Featured Theories of the Atonement

Out of all these "theories" on the Atonement, or rather Death, of Jesus, only one is Biblically correct. As I have said in other posts here on BB, that I believe that the only possible option, is Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Ransom to Satan Theory

This theory was developed by Origen (A.D. 185–254), and it advocated that Satan held people captive as a victor in war. This theory, which was also held by Augustine, advocated that because Satan held people captive, a ransom had to be paid, not to God, but to Satan.

In response to this view it should be noted that God’s holiness, not Satan’s, was offended, and payment (ransom) had to be made to God to avert His wrath. Furthermore, Satan did not have the power to free man; God alone had the power.

This theory is false because it makes Satan the benefactor of Christ’s death. This view has too high a view of Satan; the cross was a judgment of Satan, not a ransom to Satan.

Recapitulation Theory

The recapitulation theory, advanced by Irenaeus (A.D. 130–200?), taught that Christ went through all the phases of Adam’s life and experience, including the experience of sin. In this way, Christ was able to succeed wherein Adam failed.

The element of truth is that Christ is known as the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45); however, Christ had no personal encounter with sin whatsoever (1 John 3:5; John 8:46). The theory is incomplete in that it neglects the atonement; it is the death of Christ that saves, not His life.

Commercial Theory

The commercial theory was set forth by Anselm (A.D. 1033–1109), who taught that through sin, God was robbed of the honor that was due Him. This necessitated a resolution that could be achieved either through punishing sinners or through satisfaction. God chose to resolve the matter through satisfaction by the gift of His Son. Through His death Christ brought honor to God and received a reward, which He passed on to sinners. The gift was forgiveness for the sinner and eternal life for those who live by the gospel. Although this view changed the focus from payment to Satan to a proper emphasis on payment to God, there are nonetheless problems with this view. It emphasizes God’s mercy at the expense of other attributes of God, namely, justice or holiness. It also neglects the obedience of the life of Christ, and in addition, it ignores the vicarious suffering of Christ. Rather than emphasizing Christ died for the penalty of sin, this view embraces the Roman Catholic concept of penance, “so much satisfaction for so much violation.”

Moral Influence Theory

Abelard (A.D. 1079–1142) first advocated this theory that has since been taught by modern liberals such as Horace Bushnell and others of a more “moderate” liberal stance. The moral influence view was originally a reaction to the commercial theory of Anselm. This view taught that the death of Christ was not necessary as an expiation for sin; rather, through the death of Christ, God demonstrated His love for humanity in such a way that sinners’ hearts would be softened and brought to repentance.

The weaknesses of the moral influence view are obvious. The basis for the death of Christ is His love rather than His holiness; this view also teaches that somehow the moving of people’s emotions will lead them to repentance. Scripture affirms that the death of Christ was substitutionary (Matt. 20:28), and thereby the sinner is justified before a holy God, not merely influenced by a demonstration of love.

Accident Theory

A more recent view, the accident theory, was advocated by Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965), who taught that Christ became enamored with His messiahship. This theory saw Him preaching the coming kingdom and being mistakenly crushed in the process. Schweitzer saw no value to others in the death of Christ.

The deficiency of Schweitzer’s view centers on the suggestion that Christ’s death was a mistake. Scripture does not present it in that way. On numerous occasions Jesus predicted His death (Matt. 16:21; 17:22; 20:17–19; 26:1–5); Christ’s death was in the plan of God (Acts 2:23). Moreover, His death had infinite value as a substitutionary atonement (Isa. 53:4–6).

Example (Martyr) Theory

In reaction to the Reformers, the example theory was first advocated by the Socinians in the sixteenth century and more recently by Unitarians. This view, which is a more liberal view than the moral influence view, suggests the death of Christ was unnecessary in atoning for sin; sin did not need to be punished. There was no relationship between the salvation of sinners and Christ’s death. Rather, Christ was an example of obedience, and it was that example of obedience to the point of death that ought to inspire people to reform and live as Christ lived.

The weaknesses of this view are multiple. Christ is viewed only as a man in this theory; atonement is unnecessary yet Scripture emphasizes the need for atonement (Rom. 3:24). This view emphasizes Christ as an example for unbelievers, but 1 Peter 2:21 teaches that Christ’s example was for believers, not unbelievers.

