve noticed the rising popularity of the Christus Victor theory of the atonement. It is has always been the standard view in Eastern Orthodoxy, but it is making inroads in Mennonite circles and in the left wing of the evangelical movement who are trying to develop non-penal and non-violent ways of understanding the atonement. N. T. Wright holds to his own particular version of it. So I decided I really needed to read this book for myself.

Swedish theologian Gustav Aulén (1879–1977) wrote this hugely influential book in 1930, and it appeared in English translation the next year. His main claim in a nutshell is that there are three main ideas of the atonement in the history of Christian theology: (1) the classic idea (not theory) of the atonement (= Christus Victor), (2) the satisfaction doctrine of the atonement, and (3) the subjective moral influence theory.

He sees the New Testament and the church fathers from Irenaeus onward as strongly embracing the classic idea, that is, the emphasis on the victory of Christ over the devil. The context of this view is the apocalyptic conflict between God and the devil over the fate of humanity. God rescues humanity through the instrument of the divine Son who took on flesh in order to “bait” Satan and defeat him. The humanity of Christ was the bait, but the divine nature of Christ was the hook hidden beneath by which he tricked Satan, thus freeing humanity from the grip of sin and death. The descent of Christ into hell (or Hades) between his death and resurrection is of critical significance, since this is the moment when the hook took effect. Satan took the bait and caused the death of Christ, but once dead, the divine Son still hypostatically united to his human soul, stormed the devil’s fortress (hell or Hades). Then on the third day, he burst through the doors of the devil’s shattered fortress, thereby releasing humanity from the devil’s power. (Of course, Aulén makes clear, we don’t need to take these crude images literally.) On the classic idea, then, the deity of Christ and his resurrection are the key to his gaining the victory over Satan. His death in his human nature only provides the bait that makes the victory possible.

Aulén’s sympathies clearly lie with the classic idea of the atonement. He spends a whole chapter arguing that Luther’s writings are filled with Christus Victor motifs, and he charges Luther’s successors (Melanchthon and the Protestant scholastics) with engaging in a deliberate cover-up, even tampering with the text of his writings, in an attempt to hide Luther’s true teaching on the atonement. His claim is that we need to get back to the classic idea, and he seems to be suggesting that we can do so through a theological retrieval of the authentic views of Luther, an argument that may have had some appeal in his Swedish Lutheran church context.

Turning now to the satisfaction theory, Aulén traces its origins to Tertullian’s legal mind and his concept of penance as a satisfaction for sins. But this theory really gets a hold of the Western Latin-speaking church through Anselm in his treatise Cur Deus Homo? (written in the late 1090s). The concept of the divine moral law is the backbone of this view. Humanity has violated God’s law and deserves to be punished. Therefore Christ becomes a man in order to suffer the punishment demanded by the law and satisfy the distributive justice of God (which Aulén calls a “chilly juridical term”). On this view, the humanity of Christ is more important than the deity of Christ, and the death of Christ plays a more important role than his resurrection.

The subjective moral influence theory can be traced back to Abelard, but its greatest exponents are Schleiermacher and Ritschl in the 19th century. The essence of their view of the atonement is that humanity’s problem is neither bondage to the devil, nor the violation of God’s moral law, but humanity’s misunderstanding of God’s essential character as a God of pure love. Sin is essentially mistrust, doubting God’s love. But when we behold Jesus going to the cross out of love for us, it reveals God’s love, melts our heart, dissipates our misapprehensions of God’s true nature based on fear and distrust, and makes us turn back to God to be reconciled to him.

I appreciate Aulén for reminding us of a neglected theme in the doctrine of the atonement – the theme of Christ’s victory over Satan through his death, descent into Hades, and resurrection. It is surely a biblical theme. However, I think it is unfortunate that his historical analysis sets the classic idea and the satisfaction doctrine in such polarity against one another as if they were irreconcilable. But they belong together and are perfectly compatible with one another. Is not the satisfaction of divine justice the legal ground of Christ’s victory over the devil? This is argued well by Jeremy Treat in The Crucified King: Atonement and Kingdom in Biblical and Systematic Theology, Chapter 8, “Atonement: Reconciling Christus Victor and Penal Substitution.” ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 14, 2017 Mark rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, religion

My whole life as a Christian, I have struggled with the central story of the faith: Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. More specifically, I have been bothered by the idea of the atonement as I learned it: that God demanded a perfect sacrifice to forgive humankind of its sins, and so God insisted God's own child die to serve as that sacrifice.

