Theories of Atonement

[RedFan]

It is in the nature of our human notions of justice that the guilty, not the innocent, are punished. The guilty may be forgiven as an exercise in mercy (mercy being in effect a suspension of justice), but not at the expense of the innocent – a la Ezek. 18:20. When Moses offered to take the rap for the Golden Calf if God would thereby spare Israel, God turned him down, insisting that the wrongdoers must themselves be punished. Ex. 32:31-35. That comports quite nicely with human notions of justice.

But when Christ “died for our sins,” 1 Cor. 15:3, God went the other way, punishing A for B’s offense.

Several theories have been advanced to explain what happened on Calvary, most of them using the language of “payment” in describing the sacrifice. The “ransom” theory, see Matt. 28:20, Mark 10:45, suggests that by sinning mankind became Satan’s captives, and Christ gave himself as a ransom to redeem mankind from Satan’s dominion, resulting in what Rom. 6:16 characterizes as a change of masters. Origen, Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa all championed this theory.

The “restitutional” or “penal substitution” theory, initially developed by Anselm and refined by Calvin, is far more prevalent today. It holds that Christ paid the penalty for mankind’s sin―a death penalty which had been imposed by God since the Fall of Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:17)―and thereby satisfied the legitimate demands of God’s justice.

Through substitutional atonement, individual salvation of the guilty is achieved, but at the expense of commonly held notions of justice. Either God’s justice is different from ours, or God is unjust.

Then there is the “representational” theory championed by Paul --– precisely what we would expect from a rabbi steeped in the sacrificial tradition of Israel. 2 Cor. 5:14’s “one has died for all, therefore all have died” (as opposed to “therefore all did not need to die”) suggests this view. Rom. 8:3’s “sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us (as opposed to “might be fulfilled for us”) who walk not by the flesh but by the spirit” suggests it. Gal. 2:20’s “I am crucified with Christ” (as opposed to “Christ is crucified in my stead”) suggests it.

What theory makes most sense to you?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Representational but even more so, Moral Example.

 

[RKS89]

My issue with Penal Substitution, at least the way I was presented it within the Baptist churches I attended, is it seems to make Christ’s ministry almost irrelevant. It also seems to take a narrow view of God’s love for His creation as well as His nature. In some cases I’ve seen it really twist people’s view of humanity, thinking we are essentially “bad”.

Part of what drew me back to the Church was having a lot of questions about how we are to apply Christ’s teaching to our own lives. In most of the Sunday services I went to we talked about Paul’s Epistles or Old Testament figures. It was exceptionally rare we read from or studied any Gospel. The basic gist of it was “we’re already saved, so the Spirit guides us and we don’t have to study the Gospels so closely”. That always rubbed me the wrong way. Another example of the ripple effect from that soteriology was apparent with new converts. To explain Christianity we would start with Romans, throw.in John 3:16 and basically end up back in Romans. There wasn’t much at all from the Gospels. I had to ask, what was the point of the 3 year ministry? More importantly, why the Incarnation? I just felt like PS lacked cohesion in light of the entirety of Scripture. Again, that’s just the way I learned it so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Luke6_37]

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

There are seven prominent theories of the atonement:

#1 The Moral Influence Theory
#2 The Ransom Theory
#3 Christus Victor
#4 The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
#5 The Penal Substitutionary Theory
#6 The Governmental Theory
#7 The Scapegoat Theory

The most prominent in Catholic circles is Anselm’s “Satisfaction Theory”. It’s the one you hear taught in CCD classes, although I do not find it to be consistent with the biblical view of God in the New Testament. I feel the same way about #5, #6 & #7.

Only the first three make sense to me and I think all three are true. Christ died to show us how to live (#1) and in order to free us from bondage to sin (#2) and to do so defeated the powers of sin and death in single combat upon the battlefield of the cross as the Messiah (or King of Israel) - just like David fought Goliath in single combat. Christ could be our representative on the battlefield, because he is the King of Israel.

