Atonement Theories

[Smellin Coffee]

1. Ransom Theory (Origen) -- Jesus's death was a ransom given to the devil in exchange for humanity's freedom.
2. Moral Example Theory (Socinius) -- Both Jesus's life of self-sacrifice, and his martyrdom, were examples for his followers to emulate.
3. Moral Transformation Theory (Abelard) -- Jesus's death is the demonstration of God's love for us, a demonstration so powerful it can change our hearts and turn us back towards God.
4. Satisfaction Theory (Anselm) -- Jesus's death pays back humanity's collective debt to God owed by our injustice.
5. Recapitulation Theory (Irenaeus) -- Through his faithful obedience, Jesus "retells the story" of disobedient Adam and restores what Adam lost.
6. Girardian Theory (Girard) -- Humanity tends to need someone to blame, someone to "sacrifice." Jesus allowed us to do that to him, but through his innocence and resurrection showed the injustice of that whole mechanism.
7. Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory (Luther/Calvin) -- Jesus suffered the punishment, torment, and death that humanity rightfully would have suffered, due to our legal transgressions against God.
8. Christus Victor (Aulén) -- Jesus's death and resurrection were a liberating victory over the powers that oppress humanity: sin, the devil, and death.

So which Theory (or combination thereof) is/are the only salvific theory/theories? Why isn't the Bible clear on which one is required "to believe"? How do you know the one(s) you choose is the only correctly interpreted one?

 

[Ekklesian]

One just needs to educate himself in God's picture book, the Law of the Offerings. There are five main offerings prescribed by God for the devout and the penitent Israelite. They are divided into two main classes: those that are burned on the altar, and those that are burned on the ground.

The first class, those offered on the altar, ascended as a sweet savor to God. These are offerings in which God is well pleased. These are the Burnt, Meat, and Peace Offerings. Lev. 1:1-3:17

The second class of offerings are those which were banned from the altar except for a memorial portion. These are the sin and the trespass offerings. Lev. 4:1-7:27 These were burned on the ground as unclean things far away from God's abode. They did not rise a sweet savor, and so it is written, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Both of these classes are instructive in what Christ accomplished with His one sacrifice, once for all. In the first class, we see an offering of a life in service to God, holy and acceptable to God, in which God is well pleased, in exchange for the life of the offerer. In the other we see a life submitted to the judgment of God for sin, in exchange for the life of the offerer.

In the one class, the righteousness of the life offered in exchange, is imputed to the offerer, and in the other, the sin of the offerer is imputed to the life of the offering.

In each case the offering is the substitute for the offerer. The offerer has no righteousness by which he can please God, so a spotless life is offered and "accepted for him." And "who can stand before His indignation?", so a spotless life is offered and judged for him.

Jesus, in His work, was our substitute both in offering the righteousness we owe, and in receiving the judgement upon our sins.

It's quite an uninformed notion to suggest this view originated with the Reformers.

 

[Ransom]

Why isn't the Bible clear on which one is required "to believe"?

Your confusion isn't the Bible's fault.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

One just needs to educate himself in God's picture book, the Law of the Offerings. There are five main offerings prescribed by God for the devout and the penitent Israelite. They are divided into two main classes: those that are burned on the altar, and those that are burned on the ground.

The first class, those offered on the altar, ascended as a sweet savor to God. These are offerings in which God is well pleased. These are the Burnt, Meat, and Peace Offerings. Lev. 1:1-3:17

The second class of offerings are those which were banned from the altar except for a memorial portion. These are the sin and the trespass offerings. Lev. 4:1-7:27 These were burned on the ground as unclean things far away from God's abode. They did not rise a sweet savor, and so it is written, God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Both of these classes are instructive in what Christ accomplished with His one sacrifice, once for all. In the first class, we see an offering of a life in service to God, holy and acceptable to God, in which God is well pleased, in exchange for the life of the offerer. In the other we see a life submitted to the judgment of God for sin, in exchange for the life of the offerer.

In the one class, the righteousness of the life offered in exchange, is imputed to the offerer, and in the other, the sin of the offerer is imputed to the life of the offering.

In each case the offering is the substitute for the offerer. The offerer has no righteousness by which he can please God, so a spotless life is offered and "accepted for him." And "who can stand before His indignation?", so a spotless life is offered and judged for him.

Jesus, in His work, was our substitute both in offering the righteousness we owe, and in receiving the judgement upon our sins.

It's quite an uninformed notion to suggest this view originated with the Reformers.

Appreciate the civil response, particularly when others on here tend to reply with snarkiness (myself included, at times).

