Atonement.

[Byfaithalone1]

I am aware of 6 theories of atonement (and I can imagine that there are many more).

The following are the theories with which I am familiar:

1. Ransom Theory. This theory suggests that the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for the many. Jesus liberates mankind from death and slavery to Satan by giving His own life as a ransom. Victory over Satan consists of swapping the life of the perfect Jesus, for the life of imperfect man.

2. Christus Victor Theory. Jesus is not a ransom but rather defeats Satan in a spiritual battle and frees enslaved mankind by defeating the captor.

3. Satisfaction Theory. Man owes a debt not to Satan, but to sovereign God himself. God could forgive in His private capacity, but because he is sovereign he cannot forgive if His status has been dishonored.

4. Penal Substitution Theory. Instead of considering sin as an affront to God’s honor, sin is the breaking of God’s moral law. Sinful man is subject to God’s wrath and the essence of Jesus' saving work is his substitution in the sinner's place, bearing the curse in the place of man.

5. Governmental Theory. Jesus receives a punishment as a public example of the lengths to which God will go to uphold the moral order.

6. Healing Theory. Jesus’ death on the cross demonstrates the extent of God’s love for us, and moved by this great act of love humankind responds and is transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit.
​

Here are my two questions:

Q1. Are there other theories I've failed to mention?

Q2. Which theory resonates with you the most?
​

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You are mainly missing the recapitulation theory. see this article for more on the theories ATONHIST

I hold to the moral influence theory which is another way of saying the healing theory
Adventist Media Response and Conversation: What is the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement

 

[StormyOne]

good topic, maybe we can explore it thoroughly.... I will say that the traditional view i.e. Substitution Theory is lacking....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

good topic, maybe we can explore it thoroughly.... I will say that the traditional view i.e. Substitution Theory is lacking....

Is there an alternate theory that you find more compelling?

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

Is there an alternate theory that you find more compelling?

BFA

I like the idea that the Creator loved what he created so he simply saved his creation. I no longer buy into the idea that somehow blood had to be shed, that one had to die for all, etc... The Creator of all simply choose to forgive... isn't that how we do it with our own kids? They mess up, we forgive...

 

[Adventtruth]

Brave posting BFA.


AT

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Brave posting BFA.


AT

Brave or ignorant, not sure which.

I genuinely don't know which theory folks ascribe to. From various posts that I've read, I suspected that our progressive SDA friends may not favor the substition theory. However, I really had no clue (prior to this thread) which theory they might favor.

I would imagine that there are others (perhaps moderate SDAs or non-SDAs) who have also adopted an alternate theory. I thought it might be helpful to know where folks are coming from.

BFA

 

[Adventtruth]

Brave or ignorant, not sure which.

I genuinely don't know which theory folks ascribe to. From various posts that I've read, I suspected that our progressive SDA friends may not favor the substition theory. However, I really had no clue (prior to this thread) which theory they might favor.

I would imagine that there are others (perhaps moderate SDAs or non-SDAs) who have also adopted an alternate theory. I thought it might be helpful to know where folks are coming from.

BFA

Some of the theorys share across the line. But I subscribe to the fact that Christ died vicariously for humanity. Now that may go across the lines when we break it down a bit.

I've been in a couple of forum fights over this subject with my christian brothers Stormy and RC_NewProtestants, and I don't ever what to go there again. That's why I say you are brave, seeing I'm almost sure you share in the same view as me.

AT

 

[StormyOne]

Some of the theorys share across the line. But I subscribe to the fact that Christ died vicariously for humanity. Now that may go across the lines when we break it down a bit.

I've been in a couple of forum fights over this subject with my christian brothers Stormy and RC_NewProtestants, and I don't ever what to go there again. That's why I say you are brave, seeing I'm almost sure you share in the same view as me.

AT

lol AT... yeah those were some intense exchanges... sorry about that.... feel free to share, I promise no arguing this time around.... what you believe, you believe... I have no desire to convert you to my way of thinking....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Some of the theorys share across the line. But I subscribe to the fact that Christ died vicariously for humanity. Now that may go across the lines when we break it down a bit.