Moral Influence theory speaks for itself.

The best illustration of Ransom theory is Aslan’s sacrifice for Edmund in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”. It’s important to bear in mind that the biblical view of “sin and death” is that they are are actual willful agents of evil in this world - like the “White Witch”. Original sin put humanity into bondage to these forces - just like the Israelites were in bondage to Pharaoh in Egypt. That is why Christ chose to challenge them on Passover (festival of liberation), rather than Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement).

However, I do not think evil forces are owed anything, so that is where Christus Victor theory comes in. Christ “bore” the worst sin could do to a person and emerged victorious. In a world where Christians could be expected to be martyred for their faith, that would have been a powerful motivation to hold firm in one’s hope.

My view of the atonement are strongly influenced by Anabaptist reasoning. Here’s an example:

SLOT88 : SLOT88JP Masa Iya Ada Situs Judi Slot Online JP Paling Gacor

 

[RedFan]

Aulén’s Christus Victor argues that the early Church Fathers did not hold to the ransom theory as a payment to Satan, but as a ransom from the bondage of sin in general. I haven’t read their writings in sufficient depth to know whether he is correct. But I’m predisposed toward any ransom theory that doesn’t involve setting up Satan as the prison guard.

One modification is to think of Christ as our champion in a cosmic battle against the Forces of Evil, our representative (the way David was Israel’s representative when he fought Goliath) – but unlike with David vs. Goliath, Christ’s victory consisted not in surviving the battle and slewing the enemy, but in dying in battle and robbing the enemy of its victory. Once Champion Christ died, we don’t have to; the Evil One has no choice but to accept Christ’s death as the final outcome, as the end game (just as the Philistines had to take Goliath’s) – and retreat. Therein lies both the “substitution” and the “atonement.” Meanwhile, forgiveness doesn’t enter into it per se. Atonement isn’t forgiveness, but a declaration of vicarious victory in the cosmic battle.

 

[Luke6_37]

Aulén’s Christus Victor argues that the early Church Fathers did not hold to the ransom theory as a payment to Satan, but as a ransom from the bondage of sin in general. I haven’t read their writings in sufficient depth to know whether he is correct. But I’m predisposed toward any ransom theory that doesn’t involve setting up Satan as the prison guard.

One modification is to think of Christ as our champion in a cosmic battle against the Forces of Evil, our representative (the way David was Israel’s representative when he fought Goliath) – but unlike with David vs. Goliath, Christ’s victory consisted not in surviving the battle and slewing the enemy, but in dying in battle and robbing the enemy of its victory. Once Champion Christ died, we don’t have to; the Evil One has no choice but to accept Christ’s death as the final outcome, as the end game (just as the Philistines had to take Goliath’s) – and retreat. Therein lies both the “substitution” and the “atonement.” Meanwhile, forgiveness doesn’t enter into it per se. Atonement isn’t forgiveness, but a declaration of vicarious victory in the cosmic battle.

Glad to see someone else is on the same page as me!

You’re right. Atonement isn’t forgiveness, but it isn’t a declaration of victory either. It is associated with the reconciliation of God with his people.

It is best explained by Bruxy Cavey in the “understanding atonement” article I linked to:

“The word “atonement” is our best English translation for the Hebrew word kippur, meaning to wipe away, to cover over, to cleanse. You’ve heard of the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur: since yom means “day,” Yom Kippur means “Day of Atonement.” And “atonement” is a terrific English word for kippur, since it literally means at-one-ment. How beautiful is that. The result of our cleansing from sin is our at-one-ment with God, being reconciled and (re)united forever.”

The Jewish sacrificial system wasn’t about substituting the death of the animal for the death of the sinner. It was about obtaining the “pure blood” of the animal and pouring it out on the lid of the Ark of the Covenant (i.e., the Mercy Seat or Hilasterion) to purify it. This allowed the Divine Presence of God to descend to earth and offer forgiveness. The lid of the Ark of the Covenant was God’s throne.

