Surely you were aware that Grotius taught that Jesus' shed blood didn't provide a sin covering for us. Is that why you named the underoos after him?
A third view of the atonement was devised by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) during the Arminian controversy in Holland. Known as the governmental theory of the atonement, this view is something of a middle road between Abelard and Anselm. According to Grotius, Christ's death was a public display of God's justice, but not an actual payment on behalf of sinners. In other words, the cross shows what punishment for sin would look like if God recompensed sin. But no actual vicarious payment of the sinner's debt was made by Christ.Grotius, like Abelard and the Socinians, believed God could forgive sin without any payment. But Grotius said the dignity and authority of God's law still needed to be upheld. Sin is a challenge to God's right to rule. If God simply overlooked sin, He would in effect abrogate His moral government of the universe. So Christ's death was necessary to vindicate God's authority as ruler, because it proved His willingness and his right to punish, even though He ultimately relinquishes the claims of His justice against repentant sinners. Christ's death therefore was not a substitute for anyone else's punishment, but merely a public example of God's moral authority and His hatred of sin.
In other words, unlike Abelard, Grotius saw that the death of Christ displayed the wrath, as well as the love, of God. Like Abelard, however, Grotius believed the atonement was exemplary rather than substitutionary. Christ did not actually suffer in anyone's place. The atonement accomplished nothing objective on the sinner's behalf; it was merely a symbolic gesture. Christ's death was an example only. And redemption therefore hinges completely on something the sinner must do. So the governmental theory also results inevitably in works-salvation.
|
UNDERWEAR  According to Grotius, Christ's death was a public |