To which Atonement theory do you subscribe?

[josephdaniel29]

St Melito of Sardis, a second century bishop, seemed to ascribe to the Chritus Victor theory. He is known for his homily On the Passover. I bring this up because it is a very early source and one I wasn’t familiar with (I’m sure Edwin knows it). It gives me goosebumps every time I read it. Here is an excerpt.

The Final Triumph of Christ

1. But he arose from the dead and mounted up to the heights of heaven. When the Lord had clothed himself with humanity, and had suffered for the sake of the sufferer, and had been bound for the sake of the imprisoned, and had been judged for the sake of the condemned, and buried for the sake of the one who was buried,
2. he rose up from the dead, and cried aloud with this voice: Who is he who contends with me? Let him stand in opposition to me. I set the condemned man free; I gave the dead man life; I raised up the one who had been entombed.
3. Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ.
4. Therefore, come, all families of men, you who have been befouled with sins, and receive forgiveness for your sins. I am your forgiveness, I am the passover of your salvation, I am the lamb which was sacrificed for you, I am your ransom, I am your light, I am your saviour, I am your resurrection, I am your king, I am leading you up to the heights of heaven, I will show you the eternal Father, I will raise you up by my right hand.
5. This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.
6. This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.

 

[Anna_Scott]

There’s no rush to decide on anything, Anna. Like you, I am a work in progress. Honestly with the way I am put off by so much I’m hearing at church (Anglican) lately and with the nutty crud going on in the Communion, I’m fed up with Anglicanism. I’m equally fed up with Catholicism in my area and disagree with several key ideas within Catholicism. Some of my friends have told me, dump em both! Go Lutheran! LOL

I know there’s no rush; but it can be very unsettling, after awhile. I want to find my place within Christianity–thought I had, until the Episcopal Church unleashed “crazy granny.” Sometimes, I actually envy the days, when I lived in ignorant bliss. I may still be ignorant; but I’m certainly not living in bliss.

I have an Episcopal friend whose back up plan is “to go Lutheran.” So, you may not be the only one thinking in that direction. We have some great Lutherans, here on the forums.

St Melito of Sardis, a second century bishop, seemed to ascribe to the Chritus Victor theory. He is known for his homily On the Passover. I bring this up because it is a very early source and one I wasn’t familiar with (I’m sure Edwin knows it). It gives me goosebumps every time I read it. Here is an excerpt.

The Final Triumph of Christ

1. But he arose from the dead and mounted up to the heights of heaven. When the Lord had clothed himself with humanity, and had suffered for the sake of the sufferer, and had been bound for the sake of the imprisoned, and had been judged for the sake of the condemned, and buried for the sake of the one who was buried,
2. he rose up from the dead, and cried aloud with this voice: Who is he who contends with me? Let him stand in opposition to me. I set the condemned man free; I gave the dead man life; I raised up the one who had been entombed.
3. Who is my opponent? I, he says, am the Christ. I am the one who destroyed death, and triumphed over the enemy, and trampled Hades under foot, and bound the strong one, and carried off man to the heights of heaven, I, he says, am the Christ.
4. Therefore, come, all families of men, you who have been befouled with sins, and receive forgiveness for your sins. I am your forgiveness, I am the passover of your salvation, I am the lamb which was sacrificed for you, I am your ransom, I am your light, I am your saviour, I am your resurrection, I am your king, I am leading you up to the heights of heaven, I will show you the eternal Father, I will raise you up by my right hand.
5. This is the one who made the heavens and the earth, and who in the beginning created man, who was proclaimed through the law and prophets, who became human via the virgin, who was hanged upon a tree, who was buried in the earth, who was resurrected from the dead, and who ascended to the heights of heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, who has authority to judge and to save everything, through whom the Father created everything from the beginning of the world to the end of the age.
6. This is the alpha and the omega. This is the beginning and the end–an indescribable beginning and an incomprehensible end. This is the Christ. This is the king. This is Jesus. This is the general. This is the Lord. This is the one who rose up from the dead. This is the one who sits at the right hand of the Father. He bears the Father and is borne by the Father, to whom be the glory and the power forever. Amen.

josephdaniel29,

I appreciate the quote. I don’t think I have read this before (Things start running together after awhile.) This is a beautiful picture of “Atonement,” and contains elements of several of the theories.

