Quo vadis EKD? was for centuries the main difference between Protestant and Catholic Church in the doctrine of justification. The Catholics believed they would be redeemed by the death of Christ and good works, while Protestants believed that the latter is not necessary for salvation. But that seems to change now.
was true in 1999 in Augsburg, the "Joint Declaration on Justification" signed by representatives of both churches, but even it it was still called ". The incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ foundation and presupposition of justification" With the election of Nicholas Schneider suggested the new EKD-Presidency in this regard but at a turning point.
Last year, after Burkhard Müller, Bonn, the former superintendent, the journey to a public radio devotion to the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus and had a theological discussion on this topic broken out, was also Nikolaus Schneider spoke up. And was indeed to hear from him the following: "God needs no atonement, because it does not have his anger by innocent suffering be appeased."
In fact, sounds tailor reasoning is not only more comfortable than the conservative interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus, but also very obvious. After the Rhine theologian but had stressed the importance of the 'message of the Cross', begs the question of what can be meant by this wording. Now, understood literally, these are originally brought to the statements that come from the crucifix itself. And according to the Gospel of John were the last words of Jesus on the cross. "It is finished" (John 19:30)
It is interesting that at this point in the Greek original text, only a single word is specifically τετέλεσται. This word should the then readers have been by no means unknown. For it was customary to "τετέλεσται" in notes to write, once the debt was paid. The word brought thus expressed: it is done, it has been completely paid, the debtor is now debt free. The interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus as the atonement is so close at hand. But
added a nice idea is the not. The Apostle Paul called the cross of Christ probably not for nothing a "nuisance" (Galatians 5:11). In this respect, is quite understandable that the suffering of Christ Schneider will like to have understood this: "as a sign of God's love and solidarity, as a symbol of God going along with us through death."
As attractive as this statement seem at first glance, like, so suspect it is still on the second. For if God is but already so full solidarity explains why he, the suffering of his son and the suffering in general then at all?
Certainly, the conservative theology comes from the question of theodicy-by, but contrary to Schneider's statement also is not all Christian confessions, such as the Nicene Creed, which says it explicitly: "He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate"?
Fortunately, however, already knew Martin Luther: "Councils may err and have erred." And just because he recognized that, indeed, he formulated the crucial cornerstone of Protestant theology, which reads as sola scriptura, Scripture alone. Thus one has to merely ask the Holy Scripture, as they indicated the death of Jesus. And the answer is: "And because Jesus Christ fulfilled the will of God and offered his own body as a victim, we are now sanctified at all. "(Hebrews 10:10)