I think our positions are similar.

I've been in a couple of forum fights over this subject with my christian brothers Stormy and RC_NewProtestants, and I don't ever what to go there again. That's why I say you are brave, seeing I'm almost sure you share in the same view as me.

Now that you mention it, I think there was a thread on this subject when I first started posting in this forum. I don't remember whether or not I participated, and I really don't remember how various folks viewed this subject (other than I do recall that the substitution theory was not favored). If I participated and was a jerk, I hope that I'm forgiven!

I don't want to kick a hornet's nest and I wasn't fishing for a fight!! Just thought it might help to understand how various people view this subject. I'll try to check my judgments at the door.

BFA

 

[Adventtruth]

I think our positions are similar.



Now that you mention it, I think there was a thread on this subject when I first started posting in this forum. I don't remember whether or not I participated, and I really don't remember how various folks viewed this subject (other than I do recall that the substitution theory was not favored). If I participated and was a jerk, I hope that I'm forgiven!

I don't want to kick a hornet's nest and I wasn't fishing for a fight!! Just thought it might help to understand how various people view this subject. I'll try to check my judgments at the door.

BFA

Ahhh BFA....you're ok, and let me kindly ask forgiveness of you as well.

AT

 

[Adventtruth]

lol AT... yeah those were some intense exchanges... sorry about that.... feel free to share, I promise no arguing this time around.... what you believe, you believe... I have no desire to convert you to my way of thinking....

Thanks stormy....I've been on a few boards with you over the years to know you are kool and are a forgiving man. I too apologies to you as well.

AT

 

[Avonia]

I hold to the moral influence theory which is another way of saying the healing theory
Adventist Media Response and Conversation: What is the Moral Influence Theory of Atonement

RC, thanks for the link.

I have a lot of resonance with the healing theory - some beauty there for sure.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You know what I found interesting was the topic came up over on the spectrum blog where someone was deriding the moral influence theory and he used the phrase "God's retributive Justice", I will have to do an article on that sometime. It seems to me as an oxymoron to say that.

Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime, with an eye to the satisfaction and psychological benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its intimates and society. Retributive justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is God we are talking about the One that loves unconditionally, who is merciful and forgiving yet we tack on Him some need to get back at us puny Humans if we don't accept His love. It makes no sense, even less sense when you consider God poured out retributive Justice on Christ. I mean being that Christ is God and everything.

Now I do believe in reward and punishment as the Theological term Retributive Justice expounds. But I think that is God giving us what we want. We either choose to accept Gods gift and accept life or we reject God's gift and thus reject life. He is not going to force life on you if you say leave me alone God sure you are the source of life but I don't want anything to do with you. Love (see 1 Cor. 13) simply does not do that kind of thing and God is love. No need to keep a record of wrongs because love wants a relationship not a list of failures or even a list of victories. Love does not need to make someone pay a penalty for their sin, Loves wants the relationship restored. I do like the term Graham Maxwell uses "the trust healing model" though I don't agree with his model, because that is really what it is about. What all the atonement theories are about but some of them add so much garbage that the trust and healing become secondary to the wrath and punishment of God and thus they destroy the reason to trust God. They end up doing more harm than good though good was their intention.

 

[Avonia]

Nice post RC.

This is God we are talking about the One that loves unconditionally, who is merciful and forgiving yet we tack on Him some need to get back at us puny Humans if we don't accept His love.

Punishment is about the needs of the giver. Discipline is about the needs of the receiver. A God who needs to punish is inconsistent with a God of love. A God who cares enough to discipline is consistent with a God of love. Because we are created in the image of Father, we understand this as parents. It is my intention to never punish my child. And it is my intention to always provide the best discipline possible.

Good discipline creates the best conditions for learning. It's progressive. When we learn, the conditions of discipline shift to support our next learning. When we do not learn, new conditions – usually more structured – are necessary so we have another opportunity to learn. In this way the best disciplines are dynamic and ongoing.

