Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
The speaker argues that it’s not “either/or” between Christus Victor and penal substitution, citing N.T. Wright’s later reflection that “many people have thought… we mustn’t believe in Christus Victor. That’s completely wrong.” What concrete theological losses happen when you force an either/or, and what risks (or confusions) arise when you try to hold “both”?
Another way to ask: What do we lose if we say it has to be either Christus Victor or penal substitution? What new problems might happen if we try to believe both at the same time?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
In the speaker’s view, forcing an either/or causes reductionism: you either lose the “victory over evil” emphasis or you lose the “Christ died for our sins/penalty/curse” emphasis, and both losses distort worship and salvation. Holding “both” can feel confusing because the models use different images (courtroom, battle, ransom), but the speaker says the early church often held these together without modern “silos.”
- N.T. Wright clip: Aulén created “an either/or… That’s completely wrong.”
- Speaker: “I am not arguing for an exclusive penal substitutionary view… I’m a Christus Victor man.”
- He warns against losing CV: if someone said “we have to get rid of Christus Victor language,” he’d be “upset.”
- He warns against losing PSA themes: without “Christ dying for our sins… taking the curse… penalty… imputed righteousness,” worshipful adoration diminishes.
- He describes the risk of either/or as “silos” leading to “reductionism.”