SACRIFICE AND ATONEMENT IN CHRISTIAN THOUGHT
Greek terms for sacrifice from Strong’s Concordance on the NET Bible---
thusia <2378>
yusia thusia
Pronunciation: thoo-see'-ah
Origin: from 2380
Reference: TDNT - 3:180,342
PrtSpch: noun feminime
In Greek: yusian 11, yusiav 8, yusiaiv 3, yusiwn 2, yusia 2, yusiai 1
In NET: sacrifice 13, sacrifices 13, sacrificial 1
In AV: sacrifice 29
Count: 29
Definition: 1) a sacrifice, victim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from 2380; sacrifice (the act or the victim, literally or
figuratively):-sacrifice.
see GREEK for 2380
thuo <2380>
yuw thuo
Pronunciation: thoo'-o
Origin: a root word
Reference: TDNT - 3:180,342
PrtSpch: verb
In Greek: yuson 2, eyusav 1, teyumena 1, yush 1, etuyh 1, yuousin 1, yuesyai 1, eyusen 1, yusate 1, eyuon 1
In NET: kill 2, killed 2, slaughter 2, lamb 2, sacrifice 1, sacrificed 1, slaughtered 1
In AV: kill 8, sacrifice 3, do sacrifice 2, slay 1
Count: 14
Definition: 1) to sacrifice, immolate
2) to slay, kill
2a) of the paschal lamb
3) slaughter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a primary verb; properly, to rush (breathe hard, blow, smoke), i.e.
(by implication) to sacrifice (properly, by fire, but genitive case);
by extension to immolate (slaughter for any purpose):-kill, (do)
sacrifice, slay.
In Christian Theology, the study of Christ is Christology and a subcategory of that is Soteriology (the study of salvation)--- Soteriology is the branch of Christian theology that deals with salvation.[1] It is derived from the Greek soterion (salvation) (from soter savior, preserver) + English -logy.[2]
[edit] Christianity
Christian soteriology traditionally focuses on how God ends the separation people have from him due to sin by reconciling them with himself. (Rom. 5:10-11). Christians receive the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), life (Rom. 8:11), and salvation (1 Thess. 5:9) bought by Jesus through his innocent suffering, death (Acts 20:28) and resurrection from death three days later (Matt. 28). This grace in Christ (1 Cor. 1:4) is received through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) in him (Gal. 3:22, Rom. 10:9), which is caused by God's Word (Rom. 10:17). Some Christians teach the reception of Christ by grace alone through faith alone.
The different soteriologies found within the Christian tradition can be grouped into distinct schools: the Catholics and Orthodox on Justification, the Church, the Sacraments, and the freedom of the will; Arminianism's synergism; Calvinism's predestination (or monergism); and a large range [1] of Lutheran doctrine, including conversion [2], Justification by grace alone through faith alone [3], the Means of Grace [4], and the Church [5]. ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology[
edit] Views of different traditions
This article does not
cite any
references or sources. (May 2007)Please help
improve this article by adding citations to
reliable sources.
Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
Christian traditions answer questions about the nature, function and meaning of justification quite differently. These issues include: Is justification an event occurring instantaneously or is it as an ongoing process? Is justification effected by divine action alone (
monergism), by divine and human action together (
synergism) or by human action? Is justification permanent or can it be lost? What is the relationship of justification to
sanctification, the process whereby sinners become righteous and are enabled by the
Holy Spirit to live lives pleasing to God?
Tradition
ProcessorEvent
TypeofAction
Permanence
Justification&Sanctification
Roman Catholic
Process
Synergism
Can be lost via mortal sin
Part of the same process
Lutheran
Event
Divine monergism
Can be lost via loss of faith
Separate from and prior to sanctification
Methodist
Event
Synergism
Can be lost
Dependent upon continued sanctification
Orthodox
Process
Synergism
Can be lost via mortal sin
Part of the same process of
theosisReformed
Event
Divine monergism
Cannot be lost
Both are a result of
union with ChristThe study of atonement and sacrifice fall under the subcategory of soteriology
Justification was the central tenet of the soteriology of the Protestant Reformation
Before we get into a brief exposition of Romans 5:6-11, we must first look at the various theories of atonement
Fundamentalists primarily reduce Christ’s vicarious sacrifice of atonement as being only proclaimed by using the penal substitution theory of atonement---just because the Reformers rooted atonement, in that language---which is flawed and absurd. The atonement cannot be reduced into any one theory, but should be viewed in the whole of all the proposed theories.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution for more info on the penal substitution, the photocopies of pgs. 76-79 of Mark W. G. Stibbe’s Guide To Christian Belief for a list of a few other atonement theories (provided below) and Christus Victor From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
[edit] Gustaf Aulén's Christus Victor
The term Christus Victor comes from the title of Gustaf Aulén's groundbreaking book first published in 1931 where he drew attention back to this classical early church's understanding of the Atonement[1]. In it Aulén identifies three main types of Atonement Theories: the earliest was what Aulen called the "classical" view of the Atonement, more commonly known as Ransom Theory or since Aulén's work known sometimes as the "Christus Victor" theory: this is the theory that Adam and Eve sold humanity to the Devil during the Fall, hence justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil, which God did by tricking the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom since the Devil did not realize that Christ could not die permanently. A second theory is the "Latin" or "objective" view, more commonly known as Satisfaction Theory, beginning with Anselmian Satisfaction (that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind satisfying the demands of God's honor) and later developed by Protestants as penal substitution (that Christ is punished instead of humanity, thus satisfying the demands of justice so that God can justly forgive). A third is the "subjective" theory, commonly known as the Moral Influence view, that Christ's passion was an act of exemplary obedience which affects the intentions of those who come to know about it: it dates back to the early Christian authors and was championed by Abelard.