Peace,
Anna

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hi:
I did not respond to this poll. I might have if I there had been a “dunno” option.

The only one I have heard of is penal substitution. Now I probably have a very simplified understanding of it, but from the little I understand it sounds good.

If I was to put my very simple understanding into words, it all boils down to “Jesus died for my sins”.

My one question is more high level. I am sort of wondering how much of this from God’s perspective is really, really, important that we get right. And how much of this is sort of like a bunch of first graders arguing over rocket science (if you get my drift).

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hi:
I did not respond to this poll. I might have if I there had been a “dunno” option.

The only one I have heard of is penal substitution. Now I probably have a very simplified understanding of it, but from the little I understand it sounds good.

If I was to put my very simple understanding into words, it all boils down to “Jesus died for my sins”.

My one question is more high level. I am sort of wondering how much of this from God’s perspective is really, really, important that we get right. And how much of this is sort of like a bunch of first graders arguing over rocket science (if you get my drift).

Hi AP,

I didn’t vote either. I’m still in the “dunno” category, too----though I’m leaning more towards “Christus Victor.”

I think you are right. We probably are like “first graders arguing over rocket science” in many things concerning God. Perhaps some things are more easily accepted as a Divine Mystery. I tend to take that approach, when it comes to attempting to explain how bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

However, I do think the view of atonement is connected to the understanding of salvation–as noted by Contarini.

Peace,
Anna

No, because what we think about the Atonement is linked to our doctrine of salvation generally.

In the classic Protestant view (seen in its “purest” form in five-point Calvinism), the Atonement is Jesus suffering the punishment of sin on behalf of certain chosen individuals, who receive that salvation through faith. Salvation is about specific human beings escaping damnation, which is the just end to which human beings as a whole are headed. That affects everything else we believe about the Christian life.

In the orthodox view as found in Athanasius, the Atonement is Jesus suffering death on behalf of the whole human race, thus delivering us from the power of death (sin, corruption, Satan, hell, etc.) and restoring us to union with the life of God. Salvation is about the human race as a whole receiving that salvation and being restored to our proper role within God’s creative purposes.

Edwin

 

[josephdaniel29]

My one question is more high level. I am sort of wondering how much of this from God’s perspective is really, really, important that we get right. And how much of this is sort of like a bunch of first graders arguing over rocket science (if you get my drift).

Our view of salvation affects our conception of God, and our conception of Him affects how we respond to Him. That in turn affects how we grow in our relationship with God and with each other. In the end that has serious connotations for our salvation.

In Christ
Joe

 

[dvdjs]

Our view of salvation affects our conception of God, and our conception of Him affects how we respond to Him. That in turn affects how we grow in our relationship with God and with each other. In the end that has serious connotations for our salvation.

I vote with the “first graders arguing over rocket science” crows. And this arguing has serious,all-to-often negative, consequences about how we relate to each other. And how we relate to the least of our brethren is the test of how we relate to God.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Joe. I agree. That’s why I am looking so carefully into the topic, amongst others. How long have you been Orthodox? What type of Orthodoxy do you belong to? Russian, Greek, Serbian, etc.?

Our view of salvation affects our conception of God, and our conception of Him affects how we respond to Him. That in turn affects how we grow in our relationship with God and with each other. In the end that has serious connotations for our salvation.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thanks, Joe. I agree. That’s why I am looking so carefully into the topic, amongst others. How long have you been Orthodox? What type of Orthodoxy do you belong to? Russian, Greek, Serbian, etc.?

I was received into the Church three years ago. Prior to that I spent a couple of years as an inquirer/catechumen. I belong to the Orthodox Church in America which was planted by the Russian Church in the late 1700’s.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

I vote with the “first graders arguing over rocket science” crows. And this arguing has serious,all-to-often negative, consequences about how we relate to each other. And how we relate to the least of our brethren is the test of how we relate to God.

I’m not sure who’s arguing but the reality is practically any discussion/argument can have negative consequences if we allow it.

In Christ
Joe

 

[fhansen]

I haven’t been totally satisfied with the various atonement theories so I’ve sort of come up with my own that more or less borrows unashamedly from here and there.

