Atonement (Governmental view)

Grotius utilized "governmental" semantics due to his training in law and his general view of God as moral governor (ruler) of the universe. Grotius sought to demonstrate that the atonement appeased God in the divine role as cosmic king and judge.

This view is contrasted with that of the satisfaction/punishment theory formulated initially by St. Anselm, which is held by the Roman Catholic Church and by most Calvinists and which argues that Jesus received the actual punishment due to men and women.

Christ's suffering, according to governmental theory, was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race. Instead, God publicly demonstrated his displeasure with sin by punishing his own sinless and obedient Son as a propitiation. Because Christ's suffering and death served as a subsititute for the punishment humans might have received, God is able to extend forgiveness while maintaining divine order, having demonstrated the seriousness of sin and thus appeasing his wrath.

This view has prospered in traditional Methodism and among most who follow the teachings of John Wesley, and has been detailed by, among others, 19th century Methodist theologian John Miley in his classic Atonement in Christ and his Systematic Theology (ISBN 0943575095) and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his 1994 book A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology (ISBN 0834115123).

Variations of this view have also been espoused in the "New Divinity" (or "New England Theology") by the followers of the 18th century Calvinist Jonathan Edwards, though it is debated if Edwards approved of this view himself, and by 19th century revival leader Charles Grandison Finney.

External links