Jeremiah: Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices...

Hosea: For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Samuel: Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.

Isaiah: What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the LORD; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.

Amos: hate, I despise, your feasts! I can't stand the (sacrificial) stench of your solemn assemblies.

Micah: 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? 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?” 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: To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

Psalms: The sacrifices (required) of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

Psalms again: For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.

Jesus: Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

Jesus a second time: And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

Jesus a third time: 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.”

Then when Jesus confronted the moneychangers in the temple, he happened to quote from Jeremiah's sermon above about the fact sacrifice wasn't meant to be salvific, yet these moneychangers were profiting from this lie, making the temple "a den of thieves".

The idea of sacrifice is NOT clear-cut.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

I had a thorough understanding of the atonement by simple study of the scriptures. I learned of all these other "Theories" through theology textbooks and looking up stuff online. I cannot understand how anyone could come up with anything other than a penal substitutionary theory unless they were intentionally looking for "Something Else" aside from what is unmistakably clear in the scriptures. Such is human nature and the reason why we have "Liberal Theology" trying to pass itself off as orthodox Christianity.

And for the record, the penal substitutionary atonement most certainly was not some "Johnny Come Lately" theory according to certain apostate fruitcakes like Brian Zahnd or Steve Chalke. It can be documented all the way back to the first century and the Apostle Paul certainly taught it - but then you do not believe the Pauline Epistles (Nearly half of the New Testament) are canonical do you?

All of your citations relate to the ritualistic temple sacrifices which could never take away sins (Heb 10:11). All of the prophets speak of this at great length. Consider the words of Isaiah:

10 ¶Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
16 ¶Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

The children of Israel thought they could live however they pleased and so long as they brought a "sacrifice" every once in a while and observed all the other temple rituals, everything would be just fine! Does this sound similar to Baptists praying the Sinner's Prayer, filling out a decision card, getting dunked, and living however they please because they are "Once Saved, Always Saved?" Yes, we can say the very same thing about "Cat Licks" and their sacerdotal system and pretty much any other apostate tradition claiming to represent "Christianity."

It is not through Religion or Religious Rhetoric, it is through Repentance and Regeneration whereby one becomes a new Creature in Christ!

 

[voicecrying]

The idea of sacrifice is NOT clear-cut.

Can you explain what you think is not clear?

 

[abcaines]

1. Ransom Theory (Origen) -- Jesus's death was a ransom given to the devil in exchange for humanity's freedom.

This theory as written is way off. To suggest that God or humans owe anything to the devil because of our sin completely misses the concept all together. Our sins are an affront to God ALONE. If a ransom is owed, and the Scriptures do speak of a ransom, God's justice is the the only one to whom the ransom is owed. The devil is to be condemned along with all the other sinners.

2. Moral Example Theory (Socinius) -- Both Jesus's life of self-sacrifice, and his martyrdom, were examples for his followers to emulate.

Christ's life and His attitude of sacrifice is emulatable only from the standpoint that we are to love others in such a way that their lives are more important than our own. We are in no way able to atone for the sins of another.

3. Moral Transformation Theory (Abelard) -- Jesus's death is the demonstration of God's love for us, a demonstration so powerful it can change our hearts and turn us back towards God.

So far, the most biblical of the theories stated but this isn't a theory of atonement as much as it is a result.

4. Satisfaction Theory (Anselm) -- Jesus's death pays back humanity's collective debt to God owed by our injustice.

Getting better. I would only change the word "injustice" to a broader term such as "sin".

5. Recapitulation Theory (Irenaeus) -- Through his faithful obedience, Jesus "retells the story" of disobedient Adam and restores what Adam lost.

I'm not sure the Scriptures know anything of Jesus "retelling a story". Romans 5:18-19 puts it best:

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

6. Girardian Theory (Girard) -- Humanity tends to need someone to blame, someone to "sacrifice." Jesus allowed us to do that to him, but through his innocence and resurrection showed the injustice of that whole mechanism.

We have no one to blame but ourselves for our sins. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgement. He does not say, "Find somebody to blame."

The picture of the scapegoat in the OT illustrates on a small scale what Christ did when He took our sins but it has never been a blame game.

7. Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory (Luther/Calvin) -- Jesus suffered the punishment, torment, and death that humanity rightfully would have suffered, due to our legal transgressions against God.

That pretty much sums it up. What other theory is needed?

8. Christus Victor (Aulén) -- Jesus's death and resurrection were a liberating victory over the powers that oppress humanity: sin, the devil, and death.

Like #3, this isn't a theory of atonement as much as it is a result.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My position? None of the above.

