What is your view of atonement?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Its interesting that even tho you read that the BLOOD of Jesus, according to your own scripture you posted....is what satisfied the justice required by God for the sins of the world....that you dont even comprehend what you wrote.

Blood.
Blood.
Blood.

Not "love, and not just "obedience", as if Jesus had not DIED , had He not become a SACRIFICE,....had he not BLED OUT, shedding HIS BLOOD for SINS, then you have no ATONEMENT.
There is no ATONEMENT without the CROSS.
There is no ATONEMENT without the shed BLOOD, the death, and the resurrection, of Jesus The Christ.

So where does "Love' come in?
LOVE is the reason that God allowed His boy to be slaughtered on a BLOODY CROSS so that you could be forgiven of all your sins.

Love comes in when "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" as the reason for the atonement.

 

[Phil Almond]

This quote from somewhere hits the nail on the head:

'...the atonement cannot be summed up by any one of the most popular systematic models; the only satisfactory theory would be one which took into account the propitiatory, expiatory, penal, substitutionary, redemptive, and victorious aspects of the work of Christ'.
But some views of the atonement are inadequate because they leave out the propitiatory, penal and substitutionary aspects by denying that Christ bore the wrath and condemnation of God; e.g. those who would not sing the phrase '..on the cross when Jesus died the wrath of God is satisfied'. This is important because we all, from birth onwards, are faced with the holy wrath and just condemnation of God because of Adam's sin and our own sins when we are old enough to personally commit sin. And some of us, (like me, to speak personally), realise that we do deserve that wrath and condemnation, do deserve to be punished eternally, and so it becomes a vital pastoral reality - we will have to bear that punishment - unless Christ has born that punishment instead of us.

Phil Almond

 

[DeepWater]

Love comes in when "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son" as the reason for the atonement.

And how did he give Him?
He gave Him as a Gift and as a Sacrifice.
God also gave you sunshine, the oceans, and pork, but do those atone for your sins?
So, "God so GAVE", is very specific, as it has to do with a Cross.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

This quote from somewhere hits the nail on the head:

'...the atonement cannot be summed up by any one of the most popular systematic models; the only satisfactory theory would be one which took into account the propitiatory, expiatory, penal, substitutionary, redemptive, and victorious aspects of the work of Christ'.
But some views of the atonement are inadequate because they leave out the propitiatory, penal and substitutionary aspects by denying that Christ bore the wrath and condemnation of God; e.g. those who would not sing the phrase '..on the cross when Jesus died the wrath of God is satisfied'. This is important because we all, from birth onwards, are faced with the holy wrath and just condemnation of God because of Adam's sin and our own sins when we are old enough to personally commit sin. And some of us, (like me, to speak personally), realise that we do deserve that wrath and condemnation, do deserve to be punished eternally, and so it becomes a vital pastoral reality - we will have to bear that punishment - unless Christ has born that punishment instead of us.

Phil Almond

Deserve to be punished for eternity? Wow that's some guilt you've racked up. I could see shame having that effect maybe but never guilt. What could you possibly do to deserve that?

Yes, the full plan of God viewed in the correct context is needed to clearly understand what was needed to redeem us from slavery to the world. And even at that there is so much of the mystery that has not been revealed. Couple that with the inability of those that are working from a carnal mind being blinded to the revealed information available to those possessing the mind of Christ and the problems are multiplied into taking on the image of the god of this world.

A simple explaination will never explain but once the intellect (in having the mind of Christ) has grasped the concept then to be able to come to terms with it a simple explaination is the accepted practise to carry on from there, holding that to tackle further problems within the faith.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

And how did he give Him?
He gave Him as a Gift and as a Sacrifice.
God also gave you sunshine, the oceans, and pork, but do those atone for your sins?
So, "God so GAVE", is very specific, as it has to do with a Cross.

The blood found at the throne of grace to relieve the conscience is of course the result of the cross.

