Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

An ATONEMENT Theory?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00

GodsGrace

Staff member
CF Ambassador
There are a few Atonement Theories.
Which one(s) do YOU agree with?

IOW, Which one(s) are more reconcilable with the N.T. writings,
or which ones do you think better make you understand why Jesus had to die.
What was His death for anyway?

We're so used to hearing that Jesus died for our sins. How?

In post no. 2, I'll link a few atonement theories that can be used for this discussion.

Below are some concepts OzSpen listed asking which ones should be covered by the Atonement:

Since all of these views of the atonement are theories to be tested against Scripture, I'm not surprised you are not finding one of they satisfactory, but I'm not so sure the penal satisfaction theory came after Paul wrote.

Which of the following need to be in biblical teaching on the atonement?
  1. Grace
  2. To be saved - born again
  3. Redemption
  4. Mediation between human beings and God
  5. Regeneration
  6. Reconciliation
  7. Adoption
  8. Forgiveness
  9. Justification
  10. Propitiation or expiation
  11. Satisfaction
  12. Total depravity
  13. God's absolute justice
  14. Christ our substitute
  15. Jesus' death as a ransom
  16. Vicarious
I'm asking OzSpen to please explain what he means by vicarious.
 
I've looked into all the models of atonement and I think the early church held to Christus Victor or Ransom theory. I personally believe the Ransom theory is the most biblical. The penal substituion being the LEAST biblical.

I object that the ransom was paid to satan, although I believe satan/sin/death did held people hostage and Jesus by His resurrection destroyed these powers (hebrews 2:14)

My problem with the penal substitution is the following: It makes soul-winning smart people impossible. Heres an example: Some witty university students, you go to them and tell them you need to repent, but then you tell them at the same time that Jesus already died in your place and satisfied God's wrath and "paid your fine in full". Well they ask "Why must I repent? The fine has already been paid?"

See it doesnt make sense. If the sin is already wiped away, then it either leads to calvinism, or you got people going to hell after their sins are canceled (doublejeopardy)

Thats why I believe ransom is the most biblical, the penal substitution negates repentance and has caused a lot of damage to the church.

how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Heb9:14

thats what I believe the main purpose of the atonement was: To cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God, to free us from the bondage.
IOW: ‘Release from bondage by payment of Ransom
 
Why would we even consider man's theories, which are nothing more than speculations without proof. There are over 102 atonement scriptures in the Bible. Why would we seek elsewhere for what atonement means.

Isaiah Chapter 23 to me is the greatest example of Christ's atonement in full detail. I don't need to choose any theory other then that which is already written in the scriptures.
 
There are a few Atonement Theories.
Which one(s) do YOU agree with?


IOW, Which one(s) are more reconcilable with the N.T. writings,
or which ones do you think better make you understand why Jesus had to die.
What was His death for anyway?

We're so used to hearing that Jesus died for our sins. How?

In post no. 2, I'll link a few atonement theories that can be used for this discussion.

Below are some concepts OzSpen listed asking which ones should be covered by the Atonement:

Since all of these views of the atonement are theories to be tested against Scripture, I'm not surprised you are not finding one of they satisfactory, but I'm not so sure the penal satisfaction theory came after Paul wrote.

Which of the following need to be in biblical teaching on the atonement?
  1. Grace
  2. To be saved - born again
  3. Redemption
  4. Mediation between human beings and God
  5. Regeneration
  6. Reconciliation
  7. Adoption
  8. Forgiveness
  9. Justification
  10. Propitiation or expiation
  11. Satisfaction
  12. Total depravity
  13. God's absolute justice
  14. Christ our substitute
  15. Jesus' death as a ransom
  16. Vicarious
I'm asking OzSpen to please explain what he means by vicarious.

wondering,

Even the Oxford Living Dictionaries (online) get close to the meaning I understand by 'vicarious': "Acting or done for another", e.g. ‘a vicarious atonement’ (2019. s.v. vicarious).

Theologian Charles Hodge explained the meaning well and backed it up with Scripture:
'Vicarious suffering is suffering endured by one person in the stead of another, i.e. in his place. It necessarily supposes the exemption of the party in whose place the suffering is endured. A vicar is a substitute, one who takes the place of another, and acts in his stead.... When, therefore, it is said that the sufferings of Christ were vicarious, the meaning is the He suffered in the place of sinners. He was their substitute. He assumed their obligation to satisfy justice' (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol 2, 1979:475).​

Which Scriptures support this view?
  1. Christ did not die for his own sin (John 6:46; 1 Pet 2:22; Heb 4:15);
  2. 'But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.' (Isa 53:5-6 ESV);
  3. 'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scripture' (1 Cor 15:3 ESV);
  4. 'For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Cor 5:21 ESV);
  5. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit' (1 Pet :18 ESV);
  6. Etc
There are other Scriptures that support the vicarious atonement which show what Christ's death accomplished - He died in our place.

