What is your view of atonement?

sparow · Mar 5, 2020

BobRyan said:
In the OP we see some errors listed - but also a bit of truth in almost every case. So then - leaving out the options that have almost no truth at all to them - I re-present the list in the OP where error is removed in each case and only Truth left in

The Ransom Theory: Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). The wages of sin is death and Satan claims those who like-him - choose rebellion and sin should be members of his kingdom and under his rule. God's Law (not Satan) demands death of the sinner as "payment" -- "The wages of sin is death" Rom 6:23. So that His Own law is upheld rather than destroyed by the Gospel - He had to pay the full price demanded by the Law in the case of the sinner. And pay that full debt for all.

The Recapitulation Theory: . Christ is the second Adam as we see in Romans 5. As in Adam all die - so in Christ all may be made alive and have eternal life - if they accept the Gospel

The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory: God's Law (Justice) could only be satisfied by the second death debt paid for every sin of every sinner in all of time... only one being in the universe could pay such a price. God Himself. God so loved that "He gave" not "That He demanded" .

The Penal-Substitution Theory: penal substitution pays the debt we owe in the person of Christ "nailing our certificate of debt" to the cross. Col 2. Our speeding-ticket, our debt demanded by the LAW of God for the sin we committed

The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ lived and died to provide a perfect example for man 1 John 2 says we who are born again, and claim to know Christ, "should walk as he walked". And we are to "Take up our cross" and follow Christ Matthew 10

The Governmental Theory: Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the universe made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin -- and so we have the lake of fire - the second death for all sinners, both demons and wicked men. So to save mankind and still uphold the Law of God that rules the universe Christ died to show that the debt the law demanded is paid rather than God's law bent or abolished in order to save the sinner

The Declaratory Theory: Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. What love is this - that God died for us - while we were yet sinners Romans 5.

<<3.And He says "he who believes on me shall never die".>>

Here lies the dilemma of the new covenant; what could this possibly mean; suppose He said, “he who trusts in/on me shall never die”; does this mean something different; could He mean, “he who trusts on me to boil eggs will never die”; or, “he who trusts in me to wash My socks will never die”. Suppose He said, “he who trusts in Me to confirm the covenant will never die”; implied is the truster is in covenant with Jesus; rephrased, the truster is atoned with Jesus or the truster is reconciled to Jesus.

John 11:45 (NKJV)
45 Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him.

But what did they believe, or what should they have believed. What did those Jews who sought to kill Him believe. The Pharisees believed in salvation, but did they have the expectation of eternal life or was their salvation merely to do with this first carnal life (saved from the Romans)?

I am glad to see my idea is not listed below. Theory is to do with science; the definition of science embraces theory; While the word can be used in a secular manner. Scientifically, theory is formally structured making it different to an idea; it was explained to me that mine was an idea; and their reasoning went something like this, if it walks like a duck or if it quacks like a duck or if it swims like a duck then it is not a theory.

The Ransom Theory:

The Recapitulation Theory:

The Satisfaction (or Commercial) Theory:

The Penal-Substitution Theory:

The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory):

The Governmental Theory:

The Declaratory Theory:

What role does the Holy Spirit play in these theories?

sparow · Mar 6, 2020

rturner76 said:
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 have a simplistic approach; suffering is a consequence of sin, even other peoples sin, (no man is an island). I do not believe God required Jesus to suffer any more than it would be a consequence of shedding of blood, unto death; in accordance with the blood covenant; of which both old and new covenants are. The extremes of Christ's suffering exceeded what the covenant required and amount to the sin of the Pharisees and Rome. The shedding of Blood only enables Atonement; still required is the personal enactment of being one with God, involving both parties of the covenant.

charsan · Mar 8, 2020

My view of the Atonement is the Recapitulation Theory

Here seems to be a good treatment of the Recapitulation Theory
https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=seminary_masters and Recapitulation theory of atonement - Wikipedia

sparow · Mar 8, 2020

~Anastasia~ said:
Christ's death defeated death precisely because He is God - the very Source of Life itself.

Sometimes they use a balloon to illustrate it as an object lesson. Death "swallowed" a man but encountered God. In the same way, you can blow air into a balloon and the balloon can contain it all. But you can blow so much air into a balloon that it overwhelms the balloon and bursts it entirely.

That is how Christ defeated death through His own death.

Death per say is not defeated yet; death still exists; in Christ we have an example of the resurrection of the righteous; Christ was the first to be resurrected incorruptible and over that form death has no power.

