To which Atonement theory do you subscribe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gurneyhalleck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gurneyhalleck1

Guest
I have realized lately that I have spent so much time analyzing Eucharistic theories, Marian dogmas, sacramental theology, infusion vs. imputation, etc. that I haven’t spent much time studying and analyzing the various theories of the Atonement. I have been reading the various theories and would like to know what you all view as the truth in this area? Which theory do you subscribe to?

Penal Substitution
The Satisfaction Theory
The Christus Victor view
Other

I’d love to hear everyone’s views on this. It’s so difficult to read anything on this topic put in layman’s terms. It’s easy to get lost in the articles I’ve been reading…:bigyikes:
 
I’m inclined to take a view something along the lines of penal substitution.
 
Other.

The Acceptance Theory of Duns Scotus;

This theory teaches that our atonement comes from the arbitrary choice of God.

The distinction between this and Aquinas work is that it is not claimed that this (Jesus Crucifixtion) was nessecarily the wisest form of atonement; but it was **primarily **the one chosen by God.
 
Leaning toward St. Thomas on this one…there is much to be said in favor of each of these, though! 🙂
 
MarcusAndreas said:
I’m inclined to take a view something along the lines of penal substitution.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Catholics are allowed to agree with penal substitution. I’m quite sure it is a protestant thing. Well, some say St. Anslem proposed this, but it is mostly believed by protestants (Luther adopted it). It fits well with protestantism.
 
TheQuestioner said:
I don’t think Catholics are allowed to agree with penal substitution. I’m quite sure it is a protestant thing. Well, some say St. Anslem proposed this, but it is mostly believed by protestants (Luther adopted it). It fits well with protestantism.
Click to expand...
Oh. Never mind then. 😛
I don’t really study atonement theories, I just looked up the meaning of the ideas and penal substitution seemed to be good. 😛
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I have realized lately that I have spent so much time analyzing Eucharistic theories, Marian dogmas, sacramental theology, infusion vs. imputation, etc. that I haven’t spent much time studying and analyzing the various theories of the Atonement. I have been reading the various theories and would like to know what you all view as the truth in this area? Which theory do you subscribe to?

Penal Substitution
The Satisfaction Theory
The Christus Victor view
Other

I’d love to hear everyone’s views on this. It’s so difficult to read anything on this topic put in layman’s terms. It’s easy to get lost in the articles I’ve been reading…:bigyikes:
Click to expand...
Gurney,

I wrote a lengthy response on the other thread which really should be here, since it was off topic there.

I voted “Christus Victor,” but what I really subscribe to is the view of Athanasius, supplemented by Gregory of Nyssa. Athanasius is generally seen as the classic exponent of “Christus Victor,” but I think he’s closer to penal substitution than many modern people recognize. I think he teaches what is true in penal substitution, and the “developments” you find in someone like Calvin are unorthodox and destructive. I am also very drawn to the “ransom theory,” particularly as expounded by Gregory of Nyssa.

Edwin
 
Hi Edwin,

I was hoping you’d be one of the posters in reply to my thread. Thanks.
Contarini said:
Gurney,

I wrote a lengthy response on the other thread which really should be here, since it was off topic there.

I voted “Christus Victor,” but what I really subscribe to is the view of Athanasius, supplemented by Gregory of Nyssa. Athanasius is generally seen as the classic exponent of “Christus Victor,” but I think he’s closer to penal substitution than many modern people recognize. I think he teaches what is true in penal substitution, and the “developments” you find in someone like Calvin are unorthodox and destructive. I am also very drawn to the “ransom theory,” particularly as expounded by Gregory of Nyssa.

Edwin
Click to expand...
 
They all, on the surface, appear rather close. Probably because they are dealing with Atonement. I can see an argument for them all but probably subscribe to what Aquinas taught. Not so sure about the *Ransom Theory *which Edwin talked about. I am sure Edwin would talk circles around me but in the end I am not so sure how I feel about God owing ransom to a fallen angle.

God bless
 
I picked Christus Victor.

I think for me the most important thing is to remember that none of these really describe what happened - they are models, just like a scientific model, to help us understand something. If we put to much weight on these, and try to draw too much out, it can be dangerous no matter what model we use.
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
I have realized lately that I have spent so much time analyzing Eucharistic theories, Marian dogmas, sacramental theology, infusion vs. imputation, etc. that I haven’t spent much time studying and analyzing the various theories of the Atonement. I have been reading the various theories and would like to know what you all view as the truth in this area? Which theory do you subscribe to?

Penal Substitution
The Satisfaction Theory
The Christus Victor view
Other

I’d love to hear everyone’s views on this. It’s so difficult to read anything on this topic put in layman’s terms. It’s easy to get lost in the articles I’ve been reading…:bigyikes:
Click to expand...
gurneyhalleck1,

This is a great thread topic, and is related to a thread I started in Nov. 2009 entitled, Crucifixion of Christ-Why Did He Have to Die?

I can’t say that I have this worked out yet. I’ll follow your thread, though.

Anna
Anna_Scott said:
Crucifixion of Christ-Why Did He Have to Die?

A Jewish author posed a very important question which I have not been able to answer, and it bothers me that I cannot answer the question.

Question paraphrased:

If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did anyone have to die for our salvation?

I am a Christian, and I want to be able to answer this question. I believe that God is infinite and that He brought all things into being. So, there cannot be anything before God or any law higher than God. God must surely make the rules. So, I think it is reasonable to ask why Christ had to die.