That's my understanding of vicarious.

Oz
 
"my sins killed Jesus"

I thought it was crazy insane when I first heard it...now I believe it, too. :)

It was for all our sins that God by His mercy and grace made atonement for our sins by that of His only begotten Son Christ Jesus who now sits at the right hand of God making intercession for us before the Father.
 
Propitiation or expiation
There's no need for theories. Christ is called the propitiation for our sins (1 Jn 2:2), and not for ours alone, but for the sins of the whole world. That word not only means a satisfactory atoning sacrifice, but a fully satisfactory Substitute who sacrificed Himself, and thus paid the full penalty for our sins.

That penalty paid is also a ransom in that it purchases the sinner from the slave market of sin, and makes the believer a purchased possession of Christ.

The wages of sin is death, but the death of Christ fully satisfied the just demands of God's righteousness which required that the penalty for sins be paid in full before grace and mercy could be offered to sinners.
 
hi. ok, I think Scripture offers a kind of nuanced view of this, honestly. 1st...the OT prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, and Him Crucified...so this was/is part of God's plan for mankind's redemption from before time began. and....

the Old Covenant was fulfilled in Christ's birth, life, death, and resurrection...and replaced by the New Covenant. If I recall correctly, the veil in the Holy of Holies ripped apart because of Christ's Crucifixion...

so, now those who are "grafted unto the tree" have Jesus as our High Priest, no need for a complicated system run by humans, prone to error and such.

He was/is The ultimate sacrifice...the ultimate spotless lamb, the suffering savior, etc...and -all- mankind needed (and needs) redemption and reconciliation, forgiveness from God...

and now we all have it, in Christ, plus "...life, and that more abundantly...," and also...

the old system seems (to me...) to be about law keeping, punishment for disobedience, lots of sacrifices to cover sins....

but Jesus is all about crucifixion of self, dying to self daily, allowing Him to shine thru the individual believer...

so, to me, its more a system of death and rebirth, played out in each and every believer's life...

and then there's Heaven, where Christians will be made into who we really are, in Christ, for eternity.

that's my off the top of my head answer, anyway. :)
 
wondering,

Even the Oxford Living Dictionaries (online) get close to the meaning I understand by 'vicarious': "Acting or done for another", e.g. ‘a vicarious atonement’ (2019. s.v. vicarious).

Theologian Charles Hodge explained the meaning well and backed it up with Scripture:
'Vicarious suffering is suffering endured by one person in the stead of another, i.e. in his place. It necessarily supposes the exemption of the party in whose place the suffering is endured. A vicar is a substitute, one who takes the place of another, and acts in his stead.... When, therefore, it is said that the sufferings of Christ were vicarious, the meaning is the He suffered in the place of sinners. He was their substitute. He assumed their obligation to satisfy justice' (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol 2, 1979:475).​

Which Scriptures support this view?
  1. Christ did not die for his own sin (John 6:46; 1 Pet 2:22; Heb 4:15);
  2. 'But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.' (Isa 53:5-6 ESV);
  3. 'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scripture' (1 Cor 15:3 ESV);
  4. 'For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Cor 5:21 ESV);
  5. 'For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit' (1 Pet :18 ESV);
  6. Etc
There are other Scriptures that support the vicarious atonement which show what Christ's death accomplished - He died in our place.

That's my understanding of vicarious.

Oz
It sounds like what's called the Substitution Theory.
Jesus took our place - He carried the sins of all the world, past, present and future, so that they could be forgive., (some understand this to mean that we don't have to ask for forgiveness; another incorrect concept that I hear).

This would answer 1 to 5 of your above list.
I don't believe any one theory covers all.
Perhaps God is so great that He covered all of the theories!
 
There's no need for theories. Christ is called the propitiation for our sins (1 Jn 2:2), and not for ours alone, but for the sins of the whole world. That word not only means a satisfactory atoning sacrifice, but a fully satisfactory Substitute who sacrificed Himself, and thus paid the full penalty for our sins.

That penalty paid is also a ransom in that it purchases the sinner from the slave market of sin, and makes the believer a purchased possession of Christ.

The wages of sin is death, but the death of Christ fully satisfied the just demands of God's righteousness which required that the penalty for sins be paid in full before grace and mercy could be offered to sinners.
Hey N,
I think you're taking "theory" to mean something that is only thought to be true, whereas here it means difference concepts of why Jesus died for us.

I posted a link to, I think 7.

What you're describing above is the Substitutionary and the Ransom Theory of Atonement.

