In Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, Gustaf Aulén sets forth Irenaeus as an early champion of Christ as victor over sin, the death, and the devil as a construction of the doctrine of the atonement devoid of penal substitution. His interpretation of Irenaeus burst upon the continental scene in 1931 and crossed into English-speaking discussion thereafter. To give a hint at his significance for modern approaches to the doctrine of the atonement, between 1969 and 1979 Macmillan Publishing went through 7 editions in trade paperback form. My interest in Aulen’s approach to the atonement rises primarily in his interpretation of Irenaeus that claims to be the proper historical doctrine of the atonement. So did Aulen get Irenaeus right? (more…)

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? (more…)