« PreviousContinue »
Jesus as a solemn confirmation on the part of God of his willingness to
pardon sin. Generally speaking these supernaturalists did not strictly adhere to the definitions of the symbolical books, and only admitted that which they thought could be proved by the plain words of Scripture. Nevertheless they did not wholly reject the theory of accommodation, especially as applied to God. See Baur, p. 547 ss.
• Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, p. 87 ss. According to Kant, man must, after all, deliver himself. A substitution, in the proper sense of that word, cannot take place. It is impossible that liabilities should be transmissible like debts (p. 88). Neither does the reformation of the heart pay off former debts. Thus man would still have to expect an infinite punishment on account of the infinite guilt which he has contracted. Nevertheless the extinction of guilt is possible. For inasmuch as, in consequence of the opposition (antinomy) existing between moral perfection and external happiness, he who amends his conduct has to undergo the same sufferings as he who perseveres in his evil course, and the former bears those sufferings with a worthy heart for the sake of virtue, he willingly submits to them as the punishment due the old man for his former sins. In a physical aspect he continues the same man, but in a moral aspect, he has become a a new man; thus the latter suffers in the room of the former. But that which thus takes place in man himself, as an internal act, is manifested in the person of Christ (the Son of God) in a visible manner, as the personified idèa ; that which the new man takes upon himself, while the old man is dying, is represented in this representative of mankind as the death which he suffered once for all (comp. p. 89 ss.). Nor can, in the opinion of Kant, any external expiation (not even that of the Son of God as our ideal representative) supply the lack of our own self-improvement (p. 96 and 163). — Concerning those theologians who adopted the principles of Kant, such as Tieftrunk, (Süsskind), Staüdlin, Ammon, and others, see Baur, 1. C.-The
theory of Kant was modified by Krug, in his Widerstreit der Vernunft mit sich selbst, in der Versöhnungslehre dargestellt und aufgelöst, Züllichau, 1802, (Gesammelte Schriften, i. Abtheilung: Theologische Schriften, vol. i., 1830, p. 295 ss.). See Baur, p. 589 ss.
Wegscheider, p. iii., c. ii., $ 142, reduces the design of Christ's death to this: Per religionis doctrinam a Christo propositam et ipsius morte sancitam hominibus, dummodo illius præceptis omni, quo par est, studio obsequantur, veram monstrari viam et rationem, qua, repudiatis quibusvis sacrificiis aliisque cærimoniis placandi numinis divina caussa institutis, vero Dei ejusque præceptorum amore ducti Deo probari possint. Attamen continues he) ne animis fortioribus bene consulendo imbecilliores offendamus, sententiam de morte Jesu Christi expiatoria, ipsorum scriptorum ss. exemplo, etiam symbo lica quadam ratione adumbrare licebit, ita ut mors Christi proponatur vel tamquam symbolum, quo sacrificia qualicunque sublata sint, ac reconciliatio hominis cum Deo significata et venia peccatorum caivis vere emendato solemni ritu confirmata, etc. He uses very strong language in opposition to the ecclesiastical doctrine (which he caricatures): Omnino vero doctores caveant, ne conscientiæ improborum, imprimis morti propinquorum, quasi veternum obducant nimium jactando vim sanguinis Christi expiatoriam, quo
Deus Molochi instar, piaculi innocentis quippe sanguinem sitientis, placatus sistatur. (Comp. Bengel, above, note 1, and Reinhard, note 5). On the rational supernaturalistic theory of Schott and Bretschneider, comp. Baur, p. 608 ss.
