The Atonement as Satisfaction
Reading through some various views on the atonement, I have been particularly struck at the three major views which have been held or developed throughout Church History.
The "classic" view would be that of the atonement as triumph. I guess the easiest way of explaining this is that Christ proved himself to be victorious over sin, satan and evil through the atonement. The idea behind this view is that when God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself (1 Cor 5:16-20) it was a victorious battle over evil.
The "atonement as satisfaction" was a later development in church history and leading teacher of this idea was Anslem. The thrust of this view is that the atonement satisfied God's moral character. There was an ontologial need of satisfaction on the part of a holy God and only Christ's sacrifice on the cross could fulfill this because God's moral character is so perfect and sin is so profane to his character. This view is the typical view held by evangelical theologians, and more consistantly held by Reformed folks.
The last view is that of the "atonement as example" which was originally taught by Abelard. This view basically teaches that the atonement sets a good example of christian sacrifice. This view was not popular when Abelard began to teach it, and pretty much drifted into obscurity, that is, until the 20th century. In the 20th century, many liberal theologians took hold of this idea and embraced it as the essence of the atonement, meaning that the death of Christ, his atoning work, really set a good example for all to live by.
Which of these views is most correct? I would assume that most readers would not lean toward the third view, so I will not really address it. So out of the first two views, I believe the second view, the atonement as satisfaction is superior.
A few reasons why.
1. If the atonement was a triumph over evil, then that leads to an ontological argument that says God actually owes something to evil. The reason I can make that statement is that those who typically hold this view see the atonement as God purchasing salvation for his people from the devil. Some of you may laugh, but this view is prevelant in some of the Church Fathers and there are evangelicals who hold to this as well. Why isn't the atonement a divine transaction? Well, there is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that God owes evil anything but punishment.
2. The atonement as satisfaction. All through the pages of scripture, we are confronted with a Holy God and we get the sense that there is no way we can meet up to his standards. The Law does that to us, and rightly so, it condemns us and points us to our need for the satisfaction of God's moral character and holiness. But how do we get there? We can't, but Christ's sacrifice did. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was exactly the way God's moral character and holiness could be satisfied as an atonement for sin.
Book of the day, The Cross of Christ by John Stott.
The "classic" view would be that of the atonement as triumph. I guess the easiest way of explaining this is that Christ proved himself to be victorious over sin, satan and evil through the atonement. The idea behind this view is that when God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself (1 Cor 5:16-20) it was a victorious battle over evil.
The "atonement as satisfaction" was a later development in church history and leading teacher of this idea was Anslem. The thrust of this view is that the atonement satisfied God's moral character. There was an ontologial need of satisfaction on the part of a holy God and only Christ's sacrifice on the cross could fulfill this because God's moral character is so perfect and sin is so profane to his character. This view is the typical view held by evangelical theologians, and more consistantly held by Reformed folks.
The last view is that of the "atonement as example" which was originally taught by Abelard. This view basically teaches that the atonement sets a good example of christian sacrifice. This view was not popular when Abelard began to teach it, and pretty much drifted into obscurity, that is, until the 20th century. In the 20th century, many liberal theologians took hold of this idea and embraced it as the essence of the atonement, meaning that the death of Christ, his atoning work, really set a good example for all to live by.
Which of these views is most correct? I would assume that most readers would not lean toward the third view, so I will not really address it. So out of the first two views, I believe the second view, the atonement as satisfaction is superior.
A few reasons why.
1. If the atonement was a triumph over evil, then that leads to an ontological argument that says God actually owes something to evil. The reason I can make that statement is that those who typically hold this view see the atonement as God purchasing salvation for his people from the devil. Some of you may laugh, but this view is prevelant in some of the Church Fathers and there are evangelicals who hold to this as well. Why isn't the atonement a divine transaction? Well, there is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that God owes evil anything but punishment.
2. The atonement as satisfaction. All through the pages of scripture, we are confronted with a Holy God and we get the sense that there is no way we can meet up to his standards. The Law does that to us, and rightly so, it condemns us and points us to our need for the satisfaction of God's moral character and holiness. But how do we get there? We can't, but Christ's sacrifice did. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was exactly the way God's moral character and holiness could be satisfied as an atonement for sin.
Book of the day, The Cross of Christ by John Stott.
posted by Bobby's blog at 10:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home