D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
This is a very old debate–Anselm of Canterbury on one hand, articulating the atonement in terms of human medieval tort law, and Peter Abelard on the other with the moral influence theory, stating that Christ died as an example of God’s love to a sinful world, which love necessarily destroys sin and death.
Questions: Does God receive satisfaction, or does God pardon? Does Christ die in order to appease the Father, or does he die to utterly exhaust our sinful nature?
I don’t see why the two views must be mutually exclusive, but in our divisive culture, I suppose it gives those of us who favor retributive jurisprudence over mercy (or vice versa) the excuse to call the other faction heretical.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
El Paulo, absolutely. The unfortunate thing is that the media rarely does justice to the subtleties of theology.
This is a very old debate–Anselm of Canterbury on one hand, articulating the atonement in terms of human medieval tort law, and Peter Abelard on the other with the moral influence theory, stating that Christ died as an example of God’s love to a sinful world, which love necessarily destroys sin and death.
Questions: Does God receive satisfaction, or does God pardon? Does Christ die in order to appease the Father, or does he die to utterly exhaust our sinful nature?
I don’t see why the two views must be mutually exclusive, but in our divisive culture, I suppose it gives those of us who favor retributive jurisprudence over mercy (or vice versa) the excuse to call the other faction heretical.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!