Quotation from Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

[Jaxb]

Here is a quote from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology on pages 97 and 98. The contributor is J.K. Grider.

"A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive the ones who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. This view is called the governmental theory of the atonement."

I found the quote interesting because I thought that the teaching that Jesus paid sin's penalty is something that all Christians believe, not just Calvinists. It is my understanding that all Christians believe in the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, not just Calvinists.

[apostoli]

Here is a quote from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology on pages 97 and 98. The contributor is J.K. Grider.

"A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition. Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive the ones who repent and believe; his death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. This view is called the governmental theory of the atonement."

I found the quote interesting because I thought that the teaching that Jesus paid sin's penalty is something that all Christians believe, not just Calvinists. It is my understanding that all Christians believe in the penal substitutionary view of the atonement, not just Calvinists.

I'm RCC and without going into detail, it is my understanding that the greater Church (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC) reject the premises of penal substitution, especially if it is framed as the appeasement of a vengeful God, or the legalism of satisfying divine justice. Scripture is adamant that the penalty for sin is death (cp. Rom 6:23). The death of the sinner satisfies divine justice. All divine legalities concerning sin are satisfied by the death of the sinner. And we all know that despite Jesus' humiliation and sacrifice, death remains in the world.

The biblical metaphor is that in sinning we have sold ourselves unto the bondage of death. On our death we become bound to the grave, imprisoned in hades! As our kinsman redeemer Jesus' sacrifice pays the ransom price that will ultimately free us from the bondage of hades = the purpose of the resurrection.

[37818]

OK. How is penal substitutionary view of the atonement at odds with governmental theory of the atonement? Since in both views Christ die as our substitute (Isisah 53:6: Romans 5:8) and as a matter of God's justice (Romans 3:23-26; 1 John 2:1-2)?

[One Bad Pig]

I'm RCC and without going into detail, it is my understanding that the greater Church (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC) reject the premises of penal substitution, especially if it is framed as the appeasement of a vengeful God, or the legalism of satisfying divine justice. Scripture is adamant that the penalty for sin is death (cp. Rom 6:23). The death of the sinner satisfies divine justice. All divine legalities concerning sin are satisfied by the death of the sinner. And we all know that despite Jesus' humiliation and sacrifice, death remains in the world.

Wasn't penal substitution developed by Anselm of Canterbury, whom the RCC venerates as a saint? You are correct that the East generally rejects penal substitution.

I'm not familiar enough with formal Arminianism to know whether or not the author's presentation of it is accurate; this is the first I've heard of the "governmental theory."

[apostoli]

Wasn't penal substitution developed by Anselm of Canterbury, whom the RCC venerates as a saint? You are correct that the East generally rejects penal substitution.

Imu, the difference between Anselm's model and Calvin's model is similar to the difference between a cat and a dog. Superficially there are similarities but a cat is not a dog.

In Calvin's model, punishment satiates God's need for vengeance (a reflection of the judicial system of his urban environment). In Anselm's model, restoration of God's honour negates the need for punishment (a reflection of the justice system of tribal environments in his era).

We can't avoid the teaching of "substitution" and "propitiation", they are too prevalent in the NT. But what is their context? Imo, Anselm's model gives a satisfactory response. Adam was disobedient, Jesus was obedient in recompense. God's honour is restored! Why then did Jesus have to suffer and die for us? I have an answer that satisfies me. I won't impose it upon you, instead I'll let you contemplate the teachings of the EOC on this matter.

To anyone reading this post I invite you to heed Jesus' advice = "go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' (Mt 12:7; 9:13; Hosea 6:6. cp.1 Sam 15:22; Ps 51:16; Jer 7:22; Gen 8:20-21)

“What is more pleasing to the LORD...sacrifices or...obedience to his voice? Listen! Obedience is better than sacrifice. (1 Sam 15:22 - NLT), Jesus "he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross (Phil 2:8 - NLT).

I'm not familiar enough with formal Arminianism to know whether or not the author's presentation of it is accurate; this is the first I've heard of the "governmental theory."

The governmental model is possibly closer to Anselm's concept. I've only a cursory knowledge so can't go into details.

[Adam]

I prefer the Classic Theory of Atonement that all Christians believed until Anselm a thousand years on. Jesus gave His life as a ransom to Satan to end Satan's authority over Earth and eventually (in the Second Coming) Satan's power.

[hedrick]

The quote appears to be a Calvinist account of Arminius, implying that Arminians couldn't possibly believe that Christ substitutes for us because they didn't accept 5-point Calvinism.

In fact Arminius and many Arminians actually did believe in penal substitution. Here's one of many references: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PD...785_Pinson.pdf. What they didn't believe is that God limited Christ's death a priori to a specific set of people. Instead they believe that in principle Christ's death was unlimited, but in fact it is limited to those who have faith in Christ. This faith is not, of course, a purely human act, but results from the grace of God, acting with the person's will.

You may quite reasonably object to the way in which God's election and human response are portrayed as interacting. But it's not fair to deny that Arminius accept penal substitution, or to say that for Arminius Christ's death only set up the possibility of salvation and men then have to save themselves (which that article doesn't explicitly say, but is present in many treatments of Arminianism).

[tabibito]

Certainly, the scriptures declare that Christ for us (our benefit), and for sins. However, examination of the record shows a complete precis of the scriptures results in the declaration: "he died for (propitiation of) sins, for our benefit." or "He died so that the expiation of sins for our benefit might become possible."

Romans 5:6

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 Corinthians 15:3

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

Galatians 1:4

who (i.e. Christ) gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,

Hebrews 2:17

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 10:12

But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,

1 Peter 2:24

who (Christ) Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.

1 John 4:10

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.