 

[Light of the East]

A Catholic brother shared a video with the board in another thread I made specifically about the difference between penal substitution and satisfaction. On the video the guy explained it like if I had a son that threw a rock through someone's window. I can't go over there and accept his punishment. Only he can do that. However I can go over, pay for the window and make it right with the neighbor and and my son to not throw rocks. So the same with Christ, he doesn't accept our punishment but he does pay our debt out of love. We respond by following the gospel and making disciples of others (I added my own stuff in that story but you get the picture I'm sure)

Which theory would complete destroy the need for merit, indulgences, and Purgatory as understood in the Western mind, wouldn't it?

If Jesus "paid for the window" in His death on the Cross, then my attempts to do so (merit, indulgences, Purgatory) are not only not needed and unworthy, in a sense they insult the work of Christ be intimating that it is not enough.

 

[rturner76]

And how did he give Him?
He gave Him as a Gift and as a Sacrifice.
God also gave you sunshine, the oceans, and pork, but do those atone for your sins?
So, "God so GAVE", is very specific, as it has to do with a Cross.

I understand what you are saying and yeas, the event is the same, Christ suffered and died on the cross. My belief is that it wasn't a sacrifice to God but a gift of Christ. Christ's love and obedience is what brought him to the cross. The blood is the evidence of it. However Christ was not our "whipping boy" as it were

I think this explains it best:

If my son breaks my neighbors window, I can't go over and take his punishment for him, I can't pay his "penalty" But what I can do is go over there and pay for the window, there by righting the wrong done. So I have paid the price but it wasn't punishment.

This is my belief, I am not trying to convince anyone that penal substitution is wrong. When I was reading the Catholic view on this, I found there are many theories so I was interested in hearing from people about their view. I know it is however healthy to be able to defend your position when it comes to theology so here I am defending my view.

 

[rturner76]

A Catholic brother shared a video with the board in another thread I made specifically about the difference between penal substitution and satisfaction. On the video the guy explained it like if I had a son that threw a rock through someone's window. I can't go over there and accept his punishment. Only he can do that. However I can go over, pay for the window and make it right with the neighbor and and my son to not throw rocks. So the same with Christ, he doesn't accept our punishment but he does pay our debt out of love. We respond by following the gospel and making disciples of others (I added my own stuff in that story but you get the picture I'm sure)

Which theory would complete destroy the need for merit, indulgences, and Purgatory as understood in the Western mind, wouldn't it?

If Jesus "paid for the window" in His death on the Cross, then my attempts to do so (merit, indulgences, Purgatory) are not only not needed and unworthy, in a sense they insult the work of Christ be intimating that it is not enough.

Hey I obviously saw the same video. You beat me to it

 

[Light of the East]

But some views of the atonement are inadequate because they leave out the propitiatory, penal and substitutionary aspects by denying that Christ bore the wrath and condemnation of God;

Did He bear the wrath of God, who is without passions, according to the Early Fathers? Or is this the model of the Western Roman Empire which is flawed because it looks at everything in the cosmos as being through the lens of the law?

e.g. those who would not sing the phrase '..on the cross when Jesus died the wrath of God is satisfied'. This is important because we all, from birth onwards, are faced with the holy wrath and just condemnation of God because of Adam's sin

Again, this is Augustine's warped view and not that of the East. Since when in any model of justice whatsoever do "I" get punished for the sin of another human being?

and our own sins when we are old enough to personally commit sin. And some of us, (like me, to speak personally), realise that we do deserve that wrath and condemnation,

Really? Is that how a father treats his child, with wrath and condemnation? This is why I find the Western model of soteriology to be not only flawed, but sick! A father NEVER condemns his child. He may need to chasten the child in order to make the child understand the wrong that child has done, but that chastening is always to the view of improving the child and not condemning it. And chastening done in wrath is not corrective either. It is simply the father placating his own anger, which is the wrong way to chasten a child.

do deserve to be punished eternally, and so it becomes a vital pastoral reality - we will have to bear that punishment - unless Christ has born that punishment instead of us.

