Atonement Retributivism

In this article I will illustrate how concepts such as wrongdoing, guilt, remorse, penance, atonement, reconciliation, forgiveness and punishment are interlinked in a pattern which is reminiscent of the way pieces in a jigsaw puzzle are interlinked with each other. I would like to label this conceptual “puzzle” atonement retributivism. Atonement retributivism should not be regarded as a theory, justifying punishment. Rather, it is an illustration of a vocabulary which illuminates how deeply rooted punishment is in our moral lives. This illustration shows that classical and modern theories on punishment have redefined punishment in a way which tears it apart from its conceptual roots. One practical consequence of this philosophical mistake is that the moral aspects of punishment are not recognized by our modern legal system. Hence, punishment no longer serves as penance and thus has lost its moral content.     

Saved by Trauma: A Psychoanalytical Reading of the Atonement

This work offers a Lacanian account of the work of Christ on the cross. It proffers a Holy Saturday theology in which God has to embrace suffering and death in its entirety in order to end the stranglehold of the world's system of sacrifice; the divine took on death as a constitutive factor. A reading of the atonement is constructed in which a diabolical system is shattered from within by the actions of a unique victim; it also relates the vicarious element of the atonement to the psychoanalytical concept of transference. Ultimately, this article hopes to contribute to the ongoing interaction between psychoanalysis and theology. Naturally it also hopes to influence the debate over which discursive “model” of the atonement is most helpful.     

Christ, Spirit and Atonement

The Christian doctrine of the atonement is complex, not least in part because it must hold together the integrity of both divine and human being. Too often attempts to expound theologies of atonement have foundered because they have pitted divine and human action in competition one with the other. This article addresses itself to this problematic by suggesting three minimum conditions which must be met if this doctrine is to a give a theologically plausible account of salvation: first, that divine and human activity not be identified; second, that divine and human activity not be co-ordinated so as to complete or complement each other; and third, that neither divine nor human activity be rendered superfluous. The article elaborates upon these conditions by taking as its test case the Christian claim: God was in Christ.     

Barth and Anselm: God,Christ and the Atonement

This article considers God, Christ and the atonement in the work of Anselm and Barth. It identifies key points of agreement regarding God's self‐assigned identity and the importance of dyothelitism; it discerns a marked divergence of opinion with respect to the atonement. Anselm construes the atonement in terms of a gift that Christ offers on behalf of sinful humankind. Barth, on the other hand, presents a view of atonement that builds on his revolutionary doctrine of election. He describes the cross as an event in which sin is ‘burned up’, cancelled and overcome within the time and space of God's being.     

Violence,Atonement, and Retributive Justice: Bonhoeffer as a Test Case

Recent soteriological discourse has worried that atonement theologies like satisfaction and penal substitution have potentially damaging effects like inoculating us to our violence, further buttressing retributive justice, and inducing passive acquiescence in the face of abuse. Though legitimate concerns in their own right, this essay investigates whether certain views on the atonement do in fact produce the issues of concern. By investigating the thought of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who believed that God had to punish sin, this article will seek to identify the complex nuances in Bonhoeffer's work that would potentially safeguard against some of the concerns being raised about atonement theologies like his.     

The Role of Christian Belief in Public Policy

It seems intuitive to the believer that God intended throughinstruction in the Law to define morality, intended to leadhumankind to "the right and the good." Further, God's love forhumankind, exemplified by the incarnation, atonement and teachingsof Jesus, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, should lead to abetter world. Indeed, the Christian worldview is a coherentand valid way to look at bioethical issues in public policyand at the bedside. Yet, as this paper explores, in a pluralisticsociety such as the United States, it is neither possible nordesirable for Christians to try to force their views on others.Still, it is obligatory for Christians to stand up and articulatetheir views in the public square. We should try to persuadeothers using either prudential or moral arguments. While wemust be willing to live with "the will of the people," at thesame time, we must not be intimidated into accepting the positionthat our voice is not valid because it has a religious basis.     

Theories and Theoria of the Atonement: A Proposal

This article traces the origins of language about ‘theories’ of the atonement in Friedrich Schleiermacher and F.C. Baur’s historicization of Protestant theology in Germany. It follows the growth and promulgation of this conceptualization as it spread to America and Great Britain in the later nineteenth century. This approach contributed to the growth and development of the doctrine and its history, while severely limiting it in important ways. I note four dangers implicit within uncritical use of ‘theory’ language in studies of the history of the doctrine of the atonement, and conclude by arguing that a more fitting approach lies in the ancient and medieval concept of theoria, or contemplation, which serves as the broader telos for appreciating the riches we have in the work of Christ, within which modest contemporary notions of theory can and should play a role.     