These Theories are based on individual hermeneutic (which is generally cultural in origin). To deny the legitimacy of Liberation Theology (for example) is to legitimatize primarily White hermeneutic, damning Latino and Black theologies. This is blatant racism at worst and just plain naivety and cultural disrespect at best. Doesn't mean one has to agree with LT, but rather the damning of people who use cultural hermeneutic to humbly come to a different theological position has roots of racism and/or xenophobia.

Though I don't hold to any of the theories, I do agree with Trey Ferguson about PSA in specific, since this is the core of Systematic Theology. Coming to this same conclusion on my own through legitimate study really changed the dynamic of my personal belief system.

Appreciate everyone's sincere responses. I have to get back to work now. LOL!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My life be like:

 

[Baptist Renegade]

My position? None of the above.

These Theories are based on individual hermeneutic (which is generally cultural in origin). To deny the legitimacy of Liberation Theology (for example) is to legitimatize primarily White hermeneutic, damning Latino and Black theologies. This is blatant racism at worst and just plain naivety and cultural disrespect at best. Doesn't mean one has to agree with LT, but rather the damning of people who use cultural hermeneutic to humbly come to a different theological position has roots of racism and/or xenophobia.

Though I don't hold to any of the theories, I do agree with Trey Ferguson about PSA in specific, since this is the core of Systematic Theology. Coming to this same conclusion on my own through legitimate study really changed the dynamic of my personal belief system.

Appreciate everyone's sincere responses. I have to get back to work now. LOL!

View attachment 5136

It is usually Penal Substitutionary Atonement that comes under attack. Hmmm........ I wonder why???

 

[Ransom]

My position? None of the above.

So it's not really a good use of time to discuss any of them with you, is it?

 

[Ransom]

View attachment 5136

Yes, somebody having to die is violence. We all figured that out when we were kids, Trey. Your childish observations are the opposite of profound.

 

[Ekklesian]

The idea of sacrifice is NOT clear-cut.

Certainly not in the lazy exposition you offered.

 

[Ekklesian]

Here is an excellent summary of the ECF treatment of the various atonement "theories."

Church Fathers on Atonement

ABSTRACT An historic Protestant doctrine has been that God, in the person of Jesus Christ (the incarnate second person of the Trinity) took upon himself the penalty or consequences of man’s rebelli…

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com

 

[Ekklesian]

Church Fathers on Atonement

ABSTRACT An historic Protestant doctrine has been that God, in the person of Jesus Christ (the incarnate second person of the Trinity) took upon himself the penalty or consequences of man’s rebelli…

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com

​

Other sources I have read likewise assert that the early Church Fathers did not teach a vicarious sacrifice to God for the guilt or penalty of sin. Rather, the Fathers allegedly held to some sort of “ransom” theory of the atonement, where mankind is seen as held in bondage to evil powers and particularly to Satan, as a slave or prisoner. Jesus’ death served to pay the ransom price to these powers of setting us free from that bondage. Slavery was common in the Greco-Roman world, so redemption from bondage and redemption of prisoners of war would have been a familiar concept.​

​

This all made me curious. And puzzled. It so happens that some years back I read through the extant writings of the very earliest post-New Testament Christian authors. These so-called Apostolic Fathers wrote around 100-160 A.D. These writings include I Clement, letters by Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistles of Barnabus and Polycarp, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. These men wrote when the New Testament was still in the process of being recognized as such; they cite phrases from the letters of Paul and the Gospels and Acts as being reliable and authoritative, but not necessarily as inspired, inerrant “Scripture”.​

​

I did not recall these Apostolic Fathers talking about paying a ransom to Satan. But I did recall them talking a lot about the death of Christ being a vicarious sacrifice for the remission of our sins – -which is close to, if not precisely identical to, the penal substitution view. This is the opposite of what many modern commentators claim about the views of the early church fathers on the atonement. ​

​

Emphasis mine.

 

[abcaines]

Church Fathers on Atonement

ABSTRACT An historic Protestant doctrine has been that God, in the person of Jesus Christ (the incarnate second person of the Trinity) took upon himself the penalty or consequences of man’s rebelli…

letterstocreationists.wordpress.com

​

Other sources I have read likewise assert that the early Church Fathers did not teach a vicarious sacrifice to God for the guilt or penalty of sin. Rather, the Fathers allegedly held to some sort of “ransom” theory of the atonement, where mankind is seen as held in bondage to evil powers and particularly to Satan, as a slave or prisoner. Jesus’ death served to pay the ransom price to these powers of setting us free from that bondage. Slavery was common in the Greco-Roman world, so redemption from bondage and redemption of prisoners of war would have been a familiar concept.​

