Theories of the Atonement

[sparkman]

Hello All,

I have been reviewing some materials on the different views of the Atonement recently.

Atonement theories describe why Christ died for us on the Cross.

There are four major views of the Atonement:

1. Substitutionary Theory (the central aspect of the atonement)
2. Ransom Theory
3. Christus Victor
4. Moral Influence

Each of these views has some validity and Scriptural support.

A reason to study the atonement theories is to more deeply comprehend why Christ died for us. The atonement is the crux or central aspect of Christianity. Without it, there would be no point to Christianity whatsoever.

Additionally, a lot of erroneous things are taught concerning this doctrine by heretics. Some views even deny that Christ died as our sin offering, which is the central aspect of the atonement.

Instead, they focus only upon the moral influence aspect of the atonement, or perhaps the moral influence aspect plus the ransom aspect. Their error is one of reductionism; they reduce the atonement to one aspect only (and a minor one at that) , and ignore the rest of the aspects of it. Beware of false teachers who convey such error. Many of them are just trying to sell their legalistic, morality-based theologies. Pelagianism, Finneyism, and Moral Government Theology are known for this sort of error or some variation of it.

I found a very good video by Dr. Timothy Roberts at Stuart Congregational Church in Stuart, FL on this topic. I transcribed his notes into a Word document which I am attaching. I added most of the introductory comments and a few other Scriptures and remarks into the Word document. So, I am not representing this as my work, and I take responsibility for anything in the Word document.

Here's a link to the Youtube video by Dr. Roberts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMrzkCby9ko

Here's the link to the audio message and notes on Stuart Congregational Church's website:

Stuart Congregational Church : Online Learning Library - Atonement Theology : Where Faith and Love Are One

I am not a member of Dr. Robert's church nor do I know anything about his soundness when it comes to other topics. Since I have studied atonement theories, I know that his presentation of the materials is reasonable and I think it's a great teaching tool.

I re-ordered the different aspects of the Atonement a bit, as I place the substitutionary theory above the rest of the aspects, and Dr. Roberts seems to favor the Christus Victor theory over it.

If anyone has additional thoughts on the different aspects of the atonement, or elaboration, I'd appreciate hearing about it. I am not an expert on this topic; I am merely studying it. This thread is for sharing and discussion, not simply pontificating.

Regards,

Robert

 

[Dan58]

Atonement is not a theory, nor is it anything complicated. Simply, Jesus atoned for the sins of all who believe in him, which means that he paid the price for our iniquities. Our sins are therefore washed in his blood when we confess and repent of them. Sin equals death and cannot be blotted-out until payment is made, and redemption took place on Calvary. I don't look at it as a substitution theory, but rather, Jesus literally took on the sins of the world and bore the price for sin.

 

[sparkman]

Theory isn't a good word for the different aspects of the atonement. But, there are multiple aspects to the atonement.

 

[PoetMary]

Theory isn't a good word for the different aspects of the atonement. But, there are multiple aspects to the atonement.

Because we are humans and have limited understanding, I'm not sure we truly comprehend the vast nature of the atonement. However, the theological explanations provided here give us an understanding of the depth of the Atonement (and therefore, the depths of God's love for us) and its complexity.

One of the things I love about God is how He is simultaneously accessible and unknowable. We can all get the idea that "He paid the price." At the same time, we can spend a lifetime contemplating all the nuances of this.

 

[Willie-T]

I look at as, Jesus died in order to take sin to the grave with Him (He "became sin"), thus killing sin, and leaving it dead in the grave when He arose, without sin being able to.

I do not see His act as paying off anyone for anything.

 

[sparkman]

One thing that I did not mention is that Jesus was our propitiation, that turned away the wrath of God for us in regards to sin.

There are a group of Pelagian-Finneyists including Jesse Morrell who deny the plain language of Scripture in regards to this. Actually, that's why I started studying the topic of the atonement. I came into contact with them and their false theology.