What sin "deserves" eternal punishment? When the law was given to mankind to teach us, in our darkened state, the proper way to relate to God and others, one of the principles we were given was the law of "lex talionis." You do not draw and quarter a man for stealing a loaf of bread. You do not allow a rapist to go free. There is proportionality to punishment. That is just. Eternal punishment for temporal sins is not just.

Honestly, the more I think about the Western view of salvation and eternal life, the more disrespect I have for it.

 

[patdee]

This question has been fascinating to me since my further study into Catholicism revealed the view something like the "Satisfaction Theory" or that is the classic description that comes the closest to what I have come to understand. Christ's infinite love and obedience satisfied God's judgement not his pain and suffering. through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:20

That is my personal view of Christ;s atonement, what is yours? I have looked up some popular theories or maybe you have your own? Let the board know what you believe, and what church you learned it in. Maybe you can leave some details as to what it means to you personally, why you believe that way, or how it affects your faith walk(?)

• 
  
  
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.

• 
  
  
  • 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).
  • 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.

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.

My take on "Atonement" is this:

Prior to Jesus' becoming the LAST Atonement for sin; God had given Moses 'circa 3500 yrs ago; to give to the "Israelites"; the rigid, detailed and lengthy requirements (law); for the "Atonement" for sin.

IE:

1. EVERY day before sundown, a "High Israelite Priest (Levite)", had to slay and shed the blood of an UN blemished animal (usually Lamb), and then sprinkle that lamb's blood on the "alter of Incense" (for corporate sin); and then sprinkle the blood also on the "alter of Sin" (for individual sin).

2. ONCE a year on the "Feast of the Passover" (THE most sacred feast); ALL "Israelites" had to come to the Holy Temple and go through a special "Atonement," in addition to the daily sacrificial Atonement above. Where they had to bathe (called "cleansing" later-"Baptism") in the Jordan river; AND after that, they had to burn the clothes they were wearing. Because in order to be totally cleansed from sin, even their apparel was deemed "blemished" by God; and had to be burned. As did ALL sacrificial lambs (daily sacrifice) had to be burned IF not eaten BEFORE sundown.

This procedure HAD to be done once a day (and ONCE a year on the most Holy of "feasts" dubbed "The Feast of the Passover"). NO "If's", NO "and's" and NO "but's"! It was one of the MOST sacred and Holy laws God EVER gave to Moses to "Say to the children of Israel"!

However, when God (manifest IN the flesh* called Jesus-1 Timothy 3:16), died on the cross; 'circa 2,000 yrs ago, His shed blood and punishment while IN the Tomb; replaced ALL of the above. Thus He is called the (final sacrificial "Lamb of God"); and final Atonement for sin. And the ONLY requirement to receive this "everlasting" Atonement** from sin is to believe "IN" Jesus. This is why it is called "The NEW covenant"; where Jesus' "sacrifice" paid for ALL sins, past, present and future; AND it applies to "Jew OR Gentile, male OR female"; as Luke and St Paul, etc, preached.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the "new covenant" (testament) in my blood, which is shed for you.

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a "new covenant" with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A "new covenant", he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

* 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was "manifest in the flesh", justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

** Believing "IN" Jesus does NOT mean you just believe He existed or walked on this planet, etc, etc and etc! Rather, it means: One MUST believe that Jesus WAS the prophesied "Messiah" (Savior) mentioned in a number of places in the Old Testament. In other words, Jesus WAS the true Messiah and DID come to save His own*** people, but when his people did NOT believe that; Jesus broadened the old covenant to include ANY one; that would believe that Jesus WAS truly THE "Messiah"; that had been prophesied ' circa 2,000 yrs before He came "in" the flesh. Thus:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth "IN" him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

MOST of the "Jews" (as they were called then) vehemently did NOT believe Jesus was the "Messiah" (Savior). But ANY one that did, became saved instantly: just like the "thief on the cross". Believe it or not.

*** John 1:11 He came unto his "own", and his own received him not. John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that "believe on his name" (means believe "IN "Him as explained above).

