Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Christianity theme 2 - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Augustine did not differentiate between the Immanent and Economic Trinity.
  - - - The Nicene Creed (325 CE) simply states ‘We believe in … the Holy Spirit’– there is no elaboration and all the churches represented at the Council of Nicea had agreed to the new wording.
      - At the later Council of Constantinople (381 CE), these words were amended by adding ‘We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father’.
      - It was then changed again at the Council of Toledo (589 CE) by adding three further words to the end of the phrase, making it read ‘who proceeds from the Father and the Son’. These three words in English are a translation of one Latin word – filioque. The inclusion of this one word caused such controversy that it changed Church history and has divided Christians ever since
- - - - In the Old Testament sacrifice was a common practice aimed at restoring the relationship between people and God. John the Baptist said Jesus was ‘the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world’ (John 1: 29), It states that through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, human sin was taken away ‘once for all’ (Hebrews 7:27). Jesus’ death on the cross was therefore a final expiation, a final atonement for sin.
        Early Christian theologians took up this image. They proposed that human beings had nothing of sufficient value to sacrifice to God for their sins and so God had provided the sacrifice for them. Augustine wrote in ‘The City of God’ about 420 CE: ‘(Jesus) offered sacrifice for our sins. And where did he find that offering, the pure victim that he would offer?’ He offered himself’.
        
        Issue: No loving God would offer his only Son as a sacrifice in order to satisfy his own sense of justice. Such a God would be an angry tyrant who must be appeased before he forgives.
      - The Ransom Model:
        A variant of the sacrificial model of atonement is the Ransom model. The Gospels indicate that Jesus saw his death in terms of a ransom payment to redeem men and women from sin. Matthew 20:28 quotes him as saying that ‘the Son of Man came…to give his life a ransom for many’. This idea is repeated in 1 Timothy 2:5-6 when Paul speaks of ‘Jesus…who gave himself a ransom for all’. It is not clear to whom the ransom is paid.
        Origen/Gregory the Great
        Issue: This model gives Satan more power than he has and makes God a debtor and a deceiver.
      - Christus Victor
        In 1931, the Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén repopularised the ransom model in his book ‘Christus Victor’. He argued that human beings had indeed been bound by the hostile powers of death and the devil.
    - - Anselm (Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109) proposed the Satisfaction model of the atonement in his book ‘Cur Deus Homo’ (1097). It was a modification of the Ransom model and suggested that human sin had so offended God’s honour that he could only be satisfied by the death of the God-man, Jesus. Anselm believed the human debt to God was greater than men and women were able to pay. This meant that God has to pay the debt himself. However, the debt couldn't be paid by humans. God therefore became human in Jesus so that he could pay the debt to himself. Jesus was under no obligation to die but his death brought infinite honour to God and gained Jesus a ‘supererogation’ of merit . The reward was not needed by Jesus as he was sinless but it was passed on to those who believed in him.
        
        Issue:
        This model is based on the concept of ‘honour’, a central concept of the feudal system of Anselm’s day, in which serfs were bound to an overlord who in turn was bound to the King. Serfs owed their overlord a debt of honour for protecting them as did the overlord to the King. Anselm saw God in these terms – an overlord of the world. Therefore, this model is unbiblical.
      - Penal substitution:
        16th Century Protestant reformers saw Anselm’s Satisfaction model as inadequate as it was based on the concept of God’s honour rather than the concept of God’s justice. They proposed an alternative Penal Substitution model: that Jesus set humans free from being punished for their sins by taking that punishment upon himself on the cross, thus satisfying the justice of God. They based their arguments on the Suffering Servant Songs of the Old Testament book of Isaiah where there are famous examples of vicarious suffering; for example ‘the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all’ (Isaiah 53: 6) and some passages in Paul’s Epistles; for example, ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us’ (Galatians 3:13).
        
        Issues
        This model is based more on a criminal justice system than on biblical revelation.No criminal justice system would justify punishing the innocent rather than the guilty.The Penal Substitution model simply replaced Anselm’s concept of God’s offended honour with the concept of God’s offended justice. It portrays God as vengeful who perpetrates ‘a form of cosmic child abuse’ against his Son. God is seen as a God of retribution rather than love.
    - - Another model of atonement first formulated by Augustine and restated by Peter Abelard at the beginning of the 12th century in reaction against Anselm’s Satisfaction theory is the Moral Example model. This model proposes that Jesus didn’t die to appease or placate God but to show human beings the depth of God’s love for them. The purpose was to lead people to repentance. The atonement isn’t aimed at appeasing God’s honour or justice but at the moral improvement of humankind. Atonement is achieved as we follow his example.
        
        Issues:
        It doesn’t explain the crucifixion. Jesus didn’t need to die to provide a moral example. He could have done this through his life and teachings.It teaches that humans can achieve salvation through their own efforts. It teaches salvation through works, not faith and denies the supernatural effect of Jesus’ death. Jesus didn’t really have to be God. It belittles God’s anger against sin.