|
The Atonement
(Theologies of the Cross)
by Robert
Brooks
I. Meaning of the Word
Atonement
“At – one – ment” -- implies the reconciliation of
opposing realities, especially points of views.
II. Early Views
A. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo? (Why the God-man?) Sin is an
affront to the honor of God. The death of the sinless
Christ restores God’s majesty and His honor. Anselm
makes the atonement almost a legal act, rather than an
act of love, both on the part of the Father and the
Son. Anselm leaned too much on the metaphors of the
medieval and feudal society of his day. Anselm’s is a
totally objective view.
B. Abelard’s view is the classic “Moral Influence
Theory.” That is its only purpose: to reveal God’s
love, thus eliciting man’s love for God and hence good
morals. This view ignores “total depravity” in sin.
Man saves himself by good works. The wrath of God is
ignored. Abelard’s view is totally subjective.
III. The Reformation Views
A. Luther evidences a penal theory, that is Christ took
our place and bore our sins. Christ as a ransom and
sacrifice occurs in Luther’s thinking.
B. John Calvin’s emphasis is on penalty and a
sacrificial death. Christ is punished for our sins to
satisfy the wrath of God and God’s justice. The
sacrificial blood of Christ propitiates and expiates
sin.
IV. Other Theories
A. Socinian (The Example Theory). God does not need to
be reconciled; man only needs his morals bettered.
Socinus refused to pray to Christ and denied a
substitutionary atonement. He was Unitarian, denying
the Trinity. He introduced baptism by immersion to the
Dutch Mennonites who until then had practiced adult
baptism by pouring.
B. The BushnellianTheory (Moral Influence). Here we
meet the Abelardian theory in the Nineteenth Century.
God is only a God of love, who seeks to elicit love in
man. Shallow on the seriousness of sin, he was,
however, a Trinitarian, but was repelled by revival
emotionalism. Busnellians could easily slip into
sentimentalism. Bushnell was, however, a respected
pastor and penned the famous quote, “…there is a cross
in God before the wood is seen upon Calvary. . . .”
V. Recent Teachings
A. Paul Tillich. Tillich asserts that the definition of
the atonement is two-fold: an objective side and a
subjective side. Origen was the first to advance an
objective side – with Christ defeating Satan, who could
not have power over the innocent One, Christ becoming
victor over all the demonic forces. Origin’s view is
totally objective (says Tillich), a “cosmic drama,”
taking place with no involvement from man. In the New
Testament, Paul sets forth an objective defeat of
demonic forces. The victory is a cosmic victory for
Christ through love.
Tillich maintains that man’s “existential estrangement”
from God is taken upon Himself by participation.
Accepting God’s (Christ’s) participation in the
structures of destruction, man is transformed into the
“new being” – salvation.
B. Jurgen Moltman (The Crucified God)
The cross is the “signature of all Christian theology.”
He applies the Nicene Creed: It is “one substance with
God, begotten, not created, God of God, light of
light.” The Cross is something that took place between
God and God. “My God, my God. . ." points to something
that takes place within God. Jesus took our place, our
sins as expiation. “God becomes the crucified.”
“He made Him sin for us.” (II Corinthians 5:21) “He
became a curse for us.” (Galatians 3: 13) “God in His
majesty,.. veiled in the flesh of Christ.”
C. Wolfhart Pannenberg
Pannenberg is the most erudite theologian today. His
Systematic Theology will rule for decades to come. He
views the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus’ death for sin as
God the Father reconciling the world. He “made Him to
be sin who knew no sin.” (II Corinthians 5: 21) “God
put the sinless Christ in the place of sinners, so that
He had to bear the judgment of sin instead of them.”
(Galatians 3: 13) There must be an appropriation by the
sinner in order for “at-one-ment” to take place.
VI. Views of this author
A. Sin originates at the moment the child exclaims,
“Mine! Mine!” At that moment total inability occurs,
which means the child becomes impotent to save himself.
He only has enough “free will” to respond to the Holy
Spirit. “…no man can say that Jesus is . . . Lord but
by the Holy Spirit.” (I Corinthians 12: 3).
B. The only ground for atonement is between God the Son
bearing our sins and the judgment of God the Father. At
the moment Jesus cries, “My God, my God, why hath thou
forsaken me,” the Father judged the Son as if He were a
sinner. “He made Him to be SIN who knew no sin.” (II
Corinthians 5: 21) He became a “curse for us.”
(Galatians 3: 13)
Why did Jesus cry, “Let this cup pass from me?” It was
the “cup of His fury.” (Isaiah 51: 17) Was Jesus
praying because He was afraid to die? If that were so,
then Socrates surpassed Christ, for he died peacefully.
No! The only pure One was agonizing drops of blood
because He was tempted to avoid being judged as if He
were a sinner. He was made to be sin, to be judged by
the Father as a sinner! (II Corinthians 5: 21)
C. So then the relationship is first between God The Son
and God The Father as the Father’s holiness is
satisfied. This is the objective side. The subjective
side is when the sinner gains enough insight to see the
fathomless ness of the cross and surrenders to the
Trinity. So, then, my view may be termed an
objective-subjective synthesis.
“For nothing good have I whereby Thy grace to claim:
I’ll wash my garments white in the Blood of Calvary’s
Lamb.”
Jesus Paid It All
Elvina M. Hall
Bibliography
Brown, Harold. Heresies. New York: Doubleday &
Company, 1984.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Edinburgh:
William B. Eerdmans, 1991.
Paul, Robert. The Atonement and The Sacraments. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1960.
Strong, Augustus. Systematic Theology (Vol. II).
Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1936.
Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology (Vol. II).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.
To top of
page |
