["FireDragon76, post: 73874851, member: 330042"]"
["Jonaitis, post: 73869901, member: 416033"]
["Knee V, post: 73868013, member: 13361"]
["thecolorsblend, post: 73868392, member: 333839"]
[="Tree of Life, post: 73862458, member: 325007"]
["Mark_Sam, post: 73868746, member: 279878"]
["David Cabrera, post: 73862435, member: 408632"]
["No Username Found, post: 73862880, member: 381423"]
["TrevorL, post: 73863644, member: 81584"]
There is a reason all these explanations are called and remain theories. A theory is only as good as its explanation of the exceptions. All these “theories” have huge unexplainable “exceptions” in their conclusions.
No one even mentioned the “Moral Example” which it is, but so is everything Christ did an example for us. There is much more to it.
Yes, there is a form of substitution in that all mature adults should be crucified like Christ was crucified for their sins we have personally committed, but it cannot be Penal Substitution, since for one reason it would go against the definition of justice and injustice God/Christ have given us throughout scripture.
Yes, God was satisfied and pleased with Christ’s obedience to the cause even to the point of being tortured, humiliated and murdered, but that does not mean God is blood thirsty, or needing some “condition” to provide unconditional forgiveness to humans. Yes, Penal Substitution also makes God out to be blood thirsty being required for some unjust form of justice.
Yes, it is literally a ransom scenario since Christ said he was literally a ransom payment for all, but that does not mean it is the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”, with God “paying” satan to have His Children released.
Yes, “Christus Victor” is true in that Christ was victorious over satan, death, hell, sin and evil, but the “Victory” is happening throughout Christ’s live culminated with his resurrection. It is saying: “Christ had to die (some how some way) so he could rise. When it comes to explaining the atonement sacrifice the supports of “Christus Victor” will go back to the Ransom Theory of atonement, since it does not explain atonement itself.
There are six other “theories” of atonement I have studies and looked at, but all have similar huge issues.
Trying to combine “theories” just adds to the issues, since the conclusions do not cancel each other’s issues out.
There is good reason to develop a better response, since Muslims heavily depend on their internet “Bible Scholars” to point out all the contradictions in all the common Christian “theories” of atonement. Christ crucified is “foolishness to the unbeliever” (Muslim), but Christians come out looking like fools with such contradictory to scripture explanations.
Let’s just begin with just one truth:
Christ said: “to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Christ did not say: “Give my life like a ransom…”
Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew Writer all refer to the atonement process as a ransom scenario, so it is.
I think we all agree:
Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder are the unbelievable huge payment.
God/Christ (Deity) is making this huge sacrificial payment.
A Child of God being set free to enter the Kingdom is the child within the unbeliever, since we all enter the Kingdom as children.
What we do not agree on is:
Who is the underserving kidnapper accepting or rejecting this huge ransom payment?
1. The “Ransom Theory” support will go to great length showing it could not be God or some intangible and yet it has to be paid to someone so they conclude it must be satan.
At the time this theory was developed many believed there was a continuing war going on in heaven (like there was always wars going on here on earth), so satan took captive, yet God would be victorious in the end. Ransoms were common and frequently paid to the enemy (most remember Caesar at 21 was ransom with a huge payment, but later came back and destroyed the pirates). The problem is: It would actually be wrong for God to pay a “ransom” to satan to have satan set His children “free” since God can just as easily and safely take His children from satan without paying a ransom. God does not “owe” satan anything and satan is not going to change with a payoff.
2. The Satisfaction and Substitution Theories have the ransom being paid to God, but God is not an undeserving kidnapper. If a payment was being made to God, it would be a “earned” by God payment, so not a ransom. God is not holding His own children back from the Kingdom Home and setting them free to go to Himself, that is an almost silly idea.
Most believers in God being the receiver of the ransom payment call the ransom scenario a very limited analogy and this part is outside the ransom analogy, yet without a receiver of the ransom it is a very poor “analogy”, so Christ, Paul, Peter, Jon and the Hebrew writer would be misleading us and even more so those of the first century.
3. Some say: “The ransom is paid to an intangible like death, sin, or evil”, yet intangibles do not need to be “paid” and do not change with payment. Again, it makes a very poor ransom scenario to have an intangible as the underserving kidnapper.
4. There is another party whom the supporters of the Ransom Theory do not consider, even though they do an excellent job of showing how it is a ransom and God is not the kidnapper. (there are books on line for free, explaining this theory.)
You have to think about it:
When you go up to a nonbeliever what are you trying to get Him/her to accept; (A book, a theology, a community, a church, a doctrine) or Jesus Christ and Him crucified?
Jesus Christ and Him Crucified is literally the ransom payment, so you are trying to get him/her to accept the ransom payment. If they reject this huge ransom payment, a child will not be set free to enter the kingdom and this will upset God. If they accept Christ and Him crucified a child is set free to enter the Kingdom. So, who is the kidnapper holding this child back from the Kingdom?
The unbeliever is certainly underserving of any ransom payment and is a criminal (kidnapper of God’s child) holing a child out of the Kingdom.
Atonement is not un-participative, but very participative. The sinner has a part to play which is often left out (this is also how the atonement sacrifice can be for every sinner and yet atonement only takes place for those who accept it).
Ro. 3:25 explains a lot and understanding the Greek words for the English translated “for” helps. There are lots of scripture on atonement and we can start wit Lev. 5 and go through them all.