Atonement Theories

[Osage Bluestem]

My father in law is a retired ELCA Lutheran minister. He told me last night that he doesn't believe in substitutionary atonement. Instead he believes in the Moral Example theory. I was shocked as I thought every Christian denomination believed in the substitutionary atonement.

Thoughts on the various theories and such? Isn't it heresy to believe anything other than substitutionary atonement?

Theories of the atonement

Historic theories

• The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan.
• The Recapitulation Theory: Originated with Irenaeus (125-202 AD). He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did. Thus, where Adam was disobedient concerning God's edict concerning the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. See main page on Recapitulation theory of atonement
• The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. "Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners."^[1]^ Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith. See main page on Satisfaction theory
• The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution. See main page on Penal substitution theory
• The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876). See main page on Moral Influence theory
• The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism. See main page on Governmental theory of atonement

Modern theories

• The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).
• The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).
• The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.
• The 'Christus Victor' or Dramatic Theory: by G. E. H. Aulén (1879-1977). The atonement is viewed as divine conflict and victory over the hostile powers that hold humanity in subjection. This is a modified form of the classic Ransom theory with the emphasis on Christ's victory over evil. See main article Christus Victor.
• The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.
• The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

Atonement of Christ - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

 

[hedrick]

Paul and Calvin both adopt something that I don't think matches any of those. We are united with Christ through faith, in baptism. Through that "fellowship of righteousness" we die to sin and are raised to new life. This isn't quite penal substitution, because Rom 6 doesn't seem to say that the death is a punishment, although it is certainly on our behalf. Rather, in Christ our old person died and we are now born again to new life. Calvin's treatment in the Institutes matches Paul's fairly closely.

I guess this could be a variant of Christus victor, but I probably wouldn't call it that. It seems closest to Irenaeus, and of course other places Paul does see Christ as the new Adam.

Since Rom 6 is before the Church Fathers, I'd argue that this is the oldest theory.

There's a lot of reaction today against penal substitution. A lot of people think it makes God out to be immoral. Historically that's been a liberal concern, and of course the ELCA would be open to such viewpoints. The more liberal wing of the evangelical movement shares similar concerns. This is closely related to concerns about hell as eternal torture, because both are based on the same concept of the punishment that sin merits. There's a discussion going on about that as well.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

As far as the theories go, I've actually heard that the Moral Influence theory came first (starting with the Apostolic fathers), then the Recapitulation Theory, then the Ransom theory, followed by the Satisfaction theory that Anselm elaborated on that later developed into the Penal Substitution theory.

The idea that Christ died to satisfy God for our sins in some way may have been an idea present early on, but it wasn't really stressed until Anselm elaborated on it.

Why Did Jesus Have to Die Time to talk about Atonement Theory

I'm not sure how much of this is accurate, but it does make some sense. However, it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered imo. Still, I've never agreed with the penal substitution theory, but I was never told that it wasn't the only theory out there in Christianity. I know that the Eastern Orthodox church has never accepted the penal substitution theory.

For that matter, I find it interesting that people are constantly asking Jesus how to obtain eternal life. His responses are usually something like follow the commandments, or do this or do that. But he also says that believing in him would lead to eternal life, that he is the roadway to God. This is something I've constantly struggled with.

John 14
New Living Translation (NLT)
Jesus, the Way to the Father

14 “Don’t let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God, and trust also in me. 2 There is more than enough room in my Father’s home.[a] If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you? 3 When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with me where I am. 4 And you know the way to where I am going.”

5 “No, we don’t know, Lord,” Thomas said. “We have no idea where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me. 7 If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is.[c] From now on, you do know him and have seen him!”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.”

9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me. 11 Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do.

12 “I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father. 13 You can ask for anything in my name, and I will do it, so that the Son can bring glory to the Father. 14 Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it!

15 “If you love me, obey[d] my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,[e] who will never leave you. 17 He is the Holy Spirit, who leads into all truth. The world cannot receive him, because it isn’t looking for him and doesn’t recognize him. But you know him, because he lives with you now and later will be in you.[f] 18 No, I will not abandon you as orphans—I will come to you. 19 Soon the world will no longer see me, but you will see me. Since I live, you also will live. 20 When I am raised to life again, you will know that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21 Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.”