In any case, May Jesus richly bless you always,

patdee

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

This question has been fascinating to me since my further study into Catholicism revealed the view something like the "Satisfaction Theory" or that is the classic description that comes the closest to what I have come to understand. Christ's infinite love and obedience satisfied God's judgement not his pain and suffering. through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:20

That is my personal view of Christ;s atonement, what is yours? I have looked up some popular theories or maybe you have your own? Let the board know what you believe, and what church you learned it in. Maybe you can leave some details as to what it means to you personally, why you believe that way, or how it affects your faith walk(?)

• 
  
  
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.

• 
  
  
  • 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).
  • 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.

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.

Cross Examination

“A mere theory of the atonement will not save anyone. The atonement itself, and our personal connection with it, is what saves us.” (Bill Muehlenberg)

While virtually all the various theories of atonement have validity (for example, those you have mentioned, as well as Christ as victor— defeating the powers of evil, Christ as revolutionary— changing the world, Christ as healer and reconciler, Christ as ideal exemplar, and Christ as satisfaction for the wrath of God), I believe that the central and most important meaning of the atonement is Christ as the substitutionary sacrifice for human sin.

“Redemption” means paying a price to redeem something that has been lost, impounded, or enslaved. The general dictionary definition of the word "atonement": reparation for a wrong or injury. In this case, the wrong includes ALL human wrongs, all human sin. Probably the best descriptive term is the old King James word “propitiation” (Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10).

All the other theories may apply various other meanings to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, but they do not appropriately come under the banner of "atonement."

It must be noted that of the many theories, none appear to be contradictory to the others; none are mutually exclusive.
Therefore there is no lengthy theological explanation for which we can say "that is it, that is all the crucifixion of Christ accomplished." This is because the number of immense and eternal accomplishments of the Cross cannot be counted. It was, and is, and will always be the pinnacle moment of all time, dwarfing any other good that has occurred between the Creation and the Eschaton.

 

[Daniel Stinson]

Would you mind elaborating on what that theory is? I could look it up otherwise

The atonement of universalism, is also known as antinomianism. It's an extreme view of there being no need for the law in any capacity. There's essentially no balance between law and gospel.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[rturner76]

My take on "Atonement" is this:

Prior to Jesus' becoming the LAST Atonement for sin; God had given Moses 'circa 3500 yrs ago; to give to the "Israelites"; the rigid, detailed and lengthy requirements (law); for the "Atonement" for sin.

IE:

1. EVERY day before sundown, a "High Israelite Priest (Levite)", had to slay and shed the blood of an UN blemished animal (usually Lamb), and then sprinkle that lamb's blood on the "alter of Incense" (for corporate sin); and then sprinkle the blood also on the "alter of Sin" (for individual sin).

2. ONCE a year on the "Feast of the Passover" (THE most sacred feast); ALL "Israelites" had to come to the Holy Temple and go through a special "Atonement," in addition to the daily sacrificial Atonement above. Where they had to bathe (called "cleansing" later-"Baptism") in the Jordan river; AND after that, they had to burn the clothes they were wearing. Because in order to be totally cleansed from sin, even their apparel was deemed "blemished" by God; and had to be burned. As did ALL sacrificial lambs (daily sacrifice) had to be burned IF not eaten BEFORE sundown.

This procedure HAD to be done once a day (and ONCE a year on the most Holy of "feasts" dubbed "The Feast of the Passover"). NO "If's", NO "and's" and NO "but's"! It was one of the MOST sacred and Holy laws God EVER gave to Moses to "Say to the children of Israel"!

However, when God (manifest IN the flesh* called Jesus-1 Timothy 3:16), died on the cross; 'circa 2,000 yrs ago, His shed blood and punishment while IN the Tomb; replaced ALL of the above. Thus He is called the (final sacrificial "Lamb of God"); and final Atonement for sin. And the ONLY requirement to receive this "everlasting" Atonement** from sin is to believe "IN" Jesus. This is why it is called "The NEW covenant"; where Jesus' "sacrifice" paid for ALL sins, past, present and future; AND it applies to "Jew OR Gentile, male OR female"; as Luke and St Paul, etc, preached.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the "new covenant" (testament) in my blood, which is shed for you.

