Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:49:04.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Moral Theory of the Atonement: An Historical and Theological Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Alister McGrath
Alister McGrath
Affiliation:
Wycliffe Hall, Oxford OX2 6PW
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1892, Hastings Rashdall delivered a University Sermon at Oxford entitled ‘Abelard's Doctrine of the Atonement’. In this sermon, he outlines with increasing enthusiasm what he considered to be ‘as noble and perspicuous a statement as can even yet be found of the faith which is still the life of Christendom’. The central theme of his sermon is that in the twelfth century figure of Peter Abailard can be found a theory of the Atonement which meets the demands of an age shaped in the spirit of Darwinism and historical criticism. What Rashdall understands by the ‘Abelardian doctrine of the Atonement’ is expounded at much greater length in his 1915 Bampton Lectures, The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , May 1985 , pp. 205 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rashdall, H., ‘Abelard's Doctrine of the Atonement’, The Expositor 4th series, 8 (1893) pp. 137–150Google Scholar; reprinted in Doctrine and Development. University Sermons (London: Methuen, 1898) pp. 128–145Google Scholar. References are given initially to the Expositor article, followed by the Doctrine and Development reference in parentheses.

2 ibid., p. 50(145).

3 Of the four spellings of the name usually encountered (viz., Abelard, Abelard, Abaelard and Abailard), the fourth is preferred by mcdiacvalists.

4 The term ‘Atonement’ itself requires criticism. The term was introduced by Tyndale, apparently as an equivalent (i.e., adunamentum) to reconcilialio. Cf. Latham, R. E., Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources (London: British Academy, 1973) pp. 8–9Google Scholar. Perhaps through the Authorised Version's translation of Romans 5.11 (… through whom we have received the Atonement….), the phrase ‘the Atonement’ came to have an absolute sense, meaning ‘the benefits of Christ’. The verb ‘to atone’ is derived from the noun, and not, as might be expected, the other way round. See the entry ‘Atonement’ in Oxford English Dictionary for useful comments and analysis. The German term Versöhnung has similar connotations, and is thus exceptionally difficult to translate into English (see the comments of the translators in Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics IV/1 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1974) p. vii)Google Scholar. Nevertheless, the German words Versöhnung and versöhnen are widely used outside theological contexts, whereas the English terms ‘Atonement’ and ‘atone’ are but rarely encountered outside specifically theological contexts.

5 The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology, being the Bampton Lectures for 1915 (London: Macmillan, 1920).Google Scholar

6 ibid., p. 358.

7 ibid., p. 360.

8 See Ramsey, A. M., From Gore to Temple. The Development of Anglican Theology between Lux Mundi and the Second World War 1889–1939 (London: Longmans, 1960) pp. 53–55.Google Scholar

9 Rashdall, , Abelard's Doctrine of the Atonement p. 49 (143)Google Scholar. In the form in which it appears in Doctrine and Development, Rashdall appends a note to his sermon, to the effect that: ‘The Abelardian doctrine was, however, held by William Law. This was the main cause of the rupture between Wesley, whom he had profoundly influenced, and himself.‘ It would be futile to comment on the gross inaccuracy of this statement: for our purposes, it is sufficient to note that Rashdall appreciated that there were others between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries who held a moralist view of the Atonement, even if the particular example he cites is inappropriate.

10 What is particularly irritating is that Rashdall must have read the excellent analysis of Stcinbart's doctrine of the work of Christ, as presented in R. S. Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ, which appeared in 1918: see Rashdall, Idea of Atonement, p. 429 (note). Franks' account of this important Aufklärer' discussion of the work of Christ is totally accurate and fair, and Rashdall must have appreciated the significance of what he read therein. Although Rashdall encountered this work at a late stage in the preparation of his work for publication (ibid., p. xiii), he modifies no thesis of his work on its basis.

11 Tractatus contra quaedam capitula errorum Petri Abaelardi vii, 17; M PL 182.1067A–B.

12 See Rashdall, , Idea of Atonement pp. 463–464.Google Scholar

13 Ritschl, A. B., The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872) pp. 35–40.Google Scholar

14 Weingart, R. E., The Logic of Divine Love. A Critical Analysis of the Soteriology of Peter Abailard (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) pp. 78–96.Google Scholar

15 ibid., pp. 125–6. See also Taylor, R. O. P., ‘Was Abelard an Exemplarist?’ Theology 31 (1935) PP. 207–213.Google Scholar

16 Weingart, , Logic of Divine Love, pp. 202–203.Google Scholar

17 Taylor, , Was Abelardan Exemplarist?, p. 213.Google Scholar

18 See Burnaby, J., Amor Dei. A Study in the Religion of St. Augustine (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1947) pp 168–172, especially p. 168Google Scholar: ‘There is one purpose of Christ's coming — ad demonstrandum erga nos dilectionem Dei — to show the love of God.’