22 Judas (not Judas Iscariot, but the other disciple with that name) said to him, “Lord, why are you going to reveal yourself only to us and not to the world at large?”

23 Jesus replied, “All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them. 24 Anyone who doesn’t love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me. 25 I am telling you these things now while I am still with you. 26 But when the Father sends the Advocate as my representative—that is, the Holy Spirit—he will teach you everything and will remind you of everything I have told you.

27 “I am leaving you with a gift—peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give is a gift the world cannot give. So don’t be troubled or afraid. 28 Remember what I told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again. If you really loved me, you would be happy that I am going to the Father, who is greater than I am. 29 I have told you these things before they happen so that when they do happen, you will believe.

30 “I don’t have much more time to talk to you, because the ruler of this world approaches. He has no power over me, 31 but I will do what the Father requires of me, so that the world will know that I love the Father. Come, let’s be going.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I think that the death of Christ is multifaceted and no one view captures all that Scripture says on the atoning death of Christ. I do tend towards a view of satisfaction or penal substitution, but see value in the other theories.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I believe the bible clearly teaches the substitutionary atonement of Christ. I believe any other theory is heresy and does damage to the gospel.

Last night, I told my in laws to not teach their theology to my children. They were furious. I went on to say that since they don't believe Jesus died for sins and that they don't believe that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation and they don't believe the bible is without error and therefore true that I believe their liberal theology is so different from biblical Chrisiaity as to make us members of different religions not just different denominations and I and in union with the conservative Christian leaders consider them and all like them a mission field where the gospel needs to be presented anew. In other words I told them they were heretics who's theology is unchristian and I don't want them to confuse my children and poison their minds.

They are very mad at me right now.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I believe the bible clearly teaches the substitutionary atonement of Christ. I believe any other theory is heresy and does damage to the gospel.

Last night, I told my in laws to not teach their theology to my children. They were furious. I went on to say that since they don't believe Jesus died for sins and that they don't believe that faith in Christ is the only way to salvation and they don't believe the bible is without error and therefore true that I believe their liberal theology is so different from biblical Chrisiaity as to make us members of different religions not just different denominations and I and in union with the conservative Christian leaders consider them and all like them a mission field where the gospel needs to be presented anew. In other words I told them they were heretics who's theology is unchristian and I don't want them to confuse my children and poison their minds.

They are very mad at me right now.

okay I agreee that liberal theology is NOT the Gospel of Christ. Yep. No doubt about that. Read Machen on Christianity and Liberalism. and yes the penal substitutionary view expresses what I believe Scripture teaches, but to say the other views do not also express truths concerning the atonement of Christ and the church just "didn't get it" until Anselm just sounds wrong.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

okay I agreee that liberal theology is NOT the Gospel of Christ. Yep. No doubt about that. Read Machen on Christianity and Liberalism. and yes the penal substitutionary view expresses what I believe Scripture teaches, but to say the other views do not also express truths concerning the atonement of Christ and the church just "didn't get it" until Anselm just sounds wrong.

The bible is our authority. I do not care what ECFs or creeds have said. Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the substitutionary atonement for our sins. He is the propitiation that makes our union with God possible.

Isaiah 53:10-12 ESV
10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief;[g]
when his soul makes[h] an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see[i] and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,[j]
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,[k]
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Propitiation:
pro·pi·ti·a·tion

   /prəˌpɪʃiˈeɪʃən/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[pruh-pish-ee-ey-shuhn] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun 1. the act of propitiating; conciliation: the propitiation of the wrathful gods.

2. something that propitiates.

1. Romans 3:25
   whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
   Romans 3:24-26 (in Context) Romans 3 (Whole Chapter)
2. Hebrews 2:17
   Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
   Hebrews 2:16-18 (in Context) Hebrews 2 (Whole Chapter)
3. 1 John 2:2
   He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
   1 John 2:1-3 (in Context) 1 John 2 (Whole Chapter)
4. 1 John 4:10
   In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
   http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 John+4:9-11&version=ESV

 

[HereIStand]

This is an interesting discussion and one that I would like to do more reading on, especially the teaching of Irenaus on the topic.