We either choose to accept Gods gift and accept life or we reject God's gift and thus reject life.

Although taken to its ultimate extension, this may be true, I have the increasing sense that it's hard to reject the gift. I've never met a person who did – who chose to “not to be saved.” I do sense there are beings who constantly choose darkness – who intimately reject the gift. But I don't know that I have met one.

It's my sense that often what appears to be a rejection of God is a rejection of a portrayal of God. In listening deeply to a few of my atheist friends, they are not rejecting God as much as they are rejecting a personification of God – often the Christian fundamentalist personification.

Loves wants the relationship restored.

RC, it's nice to see you around!

 

[Joe67]

Jesus' teaching, in the language of man, concerning the Atonement is the purest presentation of the vision.

The next purest presentation, in human language, of the vision concerning Atonement, is the teaching of the 12 apostles that Jesus authorized and sent out in his name; which includes Saul/Paul.

Then comes the presentation through the prophets and the law. Then the presentation of teachers. And even less clear are the written theories and theologies of the Atonement. Yet even these are beneficial, though attended with weaknesses through the multiplying of words that have opposing pictures.

But in the weakest presentation of the above, they are better, purer than the pagan presentation of God, his justice, and his judgment of the world. Even the Greeks and Romans believed God would judge the world and give good and evil their just reward.

Joe

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Although taken to its ultimate extension, this may be true, I have the increasing sense that it's hard to reject the gift. I've never met a person who did – who chose to “not to be saved.” I do sense there are beings who constantly choose darkness – who intimately reject the gift. But I don't know that I have met one.

It's my sense that often what appears to be a rejection of God is a rejection of a portrayal of God. In listening deeply to a few of my atheist friends, they are not rejecting God as much as they are rejecting a personification of God – often the Christian fundamentalist personification.

In this life I think there are lots who reject God and His gift of life. The question would be in the Judgment or after the judgment would they still reject the gift? A universalist would say no, once God clearly reveals Himself they will accept His gift. That is an attractive thought, it solves the problem of those not knowing God in this life and or those who were so abused by whatever that they could never even conceive of a God of love. I agree that such a view would be entirely consistent with God and could be the future reality. But I think it is counter productive to the goal of Christianity which is to increase our joy here and now to be ambassadors for Christ here and now. To encourage commitment to God here and now as a way of making this world a better place for ourselves and others. To discourage selfishness and encourage love. The selfish thing to do would be to say we all get the same reward so why do anything here? Therefore the Bible discourages the selfish idea and encourages the accountability idea. It seems to me to be the wisest choice.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

In this life I think there are lots who reject God and His gift of life.

I agree. Would we also agree that God is not easily rejected?

The question would be in the Judgment or after the judgment would they still reject the gift?

Should we assume that all come into judgment? If so, why?

That is an attractive thought, it solves the problem of those not knowing God in this life and or those who were so abused by whatever that they could never even conceive of a God of love.

I suspect that a view of God as a merciful, all-knowing mediator helps to resolve this issue.

But I think it is counter productive to the goal of Christianity which is to increase our joy here and now to be ambassadors for Christ here and now.

Not all Christian groups are interested in increasing our joy here and now. Some are more interested in holding up man-made, onerous models of behavior by which they can judge one another.

The selfish thing to do would be to say we all get the same reward so why do anything here?

In essence, this is what much of Christianity says. Christianity says that salvation is not about that which a man does but that which God has already done. This is counter-intuitive for those who have a religion built on the philosophy that "there is no such thing as getting something for nothing."

BFA

 

[visionary]

Hi all, may I step into this conversation for a moment to say that in the Jewish mind, the day of atonement is a wedding day. AT ONE MENT [consumate the marriage]

 

[StormyOne]

How can something be rejected that is not fully comprehended? I think people reject the "God' that they have been shown, or the "gift" as its been defined by various groups but I doubt seriously that if God completely reveals himself to a person and they grasped him and what was offered that they would reject it...