At the fall, mankind was exiled into an effectively godless world- apparently preferring his separation from God (as the Catechism explains, man wanted to “be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”) -and sin abounded.

When perfection entered this world later in history in the form of the god-man, Jesus Christ, man would’ve fallen and worshiped at Jesus’ feet, had man been just. And justice did begin to be served by those who followed Jesus.

But He allowed human free will to have its way, as He always had, and so He allowed man to sin against him in the same way they were allowed to sin against each other. The only reason this is at all even possible, of course, is due to the fact that we have a material body capable of carrying out the directives of the will. As a result God was made to suffer and die at the hands of sinful man, convicting man of the ultimate sin of preferring himself and his desires over the highest Good, while God proved, by laying down His life, what He never should’ve had to prove-that He always loved man and desired nothing more or less than mans complete happiness. This “proof” is then brought full circle: Love doesn’t die, it triumphs over death, and we know the resurrection is true only by the grace that God gives us to believe it.

The atonement is about grace, grace poured forth in the actions of Christ-and the grace we’re given to know those actions are true and of God. He could’ve done it a different way, but, to lower Himself to live and die among us, demonstrating a heart of servitude and love, can break through the hard and mistrustful heart of man, the heart that “conceived a distorted image of God”, as the Catechism teaches.

I think it’s an awesome plan, but only with my 20/20 hindsight vision, of course.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Hi AP,

I didn’t vote either. I’m still in the “dunno” category, too----though I’m leaning more towards “Christus Victor.”

I think you are right. We probably are like “first graders arguing over rocket science” in many things concerning God. Perhaps some things are more easily accepted as a Divine Mystery. I tend to take that approach, when it comes to attempting to explain how bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

However, I do think the view of atonement is connected to the understanding of salvation–as noted by Contarini.

Peace,
Anna

I guess to word this better I am wondering at what point this goes from “very important for us to get right” to “first graders arguing over rocket science”.

I mean, I read all of these and at first glance they all look good.

I remember of making the mistake of getting involved in another thread on this topic a while back. I still struggle to get why these two atonement theories were mutually exclusive and what exactly the differences were.

When I am struggling to understand concepts and differences, that is when I question importance.

But I suspect with all of these I can find some statements or concepts that sound sketchy. I remember in one of these threads questioning the idea of “God pouring out His wrath on His son on the cross”. But in reading the accounts of the crucifixion in the gospels, darned if I could see one thing that happened to Jesus that I can attribute to God directly pouring out His wrath on His son. Now maybe this happened indirectly through what I read happened in the gospel accounts of His death and resurrection.

But that is not the impression I got. The impression I got was God saying…“what is happening to you Jesus is not enough, I am going to add more to it by doing this.” But I never got a clear handle on what the “this” was.

I suspect that if I were to get into all of these theories to some extent I could find statements like this that seem sketchy.

 

[Bluegoat]

I guess to word this better I am wondering at what point this goes from “very important for us to get right” to “first graders arguing over rocket science”.

I mean, I read all of these and at first glance they all look good.

I remember of making the mistake of getting involved in another thread on this topic a while back. I still struggle to get why these two atonement theories were mutually exclusive and what exactly the differences were.

When I am struggling to understand concepts and differences, that is when I question importance.

But I suspect with all of these I can find some statements or concepts that sound sketchy. I remember in one of these threads questioning the idea of “God pouring out His wrath on His son on the cross”. But in reading the accounts of the crucifixion in the gospels, darned if I could see one thing that happened to Jesus that I can attribute to God directly pouring out His wrath on His son. Now maybe this happened indirectly through what I read happened in the gospel accounts of His death and resurrection.

But that is not the impression I got. The impression I got was God saying…“what is happening to you Jesus is not enough, I am going to add more to it by doing this.” But I never got a clear handle on what the “this” was.

I suspect that if I were to get into all of these theories to some extent I could find statements like this that seem sketchy.

Well, one’s theory of the Atonement might affect one’s views on purgatory and indulgences. Which could lead one to accept or reject Catholicism. So that seems pretty practical to me.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Well, one’s theory of the Atonement might affect one’s views on purgatory and indulgences. Which could lead one to accept or reject Catholicism. So that seems pretty practical to me.

How is that?