This helps to explain what the angel means in Rev. 7:14, when the angle says, "“These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”

Confusion sets in because the word ἱλαστήριον (hilasterion) is often translated in Romans 3:25 as “propitiation” in biblical translations. However, “propitiation” requires a change in God (from wrathful to placated) which is not consistent with the eternal sameness of God. Therefore, many argue that the theological term “expiation”, which is a change in the person (from sinful to forgiven), is more accurate.

 

[Gorgias]

The guilty may be forgiven as an exercise in mercy (mercy being in effect a suspension of justice)

I would disagree. Mercy is justice. What is suspended is ‘punishment’, or perhaps, ‘retribution’.

But when Christ “died for our sins,” 1 Cor. 15:3, God went the other way, punishing A for B’s offense.

Only if you believe in penal substitution.

Through substitutional atonement, individual salvation of the guilty is achieved, but at the expense of commonly held notions of justice. Either God’s justice is different from ours, or God is unjust.

No. You’re conflating ‘penal substitution’ with other theories of substitutionary atonement.

Anselm’s proposition wasn’t ‘refined’ by Calvin – rather, in the Reformation communities, penal substitution (and forensic justification) claim what you’re describing. The Catholic response is exactly what you’ve noted: if this is true, God is a tyrant, whose ideas of ‘justice’ are abhorrent. (Killing the innocent and pardoning the guilty? Who does that?!?!?)

On the other hand, as @Luke6_37 points out, Catholics look to the theory of Anselm/Aquinas: satisfaction. Out of love for mankind, Christ offered Himself. God’s response, in love, is to accept the sacrifice and forgive humanity for its sin. This is not “punishment inflicted”, but “punishment taken voluntarily and borne”.

(I do disagree with @Luke6_37’s conclusion that the satisfaction theory doesn’t make sense. I would assert that it fits perfectly with what Christ taught. “There is no greater love…”, remember? )

What theory makes most sense to you?

Satisfaction.

 

[RedFan]

But was satisfaction through a bloody sacrifice necessary?

In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Graebner trans., Zondervan 1949), Luther comments on Gal. 3:20: “We are the offending party; God is the party offended. The offense is of such a nature that God cannot pardon it.” Why not? No matter what the “offense” is here (original sin inherited from Adam; our own personal actions contravening God’s law; the crying of a sick infant about to die; fill in the blank yourself), what is it about the nature of the offense that renders it unforgivable without the sacrifice of Christ?

Perhaps a better question is, what is it about God’s justice that disables God from forgiving the offender’s sin (whatever it was) without having His Son nailed to the cross? Christ, we are told, paid the price for our sins―but the price owed to Whom? If to the Father, what restrained Him from simply canceling the debt?

I’m probably off base in analogizing to what I know best (the legal system), but crimes are criminal matters, while debts are civil matters. A crime cannot go unpunished post-conviction, but a civil debt (as opposed to a criminal fine) can be forgiven post-judgment. If the offense to God is deemed criminal and there is imposed a sentence other than a monetary fine, punishment of the wrongdoer is required (no substitutes allowed; mom or dad, brother or sister may NOT serve my sentence for me, much less go to the gallows for me). If the debt is deemed civil, the creditor can cancel it at will, and the matter is then at an end.

If Christ’s crucifixion had “some inherent redemptive value” for the perpetrators, that’s different from punishing A for B’s crimes, and far closer to satisfying a debt.

 

[Luke6_37]

RedFan:

The guilty may be forgiven as an exercise in mercy (mercy being in effect a suspension of justice)

I would disagree. Mercy is justice. What is suspended is ‘punishment’, or perhaps, ‘retribution’.

But when Christ “died for our sins,” 1 Cor. 15:3, God went the other way, punishing A for B’s offense.

