Atonement model?

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Adam »

joshuabgood wrote:
So the function of satisfaction for Aquinas is not to placate a wrathful God or in some other way remove the constraints which compel God to damn sinners. Instead, the function of satisfaction is to restore a sinner to a state of harmony with God by repairing or restoring in the sinner what sin has damaged. [13]This is Aquinas' major difference with Anselm. Rather than seeing the debt as one of honor, he sees the debt as a moral injustice to be righted.

In his section on the Incarnation, Aquinas argues that Christ's death satisfies the penalty owed by sin,[14] and that it was Christ's Passion specifically that was needed to pay the debt of man's sin.[15] For Aquinas, the Passion of Jesus provided the merit needed to pay for sin: "Consequently Christ by His Passion merited salvation, not only for Himself, but likewise for all His members,"[16] and that the atonement consisted in Christ's giving to God more "than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race." So, Aquinas believes that the atonement is God’s solution to two problems. Christ’s passion and death, insofar as they serve to make satisfaction, are the solution to the problem of past sin; and, insofar as Christ merits grace by his passion and death, they are the solution to the problem of future sin. [17] In this way, Aquinas articulated the formal beginning of the idea of a superabundance of merit, which became the basis for the Catholic concept of the Treasury of Merit (see Indulgence). Aquinas also articulated the ideas of salvation that are now standard within the Catholic Church: that justifying grace is provided through the sacraments; that the condign merit of our actions is matched by Christ's merit from the Treasury of Merit; and that sins can be classified as mortal or venial. For Aquinas, one is saved by drawing on Christ's merit, which is provided through the sacraments of the church.[citation needed]

This sounds like penal substitution, but Aquinas is careful to say that he does not mean this to be taken in legal terms:[18]
"If we speak of that satisfactory punishment, which one takes upon oneself voluntarily, one may bear another's punishment…. If, however, we speak of punishment inflicted on account of sin, inasmuch as it is penal, then each one is punished for his own sin only, because the sinful act is something personal. But if we speak of a punishment that is medicinal, in this way it does happen that one is punished for another's sin."
— Thomas Aquinas
This from wikipedia notes a substitutionary model that isn't "penal." This is in fact the official position of the Catholic church. Adaptations of Anselm by Aquinas, more or less.
Thanks, although I find your personal summaries much easier to understand :D
0 x
RZehr
Posts: 7024
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Atonement model?

Post by RZehr »

I am a member of a church that is part of the Western Fellowship of Mennonite Churches.

Most people in our churches (myself included) wouldn't be sufficiently knowledgeable on this subject to have much of an opinion. I think it simply isn't a big enough issue for most to care about the details. I think most (myself included) would subscribe to most of them.

However I do have difficulty with the penal substitutionary and find myself drawn to the Christus Victor and substitutionary.
0 x
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Hats Off »

Old Order car Mennonite
I read J. Denny Weaver's "Keeping Salvation Ethical" but the first chapter or two may as well have been Greek. I read about atonement theologies and shake my head. Most of our people would not even read about atonement theologies. I can't grasp the difference from one to the next - I can see some things that I know I don't agree with and some things feel right. We use all the words; ransom, sacrifice, bought back etc, interchangeably, but it is not something that really matters. Jesus died for our sins, shed his blood as a sacrifice for us, to buy us back to God so that we are not eternally lost.
0 x
joshuabgood
Posts: 2815
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:23 pm
Affiliation: BMA

Re: Atonement model?

Post by joshuabgood »

Hats Off wrote:Old Order car Mennonite
I read J. Denny Weaver's "Keeping Salvation Ethical" but the first chapter or two may as well have been Greek. I read about atonement theologies and shake my head. Most of our people would not even read about atonement theologies. I can't grasp the difference from one to the next - I can see some things that I know I don't agree with and some things feel right. We use all the words; ransom, sacrifice, bought back etc, interchangeably, but it is not something that really matters. Jesus died for our sins, shed his blood as a sacrifice for us, to buy us back to God so that we are not eternally lost.
A lot there I agree with. But I would add this, I think it does matter some. It influences how you think about God. Did he kill his son? And it also influences how you think about salvation...and what you think it is.
0 x
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Hats Off »

Yes, the statement about God killing his Son is not one that I would be comfortable with. We are guilty, God is not. I simply do not listen to arguments about God's violence.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Atonement model?