I would see atonement more in the broad sense of the encompassing the entire life of Christ as our salvation:

9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:9-11 ESV)

Seeing the entire life of Christ as salvific is a good barrier against the teaching that Christ is our moral example to follow in order to obtain salvation, which has taken on a subtle form in some emerging church teaching.

On a related note, one brief writing of Luther's that I've found helpful is "A Brief Instruction on What to Look for and Expect in the Gospels." The following is an excerpt from it:

...Now when you have Christ as the foundation and chief blessing of your salvation, then the other part follows: that you take him as your example, giving yourself in service to your neighbor just as you see that Christ has given himself for you. See, there faith and love move forward, God's commandment is fulfilled, and a person is happy and fearless to do and to suffer all things. Therefore make note of this, that Christ as a gift nourishes your faith and makes you a Christian. But Christ as an example exercises your works. These do not make you a Christian. Actually they come forth from you because you have already been made a Christian. As widely as a gift differs from an example, so widely does faith differ from works, for faith possesses nothing of its own, only the deeds and life of Christ. Works have something of your own in them, yet they should not belong to you but to your neighbor.

See a portion of of Luther's writing here.

 

[mannysee]

...For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:9-11 ESV)

Seeing the entire life of Christ as salvific ...

Funny that. I'd always read "his life" as referring to post-resurrection; the "much more" pointing to the certainty of His position here and thus our benefit.

 

[HereIStand]

Funny that. I'd always read "his life" as referring to post-resurrection; the "much more" pointing to the certainty of His position here and thus our benefit.

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[mannysee]

How did you reach this conclusion?

That is just how I read -I suppose I'd call it- the flow of his argument here.
If we are already reconciled by His death, then an even stronger defence of our hope is His post-death life, or resurrection life and our identity with Him here, now.

I am certainly no theologian and will happily accept correction of my understanding of the writer's thought in this text, if a wrong one.

 

[HereIStand]

That is just how I read -I suppose I'd call it- the flow of his argument here.
If we are already reconciled by His death, then an even stronger defence of our hope is His post-death life, or resurrection life and our identity with Him here, now.

I am certainly no theologian and will happily accept correction of my understanding of the writer's thought in this text, if a wrong one.

No, after looking at Luther's commentary on Romans and the ESV study notes, your interpretation is the correct one. Thanks for making me look so foolish.

No seriously though, I'm not a theologian either. It can be helpful to consider the writings of others who are though. The point that I was attempting to make was probably better expressed in the quote from Luther, which I shared in my original post in this thread.

Also, this morning, I read a passage from Augustine, which addresses the life of Christ as an example of humble obedience in contrast to Adam's prideful disobedience. Augustine then follows on to connect this with Christ's obedience unto death and resurrection on our behalf. This is the passage from Augustine:

For we could not be redeemed, even through the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, if He were not also God. Now when Adam was created, he, being a righteous man, had no need of a mediator. But when sin had placed a wide gulf between God and the human race, it was expedient that a Mediator, who alone of the human race was born, lived, and died without sin, should reconcile us to God, and procure even for our bodies a resurrection to eternal life, in order that the pride of man might be exposed and cured through the humility of God; that man might be shown how far he had departed from God, when God became incarnate to bring him back; that an example might be set to disobedient man in the life of obedience of the God-Man; that the fountain of grace might be opened by the Only-begotten taking upon Himself the form of a servant, a form which had no antecedent merit; that an earnest of that resurrection of the body which is promised to the redeemed might be given in the resurrection of the Redeemer; that the devil might be subdued by the same nature which it was his boast to have deceived, and yet man not glorified, lest pride should again spring up; and, in fine, with a view to all the advantages which the thoughtful can perceive and describe, or perceive without being able to describe, as flowing from the transcendent mystery of the person of the Mediator.

(The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 108)

 

[Eddie L]

I think there is a lot of value in the study of the cross and what Christ accomplished there, certainly. I do think, though, that any single theory -- as correct as it might be -- cannot fully define all that is meant and accomplished by Christ's work. The gospel functions in so many ways and means that it is certainly designed to hit us from several different directions at once. It is the hub of creation and the purpose of the universe. That's a lot to take in.

 

[Nephi]

Thoughts on the various theories and such? Isn't it heresy to believe anything other than substitutionary atonement?

