The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Poll: What the atonement accomplished - primary viewpoint?

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

What the atonement accomplished

  • Anselm of Canterbury’s satisfaction (Roman Catholic view)
  • John Calvin’s penal substitution (Reformed and common evangelical view)
  • Hugo Grotius’ moral government (classical Arminian and Methodist view)
  • Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor (Eastern Orthodox view, commonly held by Anabaptist)
  • Peter Abelard’s moral influence (modernist-liberal theological view)
  • Other viewpoints

0 voters

Show results

In one forum reply, I’ve mentioned some of the things Universalists could disagree on. One was the nature of Christ’s atonement.

First point was whether the shed blood of Christ on the cross is:

A literal atonement for the sins of the world
Or whether this is metaphorical?

The second question is a poll question

Let me start by saying I’ll take the literal atonement view, along with Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor as my primary viewpoint. So I guess that makes me an Eastern Orthodox Anabaptist. But I won’t be offended – nor prone to debate – other viewpoints. If your position is metaphorical and Other Viewpoints, please reply here. Please also poll for your primary viewpoint. If more than one primary applies, pick “Other Viewpoints”. Please feel free to expand on “other viewpoints” here.

#2

I’m not sure giving only one option in the poll is necessarily a good idea, mainly because you could theoretically hold ALL of those views.

#3

Then that response would go under “Other viewpoints” and someone could explain it further here. Anyway, I don’t see an option to change it, to allow more than one response - once the poll was created. So I guess folks would have to settle for giving their primary viewpoint in this poll - else, specify “Other viewpoints”. Anyway, I changed the original post to clarify that option.

#4

From Wikipedia (to refresh our memories):

TheorySatisfaction: “Teaches that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God’s honor by his infinite merit.”
TheoryPenal Substitution: “Argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalised) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins.”
TheoryMoral Government: “Teaches that Christ suffered for humanity so that God could forgive humans apart from punishment while still maintaining divine justice….God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin through the suffering of his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation.”
TheoryChristus Victor: “The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil. …More commonly known as the Ransom Theory, the theory that Adam and Eve made humanity subject to the Devil during the Fall, and that God, in order to redeem humanity, sent Christ as a ‘ransom’ or ‘bait’ so that the Devil, not knowing Christ couldn’t die permanently, would kill him, and thus lose all right to humanity following the Resurrection.”
TheoryMoral Influence: “The inspiring power of Jesus’ martyrdom…as [a] catalyst for moral change…That Christ’s passion was an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it.”
(Randy, I support Christus Victor.)
.
PS You have to be logged in to be able to vote.

#5

Thanks, Hermano, for refreshing everyone with the viewpoint summaries from Wiki.

#6

We did this a while back too, and if I remember right, the outcome was pretty heavy into Christus Victor – but multiple answers were allowed. Of those you’ve supplied, I guess I’d have to choose Christus Victor. I also favor the representative/covenantal atonement that (in my opinion) Paul was fond of using. And of course there’s always room for moral influence. Ultimately, I think the point of the atonement is to free us from bondage to sin and to nudge us toward the Father who desires us to be reconciled to Him.

#7

I voted “other”.
First of all I don’t think “atonement” is a good translation of ἱλασμος (hilasmos) and ἱλαστηριον (hilastārion). The verbal form of these words means “be merciful” as in “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” So I think the words should be translated as “a means of mercy”. Christ’s death was truly a means of mercy. For perhaps the greatest mercy possible for us is to be delivered from wrongdoing in our lives.

The word “atone” means to make up for an injury in some way. For example, if I accidentally run into the neighbour’s fence post and break it off, the neighbour may tell me, “You’re going to have to atone for that!” In other words, I’m going to have to “make up for it” in some way, perhaps by repairing the fence myself. Of course, some people believe that is precisely what Christ did for us; He made up for our sin by dying in our place so that we could get off scott free and continue to sin with impunity.

I believe the purpose of Christ’s death was to make available the enabling grace of God so that we would be better able to resist wrongdoing and to live righteous lives.

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:11-15

This training—this enablement—made available through Jesus’ death, is also made plain in the following passages which I have frequently quoted:

**I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.**

#8

Hi, Paidion

I looked up the meaning for this, and here’s what I got from the Oxford English Dictionary:

So basically, the seemingly simplistic at + one + ment is the more archaic use – which is the way I’ve always understood the word, rather than the modern usage. I really like this, and I hate to let go of it just because more recently it’s come to mean something quite different. :nerd:

At one ment – that’s so good. I just can’t let go of that. :laughing:

#9

Why did it require the death of Christ for God to be able to make His grace available to us? no criticism intended, its just that I’ve been musing on this recently - might even start a thread to try to get some answers]

#10

I believe that the Holy Trinity, before all other considerations, willed for God the Son to become incarnate. This of course necessitated creation. In other words, God created primarily for the sake of the Incarnation.

Even if Adam and Eve had never sinned, Jesus Christ would have been born a man. Clearly, with no Fall, Christ would never have suffered or died.

I believe that the Incarnation is a vital stage in the Holy Trinity’s creation. First, the Holy Trinty created all creation, then God the Son became incarnate, and finally He will return in his Second and glorious Coming, eradicating all sin, suffering, and death. As C. S. Lewis wrote in Perelandra, the Second Coming is most properly considered as the beginning of creation. Our sin has created a sort of false start, which must be erased and re-drawn, so to speak.

Conceptually, things went in this order:

  1. The Holy Trinity willed that God the Son be incarnate.
  2. The Holy Trinity created all creation so as the Son could be incarnate and thus deify all creation.

