Christus Victor And The Penal Substitution Theory Of The Atonement

John Wesley once said, “Nothing in the Christian system is of greater consequence than the doctrine of the atonement” (9). Thus, it is no surprise that the doctrine of the atonement has created debate among theologians seeking to identify the most suitable theory in understanding the heart of the saving work of Christ. The atonement means, “reconciliation, in this case between God and humans. It comes from a Middle English word, at-one-ment, which means “harmony”- literally, the state of one thing being “at one” with another” (Beilby 9). When thinking about the various theories of atonement, one may ask: Is the cross more for reconciling God’s wrath to humanity or for reconciling enslaved humanity to God? When comparing and contrasting the details of the Christus Victor and the Penal Substitution theories of the atonement, a major difference at the heart of the debate is whether or not Christ needed to die primarily to be an expiation, the Christus Victor model, or a propitiation, the Penal Substitution model. In other words, the two theological groups disagree on the

Galatians 3:10 shows that God’s curse is upon anyone who fails to follow his law entirely, and as previously mentioned, it is recognized that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory. Three verses later it says, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13). Thus, Christ took the curse that we deserved upon himself and freed us from it. He paid our penalty. Christ died as a substitute in our place so that God’s forgiveness could be received. J.G. Simpson describes Christ as our substitute when he says, “He is our substitute, not because His goodness is accepted instead of ours, nor because His virtues excuse our vices, but because He establishes those personal relations with God which are the antecedent condition of holiness”