Reading Gustaf Aulen's classic 1930 study of the atonement, I learned that if I had grown up in the 1800s during the heyday of liberal Christianity, I mig My whole life as a Christian, I have struggled with the central story of the faith: Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. More specifically, I have been bothered by the idea of the atonement as I learned it: that God demanded a perfect sacrifice to forgive humankind of its sins, and so God insisted God's own child die to serve as that sacrifice.

Reading Gustaf Aulen's classic 1930 study of the atonement, I learned that if I had grown up in the 1800s during the heyday of liberal Christianity, I might have embraced the "subjective" view of the atonement: that God did not want to punish humans for their sinfulness, but wanted to demonstrate God's love for them so much that God's son was put on Earth to serve as a model and inspiration for how to live a blessed life with God.

Aulen himself does not like this view, because it seems to make the death and resurrection of Jesus somewhat pointless. But he also does not like what he calls the predominant "Latin" view of the atonement -- the one I was raised with -- described by Anselm and others and embraced later by orthodox Protestants, that humankind's sinfulness and God's sense of justice demanded that the perfect man -- Jesus -- be put to death to "satisfy" God's justice.

Instead, he promotes what he says was the prevailing view of the atonement for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. In this "classic" view, Jesus came to Earth to free us from our bondage to sin, death and the Devil, and his crucifixion and return to life were a victorious conquering of our slavery to death and sin. In that view, God is somewhat schizoid, because God loves humans but also condemns them for their waywardness, and the crucifixion and atonement are ways God has of being both the enactor and recipient of God's grace.

This book was based on a series of lectures, and perhaps for that reason, it contains a fair amount of repetition and isn't always the easiest going to read -- so you can use this summary as your Cliff Notes and save yourself the aggravation.

In the end, I found there was much to like in the classic view of Christianity, and as someone who was raised Lutheran, I found his defense of Luther as an advocate for the earlier view to be enlightening.

...more

flag Like · see review

Mar 29, 2018 Eli rated it really liked it · review of another edition

After reading this book I am even more committed to the Anselmian view of the atonement. However, Aulén makes many important points that ought to bring greater clarity and precision to anyone’s understanding of the atonement. All Christian preaching of the atonement truly should be Christus Victor, should sound the battle cry of victory. It should hold the dualism of the Bible in tension with the sovereignty of God, and not allow one side to swallow up the other. Anyone who wants to think about ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 26, 2019 Austin Mathews rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: ministry-bookshelf

It's not difficult to see why Aulén's historical overview of atonement theory was groundbreaking in the early 1930s: it rejects the losing battle fought between legalistic Orthodoxy and subjective Liberalism, looking again into the church Fathers, Luther, and the New Testament itself to reveal a forgotten and viable "classic" idea of atonement. Christ is the victor over sin, death, and the devil. God is the active agent of reconciliation (at-one-ment) in creation, destroying the enemies of his L ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 17, 2019 Chris Little added it

This is a very influential study of the atonement that I haven't read since theological college. Aulén claims that his aim throughout was 'an historical, not an apologetic' one but that's hard to believe. He's really positive about Luther (not Lutherism, so much) and the 'classic' idea of the atonement, but not so positive about the so-called Latin and subjective views.

Rather than a review, here are some of my reactions to the book.
* Aulén presents the three positions as choices or alternative ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 27, 2020 Josh Maynard rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

A couple years ago I rejected Calvisnism for the false gospel that it is. In debates with Calvinists I kept coming up against the famous (and notably based on logic instead of scripture) challenge to a Universal Atonement. I will paraphrase it like this: If all are atoned for, then why aren't all saved? The obvious answer is that the Calvinist understanding of the atonement is lacking. Without PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) I was left to wonder if in my understanding of the atonement, I w ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 14, 2020 Blake Holbrook rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Shelves: all-time-favorites

This is the most important book I have ever read.

