Featured Actual Atonement vs Potential Atonement

I assumed that you didn’t hold that conclusion (and hope you didn't take it otherwise).

The early fathers usually reasoned that the sins of people rightly belonged to Satan, but God offered His Son as a ransom. When Satan got Christ into hell, he realized that he could not hold him and on the third day Christ arose victorious. Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Vistor showed the importance of the Ransom Theory. In the end, Christ’s atoning work means victory. Satan, death and sin are conquered.

I prefer the penal-substitution theory. But I don’t think that there ever will be one understanding of the atonement and I am not sure that any one theory encompasses atonement in its entirety or from every angle. On any account, you are right that the atonement cannot be separated from the whole. Some on this board, for example, will declare “it is finished!,” at the cross – but then have to acknowledge that without faith, none are actually saved. Without the resurrection, there is no object of that faith. Apart from the resurrection, we are still in our sins – so for our salvation, Christ dead in the tomb did not accomplish that work.

 

I was thinking about Michael Wrenn’s comments regarding Christus Victor (the Ransom Theory).

Many of the statements on this topic do seem to hold one particular atonement theory as infallible (Penal-Substitution Theory for the most part). If there is room for error in the theory, or if the theory is not viewed as all encompassing, then there is room for error in the fruits of that theory. You’d almost have to view the theory as divinely inspired to dogmatically cling to it when interpreting Scripture to examine each individual aspect of salvation.

 

The Ransom theory is more of an objective theory of atonement (it does holds that Christ’s atoning work was not directed primarily at humanity; although the ultimate purpose was the liberation of the human race Christ’s victory over Satan was at the point of the Resurrection (not His death), therefore the Resurrection is the accomplishment of atonement – it is the point of victory.

Christus Victor comes from the title of Aulen’s book, and I have to admit that I have not read it (only excerpts). From what I understand, he viewed the Ransom theory as the liberation of man through Christ’s death as Christ was victorious over death, sin, and Satan. Ransom, to Aulen, was taken to mean liberation rather than a payment for sin.

The Penal-Substitution theory (which I view as more correct as a whole) has the disadvantage of being entirely subjective. Scripture indicates that the atonement was also for a purpose (whether primary or not) to those who would not be saved. Regardless of whether one believes that the atonement was offered to the non-elect, I don’t think that any would disagree that there are benefits to the non-elect. I do hold to divine providence, and my view of God’s sovereignty denies me the leisure of viewing these benefits as accidental or benefits that simply overflow from the redemption of the elect. It is here, in my opinion, that the Christus Victor theory is stronger.

It is very interesting not only to contrast the theories of atonement, but also to examine the consequences of each view to one’s soteriology. But beyond that, I have to say that neither of these theories seems to explain the atonement fully. Each seem to draw attention to a vital aspect of our salvation – but I get the feeling that Christ’s work was greater than is encompassed in either theory.

 

Michael,
I would like to read your contrast between theories of atonements without burdening this thread with a reinstatement of the posts (particularly as this thread is about a particular aspect of atonement rather than entire theories). Can you direct me to the thread?

 

I read your posts. Looks like you were fighting an uphill battle as you argued for the Ransom Theory being the classic view. I did not know that some believed that the penal-substitution theory originated with the early church fathers.

The classic view, in my opinion, was in error in the nature of the debt owed. Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory attempted correct the view of a ransom paid to Satan, which Anselm saw as an error. I do not think that his theory was acceptable, but it did elevate the subject. The Reformers disagreed with Anselm’s theory in that where he saw sin as insulting God’s honor, they saw it is violating His moral law. Gustaf Aulen (in Christus Victor) defended the Ransom Theory by presenting the ransom as a liberation for humanity rather than a debt to Satan. Aulen did contend that this was the original intention of the Ransom Theory. I do find merit in the Christus Victor view, although I do not believe that it (or the Penal-Substitution Theory) is without error or complete in itself. I think that the nature of the atonement probably exceeds our understanding, much less a systematic theory.

You made some good points regarding the Penal Substitution theory. I do find Scriptural support for the theory, so I know that we would disagree on certain issues.

I know of many objections to the penal-substitution theory: Christ cannot bear our guilt because guilt cannot be transferred; we cannot bear Christ’s righteousness; it would be unjust for the Father to substitute his Son to bear our penalty; propitiation implies conflict within the Trinity. I personally do not hold these objections (so, obviously we would not agree on many of these aspects of the theory). Since you disagreed strongest about the penal aspect, I take it that you view it as unjust for the Father to substitute his Son to bear our penalty (please correct me if I’m wrong – it just seems the logical objection from that perspective).

The basic themes in the Bible regarding atonement seem to be sacrifice, propitiation, substitution and reconciliation. In that, I find truth in both the Christus Victor view and the Penal-Substitution position – it seems that they focus on different aspects of the atonement.

We probably could have a meaningful discussion on this topic. I do not fault people for disagreeing with me – even Peter was wrong at times and he was a disciple (just kidding … J - I am confident that my understanding is not without error).

I know I have said this before, but when I come to the point that I know for certain how God effected salvation, when I completely understand His methods and thoughts and am able to stand on those conclusions – that is probably the point when I am most wrong and farthest away from Him.

 

I think that the suffering and death that Christ, under the penal-substitution view, experienced in our stead was spiritual; it was not the physical sufferings and death that we experience. In that, the penal-substitution theory is dependent upon a Trinitarian view. The Father sending his Son is illustrated in the narrative concerning Abraham and Isaac; but this is not complete. Christ laid down his own life, on his accord, for our sins. It is an error (from the penal-substitution view) to view God punishing Jesus in our place because Jesus is God. I view it instead as a self-sacrifice.

You are correct in identifying that this is linked with the Old Covenant. I view the Law as an expression of the nature of God and foreshadowing the New Covenant, but I can certainly understand why you would view it as legalistic.
I am not in disagreement with your statement regarding the validity of the Christus Victor position. Christ overcame death by the Incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection as a whole. Neither is independent of the other. I think that that is the flaw in holding the penal-substitution theory in isolation of other aspects of Christ’s work. The theory is also subjective to those who will be saved, so there is difficulty in addressing Christ as “the Lamb of God” without having to relate this to man.

How one addresses these issues will determine whether the question of actual vs potential atonement is even a valid question. Personally, I believe that it is not.

 

Regarding Christ’s death as propitiatory is stating the Christ died to appease God’s wrath.

This view is that it is not propitiation but expiation in the New Testament (God was not appeased by the death of Christ, but what Christ accomplished on the cross was to cleanse sinners of their sins – it applies then only to the elect). Propitiation does not have to be applied to specific persons, but focuses more on an appeasement to God. Expiation, on the other hand, has a specific group as subject.

Christ’s death was a propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but for the sins of the world. In the Septuagint, evxila,skomai (exilaskomai) is never used with the word sin as its direct object. It is probably not a good idea to start doing so now. It is not a good defense for limited or universal atonement as the sins of anyone are not its subject – but rather the Lamb of God as a sacrifice to appease God’s wrath. While it is for our sins (for the redemption of those who will believe), you cannot strech propitation itself to argue that point.