Only if you believe in penal substitution.

Through substitutional atonement, individual salvation of the guilty is achieved, but at the expense of commonly held notions of justice. Either God’s justice is different from ours, or God is unjust.

No. You’re conflating ‘penal substitution’ with other theories of substitutionary atonement.

Anselm’s proposition wasn’t ‘refined’ by Calvin – rather, in the Reformation communities, penal substitution (and forensic justification) claim what you’re describing. The Catholic response is exactly what you’ve noted: if this is true, God is a tyrant, whose ideas of ‘justice’ are abhorrent. (Killing the innocent and pardoning the guilty? Who does that?!?!?)

On the other hand, as @Luke6_37 points out, Catholics look to the theory of Anselm/Aquinas: satisfaction. Out of love for mankind, Christ offered Himself. God’s response, in love, is to accept the sacrifice and forgive humanity for its sin. This is not “punishment inflicted”, but “punishment taken voluntarily and borne”.

(I do disagree with @Luke6_37’s conclusion that the satisfaction theory doesn’t make sense. I would assert that it fits perfectly with what Christ taught. “There is no greater love…”, remember? )

What theory makes most sense to you?

Satisfaction.

The problem I have with Satisfaction theory is that it is built upon the notion that the same action (e.g., punching a person in the face) carries a greater penalty depending on who you are punching. While it is true that punching your father is a greater offense than punching your brother - and so the penalty for the former is greater than it is for the lesser, I have a hard time extending the analogy to an infinite penalty for the same action when directed toward God, because God is infinitely greater than us.

My reason for that is you can’t punch God, and if you could (e.g., the Roman soldiers who punched Jesus), God doesn’t return the favor by blasting you to pieces. I look at the example of how Jesus responded to Peter’s denial of him. Peter denied Jesus three times and what did Jesus do? Jesus made him some fish and asked him to say he loved him three times. What mortal King would be so generous? That is hardly consistent with eternal conscious torment in Hell.

 

[Gorgias]

But was satisfaction through a bloody sacrifice necessary?

That’s a question to ask of those who believe in penal substitution, not of those who believe in satisfaction. Strictly speaking – and without getting into the weeds debating your question – the real issue is “was Christ’s sacrificial act of love sufficient and acceptable in God’s eyes?” It was.

In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (Graebner trans., Zondervan 1949), Luther comments on Gal. 3:20: “We are the offending party; God is the party offended. The offense is of such a nature that God cannot pardon it.” Why not? No matter what the “offense” is here (original sin inherited from Adam; our own personal actions contravening God’s law; the crying of a sick infant about to die; fill in the blank yourself), what is it about the nature of the offense that renders it unforgivable without the sacrifice of Christ?

I agree with you – penal substitution doesn’t make sense!

what is it about God’s justice that disables God from forgiving the offender’s sin (whatever it was) without having His Son nailed to the cross? Christ, we are told, paid the price for our sins―but the price owed to Whom?

Again – you’re making claims against penal substitution here, not against satisfaction.

 

[RedFan]

Strictly speaking – and without getting into the weeds debating your question – the real issue is “was Christ’s sacrificial act of love sufficient and acceptable in God’s eyes?” It was.

I see the REAL issue as, Was it necessary that Christ die on the cross in order for that satisfaction to happen – and if so, WHY?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Moral Influence theory speaks for itself.

And yet a lot more can be said.

The death of Christ was a necessary consequence of the message he faithfully proclaimed in that time and place and religious political scene. he knew it and accepted it and remained faithful to his mission.

Even in our own lives mustn’t we accept as God’s will anything we cannot change? Of course that is another question. What pleased God was the faithfulness. Not necessarily the horrible death. God did not need to be paid nor appeased. How could he, since he himself was the victim?

Only my opinion but I think a better focus can be on seeing our unity in him and his suffering. He shows us the way through painful transformation and, in fact, tells us to pick up our own crosses as well. Yes, we have a roll to play and a share to accept in that suffering. It is THE ONLY way to the fullness of life, post resurrection.

