The Atoning Work of Christ: Moral Influence Theory

This blog post is part of the Atonement series where I intend to present all the main views of the atonement. While it may seem silly to study other views aside from your own, there are huge implications to believing one view over the other. I am writing this series so that I can further understand these views and their implications. I hope you will share in this journey of discovery with me. The first post on the atonement can be found here.

What is the moral influence theory?

The moral influence theory of the atonement focuses on Christ as the moral example that we should follow. Christ came not as a substitute to pay a debt to God or the devil, Christ came as God incarnate to unite himself to humanity so that in his love for humanity, he would awaken in us an “answering love” (Franks, Robert, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ in its Ecclesiastical Development, 189). It is out of Christ’s love that we desire to repent of our sins and live a moral life like Christ.

In opposition to the penal substitution theory and Christus Victor (which will be explained in an upcoming post), Christ’s death on the cross was not actually necessary. Hastings Rashdall a theologian who supports this theory explains that the death of Christ came simply because death comes for all humans:

“Some sort of death….was a necessary element in any really human life. And the particular mode of death was the outcome and culmination of the mode of life which He had chosen. The death was not His act, but the act of the Jewish priests, the Roman magistrate, and the Roman soldiers…[I]n the eternal counsels of God the death of Christ was allowed because it was foreseen that a life ending in a violent and self-sacrificing death would be a better proof and pledge of the Messiah’s love than any other kind of life; but the death showed no less love because, from the point of view of Him who died, He was dying for His disciples in the same sense in which all His ministry was for them (The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, 441-42).”

Instead of a focus on the death of Christ, moral influence theory focuses on His life. Christ as the God become Man is a revelation of Himself to humanity. And even in Christ’s suffering and death, we can see His character of love revealed to us.  As a result of Christ’s love, we will be persuaded to a life of repentance and regeneration.  This theory then “tends, in short, to represent Christ’s death as only a part, though a necessary part, of that whole incarnation or self-revelation of God, the object of which was to make known God’s nature and His will, to instruct men in the way of salvation, and to excite in them that love which would inspire sorrow for past sin and give the power to avoid sin in the future (Ibid., 443).”

Where did it originate?

Although most proponents of the moral influence theory claim that their ideas are taken directly from some of the Church Fathers, the view as a whole was not established or made popular until 1135 when Abelard wrote his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. While many Fathers such as Origen may have spoken of the moral influence of Christ, it was usually in conjunction with other views of the atonement.

First, Abelard argues against the idea that a ransom was paid to anyone – be it God or Satan.  The price could not have been paid to the devil because the devil had no hold or authority over man. Abelard explains: “Who doubts that if the servant of a certain lord should lead his fellow-servant astray with his persuasions and cause him to turn away from obedience to his own lord, how much more should the one leading astray be accused before his lord than the one led? And how unjust it is that he who led another astray should, from that time on, deserve to have an advantage or authority over the one he led astray… (Commentary on Romans, 165).” In other words, God didn’t need to defeat Satan because Satan didn’t have any power over man.

Abelard also goes against the penal substitution theory which was presented by Anselm less that 40 years prior. His biggest qualm with the theory is that it seems unjust that God would demand the blood of an innocent person in order to forgive our sins (Ibid., 167). It seemed to Abelard that if God wanted to forgive us – he would simply do it. Nothing was hindering Him from this act.  The reason then, for the death of Christ was this:

“[I]t seems to us that in this we are justified in the blood of Christ and reconciled to God, that it was through this matchless grace shown to us that his Son received our nature, and in that nature, teaching us both by word and by example, persevered to the death and bound us to himself even more though love, so that when we have been kindled by so great a benefit of divine grace, true charity might fear to endure nothing for his sake (Ibid., 167-68).”

It is through the love shown in Christ’s death that redeems us, frees us from the slavery of sin, and gives us the power to do all things out of love rather than out of fear (Ibid, 168).

What was the context?

Peter Abelard was a successful philosopher, especially in the realm of logic where he publicly defeated numerous opponents. He taught in the University and was admired by his students. Despite his popularity, in the area of theology, Abelard presented controversial ideas from the start. His logical analysis of the trinity was deemed heretical by a synod and they demanded that Abelard make a public avowal of faith. Later in his life, Abelard’s continuing work in theology, especially that of the atonement was brought to the attention of Bernard of Clairvaux. They attempted to resolve their differences, but were unable. In the end, the council of Soissons condemned his works and the Pope upheld their decision, ordering Abelard to silence.

What did the cross achieve under this view?

The cross gave us the ability to be reconciled to God by the influence of the love of Christ (“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” John 15:13) which would in turn kindle a love and repentance in us.

Which scriptures support this view?

Heb 10:14-17 – For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” then he adds, “I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more.”

James 2:14 & 17 – What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? …So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

Rev 20:12 – And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.

All scripture has been taken from the RSV

What are some common criticisms?