Andrewn · Mar 9, 2020

sparow said:
Death per say is not defeated yet; death still exists;

Christ has indeed defeated death:

Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, yet shall he live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

2Co 5:8 Instead, I say that we are confident and willing to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Phi 1:21 For to me, to continue living is Christ, and to die is gain.

Death is being separated from Christ. By His death, Christ opened paradise for us to be with Him.

~Anastasia~ · Mar 9, 2020

sparow said:
Death per say is not defeated yet; death still exists; in Christ we have an example of the resurrection of the righteous; Christ was the first to be resurrected incorruptible and over that form death has no power.

Death has been defeated.

The consensus of early Christianity is that Christ took those who died before the Cross into a new existence. It is not yet the resurrection of all bodies, but they are no longer waiting in "hades".

By contrast, when St. Stephen the first martyr dies - he sees Christ. The dead who die after the Resurrection experience some foretaste of their final state.

But yes, physical bodies still die until the end of this present age.

But death WAS defeated at the Cross.

I hope that makes sense. I had wondered the same thing when I first heard it.

sparow · Mar 9, 2020

Andrewn said:
Christ has indeed defeated death:

Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, yet shall he live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

2Co 5:8 Instead, I say that we are confident and willing to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

Phi 1:21 For to me, to continue living is Christ, and to die is gain.

Death is being separated from Christ. By His death, Christ opened paradise for us to be with Him.

""Death per say is not defeated yet; death still exists; in Christ we have an example of the resurrection of the righteous; Christ was the first to be resurrected incorruptible and over that form death has no power.""

I don't see you disagreeing with me by what you have said and quoted except in terms of Biblical view, abstraction and context (which may involve false doctrine).

What does "defeated death" mean? You say death is being separated from Christ; which is a reasonable conclusion (paraphrase) but by itself rewrites scripture. Death is the penalty of sin, or more explicitly death is the penalty when the blood covenant is broken.

There is a false teaching that says the Law (covenant) is abrogated; and many accept this teaching, yet it is not a teaching of Christ; yet most of those who accept this false teaching have not heard the whole doctrine; which ends with: when the law is abrogated there is no sin; if this were true Christ's death would be useless and meaningless.

Even if a person could claim to be saved their situation is provisional until their actual resurrection. The teaching of Christ is: When drawn by the Father to Christ the covenant is enacted; as the parable says, that person is a seed planted that may grow into harvestable fruit or may grow into tares that will be burnt.

Individually, death is defeated when raised to eternal life; per say, death is defeated when thrown into the lake of fire, when deaths purpose has expired.

sparow · Mar 9, 2020

~Anastasia~ said:
Death has been defeated.

The consensus of early Christianity is that Christ took those who died before the Cross into a new existence. It is not yet the resurrection of all bodies, but they are no longer waiting in "hades".

By contrast, when St. Stephen the first martyr dies - he sees Christ. The dead who die after the Resurrection experience some foretaste of their final state.

But yes, physical bodies still die until the end of this present age.

But death WAS defeated at the Cross.

I hope that makes sense. I had wondered the same thing when I first heard it.

""Death has been defeated."" I haven' found reference to this in scripture so I assume this is a conclusion you have reached or someone has reached this conclusion on your behalf.

Andrewn · Mar 10, 2020

sparow said:
What does "defeated death" mean? You say death is being separated from Christ; which is a reasonable conclusion (paraphrase) but by itself rewrites scripture.

Eph 2:1 You were dead in your trespasses and sins,

Col 2:13 Even when you were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ by forgiving us all our trespasses.

The above verses show that unregenerate people are dead. How are they dead when they are physically alive? By being separated from Christ. Is there another possible conclusion? Thus death is separation from Christ and this is the Scripture. When we go back to the story of Adam and Eve we find that they died in the day they sinned as they became separated from Yahweh. No?

sparow said:
Death is the penalty of sin, or more explicitly death is the penalty when the blood covenant is broken. There is a false teaching that says the Law (covenant) is abrogated; and many accept this teaching, yet it is not a teaching of Christ; yet most of those who accept this false teaching have not heard the whole doctrine; which ends with: when the law is abrogated there is no sin; if this were true Christ's death would be useless and meaningless.

What is the "blood covenant?" The ceremonial Law has been abrogated. There is no Temple. No Christian and no Rabbinic Jew follows the ceremonial laws, neither should they. The Parochet was torn in two at the crucifixion of the Lord. He entered into the Holy of Holies in heaven. And believers gained access to the Holy of Holies with Him.

