Atonement Theories

[Ekklesian]

In the limited time I have the only description I could find of Augustine's expression of the ransom theory is in the article's notes.

[37] The Catholic Encyclopedia explains Augustine’s view of how Christ’s death redeemed us from our quasi-legitimate bondage to Satan, by provoking the devil to kill someone he had no right to kill:​

​

The Redeemer came and the deceiver was overcome. What did our Redeemer do to our Captor? In payment for us He set the trap, His Cross, with His blood for bait. He [Satan] could indeed shed that blood; but he deserved not to drink it. By shedding the blood of One who was not his debtor, he was forced to release his debtors.​

A couple cursory Internet searches yielded nothing. I did, however, find a set of Augustine's writings, but a deep dive will take some time.

If the summary above is accurate, there is no ransom as we think of one. There's no question that the devil was the instrument in Christ's betrayal and murder. Those who murdered Christ were only doing the works of their father, John 8:44.

I don't believe the Devil was deceived. He knew the prophecies of Christ's resurrection, but he may have deceived himself into thinking that if he were given power to kill Christ, he could somehow wield it to hold Christ in death.

Of course, it is impossible that the uncorruptible God could be held by the pains of death, and the first prophecy isn't that Christ would bruise the devil's pride by outwitting him, but bruise his head by overpowering him.

The Devil's lust for the murder of God was too great for him to pass on Christ's yielding to death, and in killing Christ, the devil actually served God in the Redemption of man.

That's how I'm reading the Catholic Encyclopedia summary. I could be wrong.

 

[Ekklesian]

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.

I think it's an easy and natural corruption. It appeals to the flesh a bit. I know this idea is pervasive in Charismania. God outwitted Satan through some legal sleight of hand.

 

[subllibrm]

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!

This is an interesting post. The hermeneutic that I was taught is that we are to look at scripture as it was received by the first reader/hearer.

What you are suggesting is that all hermeneutics are biased by the culture in which they are presently being read/heard. Not looking for what it says and seeking to respond to that but to infuse it with my existing worldview thereby validating same said.

That would explain the progressive christian movement. Maybe the best example of this is the young man who explained to me that Paul's teaching was all error because the Apostle was a "misogynist".

 

[subllibrm]

I think it's an easy and natural corruption. It appeals to the flesh a bit. I know this idea is pervasive in Charismania. God outwitted Satan through some legal sleight of hand.

Satanic attack is a very popular explanation for bad things happening to God's people. A dear friend did his best to encourage me by praying for my wife's health "against the designs of the devil". I suppose that our health adventures could have had some spiritual connection but having lived with her through the whole story, I am more inclined to think that her disregarding the doctor's guidance did more harm than demons and imps.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

This is an interesting post. The hermeneutic that I was taught is that we are to look at scripture as it was received by the first reader/hearer.

What you are suggesting is that all hermeneutics are biased by the culture in which they are presently being read/heard. Not looking for what it says and seeking to respond to that but to infuse it with my existing worldview thereby validating same said.

That would explain the progressive christian movement. Maybe the best example of this is the young man who explained to me that Paul's teaching was all error because the Apostle was a "misogynist".

Hermeneutic is initially seen through cultural lenses, whether that culture is ethnic, religious, regional, familial, etc. A kid growing up JW won't have the same theology as the Catholic or Evangelical kid. When he studies the Bible, he sees the lens he was given.

I too try to look at the Bible from the perspective of how the original listener would have understood it. Problem is, we don't have those cultural lenses due to language, geography, ethnicity, era, etc. so even that perspective is seen through our modern, Western cultural lens.

As far as Paul, I have mixed feelings because even though his "gospel" was different than the one Jesus taught, even though he was Jewish, he tried to bring a Hellenistic view to appeal to the cultures he was trying to reach.

When comparing Paul's experiences and teachings vs. those of Jesus plus the rejection of the Twelve (after his arrest) and being abandoned from the churches of Asia Minor (including Ephesus), I find him to be heretical (misogynistic or not). However, I also lean toward the idea he was probably naïve not having been directly influenced by Jesus' teachings. In fact, his letters are in places, contextually misunderstood because we don't fully understand the cultures to whom he was originally writing.

That aside, I don't think the Bible is inerrant but that is what makes it an incredibly interesting assembly of documents which describe (NOT prescribe) ancient perspectives on the Divine. There is a significant difference if finding the Bible as literal vs. as literary. But those who view the Bible from the literal lens as well as the literary lens have the same motive: to find meaning. So whether a flood literally covered the earth of not or a donkey literally talked in a human voice to a guy is (in the end) irrelevant. What matters is the search for meaning and potential application to both the historical recipients as well as how it may or may not pertain to us and our cultures today.

Those with the literal perspective see the Bible as a puzzle; every piece has to be in place and has to perfectly fit. Those with a literary perspective see the Bible as a mosaic, convoluted, broken, misunderstood when looked at too closely but creates an incredible beauty that differs from that of the "puzzle".

 

[Ransom]

I'd read that, but since you're nothing but a white male writing from your own cultural biases, anything you say is intrinsically worthless.

 

[Ekklesian]

This is an interesting post. The hermeneutic that I was taught is that we are to look at scripture as it was received by the first reader/hearer.

And how could you possibly know what that was?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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

Pagan origins, for starters. Making violence salvific, another. Making God an abuser is a third reason.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Can you explain what you think is not clear?

Why do we have different denominations and even salvation/atonement teachings from sincere, biblical scholars who disagree? There is no biblical unilateral position throughout history or even in our culture. Apparently it wasn't made clear to thousands (millions?) of people...

 

[Smellin Coffee]

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

Sorry dude. I ain't your dance monkey.

