Atonement Theories

[Shane R]

I believe Anselm's presentation is the best base to start from, but there are many nuances to add on. I have long rejected the common penal substitution concept. If penal substitution is true, Calvinism is true. I reject both. I do realize that penal substitution arose from Anselm's model as something of an evolution or corruption of the original thought.

 

[Nephi]

I believe Anselm's presentation is the best base to start from, but there are many nuances to add on. I have long rejected the common penal substitution concept. If penal substitution is true, Calvinism is true. I reject both. I do realize that penal substitution arose from Anselm's model as something of an evolution or corruption of the original thought.

If I might ask, what is your developed understanding of Anselm's model? Do you retain the honor/dishonor language? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

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.). "

I use Calvin's law of non contradiction for biblical exegesis.

 

[Shane R]

Nephi: I propose Anselm as a base because the atonement of Christ posesses an element of satisfaction, but that is not the full picture presented by scripture. It is a good base when the OT type is considered. The animal sacrifices were said to cover sin, but could not satisfy to provide full forgiveness. This was accomplished in Christ's death on the cross, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Yet, there is a strong theme of moral influence as well. Christ is our example, as Paul and all the apostles said. 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me'. I accept the concept of theosis or deification, so long as it is not taken to Mormon extremes. Moral influence over-emphasizes the transformational nature of Christianity. Penal substitution virtually eliminates that - at least in its simplistic presentation within a TULIP model. Moral influence unaccompanied by other thought is essentially Pelagian in functionality.

Thirdly, there seems to be some element of Christus Victor. However, this appears to be a future effect of the atonement - at least in its totality of significance. Christus Victor tends to minimize the importance of Christ's blood and can be rather easily warped into a justification for universalism.

 

[Nephi]

Nephi: I propose Anselm as a base because the atonement of Christ posesses an element of satisfaction, but that is not the full picture presented by scripture. It is a good base when the OT type is considered. The animal sacrifices were said to cover sin, but could not satisfy to provide full forgiveness. This was accomplished in Christ's death on the cross, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Yet, there is a strong theme of moral influence as well. Christ is our example, as Paul and all the apostles said. 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me'. I accept the concept of theosis or deification, so long as it is not taken to Mormon extremes. Moral influence over-emphasizes the transformational nature of Christianity. Penal substitution virtually eliminates that - at least in its simplistic presentation within a TULIP model. Moral influence unaccompanied by other thought is essentially Pelagian in functionality.

Thirdly, there seems to be some element of Christus Victor. However, this appears to be a future effect of the atonement - at least in its totality of significance. Christus Victor tends to minimize the importance of Christ's blood and can be rather easily warped into a justification for universalism.

Interesting. What do you think the satisfaction is?

 

[bricklayer]

Most people that describe them self as Christian describe a god that is contrary to the Sovereign Creator of the bible.
Dr. Norman Giesler sums up the most commonly held anthropoisis that "God sovereignly subjects Himself to human will". That my brothers is a perfect example of non-sense.
There are not several theories held among the saved; there are the saved and the unsaved.
There are not several means of atonement; there are the saved and the unsaved.
There are not several gospels; there are the saved and the unsaved.

 

[alton3]

The "moral improvement" theory smacks of secular humanism. Those who would deny Christ's divinity do not always shy away from using examples from His ministry and the 'symbolism' of His sacrifice to further their own ends.

"Jesus was a good guy and we should try to be more like him" philosophy has no place in systematic theology, and "Jesus died for you, so change your ways and stop sinning" theology is nothing less than a distillation of the revivalist sermons of the Arminian frontier Baptists and Methodists at odds with our own understanding.

 

[Nemo Neem]

It can be universally said that Jesus died to atone for the sins of Mankind, to absolve us of our sins, and become reconciled with God. The problem is, I think, and the reason why we have so many "theories," how and why the atonement had to be fulfilled in the first place. What I mean is, Jesus had to fulfill something so that sinners could be saved and reconciled with God. Now, the NT repeatedly says that Jesus died as a "ransom for many," and Paul writes were were "bought at a cost." Hence, we see two economic-based terms there.

The Ransom Theory, while outlandish, is only plausible in that Satan had a temporary "victory" against God because Satan's cohorts "won," and Jesus was killed; however, Satan quickly lost, because Jesus was resurrected.

Now, I say fulfill because I feel Jesus needed to fulfill the Law of God, which is why He was sent. Yes, He was sent to save, but also to fulfill the Law of the OT and create a new law. Law and order are needed, so Jesus's death was intended to reinstall order to God's government, which was on the verge of collapse.

 

[twin1954]

It can be universally said that Jesus died to atone for the sins of Mankind, to absolve us of our sins, and become reconciled with God. The problem is, I think, and the reason why we have so many "theories," how and why the atonement had to be fulfilled in the first place. What I mean is, Jesus had to fulfill something so that sinners could be saved and reconciled with God. Now, the NT repeatedly says that Jesus died as a "ransom for many," and Paul writes were were "bought at a cost." Hence, we see two economic-based terms there.

The Ransom Theory, while outlandish, is only plausible in that Satan had a temporary "victory" against God because Satan's cohorts "won," and Jesus was killed; however, Satan quickly lost, because Jesus was resurrected.