Mat 27:51 Suddenly, the temple curtain was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and rocks were split.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as the high priest of the good things that were coming, he went through the greater and more complete tent, which was not made by human hands (that is, it is not part of this creation). 12 He entered once into the Most Holy Place and obtained eternal redemption, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood.

Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,

sparow said:
Even if a person could claim to be saved their situation is provisional until their actual resurrection. The teaching of Christ is: When drawn by the Father to Christ the covenant is enacted; as the parable says, that person is a seed planted that may grow into harvestable fruit or may grow into tares that will be burnt. Individually, death is defeated when raised to eternal life; per say, death is defeated when thrown into the lake of fire, when deaths purpose has expired.

Where do you read this?

sparow · Mar 10, 2020

Andrewn said:
Eph 2:1 You were dead in your trespasses and sins,

Col 2:13 Even when you were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ by forgiving us all our trespasses.

The above verses show that unregenerate people are dead. How are they dead when they are physically alive? By being separated from Christ. Is there another possible conclusion? Thus death is separation from Christ and this is the Scripture. When we go back to the story of Adam and Eve we find that they died in the day they sinned as they became separated from Yahweh. No?

What is the "blood covenant?" The ceremonial Law has been abrogated. There is no Temple. No Christian and no Rabbinic Jew follows the ceremonial laws, neither should they. The Parochet was torn in two at the crucifixion of the Lord. He entered into the Holy of Holies in heaven. And believers gained access to the Holy of Holies with Him.

Mat 27:51 Suddenly, the temple curtain was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and rocks were split.

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as the high priest of the good things that were coming, he went through the greater and more complete tent, which was not made by human hands (that is, it is not part of this creation). 12 He entered once into the Most Holy Place and obtained eternal redemption, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood.

Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,

Where do you read this?

<<Col 2:13 Even when you were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ by forgiving us all our trespasses.

The above verses show that unregenerate people are dead. How are they dead when they are physically alive? By being separated from Christ. Is there another possible conclusion? Thus death is separation from Christ and this is the Scripture.they are When we go back to the story of Adam and Eve we find that they died in the day they sinned as they became separated from Yahweh. No?>>

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Paul, only your usage. As I recall, it is the term or concept “death defeated” that is the issue we are discussing. In Col 2:13 dead” is used as a metaphor; which means other words could have been used like, lost in your trespasses, omitted in your trespasses, and so on. We can say they are separated because they were lost or omitted from the covenant. Lost can be defeated individually by overcoming; death is not defeated, or disposed of until God has no further use of it.

A blood covenant is not exclusive to God; the Israelite made blood covenants with their neighbours; the American red Indians made blood covenants leading the Mormons to believe the red Indians to be the Lost sheep of Israel. The Blood indicates the seriousness of the covenant; if either party breaks a blood covenant they are put to death. God's blood covenant is more complex in that the penalty is the second death and also in that the covenant of God has a reprieve clause wherein in conjunction with repentance, substitute blood may be used; the blood of God; but all of this depends on the covenant (Law) not being abrogated.

I do not believe the ceremonial Law is abrogated; changed in the sense from a lower level to a higher level, as a grub changes into a butterfly but still the same genus. Christ as High Priest performs the relevant ceremonial laws once yet that once is not in a moment of time but encompasses eternity. Modern day apostles (priests} should take their cue from the ceremonial Law; I believe their role is the governance of the kingdom.

<<sparow said: ↑

Even if a person could claim to be saved their situation is provisional until their actual resurrection. The teaching of Christ is: When drawn by the Father to Christ the covenant is enacted; as the parable says, that person is a seed planted that may grow into harvestable fruit or may grow into tares that will be burnt. Individually, death is defeated when raised to eternal life; per say, death is defeated when thrown into the lake of fire, when deaths purpose has expired.

Where do you read this?

In the Bible; this is an abstract.

Andrewn · Mar 11, 2020

sparow said:
Individually, death is defeated when raised to eternal life;

To show that for believers this has already taken place review the following verses:

Rom 6:4 Therefore, we were buried together with him through baptism into his death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too can walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

Col 3:1 Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, set your sights on the realities of heaven, where Christ sits in the place of honor at God’s right hand.

So, the NT provides different definitions of life, death, and resurrection. They're not the physical definitions that are on your mind.

sparow · Mar 11, 2020

Andrewn said:
To show that for believers this has already taken place review the following verses:

Rom 6:4 Therefore, we were buried together with him through baptism into his death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too can walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

Col 3:1 Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, set your sights on the realities of heaven, where Christ sits in the place of honor at God’s right hand.