Governmental Theory

Grotius (1583–1645) taught the governmental theory as a reaction to the example theory of Socinus. The governmental theory served as a compromise between the example theory and the view of the Reformers. Grotius taught that God forgives sinners without requiring an equivalent payment. Grotius reasoned that Christ upheld the principle of government in God’s law by making a token payment for sin through His death. God accepted the token payment of Christ, set aside the requirement of the law, and was able to forgive sinners because the principle of His government had been upheld.

Among the problems with this view are the following. God is subject to change—He threatens but does not carry out (and in fact changes) the sentence. According to this view God forgives sin without payment for sin. Scripture, however, teaches the necessity of propitiating God (Rom. 3:24; 1 John 2:2)—the wrath of God must be assuaged. Also, substitutionary atonement must be made for sin (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24).

Although there are some points of merit in the previously discussed views concerning the death of Christ, the views are incomplete or deficient in their evaluation of His death. The foundational meaning of the death of Christ is its substitutionary character. He died in place of sinners that He might purchase their freedom, reconcile them to God, and thereby satisfy the righteous demands of a holy God. The following terms explain the meaning of Christ’s death.

Substitution

The death of Christ was substitutionary—He died in the stead of sinners and in their place. This is also described as vicarious, from the Latin word vicarius, meaning “one in place of another.” The death of Christ “is vicarious in the sense that Christ is the Substitute who bears the punishment rightly due sinners, their guilt being imputed to Him in such a way that He representatively bore their punishment.” There are many passages that emphasize Christ’s substitutionary atonement in the place of mankind. Christ was a substitute in being made sin for others (2 Cor. 5:21); He bore the sins of others in His body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24); He suffered once to bear the sins of others (Heb. 9:28); He experienced horrible suffering, scourging, and death in place of sinners (Isa. 53:4–6).

From The Moody Handbook of Theology, by Paul Enns

 

Van you really don't know what you are talking about

 

I can see nothing in the quote from Gregory of Nazianzus, that offers any Biblical solution on the Atonement. It is not necessary to understand "ἀντί-λυτρον", any more than the "price paid" by Jesus for the sins of all sinners. There is no need to take this to mean, that it was actually paid to another. This is the same error made in how ιλασμος is understood, as not being "an appeasement" by the Son to the Father, but simply as "a sin offering", as it is used in the LXX.

 

Isaiah did, Jesus Christ did, and Paul did, etc. This is in the Bible, not the comments of some church father!

 

Jon, as you are probably aware, that Penal Substitutionary Atonement basically means that Jesus Christ took the punishment, due to sinners, upon Himself, and thereby became the substitute on the cross, for all mankind. It is only applied to those sinners who truly "repent and believe in the Gospel", who are then born-again children of God.

I asked you on another thread, how you saw the Atonement, and you quoted from Isaiah 53. Here is is very clear that Jesus Christ's Death on the cross was "Substitutionary", as Isaiah writes, "Surely OUR griefs He Himself bore, and OUR sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for OUR transgressions, He was crushed for OUR iniquities; The chastening for OUR well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging WE are healed.” (verses 4-5). This clearly tells us, that Jesus Christ did not die for His "own" sins, as He never sinned. It is clear that He went to the cross for OUR, that is, the entire human race. 1 Peter 2:24 says, "“and He Himself bore OUR sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds YOU were healed.”. See the great "exchange" here. Jesus Christ the Righteous, took OUR sins in His body on the cross, so that His Righteousness can be "transferred", (imputed), to those who will "repent and believe in the Gospel". Paul says the same in 2 Corinthians 5:21, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”. Jesus Christ "became sin", rather "a sin substitute (or, offering)",and when the sinner is saved, Jesus' Righteousness is "imputed" to them. Psalm 103:10 says, "He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor punished us according to our iniquities.". As Paul puts it in Galatians 3:13, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us". Of which Dr A T Robertson, says in his Word Pictures, "Having become a curse for us (γενομενος υπερ ημων καταρα). Here the graphic picture is completed. We were under (υπο) a curse, Christ became a curse over (υπερ) us and so between us and the overhanging curse which fell on him instead of on us. Thus he bought us out (εκ) and we are free from the curse which he took on himself. This use of υπερ for substitution is common in the papyri and in ancient Greek as in the N.T. (John 11:50; 2Cor 5:14)"

 

not from the Holy Bible. You call it a "theory", that Jesus Christ died "in the place of" sinners, but the Bible is against you, as I have shown. You need to get this sorted with the Lord, as it is you who is fighting the Word of God. You have yet to show your view, and when you did, you quote from Isaiah 53, which IS Penal Substitution. The more I read your arguments, the more I see that you really don't understand what Penal Substitution is!