You're not going to find substitutionary atonement before St. Augustine at the earliest, but even then it wasn't (as others have said) fleshed out until Anselm in the 11th century. Not being critical, but do you believe it's possible that everyone was in heresy until Anselm on the matter?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

You're not going to find substitutionary atonement before St. Augustine at the earliest, but even then it wasn't (as others have said) fleshed out until Anselm in the 11th century. Not being critical, but do you believe it's possible that everyone was in heresy until Anselm on the matter?

The bible predates anselm. It teaches substitutionary atonement.

 

[Nephi]

The bible predates anselm. It teaches substitutionary atonement.

Do you have no issue with nearly universal heresy until Anselm?

 

[Anoetos]

I think that the death of Christ is multifaceted and no one view captures all that Scripture says on the atoning death of Christ. I do tend towards a view of satisfaction or penal substitution, but see value in the other theories.

I tend to agree. The Atonement can be thought about in a great number of ways. I guess I think a mistake is made when we make it an either/or discussion. It's an odd thing, this penchant for throwing the baby out with the bath water...

I think the penal-substitutionary theory best, but I see the value of other views and often find them useful for picturing how God has effected the salvation of sinners.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Do you have no issue with nearly universal heresy until Anselm?

Millions of people died in the flood. God saved 8.

The same as today out of the millions of "christians" only a few are saved.

 

[hedrick]

So if you're using the Bible as your authority, what's wrong with Rom 6:1-11? It doesn't teach penal substitution. It says that the significance of Christ's death is that by identification with him, we die to sin and are then reborn.

Is this penal substitution? In some sense yes. Christ certainly suffers because of our sin. The Biblical issue isn't with the idea of Christ taking on our sins. It's the back-story that typically goes with penal substitution. The account we often hear is that because of our sins God was unable to forgive us without punishing someone first. From Paul that the purpose of Christ's death was so that through him we die to sin and are reborn, i.e. that the purpose was to fix us, not to satisfy God. Rom 3:23 says that he passed over sin in the past, but now Christ fully deals with it. This implies that he was able to forgive sin, and what Christ added was actually dealing with it by turning us into new people. Ditto 2 Cor 5:21, where the purpose seems to be to make us righteous. Ditto 1 Pet 2:24, where the purpose of his death is for us to die to sin and live to righteousness.

The 4 places in the NT where Christ's death is said to be in atonement for sin use variants of a word that means simply for the forgiveness of sin. The Louw and Nida lexicon comment: "Though some traditional translations render ἱλαστήριον as ‘propitiation,’ this involves a wrong interpretation of the term in question. Propitiation is essentially a process by which one does a favor to a person in order to make him or her favorably disposed, but in the NT God is never the object of propitiation since he is already on the side of people. ἱλασμός and ἱλαστήριονa denote the means of forgiveness and not propitiation."

TDNT comments "Nevertheless, whatever the final meaning of ἱλαστήριον, it certainly denotes that which expiates sins. By means of it is the ἀπολύτρωσις or redemption of the sinner and therewith the revelation of God’s righteousness. The ἱλάσκομαι contained in ἱλαστήριον naturally does not mean “to propitiate,” as though God were an object. This is excluded by the fact that it is God who has made the ἱλαστήριον what it is. In this whole context God is subject, not object. This is in keeping with Paul’s doctrine of reconciliation (→ I, 255). Only men, or the sins of men, can be object of ἱλάσκομαι (→ 314 ff.). "

 

[Nephi]

Millions of people died in the flood. God saved 8.

The same as today out of the millions of "christians" only a few are saved.

Alright.

I guess I think a mistake is made when we make it an either/or discussion.

It's honestly hard to not make it either/or, unless maybe if you believe in Penal Substitution to begin with as the major facet of the Atonement.

For example, certain theories attribute death to God. Others attribute death to Satan. These both lead to very different outcomes.

Another example would be the attribute of God's "justice" in Penal Substitution. Those that adhere to it usually say that God is, by his essence or nature, just - hence why God "must" punish sin. Greek church fathers, on the other hand, would attribute God's justice as part of his Energies, not his Nature/Essence, which voids any "need" for God to punish sin.