So, the NT provides different definitions of life, death, and resurrection. They're not the physical definitions that are on your mind.[/QUOTE

We may have a misunderstanding and not a disagreement.

Nobody knows they are saved until the resurrection of the righteous, that is until it actually happens. Some faiths teach once saved always saved; this would be true after the resurrection. Many believe they are saved when it is not necessarily so.

Consider the messages to the seven churches in Rev. Two of the seven churches are guaranteed salvation. At least one of the churches is in deep trouble; the rest have to overcome in order to be saved. The two whom are saved are still encouraged to over come in order to receive greater rewards.

Revelation 3:14-16 (NKJV)
14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, 'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:
15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.
16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

In those out of context verses you quote; these verses are typical Biblical Jewish semantics - hyperbole, oral hieroglyphics used to make a point; a point not made to the eternally saved but to those at risk of falling away; you appear to miss the point being made and along with assumptions take Paul's art work or prose, literally.

sparow · Mar 12, 2020

Andrewn said:
To show that for believers this has already taken place review the following verses:

Rom 6:4 Therefore, we were buried together with him through baptism into his death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too can walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

Col 3:1 Since you have been raised to new life with Christ, set your sights on the realities of heaven, where Christ sits in the place of honor at God’s right hand.

So, the NT provides different definitions of life, death, and resurrection. They're not the physical definitions that are on your mind.

We may have a misunderstanding and not a disagreement.

Nobody knows they are saved until the resurrection of the righteous, that is until it actually happens. Some faiths teach once saved always saved; this would be true after the resurrection. Many believe they are saved when it is not necessarily so.

Consider the messages to the seven churches in Rev. Two of the seven churches are guaranteed salvation. At least one of the churches is in deep trouble; the rest have to overcome in order to be saved. The two whom are saved are still encouraged to over come in order to receive greater rewards.

Revelation 3:14-16 (NKJV)
14 "And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, 'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:
15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot.
16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

In those out of context verses you quote; these verses are typical Biblical Jewish semantics - hyperbole, oral hieroglyphics used to make a point; a point not made to the eternally saved but to those at risk of falling away; you appear to miss the point being made and along with assumptions take Paul's art work or prose, literally.

Andrewn · Mar 12, 2020

sparow said:
Some faiths teach once saved always saved; this would be true after the resurrection. Many believe they are saved when it is not necessarily so.

I don't believe in Calvinism and I'm not discussing OSAS, here.

sparow said:
Nobody knows they are saved until the resurrection of the righteous, that is until it actually happens. . . . you appear to miss the point being made and along with assumptions take Paul's art work or prose, literally.

You may have SDA or JW beliefs about soul sleep. I do take the words of Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul literally and have explained the Christian view. Perhaps others can take over the conversation if they so choose.

renniks · Mar 12, 2020

rturner76 said:
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 never understood why it had to be either /or... Many of the theories have merit, and no one of them covers the extent of the atonement.

Dan Perez · Jan 11, 2021

renniks said:
I never understood why it had to be either /or... Many of the theories have merit, and no one of them covers the extent of the atonement.

Hi and you first have to define what ATONEMENT means and when it began :\\

I believe it began in the GARDEN of EDEN with Adam and Eve !!

My verse proves that Gen 3:21 is where ATONEMENT began !!

So is ATONMENT a work ??

Or is ATONEMENT , FAITH ?

And explains how Adan and Eve were saved !!

dan p

Ephfourfive · Feb 3, 2021

Christ (high priest) on the cross let his blood (Jn 1:29) fall on Mary (ark of the new covenant) and accomplished atonement and redemption

Ephfourfive · Feb 3, 2021

Also the Passover sacrifice began in the last supper ends with His death on the cross (door post and lentil) lamb of God Jn 1:29

BobRyan · Feb 3, 2021

Ephfourfive said:
Christ (high priest) on the cross let his blood (Jn 1:29) fall on Mary (ark of the new covenant) and accomplished atonement and redemption

Is there any "blood fall on Mary" statement in the Bible?
Is there any "Mary - Ark of the New Covenant" statement in the Bible?
Does God's definition for the full scope of atonement as He defines it in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" end with Christ's work as "the sin offering" or does it also show Christ's work as High Priest?

Ephfourfive · Feb 3, 2021

The high priest sprinkled the blood of the lamb on the ark on the day of atonement

What is your view of atonement?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Charismatic Episcopal Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency