Moral Influence

[JonC]

Finding Anselm's Satisfaction Theory inadequate, in the 12th Century Peter Abelard(a French theologian) formulated the Moral Influence Theory. Due to his rejection of Roman Catholic Atonement, Abelard is often considered the first Protestant.

The moral influence theory teaches that the cross is the supreme revelation of God’s love. On the cross God identified Himself with us to the point of going through what we all experience (death). We are transformed by this act (Christ's work changes us and transformed us to be more like Him). The focus is on morality.

This was a period when the Roman Catholic Church was moving from the traditional view of the Atonement (Ransom Theory).

By the 11th Century the Ransom Theory in the Roman Catholic Church had come to be viewed as God paying a ransom to Satan (during the Early Church period it was expressed this way, however "the Devil" was used to personify sin and death. Also many theologians expressed Christ as paying a ransom but this ransom being the cost of redemption rather than a payment to a literal entity).

In the 11th Century Anselm developed the Satisfaction Theory to replace the Ransom Theory in the Roman Catholic Church. This theory held that Jesus was our representative substitute to restore the honor man, through Adam, had robbed from God.

The Moral Influence Theory rejected the Satisfaction Theory and focused on the moral transformation of man.

 

[37818]

It makes no sense in light of Matthew 27:46, ". . . And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . ." Where Jesus was being forsaken by the Father.

 

[JonC]

It makes no sense in light of Matthew 27:46, ". . . And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? . . ." Where Jesus was being forsaken by the Father.

I am not advocating the moral influence theory.

I love theology. I find it interesting, to include historical theology and the development of doctrine.

I agree with you in that I find the Moral Influence Theory lacking. But to be fair, I have only mentioned the base doctrine. There were several takes on this theory and it rarely stands alone.

For example, the Orthodox Church typically holds an atonement view that combined Moral Influence and Recapitulation.

But to address your concern, the idea that God forsook Christ to suffer and die on the cross is central to the Moral Influence Theory. In fact, Jesus being forsaken to die for our sins is the main focus of the theory insofar as the transformation of men.

 

[37818]

But to address your concern, the idea that God forsook Christ to suffer and die on the cross is central to the Moral Influence Theory. In fact, Jesus being forsaken to die for our sins is the main focus of the theory insofar as the transformation of men.

In short, I hold the view, Jesus being forsaken by His Father on the cross is when Jesus had our sins placed on Him per ".. . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ."

 

[JonC]

@37818

BTW, this is what I was hopping for. I'd like to view these theories, how they developed, and how they address things differently.

I believe the Moral Influence Theory is a fairly weak theory, at least on its own. It seems to reduce sin to a moral problem with the solution being to awaken via transformation a moral center in man.

 

[JonC]

In short, I hold the view, Jesus being forsaken by His Father on the cross is when Jesus had our sins placed on Him per ".. . . the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. . . ."

I think those who hold the Moral Influence Theory would agree with you on that part.

The theory holds that God laid our sins on Christ, hence Jesus' death. But the primary focus here seems (IMHO) to be Jesus' willingness to offer Himself for us.

 

[37818]

I think those who hold the Moral Influence Theory would agree with you on that part.

The theory holds that God laid our sins on Christ, hence Jesus' death. But the primary focus here seems (MHO) to be Jesus' willingness to offer Himself for us.

I hold Jesus' soul was dead per Psalms 22:6, ". . . I am a worm, and no man; . . ." As per Isaiah 53:12, ". . . he hath poured out his soul unto death . . . " Also per Ezekiel 18:4.

Not annihilationism heresy.

 

[JonC]

I hold Jesus' soul was dead per Psalms 22:6, ". . . I am a worm, and no man; . . ." As per Isaiah 53:12, ". . . he hath poured out his soul unto death . . . " Also per Ezekiel 18:4.

Not annihilationism heresy.

During this period the focus was on Jesus' physical death. That was what Random Theory considered to be the wages of sin. Anselm did not change this and it carried forward to the Moral Influence Theory.

The Early Church considered the death Christ suffered to be physical. Some (who view it as spiritual) attribute this to the circumstances of the Early Church and their immediate concerns of persecution and death. One sect even provoked Roman soldiers to kill them so they could experience the death of a martyr.

This would be reconsidered later, particularly by the Reformers.