Aulén's book consists of a historical study beginning with the early church and tracing their Atonement theories up to the Protestant Reformation. Aulén argues that Christus Victor (or as Aulén called it the "classical view") was the predominant view of the early church and for the first thousand years of church history and was supported by nearly every Church Father including Irenaeus, Origen, and Augustine to name a few. A major shift occurred, Aulén says, when Anselm of Canterbury published his “Cur Deus Homo” around 1097 AD which marked the point where the predominant understanding of the Atonement shifted from the classical view (Christus Victor) to the Satisfaction view in the Catholic and later the Protestant Church. The Orthodox Church still holds to the Christus Victor view, based upon their understanding of the Atonement put forward by Irenaeus, called "recapitulation" Jesus became what we are so that we could become what he is. (see also Theosis).
Aulén argues that theologians have misunderstood the view of the early Church Fathers in seeing their view of the Atonement in terms of a Ransom Theory arguing that a proper understanding of their view should focus less on the payment of ransom to the devil, and more of the liberation of humanity from the bondage of sin, death, and the devil. As the term Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) indicates, the idea of “ransom” should not be seen in terms (as Anselm did) of a business transaction, but more in the terms of a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin.
Unlike the Satisfaction Doctrine view of the Atonement (the “Latin” view) which is rooted in the idea of Christ paying the penalty of sin to satisfy the demands of justice, the “classic” view of the Early church (Christus Victor) is rooted in the Incarnation and how Christ entered into human misery and wickedness and thus redeemed it. Aulén argues that Christus Victor view of the Atonement is not so much a rational systematic theory as it is a drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the Powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin. As Gustav Aulén writes,
The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil [2]
[edit] Development of the Christus Victor view after Aulén
While largely held only by Eastern Orthodox Christians for much of the last one thousand years, the Christus Victor theory is becoming increasingly popular with both Evangelicals because of its connection to the Early Church Fathers, and with Liberal Christians and Peace Churches such as the Mennonites because of its subversive nature, seeing the death of Jesus as an exposure of the cruelty and evil present in the worldly powers that rejected and killed him, and the resurrection as a triumph over these powers. As Marcus Borg writes,
for [the Christus Victor] view, the domination system, understood as something much larger than the Roman governor and the temple aristocracy, is responsible for the death of Jesus… The domination system killed Jesus and thereby disclosed its moral bankruptcy and ultimate defeat[3].
The Mennonite theologian J. Denny Weaver, in his book “The Nonviolent Atonement” and again recently in his essay "The Nonviolent Atonement: Human Violence, Discipleship and God," traces the further development of the Christus Victor theory (or as he calls it “Narrative Christus Victor”) into the Liberation Theology of South America, as well as Feminist and Black theologies of liberation[4]
This trend among Progressive and Liberal Christians towards the Christus Victor view of the Atonement marks a shift from the traditional approach of liberal Christianity to the Atonement known as the Moral Influence view espoused by theologians such as Schleiermacher.
[edit] Notes
^ Gustav Aulen (transl. by A. G. Herber) Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement (Macmillan: New York, 1977)
^ Ibid. p 20
^ Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity (Harper: San Francisco), p 95
^ J Denny Weaver, The Nonviolent Atonement (Eerdmans); J Denny Weaver, "The Nonviolent Atonement: Human Violence, Discipleship and God," Stricken by God? (Eerdmans, 2007).