Historically, things went in this order:

  1. The Holy Trinity created all creation.
  2. Mankind fell.
  3. God the Son became incarnate.
  4. Sinful man killed the Son, Who rose from the dead.
  5. The Son will return and put an end to all death, sin, and suffering, thus deifying all creation.

One can see, then, that I think that the Fall, Christ’s Passion, His death, and His resurrection were not God’s Plan A. They are all rather God’s Plan B, contingent on Adam and Eve’s Fall. In contrast, I think that the Incarnation, the creation, and all of creation’s deification are all God’s Plan A.

Within this overarching context, Christus Victor most closely approximates my answer. :slight_smile:

#11

Thank you for the question, Pilgrim. It’s a good question. (and I didn’t take it as being negative criticism). I believe that it did require his death because I read it in the writings of Paul and Peter and the writer to the Hebrews (statements which I quoted previously)

I don’t know the answer to your question. But I think the question could be asked of other theories as well.

For example, if Christ died in order to appease the wrath of an angry God, why did it require the death of Christ to do that? How would His death appease the Father? To bring it to a human level, if you were angry with your son’s behaviour, would you be appeased is somebody died. Would that result in your not punishing your son?

Or if Christ died in order that the Father could forgive us, why couldn’t He forgive us outright? Why would the death of His Son be required? Again would you be more likely to forgive your son of wrongdoing, if somebody died?

And so with the other theories.

#12

Yes, I agree. And yet I think it is an important question and one which deserves some sort of reasonable explanation. I have been asked (or the question has been implied) by non-Christian seekers and it would be useful to be able to give a response of which I am fairly convinced myself.
My usual response is that I believe God (or the Son) had to endure the suffering we have brought upon ourselves ie He had to experience death in order to gain the power/victory over it. I’m not sure which category this would put me in (in the above poll)

#13

Thank you, Pilgrim. Wouldn’t that be a sort of "Christus Victor’ concept? Would you explain what you mean by Christ gaining victory over death? It can’t mean victory over His own death since the Father raised Him from the dead.

I began to wonder whether your concept would fit my theory. Somehow He had to gain the victory over sin (not His own but ours) in order to grant us God’s enabling grace so that we can overcome sin. Perhaps the following verse supports that idea.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor 5:21)

#14

Perhaps we have the same thing in mind or something very similar. I’m not good with words and I realise that what I have written does not convey what is in my mind.

I feel it is as if ‘the human condition’ (after the fall), and death, was outside of the ‘territory’ of God. It was Godless. And if it was Godless then His power was restricted or perhaps, He was even powerless over it. In a way it was unreachable by God because He had no experience of it. But if God were to experience it (to swim in that sea) then He had the power to claim it as His own. I’m not sure how this would fit in for a non-Trinitarian, but to me, this is the only way I can even begin to make sense of the necessity of the cross.

Having said all that, if I pursue this thought, because of the incarnation and the cross, God now has the power to do whatever He wants for the human race. But if He just **allows everyone into His Kingdom in their present evil state, **then Heaven would literally become one Hell of a place! So whilst the cross has opened the gates to the Kingdom we still need to be transformed and God does not force Himself on us.

I can’t get my head around someone ‘being sin’ because ‘sin’ is something I do rather than something I am, so I interpret that text as follows: ‘being sin’ means ‘experiencing the suffering of having a sinful nature’ (ie experiencing the human condition) then YES that is part and parcel of God ‘swimming in that sea’.

#15

You know, I am just reading an online article in Scientific American entitled 2 Futures Can Explain Time’s Mysterious Past
New theories suggest the big bang was not the beginning, and that we may live in the past of a parallel universe. I wonder if this might have any implications for what we are talking about here? Or for a heaven/eternal hell model vs an ultimate reconciliation model? Some thoughts to ponder and think about.

Barbour says.

Perhaps if Christ just lived and never died and was resurrected, how can people distinguish him from Mohammad or Buddha? Or perhaps with 2 future time streams, the heaven/eternal hell model would be in play. So the death/resurrection collapsed the first model and is bringing in the appropriate ultimate reconciliation model? Isn’t this really unanswerable now, as “we see through a glass darkly”? But nonetheless, some creative speculation is nice to play with.

Actually, it got me thinking about Left Behind: A Novel of the Earth’s Last Days by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. Perhaps we can have fictional characters living in two future time steams. Ultimately, the characters of one time stream help to collapse the heaven/eternal hell model - with Christ’s help - and help bring in the ultimate reconciliation model.

#16

I voted for moral influence as my primary. I also hold to forms of moral gov and chirstus victor as secondary. I can only take PSA as a strong metaphor, not a legal transaction or propitiation.

With regard to the ‘why’ question, as discussed above, I think that a crucified God was the only/best way that God could reveal His nature of love- since the best expression of love is painful, freewilled self-sacrifice for the benefit of those who hate you (hence universalism couldn’t be guaranteed without the cross, and hence why if the satanic powers knew what was happening they wouldn’t have done it). Such a revelation empowers us to resist satan, evil, sin, self love etc. And moves us closer to God - it collapses the Epistemic distance between us and God, we get to ‘know’ Him. I think it also works on a psychological level, allowing us to forgive ourselves seeing that some sort of price was paid, and it gives us strength to live through suffering since we know God has truly done the same and is wholly sympathetic. Additionally, it shows God’s indentification with pain and loss, a important theodical element. There may also have been some mystical, supernatural thing at play too.