He suffered for us in the sense that he showed us how.

I have always had a hardest time with penal substitution and satisfaction.

And yet, I do think there is something to the possibility that my suffering for the consequences of my sins is in some way diminished by the suffering of Christ even though I still have plenty. And it now has meaning when joined with his. Salvifici Doloris dealt with this .

 

[Gorgias]

I see the REAL issue as, Was it necessary that Christ die on the cross in order for that satisfaction to happen – and if so, WHY?

OK – so then, you’d agree that it was sufficient?

Let’s move on to the ‘necessary’ question, then…

As I mentioned in an earlier reply to you upthread, Christ said, “This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

I think this makes the case for the answer “yes… necessary”! First of all, if Christ loves us – with a love that’s greater than any love we can manage – and he points to a self-sacrificing love as the highest expression of that love… then how can He say that we should love each other “as I love you” if He himself doesn’t love us sacrificially?

In other words, if it wasn’t necessary, then what He’s saying here is “love each other like I love you – but I don’t love you enough to give my life for yours.”

If Christ could redeem us by getting a paper cut for us (ouch!), would He be able to make the claim of self-sacrificing love? And if not… then His example of self-sacrificing love is necessary.

 

[RedFan]

I fear you have missed the issue I meant to raise. The question is not whether Christ loved us enough to lay down his life for us. The question is, Why would God require Christ to lay down his life at all in order to “satisfy” anything?

Perhaps a better question is, what is it about God’s justice that disables God from forgiving the offender’s sin (whatever it was) without having His Son nailed to the cross? Christ, we are told, paid the price for our sins―but the price owed to Whom? If to the Father, what restrained Him from simply canceling the debt?

I’m probably off base in analogizing to what I know best (the legal system), but crimes are criminal matters, while debts are civil matters. A crime cannot go unpunished post-conviction, but a civil debt (as opposed to a criminal fine) can be forgiven post-judgment. If the offense to God is deemed criminal and there is imposed a sentence, punishment of the wrongdoer is required (no substitutes allowed; mom or dad, brother or sister may NOT serve my sentence for me, much less go to the gallows for me). If the debt is deemed civil, the creditor can cancel it at will, and the matter is then at an end.

If Christ’s crucifixion had “some inherent redemptive value” for the perpetrators, that’s different from punishing A for B’s crimes, and far closer to satisfying a debt. “Redemption” doesn’t fit the theory of penal substitutionary atonement. One “redeems” something (or someone) by paying a debt secured by the thing (or person) redeemed – which is not a penal or criminal law concept at all. If we are “redeemed” by a payment of a debt owed to God, it would mean we were held “hostage” by God pending the satisfaction of the debt. (That would be distinguished, I suppose, from being ransomed from Satan – another form of the atonement theory.)

God’s “justice” must be found wanting if His refusal to forgive man’s sin in the absence of Christ’s crucifixion is His choice rather than His nature. Either He had the forgiveness option without the crucifixion, or He didn’t. Luther says He didn’t, i.e., that His nature precluded it. This strikes me as totally inconsistent with Luther’s notion of a debt owed to God. I will put it simply: a creditor always has the option to forgive his debtor’s debt. If, with Luther, we deny that such an option was available to God, we ipso facto must deny the Lutheran premise that the debt was owed to God. Luther cannot have it both ways.

 

[rose321]

What theory makes most sense to you?

Satisfaction.

Respectfully opinion searching out therories of Atonement, asking also, What does God say? Told by Him >I am the same today as yesterday, not a God of confusion or chaos…all must continue to flow within His Spoken Word, in context then?