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a "new covenant" with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A "new covenant", he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

* 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was "manifest in the flesh", justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

** Believing "IN" Jesus does NOT mean you just believe He existed or walked on this planet, etc, etc and etc! Rather, it means: One MUST believe that Jesus WAS the prophesied "Messiah" (Savior) mentioned in a number of places in the Old Testament. In other words, Jesus WAS the true Messiah and DID come to save His own*** people, but when his people did NOT believe that; Jesus broadened the old covenant to include ANY one; that would believe that Jesus WAS truly THE "Messiah"; that had been prophesied ' circa 2,000 yrs before He came "in" the flesh. Thus:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth "IN" him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

MOST of the "Jews" (as they were called then) vehemently did NOT believe Jesus was the "Messiah" (Savior). But ANY one that did, became saved instantly: just like the "thief on the cross". Believe it or not.

*** John 1:11 He came unto his "own", and his own received him not. John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that "believe on his name" (means believe "IN "Him as explained above).

In any case, May Jesus richly bless you always,

patdee

I am in complete agreement withyou and for a Catholic, this is why the Eucharist is so important. Every time we take communion,we are reminded of the new covenant.

Even taking it a step further, my brother who is a theologian says that the new covenant begins "In the beginning"

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

My take on "Atonement" is this:

Prior to Jesus' becoming the LAST Atonement for sin; God had given Moses 'circa 3500 yrs ago; to give to the "Israelites"; the rigid, detailed and lengthy requirements (law); for the "Atonement" for sin.

IE:

1. EVERY day before sundown, a "High Israelite Priest (Levite)", had to slay and shed the blood of an UN blemished animal (usually Lamb), and then sprinkle that lamb's blood on the "alter of Incense" (for corporate sin); and then sprinkle the blood also on the "alter of Sin" (for individual sin).

2. ONCE a year on the "Feast of the Passover" (THE most sacred feast); ALL "Israelites" had to come to the Holy Temple and go through a special "Atonement," in addition to the daily sacrificial Atonement above. Where they had to bathe (called "cleansing" later-"Baptism") in the Jordan river; AND after that, they had to burn the clothes they were wearing. Because in order to be totally cleansed from sin, even their apparel was deemed "blemished" by God; and had to be burned. As did ALL sacrificial lambs (daily sacrifice) had to be burned IF not eaten BEFORE sundown.

This procedure HAD to be done once a day (and ONCE a year on the most Holy of "feasts" dubbed "The Feast of the Passover"). NO "If's", NO "and's" and NO "but's"! It was one of the MOST sacred and Holy laws God EVER gave to Moses to "Say to the children of Israel"!

However, when God (manifest IN the flesh* called Jesus-1 Timothy 3:16), died on the cross; 'circa 2,000 yrs ago, His shed blood and punishment while IN the Tomb; replaced ALL of the above. Thus He is called the (final sacrificial "Lamb of God"); and final Atonement for sin. And the ONLY requirement to receive this "everlasting" Atonement** from sin is to believe "IN" Jesus. This is why it is called "The NEW covenant"; where Jesus' "sacrifice" paid for ALL sins, past, present and future; AND it applies to "Jew OR Gentile, male OR female"; as Luke and St Paul, etc, preached.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the "new covenant" (testament) in my blood, which is shed for you.

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a "new covenant" with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A "new covenant", he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

* 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was "manifest in the flesh", justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

** Believing "IN" Jesus does NOT mean you just believe He existed or walked on this planet, etc, etc and etc! Rather, it means: One MUST believe that Jesus WAS the prophesied "Messiah" (Savior) mentioned in a number of places in the Old Testament. In other words, Jesus WAS the true Messiah and DID come to save His own*** people, but when his people did NOT believe that; Jesus broadened the old covenant to include ANY one; that would believe that Jesus WAS truly THE "Messiah"; that had been prophesied ' circa 2,000 yrs before He came "in" the flesh. Thus:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth "IN" him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

MOST of the "Jews" (as they were called then) vehemently did NOT believe Jesus was the "Messiah" (Savior). But ANY one that did, became saved instantly: just like the "thief on the cross". Believe it or not.