The O.T. does reveal a point, when God seemed to no longer desire a sacrifice or blood atonement for sins.

Micah 6: 6 “With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” 8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Proverbs 21: 2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. 3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.

Jeremiah 7: 22 **For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. **23But this command I gave them: **‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’
**
Even in the N.T. we find **Jesus quoting **Hosea 6:6:

Matthew 9: 12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Hosea 6: 4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? What shall I do with you, O Judah? Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away. 5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth, and my judgment goes forth as the light. 6** For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.**

One of the most intriguing passages in the NT reveals Jesus agreeing that loving God and your neighbor is more important than “all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

This seems to be a very strange thing for Jesus to say, since he came as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.

Also, throughout the NT, Jesus forgave sins. Not once did he tell those he forgave to go and make a sacrifice to complete the forgiveness.

In addition, John proclaimed Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

**Luke 3: **2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 1: 4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

So, I hope someone can help me answer this question:

If God is God, and He makes the rules, why did Jesus have to die for our salvation?

Anna
Click to expand...
 
I subscribe to a much different theory.

I hold dear the ‘Theology of Joy’.
Blessed Jon Duns Scotus held that God always intended the Incarnation as part of His creation.
God did not “become man” merely in response to something we did.
It was always His intent to live with us.

As I responded to AnnaScott’s thread “Why did He have to die?”:
DarkNight said:
I came to realize that I was focusing too much on His crucifixion and was missing the importance of His life.
Jesus was completely human. He was born. So it follows naturally that He had to die.
He has experienced everything we have experienced including love, hate, joy and pain.

How does this save us from our sins?
It is not because His Father required a bloody sacrifice.
Jesus has shown us, through His life as well as His death, that if we do the right thing at each step along our path that, in the end, we will arrive at a place more glorious than we can ever imagine.
We will be saved from our sins because we will learn not to sin.

Just look at the Stations of the Cross. In each Jesus is showing us that yes, He also endured the situations we endure - betrayal by a dear friend, accusations by people who don’t understand us, pain and suffering through no fault of our own. And He also knew the joy of love, the help of strangers, a shoulder to lean on.

He has shown us that, no matter what happens to us, we will succeed if we walk our path even unto death.
I always wondered how I was supposed to know the answer to “What would Jesus do?”.
I have come to realize that the answer is always the same - He would walk His path.
By His life and His death He shows us that simply walking one’s path leads us to glory.

Why did He have to die? Because He was born.
He showed us how to live. He showed us how to die.

Go with Love, Go with God
Click to expand...
Go with Love, Go with God
 
DarkNight said:
I subscribe to a much different theory.

I hold dear the ‘Theology of Joy’.
Blessed Jon Duns Scotus held that God always intended the Incarnation as part of His creation.
God did not “become man” merely in response to something we did.
It was always His intent to live with us.

As I responded to AnnaScott’s thread “Why did He have to die?”:

Go with Love, Go with God
Click to expand...
DarkNight,

I really appreciate your posting this again. This actually sounds similar to what one of our Priests said–that Jesus would have died for us regardless of the issue of sin–that He came into the world as God incarnate: self-giving and self-sacrificing.

Very interesting post.
Anna
 
Contarini said:
Gurney,

I wrote a lengthy response on the other thread which really should be here, since it was off topic there.

I voted “Christus Victor,” but what I really subscribe to is the view of Athanasius, supplemented by Gregory of Nyssa. Athanasius is generally seen as the classic exponent of “Christus Victor,” but I think he’s closer to penal substitution than many modern people recognize. I think he teaches what is true in penal substitution, and the “developments” you find in someone like Calvin are unorthodox and destructive. I am also very drawn to the “ransom theory,” particularly as expounded by Gregory of Nyssa.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I voted Christus Victor as well. But I think I could go along with those modifications. 👍

However, the most important thing about the Atonement is that it works, not how it works.
 
I think He came and He died and He rose again, all to show us what He is really like.
And, since He is, after all, “the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world”, I believe that He would have done it all anyway; even if there had never been a fall; even if He knew that:( no one would ever believe & follow Him, He would have done it all anyway.
He’s like that.
 
Roman_Catholic said:
They all, on the surface, appear rather close. Probably because they are dealing with Atonement. I can see an argument for them all but probably subscribe to what Aquinas taught. Not so sure about the *Ransom Theory *which Edwin talked about. I am sure Edwin would talk circles around me but in the end I am not so sure how I feel about God owing ransom to a fallen angle.

God bless
Click to expand...
Well, it depends on what you mean by “owe.” Obviously God didn’t owe ransom for Himself. But Gregory and other early Christians would say that because God is just, He will never simply overcome creatures by violence–even Satan. Satan had no claim on God per se, but on us, because we had willingly handed ourselves over to him. It’s all well put in C. S. Lewis, *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. *Which is mostly based on Athanasius but is if anything more explicit in its espousal of a ransom theory than Athanasius.

I think that Anselm’s objection to the ransom theory is based on a flawed understanding of God, comparing God too much to a human sovereign.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Well, it depends on what you mean by “owe.” Obviously God didn’t owe ransom for Himself. But Gregory and other early Christians would say that because God is just, He will never simply overcome creatures by violence–even Satan. Satan had no claim on God per se, but on us, because we had willingly handed ourselves over to him. It’s all well put in C. S. Lewis, *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. *Which is mostly based on Athanasius but is if anything more explicit in its espousal of a ransom theory than Athanasius.
Click to expand...
Edwin,

You beat me to it.😦 As I was reading down through the thread my mind was drifting off to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top