I like St. Anselm's view, although I'm probably sort of a mixture because there are several good views
I am not a theologian, by any stretch. I searched the Anglican books on my shelf and nothing concrete jumped out at me. I did run across a couple of statements about there being lack of agreement on theories of atonement among Anglicans over the centuries. In the Anglican search on my shelf, I found myself liking the words attributed to U.S. southern Episcopal priest and theologian William Porcher Dubose (1836-1918) in the book, Glorious Companions: Five Centuries of Anglican Spirituality (p. 196-207). Dubose's life is summarized in this wikipedia article. Among the various wikipedia articles on Atonement, I found myself stepping toward these two theories. Moral Influence Theory of Atonement Governmental Theory of Atonement And when checking Amazon.com, I found myself interested in two theories presented in an evangelical publication, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Healing View (presented by Bruce R. Reichenbach, p. 117-142). Kaleidoscopic View (presented by Joel B. Green, p. 158-184). This is an interesting topic. I know very little about the various views over the last two millennium. I look forward to what others have to say--and hope to learn.
It will be a sad day when to be a Christian we need experts to explain the "Moral Influence Theory" or the "Governmental Theory" or the "Healing View" or the "Kaleidoscopic View" of what Christ accomplished on the Cross. Here is an article that's far more scholarly than it needs to be, I think, http://www.reformedliterature.com/warfield-atonement.php . In the meantime the Articles of Religion speak eloquently to this topic. Here also is Augustus Toplady's take on it ("Rock of Ages"). Nothing more need be said. Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee; Let the water and the blood, From Thy wounded side which flowed, Be of sin the double cure, Save from wrath and make me pure. Not the labor of my hands Can fulfill Thy law’s demands; Could my zeal no respite know, Could my tears forever flow, All for sin could not atone; Thou must save, and Thou alone. Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling; Naked, come to Thee for dress; Helpless, look to Thee for grace; Foul, I to the fountain fly; Wash me, Savior, or I die. While I draw this fleeting breath, When my eyes shall close in death, When I rise to worlds unknown, And behold Thee on Thy throne, Rock of Ages, cleft for me, Let me hide myself in Thee. [5]
How you view the atonement is vitally important for how you view God, man, and God's requirements for salvation and forgiveness of sins. There are views of the atonement which I cannot accept -- in particular, penal substitution, In fact, I don't like any of the Latin, Western views -- Roman Catholic or Protestant.
I knew this, which is why I posted "Rock of Ages". Obviously Toplady did believe in penal substitution; he wrote often of Christ being "pierced for our transgressions". Ditto for John Newton and "Amazing Grace". Or take J.I.Packer, yet another famous Anglican http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html Pseudo-Anglicanism and pseudo-intellectualism is to the Lord a great sadness.
Remember I am but a retired businessman--without theological training. I am interested in this topic. Can you give me some more words about the relationship of the views of the atonement to views of God, man, salvation, and forgiveness.
Endless pharisaic theological hypotheses and pompously-named theories are not exactly in His purview either...
Guys... This is an interesting topic. Maybe a little foundation is needed at this point. As I understand it, the doctrine of atonement describes how human beings can be reconciled to God. In Christian theology, the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion, which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation. Within Christianity, historically the main theories for how such atonement might work fall into a grouping similar to the following. Ransom Theory developed by Origen, (185-254) / Christus Victor Theory refined by Gustaf Aulen, Swedish Theologian (1879-1977). Moral Influence Theory developed by Augustine (354-430) / Idealistic Theory refined by Peter Abelard, french theologian (1079-1142). Satisfaction Theory / Scholastic Theory developed by Anselm of Canturbury, Archbishop of Canterbury (1033-1109). Penal Substitution Theory / Forensic Theory developed within the Reformed tradition, especially John Calvin (1509-1564), John MacLeod Campbell (1800-1872), and Robert Campbell Moberly (1845-1903). I want to thank Celtic1 for introducing this topic, which as he has stated above is directly related to our view of God, man, sin, and forgiveness. Hopefully, some of our forum members will study up on the various theories of atonement and make a post as to why they lean toward one or the other. Joel B. Green, professor of Asbury Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, favors a theory he calls Kaleidoscopic Theory, which really is a blending of some of the historic atonement theories--Christ’s way of saving human beings cannot be reduced to one model or metaphor but depends on what aspect of human need is being addressed. ***** So how about it guys--give it some thought and study time and give it a go.
