The heart of this theory is that violence is not salvific, this is according to Mark Heim again. In the New, like much of the foundational Lutheran ideas of the Reformation, support for penal substitution can be found in Pauls words in Romans. Wesley believed that the atonement of Christ was for everyone, that Jesus did not come to die only for his elect. Because that justice was done corporately and on a cosmic scale, then individuals could have access to God through Jesus. But in John 15, He does say this is an illustration of love. Satisfaction theory took over from Christus Victor. How do we understand it? is a book about going deeper with God. One critic writes this theory, like the ransom theory, falls apart when pressed too hard for details. In 1930, Swedish theologian Gustaf Auln published Christus Victor (it would be published in English a year later). Forde, in The idea that Jesuss death was a ransom to the devil might seem crazy to us, but its not so crazy if you look at the culture that produced it. If penal substitution were the only answer to our question, I probably would have abandoned Christ a long time ago, as I assume many have. Im going to talk about pursuing the truth of who God is and who we are in relationship to Him, how to study Scripture, how legalism, shallow theology, and false teaching keep us from living boldly as a woman of the word. When Jesus died, God was demonstrating His anger with sin. If youre tired of hearing the watered-down Christian teaching and youre hungry for a deeper spiritual life, I have something for you. Christus Victor was the dominant theory for most of church history as well see, when we talk about a few of the other theories. Theres evil, theres a demonic power, theres people who are partnered with that demonic power, and then, there are people who are in bondage to that power. The problem comes when God is depicted as in this bargaining relationship with The Enemy or deceiving The Enemy. Im so excited to put this book in your hands. This idea of Christ as a conqueror, as the overcoming King would connect well to the imagery that we see, such as in 2 Corinthians 2, where the apostles writing about the victory that we experience in daily life in the Lord using the imagery of a Roman emperor leading conquered leaders of hostile forces. But maybe that group actually wasnt wrong in the first place. Its demonstrating Gods justice, its communicating Gods hatred for sin, its motivating holiness and it satisfies the demands of justice. That might seem like a pretty simple question, but in reality, over the course of church history, there have been a variety of different answers to that question, and even today, there is debate among scholars on which theory is the best, which theory best explains what Jesus was doing when He allowed Himself to be crucified on the cross. Imagine siting safely on a pier, in a deck chair, when all of a sudden, out of nowhere, a man flings himself into the ocean and drowns. Why would God have to pay Satan anything? Penal Substitutionary Atonement/Vicarious Atonement. When you hear the words, sin, death, and the devil together, thats usually an indicator of the Christus Victor theory. Thats a term Calvin himself of course did not use, but was applied later in the 19th century. Conservative theologians say evidence for this theory can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. Wesleyan Chapel, site of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention . "The Scope of the Atonement in the Early Church," Wesleyan Theological Journal 47.2 (2012), 26. Ultimately the atonement for Horton is a matter for the triune God's purposes to save the elect. Why were we separated from God in the first place? Pelagius and his followers in the 400s CE essentially argued that Christians could be saved by their good works without divine help (his main and most vocal opponent was St. Augustine). What there is much less agreement upon is how and why this is achieved. The Jewish authorities charged Him with blasphemy, the worst religious crime, and Ill have a source for that. Its not Gods original intent. For the first thousand years of Christianity, most Christians believed that Christ was a ransom that was paid to Satan in exchange for releasing humans from the bondage of sin. Leading conquered leaders of hostile forces through the streets and victory parade. Irenaeus is another one who talked about this theory. And like much liberal Protestant theology, it was largely abandoned in the wake of the first World War, and utterly destroyed by the aftermath of the second. Its not held at the same level as Scripture itself. The faith repentance, etc., in Christ is possible because Christ fulfilled this governmental need for showing that the law mattered, and that sin grieves God. John Wesley clearly held to the penal substitution view. This was also as a reaction to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, along with such liberal ideas as postmillennialism and the Social Gospel movement. Not necessarily. Ultimately, that is what the goal was. Nothing in the Christian system, wrote John Wesley, is of greater consequence than the doctrine of the atonement. How we answer this questions fundamentally shapes how we see the world and how we live our lives. Another element is that its not that God was having something offered to Him, but that God was making the offering. We are grateful for the steady leadership of Wesleyan districts and local churches that are setting the . In spite of the fact that Christian theology has found legitimate expression of the biblical emphasis on the atonement through a variety of theories, the Western Catholic and Protestant churches have tended to favor some form of a forensic penal