Governmental theory - Revision history

Kathleen.wright5: Category:Christian doctrine and debates

2009-11-27T13:39:47Z

Category:Christian doctrine and debates

MatthewClarke: small re-arrangements

2009-08-26T00:41:07Z

small re-arrangements

MatthewClarke: Apply standard template

2009-08-26T00:33:53Z

Apply standard template

Muser at 13:07, 19 July 2007

2007-07-19T13:07:13Z

Muser at 13:04, 19 July 2007

2007-07-19T13:04:45Z

Muser: Governmental theory (overview) moved to Governmental theory

2007-07-19T12:56:12Z

Governmental theory (overview) moved to Governmental theory

Muser at 13:48, 14 October 2006

2006-10-14T13:48:34Z

Muser: Atonement (Governmental theory): Overview moved to Governmental theory (overview)

2006-10-14T13:48:12Z

Atonement (Governmental theory): Overview moved to Governmental theory (overview)

Muser at 03:45, 9 November 2005

2005-11-09T03:45:04Z

Muser at 23:30, 14 October 2005

2005-10-14T23:30:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:39, 27 November 2009
Line 35:		Line 35:

	{{returnto}} [[Atonement]]		{{returnto}} [[Atonement]]
		+	[[Category:Christian doctrine and debates]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 }}
-The Governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. [[Arminianism]] has traditionally taught this doctrine, which is also known as "Moral Government" theology. The doctrine draws primarily from the works of [[Jacobus Arminius]] and [[Hugo Grotius]]. This view has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] and those who follow the teachings of [[John Wesley]].
+The Governmental theory of [[atonement]] teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. [[Arminianism]] has traditionally taught this doctrine, which is also known as "Moral Government" theology. The doctrine draws primarily from the works of [[Jacobus Arminius]] and [[Hugo Grotius]]. This view has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] and those who follow the teachings of [[John Wesley]].
-The '''Governmental theory of the atonement''' (also known as the moral government theory) maintains that Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race but 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.
+The theory maintains that Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race but 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 [governmental atonement] view holds that Christ by His death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. What His death did was to demonstrate what their sins deserved at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men if on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance, their works, and their perseverance, they meet His demand. ... But this is just to eviscerate the Savior's work of all its intrinsic saving worth and to replace the Christosoteric vision of Scripture with the autosoteric vision of Pelagianism." Robert Reymond, ''A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith'' (Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 80
+===History===
 This view of the atonement was developed by [[Hugo Grotius]] (1583-1645) based on the teaching of [[Jacobus Arminius]] (1560-1609).  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 theory]] formulated by [[Anselm]] (1033-1109), and the subsequent [[Penal substitution theory]] held by the Reformers and which argues that Jesus received the actual punishment due to men and women.
+This view is contrasted with that of the [[Satisfaction theory]] formulated by [[Anselm]] (1033-1109), and the subsequent [[Penal substitution theory]] held by the Reformers which argues that Jesus received the actual punishment due to men and women.
 Governmental Atonement is the prominent view in [[Arminianism]] and has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] where it has been detailed by 19th century Methodist theologian [[John Miley]] in his ''Atonement in Christ'' and his ''Systematic Theology'' (ISBN 0943575095) and more recently by Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his 1994 book ''A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology'' (ISBN 0834115123).
 ==Quotes==
 ==Links==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-__NOTOC__
+{{Infobox_Contents |
-==Synopsis==
+  topic_name = Governmental theory |
 The Governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. [[Arminianism]] has traditionally taught this doctrine, which is also known as "Moral Government" theology. The doctrine draws primarily from the works of [[Jacobus Arminius]] and [[Hugo Grotius]]. This view has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] and those who follow the teachings of [[John Wesley]].
 The '''Governmental theory of the atonement''' (also known as the moral government theory) maintains that Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race but 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.
@@ Line 26: / Line 18: @@
 Governmental Atonement is the prominent view in [[Arminianism]] and has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] where it has been detailed by 19th century Methodist theologian [[John Miley]] in his ''Atonement in Christ'' and his ''Systematic Theology'' (ISBN 0943575095) and more recently by Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his 1994 book ''A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology'' (ISBN 0834115123).
 ==Links==

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 This view of the atonement was developed by [[Hugo Grotius]] (1583-1645) based on the teaching of [[Jacobus Arminius]] (1560-1609).  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 theory]] formulated by [[Wikipedia:Anselm|Anselm]] (1033-1109), and the subsequent [[Penal substitution theory]] held by the Reformers and which argues that Jesus received the actual punishment due to men and women.
+This view is contrasted with that of the [[Satisfaction theory]] formulated by [[Anselm]] (1033-1109), and the subsequent [[Penal substitution theory]] held by the Reformers and which argues that Jesus received the actual punishment due to men and women.
 Governmental Atonement is the prominent view in [[Arminianism]] and has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] where it has been detailed by 19th century Methodist theologian [[John Miley]] in his ''Atonement in Christ'' and his ''Systematic Theology'' (ISBN 0943575095) and more recently by Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his 1994 book ''A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology'' (ISBN 0834115123).

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[Arminianism]] has traditionally taught what is known as "Moral Government" theology or the ''Governmental'' theory. Drawing primarily from the works of [[Jacobus Arminius]] and [[Hugo Grotius]], the Governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice.
+__NOTOC__
-Unlike the perspectives of [[Anselm of Canterbury]] or [[Calvinism]], this view states that Christ was not ''punished'' for humanity, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind's offenses were already punished. Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race.
+The Governmental theory teaches that Christ suffered for humankind so that God could forgive humans while still maintaining divine justice. [[Arminianism]] has traditionally taught this doctrine, which is also known as "Moral Government" theology. The doctrine draws primarily from the works of [[Jacobus Arminius]] and [[Hugo Grotius]]. This view has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] and those who follow the teachings of [[John Wesley]].
-This view has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] and all 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'' and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his 1994 book ''A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology''.
+==Contents==
-Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan [[Jonathan Edwards]] (called "[[New England Theology]]") and 19th century revival leader [[Charles Grandison Finney]].
+{{topics}}
-{{returnto}} [[Governmental theory]]
+{{opinions}}
-{{stub}}
+{{quotes}}

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:56, 19 July 2007
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:48, 14 October 2006
(No difference)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Unlike the perspectives of [[Anselm of Canterbury]] or [[Calvinism]], this view states that Christ was not ''punished'' for humanity, for true forgiveness would not be possible if humankind's offenses were already punished. Christ's suffering was a real and meaningful substitute for the punishment humans deserve, but Christ was not punished on behalf of the human race.
-This view has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] and all 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).
+This view has prospered in traditional [[Methodism]] and all 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'' and 20th century Church of the Nazarene theologian J. Kenneth Grider in his 1994 book ''A Wesleyan-Holiness Theology''.
 Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan [[Jonathan Edwards]] (called "[[New England Theology]]") and 19th century revival leader [[Charles Grandison Finney]].
@@ Line 21: / Line 14: @@
 [[Category:Methodism]]
 [[Category:Atonement]]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 Variations of this view have also been espoused by 18th century Puritan [[Jonathan Edwards]] (called "[[New England Theology]]") and 19th century revival leader [[Charles Grandison Finney]].
@@ Line 22: / Line 18: @@
-Go to [[Atonement]] contents page
+Go to [[Atonement (Governmental theory)]] contents page
 [[Category:Methodism]]
 [[Category:Atonement]]