Atonement Theories

Most other orthodox views (that I know of) look to Christ's nature (to His divinity) as God Incarnate. Early views considered mankind as still suffering the consequences of sin but those consequences being made empty as they are redeemed out of the bondage of sin and death. Perhaps this is a less spiritualizing than many would prefer, but throughout history people have looked at the world differently and have sought answers to different questions.

 

Your idea of this "sin debt" is unique to Penal Substitution Theory. It would be like Origen complaining that PSA didn't address what was paid to Satan.

 

I don't believe you understand what I am saying.

Your question is relevant to PSA but not necessarily to other views. For example, the early church would answer that we pay for sin but Christ redeems us from its grip. This is very apparent in the Ransom Theory but probably evident in most others as well.

Just as you would dismiss the question about how PSA accounts for paying Satan for human kind, so also would others dismiss your question. It is not relevant to other theories. Just as you and I see Origin as making a false presupposition regarding the ransom, most Christian's would see PSA as making a false presupposition about divine justice.

The differences simply are not as superficial as one might expect. There is more involved so we can't merely evaluate one theory under the presuppositions of another. There are reasons each comes to their conclusions.

 

Anti-PSA theories seem to fairly consistently point to Scripture where it tells us that we must die to sin and live in Christ. So they would probably place the issue of a "sin debt" as defined by PSA as an error of interpretation (perhaps even a carry over from RCC doctrine/error).

PSA holds that Christ paid this "sin debt" by suffering our punishment so that we wouldn't.

Satisfaction theory holds that Christ's satisfied the demands of this debt (not necessary by experiencing our punishment in our stead but based on His merit).

Substitution theory holds that Christ was our substitute in some form.

 

Although all (I believe) believe Jesus kept the Law perfectly, I don't know that all theories understand God's righteousness imputed to us as having its foundation in the Law. This seems more unique to the RCC (treasury of merit) and PSA.

 

I believe all theories present reconciliation through Christ - Christus Victor by Christ's victory over evil, breaking the bonds of sin and death; Moral Influence through a new way of life in Christ; recapitulation through Christ as the "Last Adam"; Satisfaction theory by Christ satisfying the demands of sin against us; and PSA by God punishing Jesus instead of us.

 

This is not true.

They all account for our state estranged from God, our need for a Savior, and being made alive in Christ. The reason you cannot see this, I believe, is because they do not do so within your expectations.

Perhaps the clearest example is Christus Victor, which presents man as being dead in sin but freed from its bonds by being made alive in Christ. We see this in the moral influence theory (although I always saw it as a bit of progression). I think this is apparent in recapitulation as well. We see it in the Ransom theory (along the same lines as with Christus Victor). I'm not sure how this would be expressed in the government theory.

Bottom line is that most necessitate the cross and the blood of Christ shed in our place.

 

Redemption.