Along with this, they deny original sin, justification by faith alone, and imputed righteousness...all of which are core to Evangelical Christianity.

 

[Miri]

There are many words which can be used to describe what God the Son did.

Human's were the pinnacle of creation, God saw everything that was made and
declared it good. People were suppose to have a direct undefiled spiritual relationship
with God, but all that was spoilt when sin entered the world.

Maybe God could simply have rolled everything up like a ball and tossed into a
bin metaphorically speaking (Human's certainly do that all the time).

But out of love a different plan of redemption was formed, a sacrificial plan, a plan
that gave back God authority so Satan no longer ruled and reigned over mankind,
a plan that would see satan a defeated foe, a plan that required eternal sinless perfection
itself (Jesus) to offer up his life for nothing else would suffice.

It was all out of love.

I have experienced the love of God and there are no words to adequately describe it.
It knows no bounds, it surpasses all human love, it has no end, put simply God Is Love.

I remember a song years ago by Charles Wesley, which puts it better than I can.

Let earth and heaven combine,
Angels and men agree,
To praise in songs Divine
The' incarnate Deity,
Our God contracted to a span,
Incomprehensibly made man.

He laid His glory by,
He wrapp'd Him in our clay,
Unmark'd by human eye
The latent Godhead lay;
Infant of days He here became,
And bore the mild Immanuel's name.

Unsearchable the love
That hath the Saviour brought,
The grace is far above
Or man or angel's thought;
Suffice for us, that God we know,
Our God is manifest below.

He deigns in flesh to' appear,
Widest extremes to join,
To bring our vileness near,
And make us all Divine;
And we the life of God shall know,
For God is manifest below.

Made perfect first in love,
And sanctified by grace,
We shall from earth remove,
And see His glorious face;
His love shall then be fully show'd,
And man shall all be lost in God.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

substitionary atonement is the only theory of the atonement that is sensible...

the ransom theory depends on the unbiblical idea that satan was owed a ransom...
the moral influence theory doesn't actually include any atonement...
and the christus victor theory gives a 'what' but not a 'why' or 'how' of atonement...so it is glaringly incomplete...

 

[mwc68]

One thing that I did not mention is that Jesus was our propitiation, that turned away the wrath of God for us in regards to sin.

There are a group of Pelagian-Finneyists including Jesse Morrell who deny the plain language of Scripture in regards to this. Actually, that's why I started studying the topic of the atonement. I came into contact with them and their false theology.

Along with this, they deny original sin, justification by faith alone, and imputed righteousness...all of which are core to Evangelical Christianity.

Just about everyone here denies original sin. I don't

 

[RussellJBenigno]

I have studied the scripture for years. I am very ardent about believing what it teaches. I don't pretend to hold all the answers especially about atonement. However, I ran into some problems with definitions of words. The definitions which are supplied by commentaries are writhe with errors. One bad corner stone leads to a bad structure. The word for "Forgiveness" is an action of "Washing" [To lift up off and send away" in the Greek], so this throws out the idea of a judge canceling out a punishment. Every place you read forgive or forgiveness it is a "washing or cleansing". Though your sins be scarlet... whiter than snow...This is why "Baptism" is used as an image of "Forgiveness". Now the question is, "what is being washed away?". The translators like to use a plural form "sins", but the original language is a singular "Sin". So we are being washed of a "Sin". What singular sin? It appears to be a Sin which Adam committed. I believe that sin was the Sin of "Rebellion". When John the Baptist says, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away [washes] the "Sin" of the world", it is a singular sin in the Greek and the world is washed according to John. By one man [Adam] all were made unrighteous [corrupt] and by one man [Christ] all were made righteous [clean or in right standing]. Now! I know this flies in the face of what the modern church teaches, but I have to go with what is written. You wanted theories. Well! This is what I see.

