Consistency Between Atonement Theory and Biblical Narrative

[bling]

It all seems the same to me--Jesus suffered and died equally as much, whether or not we say it was a punishment or something else.

The various atonement theories all have the same problem--they lack an antagonist! Because they lack an antagonist, they become circular, and they try to create an antagonist out of thin air. Christus victor says that "death" is the antagonist; penal substitution says that humans are the antagonist. Maybe simple substitution doesn't name an antagonist directly, but the existence of an antagonist is still implied. Jesus can't be victorious without someone or something to defeat! And we can't be saved if there is nothing to save us from.



I'm saying that I don't think any of the accepted theories are adequate.

I think a major misstep was made when Anselm rewrote atonement theology. I think that a plain and simple reading of the Bible, if we can block out the presuppositions of religious tradition, leads us to a belief much like Ransom theory, although I'm not sure that we really understand what that belief was about. The only references to it that I have found are written by it's opponents, so I think it is worth the effort to re-discover the whole system of ideas.

Ransom theory is the oldest belief, which by itself should lend it some credibility!

Just think about it a little and answer the following questions for yourself:

1. Who held the prodigal son in the pigsty? He was not chained or under armed guard, but he chose to stay there as long as he did?
   
   
2. Did that rebellious, arrogant, disobedient younger son who virtually told his father: “I wish you were dead so I can have my inheritance”, go back to the father or was it a different humble childlike person the same as we are to be in order to enter the Kingdom where God is?
   
   
3. Who is holding back the nonbeliever in his sinful state, do we take the blame off us and put it on Satan, demons, bad luck, God, Adam & Eve, or who should we look to make the turn?
   

The nonbeliever himself fits the description of a kidnapper holding a child of God (himself again) back from the kingdom where God the Father resides. A kidnapper would be an undeserving person the Father must pay to release His child and even though satan is undeserving; God owes satan nothing and could just as easily and safely take a child away from satan, so it would be wrong for God to pay satan.

Please read my post 39 for more details;