Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Governmental theory of the atonement (also known as the moral government theory) maintains that Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race. Instead, God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin by punishing his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. Because Christ's suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus appeasing his wrath.
This [governmental atonement] view holds that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. What His death did was to demonstrate what their sins deserved at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men if on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance, their works, and their perseverance, they meet His demand. ... But this is just to eviscerate the Savior's work of all its intrinsic saving worth and to replace the Christosoteric vision of Scripture with the autosoteric vision of Pelagianism.
—Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 80
Moral
Governmental
Anyone care to expound more on these two views?
Also is it true that Edwards believed in the Governmental view??
This theory was elaborated by the younger President Edwards, presented in full in Dr. Beman’s work on the Atonement, and adopted by that numerous and highly influential class of American theologians who embraced the principle on which the theory, as held in this country, is founded.
Cheating a bit, I'll use the Theopedia entry for the governmental theory of the atonement. Note the comment by Dr. Robert Reymond that concludes this entry:
The Governmental theory of the atonement (also known as the moral government theory) maintains that Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race. Instead, God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin by punishing his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. Because Christ's suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus appeasing his wrath.
This [governmental atonement] view holds that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. What His death did was to demonstrate what their sins deserved at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men if on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance, their works, and their perseverance, they meet His demand. ... But this is just to eviscerate the Savior's work of all its intrinsic saving worth and to replace the Christosoteric vision of Scripture with the autosoteric vision of Pelagianism.
—Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 80
The governmental theory of the atonement is properly what classical Arminianism teaches. Thus most American evangelicals are not by that definition Arminian, but rather, evangelical universalists and/or Amyraldians.
(also known as the moral government theory)
The parenthetical phrase in the quote above can be somewhat misleading.(also known as the moral government theory)
The Moral View and the Governmental view are indeed two distinctly seperate views.
Well, that source is after all, only Theopedia. A ready resource, but not always as precise as we Puritans would like.
[I'd run and get Berkhof, but my study is a mess right now, in preparation for new bookcases]
[I'd run and get Berkhof, but my study is a mess right now, in preparation for new bookcases]