Featured Christian atonement theories

There's more than one way of skinning this particular cat, Yeshua. If one view is over-emphasised at the expense of the others, it can lead to a skewed soteriology.

 

The skewing of soteriology: began with Cain who changed the typology from innocent blood to the works of man's hands.

The world is filled with Cainites, even among those called Christian. The majority of those called Christian believe in baptismal regeneration. This is false doctrine straight from the pit.

Now what?

Missing from the list of theories(?), PROPITIATION--the just dying for the unjust. Only Jesus can do that.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

I think that's covered under the penal substitutionary atonement theory.

 

So what.....you think they aren't skewed now....that would be quite naive. Sit thru some of these contentious fights between C vs A and observe.

Had I observed that right after regeneration, I would have stayed far away from both. No wait, I have.:smilewinkgrin:

 

I would suggest that at least part of the reason that they are skewed is precisely because one theory is over-emphasised at the expense and sometimes to the exclusion of the others.

 

Then what would you suggest that one theory is, pray tell?

 

Typically on a board such as this, PSA

 

I see that often the disagreement about certain topics come about because people want to adhere to an either/or perspective rather than a both/and.

 

well, if the death of jesus onthe cross was not a substutionary one, by what basis can God freely forgive sinners, as their debt owed to god has not been paid for?

 

Greetings Thomas Helwys and Yeshua1,

I appreciate the opportunity to consider this subject from other people’s perspective. Before posting in the poll or extensively commenting I see the need to examine carefully the two web articles that you have referenced and the earlier thread referenced by 12strings. Also I do not recognise any of the poll items as matching of my view. I believe that Jesus’ death was not substitutionary, but that he died as a representative on behalf of mankind. Because of my view on this I will briefly respond to Yeshua1 initially.

I find the substitutionary view difficult on the basis that if someone has paid a debt how can it then be said that the person is forgiven of that debt. For example if I, Trevor owe Bill 20c, and Joe says to Bill here is 20c to pay for Trevor’s debt, how can Bill turn around to me and say, Trevor I forgive you the debt of 20c? There are two parables, the prodigal son and the two debtors, and both of these do not seem to be teaching the substitutionary concept.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

What if Bill says to you, "Joe has paid your debt for you. It is forgiven. You do not have to pay it. I've wiped it off the books."

God punishes every sin. The punishment is death. The message of the Scripture is "Jesus has taken your punishment upon himself. He took your place--died in your place. I will not give you the punishment your deserve, death, because Someone who did not deserve the punishment took it in your place. It is forgiven."

When someone who pays a debt owed by someone else, as Jesus did, it is analogous to taking punishment deserved by someone else.

That's a good definition of substitutionary atonement.

 

Ransom Theory

First, the use of the word "atonement" needlessly complicates the issue. The actual issue is "why did Jesus have to suffer and die in order to provide the means of salvation for mankind?"

Ransom Theory

"In Mark 10:45 Jesus says that he came to give his life "as a ransom for many." The idea that he died in order to pay a ransom is the basis for the Ransom Theory. This is one of the oldest atonement theories, and during the first thousand years of Christianity, it was the most common explanation for why Jesus had to suffer and die.

The early Christian scholar Origen gave one of the first detailed descriptions of this theory. He said that the disobedience of Adam and Eve caused God to abandon humankind to the Devil, who then exerted his power over us. Later, when God decided to reconcile with us, he agreed to pay Satan a ransom for our release. The agreed-upon payment was Jesus' death on the cross. After the crucifixion, Satan kept his part of the bargain by releasing us from his power. But then God pulled a trick on him by resurrecting Jesus.

Some later writers argued that God's trickery was justified because the Devil himself is so dishonest. Others said that Satan should have known not to ask for Jesus' death in the first place, and therefore got just what he deserved.

The Ransom Theory is also called the Bargain Theory and the Classical Theory. It was the primary atonement theory for more than a thousand years, from the first century to the eleventh century, and is still accepted by some Christians."

The first issue with this mistaken view is the idea God paid a ransom to Satan. The actual problem is with the nature of God, He is Holy and sin creates a separation between our Holy God and all in a state of unholiness. Jesus became the means of reconciliation in that "in Him" i.e. washed by His Blood, we are made holy and perfect and blameless and therefore are reconciled to our Holy God.

Next, who was ransomed? Jesus paid the ransom for all, i.e. all mankind was bought, including all those subsequently condemned to Hades. But if everyone was bought, why are not all saved? Because the purchase was like an oil lease, it gave the right to extract whatever oil desired but included the right to leave the oil in the ground. Thus only those God places spiritually in Christ receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's death on the cross. Another illustration if that Jesus is a fount of living water, whoever is placed in the fount is washed (the washing of regeneration) and is thus reconciled to God. So the issue becomes, how does one get placed spiritually in Christ?

 

Greetings Tom Butler and Thomas Helwys,

I found it difficult to endorse any of the options, as the summary of each in the articles you referenced had perhaps some element of truth, but also some inadequacies. I was interested in some aspects of the Christ the Victor option but did not agree with the summary. I believe that Jesus actually came in the condemned line of Adam through Mary, having human nature Hebrews 2:14, Romans 8:3, so that he could overcome sin in all its causes and effects, both in himself and ultimately for all the saved. He is thus victorious over sin and death. He rose victorious over death because he had done no sin, and the righteousness of God necessitated that the grave could not hold him, thus reversing the condemnation on Adam Genesis 3:19.

Two important principles that are part of the subject of the Atonement are both the righteousness and mercy of God. God is both merciful and just. The crucifixion of Christ is at the centre of a declaration of God’s righteousness, where these two principles meet and God is shown to be just and God forgives.
Romans 1:16-17 (KJV): 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
Romans 3:23-26 (KJV): 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Substitution seems to be punishing the innocent and letting the sinner go free and this appears to me to be an inversion of justice. I do not read of any Scripture that says that God was punishing Jesus, rather the love of the Father to His Son is revealed, and Jesus’ trust in God is also revealed. Central to the crucifixion, death and resurrection is Jesus’ love and God’s love for the world.
Luke 23:34 (KJV): Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
John 3:16 (KJV): For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

You echo my thoughts completely.

 

1. It is important to the understanding of the atonement that Jesus Christ is HIMSELF God...that in some sense God was taking the punishment on HIMSELF...not simply looking around and finding someone to punish who was outside of himself....but of course, since you deny the trinity and the full diety of Christ, you would not accept this.

2. SCRIPTURE:

-Is. 53 excerpts: ...yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted...he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed......and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.... Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him.

-2 Corinthians 5:21 - For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. [Who is the FIRST "HE" in the sentance? It seems to be GOD...who is the "he who knew no sin"? It is Christ? God made Christ to be sin for us]

-Romans 5:9 - Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. [the problem Jesus came to solve was that we were all under the wrath of God, and the atonement needed to provide some way to alter that situation. ]

 

The ransom was paid to satan in this theory, for when adam fell, he came under the rule/kingdom of satan in this view, so jesus paid the sin debt to satan , paid his way out of hell into heaven in this theory!

 

The OT sacrificial system was ALL a type pointing towards the Lamb of God to come as the sin bearer/atoner!

Someone MUST die to have the justice/wrath of god appeased for, if not thru substitutionary aspect, how would other views deal with Gods wrath/justice being paid for?