• In his Commentatio de Morte Christi expiatoria, Berol., 1813 (reprinted in his Opuscula, Berol., 1830). The views propounded in that treatise are completed and corrected in the latter writings of De Wette (comp. the preface to his Opuscula). Religion und Theologie, p. 253: “We do not think like many modern theologians, that the doctrine of atonement is a useless or even pernicious remnant of Judaism in Christianity....we regard it (as grasped by the feelings) as an æsthetic religious symbol which exerts the most beneficial influence apon the pious mind. The consciousness of guilt is the religious sentiment of submission, by which we humble ourselves before God, and through which we obtain peace. As all ideas have their historical and personal manifestation in Christ, so too this idea of redemption, which surpasses all others, in order that the entire life of mankind might be reflected in him.... In the death of Christ, which is the greatest proof of his love, we see displayed both the magnitude of our depravity, and the victory over it." Comp. bis Dogmatik, $ 73, a and b. The symbolical interpretation of Christ's death adopted by De Wette differs from that of Kant (and Wegscheider), in addressing itself to the feelings of man, and thus making the appropriation of that event a necessary act on the part of every one, inasmuch as religion itself has its root in those feelings. On the other hand Kant regarded the death of Christ as a symbol designed to assist the understanding (as a needful aid for those who require a symbolical representation of abstract ideas).
According to Schleiermacher, the redeeming and atoning principle is not the single fact that Christ died, but a vital union with him. (In this union he recognizes a mystical element, which he distinguishes from the magical as well as the empirical, assigning to it an intermediate place.) By means of this vital union we appropriate to ourselves Christ's righteousness (his obedience upto death);* this appropriation, however, is not to be confounded with the mere external theory of vicarious satisfaction. But inasmuch as this single being represents the totality of believers, he may be rather called our satisfaction-making substitute. Comp. his Christlicher Glaube, ii. p. 103, ss., p. 128, ss. Banr, 614, ss. [According to Schleier. macher our reconciliation consists in our reception into the common life of Christianity, and sharing its common spirit. But since this life exists only in the finite form of an historical process, there is no absolute reconciliation, no unity with God. Baur, Dogmengesch., 287.] In opposition to Schleiermacher, Steudel defended the orthodox doctrine, see Baur, p. 642.-Nitzsch, following Schleiermacher, endeavored (System der christlichen Lehre, p. 238–248), to assign a more definite significance to Christ's passive obedience, which in the opinion of Schleiermacher, is only the crown of his active obedience. He made a distinction between reconciliation and expiation (katalλαγή and ιλασμός).
• Schleiermacher rejected the phrase that Christ fulfilled the law; he only fulfilled the Divine will, p. 134-136.
· Fichte, Anweisung zum seligen Leben, especially the fifth Lecture, p. 124, ss.; the ninth and tenth, p. 251, ss. Baur, p. 691, ss. Schelling,
. Methode des akademischen Studiums, $ 299, note 8). Comp. Blasche, das Böse; etc., p. 304, ss. Hegel, Religionsphilosophie, Vol. ii. p. 246, ss., p. 249 : “God is dead : this is the most dreadful idea, that all that is eternal, all that is true, is no more—that the negation itself is in God; the highest sorrow, the consciousness of perfect inability to help oneself, the giving up of all that is higher, is connected with this idea. But the process does not stop here; on the contrary, a change takes place-viz., God preserves himself in this process, which thus becomes the death of death. God rises again to life, and thus turns to the opposite.”....P. 251 : “It is infinite love, that God identifies himself with that which is foreign to him, in order to destroy it. This is the import of Christ's death." P. 253 : “ The phrase : God himself is dead, occurs in a Lutheran hymn; this means, that the human, the finite, the frail, the negative, itself contains a divine principle, is in God himself; that the being-Another [das Andersein), the finite, the negative, is not without God, does not prevent the unity with God,” etc.