Talk:Moral influence theory of atonement

Neutrality and Original research - Wallace and Rusk

There's too much reliance here on a single work, Wallace and Rusk, for the basic claim of the article - "Moral influence theory roolz, Penal substitution theory sux"; it's cited throughout the article. The work is, of course, basically propagandistic, advocating a certain interpretation of Christianity as "the original and true" one - although, of course, most works on the topic will tend to be such. The claim that penal substitution and moral influence are mutually exclusive is false; we can accept the idea that God shifted the punishment for our sins onto his son AND that he chose that course of action out of love for us AND that he intended us to be impressed and to be good ever after (of course, he always does). The claim that moral influence in itself ever was the prevalent theory to the exclusion of others is just wishful thinking, an attempt to choose the version that appeals to modern reason and sensibilities; language implying some form of mystical compensation of the sins already committed has been part of Christianity beginning at least from the Pauline epistles. And each time when such a compensation is mentioned and Satan isn't mentioned as an active force that is "due" ransom by God, something to the effect of Satisfaction/Penal substitution has to be assumed. What this article does, and what Wallace and Rusk do, is, instead, to cite each mention of the moral influence perspective as proof that the compensation versions were not subscribed to (or to write them off as secondary). Folks, it's "Christ died for our sins". That's distinct from "Christ died to convince us to stop sinning". --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a greater variety of sources would be useful. But I think part of the problem is that there haven't been a great deal of works advocating a moral influence view written in English in the 20th/21st century. Feel free to add additional sources if you have them. Otherwise, the article seems to do a reasonable job of describing the view based on the sources available. Remember, that this article describes a particular view/set of beliefs/teachings held by a group of Christians. Your opinion and personal theology as to whether that view/beliefs/teachings are true or biblically accurate has no relevance to the article. The quality of Wallace and Rusk's biblical interpretation has no relevance to this article which is about the belief system they happen to be advocates of, not about whether that belief system is the truth or biblical. I think what you are rightly noting is currently missing in the article is a section on how Penal Substitution advocates have tended to regard the models as "compatible" and subsume the Moral Influence model as a facet of their beliefs. I will add a section on that. 121.74.253.25 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR also seems to be an issue, with a substantial amount of info being used to built a case for Wallace and Rusk, namely the subsections on "Eatsern Christianity" and the info on Augustine:

Augustine held the moral influence theory of the atonement as his main atonement theory. He emphasized it repeatedly in key points throughout his writings. Augustine also taught the ransom from Satan model of the atonement in some of his writings and sermons in addition to the moral influence view.

References

• James Bethune-Baker (1903) can be removed right-away; it's outdated, and it does not speak of moral influence, but of the love of God for men.
• McGrath: inaccessible.
• Turner: "S. Augustine can describe the whole life of the Som of God as a moral instruction"
• Kelly: inaccessible.

I've removed all info that's unsourced, or unverifiable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Augustine

the article says the moral influence theory was Augustine's main thoery but didnt he hold to the Ransom theory or Christus Victor theory Atonement_in_Christianity#Penal_substitution. I think we need to look at the souces again. Ilikerabbits! (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You're right; the same undue Wallace & Rusk pov. I've removed that too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wallace and Rusk

A. J. Wallace and R. D. Rusk (2011), Moral Transformation: The Original Christian Paradigm of Salvation, is not WP:RS. Ben Pugh (2015), Atonement Theories: A Way through the Maze, James Clarke & Co, p.127:

Likewise, there has been at least one recent attempt to prove at legth that "moral transformation" was "the original Christian paradigm of salvation." This work consists of a totally one-sided presentation of biblical and historical data.

See also Beilby and Eddy (2009), The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views, p.18:

Any New Testament text that proclaim's God's love for humanity and consequent desire to save sinners can be brought forth as evidence for [the subjective, e.g. moral influence] interpretation of the atonement.

Also, this addition (back in 2011) added a substantial amount of references for the statement This understanding dates back to the Church Fathers, apparently supporting an early dating for the moral influence theory of atonement. Yet, all those sources merely state that the idea of moral transformation or moral example can be found in those early writings; but none of them state that the theory of moral transformation was expounded by them. It makes it a form of WP:OR, c.q. WP:SYNTHESIS, though probably not intended as such. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)