Our understanding of God shapes how we live our lives. Our understanding of God is most influenced by how we understand and interpret what happened on the cross.

Aulén writes about the classic understanding of the atonement which is the understanding of the early church fathers like Iraneous, Gregory of Nyssa, and others. This classic understanding is most clearly seen in Luther's writings.

Aulén compares this classic understanding of the atonemen ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 31, 2019 Ben Williams rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: christian-theology

Thorough and Accessible

I appreciated the author's attention to detail while not getting lost in minutiae that would have obscured the discussion. In general, I found this book to be incredibly accessible while also exceptionally thought provoking. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in understanding the historical development of the Christus Victor model. ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 31, 2019 Ben Williams rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Thorough and Accessible

I appreciated the author's attention to detail while not getting lost in minutiae that would have obscured the discussion. In general, I found this book to be incredibly accessible while also exceptionally thought provoking. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in understanding the historical development of the Christus Victor model. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 06, 2017 Alex rated it really liked it · review of another edition

A thought-provoking read which does expose the distinction between Luther's understanding of the atonement and the other common understandings. It seems to have a few holes, here and there, but still well done and enjoyable. ...more

flag Like · see review

Feb 08, 2020 Phillip Mast rated it liked it · review of another edition

Informative But very dry

If your a very dedicated theology nerd this might be a good read for you. Most people will find the language to be tedious though even if they like the subject.

flag Like · see review

Dec 31, 2018 Katie rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

A theological classic and a must-read.

flag Like · see review

Jan 13, 2020 Thomas Creedy rated it liked it · review of another edition

I mean, it's fine, but hardly a classic.

Seriously, though, an interesting read with some enduring nuggets. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jan 13, 2020 Nicholas Vara rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Probably the most consequential book I've ever read. ...more

flag Like · see review

Apr 26, 2020 Hunter T Barnes rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Showing that the gospel is better than we think!

This book has reaffirmed what my soul was whispering all along, that the gospel is far better than we think.

flag Like · see review

Jul 06, 2020 Jonathan Latshaw rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Helpful

flag Like · see review

Mar 04, 2016 Graham Heslop rated it liked it · review of another edition

The synopsis of this work provided by Goodreads is adequate, so I needn't provide an outline of Aulén's work. I also realise that my low rating is insignificant, since this work is undoubtedly seminal. In fact, I really hope to properly review it and engage with some of the ideas elsewhere. But for now, and here, I will merely outline a few of the weaknesses I perceived in the argument, in no specific order:

(1) In his treatment of Luther, which is prefaced by the point that the German Reformer's The synopsis of this work provided by Goodreads is adequate, so I needn't provide an outline of Aulén's work. I also realise that my low rating is insignificant, since this work is undoubtedly seminal. In fact, I really hope to properly review it and engage with some of the ideas elsewhere. But for now, and here, I will merely outline a few of the weaknesses I perceived in the argument, in no specific order:

(1) In his treatment of Luther, which is prefaced by the point that the German Reformer's subscription to the Classical view is interwoven with his emphasis on justification, Aulén entirely fails to treat Luther's view of justification (that is, the imputed righteousness of Christ attained through faith). This is no minor quibble, for a denial of the Latin view of atonement by conclusion threatens the Reformed touchstone of sola fidei.

(2) I appreciated the historiographical point that in order to understand a text (in this case, the New Testament) one must study its interpretation by the following generations that subscribed to it. But that is no excuse for smoothing over the primary text by importing a thesis garnered from the secondary ones. (It is worth adding that Aulén is guilty of something similar in his reading of Luther; he uses a tenuously developed theme as the interpretive key to all of Luther's writing.) Aulén simply does not provide exegetical proof for his conclusion that the New Testament contained the resources that were refined by the Apostolic Fathers into the Classical view.