​

This all made me curious. And puzzled. It so happens that some years back I read through the extant writings of the very earliest post-New Testament Christian authors. These so-called Apostolic Fathers wrote around 100-160 A.D. These writings include I Clement, letters by Ignatius of Antioch, the Epistles of Barnabus and Polycarp, the Epistle to Diognetus, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. These men wrote when the New Testament was still in the process of being recognized as such; they cite phrases from the letters of Paul and the Gospels and Acts as being reliable and authoritative, but not necessarily as inspired, inerrant “Scripture”.​

​

I did not recall these Apostolic Fathers talking about paying a ransom to Satan. But I did recall them talking a lot about the death of Christ being a vicarious sacrifice for the remission of our sins – -which is close to, if not precisely identical to, the penal substitution view. This is the opposite of what many modern commentators claim about the views of the early church fathers on the atonement. ​

​

Emphasis mine.

How is paying a ransom to Satan biblical? What does the sinner owe him? Or God owe him? Did God make a deal with him, "I offer my Son and you turn the repentant soul loose." ?

Yes, the unbeliever is subject to his whims if God permits such but he's not in charge. Satan doesn't own us. In fact, Satan is under the same condemnation all unbelievers are.

 

[Ekklesian]

How is paying a ransom to Satan biblical? What does the sinner owe him? Or God owe him? Did God make a deal with him, "I offer my Son and you turn the repentant soul loose." ?

Yes, the unbeliever is subject to his whims if God permits such but he's not in charge. Satan doesn't own us. In fact, Satan is under the same condemnation all unbelievers are.

Every prescribed offering was an offering to God, whether it was an offering for sin or for righteousness. I don't think a ransom paid to the devil was really ever considered.

Augustine and Clement of Alexandria are the fathers I'm most familiar with. I've only read the Confessions and a good portion of The City of God. If you look at the chart, Augustine entertained every element (element is a better word than theory) except for the most liberal one, and to be honest, they're all present in Christ's offering.

I need to look up what they're really saying if indeed they said something was paid to the devil. They may be saying he yielded to the devil, who is God's scourge. Paul instructs the churches to deliver members mired in gross sins to be delivered unto Satan.

But I won't know till I look it up for myself.

 

[abcaines]

Every prescribed offering was an offering to God, whether it was an offering for sin or for righteousness. I don't think a ransom paid to the devil was really ever considered.

Augustine and Clement of Alexandria are the fathers I'm most familiar with. I've only read the Confessions and a good portion of The City of God. If you look at the chart, Augustine entertained every element (element is a better word than theory) except for the most liberal one, and to be honest, they're all present in Christ's offering.

I need to look up what they're really saying if indeed they said something was paid to the devil. They may be saying he yielded to the devil, who is God's scourge. Paul instructs the churches to deliver members mired in gross sins to be delivered unto Satan.

But I won't know till I look it up for myself.

Fair enough. I'm responding to the notion that a ransom is paid to the devil. The article you cited that casts doubt on early church fathers saying a ransom was paid to the devil makes a lot of sense. I can see how a "scholar" from the middle ages or later would misconstrue the notion.

 

[Ransom]

How is paying a ransom to Satan biblical?

The ransom theory was popular in the early Middle Ages (as developed mostly by Origen), but the ransom-to-Satan version was a minority view.

It does have a certain kind of logic to it. If sinners are held captive by sin (i.e. by Satan), then it stands to reason that the ransom is paid to the captor. Of course Satan never had a just claim to begin with, which is why it falls apart.

As an aside, I've pointed out before how this Chick tract teaches the ransom-to-Satan theory. So it's not just ancient error.

 

[abcaines]

The ransom theory was popular in the early Middle Ages (as developed mostly by Origen), but the ransom-to-Satan version was a minority view.

It does have a certain kind of logic to it. If sinners are held captive by sin (i.e. by Satan), then it stands to reason that the ransom is paid to the captor. Of course Satan never had a just claim to begin with, which is why it falls apart.

As an aside, I've pointed out before how this Chick tract teaches the ransom-to-Satan theory. So it's not just ancient error.

This error of attributing more authority to Satan and his minions than warranted is so ingrained in our thinking these days that we don't often give it much thought. (It's right up there with red tights and pitchforks) We just go with it. The Chick tract you linked shows how this error pervades our attempts to share the Gospel.

A simple reading of the scriptures shows us that Satan is on a leash; he doesn't do anything unless he's granted permission. He's nothing but a tool. He faces the same condemnation all unbelievers face.