 

[sparkman]

A basic difference between Christianity and Islam is that our God does punish sin; he doesn't simply forgive it. But, he also provided Himself as a sin offering, and inflicted that punishment on Himself in the person of Christ.

So, He maintains both his justness and his mercy.

In terms of your remarks, it seems like you are suggesting that only original sin is dealt with through the atonement? If so, how are our actual sins dealt with?

I may not fully understand your assertion. However I find it interesting that you mentioned the singular versus plural form and whether this may have something to do with original sin. Could it be related to a general condition of sin instead, though?

Also, do you have training in original languages? I do not so I cannot make linguistic assertions. I wish I had studied Greek as a younger person so that I had a good background to make those assertions. Unfortunately, all I can do is use Strong's or Young's.

I have studied the scripture for years. I am very ardent about believing what it teaches. I don't pretend to hold all the answers especially about atonement. However, I ran into some problems with definitions of words. The definitions which are supplied by commentaries are writhe with errors. One bad corner stone leads to a bad structure. The word for "Forgiveness" is an action of "Washing" [To lift up off and send away" in the Greek], so this throws out the idea of a judge canceling out a punishment. Every place you read forgive or forgiveness it is a "washing or cleansing". Though your sins be scarlet... whiter than snow...This is why "Baptism" is used as an image of "Forgiveness". Now the question is, "what is being washed away?". The translators like to use a plural form "sins", but the original language is a singular "Sin". So we are being washed of a "Sin". What singular sin? It appears to be a Sin which Adam committed. I believe that sin was the Sin of "Rebellion". When John the Baptist says, "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away [washes] the "Sin" of the world", it is a singular sin in the Greek and the world is washed according to John. By one man [Adam] all were made unrighteous [corrupt] and by one man [Christ] all were made righteous [clean or in right standing]. Now! I know this flies in the face of what the modern church teaches, but I have to go with what is written. You wanted theories. Well! This is what I see.

 

[sparkman]

Just about everyone here denies original sin. I don't

I don't either

I've seen some unusual people here who deny original sin. It's associated with Pelagianism. Charles Finney was a big factor in promoting this heresy.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

In terms of your remarks, it seems like you are suggesting that only original sin is dealt with through the atonement? If so, how are our actual sins dealt with?

Yes! At the moment I view the original sin as the only sin dealt with by Christ's death.
Actual sins or "sins of the flesh" as I refer to them are nothing more than fleshly corruption. As we continuously seek washing [forgiveness] they are removed from us which is referred to as sanctification. God is washing us from the behavior which separates us from Him. I don't view sins as something which is tallied up on a rap sheet. We were commanded by Jesus to wash others of their sins so that we could be washed of ours. If we wash [forgive- sanctify] others, ie: help them clean their lives of corruption, then God will give us the ability to live clean [be washed of sins] as well. Other wise the verse of forgiving others so that we can be forgiven makes not sense with the modern definition.

 

[sparkman]

Do you believe in eternal security? If you die with an unwashed sin, are you going to eternal punishment?

Yes! At the moment I view the original sin as the only sin dealt with by Christ's death.
Actual sins or "sins of the flesh" as I refer to them are nothing more than fleshly corruption. As we continuously seek washing [forgiveness] they are removed from us which is referred to as sanctification. God is washing us from the behavior which separates us from Him. I don't view sins as something which is tallied up on a rap sheet. We were commanded by Jesus to wash others of their sins so that we could be washed of ours. If we wash [forgive- sanctify] others, ie: help them clean their lives of corruption, then God will give us the ability to live clean [be washed of sins] as well. Other wise the verse of forgiving others so that we can be forgiven makes not sense with the modern definition.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

I may not fully understand your assertion. However I find it interesting that you mentioned the singular versus plural form and whether this may have something to do with original sin. Could it be related to a general condition of sin instead, though?

Also, do you have training in original languages? I do not so I cannot make linguistic assertions. I wish I had studied Greek as a younger person so that I had a good background to make those assertions. Unfortunately, all I can do is use Strong's or Young's.