[What in Schleiermacher takes place only within the sphere of consciousness and history, becomes in Hegel the absolute process of God, or of the spirit. It is presupposed, that the antagonism in itself is abolished. This is what makes up the whole historic course of the Godman. In him, as in an individual, is represented what belongs to the very nature of God or of the spirit, viz., that it must become external to itself, become another, become nature, be individualised ; and also be one (united) with itself, in this diremtion. The transient, external history of the Godman, his death and resurrec. tion must be spiritualized, as the process of the finite spirit subduing the limits and frailties of its natural existence, and reconciling itself with its real nature. Baur, Dogmengeschichte, pp. 387–8.] Comp. Baur, l. c. p. 712, ss., and his Christliche Gnosis, p. 671, ss. - Daub, Theologumena (quoted by Baur, p. 696, ss.) : “ The world cannot by itself render satisfaction to God; God alone possesses a nature which can make satisfaction, or reconcile. As God, rendering satisfaction to God, he is the Son; as he to whom satisfaction is made, the Father; but both are in themselves One; the atonement belongs to the nature of God, and is as eternal as the creation and preservation. God from eternity sacrifices himself for the world; or, God the Father commands God the Son to sacrifice himself for him, and make satisfaction to him. Accordingly, inasmuch as God making satisfaction puts himself in place of the world, this satisfaction is vicarious, and active as well as passive. God making reconciliation elevates the world to absolute necessity, and is thus at the same time its creator and preserver, or the cause of its absolute reality and liberty.”—Marheineke, Dogmatik, § 227–247 (quoted by Baur, p. 718, ss.): "By the reconciliation of the world with God through God, we understand that the Divine Being, one with himself and with the world, makes the transition through the corruption of the world, and destroys it. God, as the being who is from eternity sufficient to himself, is also the being who from eternity makes satisfaction to himself. But God can make satisfaction only as God-man, in whoin reconciliation is possible, inasmuch as his human nature is not essentially different from the
Divine. The satisfaction made by the God-man is vicarious, since he, in making reconciliation, represents the world. This implies a twofold statement; first, that the world, in its state of corruption, cannot make satisfaction to God; and, secondly, that the world, in its truth and reality, as human nature, or in its true and holy principle, is represented by the person of the One Man who is the representative of all men, and thus the universal man, though he be but one individual.”—Usteri, Paulinischer Lehrbegriff, p. 133 : “The incarnation of the Son of God, who is begotten of the original ground of all things (the Father), is the reconciliation of the finite with the infinite, the created with the primal ground of being, the temporal with the eternal. The incarnate Son of God, by his death, returns from the sphere of the finite, created, and temporal, to that of the infinite, uncreated, and eternal, as the Spirit which is now reigning in the finite, and unites it eternally with God.”
" Klaiber (quoted by Baur, p. 648), and especially Hasenkamp, (both the father and the son), Menken (a pastor in Bremen), Collenbusch in Barmen, and Rudolph Stier. All these agreed in rejecting the idea of a conflict between the love and justice of God (IIasenkamp and Menken, in particular, expressed themselves in strong language on this point); and in regarding the divine love as the true principle of redemption, but differed on minor points (e. g. Stier retains the idea of the divine wrath.) For further particulars see Baur, p. 656 ss., where the literature is also given. Comp. Krug, Die Lehre des Dr. Collenbusch, Elberfeld, 1846, p. 44.
13 To this class belong the author of an essay published in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, 1834; Geschichtliches aus der Versöhnungs- und Genugthuungslehre (see Baur, p. 672 ss. and Göschel, Zerstreute Blätter aus den Hand- und Hülfsacten eines Juristen, etc.); the latter especially defended the juridical aspect of the doctrine in question, which had given offence to many others. Comp. Tholuck's literarischer Anzeiger, 1833, p. 69, ss. ; Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, 1834, p. 14; Baur, p. 682 ss. The controversy has entered into a new phase, in the Lutheran Church, in consequence of the positions taken by Hofmann of Erlangen, in his Schriftbeweis, and in the Zeitschrift für Protest, und Kirche, March, 1856—deviating from strict orthodoxy in respect to "the vicarious satisfaction." Philippi replied in the preface to the second edition of his commentary to the Romans; and in the tractate, “ Herr Dr. Hofmann gegenüber der lutherischen Versöhnungs- und Rechtfertigungslehre," Frankf., 1856; and Schmid in his “ Dr. von H's., Lehre von der Versöhnung," Nördl., 1856. In rejoinder Hofmann, Schutzschriften für eine neue Weise, alte Wahrheit zu lehren, Nördl., 1856. [Four Parts, 1856-9.] Comp. Ebrard in the Allgem. Kirchenzeitung, Oct. 1856. [See also Ebrard, Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugthung in der heiligen Schrift begründet, Konigsb., 1857. G. Thomasius, Das Be. kenntniss der lutherischen Kirche von der Versöhnung, und die Versöhnungslehre Dr. C. K. von Hofmann's. Mit einen Vorwort von Dr. Th. Harnack, Erlangen, 1857. Delitzsch in the Appendix to his commentary on Epistle to Hebrews. Bodemeyer, Zur Lehre d. Versöhnung, 1858. The Vorwort to the Evang. Kirchenzeitung, 1858, against Flofmann. Gess, Zur Lehre d. Versöhnung, in Jabrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1858, pp. 713–788, on An.