1. It appears to be a works based salvation

2. There is no real meaning in the death or resurrection of Christ

3. It ignores key scripture passages

4. There seems to be no reason why we couldn’t use other “good” teachers as influences to do good and repent

5. Salvation comes from our own reaction to what Christ did, rather than salvation from Christ alone

Note: Although there are obvious reasons to reject this view of the atonement, let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. There are many good things to be gleaned from this theory which will be touched on in a later post.

The next post in this series which summarizes the Christus Victor Theory can be found here.

The Atoning Work of Christ: Penal Substitution

In this series, I intend to post several blogs in regards to the  different theories of the atonement of Christ. The first blog introduces the most common view among protestants: penal substitution. Let me preface these posts by saying, I know very little. I am in the process of learning so what I post is merely my limited understanding. I trust that through you, the readers, the works of the church, and my community, that over the course of my life time I will gain a deeper understanding of the mystery of the cross.

 What is penal substitution?

We all know it well. It is taught in protestant churches and in most every protestant book written about the gospel.

In his book, Living the Cross Centered Life, the well known author, CJ Mahaney talks about the divine dilemma:

“For God, the divine dilemma comes about because He isn’t indifferent to any of this sinfulness on mankind’s part. He is, in fact, righteously and furiously opposed to every bit of it. He cannot simply overlook or excuse it. In light of His holiness and justice, He has no alternative but to punish sin and punish the sinner (62).”

And yet scripture also tells us that God’s desire is to save. This puts God in a predicament – the divine dilemma.  The only person who can save us is a God-Man, someone who is perfectly sinless and also fully human.  “No one else could do it. Only Jesus Christ, truly God and fully man, could be our substitute and make this sacrifice…He paid the price you and I owed to the innocent offended party, God our Creator and Judge (Ibid, 72).” In order for the wrath and righteousness of God to be satisfied, God imputed the guilt of our sins onto Christ, who then bore the punishment we deserve.

John Stott puts it simply: “Divine love triumphed over divine wrath by divine self-sacrifice (Ibid., 55).”

Where did it originate?

It is generally thought that the atonement theory of Penal Substitution originated in all its grandeur in the work of a theologian named Anselm called Cur Deus Homo (Why God became Man), written in 1098.

In this book he argues that man, in sinning, dishonors God and “[i]t is impossible for God to lose his honor, for either the sinner pays his debt of his own accord, or, if he refuse, God takes it from him. For either man renders due submission to God of his own will, by avoiding sin or making payment, or else God subjects him to himself by torments, even against man’s will, and thus shows that he is the Lord of man, though man refuses to acknowledge it of his own accord (Book 1, XIV).” And as Mahaney also suggests, it is only this God-Man, Jesus, who can pay the debt as a substitute for humanity. Anselm elaborates:

“And this debt was so great that, while none but man must solve the debt, none but God was able to do it; so that he who does it must be both God and man. And hence arises a necessity that God should take man into unity with his own person; so that he who in his own nature was bound to pay the debt, but could not, might be able to do it in the person of God (Ibid., Book 2, XVII).”

What was the cultural context?

Why was it that Anselm held this view of the atonement? Why hadn’t we seen this view to any great extent in previous writings? Well let’s look at the cultural setting from which Anselm arose.

Anselm lived within a feudal society where relationships were based on exchange of holding land for service. A lord was someone who held land and a vassal was a person who would be given possession of the land in exchange for protection of the lord and providing some sort of service.  The vassal was always bound by an oath, made publicly to his master. The relationships between the people can be seen in the graphic below.

Under this system, if a vassal offended his lord by breaking this oath, it was felony and the most series civil crime one could commit (http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/distance/hist151/feudal.htm). The vassal would then have to offer something to satisfy the lord. It was seen as “improper if a lord did not demand redress from a guilty vassal or take revenge against another lord who had in some way offended him (Mark Baker, Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross, 20).”

We can easily see, that in this society, it made complete sense for Anselm to promote an idea where God, being offended, demanded payment for the sin and that He could not merely forgive man without a payment being made. It also made sense that judgment would be necessary if payment was not made.  The one difference, of course, is that the lord (God) made the payment on the vassal’s (mankind’s) behalf by becoming one of us.

What did the cross achieve under this view?

Now, because Christ has paid the price, if you have faith in the crucified work of Christ the God incarnate, you can have your sins forgiven and have eternal life with Christ. Christ died, so that I don’t have to die.

What scripture supports this view?

Hebrews 2:17 – Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Romans 3:24-25 – And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

1 John 2:2 – He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

All Scripture taken from the ESV

What are some common criticisms?

Here are some of the most common critiques from those opposed to this theory of the atonement:

1. It is not representative of the early church

2. It is based on the culture of that day (feudalism) or the human court system, which is not representative of God’s justice.

3. It makes God out to be an evil child abuser.

4. If the debt was paid – how did God freely forgive, since forgiveness is something that is offered freely with no restitution made?

The next post in this series which summarizes the Moral Influence Theory can be found here.