In quite a bit of modern discussion (for example, the early 20th century piece - Aulen’s thought provoking Christus Victor - a terrible “historical survey” with a theological agenda!) it is common to segregate strands of atonement thought and maintain that the viewpoints are incompatible. Aulen’s contribution to the discussion is that he is the first in the modern period to raise the Christus Victor issue, and is therefore a great foil to get into the material from the patristic period onward. In Aulen’s work, we find that a Christus Victor theory is pitted against penal substitution and also the moral example theory. I could have addressed his version of the East/West tensions, 19th/20th century conservative/liberal issues, but I think since there is a more basic way to treat the work historiographically, his problematic expression of these other points are subsidiary to his main thesis. Basically, Aulen wants to maintain that there is an incompatibility between atonement theories - so a penal substitution cannot coexist simultaneously with Christ as victor over sin, death, and the devil, or as an example of love as well. Is he right?

So, for kicks and giggles, let’s see if we can find just one example of a significant western Latin theologian that incorporates quite a few strands of atonement theory coherently. Since this isn’t an article or dissertation or anything remotely approaching something so lengthy, I think one summary statement from a major Western Latin theologian should suffice.

Here is section 108 of what is commonly called The Enchiridion, but is more specifically Augustine’s work called On Faith, Hope, and Love:

108. Now, we could not be redeemed, even through “the one Mediator between God and man, Man himself, Christ Jesus,” (I Tim. 2:5) if he were not also God. For when Adam was made—being made an upright man—there was no need for a mediator. Once sin, however, had widely separated the human race from God, it was necessary for a mediator, who alone was born, lived, and was put to death without sin, to reconcile us to God, and provide even for our bodies a resurrection to life eternal—and all this in order that man’s pride might be exposed and healed through God’s humility. Thus it might be shown man how far he had departed from God, when by the incarnate God he is recalled to God; that man in his contumacy might be furnished an example of obedience by the God-Man; that the fount of grace might be opened up; that even the resurrection of the body—itself promised to the redeemed—might be previewed in the resurrection of the Redeemer himself; that the devil might be vanquished by that very nature he was rejoicing over having deceived—all this, however, without giving man ground for glory in himself, lest pride spring up anew. And if there are other advantages accruing from so great a mystery of the [person of the] Mediator, which those who profit from them can see or testify—even if they cannot be described—let them be added to this list.

So Augustine’s brief statement here of the atonement has (1) a sinless substitutionary God-Man, (in some sense, a necessity - we will table the question of whether it is an absolute/simple necessity or a consequent necessity in Augstine’s thought for the time being), (2) a moral example of obedience, (3) Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection is in some sense necessary for the healing of our bodies as well as our souls, and (4) a vanquishing of the devil, and (5) any other helpful (read - exegetically sustained) ways of explaining the atonement added to this list.

 Aulen’s thesis falls apart with quotes like this (and perhaps! several subsequent attempts to revise/reinterpret the Latin West and its theological descendants). This is just one brief, concise example from Augustine (among others, which can be multiplied among other theologians and will be D.V. over the next few posts!) that the atonement theology of the Latin West did incorporate all of those strands that Aulen tries to separate and pit one against the other in a complementary fashion early on.

Sources:

The textual basis for my revision of the English translation of this portion of De Fide, Spe, et Charitate is from Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol 40, coll 0282-0283.

Caput CVIII: Ex Deo salus nostra, ita ut nec per Christum liberaremur, si non esset Deus. Nam neque per ipsum liberaremur unum Mediatorem Dei et hominum hominem Jesum Christum (I Tim. II, 5), nisi esset et Deus. Sed cum factus est Adam, homo scilicet rectus, mediatore non opus erat . Cum vero

[Col. 0283] genus humanum peccata longe separaverunt a Deo, per Mediatorem, qui solus sine peccato natus est, vixit, occisus est, reconciliari nos oportebat Deo usque ad carnis resurrectionem in vitam aeternam: ut humana superbia per humilitatem Dei argueretur ac sanaretur, et demonstraretur homini quam longe a Deo recesserat, cum per incarnatum Deum revocaretur, et exemplum obedientiae per hominem Deum contumaci homini praeberetur; et Unigenito suscipiente formam servi, quae nihil ante meruerat, fons gratiae panderetur; et carnis etiam resurrectio redemptis promissa in ipso Redemptore praemonstraretur; et per eamdem naturam quam se decepisse laetabatur, diabolus vinceretur; nec tamen homo gloriaretur, ne iterum superbia nasceretur: et si quid aliud de tanto Mediatoris sacramento a proficientibus videri et dici potest, aut tantum videri, etiamsi dici non potest.

The English translation of this portion, is from Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love trans. by A. Outler, Ch. 28, sec 108.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 7:15 am and is filed under Atonement, Patristics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.