Now, I say fulfill because I feel Jesus needed to fulfill the Law of God, which is why He was sent. Yes, He was sent to save, but also to fulfill the Law of the OT and create a new law. Law and order are needed, so Jesus's death was intended to reinstall order to God's government, which was on the verge of collapse.

First, it cannot be universally said that Jesus died to atone for the sins of mankind. If He did then all mankinds must be saved because their sin are atoned. That is universalism my friend and it ain't biblical.

Second your view that God's government was on the verge of collapse reveals that you have a very low view of God. You destroy His wisdom , power and absolute authority over all things by such statements. Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law because it was necessary in order to justify sinners. He must bring in an everlasting righteousness that God would accept and bless. He did exactly that for all whom He represented as their Surity and Substitute.

You need to get your theology from the Bible not from your own imagination.

 

[Nephi]

First, it cannot be universally said that Jesus died to atone for the sins of mankind. If He did then all mankinds must be saved because their sin are atoned. That is universalism my friend and it ain't biblical.

Christ dying for the the atonement of all mankind's sins does not necessarily mean that all mankind will be saved. If it did, then universalism wouldn't have been condemned throughout the Church's history while simultaneously affirming Christ atoning for all of creation.

 

[Nemo Neem]

First, it cannot be universally said that Jesus died to atone for the sins of mankind. If He did then all mankinds must be saved because their sin are atoned. That is universalism my friend and it ain't biblical.

Second your view that God's government was on the verge of collapse reveals that you have a very low view of God. You destroy His wisdom , power and absolute authority over all things by such statements. Christ Jesus fulfilled the Law because it was necessary in order to justify sinners. He must bring in an everlasting righteousness that God would accept and bless. He did exactly that for all whom He represented as their Surity and Substitute.

You need to get your theology from the Bible not from your own imagination.

Jesus died for the "elect." If you're Reformed, you believe in the elect—those God chose first. If you're Arminian/Methodist, you believe the elect are those who come to God and stay in the faith. That's another whole issue.

Secondly, I am still learning. There is much to learn, and I didn't appreciate your tone or words. However, I am a Christian, so I forgive you.

 

[bricklayer]

It can be universally said that Jesus died to atone for the sins of Mankind, to absolve us of our sins, and become reconciled with God. The problem is, I think, and the reason why we have so many "theories," how and why the atonement had to be fulfilled in the first place. What I mean is, Jesus had to fulfill something so that sinners could be saved and reconciled with God. Now, the NT repeatedly says that Jesus died as a "ransom for many," and Paul writes were were "bought at a cost." Hence, we see two economic-based terms there.

The Ransom Theory, while outlandish, is only plausible in that Satan had a temporary "victory" against God because Satan's cohorts "won," and Jesus was killed; however, Satan quickly lost, because Jesus was resurrected.

Now, I say fulfill because I feel Jesus needed to fulfill the Law of God, which is why He was sent. Yes, He was sent to save, but also to fulfill the Law of the OT and create a new law. Law and order are needed, so Jesus's death was intended to reinstall order to God's government, which was on the verge of collapse.

Jesus did not die so that we can live. Jesus died so that we can die to sin; He rose again from the dead so that we can live with Him.

Never forget God's primary purpose for His creation - the revelation of His glory. Without sin and redemption from sin, how would we know such as God's: judgment, mercy, wrath, grace, love, hate, patience, etc?

God chose the creation wherein His people never forget the horror of sin or the hero of Christ. How's that for the knowledge of good and evil?

 

[twin1954]

Christ dying for the the atonement of all mankind's sins does not necessarily mean that all mankind will be saved. If it did, then universalism wouldn't have been condemned throughout the Church's history while simultaneously affirming Christ atoning for all of creation.

sure it does. If their sin has been atoned for why does God condemn them? If they have been roconciled by His death then why do they call for the mountains and rocks to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. Rev. 6:16

 

[twin1954]

Jesus died for the "elect." If you're Reformed, you believe in the elect—those God chose first. If you're Arminian/Methodist, you believe the elect are those who come to God and stay in the faith. That's another whole issue.

Secondly, I am still learning. There is much to learn, and I didn't appreciate your tone or words. However, I am a Christian, so I forgive you.

If you are still learning then why come into a forum that is Reformed and spout off? My tone was what you should have expected.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

I see many half truths in these theories...which leads me to think any one on it's own could be a false dilemma. Although I hold to Penal-Substitution, there are elements of truth in other views. For example, from the above, there is an acknowledgement of the Penal Substitution being an extension of the Satisfaction theory. The moral example theory is a flat out lie, but like most error, is perversion of truths. Afterall, in the atonement, Christ died not only for our sins, but for our righteousness. In addition, we do acknowledge the life of Christ as THE infallible example of Christian living. The moral example theory though, is a perversion of those truths. This reminds me of college and going through resurrection theories...for me at the end of the day, theories are just that, as for me and my house, Sola Scriptura!

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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

I think the real issue is the notion of God owing something to Satan. How can the almighty Creator, owe anything, be in debt to His creation?

The idea of God graciously paying a ransom, which He is not obligated to, but does so out of love, offering Himself on our behalf in the person of Christ, an unfolding of the eternal Covenant of Redemption, the agreement between God the Father and God the Son before the foundation of the world, is the biblical understanding.