It's not that any one has to be right, I believe, in reading through them, that they ALL have an element of truth....they all can be shown to be correct from scripture.

I tend to believe valid those that show the love of God rather than the wrath of God...but He is also a wrathful God - they're all right.

I'll post the link again....
I like the Cristus Victor theory and the Ransom theory.
And there are elements in all of them that I also like.

IOW, I don't believe any one of them is WRONG...

http://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/
 
It sounds like what's called the Substitution Theory.
Jesus took our place - He carried the sins of all the world, past, present and future, so that they could be forgive., (some understand this to mean that we don't have to ask for forgiveness; another incorrect concept that I hear).

This would answer 1 to 5 of your above list.
I don't believe any one theory covers all.
Perhaps God is so great that He covered all of the theories!

wondering,

I agree that no one theory seems to encompass what Scripture teaches.

However, I'm comfortable enough with the penal substitutionary atonement as the closest biblical explanation.

Oz
 
CE,

Why was the killing of the sinless Son of God necessary?

Oz
To me its how God chose to forgive sin. So if one states to me. "I don't need Jesus I can just go to God for forgiveness", my reply is, "its not for you to choose how to forgive sin"

Jesus prayed in the garden for another way if possible. But not His will but the Fathers will be done.

In regard to the better sacrifice the writer of Hebrews provided this:

the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Its difficult to pin down just one atonement theory as you can find some truth in all. Satisfaction theory
Christ satisfied the requirements of the law for Jews but the gentiles weren't under the law that was binding and put into effect through angels. But all sin. Some read Isaiah 53 as penal substitution "the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him". Some read ransom as it noted Jesus purchased us for God with His blood.

But ALL those theories involve what "Jesus" accomplished by laying down His life for the sheep. " The good Shepard who loves the sheep and lays down His life for the sheep"
Freed from the law through death, as baptized into Christ death and therefore also in His Resurrection.

As John testified and John knew Jesus was from above even before the 12.
"The lamb of God who takes away the sin's of the world."
 
wondering,

I agree that no one theory seems to encompass what Scripture teaches.

However, I'm comfortable enough with the penal substitutionary atonement as the closest biblical explanation.

Oz
Yes,,,of course; this is the one we grow up hearing about.
It just sounds like such a wrathful God that needs some kind of personal revenge.

Doesn't the O.,T. teach that God wants our heart, not our sacrifices?
Psalm 51:16-17
16For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.

17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.


Also,
Hosea 6:6
1 Samuel 15:22
Hebrews 10:4-10 and others.

Personally, I like the Ransom theory and the Cristus Victor theory. But I can accept the above also...each one seems to have a different aspect which is part of the N.T. concept of Jesus' sacrifice.
 
Yes,,,of course; this is the one we grow up hearing about.
It just sounds like such a wrathful God that needs some kind of personal revenge.

Doesn't the O.,T. teach that God wants our heart, not our sacrifices?
Psalm 51:16-17
16For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
You are not pleased with burnt offering.

17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.


Also,
Hosea 6:6
1 Samuel 15:22
Hebrews 10:4-10 and others.

Personally, I like the Ransom theory and the Cristus Victor theory. But I can accept the above also...each one seems to have a different aspect which is part of the N.T. concept of Jesus' sacrifice.

wondering,

I think our English understanding of wrath (Greek orge) - synonymous with anger - gives us a wrong idea of the wrath of God.

I have addressed some of these issues in my article: The wrath of God and Muammar Gaddafi’s death

Oz
 
To me its how God chose to forgive sin. So if one states to me. "I don't need Jesus I can just go to God for forgiveness", my reply is, "its not for you to choose how to forgive sin"

Jesus prayed in the garden for another way if possible. But not His will but the Fathers will be done.

In regard to the better sacrifice the writer of Hebrews provided this:

the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Its difficult to pin down just one atonement theory as you can find some truth in all. Satisfaction theory
Christ satisfied the requirements of the law for Jews but the gentiles weren't under the law that was binding and put into effect through angels. But all sin. Some read Isaiah 53 as penal substitution "the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him". Some read ransom as it noted Jesus purchased us for God with His blood.

But ALL those theories involve what "Jesus" accomplished by laying down His life for the sheep. " The good Shepard who loves the sheep and lays down His life for the sheep"
Freed from the law through death, as baptized into Christ death and therefore also in His Resurrection.

As John testified and John knew Jesus was from above even before the 12.
"The lamb of God who takes away the sin's of the world."

Randy,

Leviticus 17:11 (NIV) provides the model or example, 'For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life'.

It was God's law, instituted by Him that blood had to be shed for an atonement for sin. I agree with you that you and I didn't determine that law. It was God's doing.

Oz
 
Back
Top