[edit] Links Penal Substitution vs. Christus Victor. Good, detailed explanation
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtonementBrief Exposition Of Romans 5:6-11---the two key themes in these verses are: justification and reconciliation---both of which are part of Christ work of atonement. The underlying Greek terms in this text are: δικαιοω (dikaioō), "to declare/make righteous" --- deek-ah-yoo (justified) and katallage <2643>
katallagh katallage
Pronunciation: kat-al-lag-ay'
Origin: from 2644
Reference: TDNT - 1:258,40
PrtSpch: noun feminime
In Greek: katallaghv 2, katallagh 1, katallaghn 1
In NET: reconciliation 4
In AV: reconciliation 2, atonement 1, reconciling 1
Count: 4
Definition: 1) exchange
1a) of the business of money changers, exchanging equivalent values
2) adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favour
2a) in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners
that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of
Christ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from 2644; exchange (figuratively, adjustment), i.e. restoration to
(the divine) favor:-atonement, reconciliation(-ing).
see GREEK for 2644 --------
http://dev.bible.org/netbible6b/strong.php?id=2643Justification in the different Christian Traditions have already been dealt with so lets move on to some views of the work of reconciliation: in general, the atonement reconciles us to God
The work of reconciliation in the Church has been viewed differently in different streams of Christian thought
In more dogmatic, literalist, legalistic, hypocritical, self-righteous, Pharasaical, Fundamentalist churches---no one can be reconciled to the church unless they follow the party line of Christendom---which is reductionist check-list Christianity, which promotes bibliolatry and/or idolatry of the systematic/institutionalized version of Christianity
In more Moderate to Conservative/Fundamentalist/Mainline Churches---some lines are set sometimes, but there is typically a more lenient approach in who is reconciled and included in Church fellowship
Moderate to Liberal/Mainline Churches are about the same as above and are more inclusive and generally influenced by these streams of thought: - General Liberation/Marxist Christian/Social Gospel Theological Theory Of Reconciliation: the poor and the oppressed must be reconciled to the church (See the photocopies of pgs. 132-133, 152-153 and 162-163 of Oscar Romero’s The Violence Of Love provided below for examples of this thought) - Racial/Black Liberation Theological Theory Of Reconciliation: this stream of thought primarily deals with reconciliation on a racial level and deals with the issues of race and racism, in the Church and how to reconcile the races into a multiracial Church (This approach to liberation theology is typified by Martin Luther King, in his theological rhetoric of Civil Rights and the black theologian, James Cone) - Gender Liberation Or Feminist Theological Theory Of Reconciliation: reconciliation consists of egalitarian rhetoric and rescues theology from its patriarchal Aristotlean sexist captivity---liberated gender roles are reconciled with the Church (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_feminism for more details) - Rainbow/Sexual Orientation Liberation Theological Theory Of Reconciliation: a liberation movement of theology that seeks to reconcile the gay, lesbian, bi and transgender community into the Church (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_theology and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciling_Ministries_Network for more details)---it should be noted that two famous icons of Christianity were produced by two known practicing homosexual Christians---the King James Bible, which was authorized by the bisexual King James and the Sistine Chapel, which was painted by Michelangelo---whom had several homosexual relationships - The Ecumenical Movement: a movement that seeks to reconcile the wider church to focus on common Christo-centric goals regardless and instead of denominational/partisan doctrines or understandings of Christian doctrines - The Interfaith Movement: a movement that seeks dialogue, tolerance, understanding and cooperation between all religions and to focus on common religious goals though this often leads to a weakened Christology -------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_JustificationIn conclusion, one of the greatest aspects of Christ’s work of reconciliation is to restore the true dignity and worth of humanity through the restoration of the complete Imago Dei, which was blurred and skewed/fragmented as a result of humanity’s Fall (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imago_Dei) ---when Jesus said to take up one’s cross, He calls us to participate in His self-sacrificial suffering and work of redemptive reconciliation, so that when we encounter the poor, the oppressed, the homosexual or any of the least of these---we see the Truth, the Imago Dei of them (those who suffer as per Matthew 10:40-42; 25:31-46). In my humble opinion, the more authoritarian a church is the more limited the conception of Imago Dei is---whereas the more inclusive a church is the more unlimited the conception of Imago Dei is and rightfully so as grace, love and mercy are tied to reconciliation. Also, the orthodox belief of reconciliation is inseparable from its practical corollary the orthopraxis of hospitality---welcoming and affirming the stranger, foreigner and neighbor.
The Atonement Wars rage on in a blog post from last month of Ken Silva's on Al Mohler. It seems that Ken Silva and Al Mohler would divide the church over their pet theory of the Atonement: The Penal Substitution theory of the Atonement. (Yeah you heard me right Ken, I just called the Penal Substitution model of the Atonement a theory and it is. It is just one theological theory of the Atonement out of many---so get to cracking on calling me out as a heretic because if you don't I'm sure these guys or these guys will. This post was written just for you and with you in mind).
Posts