I would hold to St.Anselm's view, the Satisfaction Theory, because of Original Sin all of us deserved death. But Jesus took on the form of a servant and died for us, and all our guilt and sin was upon Him on the Cross. Being the Holy and Spotless Lamb of God he took our sins unto Him, and when he died and rose again, He purchased for us Life Eternal if we would call out to Him to be our Lord and Saviour and be regenerated in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. What great love Jesus has for us to come down to Earth, to be born in a cave, and humble Himself so. And to suffer death upon the Cross for us miserable sinners. We were unworthy of such a gift, yet Christ loved us so much to save us from our sins, and to give us new life in Him. And every time the Holy Mass is celebrated, that great sacrifice once offered on Calvary is mysteriously made present, and we should always think on that great sacrifice He made for us and give thanks to Him for all the benefits thereby. "O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world. Have mercy upon us"
Mark1... Thank you for the suggestion to consider the view of Ancestral Sin (Orthodox) / Original Sin (Western). ***** Here are some words about the view of Original Sin within Anglicanism. (Retrieved from the wikipedia article "Original Sin") Section on Anglicanism The original formularies of the Church of England also continue in the Reformation understanding of Original Sin. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, Article IX "Of Original or Birth-sin" states: Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Φρονεμα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.[45]However, more recent doctrinal statements (e.g. the 1938 report Doctrine in the Church of England) permit a greater variety of understandings of this doctrine. The 1938 report summarizes: Man is by nature capable of communion with God, and only through such communion can he become what he was created to be. "Original sin" stands for the fact that from a time apparently prior to any responsible act of choice man is lacking in this communion, and if left to his own resources and to the influence of his natural environment cannot attain to his destiny as a child of God.[46] Notes [45] Articles of Religion. (Retrieved 18 December 2012 from AnglicansOnline.com). [46] Doctrine in the Church of England, 1938, London: SPCK; p. 64.
Then I suggest that neither he nor anyone else engage in same, nor in unfounded assumptions, preconceived notions, and judgementalism. I am not here to argue, pontificate, judge, or disparage others' beliefs, but to discuss in a respectful, open, and intelligent manner. If someone cannot do that, I suggest that person not respond to me. Discussion of the various historic theories of atonement is very appropriate and not as you have characterized it. However, if you wish not to discuss it, no one is twisting your arm, or his. I suggest that anyone desiring to post uncalled-for derogatory comments to keep them to yourself. Some here might desire to maturely discuss the subject in a civil manner. Now, if I have misjudged what you said, I apologize in advance.
Thank you for your post. I favor the first two; these were the earliest views. The Ransom/Christus Victor view was dominant for a thousand years, until Anselm's Satisfaction Theory. Christus Victor is still the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is the view I hold. I totally disavow the Satisfaction view and especially penal substitution. The following is strong, but it is how I feel and what I believe: I abhor the penal substitution view; I think it is a false teaching and clouds God's character. Saying this got me in trouble on a fundamentalist Baptist forum. I don't like or agree with any Calvinist doctrines. My views of God, man, sin, and salvation are decidedly Eastern; I do not agree with the Latin West's views on any of this -- whether Roman Catholic or Protestant.
Reading the rest of the posts in the thread, you guys have posted some good information and responses. I am enjoying it.
I did not know there were so many theories, I will have to look more into this topic. Thanks for opening my eyes to this!
You are welcome. There are a lot of them, but there are just a few "main" ones -- if I might use that term. In addition to the four that Scottish Monk listed above, there is the Governmental Theory, developed by Hugo Grotius and held in Arminian circles, although not all Arminians favor it. Then there is the Example Theory, which is a Socinian view of the atonement.