What was the Atonement all about?

Theology
1

Many Christians, evangelicals especially, have a very simplistic notion of the Atonement. By far the prevailing theory is penal substitution.

Christ himself used the terminology ransom (“ransom for many”), which is not penal substitution.

This short article nicely summarizes seven distinct theories and can be read in a couple of minutes:

7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

  1. Moral Influence
  2. Ransom
  3. Christus Victor
  4. Satisfaction
  5. Penal Substitution
  6. Governmental
  7. Scapegoat

I happen to think the “transactional” theories like penal substitution are the weakest and most theologically problematical. I lean toward Moral Influence (also called Moral Example).

As the above author does, many theologians think a more nuanced “combination” theory is preferable.

Many evangelicals think, as I once did, that the Atonement was a straightfoward penal substitutionary transaction and there really isn’t much to talk about. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Atonement is a great mystery and always has been.

1 Like
2

Jesus Christ taught that the law and grace are not opposites, but are closely related. The law points to grace, and the purpose of the law was to bring people to Christ. Here are some ways Jesus taught about the law and grace:

In Christianity, “Law and Grace” refers to the concept that while the Old Testament Law, given through Moses, sets out strict rules and standards for righteous living, Jesus Christ brought “grace,” which is God’s unmerited favor and forgiveness, allowing people to be saved through faith in him, despite their inability to perfectly follow the Law; essentially, the Law reveals our need for grace, which is provided by Jesus Christ.

The Bible reveals how God thinks. It contains laws that God gave “for your good” (Deuteronomy 10:13 ; Romans 7:12 ). They are beneficial family rules that show us how to love God the way He wants to be loved and how to love fellow human beings in the way that promotes the greatest peace and happiness.

God’s laws are not a burden but a blessing (1 John 5:3 ).

However, the truth is that no human being, except Jesus Christ, has perfectly obeyed God’s laws. Going against God’s perfect and holy laws creates a rift between us and our holy Creator. His perfect righteousness can’t coexist with the vile corruption of sin. The horrible stain of sin must be removed if we are ever to have the close family relationship that God so greatly desires. While the law defines sin, clearly showing us what actions are right and wrong, keeping the law—even keeping it perfectly—cannot remove the penalties for our previous sins and reconcile us to God. We are saved “for” good works, not “by” good works (Ephesians 2:10 ).

God’s grace—His love and mercy and all of His generous gifts—makes reconciliation possible. Grace does not remove the beneficial laws but, through Christ’s sacrifice, pays the penalty of sin.

It is not a case of law vs. grace. God’s revelation is that law and grace work together.

So why do so many today believe grace abolishes God’s law or that they are at odds? In this section, we carefully examine the teachings of the Bible on law and grace to see what God really intended.

Love, Walter

3

You are repeating topics that have been discussed.

4

11-15-24

What are you talking about?

1 Like
5

The Walter and Debbie Show is found on every Christian forum on which I’ve ever participated. I think they view themselves as a ministry of sorts.

The post above is a statement of Pauline theology, not so much what Jesus taught. Scholars are increasingly recognizing the thorough Jewishness of Jesus and his message. Jesus’ actual message, scholars suggest, was a call to extreme righteousness because the end was imminent. It’s not at all clear that Paul’s notion of grace was shared by Jesus or the Jerusalem Christian community of those who had actually known and heard Jesus. James the Just, brother of Jesus, was renowned for his fastidious observance of the law. To reconcile the two, it’s necessary to believe (as many do) that God/Jesus made a fuller revelation to Paul than the historical Jesus did to his actual disciples.

Here again, we see the Atonement described in terms of “paying the penalty of sin.” I’m surprised - or maybe not - that my thread What was the Atonement all about? - Theology - Christian Forums at Crosswalk got precisely no responses, because it’s a critical subject that many Christians are woefully uninformed about. One’s theory of the Atonement can have a dramatic affect on one’s theology. (BTW, Jesus described his death as a “ransom for many,” which is not penal substitution - but what did he know?)

1 Like
6

I am talking about you posting a topic that already has a thread about it up and running. I suppose you are here to preach or teach, not have a conversation. You did this over at Christian forums.com, right?

7

11-15-24

I still don’t know what you are talking about.

8

Forum etiquette dictates you don’t start a discussion when another thread on tha topic is open. But you know this already.

9

11-15-24

I know of nothing.

10

Anyone but me and perhaps @Historyprof find it striking that on very basic threads about very basic topics - e.g., the Atonement - the gung-ho evangelical community has precisely no views?

Shall I dumb things down and start a thread on whether baby Jesus ever cried?

11

Not that anyone cares - obviously - but this is kind of interesting: Jesus described his death as a “ransom” for many (as did the author of 1 Timothy). This caused all kinds of confusion in early Christianity. Unlike a fine or a penalty, a ransom is paid to someone who is holding a victim hostage.

But who would that be? God isn’t holding sinners hostage. Satan? Yes, that was the prevailing view. Jesus’ death was a ransom paid to Satan. Eek, that isn’t exactly satisfactory. Hence the more satisfactory idea that the ransom was a trick upon Satan:

Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, it required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil’s clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ’s death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.

— Robin Collins, Understanding Atonement: A New and Orthodox Theory

How dumb is that? Today, most Christian authors just pretend the ransom theory and the penal substitutionary theory are the same thing and gloss over the ransom language. This is also known as the Jesus Didn’t Know What He Was Talking About theory.

Seriously, if you don’t have a pretty definite idea of what the Atonement was all about, your Christianity is built on sand because a great deal flows from whatever theory of the Atonement you accept.

(BTW, baby Jesus never cried - but you knew that.)

1 Like