19 On this important period, see Bauer, J., Salus Christiana. Die Rechtfertigungslehre in der Geschichtc des christlkhen Heilsverständnisses (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1968) pp. 111–179Google Scholar. See also Hornig, G., Die Anfänge der historischen-kritischen Theologie. Johann Salomo Semlers Schriftverständnis undseine Stellung zu Luther (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961)Google Scholar; Schollmeier, J., Johann Joachim Spalding. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Aufklärung (Gütcrsloh: Mohn, 1967)Google Scholar.

20 For a characteristically droll comment, see Barth, K., Die prolestantische Theologie imig. Jahrhundert (Zürich: Evangelische Verlag, 1952) p. 16.Google Scholar

21 System der reinen Philosophic oder Gl¨cklickkeitslehre des Christenthums (Züllichau, 1778).Google Scholar

22 ibid., p. 78.

23 See Hornig, , Anfänge, pp. 133–144.Google Scholar

24 Steinbart, System, p. 126.

25 ibid., p. 162.

26 Kähler, M., Zur Lehre von der Versöhnung. Dogmatische Zejitfragen II. (Leipzig, 1898) p. 337Google Scholar: ‘Hat Christus bloß irrige Ansichten über eine unwandelbare Sachlage berichtigt, oder ist er der Begründer einer veränderten Sachlage?’ Cf. our analysis of this question with relation to Barth: McGrath, Alister, ‘Karl Barth als Aufklärer? Der Zusammenhang seiner Lehre vom Werkc Christi mit der Erwählungslchre’, Kerygma und Dogma 30 (1984) pp. 273–283.Google Scholar

27 Rashdall, , Idea of Atonement, p. 463.Google Scholar

28 E.g., Duncan, A. R. C., Practical Reason and Morality (London: Nelson, 1957)Google Scholar; Paton, H. J., The Categorical Imperative (London: Hutchinson, 1946)Google Scholar; Silber, J. R., ‘The Importance of the Highest Good in Kant's Ethics’, Ethics 73 (1962) pp. 179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ward, K., The Development of Kant's View of Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972)Google Scholar.

29 We have used the edition of this work contained in Kants gesammelte Schriften, ed. der Wissenschaften, Königliche Preussische Akademie (Berlin: Reimer, 1902ff.), volume 6Google Scholar. Reference will be made by page and line number from this edition.

30 170.15–19.

31 75.1–76.6. See also 62.14–66.18.

32 117.14–15. For the Latin equivalent (quod in se est), as used by the theologians of the via moderna, see McGrath, A. E., ‘The Anti-Pelagian Structure of “Nominalist” Doctrines of Justification’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 57 (1981), pp. 107–119.Google Scholar

33 E.g., 141.9–142.3.

34 74.1–75.1. The emphasis (e.g., 74.16–17) upon the fact that the old disposition ‘ist moralisch ein anderer’ is of particular significance.

35 183.37–184.3. ‘Dieser Muth, auf eigenen Füssen zu stehen, wird nun selbst durch die darauf folgende Versöhnungslehre gestärkt, indem sie, was nicht zu ändern ist, als abgethan vorstellt und nun den Pfad zu einem neuen Lebenswandel für uns eröffhet.’

36 See Ritschl, , Christian Doctrine of Justification, pp. 416–426Google Scholar. This whole question is explored in considerably greater detail in our lustitia Dei. A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (3 vols: Cambridge, forthcoming), volume 3.Google Scholar

37 Ritschl, , Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, pp. 320–386.Google Scholar

38 ibid., p. 387.

39 For the influence of ihe events which led up to that war upon Karl Barth, see Harle, W., ‘Der Aufruf der 93 Intellektuellcn und Karl Barths Bruch mil dcr liberalen Theologie’, Zeitschriftfür Theologie und Kirche 72 (1975) pp. 207–224.Google Scholar

40 See Zahrnt, H., The Question of God. Protestant Theology in the Twentieth Century (London: Collins, 1969) pp. 15–54Google Scholar. For an assessment of the significance of Luther's theologia crucis, see McGrath, Alister E., Luther's Theology of the Cross. Martin Luther's Theological Breakthrough (Oxford, 1985).Google Scholar

41 Cited Vidler, A. R., 20th Century Defenders of the Faith (London: SCM, 1964) p. 98.Google Scholar

42 The most celebrated instance being Forsyth, P. T., The Person and Place of Jesus Christ (London: Independent Press, 1930).Google Scholar