Rethinking Debt: Theology,Indebted Subjects,and Student Loans

This article focuses on the way in which a theological understanding of debt resonates with moral and economic debt, with particular attention paid to student loan debt. Although the so‐called satisfaction theory of atonement, which grounds itself in the debt we owe to God, resonates with the logic of contemporary capitalism, this article suggests that other theological traditions concerning debt, which conceive of debt variously as something owed to the devil or as something that God owes to us, provide avenues for rethinking debt, theologically, morally, and economically.     

Jonathan Edwards on the Atonement

Evidence suggests Jonathan Edwards' adherence to a version of the penal substitution theory of atonement. Evidence also suggests that Edwards' version of the penal substitution theory requires certain metaphysical commitments about the nature of Christ's relationship to the elect, echoing those issued in his Original Sin 4.3, and elsewhere, regarding the relationship of Adam to his posterity. In what follows, I argue that such evidence points to Edwards' adherence to what has more recently been described in the literature of contemporary philosophical theology as an account of realist penal substitution.     

Evolution, Sociobiology, and the Atonement

This essay views Christian doctrines of the atonement in the light of evolution and sociobiology. It argues that most of the doctrines are false because they use a false premise, the historicity of Adam and the Fall. However, two doctrines are not false on those grounds: Abelard's idea that Jesus' life is an example and Athanasius' concept that the atonement changes human nature. Employing evolution's and sociobiology's concepts of the egocentric and ethnocentric nature of humanity and the synergy between genes and environments to produce a "nature," this essay shows that these two doctrines can be amalgamated to make sense of the atonement in the late twentieth century.     

Jonathan Edwards,Anselmic Satisfaction and God's Moral Government

Jonathan Edwards' doctrine of atonement has recently become a source of interest amongst some contemporary systematic theologians. This article sets out to redress two longstanding and historically strident claims regarding Edwards' doctrine of the nature of atonement: first, that Edwards espoused an Anselmic satisfaction theory of atonement; second, that Edwards also laid the theological foundation for the moral government theory of atonement, popularized in nineteenth‐century America by those of his intellectual tradition. In this article, I lay out the conceptual core of both Anselm's satisfaction theory and the moral government theory of atonement. I argue that the claims noted above lack the explanatory resources needed to account accurately for Edwards' understanding of the nature of the atonement.     

Voluntarism,Atonement, and Duns Scotus

The two most important concepts in Duns Scotus's (1265/6‐1308) theology of the Atonement are satisfaction and merit. Just what these amount to and how they function in his theory are heavily conditioned by two more general commitments: Scotus's voluntarism, which includes the claim that nearly all of God's relations with the created order are contingent; and his formulation of the Franciscan Thesis, which holds that fixing the sin problem is not the primary purpose of God's Incarnation in Christ and that if Adam hadn't sinned God would have become incarnate anyway. In this essay I will discuss the theoretical background of Scotus's atonement theology—his voluntarism and his version of the Franciscan Thesis—before moving on to discuss his understanding of merit and satisfaction, how these are related, and how they relate to the theoretical background. I will engage some important recent scholarly attempts to position Scotus's Atonement theology as not quite as anti‐Anselmian as history has characterized it, arguing that one of these attributes to Scotus an understanding of merit which cannot be Scotus's in fact, since it entails a restriction on divine freedom that Scotus certainly would reject.     

'The Cruciality of the Cross': P.T. Forsyth's Understanding of the Atonement

The writings of British Congregationalist theologian Peter Taylor Forsyth (1848–1921), although traversing a wide range of topics, revolve around a clear centre – his understanding of the significance of the death of Christ on the cross. Commentators on his thought have, however, lamented the occasional nature of his writings on this central doctrine of the atonement, and highlighted aspects of his thought which require clarification. This article seeks to respond to these observations by presenting a fairly complete and systematic view of Forsyth's understanding of the atonement, supplementing his explicit statements where necessary by drawing out the implications of his writings. We hope, at the end, to have demonstrated the robustness of Forsyth's treatment of the atonement, especially its ability to integrate the diverse areas of thought traditionally associated with this doctrine.     