view of the work of Christ. We see Colossians 2, Hebrews 2. and Revelations 12, but do you have to hold to ransom theory? The highest political crime. He paid off The Enemy. And remember, early, while important, so early documents, early theology, its very important, but its not inerrant. Thats what hes saying here. He wrote extensively about God reclaiming humanity as His taking them from the enemys jurisdiction. In fact, the expression, What Would Jesus Do? was born out of these thoughts, popularized by the 1896 novel In His Steps(again, 1 Peter 2:22). If you think about it in the way, Anselm was thinking about it, the slaves could never pay back the king. Especially if you come from a background where its just Jesus died to take our penalty, it can be a little bit hard to understand. I also believe that Amy Gannett has a video on atonement theories saved on her IGTV if youre interested in following her. Looking through the eyes and understanding of the world, the true meaning of atonement becomes somewhat diluted. And if youre ready to go deeper, God is just as ready to take you there. So, like satisfaction theory, you are actually averting the idea of an individual penalty being taken. Steven Harper proposed that Wesley's atonement is a hybrid of the penal substitution theory and the governmental theory. However, I still think reading about it is interesting and helpful, because the theory is growing in popularity. He didnt want to give up humanity. But if, on the other hand, you yourself were drowning in the ocean, and a man came out to save you, succeeds, but drowns himself, you would understand, yes this is love. The history of the various theories of the atonement is made up of differing views on the biblical themes of ransom, redemption, propitiation, substitution, and Christ as moral example. What was it about the cross that defeated all the elements of evil throughout the universe? But God basically tricked him with Christ. The punishment and penalty we deserved was laid on Jesus Christ instead of us, so that in the cross both Gods holiness and love are manifested.. Okay, you guys, that was a lot. The theories we cover are: Phylicia: Welcome to Verity. Like Augustine, I have a couple of interesting articles for you on this. Its demonstrating Gods justice, its communicating Gods hatred for sin, its motivating holiness and it satisfies the demands of justice. Were going to be looking at ransom theory, Christus Victor, satisfaction theory, vicarious atonement, government theory, and scapegoat theory. Writes one historian of theology: So conscious were the early Christians of the pervasiveness of Satanically inspired evil (see the book of Revelation) that they developed strong dualistic tendencies: God on one side, the devil on the other, and no neutral ground in between.. We need to do something about this, and so he developed this atonement theory, this government theory saying, No, God is just, Hes Trinity, Hes whole, He is righteous, and you cant have a just God in a world where sin is not judged. So, while Jesus was not dying specifically for individuals, He was dying corporately to represent Gods just government of the world in His judgment on sin as a whole. This is almost like ransom theory, but the person whos being paid back is God and not The Enemy. This is Verity, where every woman is a theologian. Brown Church - Latina/o History and Theology, "Michael,Thanks for this post. It remains the dominant view of the atonement for most Evangelicals. The second theory were going to look at is Christus Victor. When I said that there are different theories about what these church fathers were saying, well, heres a perfect example. This tension in the community is resolved by finding a scapegoat. Thats from one of the articles I gave you in the show notes. At about the same time Anselm was crystalizing his theory that God demands satisfaction, the feudal system was emerging in Europe in the late middle ages. It was just a repackaged version of Arianism, which is an anti-Trinitarian heresy. Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement. 0000057021 00000 n Rather it severs the direct covenantal link between the believer's salvation and Christ as his substitute. But the people who held to government theory were almost universally orthodox, at least until recently. So, his example of love is one that we should be emulating. 0000001931 00000 n But in penal substitution, the judgment is absorbed. The atonement of God in Jesus Christ reveals the relational character of God and the depth of his love for the world. Wesleyan: Fred Sanders Barthian Universalism: Tom Greggs This book serves not only as a single-volume resource for engaging the views on the extent of the atonement but also as a catalyst for understanding and advancing a balanced approach to this core Christian doctrine. We burn them at the stake, and when that person is roasted, when that person is removed from the community, we then say, Look, we can have peace. This actually, in studying this theory, I thought, Oh, my goodness, how many times did we see this happen in 2020 online. You direct all of this anger, all this tension towards the group thats considered the bad guy, the scapegoat, and when that person is rejected by the whole community, they have peace. But, its not the only answer. 