Deut. 24: 16 " Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death"

The Prophet Jeremiah 31:29 " The parent have eaten sour grapes and the children’t teeth are set on edge. But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge"

Ezekiel 18:20 " The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child: the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own"

NT Romans 2:6 " He will render to each one according to his works"

What puzzles me, how can committing sin>taking an innocent life of another who is righteous, committing a crime, transgression of the Law>> Thou shall NOT>take away ones sin?

Committing a sin to take a way a sin, confuses me and to what is written in His Spoken Word within the Biblical Verses posted above within this post?

Seems to also flow with Biblical verses above posted flows in context?
Live by the sword, one dies by the sword?
We reap what they sow?

What about Cain also, who m*rder his brother, our heavenly Father left him to his own making, even put a mark on him so no one would harm him>> why?

And what about all those Biblical veres God repeats over over over over again and preached by John Baptist> Return to Me and I Will return to you?
Would that also not a way of Atonement, God tells us>>>>is acceptable in his hands?
Peace

 

[Gorgias]

What puzzles me, how can committing sin, taking an innocent life of another who is righteous, committing a crime,

God didn’t “commit a crime”. He didn’t “take an innocent life.” Jesus freely gave up His life for us.

Committing a sin to take a way a sin, confuses me

Who committed a sin in this scenario?

 

[Gorgias]

I fear you have missed the issue I meant to raise. The question is not whether Christ loved us enough to lay down his life for us. The question is, Why would God require Christ to lay down his life at all in order to “satisfy” anything?

I hate to be a broken record, but…

God didn’t require it. Christ freely offered it.

If you’re claiming that God required it, then you’re railing against penal substitution, not against satisfaction.

Perhaps a better question is, what is it about God’s justice that disables God from forgiving the offender’s sin (whatever it was) without having His Son nailed to the cross? … If to the Father, what restrained Him from simply canceling the debt?

This is the better question.

In Catholic theology, we understand that God had a plan for humanity: He created us, and He wishes us to love Him in return.

It’s a plan that makes sense: without that freely-given love, then all we are as people are automata – robots. What we do doesn’t matter, how we act is immaterial, everything we experience is meaningless… after all, God will give us everything, without our participation.

But… if our actions really do matter – if they have consequences, both good and bad – then God’s plan is important. It means that, by making free choices and reaping the benefits (and suffering the consequences) of these choices… then we really do choose God (or reject Him), and we really do love God (or tell Him to get lost).

You see… it’s not about God’s justice being insufficient. It’s about God caring about us so much that He allows us to make the most important choices. He doesn’t just give us a ‘participation trophy’ and shuffle us off to heaven. He asks us to love Him, and then He honors our decision. And, when we mess up, He provides us with a means of returning to His grace. Our actions matter… and He provides the means for us to say ‘yes’ to Him.

What is it about God’s justice? It’s that He doesn’t just give it to us… He allows us to claim it ourselves. (And then, He does everything He can to enable us to make that claim of love.)

 

[RedFan]

I hate to be a broken record, but…

God didn’t require it. Christ freely offered it.

And God was bloodthirsty enough to say to His own Son “Sure, son, thanks for volunteering to satisfy the debt of mankind. I’d rather see your physical being suffer and die than just to forgive the debt.” Is that your position?

 

[Gorgias]

And God was bloodthirsty enough to say to His own Son “Sure, son, thanks for volunteering to satisfy the debt of mankind. I’d rather see your physical being suffer and die than just to forgive the debt.” Is that your position?

No. Nor is that the position of satisfaction. The more you rail against it, the less it seems you understand it.

Rather, God said to His own Son, “Yes… you get it! Even in the flesh, you get it! Just like me, you’d rather experience suffering and physical death than just allow every human to spend eternity in hell!” That’s my position.

 

[Benadam]

This is something I read. It’s comes from a person who is non-denominational

In the Garden of Eden there would have been no reason for Satan to not be Judged and thrown in hell but God’s Justice required that to happen to Adam and Eve too… God didn’t want that God’s Justice permitted Satan to remain free on earth until Adam and Eve were redeemed.