Atonement (governmental view)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on
Methodism
John Wesley George Whitefield

Background
Christianity
Protestantism
Pietism
Anglicanism
Arminianism
Wesleyanism
Calvinism

Doctrinal distinctives
Articles of Religion
Prevenient Grace
Governmental Atonement
Imparted righteousness
Christian perfection

People
Richard Allen
Francis Asbury
Thomas Coke
Albert C. Outler
James Varick
Charles Wesley
Bishops
Theologians

Largest groups
World Methodist Council
United Methodist Church
AME Church
AME Zion Church
Church of the Nazarene
British Methodist Church
CME Church
Uniting Church in Australia

Related movements
Moravian Church

Holiness movement
Salvation Army
Personalism
Pentecostalism

Christianity Portal

This box: view • talk • edit

The governmental view of the atonement (also known as the moral government theory) is a doctrine in Christian theology concerning the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ and has been traditionally taught in Arminian circles that draw primarily from the works of Hugo Grotius. The governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans apart from punishment while still maintaining divine justice.

Contents

[edit] Meaning

The governmental theory arose in opposition to Socinianism [1] . Grotius wrote Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi, in which he utilized "governmental" semantics drawn from his training in law and his general view of God as moral governor (ruler) of the universe. Grotius demonstrated that the atonement appeased God in the divine role as cosmic king and judge, and especially that God could not have simply overlooked sin as the Socinians claimed.

Despite its origin, Grotius' view is most often contrasted with that of the satisfaction theory formulated initially by St. Anselm, which is held by the Roman Catholic Church, and developed further into the punishment theory held by most Calvinists. It can also be contrasted with the Christus Victor understanding preferred by most Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Lutherans. The satisfaction and punishment theories argue that Jesus received the full and actual punishment due to men and women while the Christus Victor view emphasises the liberation of humanity from the bondage of sin, death, and the devil.

By contrast, governmental theory holds that Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but it did not consist of Christ receiving the exact punishment due to sinful people. Instead, God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin through the suffering of his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. Christ's suffering and death served as a substitute for the punishment humans might have received. On this basis, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus allowing his wrath to "pass over".

A second feature of governmental theory is the scope of the atonement. According to governmental theory, Christ's death applies not to individuals directly, but to the Church as a corporate entity. Individuals then partake of the atonement by being attached to the Church through faith. It is also, therefore, possible to fall out of the scope of atonement through loss of faith. This view contrasts especially with the punishment theory, which holds that Jesus' death served as a substitute for the sins of individuals directly (see also limited atonement).

This view has prospered in traditional Methodism and among most who follow the teachings of John Wesley, and has been detailed by, among others, 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley in his Atonement in Christ and his Systematic Theology (ISBN 0-943575-09-5) and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his 1994 book A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (ISBN 0-8341-1512-3). However, according to Roger Olson, it is incorrectly associated with the governmental theory that all Arminians did agree with that view because as he states: "Arminius did not believe it, neither did Wesley nor some of his nineteenth-century followers. Nor do all contemporary Arminians" (Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, p. 224).

Variations of this view have also been espoused in the New Divinity school of thought (a stage of the New England Theology) by the followers of the 18th century Calvinist Jonathan Edwards, though it is debated if Edwards approved of this view himself[2][3], and by 19th century revival leader Charles Grandison Finney.

 It has been suggested that Youth_With_A_Mission#unorthodox_Doctrines be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Pro

[edit] Con

  • The Governmental Theory from Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, which gives a concise exposition of atonement theories in general and, in this passage, argues against the Governmental theory.