Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 02:52 PM Mar 2014

Rethinking the atonement

Chuck Queen

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was the first to expound the theory that Jesus’ death was necessary for the satisfaction of God’s honor. This evolved into the theory of penal substitutionary atonement, perhaps most elaborately developed by Princeton theologian Charles Hodge (1797-1878).

This theory became so popular in Western Christianity that it came to be equated with “the gospel” preached in the Great Awakening, and in more recent times by renowned evangelist Billy Graham.

Today, a growing number of evangelical and progressive Christians are questioning the truthfulness and viability of this theory. Why is this so?

Two reasons are most often given by interpreters. First, it is suggested that this theory of the atonement makes God look small and petty. What kind of God requires the violent death of an innocent victim? And if God demands a violent atonement, then violence must in some sense be redemptive, which a growing number of Christians believe contradicts the good news of God’s nonviolent rule that Jesus proclaimed and embodied.

http://www.abpnews.com/opinion/commentaries/item/28460-rethinking-the-atonement#.UyNOwzHD9cs

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rethinking the atonement (Original Post) hrmjustin Mar 2014 OP
Let me expand a bit on Anselm's reasoning. Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #1
I know almost nothing about this atonement goldent Mar 2014 #2
It's the idea that Jesus death covers the sins of humanity. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #3
ok, well I'm certainly familiar with that concept goldent Mar 2014 #4
I never thought of it that way either. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #5

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)
1. Let me expand a bit on Anselm's reasoning.
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 09:07 AM
Mar 2014

Anselm lived in a feudal society, made up of rights and duties ruled by custom, law, and contractual agreement. Liberty and equality were not even ideals. Social status determined responsibilities and legal status. In this society a crime’s seriousness was measured against the respective dignities of the victim and perpetrator. Thus an offense against one’s lord was worse than a similar offense against one’s peers or inferiors. There was little room for mercy in the system, nor was simple restitution enough for an injury to one’s liege. Even if a lord forgave an offense, the slight to his honor must be satisfied. It was almost impossible for a vassal, because of his inferior status, to repair dishonor to the liege without the intercession of an equally powerful noble.

This mindset is evident in every page of Anselm. Adam’s disobedience offended God and outlawed him and his posterity. Humans could not repair the fault because their inferior status was worsened by sin. It would not be fitting simply for God to forgive the offense, for that would allow sin to go unpunished. This, Anselm said, is unseemly, for it puts sinners and the innocent on an equal footing before God. Further, reparations must be made to the divine honor; otherwise justice is not served.

Thus Anselm builds the case for the Incarnation: On one hand, because sinners are human, a human must make satisfaction; on the other, because God is offended, no one less than God can make amends. Justice is served and God’s love is shown in sending the Son to earth to suffer and die as a human for sinners. In Anselm’s scheme, death is the punishment for sin. Since Jesus was sinless, his death was above anything required of him. His willingness to die to establish solidarity with us went beyond the reparation demanded by justice and made satisfaction for the sins of Adam and all Adam’s descendants. It was out of love for his fellow humans that Jesus willingly suffered the consequences of sin.

Anselm’s ingenuity made his work popular. He emphasizes that “it was for us and for our salvation” that Christ came to earth and was crucified. However, his theory has flaws. He has Jesus’ death alone, apart from his life, constituting “satisfaction.” Nor does he consider the Resurrection. Also, God seems merciless and relentless in pursuit of justice and honor — or if not merciless, helpless by being fenced in by the divine law.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
2. I know almost nothing about this atonement
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 04:03 PM
Mar 2014

Maybe it isn't a Catholic thing

I'm all for different ideas and points of view, but this one doesn't line up with my beliefs and feelings.

goldent

(1,582 posts)
4. ok, well I'm certainly familiar with that concept
Sat Mar 15, 2014, 04:11 PM
Mar 2014

I guess I never thought of this as "satisfying God's honor"

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Interfaith Group»Rethinking the atonement