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.
What I have found recently, central to this topic, is a popular misconception of the power of Christ's blood - why and how does it have power to make the perfect atonement?
The error is made in an idea that Jesus' blood empowers God to forgive, as though He is unable to forgive apart from it. But this is contradicted by examples of forgiveness and restoration of countenance before the crucifixion happened.
Truthfully, Jesus' blood does not empower God to forgive where He was previously lacking, but it empowers us to repent where previously we were not so obliged (Hebrews 10:4, Isaiah 1:11, Isaiah 1:16-17, Hebrews 10:29).
Disciples who understand love and justice, recognise that a remorse existed for a Jew under Moses' covenant, because their own failures have required the suffering and death of an innocent creature. This really should serve as a deterrent to sin, yet Mark 11:15-18 shows us that Jesus had found the industrialisation had become an offensive apostasy from the intended way.
Hebrews 10:26-29 explains that now it is not such common blood being offered on the altar. We conciously have to choose to trample Christ underfoot if we are willing to sin, and incur the consequence (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).
Therefore, (because of our love for The Lord, our reverence for His glory, our commitment to His campaign), our repentance is perfected by His blood, and God can justly forgive our sin.
Additionally, our transgressions committed in ignorance are covered by Jesus' ransom sacrifice, because we have been disadvantaged: corrupted, tempted and led astray by the sin of the world, that is not owing to us nor of our deliberate desire (John 12:35, Daniel 9:26, Matthew 21:38-39, Luke 19:14, 2 Peter 2:1-3, John 15:22, James 4:17, 1 John 2:1) and therefore these are not of our accord "willful acts of sin that insult the spirit of grace". Rather, we repent with endurance, for growth, to strengthen the character of Christ in us.
Regarding substitution in atonement, we should emphasise more for The Kingdom's sake, that it goes both ways. Jesus takes the burden of our sin, while we take up our cross to come after Him, to be His hands, feet and voice. While He advocates for us in heaven, we represent Him on earth, with a view to fulfill Ephesians 4:10 & Ephesians 4:13. Philippians 2:19-21 is also relevant.