The assertion is that Adam committed rebellion, which is the only sin [singular, in the Greek it is, "A Sin" not sins], that will seal ones fate. Paul says there is a sin [singular] which leads to death and we should not pray for an individual who commits it. The one who commits this sin crucifies Christ again and there is no return for them save God intervene. This sin is committed with full knowledge. The Pharisee's committed the unforgivable sin because they knew Jesus was the Christ and sought to over throw the Kingdom of God and His anointed. Satan committed this same sin.

I trained in Bible College for the Greek, but am not fluid in it. I am a Pastor of a church in Phila. Pa. and have been in ministry for 40yrs.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

"Behold the lamb of God who takes away "A Sin" of the world. Check it out in Strongs. When I read this I was shocked. How could that be? It went against everything I was taught. I didn't know what to do and that's when I heard God say believe what you read and I'll show you. I don't approach the bible from a preconceived idea to prove what I want to find. I allow the scripture to say what it says and in doing so I have had to reject many things I was taught. What bible program do you use?

 

[RussellJBenigno]

A basic difference between Christianity and Islam is that our God does punish sin; he doesn't simply forgive it. But, he also provided Himself as a sin offering, and inflicted that punishment on Himself in the person of Christ.

God does not have to punish sin. Satan goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Job could not be touched as long as the hedge was up. Stepping outside the hedge will get you devoured, Stepping outside the hedge is called sinning. Anything afflicted on the sinner does not come from God, because God is Love. The affliction/ punishment will come because the sinner has stuck his head in the mouth of the lion.

 

[sparkman]

"Behold the lamb of God who takes away "A Sin" of the world. Check it out in Strongs. When I read this I was shocked. How could that be? It went against everything I was taught. I didn't know what to do and that's when I heard God say believe what you read and I'll show you. I don't approach the bible from a preconceived idea to prove what I want to find. I allow the scripture to say what it says and in doing so I have had to reject many things I was taught. What bible program do you use?

I don't use any at the moment. I look things up online at Blue Letter Bible occasionally. I don't usually make linguistic assertions. Like the English language, there are exceptions to the rules of the language, and I think that examining things mechanically like many do can lead to making grievous errors in regards to doctrine. I was a member of an aberrant organization called Worldwide Church of God long ago, and the founder did such things. Therefore, I generally give the most highest weight to the translators' capabilities and do not make linguistic assertions contrary to orthodox views. Occasionally I might look up something at Blue Letter Bible though.

 

[sparkman]

God does not have to punish sin. Satan goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Job could not be touched as long as the hedge was up. Stepping outside the hedge will get you devoured, Stepping outside the hedge is called sinning. Anything afflicted on the sinner does not come from God, because God is Love. The affliction/ punishment will come because the sinner has stuck his head in the mouth of the lion.

If God did not punish Christ for our sins, how do you explain Isaiah 53:4-6, 10?

 

[sparkman]

Just from some quick googling that I did, it seems like the singular form relates to a state of sin or rebellion that reflects a general hostility toward God. It is the state of the unconverted mind, in other words. I would say that is a manifestation of original sin.

That definition sounds reasonable. I am totally convinced of penal substitutionary atonement.

The assertion is that Adam committed rebellion, which is the only sin [singular, in the Greek it is, "A Sin" not sins], that will seal ones fate. Paul says there is a sin [singular] which leads to death and we should not pray for an individual who commits it. The one who commits this sin crucifies Christ again and there is no return for them save God intervene. This sin is committed with full knowledge. The Pharisee's committed the unforgivable sin because they knew Jesus was the Christ and sought to over throw the Kingdom of God and His anointed. Satan committed this same sin.

I trained in Bible College for the Greek, but am not fluid in it. I am a Pastor of a church in Phila. Pa. and have been in ministry for 40yrs.