(3) As a product of his environment Aulén is unfortunately dismissive of the Old Testament law, reducing it at points to nothing more than impotent manmade religion and forgetting that the law has always possessed an important place in Christian life and theology, which extends beyond it being a tyrant to be overthrown. Aulén introduces a tension, one he believes only the Classical view resolves, between Divine love and the law. He then makes love the ruling factor while simultaneously dismissing law as being too rationalistic.

(4) Central to his his thesis is the idea that the Classical view (most clearly seen in Irenaeus, of the Apostolic Fathers) was supplanted in the medieval period and rediscovered or repurposed by Luther over a millennium later. What I found quite ironic at this point was that the dualistic language of the Fathers posited three enemies - sin, Satan, and death - whereas Luther provided five, adding wrath and law. The strength of Aulén's argument and tension (above) he believes only the Classical view resolves hinges on the law, an enemy that was only truly considered and unpacked centuries after the Classical view was held.

(5) Lastly, and I imagine this point is one that entire books have been written about, the important conjunction between incarnation and atonement does not necessarily only hold in the Classical view. Though this point rests on the perhaps overemphasised distinction between God's work from above versus that from below, I am convinced that the Latin view of the atonement does not inevitable conclude with satisfaction being the work of man offered to God. That is to disfigure it so that it fits with the categories of the Classical view.

That's enough for now. I thoroughly enjoyed Aulén's style (excellently structured to help the reader, summaries provided on each key point, and simplistic presentation). His treatment of Christian history is insightful and there is no doubt he knowledge of it and the significant contributors is brilliantly broad. He demonstrates good theological praxis in setting out the arguments of others and enumeration as well as then developing his criticisms. Aulén provides some important criticisms of the standard Protestant position on the atonement (the Latin view) that need to be answered, while he rightly ameliorates the subjective view. Finally, there are too many excellent asides and thoughtful supporting points made to mention. This work is one worth numerous revisits and serious engagement. ...more

flag Like · see review

Oct 26, 2019 Anthony Locke rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: thm-reading, 2019

Read this for a paper/presentation for my Atonement seminar. Aulen's arguments are certainly interesting and thought provoking, particularly from a historical theology perspective. I do think he divides what should be joined together - the classic view (Christs Victor) and the Latin view (essentially penal substitutionary atonement). Definitely brings some interesting critique on the Latin and subjective positions. I also wish he argued more from the Scriptures. ...more

flag Like · see review

Dec 12, 2010 Erik Graff rated it liked it · review of another edition

Recommends it for: Christians

Recommended to Erik by: David Lotz

Shelves: religion

I obtained this book in New York. It was probably assigned for a church history course at seminary, but whether it was for the Ancient class or the Medieval one I no longer recall. Being relatively short, odds are we read it between two class sessions as a supplement to the primary source materials covered.

Christian soteriological theology has generally perplexed me. Both the ransom and the satisfaction theories strike me as psychotic, what with their personifications of good and evil, notions o I obtained this book in New York. It was probably assigned for a church history course at seminary, but whether it was for the Ancient class or the Medieval one I no longer recall. Being relatively short, odds are we read it between two class sessions as a supplement to the primary source materials covered.

Christian soteriological theology has generally perplexed me. Both the ransom and the satisfaction theories strike me as psychotic, what with their personifications of good and evil, notions of perdurant individuality and general metaphysical conceit. The theory of Abelard alone strikes some chord, but then Abelard generally seems more modern than traditional.

I don't have too much trouble with the ethical premise that we are, by nature, sinful when "sin" is understood in the loosest sense of the Greek word it translates to mean "falling short of the mark." We are, I am certainly imperfect and, as Abelard suggests, the act of imagining the hypostatic ideal of perfection in the person of Christ Jesus (or Gautama Buddha for that matter) would seem to be a salutory exercise. But that, obviously, doesn't complete the job promised by the two older ideas, it just points one in a good direction.

