Views on the atonement

[T.A.G.]

Moral

Governmental

Anyone care to expound more on these two views?

Also is it true that Edwards believed in the Governmental view??

 

[Wayne]

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.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Moral

Governmental

Anyone care to expound more on these two views?

Also is it true that Edwards believed in the Governmental view??

See this link for Hodge on the Moral View and his arguments against it:
Hodge on the Moral View of the Atonement

The governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans apart from punishment while still maintaining divine justice. It has been a popular view among many factions of Arminians.
Hodge tells us that a "younger president" Edwards held this theory. Whether that means that Edwards rejected it in his later life or not is uncertain.

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.

See this link for Hodge on the Governmental View of the Atonement Govenmental View--Hodge

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I can't verify it as I don't have the reference, but according to Dr. W. Gary Crampton, Dr. John Gerstner refutes the claim that Jonathan Edwards held the governmental theory of the atonement. The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, vol. II, p. 436
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

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.

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.

 

[rbcbob]

If you can still find them, Roger Nicole gave some excellent lectures on these diverse theories of the atonement.

 

[Wayne]

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]

 

[T.A.G.]

Thanks!

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

[I'd run and get Berkhof, but my study is a mess right now, in preparation for new bookcases]

Berkof, Systematic Theology, pages 384-391---"Divergent Theories of the Atonement" Berkof does not give anything essentially different from Hodge. It seems the two theologians were in agreement on these theories.

And in Systematic Theology (Lectures XLII and XLIII), (pages 500-535) R.L. Dabney gives his take on the various views of the atonement.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Regarding Edwards and the Governmental view of atonement:

The New England Theology, a school of theology originating from Edwards' writings and associated with New England Congregationalism beginning in the later 1700's, eventually strayed from orthodox Calvinism with respect to the atonement. They gradually moved to the Governmental theory of atonement normally associated with Arminianism. While Edwards never personally held this view, some have argued that it is a logical conclusion from some of his writings.

See also Mark Noll on New England Theology:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/newengla.htm