CONTRA FATUM

” The bottomless abyss of My hidden mysteries (in which I order everything according to My eternal providence), let no one explore, for no one can fathom it. And yet, in this abyss, what thou askest about and many things besides are possible, which yet never happen. However, know this much, that, in the order in which emanated beings now are, a more acceptable or more pleasing way could not be. The Lord of nature knows well what He can do in nature. He knows what is best suited to every creature, and He operates accordingly. How should man better know the hidden things of God than in His assumed Humanity? How might he, who has forfeited all joy through irregular lusts, be rendered susceptible of regular and eternal joy? How would it be possible to follow the unpracticed way of a hard and despised life, unless it had been followed by God Himself? If thou didst lie under sentence of death, how could He, who should suffer the fatal penalty in thy stead, better prove His fideli...

Jesus with a sword in his mouth. Not in his hand. When we discuss the atonement there are two issues which seem quite unrelated. The one is the traditional discussion within protestantism on whether the atonement is limited or unlimited (i.e. did Jesus die for the salvation of all human beings, or only the elect?). The other is the question whether Jesus died as a payment to an angry God (protestantism) on the one hand, or whether he was God's ransom paid to death (not God) out of love, thereby defeating death, on the other (classical, pre-medieval Christianity).

Christ the teacher? Is this Clement's 'subjective' view of the atonement? According to Gustaf Aulen (Christus Victor), the 'moral influence theory' of the atonement (the 'subjective theory') can be traced more or less back to Abelard. It seems to me, though, that more of the early Church Fathers represent this theory, than Aulen would admit (correct me if I'm wrong!). Take Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215). Emancipation or liberation is central in Clement’s theory of atonement. Christ is the good Samaritan that liberates us from the “rulers of darkness” (Clement of Alexandria, Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, XXVIII). But! Even if a 'Christus Victor'-motif is present, all this, it seems, happens through 'teaching'.

We are currently doing a seminar on the classical idea(s) of the atonement, among which is the 'ransom theory'. The following passages from the early Church illustrate the idea (this page will be updated as we find more examples). First some important passages from the New Testament: ”For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for.” (Mark 10:45) “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matt 20:25-28) "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (1 Timothy 2:5-6) From The E...

"After we had thus freely sold ourselves to the deceiver, He who of His goodness sought to restore us to liberty could not, because He was just too, for this end have recourse to measures of arbitrary violence. It was necessary therefore that a ransom should be paid, which should exceed in value that which was to be ransomed; and hence it was necessary that the Son of God should surrender Himself to the power of death. God's justice then impelled Him to choose a method of exchange, as His wisdom was seen in executing it.” (Great Catechism)

"But to whom did He give His soul as a ransom for many? Surely not to God. Could it, then, be to the Evil One? For he had us in his power, until the ransom for us should be given to him, even the life (or soul) of Jesus, since he (the Evil One) had been deceived, and led to suppose that he was capable of mastering that soul, and he did not see that to hold Him involved a trial of strength ( thasanon ) greater than he was equal to. Therefore also death, though he thought he had prevailed against Him, no longer lords over Him, He (Christ) having become free among the dead and stronger than the power of death, and so much stronger than death that all who will amongst those who are mastered by death may also follow Him ( i.e. out of Hades, out of death's domain), death no longer prevailing against them. For every one who is with Jesus is unassailable by death." ( Commentary on Matthew XVI, 8; Aulen, op. cit. , p. 49. In footnote 13, Aulen says, "Translat...

"The essence of Christianity is, therefore, nothing else than Christ Himself. The founder of the religion is Himself, its sum and substance. He is not merely the historical founder of a religion; His person cannot be separated from the doctrine which he proclaims, but has an eternal, ever-present significance for the human race. As he is the Mediator and Propitiator, the sacred point of unity between God and the sinful world, so He is also continually the Redeemer of the human race. All regenerating, all purifying, all sanctifying influences by which man is freed from his state of bondage to sin, and made to partake of the mystery of the incarnation and atonement, proceed from the person of Christ, through the Spirit going out from Him into His Church." (Martensen, Dogmatics §15)