To understand the older notions one might consider the sociological bases of them. Two factors pop up immediately, namely, kingship and slavery. Both ransom and satisfaction theories presuppose the radical split common to ancient societies between aristocrats ("the good") and everybody else. The "saved" are like the companions of the absolute monarch, at one with his judgments and protected under his aegis--perfect servants as it were. Everybody else is suspect (as they might be suspicious of the whole arrangement). That metaphor works so far as it goes, but it doesn't explain the metaphysics of it all unless that kind of intellectual absolutism is simply reconsidered to be akin to a surrender of critical thinking entirely. We do that all the time even though it's not currently fashionable to admit to it. For instance: the American adoration of the Constitution, the whole host of culturally normative taboos, nationalism etc. Still, it's hard to believe that educated persons, ancient or medieval, could buy into the mythology of metaphysics. It's hard not to believe that they were pushing one absolutistic mythology, the one they or their patrons would benefit most from, against all opposition, exercising the same kind of zealous bad faith one finds on the Fox Network today. ...more

flag Like · see review

Jun 26, 2016 Curtis rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

This was a fantastic read! Aulén provides a different historical exploration of the development of atonement theory in contrast to what had been the standard to that point (written in the early 20th century) in academic thought. Starting with Irenaeus (early 2nd century) as one of the earliest and clearest examples of the 'classic idea' ("The Word of God, who is God Himself, has entered in under the conditions of sin and death, to take up the conflict with the powers of evil and carry it through This was a fantastic read! Aulén provides a different historical exploration of the development of atonement theory in contrast to what had been the standard to that point (written in the early 20th century) in academic thought. Starting with Irenaeus (early 2nd century) as one of the earliest and clearest examples of the 'classic idea' ("The Word of God, who is God Himself, has entered in under the conditions of sin and death, to take up the conflict with the powers of evil and carry it through to the decisive victory." p. 32) the author then works backwards to show the continuity of the early Church fathers' thoughts with those of the apostles. From there Aulén works forward through the Middle Ages (Tertullian and Cyprian) to Anselm who provided the clearest development of the 'Latin doctrine'. The Latin doctrine began from a very different starting point in understanding the work of Christ, namely the penitential system ("It's root idea is that man must make an offering or payment to satisfy God's justice; this is the idea that is used to explain the work of Christ." p. 82). Being the most 'rational theory' to date many historians took Anselm's to be the summation of early church thought and begin most studies here. Aulén then goes on to explore Luther in order to show how strongly Luther's thought was grounded in the 'classic idea' and how much further it was developed within his writings. Unfortunately those who came after Luther reverted back to the Latin doctrine and developed it even further until it became the 'orthodox' position of the Protestant movement. So much so that all other theories became reactions against this Latin type with the classic idea being largely forgotten.

Although written almost a century ago this work provided such a wonderful overview of the classic idea of the atonement that I was thrilled in the discoveries being made along the way. Irenaeus has become a hero and I look forward to further reading along the lines of the classic idea. I've grown up with penal substitionary atonement being the only way of understanding the work of Christ and have now found much more depth and beauty in this classic idea. A highly recommended read. ...more

flag Like · see review

May 01, 2012 Patrick Williams rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

GREAT BOOK! Written in German from lectures Gustaf Aulen presented in the early 1900's. Gustaf was a professor at a college in Switzerland and taught historical dogma (doctrine). This book explores what the earliest church's model of the atonement was - which was the "Chrisus Victor" or "the Classic Model" (as Gustaf called it. It is also known as the "ransom theory"). The Christus Victor model shows that Christ battled for us against the destructive powers that had us in their bondage (death, s ...more

flag Like · see review

Nov 03, 2015 Harman rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Gustav provides what, in his time, was a groundbreaking theological resurrection of what he calls the 'classic' view of the atonement - that is, the view held by the Church Fathers and, as he argues, the Apostles. His argument from the Fathers (particularly of Sts. Irenaeus, Gregorys Nyssen, Nazianzen and the Great, and Athanasius) is solid and nigh unassailable, though the exegetical and biblical substance of his argument is less than convincing. I believe this is primarily due to an inconsiste ...more

flag Like · see review