 

[subllibrm]

I'd read that, but since you're nothing but a white male writing from your own cultural biases, anything you say is intrinsically worthless.

Don't forget racist. And he's a he-man woman hating misogynist. Old white men are like that. The patriarchy!!!!

Not to mention that he probably kicks puppies.

 

[subllibrm]

And how could you possibly know what that was?

Tea leaves and chicken entrails.

 

[Ekklesian]

Tea leaves and chicken entrails.

Exactly.

 

[ALAYMAN]

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?

If Christ was the son of God, and he was according to the Bible, you have far weightier questions and implications for yourself to worry about than which theory is right.

 

[subllibrm]

If Christ was the son of God, and he was according to the Bible, you have far weightier questions and implications for yourself to worry about than which theory is right.

Sure, pull the old guilt and damnation card.

 

[abcaines]

Sure, pull the old guilt and damnation card.

That's not a card of his making...

 

[ALAYMAN]

Sure, pull the old guilt and damnation card.

Actually true, and that’s another one of the things Smellin says Christianity is wrong about, but if guilt is real and legitimate, and the Bible is true in regards to our culpability, then guilt and damnation is the most loving thing that we could warn people about. I know Smellin is already aware of all of that, but just as he emotes and “speaks his own power to (his, ahem) truth”, so will I, as long as I breathe.

 

[abcaines]

Getting back to the OP (sorta), I thought this topic would make for a good article on my latest blog . However, getting into the subject matter and treating it fairly has turned out to be a bigger project than I expected. Nonetheless, it's been a worthwhile exercise in helping me think things through and making more informed observations.

I don't know how much longer this is going to take because whenever I feel like I'm getting a handle on the subject, something else pops up and I have to do some more editing.

In the meantime, I have published a statement of faith and some ground rules for the sots of questions I will field. Check it out and let me know what you think. While you're at it, fire off a question or two. I can't promise a quick response at this time but I'll do my best.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

If Christ was the son of God, and he was according to the Bible, you have far weightier questions and implications for yourself to worry about than which theory is right.

Information to do with as one chooses:

The term "Son of God" was a term used among pagan religions and this is probably where the biblical penmen picked up the term to apply to the Jesus story. The Western Zhou Dynasty (1000 years earlier) along with Alexander the Great (around 360 BC), etc. all claimed relationship with deities.

Jesus wasn't the only one in the Bible referred to as "son of God". In addition to what is mentioned below, I John tells us his readers too can "become sons of God".

The term denotes a special relationship with a deity and is not considered another term for "God the Son". If the term meant "deity in form", then humans and angels who the Bible says were/are "sons of God" are as divine as God itself.

Are Others in Scripture, Apart from Jesus, Called the Son of God or Sons of God?​

While Jesus Christ is called the Son of God in Scripture, He is not the only one with this title. Indeed, we find this title used in a number of ways in the Bible.

Adam, the first human being whom God created, is called the “son of God” in Jesus’ genealogy. However, he is not the only one with this designation.

The nation Israel, in the Book of Hosea, is called “My son” by God. Therefore, Israel is a “son of God” in a special sense.

In the Book of Job, we are told that there was a time certain angels appeared before the Lord. These angels are designated the “sons of God.” Thus, this title can refer to angels.

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said that those who are the peacemakers will be called the “sons of God.” Therefore, this title can be used of peacemakers.

Finally, Jesus said that believers who are part of the resurrection of the righteous dead are also the “sons of God.” They also have this designation.

Consequently, the terms “son of God” and “sons of God” is used of others in Scripture apart from Jesus Christ.

Are Others in Scripture, Apart from Jesus, Called the Son of God or Sons of God? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: Are Others in Scripture, Apart from Jesus, Called the Son of God or Sons of God?

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[ALAYMAN]

Information to do with as one chooses:

The term "Son of God" was a term used among pagan religions and this is probably where the biblical penmen picked up the term to apply to the Jesus story. The Western Zhou Dynasty (1000 years earlier) along with Alexander the Great (around 360 BC), etc. all claimed relationship with deities.

Jesus wasn't the only one in the Bible referred to as "son of God". In addition to what is mentioned below, I John tells us his readers too can "become sons of God".

The term denotes a special relationship with a deity and is not considered another term for "God the Son". If the term meant "deity in form", then humans and angels who the Bible says were/are "sons of God" are as divine as God itself.

Are Others in Scripture, Apart from Jesus, Called the Son of God or Sons of God?​

While Jesus Christ is called the Son of God in Scripture, He is not the only one with this title. Indeed, we find this title used in a number of ways in the Bible.

Adam, the first human being whom God created, is called the “son of God” in Jesus’ genealogy. However, he is not the only one with this designation.

The nation Israel, in the Book of Hosea, is called “My son” by God. Therefore, Israel is a “son of God” in a special sense.

In the Book of Job, we are told that there was a time certain angels appeared before the Lord. These angels are designated the “sons of God.” Thus, this title can refer to angels.

Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said that those who are the peacemakers will be called the “sons of God.” Therefore, this title can be used of peacemakers.

Finally, Jesus said that believers who are part of the resurrection of the righteous dead are also the “sons of God.” They also have this designation.

Consequently, the terms “son of God” and “sons of God” is used of others in Scripture apart from Jesus Christ.

Are Others in Scripture, Apart from Jesus, Called the Son of God or Sons of God? by Don Stewart

Don Stewart :: Are Others in Scripture, Apart from Jesus, Called the Son of God or Sons of God?

www.blueletterbible.org

What I would do with it is read Don Stewart's next installment of explaining the term Son of God as to how it uniquely and contextually should be understood, and that understanding for Jesus is that He is equal to God...

Why Was Jesus Called the Son of God?