 

[Phil12123]

**After reading all 73 posts in this thread, I still don’t know how I would vote, if the poll were still open. I probably need to read a book like, The Atonement for Dummies, if it existed. Would someone, maybe Edwin, please briefly summarize all the theories, showing their differences, and perhaps most importantly give what scriptural support there is for each? I lean toward a substitutionary atonement because of verses like the following (all taken from the NAB):
**
Isaiah 53:
4. Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured,
While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.
5. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins,
Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.
6. We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way;
But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.
7. Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth;
Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.
8. Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,
9. A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers,
Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.
10. [But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.]
If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.
11. Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days;
Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.

Peter’s reference to some of the above:
1 Pet. 2:
24. He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
25. For you had gone astray like sheep, but you have now returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.

And, as one pointed out in a post, the very definition of the Gospel itself includes this verse by Paul:
1 Cor. 15:3 – "…Christ died for our sins…"

So, in the progression of verses showing us going from death to life:
"All [of us] have sinned…" (Rom. 3:23)
“The wages of sin is death…” (Rom. 6:23)
“…Christ died for our sins…” (1 Cor. 15:3)
" He that has the Son has life." (1 John 5:12)

**I’ve never believed Christ went to hell or suffered eternal torment in those few hours on the Cross because I don’t see any verses that say that, but somehow He bore our sins and His suffering and shed blood paid for our sins in full, satisfying God’s justice so that we can be “justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24).
**

 

[SSTeacher]

I don’t think any of the theories are helpful. Wouldn’t passing over all of them and settling for not knowing how the Atonement works be the best way to go?

Hi UniversalistGuy,

I support your suggestion above.

I notice you state that your religion is “Hopeful Universalist.” Are you actually a Universalist i.e. regard the salvation of all as a doctrine that has to be believed or do you just hope for all to be saved? Which church do you attend (if you don’t mind my asking)?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[Anna_Scott]

After reading all 73 posts in this thread, I still don’t know how I would vote, if the poll were still open. I probably need to read a book like, The Atonement for Dummies, if it existed. Would someone, maybe Edwin, please briefly summarize all the theories, showing their differences, and perhaps most importantly give what scriptural support there is for each? I lean toward a substitutionary atonement because of verses like the following (all taken from the NAB):. . . .

Phil12123,

The atonement issue is huge. We must consider the Bible in its entirety and also consider the writings of the ECF’s. I am leaning toward Christus Victor; but I can see elements of a number of theories in the Bible. I need to put in more study time on the issue.

Anna

 

[Phil12123]

Phil12123,

The atonement issue is huge. We must consider the Bible in its entirety and also consider the writings of the ECF’s. I am leaning toward Christus Victor; but I can see elements of a number of theories in the Bible. I need to put in more study time on the issue.

OK, Anna, but how would you define “Christus Victor” and how does it differ from a substitutionary atonement? And what verses support it? I don’t have a problem with considering the ECFs but I would like to first know if there is scriptural support.

 

[Bluegoat]

How is that?

Are you asking how one’s view of the atonement would lead one to reject indulgences?

 

[UniversalistGuy]

Hi UniversalistGuy,

I notice you state that your religion is “Hopeful Universalist.” Are you actually a Universalist i.e. regard the salvation of all as a doctrine that has to be believed or do you just hope for all to be saved? Which church do you attend (if you don’t mind my asking)?

Curiously,
Mick

I just hope for all to be saved. I guess I should have made my status “inquirer” or “seeker” as that’s what I’m doing albeit in a vague and uncertain Internet kind of way. I’ve spent most of my life outside of religion but have come late to the game, you might say. I’ve read the Quran and the Bible and I’ve been to some Evangelical churches. I’ve decided that there is a God and I like many of the ideas in Christianity like loving your neighbor and especially loving your enemies and the greatest love is dying for your friend. But still I wonder what God is like and what He wants. A God that creates souls out of nothing and holds them in existence for their lifetime with physical and mental characteristics and in situations that He alone decrees and then condemns them to eternal torment because they didn’t do what He wanted seems to fit in with the God that is portrayed in the Old Testament but it doesn’t fit in with the idea of the love and self–sacrifice that is contained in the New Testament. So I guess my big question is, “What is God like?” If He’s love then how can there be eternal torment? And I apologize to the OP for being a bit off the main subject.