*** John 1:11 He came unto his "own", and his own received him not. John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that "believe on his name" (means believe "IN "Him as explained above).

In any case, May Jesus richly bless you always,

patdee

This is a very good explanation of the theology that most of us are describing in fact to a certain extent all of us. A very good and thorough explanation of sacrifice and the new covenant. As a Catholic, I know we celebrate this covenant daily at Mass when we take the flesh and blood of Christ at the Eucharist.

My brother and I were discussing this yesterday, he is a Catholic theologian and he says the work of Christ began much earlier than the cross, in fact it began at the beginning of time as I'm sure you know this bit of scripture:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

So this whole plan was in place "In the beginning" Christ has been our redeemer since "the beginning"

 

[patdee]

And how did he give Him?
He gave Him as a Gift and as a Sacrifice.
God also gave you sunshine, the oceans, and pork, but do those atone for your sins?
So, "God so GAVE", is very specific, as it has to do with a Cross.

 

[sparow]

This question has been fascinating to me since my further study into Catholicism revealed the view something like the "Satisfaction Theory" or that is the classic description that comes the closest to what I have come to understand. Christ's infinite love and obedience satisfied God's judgement not his pain and suffering. through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:20

That is my personal view of Christ;s atonement, what is yours? I have looked up some popular theories or maybe you have your own? Let the board know what you believe, and what church you learned it in. Maybe you can leave some details as to what it means to you personally, why you believe that way, or how it affects your faith walk(?)

• 
  
  
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.

• 
  
  
  • 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).
  • 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.

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.

I like to keep things simple; atonement means "at one with"; as God is one atonement makes God's people one with God; this is what makes the commandments and the feasts important; they are the mechanisms for atonement; in the sanctuary service I think atonement was an annual event, but it can be a daily event.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Deserve to be punished for eternity? Wow that's some guilt you've racked up. I could see shame having that effect maybe but never guilt. What could you possibly do to deserve that?

Yes, the full plan of God viewed in the correct context is needed to clearly understand what was needed to redeem us from slavery to the world. And even at that there is so much of the mystery that has not been revealed. Couple that with the inability of those that are working from a carnal mind being blinded to the revealed information available to those possessing the mind of Christ and the problems are multiplied into taking on the image of the god of this world.

A simple explaination will never explain but once the intellect (in having the mind of Christ) has grasped the concept then to be able to come to terms with it a simple explaination is the accepted practise to carry on from there, holding that to tackle further problems within the faith.

I am assuming that you are a Christian and thus you know that it is basic Christian doctrine (the mind of Christ) that ALL of us are sinners and deserve, at best, elimination from existence. This is why the forgiveness bought by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is so meaningful.

God is a pure, perfect, and holy God who cannot allow imperfection in His world and especially in His Kingdom. But this is indeed a fallen world with not only imperfection and unjust suffering, but downright evil. God has a perfect plan to fix this problem. The Incarnation, the atonement, and the Word of God written. And according to this message, God says that ALL of us are sinners deserving of death.

“Who can say, ‘I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin’"? (Proverbs 20:9)

“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one…’” (Romans 3:10-12)

“…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Romans 3:23, see also; Ps 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Eccles 7:20)

So sinners (all of us) are doomed. The penalty for our sinfulness is elimination or worse; it is what we truly deserve. We get thrown into the divine incinerator--- IF we do not repent and believe in the Savior. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” And all it takes to be saved is belief/faith in Christ and what He did for us at the cross and in the resurrection. But we must believe the gospel as found in the New Testament (and prophesied in the OT).

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I am assuming that you are a Christian and thus you know that it is basic Christian doctrine (the mind of Christ) that ALL of us are sinners and deserve, at best, elimination from existence. This is why the forgiveness bought by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is so meaningful.

