In the contemporary theological world, traditional substitutionary accounts of Christ’s atoning work have increasingly come under criticism for what is said to be their propensity for encouraging violence by a variety of theologians such as feminists, pacifists, and Girardians. Cur deus homo?, the question about God’s sovereign purpose in Christ’s atoning work, is radically transposed into “who killed Jesus?” which is a provocative inquiry into the ethical issues surrounding divine violence from the nonviolent perspective of atonement. Nonetheless, in this monograph, contrary to their nonviolent intention, you will witness that Brock, Schwager, and Weaver violently damage a “holistic” dimension of atonement event under the human cause of the victim Jesus’ crucifixion by evil. By contrast, you will hear the harmonized voices of Anselm, Calvin, and Barth, who adamantly proclaim the incarnated Son of God’s sovereignty in his self-giving death for our salvation. Furthermore, it is through the theological conversation between the opposite camps that you will realize how the anthropological motifs of healing, scapegoat mechanism, and nonviolence are to be constructively engaged with the Christological-cultic context of an evangelical doctrine of substitution. You will encounter the crux of Christ’s saving death for us.
The American moral governmental theory of the atonement (MGT) was arguably the most contextualized doctrine of atonement in the history of the Protestant tradition. Hewn from the theology of Jonathan Edwards, and engineered to address the theological, political, philosophical, moral, and even economic milieu in the early republic, MGT became the doctrinal centerpiece of “the first indigenous American school of Calvinism.” As a result, it stands as a kind of theological time capsule to the people and principles that shaped the tumultuous period between the first Great Awakening and the Civil War when it flourished in America. For over a century in the Anglo-American world, the doctrine of atonement was under heavy construction in the broader Reformed community. By endowing new meaning to old theological terms like imputation, substitution, justice, punishment, and even atonement, MGT represents a theological watermark of sorts in Reformed dogmatics, defining its limits, testing its boundaries, and demanding a level of precision from today’s theologians. This book offers a contextualization, distillation, and conversation with this Edwardsean doctrine of atonement.