0000006379 00000 n This theory actually works well with other atonement theories, because you can hold the Christus Victor, while also seeing some of the specifics in other atonement theories as able to align with it. The Calvinistic view of grace is that it is single, comes from the atonement and is applied only to the elect. How do we understand the love of God when we look at the Old Testament, when we look at the cross and how bloody and violent it was? It was that God, the ultimate judge of the universe, cannot let human sin go unpunished. Death is a punishment for sin, not the payment for salvation. Progressive Christian, journalist and entrepreneur , the name for Bozo the Clown has originated. His death is such that all will see forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in a world God governs. Is the atoning work of Christ about the Son, the Father, or us? All emphasized the goodness of God, the ethical example of Christ, and the human ability to improve oneself. Jesus likely performed many more miracles than are listed in the Gospel accounts. Again, its important to understand the culture in which Anselm was writing. That dualism is what concerns most critics of the ransom theory. The work of Christ chiefly consists of demonstrating to the world the amazing depth of Gods love of sinful humanity There is nothing inherent in God that must be appeased before he is willing to forgive humanity. Wesleyan Arminianism is classical Arminianism with the addition of Wesleyan perfectionism. Im going to have sources for this in the notes, a crime against a king would require more satisfaction, more of a debt, I guess, that a crime against a knight or a slave. You dont have to settle for watered-down Christian teaching. The atonement is a victory over Satan. Wesley says: by means implies that God regards us contrary to the actual nature of things, that he accounts us better than we really are, believes us to be righteous when we are unrighteous."44 covenant-based understanding of the of Christ as cial with humanity absorbing the effects of the deadly results of sin avoids the liability of the Popular theology, in the wake of the two most destructive and deadly conflicts in all of human history, once again began emphasizing a just God over a God of love. Calvin was saying Christ was punished where we should have been punished. So, in Anselms case, it would have been feudal society, and in the case of the early church fathers, you had ransom theory, Christus Victor being well acquainted with the model of conquering kings. From my notes and my research, what some of the scholars I was reading said is that Anselm believed that humans could not render God more than what was due Him. Satan had control over humanity since the fall of man, and only the soul of perfectly innocent Jesus would be an acceptable payment for the return of humanity to the Father. In satisfaction theory, the judgment that we were supposed to receive is directed away from us because the wrath of God is satisfied. The 3rd view of sanctification presented in Christian Spirituality is a Wesleyan view by Laurence Wood. The main objection by critics, however, is to the nature of God that is assumed by both of these theories. Our last theory today is scapegoat theory. We also see John talking about believers overcoming the devil, overcoming The Enemy because of the Word of God dwelling in them in 1 John 2. Its a how question. Because ransom theory does operate a lot within this legal framework, it could be that the idea is that God has set up a rule of law essentially, just order, where because of what Satan did, He is bound to abide by that law, and therefore, He uses a ransom to buyback humanity, and He tricks Satan into doing it. Thus, Christ comes to earth as fully human and fully God, receives our punishment, and Gods demand for justice is fulfilled. Martin Luther was also one of the primary formulators of this theory. Wesleyan theology, otherwise known as Wesleyan- Arminian theology, or Methodist theology, is a theological tradition in Protestant Christianity based upon the ministry of the 18th-century evangelical reformer brothers John Wesley and Charles Wesley. And just as every theologian has a Bible passage in support of their ideas, so to do the exemplarists (another name for this theory is moral example), notably 1 Peter 2:22, For this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps, as well as various passages in John (see John 13:1316 and John 15:917). Conflict, in his view, comes from mimicking others desires and behavior. The scapegoat whos found, in the case of the gospels, is someone whos hated equally by the Roman authorities and by the Jewish leaders. God through Jesus is overcoming the evil of the world. In the end, I just left the first theory were going to talk about as the original one, and that is ransom theory. This, he submits, makes better sense of the pattern of Scripture and the universal scope of salvation. A characteristic of this theory is that its double sided. His death is such that all will see forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in a world God governs. That knight then answered to the king. What He did could not have been to pay the penalty, since if He paid the penalty, then no one would ever go into eternal perdition. Okay, this is an important point hes making from his theological perspective. In fact, most theologians who vocally support one theory will readily admit the other theories hold some validity. Very much opposed to the idea of death being a punishment or being a payment for sin. [15] Mark 10:45 and Colossians 2 talk about this. Rom 8:32, Gal 1:4) and 'Christ died for our sins' (cf. Its different from penal substitutionary atonement or vicarious atonement, well talk about that in a second, because it has to do with Gods honor versus having to do with Gods law. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, atonement is, "the process by . When I was writing this episode, I kept thinking, I need to move this theory to the top. So troubled by those questions did one man offer a stern critique of ransom atonement, in a book whose influence is still being felt today.