God is a pure, perfect, and holy God who cannot allow imperfection in His world and especially in His Kingdom. But this is indeed a fallen world with not only imperfection and unjust suffering, but downright evil. God has a perfect plan to fix this problem. The Incarnation, the atonement, and the Word of God written. And according to this message, God says that ALL of us are sinners deserving of death.

“Who can say, ‘I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin’"? (Proverbs 20:9)

“As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one…’” (Romans 3:10-12)

“…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Romans 3:23, see also; Ps 14:1-3, 53:1-3; Eccles 7:20)

So sinners (all of us) are doomed. The penalty for our sinfulness is elimination or worse; it is what we truly deserve. We get thrown into the divine incinerator--- IF we do not repent and believe in the Savior. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” And all it takes to be saved is belief/faith in Christ and what He did for us at the cross and in the resurrection. But we must believe the gospel as found in the New Testament (and prophesied in the OT).

"God says that ALL of us are sinners deserving of death." All are dead already without Him. Ephesians 2:1 and we're made alive in Him Colossians 2:5-15 He is the atonement because He redeemed us to Himself.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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
  • 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.
  • 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.

• 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).
  
  • 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.

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.

No all these are mutually exclusive, but i think the This Reformed view you described is what is most Scriptural in that "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."

But not "in man's place" as if actually suffering the equivalent of our just eternal punishment in Hell, but as one who became sin, bore our sins (as the OT scapegoat prefigured) and suffered and died for the unjust (like a unblemished lamb prefigured) then His punishment (as one forsaken of God) in effect was a substitute for the eternal punishment man, enabling God to be both just and yet forgiving man. Which is appropriated by effectual faith, to the glory of God.

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I understand what you are saying and yeas, the event is the same, Christ suffered and died on the cross. My belief is that it wasn't a sacrifice to God but a gift of Christ. Christ's love and obedience is what brought him to the cross. The blood is the evidence of it. However Christ was not our "whipping boy" as it were
I think this explains it best:
If my son breaks my neighbors window, I can't go over and take his punishment for him, I can't pay his "penalty" But what I can do is go over there and pay for the window, there by righting the wrong done. So I have paid the price but it wasn't punishment. .

I am disturbed by the lack of actual Scriptural substantiation in this thread.

"My belief is that it wasn't a sacrifice to God but a gift of Christ."

Besides this being a false dichotomy, so it was not a sacrifice to God?

And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. - Ephesians 5:2

"Christ's love and obedience is what brought him to the cross...So I have paid the price but it wasn't punishment" ...

Such suffering was not punishment? Why was it necessary?

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. (1 John 4:10)

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26)
I do not think that the actually sinless and perfectly wholly righteous Christ had to suffer the equivalent of our just punishment in Hell in order to atone for our sins, but since God "hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Corinthians 5:21) "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree," (1 Peter 2:24) then He "once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit," (1 Peter 3:18) then i think He suffered punishment as one who was made sin for us and was "forsaken" by God in some mysterious sense, as darkness covered the earth, in making atonement for the sins of man, thus enabling their deliverance from their just eternal punishment.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

This question has been fascinating to me since my further study into Catholicism revealed the view something like the "Satisfaction Theory" or that is the classic description that comes the closest to what I have come to understand. Christ's infinite love and obedience satisfied God's judgement not his pain and suffering. through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1:20

That is my personal view of Christ;s atonement, what is yours? I have looked up some popular theories or maybe you have your own? Let the board know what you believe, and what church you learned it in. Maybe you can leave some details as to what it means to you personally, why you believe that way, or how it affects your faith walk(?)

• 
  
  
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.

• 
  
  
  • 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).
  • 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.

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.

Another question is, how much understanding of atonement did the souls in the book of Acts who believed on the crucified and risen Lord Jesus to save them have? Not that discerning how it works is not of importance, but the understanding one needs to be born again one is simply that one is a sinner in dire need of salvation, and that the crucified and risen Lord Jesus can and will save them if they effectually believe on Him to do so, thanks be to God.