selm's doctrine, etc. A. Schweizer, Lehre des Paulus vom erlösenden Tode, etc., in Stud. und Kritiken, 1858; and Baur in reply, in Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1859. Weizsäcker gave a review of the recent controversy in his article, Um was handelt es sich in dem Streite über die Versöhnungslehre, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol., 1858, pp. 114–188. Schneider, The Lutheran Doctrine of Christ's Vicarious Death, transl. in Brit. and Foreign Evang. Review, 1861, from the Studien und Kritiken, 1860.]
[In several recent English works, the lif--theory is advocated, in distinction from the satisfaction-theory : e. g. by Maurice (Doct. of Sacrifice, 1854), reply by Candlish of Edinb.; John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, Camb., 1826; Jas. B. Brown, The Divine Life in Man; Henry Solly, Doctrine of Atonement by the Son of God, 1861. Comp. also Wil liam Thomson, The Atoning Work of Christ; the Bampton Lectures, for 1853. E. Mellor, The Atonement, its Relation to Pardon, 2d ed., 1860. J. C. Macdonnell, Six Discourses on Doctrine of Atonement (Univ. Dublin), 1858- A. Robertson, Hist. of the Atonement Controversy in connection with the Secession Church (Scotland: Morisonianism). On the controversies in the United States, see above, $ 285, d, e, Comp. also Albert Barnes, The Atonement in Relation to Law and Moral Government, 1859. Sheld, The Atonement a Satisfaction for the Ethical Nature of both God and Man, Bib. Sacra, 1860.—On the extent of the Atonement, see Richards' Lectures (1846), pp. 302–328; and Princeton Rev., 1856.—Bushnell's views in his God in Christ (1849), pp. 183-275, and Christ in Theology, 1851, 212, 330.]
The doctrine of the Descensus ad inferos was agreeable neither to the views of the rationalists, nor to the modern supernaturalists. The adherents of the speculative philosophy regarded it as a mere symbolical expression, to indicate that, even in the most corrupted souls, there is still one entrance for the gospel of Christ. Compare the passages from the works of Reinhard, De Wette, and Marheineke, collected by Hase, Dogmatik, p. 344.—The doctrine of the three offices of Christ was combated by Ernesti, in his Opuscula Theologica, p. 411 ss. Modern theologians (such as Schleiermacher) have revived it. Comp. König, Die Lehre von Christi Höllenfahrt, Frankf., 1842: and especially, E. Güder, Die Lehre von der Erscheinung Jesu Christi under den Todten, in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der Lehre von den letzten Dingen, Bern., 1853. [On Güder, see Zeitschrift f. die lutherische Theologie, 1857, p. 391 sq. V. U. Maywahlen, Tod, Todenreich, etc., Berl., 1854; transl., by J. F. Schön, Lond. 1856. J. Körber, Katholische Lehre von der Höllenfahrt Jesu Christi, Landshut, 1860. Hölemann in Bibel Studien, 1861, pp. 89-129.-F. Huydekoper, Belief of First Three Centuries on Christ's Mission to Underworld, Boston, 1854. The Intermediate State, by the late Duke of Manchester, Lond., 1856. J. Munscher in Bib. Sacran, 1859.]
THE ECONOMY OF REDEMPTION. JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION. (FAITH AND GOOD WORKS.) GRACE AND LIBERTY.
The orthodox view of the doctrine of atonement having been abandoned, the juridical idea of justification, as distinctly separated from that of sanctification, also lost its significance, and Protestant