The Sin of Ian McEwan's Fictive Atonement:Reading his Later Novels

Ian McEwan is arguably the best living British novelist. His most successful novel, Atonement , was recently made into an internationally successful film. And indeed, through analysis of his novels, it is clear that Ian McEwan believes literature—precisely as fictive—might very well bear the task of atonement for postmodernity. His novels, though, are patently hopeless, (even as they are truly well-written). Because McEwan doesn't accept or see the causes of sin as such—formally understood as rebellion against the Creator—his diagnostic aesthetic of our postmodern malaise is incomplete and ineffectual. The literary or fictive atonement that he would achieve through his novels does not satisfy. This article aims to lay bare the philosophico-literary characteristics of Ian McEwan's later novels. The ultimate goal of this critical reading, though—tending toward an "evangelical lection"—is to transfigure McEwan's imaginative and creative virtuosity for otherwise disappointed Christian readers, precisely by envisioning his novels in the dark light of their redemptive deficit. Thus, the literary or fictive atonement that Ian McEwan's atheism cannot achieve might be saved apropos the Judeo-Christian revelation of divine atonement.     

A Unified Theory of the Atonement

Abstract:  Following Aulén, three broad, and competing, models of the atonement are outlined in this article, and an argument is offered to suggest that the mediatorial model should be considered normative. The argument proceeds through discussion with N.T. Wright's adoption of the victory model as normative in his expositions of Pauline theology. It is here suggested that the victory model is inherently unsuitable as a paradigm for the soteriology of Romans, and argued that the assertion that it can explain the process of reconciliation lacks foundation. Further, there is indication as to how the occasional language of victory in the New Testament can often be incorporated naturally within a mediation framework.     

The Theology of Atonement in Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism Viewed Through Hymnody

Abstract : The last twenty years have seen a resurgence in dialogue between Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as the dialogue pertains to deification, known as theosis. For Eastern Orthodox Christians, theosis is one way to describe atonement. This paper approaches the theology of atonement through the lens of each tradition's hymnody. Although the images in the hymns are not identical, their themes are similar enough to reinforce the present‐day dialogue between these two traditions.     

Collingwood on religious atonement

R. G. Collingwood’s philosophical analysis of religious atonement as a dialectical process of mortal repentance and divine forgiveness is explained and criticized. Collingwood’s Christian concept of atonement, in which Christ  \(=\)  the Atonement (and also  \(=\)  the Incarnation), is subject in turn to another kind of dialectic, in which some of Collingwood’s leading ideas are first surveyed, and then tested against objections in a philosophical evaluation of their virtues and defects, strengths and weaknesses. Collingwood’s efforts to synthesize objective and subjective aspects of atonement, and his proposal to solve the soteriological problem as to why God becomes flesh, as a dogma of some Christian belief systems, is finally exposed in adversarial exposition as inadequately supported by one of his main arguments, designated here as Collingwood’s Dilemma. The dilemma is that sin is either forgiven or unforgiven by God. If God forgives sin, then God’s justice is lax, whereas if God does not forgive sin, then, also contrary to divine nature, God lacks perfect loving compassion. The dilemma is supposed to drive philosophy toward a concept of atonement in which the sacrifice of Christ is required in order to absolve God of the lax judgment objection. God forgives sin only when the price of sin is paid, in this case, by the suffering and crucifixion of God’s avatar. The dilemma can be resolved in another way than Collingwood considers, undermining his motivation for synthesizing objective and subjective facets of the concept of atonement for the sake of avoiding inconsistency. Collingwood is philosophically important because he asks all the right questions about religious atonement, and points toward reasonable answers, even if he does not always deliver original philosophically satisfactory solutions.     

A Fuller Account: The Role of ‘Fittingness’ in Thomas Aquinas' Development of the Doctrine of the Atonement

This article draws attention to Thomas Aquinas' under‐appreciated development of the doctrine of the atonement. I argue that Thomas' pursuit of the ‘fittingness’ of the passion yields an exceptional grasp of the multiplicity of effects accomplished by Christ's death. To defend this thesis, I explore the methodology underlying Thomas' approach to the atonement, contrasting it with that of Anselm. I then follow the implications of Thomas' methodology in his stance toward the diverse atonement theories of his day. In conclusion, I briefly note the significance of Thomas' method and conclusions for contemporary debates concerning the efficacy of Christ's passion.     

God and Some Recent Public Theologies

This article addresses the 'ever widening' circle of theological writing concerned with the public character of theology. Specifically, it examines the work of two 'public theologians': Linell Cady and Max Stackhouse, and it does so by focusing on the concept of God ingredient in their programmes for contemporary public theology. The article is an inquiry into the sort of theology such public theologies might be. It argues that an account of the identity and agency of God is of decisive significance for an account of the public character of theology. In keeping with its exploratory nature, it concludes with a series of questions regarding the work of Cady and Stackhouse and suggests an alternative way forward for public theology. It suggests a re-orientation of public theology 'on the basis of a more robust account of divine identity and divine agency cognizant of the possibilities afforded by the prevenient publicity of the God of the Christian gospel'.