Post by lesterb »

Some parts of this thread illustrate why I have such a distaste for theology. I think that theology, well meant as it may be, tends to distract from pure and undefiled religion. It gets our eyes off the simplicity and reality of the gospel and onto the ideas of men about the gospel.

The Anabaptists tended to take the NT at face value unless the intent of the writer was obviously allegorical.
0 x
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: Atonement model?

Post by MattY »

So, this may seem like arguing, and it may be arguing, but there has been argumentation offered for and against some views, and I feel I should offer a clarification as to what my view is, especially if undecided readers reject my view based on something it isn't.

Penal substitution does not mean that God killed his son. And those who would go so far as to label the whole view, "cosmic child abuse", had better be extremely careful that they are not actually criticizing a biblical idea and perhaps unintentionally committing blasphemy through their misunderstanding of it.

It may not be entirely their fault; with how widespread and common it is, sometimes erroneous ways of expressing and explaining it are uncritically accepted, perhaps influenced by other theology held by the people involved. Sometimes the "friends" of penal substitution are its own worst enemies. They say things that confuse and backfire. The hard-line Calvinists, especially, might already see God as someone who exhaustively determined and caused everything, including sin itself, and so when someone they respect (Piper) says that God killed Jesus, they see that as compatible with their idea of God.

But God did not kill His Son; men killed Him, and that's totally compatible with penal substitution, outside of twisted caricatures of it. No one denies the Cross was violent, and God chose to allow it to happen. More than that, God the Son chose to go endure it - and to bear our sins, take the curse upon Himself - because of His great love for us. And God the Father, in His great love, chose to send Him.

But the penalty was not that God killed Him, but that the Son became sin for us, resulting in the Father turning away and forsaking Him (by the very plan of the Son, along with the Father and Spirit, in the Godhead. He voluntarily agreed to it, and was not an unwilling victim). That separation was the wrath of God being poured out - and not a capricious human anger, but the just and righteous indignation against sin. He became the sacrificial lamb led to the slaughter by sinful men - the scapegoat sent away from the camp bearing the sins of the world. His suffering, humiliation, and death at the hands of sinful men were the necessary means through which Jesus could become that sacrifice/scapegoat for us.

Yes, there was justice and wrath against sin - but there was great love as well, love in all the suffering that the Father and Son endured for us. In doing so, God spanned the great gap between God and man - the gap that could not have been spanned simply by the moral example of a faithful martyr - and so, as the NT says, God was in Christ reconciling men to himself. Recapitulation also comes into play here - because, through being the last Adam and experiencing the struggles of humanity, he is able to be the propitiation for the sins of the people, and also, his example is a moral influence for us.

So in conclusion, I continue to believe PSA is biblical, due to the various themes and verses in Scripture (most notably Isaiah 53 and the places it's quoted in the NT), and because more than any of the other models, it takes seriously man's sinfulness and God's holiness.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Neto
Posts: 4575
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Neto »

Salvation is an indescribable mystery. The Scriptures used to support each of these sometimes rather conflicting views are like paintings of a house from different angles. I know it's not in any of the lists of "Views of the Atonement", but would still bring up Reconciliation again - the attitude shown by the Loving Father in the so-called "Parable of the Prodigal Son", to me, demonstrates a element of salvation that is overlooked in many of the most-quoted models. The seriousness of sin is not overlooked, but there is restoration through reconciliation. And it is reconciliation which comes from the Father, not us, the prodigal ones. We must only 'come to our senses' and start back. The Father comes running to us, embraces us, and lavishes undeserved favors on us. (I'm not saying that it is a complete picture of salvation - because the word picture does not include Jesus our older brother. But none of them are complete. They are all just glimpses of that great mystery.)
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Atonement model?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

John Newton once said something rather profound in his old age: I know two things - I am a great sinner, and Christ is a great savior.
0 x
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5221
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Atonement model?

Post by ohio jones »

buckeyematt2 wrote:But God did not kill His Son; men killed Him
Just a minor correction to an otherwise well reasoned post: Men did not kill Jesus, though they nailed him to the cross; he laid down his life, which as the author of life he had the power to do.
John 10:11-18, 1 John 3:16
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
Post Reply