Content preview - You need a premium account to view this content.
Appendix.
Other Views of the Atonement.
I.
History of Soteriology From Apostolic Times Until It Takes Definite Form under the Teaching of Anselm in the Twelfth Century.
Not even an epitome of the history of the doctrine of the Atonement may be attempted here. The title is written out, not to attempt a summary of the history of this branch of theological science; but merely to make a few remarks about that history.
It is quite generally conceded that the doctrine of the Atonement developed slowly. "Taking the term Atonement in its technical signification to denoate the satisfaction of divine justice for the sin of man, by the substituted penal sufferings of the son of God, we shall find a slower scientific unfolding of this great cardinal doctrine than of any other of the principal truths of Christianity."
Heretical Views During the First Two Christian Centuries: There were two views of the atonement held to be heretical during the two first Christian centuries, the Gnostic
The Gnostic heresy as affecting the Atonement brought against the scripture doctrine on that subject two contradictions; the first by one Basilides (A. D. 125), who affirmed only a human suffering in the Redeemer, which was not expiatory for the reason, first, because as merely human it was finite, and inadequate to atone for the sins of the whole world; and, second, because the idea of substituted penal suffering is inadmissible. "Suffering for the purposes of justice," their teacher said, of necessity implied personal criminality in the sufferer," and therefore can never be endured by an innocent peron like Christ." "The principle of vicarious substitution, in reference to justice, he held to be untenable.
The other contradiction of Gnosticism was made by Marcion (A. D. 150). He affirmed a divine suffering in the Redeemer, which was but apparent, however, because the "Logos," or "Word"-Christ-having assumed a phantom, not a real body, only a seeming suffering could occur, and could not, of course, be expiatory. "It was merely emblematical-designed to symbolize the religious truth, that man, in order to attain his true and highest life must die to his earthly life."
"If now we examine these Gnostic and Judaizing theories," says Shedd, from whom I am condensing this account, "we find that they agree in one capital respect, viz., in the rejection of the scripture doctrine of a real and true expiation of human guilt."
2. Soteriology of the Apostolic Fathers: In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, we obtain the views of the Church upon the doctrine of the Atonement during the first half century after the death of the last inspired apostle (A. D. 100-150). Examining them, we find chiefly the repetition of Scripture phraseology, without further attempt at an explanatory doctrinal statement. There is no scientific construction of the doctrine of Atonement in the writings of these devout and pious disciples of Paul and John; yet the idea of vicarious satisfaction is distinctly enunciated by them."